It hasn't been worth the paper it was printed on for more than a century, but like other impotent figureheads & empty symbols, it can occasionally serve some useful purpose. Neither side in the battle for America can or should overlook its usefulness, that'd be downright stupid.

Everything's been going down hill since 1861.

One could say these things, sure, but they amount to a very weak argument.

Let's forget about the money purely on military operations. What about the money squandered in failed or vanished reconstruction projects? What about money shipped over to pay miscellaneous expenses of the Iraqi government that just vanished? What about money for projects later destroyed by Iraqis? What about money that ended up siphoned off to Swiss Bank accounts?

Where were the GOP objections over all of this waste? A waste of money, in the midst of profligate deficit spending, that could have worked wonders at home? Heck, money that, if re-directed to tax relief, could have really brought down some tax rates?


That's not the point. The GOP felt it was A-OK to continue to shovel money into Iraq in an unaccounted-for fashion in some nebulous hope that it would make things all better. Then they turn around and vote against a rigidly defined and accounted-for plan to shovel money into their own country. How, exactly, is this anything but a complete about-face on principles?

But maybe you're right. Maybe the GOP feel/felt that the reconstruction of Iraq was the greatest challenge to face the United States in its history, and required the suspension of any fiscal reality to make it a success, or else the consequences would just be so dire. Judging by their later actions, then, one has to conclude that they feel the reconstruction of the United States is nowhere near as important as that of Iraq.

I think plenty of people (especially JIMG) could have told you that they were there. I live in Georgia and the venom that started to develop around the administration for its bumbling in Iraq was pretty damned big.


They think confronting terrorism or rebuilding a state to prevent a terrorist state from developing, and shoveling money in to make that happen, is more important than wasteful domestic spending, which has the end result to increase the size of government (and make more socialistic) in a country they live in.

After all, if they fuck up spending in Iraq, well, it's Iraq. If their government isn't ideal as a result, well, at least it isn't the US they messed up. If they fuck up spending in the US... they just messed up their own country. So, the conclusion can be reached that Democrats think that it may be ok to mess up the US with expansionist government spending but not Iraq ;).

To be serious... the US economy will comeback. Some of these super dire projections I think are a bit over the top. It's a very, very tough situation, and the government needs to get involved, but we aren't talking dark ages here. If Al Queda takes over (or took over) Iraq, the world would be in a world of trouble. Wasteful spending sucks and is horrible regardless, but an aggressive terrorist government in a state the size of Iraq... Holy shit.

I know a ton of lefties who basically consider Clinton a "center-right" Democratic President. They also spoke in derisive terms of the DLC, so take that for what its worth. Progressives who backed Obama early on were not so enamored of the DLC-types, of which President Clinton is the most prominent member.

I think people tend to forget that Clinton passed welfare reform and NAFTA (over Dem objections) in his term of office and also declared "the era of big government to be over". He'd be considered on the right wing of the Dem caucus in the Senate right now.

Imran, you don't know how close I came in making a snarky comment that could have offended you. But out of our long time friendship, I resisted. :)

Something about Pakistan? ;)

If you were a liberal, I thought you may have made a crack about Texas or something :D.

Damn, wish I had thought of that one ;)

SI

I think the issue is that Al-Qaeda and terrorists were not a threat to take over Iraq before we got there. They hated Saddam as much as we did. Iraq was no threat to us.

Don't you think the fiscal conservative flavor had more to do with the Gingritch congress? As far as NAFTA, all of the ex presidents wanted it, even Carter. I think the best thing that ever happened to Bill Clinton was having an opposition party congress.

That is probably a good deal of truth. But Clinton was a good politician and saw the writing.

Then again, the whole "triangulation" and "third way" were, to a lot of old leftists, selling out to become GOP Lite (or in Britain, "Tory lite").

Talking about after. Once we were in and Hussein was taken out, there was a huge power vacuum.

As the Dems voted for the initial war and spending, they were in no position to go on the offensive on that.

I wouldn't go that far. About half the Democratic Senators did vote against the war. A majority of Democratic Representatives voted against it. The ones who voted for it certainly can't complain, but this was a Republican idea.

I still would rather pay pork domestically than throw money into a war against a country that was of no threat to us and that we didn't gain anything from.

I assume you also mean that for once we are already in and us pulling out would almost certainly lead to a bloody Civil War that would have either Al Queda or Iran in charge?

Once you've screwed things up, you have to fix it. I don't think we were left with much of a choice after making that huge mistake of getting into this war.

On a lighter note ... in domestic policy. I support this but I am sure there will be some unintended circumstances that will make me change my mind!

DEA to end medical marijuana raids - More health news- msnbc.com

In other words, if it can keep people from voting whose rights you don't agree with, the Constitution is still OK. Who the hell cares if it's right or fair, as long as those crazy liberals don't get a vote.

Like I said, it hasn't been worth the paper it takes to reprint a copy for a very long time now. It's a useful tool at times & that's about it. Undo decades of mistakes in its interpretation & application then maybe it's something else, but I don't see a lot of reason to hope that's going to happen so I just have to deal with the practical reality that's left.


There's nothing "right" about allowing people who clearly lack the good sense to govern themselves or anyone else to be involved in the decision making process. That falls somewhere between suicide & plain ol' stupid.

Again this argument falls under the "do you know you're talking to JIMGA" rules ;)

SI

Take a look at most of the jurisdictions in the United States and you could make the same argument -- particularly if they're on the opposite side of the political spectrum of the person making the argument. It's a tired argument, let's get to something that's actually substantive.


Oh, I'm quite aware. :) He is just my only sounding board for views that annoy the hell out of me on this situation, so he is the person I am stuck with arguing the point with. :)

Lets leave the decision making up to people who think the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Better that (although you're talking about an awfully small group) than those who think it's perfectly acceptable to take money out of the pockets of people who earn their living and give it to those unwilling to do so, never mind their moral bankruptcy of the left. Hell, better anything than leaving them in charge of anything, they're not even capable of administering their own lives much less anyone else's.

Hold on there Skippy. You drop a charming little line about "bible-thumping rednecks" but want to complain when I respond remotely in kind? And people wonder why I'm convinced that our biggest war is at home?

I've long thought that about 100,000 liberals at the bottom of the ocean would be the proverbial good start but damned if I wouldn't like to see you be part of the first batch.

It's a very self-righteous thing -- When it comes down to it JIMGA shows the true colors of the argument. It's not that he doesn't think people in the District should be allowed to vote, it's that he's happy the Constitution (may) keep them from having a member of Congress because he would not be happy with the way they would vote. Such a person should never rant and rave about patriotism or rights or anything else "American."

Odd how the rich and educated vote went Democrat this past year considering they can't administer their own lives. Or how the majority of the welfare states in this country are red.

And last I checked, Republicans had no problem handing out money to failing banks, investment firms, and insurance companies over the past few years. They had no problem dumping money into countries filled with people that wish we were all dead. Welfare is welfare, whether it goes to a single mother or a corporation.

I'm not complaining, just think the whole liberal/conservative bashing is stupid. It's for people who are desperate to be "part of a club". Pick your team and bash the other for everything you can. Doesn't matter if your views are hypocritical or wrong. It's about winning, not what's best for yourself or your country. It comes across like the brainwashed people who join cults.

But yes, the war is at home. It's those heathens who *GASP* have a differing opinion from you. Certainly the problem isn't people who wish genocide on their own citizens.

Not sure if this is an appropriate thread but something caught my eye from the CPAC thing this week. As much as think Rush is an arrogant, condescending, unlistenable blowhard, he is right about one thing. You win in politics by nominating the right candidate. And in these times, it's about nominating someone with charisma, or at least having more than your opponent. It is that simple because a majority of voters base their votes on things that are simple. Gifted and charismatic politicians come by every so often, of all political stripes, and it is just a matter of having the courage to run for president.

That's spot on. It's why I was really surprised the Republicans went with Jindal after the Obama speech. I think they should have used someone like Romney who has some charisma and can speak about economics and know what he's talking about.

Jindal can be charismatic under the right circumstances, he just blew the response. It doesn't help that he was embellishing his primary anecdote. I'm one, though, that doesn't think he's seriously damaged his presidential hopes. It's still very early and if Obama looks vulnerable in 2012 Jindal could compete well with Palin, Romney, Huckabee, or whomever else runs.

Well, there have been all sorts of whispers that Jindal's one of the early candidates for 2012. So, think of this as an exercise in getting experience for your bench- get some national exposure and build depth on the team.

SI

I think most people view Jinal as young and charismatic. As others have said, he will likely go through a series of trials to see if enough people see him as a charismatic leader.

charisma wasn't on display the other night however he followed up a tough speech to compete against when it comes to charisma.

Again, I was talking about politicians, specifically GOP politicians in the U.S. House and Senate.

Looks like their giving some negotiation room on the budget...good to see

Key Democrats oppose Obama's tax deduction plan

One thing I don't get.

"Obama's budget calls for setting aside $634 billion over the next 10 years as a down payment on health care reform. Half the money would come from tax increases on upper-income earners; the other half from cuts to Medicare and Medicaid."

How does cutting Medicare and Medicaid improve health care access, health care quality, and the cost of it?

I think because theyre finding a ton of waste in the two, ie. the no bid prescription meds, etc.

I notice the limiting deductions thing has gone under the radar a little. That's something I can get behind- closing more tax loopholes = good.

SI

In the Medicare prescription bill was a provision to offer private coverage under some circumstances. That private coverage turned out to be no better, but far costlier than Medicare. Obama wants to kill the private coverage option which will save a lot of mone.

So he's just cutting out the private coverage of Medicare/Medicaid, which will make it a single-payer, government-run program? I wasn't sure if he was cutting payments to doctors and hospitals.

More accurately, return it to a government run program. I don't think there's any major program that would cut payments to providers at this point.

just saw this now :lol:

you know at this point, there should actually probably be a board advisory to this effect

Don't forget that Bill Clinton's first national speech was also a disaster. Jindal can certainly recover, especially since I don't think he'll run until 2016.

Yup. I think that this could actually help Jindal in the long term. Being the front-runner for "future leader of the party" means that lots of people from both within and without your party are trying to take you down.

Now, he can stay under the radar and under the fray for a while. Especially if he reiterates that he does not plan to run in 2012.

He can just watch as Palin, Romney, and Huckabee et al. shoot at each other and position himself well for 2016 or beyond.

Oh, and low expectations never hurt anyone. If his next major national speech is average, then people will say that "Jindal is back and needs to be taken seriously." You don't want to peak too early and then let everyone down when it starts to matter.

true. lowered expectations is generally a good thing for the person in the eye of it.

Not sure what the current numbers are, but I must confess, this somewhat surprised me.

Obama Less Popular Than Bush After First Month in Office

I want my check.

Yeah public opinion didn't really turn on Bush until after he had proven himself to be a terrible president.

So comparing two different polls with totals that are within the margin of error is significant how?

btw- As I mentioned to MBBF, if that 59 number is so significant how do explain Obama's approval in the mid to high sixties this week?

Similar to Obama, I had very high hopes for Bush in early 2001. There wasn't much to base any dissatisfaction on, to be honest. My opinion started to turn with the stem cell decision in mid-2001.

I think Jindal is a smart guy and just hope the GOP doesn't rush him into something he isn't prepared for. He's not a polished speaker and doesn't appear comfortable in front of the camera. That'll take some time to work on. The problem is that the GOP seems set on turning him into their Obama and fast.

Not to mention that I think it's best if he stays low key. The Republican Party isn't doing too well in the public eye and tying himself to it this early just doesn't seem smart. He'd be better off keeping a low profile within the party and then coming on strong perhaps in 2010-2011 if he wants to run for President.