The poor ideologues in the Republican Party — you know, the ones who don’t give a damn who can actually become president, as long as their candidate thinks exactly the way they do about everything — don’t know whether to spit or go blind with John McCain as their presumptive nominee. And I gotta tell ya, I’m loving it. My happiness will be complete once the ANGER faction of the Democratic party is similarly discombobulated by having Barack Obama as their nominee.
Anyway, to see what I’m saying, read The Wall Street Journal. In today’s paper alone, you can read this story:
For the first time in a presidential campaign already a year old, Republicans have a clear front-runner in Arizona Sen. John McCain. By nearly all accounts, he is the candidate many Democrats least want to face, the one who would best remake his party’s battered image and draw independent voters needed to win in November.
But Sen. McCain still confronts a problem both in the remainder of the nomination race, and, if he wins, in the fall: He is simply loathed by many fellow Republicans, often for the very bipartisanship and maverick streak that attracts independents. His biggest, and perhaps final, test comes Tuesday, when 21 states hold contests — most of them open only to Republican voters….
Then there’s this piece, which observes:
All eyes were on Mr. McCain, who after winning three contests in the pivotal states of New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida, is now considered the front-runner. He took his time in the spotlight to blast Wall Street. "There’s some greedy people on Wall Street that perhaps need to be punished," Mr. McCain said in response to a question about how to help people keep their homes and avoid foreclosure.
The emphasis is mine. That’s gotta hurt, if you’re a WSJ kind of guy, coming from the likely GOP nominee. Then there’s this piece about all the big-money guys who just don’t know what to do now:
Rudy Giuliani, the onetime Republican presidential front-runner, retreated from the race and backed John McCain. But Mr. Giuliani’s well-heeled supporters might not throw their money behind the cash-strapped Arizona senator so fast.
"We haven’t decided what we’re going to do," says T. Boone Pickens, the Dallas tycoon who has raised more than $1 million for Mr. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, since late 2006….
Then you get to the opinion pages, where pundits struggle to understand just why this iconoclast keeps winning:
John McCain beat Mitt Romney by 5.5 points in New Hampshire and by five again in Florida. Three months ago, Mr. McCain was a 10% cipher in Florida, with no organization and no donors. This week one saw why John McCain is basically five points better than Mitt Romney, or Rudy Giuliani, at the most fundamental job in politics — connecting.
When Mr. McCain took the stage in Sun City, the applause was polite. When he finished, he got a standing ovation. He has been at this game a long time, and his ability to sense and ride the emotional flow of an audience is astonishing.
It discomfits some, including me, that Mr. McCain seems like a live, capped volcano. But in front of an audience like this, and before a younger group two days later at the Tampa Convention Center, he stood with that tight, little upper body of coiled electricity and plugged his message of honor, commitment and threat straight into the guts of his listeners….
Finally, one must turn to the oracle itself, the very LEAD EDITORIAL of the hallowed WSJ, under the headline, "McCain’s Apostasies" (I am not making this up!), to learn this:
Mr. McCain’s great political strength has also long been his main weakness, which is that his political convictions are more personal than ideological. He believes in duty, honor and country more than he does in any specific ideas.
These personal qualities are genuine political assets, and they are part of his appeal as a potential Commander in Chief. Among other things, they help explain why he held firm on Iraq when the fair-weather hawks lost their resolve. But he is now on the cusp of leading a coalition that also believes in certain principles, and its "footsoldiers" (to borrow a favorite McCain word) need to be convinced that the Senator is enough on their side to warrant enthusiastic support…
You can just see them all thinking, Whaddayagonna DO with a guy who believes in "duty, honor and country" more than he believes in, I don’t know, some worthwhile idea like cutting taxes? How can you trust a guy like that? How can you turn your back on him?
The thing that gets me is that these people are dead serious. They think "duty, honor and country" are all very well and good in a Boy Scout, or a character in a movie or something, but a little bit dangerous in a Leader of the Free World.
I am so glad that for once we’ve got an alternative — and maybe by the time it’s over, two alternatives — to the greedheads on one side who think "Me First and the Gimme-Gimmes" is an "idea," and one to live by, and those on the other side who think what this country needs is somebody to FIGHT with Republicans, as though virtue is thus defined. Thank the Lord for John McCain and Barack Obama.
Related Posts
I watched McCain’s performance in last night’s debate and got further depressed when I considered the possibility of his becoming the next President.
He was a grumpy old man… it’s Bob Dole all over again. He was evasive when asked a direct question as to whether he would vote for the same immigration bill he and Lindsey Graham proposed last summer. He played the semantic game saying “It won’t come up for a vote”. He has no plan for the economy. He has no plan for anything except fighting the never-ending battle against “radical Islamists”. And his typical battle cry of “Trust me, I was in the military”.
How many people spend time worrying about terrorists? Very few. There’s more people worrying about jobs, healthcare, education. And for that, McCain can’t fall back on his resume from 40 years ago.
This is going to be a sad next four years if he wins.
Obama and Hillary propose tax increases which will produce a recession and massive job loss, while promising free medical care and free college tuition to illegal aliens.
Go pick up one of the Latino newspapers at a gas station and read the list of promises they are making to 30,000,000 illegals.
McCain is right there with them, just without the tax increase on citizens to fund his amnesty program.
I’m with Brad on this one. For the first time in years I feel good about our nation’s future. Either McCain, Clinton, or Obama will be a welcome relief from the hate machine we have been living with for the past seven years. Just think about it, compromising in order to get things done. BTW, Mr. Muller, could you please provide a verifiable source for your contention that there are 30,000,000 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.? It wouldn’t be Rush Limbaugh would it?
You’re quite a moonstruck ideologue yourself Brad, and to make it worse, you aren’t big enough to give us other ideologues much credit. It’s OK though since, fortunately for us, your personal opinions about us don’t matter. So, we got that working for us.
Aside from and more important than that however, you’re wrong. We DO care who gets to be president (POTUS!), and we aren’t concerned that the person we get agrees with every point of our doctrine (at least I’m not…and I don’t think most others are either). We are concerned that our next POTUS not represent a wholesale abandonment of any and all conservative principles. To a shallow thinker, that may appear to mean we want a lockstep, rigid ideologue who spouts only what we want to hear. To one who isn’t dreamy-eyed and attempting to be “progressive” and “nuanced” like most of McCains minions, it might simply represent well-intentioned people who truly want what they believe is best for the country. That’s how I see it. Your cheapshots notwithstanding. Oh yeah…and “presumptive” nominee? There are a lot of delegates still up for grabs are there not? It’s not over yet. David
Way to go Doug! Excellent reasons that I hadn’t even thought of not to like McCain. A sad four years indeed. David
I agree with Dave, Doug and Lee any of the three McCain, Hillary or Obama would be a disaster for conservatives. Which leaves Romney and Huckabee neither would be my first choice. I also put the blame for this on George Bush for not dropping Cheney and choosing a younger conservative for V.P. It would have changed the whole dynamic of this race. But, we are were we are.
I liked Ron Paul but the country is too addicted to Entitlement programs to listen to what he is trying to tell them.
I have another problem. I have only been posting on this blog for about a month and Brad has attacked me personally 3or 4 times.
He continues to call me names like Bubba and dude in a disrespectful manner and making false accusations about what I post and almost hates me simplely for give my opinion. I have never attacked him personally. So, my question is does he do this to other people as well or just me?
Richard, did you notice my “cheap shot” reference above? This is Brads’ modus operandi (little latin lingo for ya there).
Get used to it: If you want to express your opinions here, and you are more conservative than he is, you can expect these snippy, dismissive and cheap little shots from Brad on a fairly regular basis. When and if you have the temerity to complain, he will resort to the last refuge of a closed mind and remind you quite bluntly that this is HIS sandbox. Staunch partisanship and (God forbid!) polarizing comments are genrally unwelcome, and if you persist, you will be disinvited to participate. Ask me how I know this is true.
As I attempted to say above without directly calling Brad out (so as not to get in trouble), his personal opinions of you and I don’t matter a whit. Disregard them and make your case. That’s what he cannot stand. David
Everyone missed the only real reason that McCain is winning – the perception of success in Iraq. He’s tied his entire campaign to the surge and with American military deaths down and Iraqi civilian deaths also down voters are turning their attention away from that issue. But if there is a resurgence in violence or if people begin to connect the dots and understand how we’re failing in Afghanistan as a result of our heavy involvement in Iraq then McCain’s goose is cooked.
Besides Richard, you’ve made the mistake of letting Brad know these little names bother you, and now he uses them as his cheap little way of denying the substance or validity of what you say. This way, he hasn’t got to do any intellectual work in refuting or arguing your points.
See how it works? My advice to you is to rejoice in being a bubba! Heck, I consider my middle name to be dude, if that’s what blows Brads’ skirt up. If I stay on point, and he resorts to petty name calling, who wins? David
All this whining from the conservatives here is quite interesting. Two of my favorites, both liberals, have been excommunicated from Brads Blog. I sure do miss MR and RTH.
If he can’t get a candidate he likes, I’m sure T. Boone Pickens will throw a few more million to Oklahoma State so OSU can throw a couple more thousand seats into its stadium. But, that seems to be a worse bet than having given money to Giuliani. I mean, who really wants to go to Stillwater?
David <===NOT whining ~ truth telling. Factum dictum I always say. I was simply trying to get Richards' mind right about the way Brad runs his fiefdom here. Or in your case Bud, harem. Skittles says "Taste the rainbow, BE the rainbow." I say taste the bubba, BE the bubba. David
By the way Richard, I told you earlier that staunch partisanship and polarizing comments are generally unwelome in Brads’ world.
Of course you understand that I meant to say they are unwelcome ~ unless ~ it’s Brad that’s being the partisan or doing the polarizing. That almost goes without saying, but better to be clear I suppose. David
Yeah.
It’s us, Brad.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-say-mccain-nearly-abandoned-gop-2007-03-28.html
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZjM5OWVhYzcwNDFmNGYxNjEzY2UwZjAzYmViNGM1NDU=
And this is the kind of guy you LIKE? Says more about you than we “idealogues.”
Are you a moral relativist?
You know, one of those guys who want to erase, or at the very least, dumb down, conservative values like personal responsibility, protection of family, lower taxes, etc, so as to make everyone APPEAR the same? So that no bad deeds appear bad?
If you were a just some Joe in the street, no one would care. But the mere fact that your position affords you this giant monolithic trumpet in lil’ ol’ SC lends credence to the view that the MSM is indeed biased.
And not towards good.
Thanks David, It is kind of hard to play the game if you don’t know what the rules are. Thanks to you I get it. I not only have the temerity but the tenacity to continue. As a matter of fact now that you explained it to me, this is downright comical. I have now gone full circle all the way back to kindergarden.
You know what would be the ultimate ironic justice? If McCain lost the election because he ran out of money due to McCain/Fiengold.
Follow JJ’s links to find out that McCain twists the truth about Romney when it suits him and might just be the first of two Democrats The State endorsed this year.
That other Democrat, of course, Barack Obama, is the most liberal senator in the United State, according to a story in The State today, Feb. 1, not quite Groundhog Day.
McCain’s ideology is his weakness.
Every politician’s agenda begins with their ideology. Their agenda is spelled out in their definitions of the issues and their proposals to address the issues.
If their agenda does not match what the voters want, real leaders, good or bad, try to lead by convincing at least a majority they their approach is best for everyone.
Bad politicians try to convince enough people to help them seize power – whether it is a majority, or plurality in a split election,
Really evil politicians lie about their agenda and are quick to use force, lie about their opponents, and motivate the masses through fear, hate and other negative emotions.
John McCain and Hillary Clinton are running negative campaigns. They fall into the category of Very Bad Politicians.
Lee, who would you like to see elected president?
Is this the guy we want running the economy for the next four or eight years?
From John McCain’s end of year Federal Election Commission filing:
10. Cash on Hand 2,948,427.85
12. Debts Owed 4,516,030.08
Looks like Senator McCain has learned well the Washington policy of deficit spending.
Meanwhile, Ron Paul, the only true fiscal conservative candidate in the race shows the following:
Cash on Hand 7,839,420.90
Debts Owed 0.00
America is getting duped into thinking the John McCain is some kind of different politician than what he really is – a run of the mill, career politician who loves to spend other people’s money.
At least Romney is willing to invest his own money into his campaign… Senator McCain would have to ask his wife (you know, his second wife, the rich one) for a handout to do the same.
bud, for starters, the President I want has to not be a world-government Marxist. that eliminates Obama and Hillary.
He has to have a record of pursuing and exterminating our terrorist enemies. That eliminates Obama, and Hillary is questionable by association with Coward Bill Clinton.
He has to favor
* a balanced budget. No government borrowing
* replacing the Social Security welfare system with individual savings
* replacing the bankrupt federal and state pensions with private savings
* abolishing useless programs
* abolishing illegal agencies, like the Department of Education.
* getting the government out of all medical meddling, like Medicare and Medicaid
* using he money saved to abolish the income tax and inheritance taxes
* dry up the handouts, benefits and employment opportunities for illegal aliens
* reduce the high unemployment rate among high-tech workers by removing the foreign H1-B and H1-S workers.
* make our manufacturing competitive by ending the double taxation on stock dividends
So you’re saying, Doug, that he understands the system?
Sorry. I’m just enjoying myself altogether too much, aren’t I? Please indulge me; you folks on the left and right have had your respective ways for all these years — don’t I get a turn to enjoy good news for once?
And as I believe I said before, Ron Paul can raise all the money in the world, but unless he spends it effectively putting forth a message that the public receives well, it’s pointless. I guess libertarians are sort of handicapped in the respect that they have SUCH an aversion to “spending other people’s money” (that’s what y’all say, isn’t it?) that when people actually VOLUNTARILY entrust their money do them, they simply can’t imagine what to do with it. Which means they let all those people down.
Gee, Lee when you were talking about ‘evil politicians’ you sounded like you were talking about Bush. After all, he promised to bring folk together; in fact he has done more than Clinton ever did to polarize the voters. He said he was going to be a peaceful president; we’re in war in Iraq–a place that did us no harm, and did not have WMD’s. He has used the events of 9/11 to terrorize the public into allowing major rights infringement, to justify torture (someone explain to me just how waterboarding ‘simulates’ drowning–all I see is the drowning part), to get us into a war (Al-Qaida wasn’t a power in Iraq until we invaded), and to manipulate the economy to give big money to the biggest companies (did you know that Exxon made the greatest profits ever last year?). But no, you claim Obama and Clinton are trying to gain power by simply getting people to vote for them. Neither McCain nor Obama have shown any inclination to abandon basic honor as far as I can see. Is either perfect? No, but at least each one has been willing to honestly speak the truth, and to stand by what he’s said. Your statement makes no sense.
I am tired of those lies about “no WMD”
The Pentagon currently has contracts out for $40,000,000 to firms engaged in destroying 650,000 tons of WMD, including nerve gas, chlorine gas bombs, biological weapons, and 5,000-lb bombs built for delivery by truck and intermodal container.
One item being dismantled and buried at the Savannah River Facility is an entire nuclear bomb plant, purchased by Iraq from Red China and not found by the UN inspectors, but captured by British troops.
Karen Mcleod says: “No, but at least each one has been willing to honestly speak the truth, and to stand by what he’s said.”
Pass the doochie.
John McCain is lying, and he knows it, and you know it.
As for Obama, I’m not listening yet.
Lee, just what is your source for these astounding newsworthy items? The Department of Defense web site? Corroborating news sources? Or just someone ranting on their blog?
Dave,
Perhaps if you’d bother to look around you, you might observe that a fairly vast numbe3r of your fellow Americans are rather sick and tired of staunch partisanship, polarizing comments, and reactionary rhetoric- on all sides.
Furthermore, just what does it mean to be a “Conservative” anymore? There are fiscal conservatives, traditional conservatives, moderate conservatives, and social conservatives. Your comments hardly speak for all of the above perspectives.
Then again, just what do William F. Buckley, George F. Will, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Cal Thomas, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter- to name a few- actually agree on????
zzzzman,
Yes, the work for dismantling WMD won on bid, in response to Bid Requests posted daily in the Congressional Record. One of the companies doing some of the WMD disposal is in Charlotte, across the street from my office there. If you don’t know how to look up the vast inventory of seized weapons, journalists certainly do. Some have reported, it but most of them haven’t. That is not surprising, since polls show that about 85% of journalists and commentators vote Democrat every time.
A chronology of WMD caches and contracts to destroy captured WMD.
http://www.nti.org/f_WMD411/2007.html
EXAMPLE 1:
Veolia has a $49 million contract with the U.S. Army to treat and incinerate … facilities to dispose of the remaining 32,000 tonnes of chemical armaments. …
Lee’s really picking up some interesting facts from the local John Birch Society meetings nowadays.
Since we may be stuck with Hilary or McCain for dictator, I want to get my two cents in for the real issues. Energy Independence Now! No more Oil Wars! We need to stop paying our adversaries with oil money. It is unseemly for an American President to beg a Saudi despot for cheaper oil.
We need to drill in ANWAR and we need to build more nuclear power plants.
Lee, What’s the name of the company in Charlotte that you mentioned? Where is it located? There’s nothing on the link that you posted that specific supports your claims.
If you look into it, the contract with Veolia, from April of 2007, was to destroy a stockpile of VX hydrolysate that has been kept in INDIANA! I’m afraid that these WMD are very American products.
Here’s a local Indiana News report that was posted via AP at that time.
http://www.kokomotribune.com/statenews/apindiana_item797987170.html
Furthermore, here’s NTI’s assessment of the production of Chemical weapons in Iraq as well as their nuclear program. these reports, which are entirely in line with what I had understood had transpired, are hardly reflective of the claims that you have made:
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iraq/Chemical/
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iraq/Nuclear/
Of course, you’re more than welcome to try again and find some shred of evidence to support your interesting claims.
BTW- the organization of the site that you referred to, http://www.nti.org , is co-chaired by Sam Nunn and Ted Turner. I do believe that you will find both Democrats and Republicans on the board.
http://www.nti.org/b_aboutnti/b1_board.html
Here’s a little Factum Dictum for you to ponder, Dave.
If Eisenhower were to run today, what names would he be called? RINO? Doesn’t the interstate highway system smack of socialism? Or his skepticism about the military-industrial complex?
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
” In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. ”
Geee…er…I dunno zzazzeefrazzee.
Your screen name has me mesmerized. Did you have a point? David
zzzzzman,
You are in hard denial. That link gave way more information than any public school graduate could read in a day, much less in the 5 minutes you “devoted” to it.
If you think WMD was all a lie, start with Bill Clinton’s 32 speeches about WMD in Iraq, the Democrats pushing through a vote for invasion in 1999, and Clinton dropping 80,000 tons of bombs on Iraq to destroy their WMD.
Methinks that Richard is actually old Lexwolf, and that means that we now have Lex, Lee, and Dave back again in old form. Makes for good entertainment.
Mr. Gordy,
The “John Birch Society” only works as a smear among ignorant leftists who know nothing about the JBS.
The JBS has probably been against the war in Iraq from the beginning, as they oppose most foreign intervention, for rather complex reasons. I haven’t checked their position on Iraq, but neither have you.
You also haven’t bothered to learn the facts about the 650,000 tons of WMD captured in Iraq, the training camps for the 911 hijackers which were in Iraq, or Saddam’s supplying money to the 911 hijackers and to the families of suicide bombers.
In reference to Doug Ross’s comment, regarding tax increases by both Hillary and Obama… touting recession and massive job loss, as a result, while promising free medical care and free college tuition to illegal aliens.
Do you not listen to these candidates? Both Hillary and Obama said they would stop the subsidies and tax giveaways to the wealthy only, and increase the rate on only the wealthier Americans. I would think just getting out of Iraq alone would boost our economy. They agreed illegals would be required to register and begin the citizenship process. Instead of the constant quibbling, it is time to get behind the only reasonable and sensible solution. The sooner we fix our borders, and stop the slave laborers created by business owners, the sooner these people will be able to earn decent wages, pay taxes and get off of all the handout programs. It is nuts to think we can just pack them up in buses and deliver them to the border. There is much more to it. So you drag them out of the homes they have been allowed to own, and have lived in for 30 years, confine them somewhere, identify them, and decide whose children can stay and whose can remain. You talk about cost!!! We helped get them into this situation whether you want to agree or not. This country knowingly provided free services to them, and turned their backs on the problem years ago. There is contributory negligence. I agree 100% it must stop, I want it stopped as much as the rest of us, but we must get those borders under control, get the illegals accounted for. Upfront there will have to be costs, but nothing compared to what will happen if we continue to not do anything and carry on with this bickering.
It was Bill Clinton who cut the to tax rates on investment bankers’ incomes from 28% to 14$, while raising the rate on middle income workers to 39.5%.
Hillary’s spending proposals now total over $1 TRILLION a year. That would require doubling the income taxes, which is impossible. Bill Clinton’s last increase of 3% sent the nation into recesion in 2000.
Obama’s spending is just as ludicrous, over $500 BILLION a year. He promises $2,500 to every family for medical insurance. That alone is $250 BILLION dollars.
The Democrats can only run up the deficits, as Bill Clinton did in his first term. He talked about balancing the budget, but left us with way over $1.3 TRILLION in new debt.
Hillary, Obama, Pelosi and the Democrats have already put through an 50% income tax increase on the lower brackets, by eliminating some of the EIC. It is set to take effect in 2009, after the election.
Brad says:
> that when people actually VOLUNTARILY
>entrust their money do them, they simply
>can’t imagine what to do with it. Which
>means they let all those people down.
So what does that say about people like Rudy G., Thompson, and Joe Biden — guys who wasted more money than Paul and couldn’t hang in the race? Paul will be there for the long haul as the only voice of reason amidst a bunch of crooks.
I’ve said it before and will say it again – there isn’t a single problem in America today that can be blamed on Libertarian policies. Whatever is wrong with America lies solely at the feet of Democrats and Republicans and editors who endorse them.
Actually, all the political problems in America begin with ignoring or subverting the libertarian principles on which this nation was founded.
The European monarchies were toppled by two competing revolutions: the libertarianism of free market capitalism which began with the American Revolution, and the socialist militarism which began with the communist French Revolution.
My mind isn’t that far gone. It was Bush the elder’s administration that left us with a big deficit. Clinton managed to get rid of that and actually left office with the nation showing a budget surplus.
According to the US Treasury, public debt increased over $1.5 TRILLION under Bill Clinton.
I ran a query of the debt for every day he was in office. Yes, he balanced the budget for one day when the debt actually decreased. Whoopee!
The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway
Date Public Debt Outstanding
01/20/1993 $4,188,092,107,183.60 Clinton takes office
01/19/2001 $5,727,776,738,304.64 Clinton leaves office
Will these facts about Clinton’s deficit spending make Karen disappear, just as the facts about Hillary’s and Obama’s socialist medical agenda made her disappear from that topic?
The truth cleanses another thread.
I’ve noticed the same thing, Lee. Whenever facts are presented to support an argument, the big government types head for the hills.
Illegal immigration, single payer healthcare fantasizers, anti-privatization of Social Security AARPers, PACT testing zealots, etc. all lose interest when presented with factual information.
Lee, you certainly do know where to find the best websites to make a point. Now if you could just learn how to interpret what you find. Here is what happened to the nation’s debt in Clinton’s second term:
Jan 20, 1997 – 5.31 trillion
Jan 19, 2001 – 5.73 trillion
This is about an 8% increase at a time when the economy was growing at roughly 4%/year. So the nations debt was growing much more slowly than our ability to repay the debt.
Not bad. After Clinton was able to get a handle on the obscene spending of the Reagan/Bush era he was able to successfully work with the Republican congress to keep spending down. (Yes I actually did give the GOP Congress some credit).
But look what has happened during the last 4 years that the GOP controlled both the White House and Congress:
January 20, 2003 – 6.39 trillion
January 19, 2007 – 8.68 trillion
That is a staggering 36% increase, a rate faster than the nation’s economy was growing, hence our relative fiscal situation was deteriating.
Doug, I’m sort of a selective big-government type. I believe there are some things that only a big government can do. Yet there are some things that even if we agree government should do we absolutely must have some discipline. Take the president’s budget proposal. He’s requesting a mind-numbing $515 billion for the military. That is incredibly irresponsible in a world where the next largest military budget is probably around $100 billion. Iran has about a $4 billion budget.
My numbers are real, and official.
And each year at the US Treasury web site, the deficits match the news of those times.
For example, 1994: $-167,000,000,000
Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bensten puts Clinton’s first full budget at $167 BILLION DEFICIT in a Nov 23, 1994 article in the WSJ.
http://econ161.berkeley.edu/OpEd/bentsenopedonthedeficit.html
1993 Budget deficit was $-183.1 BILLION
1995 Budget deficit was $-165.0 BILLION
Lee, I’m not in denial, and yes, i am literate- AND I’ve taken a few logic classes to boot.
Thanks for the pointing out that I spent some five minutes reviewing the site- but funny enough, that still in no way negates the fact hat everything that I had understood that has occurred -both pre and post invasion- was contained in the link I provided in my response. Was that somehow defective? Please explain.
On the other hand, you have only rather MISERABLY failed at posting a shred of evidence to support your claims. Demuring from those initial claims and then citing Clinton’s speeches is nothing more than a misdirection; a classic red herring fallacy.
Perhaps you need to brush up on your logical fallacies, so you can learn to avoid them BEFORE you respond? Here’s a nice primer:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
I make a living designing intelligent, automous robotic systems, and you took a logic course.
My sources are official Treasury web sites showing Clinton deficits increasing every day of his tenure, more than $1.5 TRILLION total.
Your sources are dinky opinion blogs run off someone’s home computer.
Hi
I think budget of 1993 is $183.1.
1995 budget is $165.