Deinonychus antirrhopus

I don't know if Sullivan is "reallY' a conservative or not.

But I get the sense that he's at least making the argument that if you have a choice between a Democrat and a faux Democrat, pick the Democrat.

I've seen some other paleocons (which Sullivan most assuredly is NOT) also making the argument that if Kerry were elected, for some reason the GOP would pick a "real" conservative in 2008. Why they would believe this is beyond me---more to the point, there must be either an underlying belief that Kerry wouldn't REALLY prove so liberal, or a whiff of "things can only get better if they get much worse" to that line of thinking.

The only valid reason for voting for Kerry might be to bring back gridlock to Congress, which may not be such a bad thing afterall.

--dramatically increased the role of the central government in the matter of education.--

Damn that conservative trying to implement vouchers where people actually get a choice. And paying for tutors. And Damn him for telling the states you set the standards, prove to us that you're meeting them and we'll give you the money to do so.

#$%*#$()% accountability. Spend more now so you won't have to later on.

Sullivan has since posted that he's not a "one-issue" voter with regards to gay marriage, but that Dubya's backing of the gay marriage amendment was one major turn-off.

At the same time, he argues that he's actually a MULTI-issue voter, because he won't let the war dictate his vote.

One has to wonder: For gays in non-Western nations, especially in Muslim nations, who offers more hope: George Dubya, who has taken the war-approach, or John Kerry, who has explicitly said that he thinks it's more a law enforcement issue.

Keep in mind, Mr. Sullivan, that Dubya's war approach means changing governments and regimes, whereas Mr. Kerry's approach, even if it works will still leave the gays in the countries involved to be thrown off buildings or otherwise persecuted.

Dean,

Regarding your paleocon point on voting for Kerry to get a "real" conservative I think that is just either stupidity or wishful thinking...or even both.

My view is that politicians will do what it takes to get elected/re-elected. This means that, with a two party system, politicians will move towards each other not away from each other in terms of policy. The Republicans might see a loss in '04 as a reason to move more to the Center/Left not to the Right.

I'm far from thrilled with Pres. Bush, but it is a given I wont be voting for Kerry. His policies are diametrically opposed to mine. Of course, there really isn't anybody I want to vote for. The Libertarian candidate is just not working for me this time around. So I'm not sure how I'm going to vote...but voting for Kerry...I don't think I could look myself in the mirror afterwards.

Sullivan is the exclusive pundit to deal in that region where extreme petulance crosses over to insanity.

When I get accosted on the downtown mall by DNC solicitors with their "Want to help defeat Bush?" line, I always answer:

"No thanks, I don't want to learn Farsi."

They don't get it. I though Sullivan did at one time but evidently I'm wrong.

Does anyone really believe that Sullivan would be supporting Kerry if Bush was in favor of gay marriage? Andrew knows, no matter what Kerry says now, that he will support gay marriage once he has become president, and that is really all that's important.

The funny thing about Sullivan's comments is that he apparently absolutely believes that Dubya is opposed to gay marriage. His proof? Dubya said he would support the anti-gay marriage Constitutional amendment.

Now, it may be a matter of civics (i.e., Sullivan being born a Brit), but of course, Presidential support is irrelevant to a Constitutional amendment. Congress and state legislatures are the sole arbiters.

Ah! But isn't Dubya using the "bully pulpit" to attack an issue near and dear to Sullivan's heart?

Well, I would suggest that Dubya's used his powers there as much as he has in support of extending the assault weapons ban. Which is to say, not really. Yup, Dubya said that he'd approve such a bill if it came across his desk (and, unlike an amendment, he really COULD do that). But the chances of an assault weapons ban crossing his desk, w/ the GOP in charge of BOTH the House and the Senate, I'd venture are lower than the chances of nationalizing the power industry. (Steve?)

So, Dubya gets a cheap political point by saying he's all FOR an assault weapons ban, knowing full well that it'll never come to that.

While the comparison is imperfect (I suspect that Dubya actually cares a little about gay marriage), to take a blatantly political point-scoring comment and assume it reflects ANY kind of policy decision is indicative of a level of analysis that is puerile, and that is disappointing coming from Sullivan.

Steve, weren't you the one taking Nathen to task for selectively choosing his time parameters. You have to go all the way back to FDR for your counter-example? What was happening on the ground around FDR's time? Well, let's see, the economy was tanked, a MASSIVE war was being fought. I'd think that those were confounding variables.

Sullivan is talking about junking the last twenty years of conservative effort, and your counter example goes back over 60 years.

What can you expect from Kerry? Probably a more thoughtfull, intelligent and competent governance. Helping him out will be a divided governance structure that actively seeks to impede his initiatives and thus act as a restraint, something Congress isn't doing now.

Having watched the Kerry campaign over the course of the year, and despite the slim pickings that the Democrats have offered as candidates, I'm quite certain that Kerry is a better man for the Job than the incumbent.

As to your concerns about Kerry's past actions, well President Bush campaigned on one set of principles and has turned out to govern on a wholly different set that was completely unexpected, excepting of course for the vein of incompetence that was readily predicted by many.

Steve, weren't you the one taking Nathen to task for selectively choosing his time parameters. You have to go all the way back to FDR for your counter-example?

Try again.

What was happening on the ground around FDR's time? Well, let's see, the economy was tanked, a MASSIVE war was being fought. I'd think that those were confounding variables.

And with Bush let me see... the economy tanked and we are currently fighting a war. Hmmmm I'm seeing some parallels here.

Sullivan is talking about junking the last twenty years of conservative effort, and your counter example goes back over 60 years.

Actually deficits in the past 20 years have been worse than what we are seeing now (as a % of GDP). Granted Bush is doing lots of "social spending" which I find rather galling, but Sullivan isn't bitching about Reagan saving SS....I'm sensing some inconsistency hear on Sullivan's part.

What can you expect from Kerry? Probably a more thoughtfull, intelligent and competent governance.

I doubt it. At best Eco_Dude is right and we'll get more gridlock and less spending. At worse we'll get even more spending, and larger deficits. As for thoughtfull, intelligent and competent governance...that just isn't in the cards.

As to your concerns about Kerry's past actions, well President Bush campaigned on one set of principles and has turned out to govern on a wholly different set that was completely unexpected, excepting of course for the vein of incompetence that was readily predicted by many.

LOL, you are proving my point. Say one thing to get elected, do another once in office. Not very encouraging.

And with Bush let me see... the economy tanked and we are currently fighting a war. Hmmmm I'm seeing some parallels here.

I'm more than happy to read your attempts at equating the Great Depression with the last 2-3 years that we've been out of recession. Also, the sacrifice and economic toll of the Iraq War to World War II. Please begin :)

As for thoughtfull, intelligent and competent governance...that just isn't in the cards.

Come on! On each count Kerry trumps Bush and we won't have to worry about god speaking through the President. “I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job."

LOL, you are proving my point. Say one thing to get elected, do another once in office. Not very encouraging.

Precisely. Kerry's platform is designed to appeal to many groups, but it will be impossible, given the constraints of limited resources and legislative support, to act on many of them, like your example of access to medical specialists. For you to judge Kerry on this campaign rhetoric, (remember of discussion a while back - all politicians lie) and give Bush a free pass is not fair.

You have to take a measure of the man, and that's where President Bush's simpleton persona works to his disadvantage. Make fun of Kerry's nuance, but I prefer it to the black and white type of thinking that seems to characterize the incumbent.

T-man:

I think we can safely guess that the deficit today, as percentage of GDP, is probably at or less than that of Reagan at this point in his first term.

I have NO DOUBT in my mind that it was worth the deficit spending on defense to help win the Cold War. And, yes, that was coming out of a major recession (not a Depression), and that was fighting a war (a renewed effort against the Soviets).

As for your "simpleton" argument, well, again, I remember Ronnie being derided as a simpleton---and worse. Calling the USSR an "evil empire," frex. Boy, you know that Walter Mondale would never have done that! And joking about nuclear war?!? Mondale would've been SOOO much more thoughtful!

Funny you should mention politicos talking---I think Mrs. Vilsack's comments might show why the Dems are actually doing a WORSE job by having her speak.

But more to the point, we can judge Kerry (and Dubya) by more than campaign promises. Kerry generally has been against every weapons program. And, no, that's not comparable to Cheney, because Cheney supported cuts AFTER the Cold War, whereas Kerry supported them DURING the Cold War. (To continue Steve's example, there's a difference between cuts in 1943 and 1946.)

Hey, if you wanna support Kerry, nobody's stopping you. And if you want to think Kerry's more competent, honest, a better lover and all-around mensch, that's up to you. But thoughtful? competent? It really is true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder....

I'm more than happy to read your attempts at equating the Great Depression with the last 2-3 years that we've been out of recession. Also, the sacrifice and economic toll of the Iraq War to World War II. Please begin :)

First off we are fighting a global war on terror, is it the same as WWII? No. But at the same time having military spending going up for this reason is not unreasonable. As for the economy the recovery was very weak in terms of the labor market. Was it as bad as the Great Depression? No. However, Sullivan said "record deficits", but it isn't and for it to be a record means it has to beat all previous deficits. it doesn't so Sullivan is full of shit. He lied, plain and simple.

Come on! On each count Kerry trumps Bush and we won't have to worry about god speaking through the President. “I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job."

Lots of people say that and while I think it is a silly thing to say, I am not upset by it either. And given the setting that quote is taken from I don't find it that odd at all.

For you to judge Kerry on this campaign rhetoric, (remember of discussion a while back - all politicians lie) and give Bush a free pass is not fair.

Shifting goal posts is boring.

I have NO DOUBT in my mind that it was worth the deficit spending on defense to help win the Cold War.

Neither do I. I was, and still am, a big Reagan supporter. Bush =! Reagan. LOL. You do a disservice to the memory of a great man to even dare make a comparison.

It really is true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder....

Alas, tis true. I supported Bush I over Dukakis, but for the life of me I can't see why people are enamored over the sons from the Bush Dynasty. Here's hoping that Jeb never runs.

As for your "simpleton" argument, well, again, I remember Ronnie being derided as a simpleton---and worse.

I don't mean to be flip, ok?, but there really is a substantive difference between an inaccurate charge and an accurate one. There is plenty of evidence that Reagan had a well formulated political philosophy and was able to communicate his message to people. The simpleton charge was thrown about by people who didn't like his message. It was a mischaracterization.

The charge against President Bush certainly has a whole lot more substance.

But at the same time having military spending going up for this reason is not unreasonable.

I don' think it's unreasonable. Why doesn't President Bush go to Congress and get the money needed to do the job rather than delaying until after the election? Maybe it's that goalpost shifting you're talking about, and maybe you're willing to be duped by it.

"Check out some of the deficits and the debt under FDR"

The difference between then and now is that FDR was president during a time when the economy was in total-war status, or whatever that phrase is. Basically, every area of the economy focused around preparing the nation to fight in a war. Deficits were a part of that. Notice how FDR, unlike Bush, decided to raise taxes.

There are plenty of conservatives who are outraged at the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush administration. With his eye always set on the next election and his party infused with a staunch tax cut orthodoxy, there doesn't appear to be much room for improvement. Are Kerry's plans going to eliminate all of the problems? Of course not. But they appear to be a step in the right direction.

"Instead he seems to have bought into the idea that Kerry is a fiscal conservative"

And you haven't done anything except yell "No! No! NOOOOOOOOOOOO!"

"But Sullivan is quite willing to ignore all of Kerry's past actions in favor of flowery campaign rhetoric. It is simply amazing that someboyd who purports to be a conservative can make such arguments in support of an obvious liberal."

Once again, you simply buy into the idea that because Kerry is a Democrat, he's fiscally irresponsible and a far leftist when it comes to economics. I think of him more as a moderate, Clinton-like Democrat, not a taller Dennis Kucinich. He supported NAFTA, for instance. Additionally, once during a primary debate, responding to Dick Gephardt's bloated health care plan, he said "The money simply isn't there." And so on.

Steve, have you read Running on Empty, by Pete Peterson? I'm in the middle of it. In it, he goes after both Democrats and Republicans, but he really rips the Bush administration a new one. And there's a reason for that.

There are plenty of conservatives who are outraged at the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush administration.

If you define what the Republican Party is today, then it's hard for me to equate fiscal conservatism with Republican values. Those people who care about fiscal management have been cast asunder and are walking in the wilderness looking for a new home. Perhaps they can emmulate the strategy of the Neocons and find a home in the Democratic Party. Afterall, President Clinton was more a fiscal conservative than is President Bush.

T-man:

In 1983, there were plenty who KNEW that the charges against Reagan were absolutely true. "Trees cause pollution," "we start bombing in 10 minutes," the Bitburg business w/ the SS graves, shoot, you STILL have people noting that Reagan kicked off his campaign in Philadelphia MS. His political philosophy was derided as being racist at best and non-existent at worst (or vice versa).

Remember double-zero, and how simplistic that was?And the conviction that Reagan meant the rise of the Christian right was far louder than any idea that he had a political philosophy OTHER than that of the Christian right.

All of which is ironic, since if I actually was pro-Dubya, I'd say that the comparisons are revealing.

But for me, it's not a matter of being especially pro-Dubya, it's a matter of picking the better of a bad lot. I lived in New England for years (including a goodly portion of the Reagan era), so I have some idea of what Kerry stood for (stands for), and he was and remains a Massachusetts liberal of the Dukakis kind. If you want a Reaganesque political philosophy, it sure as Hell ain't there.

I'm not especially enamored of Dubya, but on the matter of the war, I see no evidence that Kerry is about to become a warrior, as opposed to policeman.

Might Kerry suddenly have an epiphany upon being sworn in? Sure. But that's unlikely, given that he didn't change when he was Senator. I'd accord that about as much chance as Dubya deciding, after being sworn in again, to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But for me, it's not a matter of being especially pro-Dubya, it's a matter of picking the better of a bad lot.

And I'm the exact flip-side. I'm not pro-Kerry, it's just that he's a better man for the job than the incumbant. Both are near the bottom of the barrel if I had my druthers.

I'd accord that about as much chance as Dubya deciding, after being sworn in again, to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

How about candidate Bush being opposed to nation-building and then post-9/11 jumping into the concept with both feet.

Things have changed post-9/11. President Bush did the right thing with Afghanistan but we had no indication to believe he would do so based on his campaign rhetoric.

Kerry, given the geopolitical constraints, can't be a peacenik. He is commited to continuing the WOT.

T-man:

Your complaint regarding the fiscal conservatism aspect makes little sense.

First, what is Kerry's proposed budget, plans, and programs? As I believe Steve has done (and others), Kerry's proposed programs costs MORE than the current budget.

What has Kerry proposed to cut? He's apparently going to keep a bunch of the tax cuts, and I don't recall any cuts in programs (other than some defense ones, heh heh).

So, if he's proposing new programs and some tax cuts, where's the fiscal conservatism?

Of course, it could all be a lie (as per our earlier conversation), but on what basis would we presume that he would make cuts, if he's not prepared to raise that suggestion? The President still proposes, even if it is Congress that disposes.

More to the point, iirc, Gramm-Rudman was still in place in the early years, which forced cuts if you wanted additional spending. As with BRAC, it would be nice to get that in place again---but I wouldn't hold my breath.

IF you got an expanding economy again (and Presidents, I think we're all agreed, have little influence on that), as you did during the Clinton years, you could have that same "fiscal responsibility" of the Clinton years. That rising tide funds all boats, after all.

But in the meantime, I'm puzzled by what means you conclude that Kerry WOULD be the party of fiscal responsibility? (I'll accept a "They'd probably do no worse" argument---although, again, the Dems' proposals are all for more spending than the current Administration.)

And the fiscally responsible COULD take over the Dem Party, sure. Because the various parts of the Democratic Party (e.g., the unions, NAACP, NOW) are all such fiscally conservative types. Just be prepared to be pilloried for cutting affirmative action, reducing social welfare spending, etc.

Brian writes: "Once again, you simply buy into the idea that because Kerry is a Democrat, he's fiscally irresponsible and a far leftist when it comes to economics. I think of him more as a moderate, Clinton-like Democrat, not a taller Dennis Kucinich."

This is absolutely hilarious because, like TangoMan, you form this opinion despite all of the evidence being to the contrary.

Sure, T-man:

Given the geopolitical constraints of the Cold War, he can't be opposed to purchasing F-14s, Tomahawk cruise missiles, M-1 tanks. So, why did he?

Given the fact that 9-11 has already occurred he can't oppose the War on Terror. He can't support cutting defense programs. He can't possibly believe that the best way to prosecute the War on Terror is to take a police-action approach. So, why does he? (Remember, this is as a Senator, not an inconsequential position.)

Given the realities of French obstructionism, he can't believe that failing to get the French on-board is a sign of failed American diplomacy. So, why does he still say that failing to get the French on-board was a sign of diplomatic failure?

Given the realities of UN corruption, he can't believe that obtaining UN approval is the sine qua non for American diplomacy. So, why is getting UN approval still so important for him?

There are lots of things that he CAN'T believe. Which leaves me wondering exactly who he's appealing to, that he should stake out such positions.

Or, T-man, are you saying that, really, Kerry doesn't care about getting French approval, UN approval, would be unilateral and warlike (in a Dubya sort of way)?

Kerry, 'cuz he'll be like Dubya, only more so!

Maguire said it best: "The President's support for the FMA wasn't a straw that broke the camel's back - it was a hundred pound boulder."

It was the same thing with "The Passion of the Christ". If Mel Gibson was a pro-gay marriage modern catholic, methinks Sully would've thought the movie faaaabulous.

He's still one of my favorite writers....he's just been a one-note Johnny so much lately that I often scroll past the repeated entries.

The difference between then and now is that FDR was president during a time when the economy was in total-war status, or whatever that phrase is. Basically, every area of the economy focused around preparing the nation to fight in a war. Deficits were a part of that. Notice how FDR, unlike Bush, decided to raise taxes.

Well did you know that FDR actually would disagree with you? FDR thought deficits were really bad. So bad he was raising taxes during the depression. Is it any wonder it took 4 years to get out of the depression? Also, you have to look at magnitudes here Brian. FDR had very large deficits and the debt ballooned to record levels (for real not some bullshit talking point as the debt went to over 100% of GDP). We are nowhere near those kinds of percentages.

I like to call this perspective.

There are plenty of conservatives who are outraged at the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush administration.

Yes, I think Bush's social spending is a bad thing. I have numerous posts on it.

Are Kerry's plans going to eliminate all of the problems? Of course not. But they appear to be a step in the right direction.

If we go by what Kerry is proposing no they wont. He is proposing more spending than his tax increases will bring in in terms of revenue.

And you haven't done anything except yell "No! No! NOOOOOOOOOOOO!"

Actually if you look at Kerry's record you'll see this isn't true. Sullivan also knows this isn't true as well, but has decided to believe the campaign rhetoric.

Once again, you simply buy into the idea that because Kerry is a Democrat, he's fiscally irresponsible and a far leftist when it comes to economics.

Oh for crying out loud. You were earlier scolding me in my post where I point to something that shows Kerry is a far Lefty in terms of economics and now you want to pretend I have nothing. What a load of Bravo Sierra.

Additionally, once during a primary debate, responding to Dick Gephardt's bloated health care plan, he said "The money simply isn't there." And so on.

We can say the samething about Kerry's spending plans. The money just isn't there. Even with his tax increase it still wont be there. So is he fiscal conservative or not? Will he raise taxes even more than he is saying? Will he cut spending and if so where? Based on his record I'm a bit concerned he'll cut in the wrong places such as military spending.

I don' think it's unreasonable. Why doesn't President Bush go to Congress and get the money needed to do the job rather than delaying until after the election? Maybe it's that goalpost shifting you're talking about, and maybe you're willing to be duped by it.

The article you linked to covered it. The war in Iraq is unpopular and it could be used as by the Dems as a campaign point. Its regretable that politics is being played with such things, but what else is new.

The whole idea that Kerry is committed to prosecuting the war on terror is debunked by Kerry's vote against the funding of the Iraq operation. Kerry thought that getting his way on the Bush tax cut was more important than funding the operation.

Robin:

Shhhhhhh. Let's not talk about leaving the troops out there with no supplemental funding, so that T-man's article would be exacerbated.

After all, we don't actually know what Kerry's thinking, and he might have decided to have Teresa shove them money. Or somethin'.....

Just be prepared to be pilloried for cutting affirmative action, reducing social welfare spending, etc.

Which is why I'd much rather be a Republican, but look at how the RP values have changed over the years. They're not cutting affirmative action, nor reducing social spending. The Republican Party is enamored of tax cutting and big spending programs. Period.

I've never made the case that the Democrats are the natural party for fiscal sanity. Clinton years were an outlier but Clinton brought together a much more capable Treasury team and seemed to take the issue more responsibly. Perhaps fiscal sanity could find a home with the Democrats. If the thesis of Thomas Frank holds firm then the Republicans can go after the social conservatives and the Democrats can reform themselves into better fiscal managers. As the Neocons ascended in influence they displaced, or co-opted, traditional Republican factions. Fiscal conservatives have lost the battle within the Republican Party. Can they find a new home? Clinton's finance team showed a model of what things could look like. One data point doesn't make a trend however.

As with BRAC, it would be nice to get that in place again---but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Yeah, it would be nice. Both parties have major constituencies that like to suckle at the public teat. Big Government appeals to too many groups. It ain't gonna go bye-bye.

I'll accept a "They'd probably do no worse" argument

Which is as far as I'm going. I expect gridlock to enforce discipline.

he can't oppose the War on Terror. He can't support cutting defense programs.

Kerry voted for the war and then voted against the $87 billion appropriation. However, Kerry co-sponsored a bill that would fund the $87 billion by temporarily reversing tax cuts for those making over $400,000 per year, and that Bill failed 57-42. Kerry was trying to get the Administration to act in a fiscally responsble way. It's called pressure. Do you have an issue with that? I happen to think that finding the money to pay for gov't spending is a pretty good tactic rather than the methods used by President Bush.

So, why does he still say that failing to get the French on-board was a sign of diplomatic failure? . . So, why is getting UN approval still so important for him?

To hammer the President, of course. President Bush is too much of a lightening rod in the international community. Kerry's position is not to give the French and the UN a veto over US decisions, unlike the Canadians. Biden, Lantos, and others have made clear that they will seek a more constructive engagement but won't be tied to multilateralism. It's on the record.

The war in Iraq is unpopular and it could be used as by the Dems as a campaign point. Its regretable that politics is being played with such things, but what else is new.

Is the President a man of convictions or not? The National Review's assessment of the 2002 mid-term elections gave much credit for the Republican success to the President's position on the WOT.

The most obvious interpretation of the election results is probably the correct one: Voters were concerned about national security, and they trusted President Bush and the Republicans on the issue. Security was not the only issue; the economy was also on voters' minds. But Democrats had at best a slight edge on economics, while Republicans owned the security issue.

Huh? Did you catch that little tidbit - the NR acknowledges that the voters gave the Democrats a slight edge on economic issues. No kidding, and Republican irresponsibility has only gotten worse in these last two years.

Or as USA Today noted back on January 15, 2002:

Republicans admit that they've been boosted politically by Bush's strong reaction to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the military success in Afghanistan, and concede that their fortunes are tied to his.

The President had no hesitation in playing the war to his advantage 2 years ago, so why doesn't he stand up and take full responsibility for it now? Why not do the right thing as a man of conviction, and I'm sure god must be telling him to fund the soldiers, and get the funding for our troops. Why run away from it? Why delay the funding until after the election? This is afterall, his foreign policy masterstroke that was going to finally bury the Democrats as pu**ies on defense.

"This is absolutely hilarious because, like TangoMan, you form this opinion despite all of the evidence being to the contrary."

What evidence to the contrary? Dean was attacked on this site as being a socialist. Now Steve is attacking Kerry and Edwards for Marxist overtones.

Rather a pathetic try, TangoMan. On the $87 billion supplemental, all you did was confirm my comment. Kerry's position was that his tax policy was more important than the Iraq operation. Such a position alone disqualifies Kerry from the office of President.

As for your comments about "multilateralism", its complete nonsense. The Democrats' positions have been inconsistent where they are not merely incoherent. Since the Bush administration had a large and effective multi-lateral coalition for the Iraq operation, either the Democrats' claims are false and meaningless or they do intend to allow France and Germany a veto on our operations regardless of the fact that both are part of the "Coalition of the Bribed ( Baghdad branch )" themselves.

Toss in the fact that Kerry had to remove much of the counter-terrorism and foreign policy position papers on his website because of the contributions of established liars like Joe Wilson and black bag operatives like Sandy Berger, and the only conclusion is that John Kerry would be an unmitigated disaster as President.

"Also, you have to look at magnitudes here Brian. FDR had very large deficits and the debt ballooned to record levels (for real not some bullshit talking point as the debt went to over 100% of GDP). We are nowhere near those kinds of percentages."

Yes, I understand that. Stop pretending that I don't get the basic things.

Your problem is that you say something like, "Well, look at FDR." Yes, let's look at FDR. You rightly said that we aren't near those levels, but your entire point was that FDR had a much worse fiscal situation on his hands. That's right, but as I said above, he presided over a total-war economy. He was faced with a situation that is nothing like what we have today.

"He is proposing more spending than his tax increases will bring in in terms of revenue."

It's a step in the right direction because, while there won't be massive cuts in spending, there will be a greater amount of revenue collected.

You also have to consider exactly what this spending will accomplish. Instead of spending over $500 billion to help a minority of the elderly population get prescription drugs, he'll spend between $600-700 billion to provide millions of people with health insurance.

"Actually if you look at Kerry's record you'll see this isn't true. Sullivan also knows this isn't true as well, but has decided to believe the campaign rhetoric."

You examine things on a highly superficial level.

"Oh for crying out loud. You were earlier scolding me in my post where I point to something that shows Kerry is a far Lefty in terms of economics and now you want to pretend I have nothing."

I'm saying similar things. You don't have much because all you do is examine things on a superficial level (i.e. "Kerry/Edwards...marxist...")

"The money just isn't there. Even with his tax increase it still wont be there. So is he fiscal conservative or not? Will he raise taxes even more than he is saying? Will he cut spending and if so where? Based on his record I'm a bit concerned he'll cut in the wrong places such as military spending."

Did you not hear of his plan to raise taxes on people making over $200,000?

As for his spending cuts, I can't say where he will cut spending. I surely hope that when he wins, he can forge a successful bond between moderate Republicans, such as Snowe, Voinovich, DeWine, Specter, Collins and McCain, and the Democrats to rein in the absurdly large pork spending that's been going on over the past few years.

And what about his military spending/intelligence cuts? He hasn't proposed ridiculously large defense spending cuts, a la Kucinich, nor has he done things like that in the past. If he has cut spending, it's been by minor amounts, a billion here or there. And by and large, he's wasn't alone; Bush and Cheney don't tell you that a lot of other congressmen did just that.

He'll forge a bond, Brian? That's pretty hilarious since Kerry's career in Congress has been a pathetic case study of Kerry's inability to "forge bonds" with anyone to get anything done legislatively.

The most pathetic part of this whole campaign is the juvenile way in which the Democratic Party has pursued the White House. The Democratic Party has really only had a single theme, a hatred of George Bush founded solely in irrationality. The whole ABB meme is based on a view of George Bush that has no foundation in reality. He is castigated as some Neandertal "Right Winger" - a description at complete odds with the actual record of his administration.

But reality is the last thing that Democrats wish to actually perceive. The Democratic primary was dominated by a bizarre, almost childish, wish to click their heels together and project themselves into the passion that they had in 2000. A time when the world was a conspiracy run by the Republican Supreme Court and the Democrats had all never heard of Al Queda. Their utter lack of seriousness is typified by the actions of the entire group of Democrat candidates - not least by Kerry depending for "advice" on lightweight whose failures have already been made evident. Evident in the way that Democrats played dangerous games on the 9/11 Commission with Jamie Gorelick's outrageous conflict of interest and BenVeniste's cheap theatrics around the August 2001 PDB. And Kerry's lack of seriousness was made evident in the famous vote on the $87 billion supplemental where Kerry felt free to play silly games around posturing on the tax cuts. An utter lack of seriousness.

We cannot afford to allow our government to fall into the hands of these adolescents.

" That's pretty hilarious since Kerry's career in Congress has been a pathetic case study of Kerry's inability to 'forge bonds' with anyone to get anything done legislatively."

Talk to John McCain.

You describe a nice little fantasy there, Robin, but your comments can barely be taken seriously. But there's very little point in arguing on that front, so let's move on to something else.

"And Kerry's lack of seriousness was made evident in the famous vote on the $87 billion supplemental where Kerry felt free to play silly games around posturing on the tax cuts. An utter lack of seriousness."

What do you have to say about mounting deficits crippling out ability to fund and perform not merely domestic services but international and defense services?

--The only valid reason for voting for Kerry might be to bring back gridlock to Congress, which may not be such a bad thing afterall.--

That and it will hopefull keep Evita from darkening the Oval Office doorway....

---As to your concerns about Kerry's past actions, well President Bush campaigned on one set of principles and has turned out to govern on a wholly different set that was completely unexpected,--

Umm, actually, Tango, that's not really true. Somewhere in the great blogosphere is a post about what W said he was going to do and what he did. And darned, on the whole, he did what he said he was going to do during the campaign.

Trusting the Supremes to save your ass and gut the Constitution, tho, I'm still pissed about that.

Tango, you need to talk to Samuel over at Roger Simon's place.

If he is what he says he is, Kerry is not the man for this job.

And how about the Vets who were with Kerry or over him or under him?

Did you ever read what they have to say about him?

Has anyone read this?

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/04/01/poole.pdf

A Perspective on US International Capital Flows.

Econopundit has wondered aloud about this on occasion.

"You describe a nice little fantasy there, Robin, but your comments can barely be taken seriously. But there's very little point in arguing on that front, so let's move on to something else."

In other words, you are again bereft of arguments.

"What do you have to say about mounting deficits crippling out ability to fund and perform not merely domestic services but international and defense services? "

What I say, Brian, is that your exaggerations are as silly as the rest of your comments. As a historic percentage of our GDP, the best measure of our economy's ability to support them, the current deficits are boringly low.

Now Steve is attacking Kerry and Edwards for Marxist overtones.

Brian, you aren't even trying to dispute the facts, you simply want to attack me for pointing out the implications of their policies. "Steve is a meanie for calling Dean a socialist, and Kerry/Edwards Marxists." Never mind if there is even some evidence supporting that view.

Yes, I understand that. Stop pretending that I don't get the basic things.

Then start acting like you understand basic things.

Your problem is that you say something like, "Well, look at FDR." Yes, let's look at FDR. You rightly said that we aren't near those levels, but your entire point was that FDR had a much worse fiscal situation on his hands. That's right, but as I said above, he presided over a total-war economy. He was faced with a situation that is nothing like what we have today.

And you have successfully shifted the goalposts. The point was about the magnitude of the deficit. Is it the largest? No. Even excluding the war years it still isn't clear that the deficit has gotten as large as the largest peace time deficits as a percentage of GDP. Can't you admit that your side is misleading on this one?

It's a step in the right direction because, while there won't be massive cuts in spending, there will be a greater amount of revenue collected.

You say you "understand basics" but then you write stuff like this. Let me spell it out for you in simple terms.

Even. After. Raising. Taxes. When. The. Additional. Spending. Is. Factored. In. The. Deficit. Will. Increase.

Did you get that. If this is a step in the right direction, then Bush's policies are even more so of a step in the right direction. That is if we take Kerry at his word, which I'm not sure we can.

There are several possibilities here:

1. Raise taxes
2. Cut Spending
3. Both
4. Letting the deficit increase.

I'm opposed to simply raising taxes. I'm opposed to letting the deficit increase. I'd consider 3, but I want to see where the cuts are going to be made, but since Kerry isn't telling us that is kind of hard. Number 2 is right out for Kerry as it would piss of his own party. I don't think he'll risk this because of Nader.

Did you not hear of his plan to raise taxes on people making over $200,000?

Huh, huh, huh...gee willy no.

You also have to consider exactly what this spending will accomplish. Instead of spending over $500 billion to help a minority of the elderly population get prescription drugs, he'll spend between $600-700 billion to provide millions of people with health insurance.

Oh...so, it isn't really the deficit it is what it is spent on. How much of that $500 million was due to the recession Brian? How much of that $500 million was due to increased military expenditures? Come Mr. DeepAnalysis regale us with your deep knowledge of these issues.

I'm saying similar things. You don't have much because all you do is examine things on a superficial level (i.e. "Kerry/Edwards...marxist...")

Liar.

As for his spending cuts, I can't say where he will cut spending. I surely hope that when he wins, he can forge a successful bond between moderate Republicans, such as Snowe, Voinovich, DeWine, Specter, Collins and McCain, and the Democrats to rein in the absurdly large pork spending that's been going on over the past few years.

So how is the weather there on planet Remulack?

Remulack? No, he's from France.

"And how about the Vets who were with Kerry or over him or under him?"

Quite a few veterans of Vietnam and other soldiers in the armed forces are supporting John Kerry. The main organization that is against him, the same one that attacked John McCain, doesn't have any members that served with him, according to what I've read.

"In other words, you are again bereft of arguments."

Not at all. I'm just not going to get into an argument with someone over hysterical comments like that, just like I wouldn't expect you to debate with someone who equates Bush with Hitler every five minutes.

"What I say, Brian, is that your exaggerations are as silly as the rest of your comments. As a historic percentage of our GDP, the best measure of our economy's ability to support them, the current deficits are boringly low."

Deficits aren't a problem today, but they will be shortly. If you follow this stuff as closely as someone in your position (meaning a political junkie) should, you have to know that.

"Brian, you aren't even trying to dispute the facts, you simply want to attack me for pointing out the implications of their policies. 'Steve is a meanie for calling Dean a socialist, and Kerry/Edwards Marxists.' Never mind if there is even some evidence supporting that view."

That's a gross distortion of what I said. I couldn't care less if you are mean to Kerry and Edwards. The problem that I have is that I see someone like you, someone who wants to be taken seriously, making these heated comments without any thorough analysis. You settle for the superficial.

"And you have successfully shifted the goalposts. The point was about the magnitude of the deficit. Is it the largest? No. Even excluding the war years it still isn't clear that the deficit has gotten as large as the largest peace time deficits as a percentage of GDP. Can't you admit that your side is misleading on this one?"

Two things. First, I am not changing the goal posts. If you want to compare the deficits of Bush (including those that aren't yet apparent), you have to discuss why they came about. FDR had a sensible reason for running such massive deficits: World War II. Bush doesn't have anything of that magnitude. Sure, the deficits aren't as large, but they aren't economically sensible. Second, you should know that the deficit problem isn't perfectly apparent today. It will become more and more apparent as time, because, among other things, that's when costs of the programs passed under Bush really start to add up. It's bad now and will only get worse, so over time, it should contrast more heavily to a higher percentage of GDP.

"Huh, huh, huh...gee willy no."

That was another shallow analysis that barely used an interesting piece. That link, of course, said the deficits wouldn't be as bad under Kerry as they would be under Bush. However, as the link said, the work was very preliminary.

"Oh...so, it isn't really the deficit it is what it is spent on."

That's not a coherent sentence.

"How much of that $500 million was due to the recession Brian? How much of that $500 million was due to increased military expenditures? "

You've made this very good point in the past. Bush isn't, of course, responsible for all of the deficit problems. A lot of it was due to the recession and terrorist attacks. All in all, he's responsible for at least a third, if what I've read is right.

As for military spending, I'm not sure how much of the military spending is accounted for in the current budget. I remember reading that it wasn't, but I could be wrong.

"Liar."

What am I lying about?

"So how is the weather there on planet Remulack?"

It won't be easy, but the Democrats have an outside chance of taking back the Senate. Even if they don't, they shouldn't see a huge movement downward; I'd say it's likely that they gain at least one seat.

A few years ago, I remember seeing Snowe and Voinovich, among others, arguing on television for a trigger for the tax cuts. And didn't McCain vote against at least one, if not both, of the tax cuts?

With that in mind, let's say the Democrats have 49 seats (with Independent Sen. Jeffords included in that list) and the Republicans have 51. Surely, two or three, such as Snowe and Voinovich, could help the Democrats restore a little fiscal sanity. Add Chaffee and Hagel to that list of senators, too.

And while the the more militantly conservative House would be harder to work with, it's not out of the realm of possibility, especially if the Democrats gain a few seats.

Folks,

For those who tour the blogosphere, let me suggest that Brian is a slightly more polite version of Robert McClelland.

That is, a troll.

And the easiest, best thing to do w/ trolls is to shun them.

What am I lying about?

I did not call Kerry and Edwards Marxist, but their policies have the odor of Marxism about them. It is called a matter of degree--i.e., you have taken my post and extended it beyond it initial claim to make it easier to attack. Further, you have provided nothing to rebut the initial claim. Your comments are inane and vacuous.

That's a gross distortion of what I said. I couldn't care less if you are mean to Kerry and Edwards. The problem that I have is that I see someone like you, someone who wants to be taken seriously, making these heated comments without any thorough analysis. You settle for the superficial.

Heated? I wouldn't be the slightest upset if you called me a capitalist, pro-market, or some such. Why should Kerry be upset if I note that some of Kerry's policies have a strong whiff of Marxism?

Two things. First, I am not changing the goal posts. If you want to compare the deficits of Bush (including those that aren't yet apparent), you have to discuss why they came about.

No. I have plenty of posts where I have already done that. I don't have to write a master's thesis on Bush's deficits.

FDR had a sensible reason for running such massive deficits: World War II.

No I don't. My point isn't that Bush doesn't have high deficits, but that the claim that they are record breakers is false. Even excluding war years would not change this. You want to move the goal posts to this idea of why there were deficits then and now. That is irrelevant. The claim that these are record breaking deficits is false.

That was another shallow analysis that barely used an interesting piece. That link, of course, said the deficits wouldn't be as bad under Kerry as they would be under Bush. However, as the link said, the work was very preliminary.

You dope. There were three links in that response to multi-pargraph posts by me that actually pull data from other sources. You are such a liar it is most ammusing. As for the deficits the only way we can not end up deeper in debt is if there is too much gridlock.

That's not a coherent sentence.

Your reading problems are not my concern.

Tangoman, the link you have on Fallujah is a completely incompetent analysis of the policy there. It doesn't even understand much less address the policy reasons for not having the Marines "take the city by storm". I'm not surprised that you don't understand the policy at all.

"And the easiest, best thing to do w/ trolls is to shun them."

I don't understand what the problem is. I'm trying to discuss things with the people who come to this site, just like everyone else.

"It is called a matter of degree--i.e., you have taken my post and extended it beyond it initial claim to make it easier to attack. Further, you have provided nothing to rebut the initial claim."

Uh, no. You can say their plans have "Marxist" overtones or that they smell of "Marxism." I know you didn't say that are Marxists. You just imply it.

As for your initial claim, it's up to you to prove it. So far, you haven't anything but rhetoric.

"I wouldn't be the slightest upset if you called me a capitalist, pro-market, or some such."

The problem is that nobody uses those words, outside of the far fringe left, in a negative way. Practically everyone else throws around "socialist" like it's interchangable with "mothercucker" or "son of a bitch."

"Further, you have provided nothing to rebut the initial claim. Your comments are inane and vacuous."

You haven't proved the claims, so thus, there's nothing to refute.

"Why should Kerry be upset if I note that some of Kerry's policies have a strong whiff of Marxism?"

Do I have to explain this?

Because he's not a Marxist. He's a capitalist, albeit with different views than some.

"No. I have plenty of posts where I have already done that. I don't have to write a master's thesis on Bush's deficits."

I didn't see it above, but I will take your word that you did it before.

In any event, even if it's not discussed in detail, it needs to be mentioned, because a context needs to be provided. You failed to provide such a context.

"My point isn't that Bush doesn't have high deficits, but that the claim that they are record breakers is false. Even excluding war years would not change this. You want to move the goal posts to this idea of why there were deficits then and now. That is irrelevant. The claim that these are record breaking deficits is false."

In some ways, yes.

But the real problem is that the deficits of this country, because of Bush, are going to become record-breakers.

"You dope. There were three links in that response to multi-pargraph posts by me that actually pull data from other sources. You are such a liar it is most ammusing. As for the deficits the only way we can not end up deeper in debt is if there is too much gridlock."

What have I lied about?

"Your reading problems are not my concern."

I don't have reading problems. If you could actually type grammatically correct sentences all the time, then they might be a little bit easier to understand.

Uh, no. You can say their plans have "Marxist" overtones or that they smell of "Marxism." I know you didn't say that are Marxists. You just imply it.

Oh...so saying it has Marxist overtones implies they are full bore Marxist. Does it hurt to think like this?

As for your initial claim, it's up to you to prove it. So far, you haven't anything but rhetoric.

Saying that people who have a need should have a right to have that need fulfilled is very much in line with Marxism. Q.E.D.

Short proofs are not necessarily wrong.

The problem is that nobody uses those words, outside of the far fringe left, in a negative way. Practically everyone else throws around "socialist" like it's interchangable with "mothercucker" or "son of a bitch."

I thought we were talking about Marxism. You don't think that saying the following:

If you need something you have a right to have that need fulfilled isn't vaguely Marxist?

Do I have to explain this?

Because he's not a Marxist. He's a capitalist, albeit with different views than some.

Ha ha ha ha ha. Stop that...I'm gonna bust a gut.

In any event, even if it's not discussed in detail, it needs to be mentioned, because a context needs to be provided. You failed to provide such a context.

No. I'm not going to link to every post I have written that might be related to a new post.

In some ways, yes.

No, in the most important way.

But the real problem is that the deficits of this country, because of Bush, are going to become record-breakers.

Maybe, but that wasn't what Al Gore and the Democrats have been saying, is it now (by the way, this is a 'yes' or 'no' type question, anything else is moving the goal posts...heck so is saying 'no' for that matter).

What have I lied about?

That I have provided a superficial analysis. Quite the contrary, I have looked at Kerry's tax plan/budget plans in at least three posts. Those three posts rely on the work of others and data and are fairly detailed.

I don't have reading problems. If you could actually type grammatically correct sentences all the time, then they might be a little bit easier to understand.

Oh, you mean like this one of yours?

The problem is that nobody uses those words, outside of the far fringe left, in a negative way. Practically everyone else throws around "socialist" like it's interchangable with "mothercucker"[sic] or "son of a bitch."

What is a mothercucker? That sentence makes no sense. Perhaps if you wrote grammatically correct sentences all the time you'd get more respect....Bwa ha ha ha ha.

Steve:

Brian is up to his old tricks.

Ask the same (stupid) question over and over, ignore all answers, ask for you to prove the same point (over and over), then whine and complain and move the goalposts some more.

I'm still waiting to hear that it's his room-mate, or the kid down the hall, or maybe a professor who logged onto his computer and left messages and won't you please, please, please just address this point ONE MORE TIME.

It's a pity that eight months have resulted in not one synapse firing one more discharge.

But then again, it's summer, so perhaps he's trying out his remedial skills now (or maybe he's forgotten to take his Ritalin w/o the school nurse to watch over him).

I suggest (respectfully) that you (and Robin and others) ignore him.

You have a point, Dean. He's clearly dishonest.

"Remulack? No, he's from France."

Actually, I'm Scottish/English, Irish, Norwegian, Swedish, and Austrian (although the town where those ancestors came from is now in Slovenia, according to one of my aunts).

But anyway, it's nice to see someone who doesn't resort to childish tactics. How refreshing.

Oh, and Dean. He doesn't get Saturday Night Live references either.

"Oh...so saying it has Marxist overtones implies they are full bore Marxist. Does it hurt to think like this?"

You are trying very hard to nail for something, yet each time, you fail.

You are trying to align them to a failed, reviled ideology. You don't present solid facts, but merely say that it looks that way. You're doing something akin to saying, "Well, I'm not saying such-and-such, but...."

"Saying that people who have a need should have a right to have that need fulfilled is very much in line with Marxism."

Then both parties are Marxists, I guess.

"Short proofs are not necessarily wrong."

You haven't proved anything.

"If you need something you have a right to have that need fulfilled isn't vaguely Marxist?"

If we are talking about the vague nature of things, why don't we explore the vague nature of democracy? Its basic tenets include things that are available for all. We can say the same thing about capitalism.

(Of course, I am not putting the two on equal footing. Capitalism is clearly better.)

"Ha ha ha ha ha. Stop that...I'm gonna bust a gut."

Over what?

"No. I'm not going to link to every post I have written that might be related to a new post."

I am not asking you to post every link.

"No, in the most important way."
+
"Maybe, but that wasn't what Al Gore and the Democrats have been saying, is it now (by the way, this is a 'yes' or 'no' type question, anything else is moving the goal posts...heck so is saying 'no' for that matter)."

Oh, well, thanks for trying to define the terms of debate so that you can get an answer that you would like.

The money has already been spent or given away, even if it hasn't been revealed in the deficit numbers. Some legislation hasn't rung up the costs yet, but it has already been passed. And because he hasn't had the courage to press forward with some policy proposals (the same can be said about my party, to be fair), time to do something about entitlement programs was lost.

"That I have provided a superficial analysis. Quite the contrary, I have looked at Kerry's tax plan/budget plans in at least three posts. Those three posts rely on the work of others and data and are fairly detailed."

First, that's my opinion. Second, the number of posts you make doesn't necessarily indicate how deep your analysis is. Third, I don't think your responses were detailed, but again, that's just what I think.

"Oh, you mean like this one of yours?"

Okay, you got me. I made a typo, something that was glaringly obvious.

Then both parties are Marxists, I guess.

I wouldn't disagree is you had actually written "both parties have Marxist tendencies in some of their policies."

Instead you keep making it out to be that I have called them Marxists, which I haven't. I've told you I haven't called them Marxist, yet you keep saying I have. This makes you a liar.

You haven't proved anything.

So you don't think the rhetoric sounds similar to Marxist rhetoric? That is your problem not mine.

If we are talking about the vague nature of things, why don't we explore the vague nature of democracy? Its basic tenets include things that are available for all. We can say the same thing about capitalism.

What the fuck are you talking about? This makes no sense.

Oh, well, thanks for trying to define the terms of debate so that you can get an answer that you would like.

Look dipshit, that was what Gore said. He claimed the deficts are record breakers. They aren't when you use the most reasonable measure. I don't see what is so hard about this.

The money has already been spent or given away, even if it hasn't been revealed in the deficit numbers. Some legislation hasn't rung up the costs yet, but it has already been passed. And because he hasn't had the courage to press forward with some policy proposals (the same can be said about my party, to be fair), time to do something about entitlement programs was lost.

What the fuck are you talking about? The latest estimates for the deficit place it well below the 5% of GDP level. That means it wont be close to being a record breaker, or the largets ever. Now, if GDP suddenly tanks, or spending suddenly skyrockets it could happen. But you are once again shifting goal posts. The claim was that the budgets (2001, 2002, 2003) were the highest ever. In absolute dollar that is true, but that ignores economic growth as well as inflation. You know it is misleading, yet you just can't admit you were wrong.

First, that's my opinion. Second, the number of posts you make doesn't necessarily indicate how deep your analysis is. Third, I don't think your responses were detailed, but again, that's just what I think.

Here is my opinion: You are completely wrong on virtually all counts. You have nothing to back up your claims.