I used to think Steve was pretty smart, but now I think he is just another dumb punk rocker. He is so passionate about his milquetoast and moderate political views, that I am more amused than disgusted (but I am somewhat disgusted). I don't care if he went to Northwestern. I work with quite a few people from Northwestern and Stanford, and have found that these "elite" schools stay elite because they have high rates of student retention. This means they inflate grades so that no one flunks out, which means you don't have to study that hard. As far as admissions, they are willing to admit the dumbest a-holes that can throw a ball... All top schools have made it a policy to favor activities like student government, sports, etc. over grades and test scores, because "too many Asians" were being admitted. So Northwestern doesn't mean shit when he clearly has a high school grasp of politics. His politics seem to be inline with that of people who attend elite private schools – the Hoover Institution and its Northwestern analogue. The guy is a capitalist – he owns the means of production at EAR, and in my opinion a $25,000 a year salary is virtually slave labor in Chicago. Steve taking that salary himself is like the Google founders paying themselves $1 a year in salary. Steve could probably do fine without the $25k… It’s Dale Carnegie tactics -- the fake representation of being “one of the people”.
Did anyone see the video clip of Nancy Pilosi talking about the plan to withdraw from Iraq by the fall of 2008 (during election season... Good idea, let the troops get shot at until it is time for the election. Cool!)? Unfortunately, I could not find it on YouTube. If anyone finds it, please post it. Listen to what she says at the end…
The funniest thing is that after she says by the fall of 2008, she says "or around that time". This legislation also does not prevent the troop surge that Bush proposes. It simply legitimizes another two years of warfare, which plays right into the Republican's agenda. Sure, they will make a show of how unpatriotic this is, but they are given the green light for 21 months of warfare. The Republicans are secretly quite happy about this.
There are 70 Democrats in the house who are outraged about this. Good for them. Nancy Pelosi doesn't represent her constituency in San Francisco or the public. She represents Chevron, Halliburton, and other interest groups.
Ralph is 100% correct, and called her on it. This speech was delivered a month ago. She went with her interest groups and ignored her public constituents. Our government isn't a democracy... Not even a republic. It is run by interest groups. This is what is known as the "iron triangle" in political science, in case you are interested in the academic side of politics. If you are into punditry, then go ahead and listen to Randi Rhodes’ cheerleader act for the Democrats. Why not get some pom-poms and join in?
As far as the notion that people like me allow the Republicans to stay in power, I should mention this is the same thinking the Republicans employ -- if you are against the war, you support Al Queda. The Democrats say if you are critical of them, you support the Republicans. So here is another area where both parties operate at the same level. They both marginalize anyone critical of them by saying if you don't support us, you support the enemy. The problem is, by supporting the Democrats, you send the message that it is OK for them to lie about health care, fixing global waming, ending the war in Iraq, and stopping the genocide in Darfur.
The Democrats have constantly harassed Nader about how he lost them the elections. I saw Nader on the Daily Show recently, and he asked why are they picking on him when the Republicans stole the election? Which one is it? The 57,000 people who were denied the right to vote in Florida by Database Technologies, or the handful of people who voted for Nader in Florida? What about the fact that the courts called off the recount and determined the election? And the Democrats pick on Nader? Nader is proof that people like me are completely disgusted with the Democrats and do not feel represented. Only 1 in 4 Americans trust the government.
To address the idea that war is an executive decision and not something determined at the ballot box, there is some confusion about the War Powers Act. This act allows the president to start a war for 60 days without Congressional approval. The fact that there is war after these 60 days is because both Democrats and Republicans voted to go to war and continually voted to fund it.Yes, even the “liberal” Hillary Clinton. If you already forgot the last promises from the midterm elections, when the Democrats pledged to end the war, and the Republicans distanced themselves from Bush and Iraq, then you will probably think that the war is not determined at the ballot box. To a certain extent, this is true, because the Democrats said what they needed to say to get elected. Once in power, they legitimize the war for 21 more months. They act on behalf of those that gave them money. Your vote doesn’t matter, because with money they get the power to lie to you some more… And you eat it up! People actually think Clinton is a liberal now? In what way?!?
As far as "what would Clinton do if he was president from 2000 - 2008", here is my best guess based on what he has said in the press recently, as well as the actions of past Democrats during times of war. If you think Clinton is a liberal, you are misinformed and basing this view on a false notion that Democrats are the leftist party. They are not. They are a middle of the road party with a handful of leftists who are marginalized.
1. Clinton said he would have 200,000 troops on the ground. So both Clinton and Bush would have a war.Clinton would have the troops in Afghanistan mostly, but also other areas in the Middle East. This is the finest example of Tweedledum vs. Tweedledee (as my political economy professors would put it, though they could really be schooled by a journalist/recording engineer)
2. With 200,000 troops on the ground, you get back into deficit spending. So both presidents would generate a deficit.
3. Clinton gave tax breaks to corporations. Both presidents support fiscal policy that benefits the rich. Both presidents support trade policy that makes it easy for cheap products to be imported, with little parity on the export side. The Chinese do not buy American – they steal it. They pirate our media and do not buy our durable goods or agricultural products. Both presidents support tax breaks for corporations to offshore American jobs. Kerry flat out said this is the free market, and more jobs will be generated in America because of the offshoring. Interesting… Tax breaks and subsidies are evidence of a free market? Skull and bones anyone? Does the fact that the two candidates in the last election were from the same secret society at the same university maybe make you wonder how different these guys really are?
4. Clinton cut welfare, so he would also continue to harm the poor. Can you say “father issues”?
5. As far as losing our civil liberties, the great New Deal liberal, FDR, interred Japanese Americans during WWII. FDR was far more liberal than Clinton could hope to be. So I cannot assume that Clinton would protect civil liberties. JFK had no problem ignoring international and domestic law that the United States cannot assassinate foreign leaders. He made several attempts to assassinate Castro, and his "secret" war (Operation Mongoose) had a lot to do with Castro asking for protection from the Soviets, which led up to the closest we have come to Armageddon ever. Democrats have a spotty record of protecting civil liberties and an even worse record of promoting international security. JFK was a rich elitist – the benefactor of a family that made its wealth smuggling booze during prohibition. The ACLU is just as busy during a Democratic regime. I could see Clinton allowing the FBI to spy and wiretap Americans without due process, because it is a time of war and the U.S. was attacked. Maybe he would inter Muslim Americans? I’d like to say I doubt this, but this is what “liberal” Democrats have done in the past, and FDR is probably the most likeable and progressive president ever…
6. As far as the environment, the Kyoto talks took place during Clinton's reign. Didn't sign off on it, etc. Gore has a nice movie, but doesn't practice what he preaches. Gore does buy offsets to make up for his $30,000 a year utility bill. The whole concept of this free market trading of pollution vs. non-polluters came about during the first George (Herbert-Walker) Bush administration. So he uses George Bush's economics of pollution to wash his hands of the pollution he personally generates. Even Hollywood stars are more environmentally conscientious than Gore, and they make better movies too. Paying $10 and driving to the theater to be reprimanded by a hypocrite is simply ridiculous. I just want to smack him towards the end of that movie when he goes into that “it might be inconvenient, but you have to consume less”. He says it in that demeaning tone that makes me want to kick his head in. No, Gore, you need to stop taking money from interest groups and regulate business so they stop polluting and give us products that are more efficient. I cannot design, develop and market an electric car. This is something for the government and industry to do. Don’t put the onus on me, especially when you have a $30,000 utility bill and are chauffeured around in a gas guzzling stretch limo. Even Hollywood movie stars worth tens of millions of dollars will drive themselves in hybrid cars (which are a scam, but that’s another story).
Beyond that, Hillary says she will stop global warming. How? The UN released a report a few weeks ago that concludes this is simply not possible. It will take centuries even if we stop all carbon emissions. Of course, the Democrats are very good at ignoring the UN. They continue to say the Republicans led them into Iraq, while the UN was saying there were no WMD's there – we checked! But, you see, the Democrats rely on idiots like many of you, so they can re-write history and blame the other party, when they were simply operating on behalf of their campaign contributors -- Halliburton, oil companies, etc. Even if they were truly misled by the Republicans, and Hans Blix and the UN didn’t exist, they are still morons for believing the Republicans. They should know that the Republicans lie just as much as they do. But of course, we know they were simply dishonest when they said the Republicans convinced them to vote for the war. The rest of the world knew there were no WMD’s, and it was on CNN and even CNN Headline news every day for months before the war. Are these sources of news too “high brow” and intellectual for the Democrats? Or maybe they were just too busy with that grueling workaholic schedule that our legislators have to maintain…
I think you should vote for the Democrats if you want to. They do throw the odd bone to the underdog once in a while. Yes, they raised the minimum wage, and this is great, but not even close to where it should be (for the benefit of rich and poor alike – “priming the pump”, as Keynes put it). But if you think they are liberals or against the war or in favor of the middle class, you are sadly mistaken.
This phenomenon you see illustrated above occurred just as well under Clinton as it did under Reagan and Bush.
If you think the Democrats are some great political party, you are fooling yourself. Most of you just want to spend your 1 hour of voting every 2-4 years, and feel good about yourselves. You buy the leftist Democratic punditry on Air America and the hypocrite nonsense about the environment that Gore is spouting, but not following himself.
Well, pat yourselves on the back for electing the Democrats into congress. Now Americans and Iraqis are dying until the 2008 elections. Almost 2 more years of this war has been approved by the Democrats. THIS IS NOT A PLAN TO WITHDRAW. IT IS A PLAN TO SUSTAIN THE WAR FOR 2 MORE YEARS.
This time frame is no accident. It gives enough time to secure the oil interests in Iraq, and the troops will come home just as people are heading to the polls. It is not even compromise. I’m surprised the Republicans didn’t write this piece of legislation themselves.
If you think this is really cool and significantly different than what the Republicans do, you are simply high. Enjoy your kielbasa burritos, and remember “don’t stop thinkin’ about tomorrow…”