A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
November 22, 2005Forward Together"The real issues we face are no longer right vs. left or conservative vs. liberal. They’re about past vs. future. Our challenge, as Democrats, is to reclaim our role as the party of the future." I probably will not get behind any 2008 Presidential contender until late in the primaries, waiting to see how the McCain-Giuliani-GOP conservative primary voters triangle unfolds. Obviously as a moderate Republican I would prefer somebody from my own party in the White House; however, Virginia Governor Mark Warner may change my mind. Warner has launched his Forward Together PAC website, and all signs lead one to the conclusion that he is a candidate for the Democratic nomination. Warner is an appealing candidate to moderates from both parties in my eyes, because he not only talks a middle of the road talk, but has backed it up by being a non-partisan and centrist governing executive in Virginia. Warner is incredibly popular in his own state, and has won support from business minded libertarians, conservative gun activists, and other factions of the typical Republican base. Yes, he raised taxes... He reformed an archaic Virginia tax system, raising some fees and lowering others, but he did so with overwhelming support from his constituents... What politician can say that? I listened to the Governor give a speech to the New Hampshire Senate Democrats this weekend. I came away thinking this guy was truly a contender, and will continue to listen. Check out the speech here. Comments
I like Warner. He's the reason why I call myself a moderate. As a Virginia resident, though, he does have a lot to answer for about the tax increase. It's not just that he raised taxes -- sometimes that's necessary. It's that he raised taxes only to find out that we had record surpluses immediately afterwards. The extra taxes were completely unnecessary. But that's not just his fault. The Republicans in the legislature are just as guilty. I'll be anxious to hear more of his thoughts on the War on Terrorism and the fight in Iraq. Otherwise, I think the Democrats would be taking a step in the right direction in nominating someone like him. Posted by: Staunch Moderate at November 22, 2005 01:16 PMI agree that he was wrong with his revenue projections and should have admitted so; however, revenue wasn't the only reason for tax reform in Virginia. Many business owners ensorsed the reform package because it was a fairer system and better for business. Besides, I have never been one to say that just because there is a surplus means that taxes are too high. Why can't government use surpluses to save for those days when the economy isn't producing adequate revenue? Virginia has won various awards for being well managed because Warner has done what many public officials are scared to do by not only governing in the present, but also preparing the commonwealth for the future. Posted by: Mathew at November 22, 2005 01:22 PMI see your point, but I'm still bitter that I have to pay a "car tax". My car sits in the parking lot all week, yet I have to cut the state government a check just because I own it. And they overestimate the "property value" of my stinky little car. Virginia has won various awards for being well managed ...Really? I am unfamiliar with any awards that states can win for managing their taxing and spending. I guess they have awards for everything now. Posted by: Staunch Moderate at November 22, 2005 01:46 PM A Warner-Clinton or Richardson-Clinton ticket would give the democrats a pretty hard to beat ticket.
Sometimes I wonder if I'm going to vote GOP just to keep the albatross around their necks but then running this country into the ground would be irresponsible of me and my kid would give me a time out. First prize, 2 weeks in Paris. BTW My daughter, who is very aware of what awaits her generation, is too polite to say fuck you all. As long as she pays payroll taxes to fund my social security, she can say what she wants. If she went to public school, tell her I said "you're welcome." Posted by: bk at November 22, 2005 02:49 PMMarcus...lol...not sure how to follow up on that one, so I'll just re-direct. Everything I've seen of Warner is quite impressive. I'm not a huge fan of tax increases generally, but at the same time, I think we've had some irresponsible cuts, so I wouldn't rule someone out on that fact alone. As another moderate Republican, I am waiting to see what happens within my party as well. I'll admit that a month ago, I didn't have a lot of faith. However, I think they can read the tea leaves, so we may see a moderate trend in '06. If we don't, I'm more than willing to support a moderate Democrat in '08. I have a very narrow list of acceptable GOP nominee--McCain, Guiliani, Rice, Hagel...that pretty much sums it up. I, like many in the GOP, would have voted Democrat in 2004 if we had a choice other than Kerry. Here's what I want from the Democrats...if you are a liberal candidate, fine...be proud of who you are. I'm much more likely to vote for someone who is firm in their approach to issues--even if I don't agree with them. But, don't tell me you support gay rights and gay marriage, and then waffle in a national campaign. If you are pro-choice, don't send mixed signals. If you are against the war, tell me how you are going to end it. That's all I ask. Chances are, whoever shoots the straightest (pardon the pun) will most likely get my 2008 vote. Just be honest about where you stand. I have crossed tickets many times and plan on doing it in 2006 unless something changes with candidate selections at the state level. We've got our very own oenophile running for the Senate, and if she wins the nomination (which seems to be a forgone conclusion) look for scores of moderate Republicans to cross party lines (myself included) to vote for the moderate Democrat incumbent. Our gubernatorial race pits two former moderates against each other in the GOP primary. Now that they find themselves facing their ideological soulmates, both have attempted to veer as far right as possible. With the two moderates in the Democratic primary, I can easily see myself crossing party lines again here as well. Sooner or later they will get the message. Posted by: AR at November 22, 2005 02:59 PMSorry AR, hypocrisy leads to debt, debt leads to suffering, suffering leads to pain.... etc. You know bk, if all the money pulled in by SSI actually went to SSI, instead of putting a fig leaf over massive deficit spending, there would be little or no SSI problem.
Democrats have better success running governors than Senators that's why I think Warner and Richardson are good bets. Hilary Clinton, while a lightening rod for the right, is also a rallying point for the left. Her husband for the most part enjoyed high ratings and that will rub off. Again though, what idiot wants the job? That may happen. Scanlan/Abramoff scandal could hit up to 60 reps, most of them GOP. Posted by: Marcus at November 22, 2005 03:21 PMI don't disagree with your premise, Marcus, I'm just not willing to say that one party is solely responsible. Take for example the SSI issue... Neither party has stepped up to the plate here and they are more than willing to keep "borrowing" from the "trust fund" to fund current expenditures. I don't think one side has a monopoly on hypocrisy, deceit, or corruption. Just look at the Cabinet of previous Administrations--Republican and Democratic--and you'll find plenty who went down with corruption charges. I can't think of a Bush Cabinet member that has yet, but Ney and DeLay seem intent on balancing that out from the House side. My point is...it's on both sides. That's why so many of us endeared to McCain. We view him as different. Warner could quite possibly be the same way, he just hasn't fasted the tests that a national platform will bring like McCain has. As far as Rudy and the GOP nomination goes...you are most likely right about his social positions. He's a very likely VP candidate IMHO. I don't think the affair will matter one bit though. There's enough hanky-panky that occurs on Capitol Hill that I seriously doubt you'll see anyone willing to touch that with a ten foot pole. (Almost got vulgar there, decided to keep it "family friendly") As far as Leadership skills (in reference to Rice)...did you perhaps mean "Elected experience?" I mean, she was Provost of Stanford, National Security Advisor, Secretary of State...not a bad resume. Question for Tully...who was the last President elected with no elective....oops...answered my own question...Dwight David Eisenhower. Not the greatest President we've ever had, but certainly not the worst. Posted by: AR at November 22, 2005 04:05 PMI don't think it's a huge secret that I have a thing for Wonkette. This is one of her latest links and I couldn't resist passing it along in honor of Scanlan's plea agreement. (You have to click on "Close Up of Art" to actually see the shirt up close.) Posted by: AR at November 22, 2005 04:19 PMAR-I would agree to some extent about who's responsible for this fine mess but it's the people who are currently perceived as having power and have acted on it that should shoulder the burden and that is pretty much on the head of the GOP right now. I do beg to differ on one point. In 1993,94 the Democrats did step up to the plate, enacted tax hikes on the wealthiest and basically committed political suicide in order to balance the budget. Now when Bush was (s)elected I figured, well at least the GOP won't fuck up the budget. This is how wrong I was. In Dec 2003 we crossed the 7 trillion threshold. In NOVEMBER 2005, not even 2 years, we cross the 8 trillion dollar threshold.
I do not care for the fact that they went for ill-advised tax cuts( totalling nearly a trillion in lost revenue since their inception) and that some of them went along with giving the President too much power to go to war. Among the only ones I have real respect for are Barbara Lee and Robert Byrd. They at least stuck to principles, right or wrong, and forged ahead throughout the entire Bush reign. Now in the other Democrats' defense they probably felt like they had to go along to stay in their offices and the media is slanted to the right and that gets problematic as well, but Americans do like firm principle even if they disagree with you. That's why, btw, I think that the GOP is in for a big fall once the dust clears. Virtually every principle they touted over the years has been trashed by their own hubris or greed. It's 1994 all over again. re: Rice. Provost at Stanford was pretty much ceremonial, and from what I understand she did not do the greatest of jobs. That's the scuttlebutt from the Farm. As NSA she failed when it came to 9/11 and clumsily tried to cover up her shortcomings. As Sec of State, it's not a stellar career by any measure. Giulliani..family friendly? you seem to forget what the GOP did to Clinton or what Bush did to McCain in 1999/2000...that was pure brutality. Indictments are rare inthe Cabinet itself. Scuttlebutt is that due to Abramoff, Rep. Ney will be indicted. Then there's that whole coingate in Ohio. ouch!
Staunch, Yes, state and local government are recognized for their management efforts all of the time. For example, Virginia was rated the best managed state in the Union by the Government Performance Project. See here. Posted by: Mathew at November 22, 2005 04:54 PMSorry AR, hypocrisy leads to debt, debt leads to suffering, suffering leads to pain.... etc. Making mortgage payments is painful. How hypocritical to buy a house or car and not pay cash. Question for Tully...who was the last President elected with no elective....oops...answered my own question...Dwight David Eisenhower. Aw, c'mon, finish the question! No elective what? No previous experience as a candidate or elected official? Yep, Eisenhower. Ike was also one of only three Presidents who have gone from being the commanding general of the American Army to being Commander in Chief--and they all served in different centuries. Washington, Grant, and Ike. (Several others achieved the rank of General in various ways, but not top general of the US.) The first president who had not previously held elective office was Zachary Taylor. Not only had Taylor not held office before, he hadn't even voted before, and didn't vote in his own election. In fact, it seems he never voted in his entire life. Before anyone jumps up to claim Washington as the first, note that he was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1760. Similar pre-Revolution offices were held by Jefferson and Adams. Posted by: Tully at November 22, 2005 05:05 PMIf you're going to bring up Raymond Donovan, Marcus, why leave out former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros? 18 counts of conspiracy, giving false statements and obstruction of Justice. And let's get full disclosure on Donovan--he was NOT indicted while he was Secretary of Labor as you claim, but after he left office (as was Cisneros). And Donavan was acquitted at trial, found innocent on all charges. "Where do I go to get my reputation back?" --Raymond Donavan, 1987 Safavian not only wasn't a Cabinet member, he wasn't indicted until after he resigned either. If we're going after lower-level officials, we can talk about Web Hubbell as well.... Posted by: Tully at November 22, 2005 05:20 PMMarcus, in your anti-Republican, pro-Democrat zeal, you omit to mention the substantial discretionary budget cuts which President Clinton imposed at the same time. "In fact, the Clinton budget, if approved, would see government expenditures decrease as a percentage of the economy to the lowest levels since the 1950s, as reported by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington, D.C." I think the balanced budgets we had by the end of the Clinton years were due to a combination of the economic revitalization caused by the Reagan tax cuts (remember just how high the top tax rates were during Carter's national malaise) as well as the on the whole marginal tax increases proposed by Clinton. Remember that the dot-com and Silicon Valley booms brought in a whole lot of tax revenue into the government coffers in the 90s. And the large deficits we have now are due far more to the lack of spending restraint by both parties (with the GOP shouldering the lion's share of the blame this time around) than to the Bush tax cuts. But don't forget that much of these taxing and spending policies were driven by reaction to 9/11, both the tax cuts and the increased spending. It's hardly accurate to blame them all on President Bush. Posted by: PatHMV at November 22, 2005 05:34 PMSorry, Pat, but the Reagan tax cuts caused (for the time), record deficits. Yes, yes, the Dems in Congress share part of the blame, but it's Presidents who sign off on budgets. It was only when Bush I raised taxes that some kind of fiscal sanity returned, and, as you say, he committed political suicide for it. It was one thing I admire him for (although I would admire him more for it if he hadn't used his "No New Taxes" pledge to get elected.) Posted by: Blue Jean at November 22, 2005 05:50 PMPat - I was only detailing the gutsy thing that needed to be done - raising taxes. Republicans are so caught up oin their anti-tax ideology that they'd rather drown us in debt, all trillion of it in under two years. Tully, if we had to do total indictment counts of WH officials and former WH officials since Ike the GOP would be at the top of the list.
News Flash: Only Congress can change tax rates or approve national budgets. The most a President can do is propose or approve or veto. Designated cheerleader and scapegoat. The 90's revenue boom was due to the "peace dividend" brought about by the collapse of the Soviet Union and to the production/tech boom brought about by capital investment resulting from the tax changes in the Reagan years. When the boom went bust, so did revenues. Cluehammer comin'--revenues dropped well before the Bush tax cuts took effect, in synch with the collapse of the dot.com bubble. That recession was followed by 9/11, which whacked the economy for about a 3% loss in one day--also before the tax cuts took effect. Next cluehammer--Clinton didn't discover fiscal restraint until the GOP took over the House in '94. A president can't sign or veto budgets that don't reach him, and he can't change the budget without the explicit voted approval of Congress. Presidents have just two weapons to stop a profligate Congress--the veto pen and public opinion. They have no weapon other than public opinion with which to force Congress to spend more. (Not that THAT problem comes up very often!) We do love our scapegoats--but Presidents really have very little effect on spending or revenues outside of the cheerleader role, and economic effects of policies tend to lag actual implementation by 12 months to many years. Jean, the "Reagan deficits" were records only in terms of unadjusted numbers. In terms of inflation-adjusted numbers and in terms of %GDP numbers they weren't even close to records. That honor goes to the WW2 deficits. In %GDP terms (the relevant metric) we haven't beat those yet. We're not even close. Marcus, if you wanna go back and compile, go right ahead. The numbers might surprise you. I mean, I haven't even mentioned Mike Espy yet! Try counting convictions and plea bargains instead of indictments or investigations. That helps strip out the witch hunts and political retributions (like Donovan and Alexie Herman and Bruce Babbitt and Billy Dale) from the substantive cases. As far as I can see, no tax cut has yet to be fully paid for by increased revenues it's supposed to generate. Where do you get this stuff, Marcus? The 1981 cap gains tax cut resulted in an immediate increase in revenues in the first year, and a 50% increase in the second year. In the five years before rates were raised again, cap gains collections TRIPLED (actually they quadrupled by '86, but I applied the most pessimistic interpretation of when the '86 hike went into effect and reduced revenue reports proportionally to reflect what the collections would have been if the old rate had applied for the entire year--which it didn't). After the rate hike of '86, they steadily fell for the next several years until they were HALF of what they were in '86. Posted by: Tully at November 22, 2005 06:42 PMTully, if we had to do total indictment counts of WH officials and former WH officials since Ike the GOP would be at the top of the list. So, if the GOP has 33 and the Dems 29 the Dems have the right to claim the mantle of ethical superiority? This is where I'll confess I get a little frustrated. I don't defend the GOP as a perfect party--it certainly has it's share of corruption. At the same time, I expect any reasonable Democrat to admit the same about their party. We can play the tit for tat game, but what's the point? The sad fact is that there are corrupt officials within both parties. Typically, the party in power takes the heat. In the 90's, it was Clinton and his Cabinet. Today, it's GOP Congressional leaders and the occasional government employee. Neither party has the right to claim any ethical superiority over the other--I guess that's why there are so many of us in the middle pleading for another option. In many long years of RealPolitik I have never noticed any shortage of venality or overabundance of virtue on either side of the aisle. Posted by: Tully at November 22, 2005 07:25 PMWhile I agree with Tully and Abel, one point on tallying figures. If you start counting with the beginning of the Nixon administration (Watergate fundamentally changing the likelihood of investigations and indictments of Presidential appointees), then the GOP has held the presidency for about 25 years, while the Democrats have held it for just 12 years. So the figures would need to be adjusted on a per year in power basis. Longer terms in office = greater chance of somebody doing something stupid. For that matter, recent experience suggests that criminal investigations and indictments really don't emerge until the second term. And since Eisenhower, the only Democrat to serve two full terms is Clinton. All of which just going to prove Tully and Abel's point, that tallying numbers like this tells us nothing about the relative ethics of each party. There are so many presidential appointees in this day and age that it would be almost impossible for a president to ensure that every last one of them is simon-pure, and remains so through 8 years of great power. Posted by: PatHMV at November 22, 2005 07:51 PMPat, my real point is that assigning "ethics" to parties is like assigning carnal motivations to rocks. Parties are composed of people, people are sinners, and there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. I'd love to discover that one party was more naturally inclined to either criminality or virtue. Not happening. Mentally reviewing the politicians of my acquaintance, I can't say that there's a "lead" to either side. Majorities tend to be more corrupt than minorities. Of course. They have more power. And as soon as the numbers reverse, so does the graft factor. "To the victor..." Posted by: Tully at November 22, 2005 09:59 PMFlash Tully Presidents can sign or veto bills, exert pressure on Congress to act in the way he wants it to or do you so conveniently forget GOP Congress vs Clinton on the budget? Who blinked???? Has Bush ever used the veto pen?????????????? Hey!, remember Bush's threat to veto the tranpsortation bill this summer? yeah right, all paper no tiger. Capital gains and Reagan - Severe recessions are followed by a period of fast growth right? Business cycle. People get back to work, get paid, pay taxes. Reagan pumps up economy with record defense spending. BTW, how did the wealthy do?
re:indictments you bring up Espy, here's Secretary of Interior James Watt who was indicted on 41 felony charges for using his HUD connections to help his clients seek federal funds for housing projects in Maryland, New Jersey. You can have Asst. Attorney-General Webster Hubbell was convicted of embezzlement, a crime he committed BEFORE joining Clinton Administration. footnote on Watt and as to why your measure basically sucks..it's who you know and maybe even what you know and what they'll do to keep you happy and quiet... How did Watt luck out? He had help. His lawyer was William Bradford Reynolds, former head of the civil rights division of Reagan's Justice Department. Watt benefited from a switch in HUD independent counsels. The previous counsel, Arlin Adams, who had netted the 16 convictions and $2 million in fines, was replaced by a new counsel, Larry Thompson, who made the deal that let Watt walk. Thompson said the deal "advances the interest of the government in avoiding protracted litigation." In other words, the government didn't want to try Watt. don't you just love our two-tiered justice system? BTW since you bring up WW2... you know that during WW2 the democratic administration created one hell of a war machine. 10s of thousands of bombers, tanks etc. on pretty short notice. Trained thousands of men to use some pretty unwieldy machines (re: Stephen Ambrose on McGovern and his missions over Germany) A pretty ethical one at that in terms of limiting war profiteering. We also took care of our soldiers. At no cost to them. We even gave them VA loanns and a GI bill. Contrast to the ineffectiveness of this administration not getting enough armor on the ground in Iraq (still!) not enough personal armor (still!) and of course a few 10s of billions gone missing and then there's these injured vets who have to pay some of their hospital bills or get their disability pay cut or wait months for treatment..or like my girlfriends brother, a 2 tour Viet Nam Vet, wait more than 8 months to get eye surgery (he's diabetic, suffers from Agent Orange exposure and PTSD) and he still HASN'T GOT IT!!!!. Cut the px's, cut the bx's, charge more or reduce base housing (my sister and her husband loves that) Oh and did I hear on the radio that there's about a thousand homeless Iraq vets? Support the troops, yeah, with what? a rubber crutch? f**king a*****e hypocrites. all they want is cannon fodder. Bush has never used the veto. He is well on his way to set a record for least use of the veto for a two term president. For the Democrats to have a chance, they need to learn how to "sound good" to the American Public. The Republicans go out of their way to avoid negative messages and try to spin everything as a positive, no matter how absurd. Attack dog fires up the base and turn off most everyone else. The Democrats need to find a way to spin their message and ideas[which are not well defined] in a positive manner. Clinton was pretty good at this. It really has to be a 'what are you doing for me?' kind of message. If you try to scare the American public, which really seems like that was the goal in the last election, they are going to pull back and look for thier 'reassuring blanket.' It matters not that it may be ratty, worn, dirty and smell really bad; but it makes them feel good. Until the Democrats can replace that blanket with one of their own, they will have problems regaining a leadership position. Posted by: Jim M at November 23, 2005 10:29 AMBack in the beginning of the Clinton era I was still very much pro-democrat and and prone to assume the worst of republicans. But even then, my bias wasn't strong enough to get me to overlook facts as they unfolded. The drive to balance the budget back then absolutely was driven by the GOP during the period when they moved from minority status to majority status. Democrats NEVER talked about it. Clinton went along, and maybe he was even a convert. But he was more of a bystander than anything else. If the GOP had not driven this issue, it would not have been on the table. I never went out of my way to acknowledge this to GOPers or point it out to liberal cohorts, but I could see that it was true. If you ask me, this is pretty much indisputable. So on this particular point, my view is that Tully is 100% correct and Marcus completely full of crap. And I think one of the other strongest points Tully has here is that changes in the economy drove both the balanced budget in the 90s and the burgeoning deficits we currently see. Let's not go overboard giving credit and blame to politicians. How tiresome is any battle over which party is more corrupt, replete with dueling lists of names? This recurring argument is undoubtedly one of the top 3 most childish recurring partisan battles we see here. So i think that #1 we should give this argument a demeaning name, like "wingnut hold 'em" or "down the troll hole" or something, and that #2 we should come up with an outline of how this game always gets played to a pointless conclusion, so that we can just refer people who want to play to this outline, and save the rest of us a bunch of time. Seems to me that whoever issues the invitation to go down the trollhole deserves most blame, because once the first player posts a score, it's very hard to resist joining in. It's the salty fatty snack of political dialogue, the only way not to eat it is to not bring it into the house in the first place. Posted by: bk at November 23, 2005 10:30 AMFlash Marcus: ROFLMAO. A president is a miracle worker when he's a Dem, and Satan Incarnate when he's GOP. We got it--long ago. You hate Republicans, think Dems are Godly. Face it--you said no tax cut ever produced more money than it cost, I showed one that quite clearly did (by HUGE margins in a very few years, even making the most conservative assumptions) and that immediately started producing LESS revenue after the rate was increased again. "Slam dunk," as a Clinton appointee once said. As neat a confirmation of the Laffer curve as any empirical economist could wish. I note you completely ignored it to go back to comparitive political demonology. You claimed that Ray Donovan was indicted as a sitting cabinet member--which he wasn't--and failed to note that a jury acquitted him of all charges. I mentioned Espy so I could point out that he was also acquitted by a jury, bolstering the point that only actual convictions and plea bargains should be counted when making such a list, for the obvious reason that many DC investigations are political witch hunts. Funny only one of them made your listings, eh? And you noticed that Espy was tried and acquitted, but that managed to escape your notice with Donovan. You sure you don't want Billy Dale and Alexie Herman too? Once again you prove my long-standing point about True Believers and stretching. A cycnic (well, heck, anyone) might note a lack of structured objectivity in your screed. How your invective and profanity levels rise in proportion to being debunked. How you immediately expand past the original (debunked) points to "shotgun" an inflated number of peripheral and unrelated arguments in as proof of...well, mostly as proof that you're a rabid anti-Republican, which has already been amply demonstrated, and doesn't really need re-confirmation. That's a real familiar echo-chamber tactic. Knock down one claim, and get blasted with a dozen more unrelated ones. Knock those down, and there's a hundred more. Geometrical expansion, smother the other in a flood of feathers, always off point. Utterly wrong about Ray Donovan. Utterly wrong about tax cuts never producing more revenue. Badda bing. Badda boom. Posted by: Tully at November 23, 2005 10:31 AMAlready have a name for #1, Brian. It's Comparitive Political Demonology. "CPD." It's the oldest, least fruitful, and least constructive form of political discourse there is, the only "positive" functiosn of which are angst release and agitprop. Them Evil, Us Angelic. I'd throw in Bush Derangement Syndrome for #2, but that one really needs a generic name as it's become such a fixture of modern politics. It's not as if W is the first one to face it. How about Presidential Derangement Syndrome (PDS) so we can use it forever? It can be traced back at least as far as the election of 1800, so it deserves its own moniker. And I don't want to leave Clinton or Reagan or FDR out, after all. They all suffered their share of it, Clinton in particular. I'm not sure whether scapegoating should jave its own abbreviation. It's been around even longer, and already has a name. Does it deserve a number? Posted by: Tully at November 23, 2005 10:43 AM"Down the troll hole" does have a certain ring to it though... Posted by: AR at November 23, 2005 10:51 AMI'd posit that there's a big difference between a True Believer and a troll, though they're not mutually exclusive. Posted by: Tully at November 23, 2005 11:05 AMI'd posit that there's a big difference between a True Believer and a troll, though they're not mutually exclusive. True. My thinking in using trollhole is that anyone who starts the CPD game is going to attract whoever takes the first volley as bait. Practically inevitable. IMO, troll implies a deliberate attempt to attract, so technically, someone isn't a troll unless they start CPD on purpose. Of course, you could argue that someone who regularly ends up in such pointless p!$$!ng contests by seeking out opposition and making inflammatory remarks has the subconscious intent that would make one a troll. In a way, that's really the most insidious type of troll, one that doesn't think he or she is, yet ends up dragging people down the trollhole all the time. So if you've been pulled into an especially pointless argument, one that you knew was bound to be fruitless, then you've gone down the trollhole. Happens to all of us. After all, I'm one who keeps thinking that I can learn from such arguments anf help people avoid them, that they are somehow navigable with experience. And I keep thinking that next time I'll be right... :-) Posted by: bk at November 23, 2005 11:31 AMOne day you will be, Brian! (I kid, of course) The conversations rarely start out pointless, they just take a turn that way sometimes. The most rational thing to do is to ignore them and carry on the thread as if the trollish-turning post didn't exist. 20 years of experience with computer message boards, however, has taught me that participants will never, ever pick this rational option. We are all drawn to respond. As the old man said of Kramer's portrait, "A loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't take my eyes away." The best course, I think, is to remain mildly tolerant of such hyperbolic partisan ramblings, gently point out that the participant seems to have "jumped the shark", and go about our business. And Tully, PDS is very close to the initials for another syndrome. The P.C. police might not approve... Posted by: PatHMV at November 23, 2005 12:13 PMI know I've written this before on some thread or another, but... "Never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty and the pig likes it." The same applies to arguing with trolls. Tully once accused me of bordering on trollery, but I think he knew I was being purposely troll-like in one of my sad attempts at humor. Posted by: WHQ at November 23, 2005 01:19 PMWould that be PBS syndrome, Pat? The inability of the political wings to agree on what biases are actually present in public television? ;-) Posted by: Tully at November 23, 2005 03:29 PMOf course, Tully... Public Broadcasting Syndrome... Yeah, that's the ticket. Or maybe I meant the Pantone® Matching System Color Chart syndrome. Or maybe it was Gary Olson's Punctuation Made Simple syndrome. Actually, I'm sure I meant Pennsylvania Medical Society syndrome. Ok, obviously I'm very bored at work today. I need to shut up now before Jean comes along and hits me with an umbrella or something... Posted by: PatHMV at November 23, 2005 04:10 PMThe real issues we face are no longer right vs. left or conservative vs. liberal. They’re about past vs. future. Our challenge, as Democrats, is to reclaim our role as the party of the future.You know I keep looking at this quote and it makes no sense. Is he saying that eventually will all be Democrats (once we look to the future) NOthing against Warner, its just the quote that bothers me. Posted by: c3 at November 23, 2005 05:32 PM Stirring rhetoric, though. Warner is building a good track record. The DLC isn't dead yet. Posted by: Tully at November 23, 2005 08:39 PMbk, how does the memory fade.. don't you remember Rep. Tim Penny, of Minnesota? Speaking of faded memories I guess Tully needs a history lesson. In 1995 the GOP congress and Clinton deadlocked over the budget and pretty much tied up federal funding during the battle. As I said, the GOP blinked. The resulting Clinton plan was to cut taxes over seven years by $87 billion, instead of the GOP's $240 billion. It cut some $102 billion from Medicare and $52 billion from Medicaid spending -- half the amount Republicans want. It would slash an additional $295 billion from other domestic programs, three-fourths of what the GOP had proposed. Yeah, the president can have a significant effect on the budget.
Let me expand on the reason Tully used capital gains in his figures instead of the whole budget. by the way, how much is the 8 trillion dollar debt costing us taxpayers??? 200 BILLION?, 300 BILLION? Note:IF I was a Republican hater I guess I wouldn't of voted for Bill Jones for Sec of State in California...which I did and if it wasn't for the idiotic term limits I would have voted him in again. Shelley was a disaster. Nor would I have GOP friends in Denver and other cities (they BTW voted for Kerry in 2004) No Tully, what I am is that I am very disappointed in hypocritical Republicans (and democrats) who are inconsistent with their beliefs. When they say they support the troops then under arm them, under fund the care of the wounded, try to cut combat pay etc., try to cheat them on disability pay, cut the px's and other perks that their families depend on because military pay isn't the greatest in teh world; when they lie and obfuscate in order to toss a country into an unnecessary war; geez Tully, do you have kids? Posted by: Marcus at November 23, 2005 11:12 PM"Troll Road Ahead" Posted by: Lonny at November 23, 2005 11:35 PMAnd repeat, ad infinitum. Change the subject, ignore that you were caught flat-out lying, expand the scope of your bluster, rants, lies, and ignorance to infinity, and shotgun, shotgun, shotgun! Non serviam, trollsky. Marcus, I used the K gains cut because it only takes one specific example to rebut a blatant idiocy that claims to cover everything. Or a lie like yours about Ray Donovan. When you start out with pure lies, there's no point in chasing your expanding squid-ink smoke-cover rants because you've already established negative credibility. Why waste the effort? The smoke cloud only expands with each new lie disproved. True Believerism on parade, folks. Posted by: Tully at November 24, 2005 11:45 AMMarcus, I was there. The memories are vivid. The minority GOP brought deficit reduction to the tbale. democrats did not give a rat's ass. The GOP drove the issue, because they were the minority party. And yup, as their power in congress grew, and they captured the white house, their zeal faded. But that doesn't change the fact that the vast majoprity of democrats were at best dragged along when the budget got balanced. There's no story you can tell that will make what I said just above untrue. I do agree that in the end Clinton got involved and helped influence things. Good for him. I was glad he did it. Just admit that Clinton was never a guy who planned and plotted to become President because he fantasized about a government that was run in a fiscally responsible manner. But there were LOTS of GOP guys who did sit up nights dreaming about a government that spent in a way commensurate with what it collected. Maybe not because their motives were pure or because they wanted to cure poverty or finally achieve the great society. Whys aside, fiscal balance in government WAS a GOP dream, and one that very very few democrats of the 80s and early 90s preached about. I remember, because when I was 21 or 23 and still knew everything, I was sure these guys were all assholes who just hated poor people. Posted by: bk at November 24, 2005 09:28 PMOk, obviously I'm very bored at work today. I need to shut up now before Jean comes along and hits me with an umbrella or something... Sorry to disappoint you, Pat; not today. For one thing, I'm still sluggish from a turkey coma. For another, if I assaulted you, you'd sue me for every nickel I have. Granted, I don't have that many nickels to hide, but still... Besides, Blue Jean don't play that. My mind works in much more subtle and fiendish ways. That's why I sent you a Thanksgiving Day e-card with an addictive game included--that way, when you spend all day playing it, (or your boss notices that there are honking sounds coming from your computer) s/he'll come over and then-MU-HA_HAHA_HAAAA! Posted by: Blue Jean at November 26, 2005 11:59 AMYup. If you think she'd stoop to physical violence you are underestimating her enormously. Posted by: Tully at November 26, 2005 02:30 PMJean, I'm afraid your addictive game (loved the card, thank you) plot was foiled because I bought the latest version of the most addictive computer game of all time, Civilization IV, on Wednesday afternoon on my way out of town. Been playing that ever since! (Alas, though, maturity is catching up with me, so I actually stopped playing at a regular bed time last night... that never would have happened a few years ago, dang it!) Posted by: PatHMV at November 28, 2005 03:32 PMisn't it written that the first debater to sling an insult loses? Posted by: Marcus at November 28, 2005 06:23 PMOh, about those capital gains. LOL some more. The loser of a debate is the person who simply doesn't have the relevant facts to back them up, Marcus, or who starts out from an inaccurate or falisifed premise. You claimed no tax cut had ever produced higher revenue. I showed a tax that produced more revenue after rate-cutting (an enormous amount more than called for by economic conditions) and that subsequently nose-dived in revenue production after rate-boosting (an enormous amount less than called for by economic conditions). Your blanket assertion disproved in one example. Badda bing. And you demostrably lied about Ray Donovan in another generic statement. Badda boom. Squid ink and sour grapes and shotgunning won't change that. Posted by: Tully at November 28, 2005 07:33 PMkohkbsobnqtbdfarcrvfflobdltfotskuqldpxluupqozj kohkbsobnqtbdfarcrvfflobdltfotskuqldpxluupqozj kohkbsobnqtbdfarcrvfflobdltfotskuqldpxluupqozj |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
