Lowering the Bar

From a Karl Rove speech today surveying the GOP's last 40 years of emerging from the wilderness (emphasis mine):

Republicans rebuilt our national defenses; cut taxes and spurred economic growth; ended "stagflation"; limited government's growth; reformed welfare and insisted on accountability and high standards in education; took important steps to protect and strengthen marriage and the family; and stood up against judicial activism and for constitutionalism.

I'm old enough to remember when Republicans at least feigned interest in limiting government, not its growth … but that was before the party became (in Rove's words) "forward-leaning and dominant," and also before Rove's client boosted discretionary spending by an LBJ-topping 35%.

Meanwhile, from the same event, some grumbling:

"We've seen the enemy, and he is us," said Tom Rath, a Republican National Committee member from New Hampshire describing the sentiments of some GOP voters. "We have to get back to the basics. Let's talk about small government and reduced spending, and don't let the Democrats take those issues."

Comments

[downstater]

Let's talk about small government and reduced spending, and don't let the Democrats take those issues."

see, this is what drives me nuts. let's talk about it - not because we believe in it or actually plan to do something about it - but let's just talk about it so that the democrats can't. that way, we can keep using it to be elected.

[6Gun]

When the Bush Admin can justify how it could not refuse big pharma's lobby's still-active plans to psychoanalyze and medicate schoolkids as a condition of their statist schooling, then I'll think about believing this rubbish.

[John]

First, downstater, I think there is a better chance of George Bush and Osama Bin Laden running off to Vermont to get married than the Democrats ever even pretending to embrace small government.

The Republicans have the same problem most of the American public has, everyone hates big government unless and of course when big government is solving your pet problem or getting you or your buddies rich, then its "good government". The only way to keep politicians from spending our money is not to give it to them in the first place.

[Eddy]

For some reason the GOP keeps sending me opinion surveys and they keep going back with endless bitching attached. I wonder if they actually read it since I don't send them the $11 "processing cost". Those arseholes should pay me for the advice.

[Stephen Macklin]

The only way to keep politicians from spending our money is not to give it to them in the first place.

Since when has not having the money ever stopped the government from spending it?

[mediageek]

A few nights ago, I was really bored, so I skimmed through a 90 page document on the military that was published by the Project for a New American Century, and damned if it didn't read like a checklist of things this administration has done.

Among the interesting high points brought up in the paper:
Increasing military spending to just shy of 4% of GDP and establishing a permanent military presence in the Middle East.

[mediageek]

Oh, sorry, meant to mention that the document was published in 2000.

[Ken Shultz]

First, downstater, I think there is a better chance of George Bush and Osama Bin Laden running off to Vermont to get married than the Democrats ever even pretending to embrace small government.

AKA, Kerry would have been worse? ...I don't think so. Divided government might not be the only solution, but it's the only solution that might have worked with this character deficient President.

Since when has not having the money ever stopped the government from spending it?

Divided government can help, and, by the way, I think it was when Bush Sr. punted on the Laffer Curve that I changed my identification from Republican to Libertarian. "Dukakis would have been worse." wouldn't have done it for me back then either.

[Rick Barton]

Dude, I want my party back. The liberal, big spending, war mongering, neocon guided Bush administration might as well Democrats.

I think there is a better chance of George Bush and Osama Bin Laden running off to Vermont to get married.

I don't think that's the hypothetical you want to invoke. With the timing and content of Osama's announcements looking like they were specifically designed to help Bush, I'm guessing that they may not be sworn enemies at all. Something's fishy there.

[Phil]

Of course, they didn't actually do any of these things; they performed remarkable facsimiles that duped a lot of party loyalists, or in some cases did the outright opposite: reformed welfare and insisted on accountability and high standards in education; took important steps to protect and strengthen marriage and the family; and stood up against judicial activism and for constitutionalism.

[thoreau]

I'm going to offer a crazy theory: I think the Democrats could some day become the party of small government.

Let me rephrase that: I think the Democrats might some day succeed in persuading the voters that they are the party of small government. Sort of like the way that the GOP persuaded voters for decades (and many to this very day) that they were the party of small government.

Before you scoff too much, what if in 1960 I had told you that some day a guy from New England, running as a Republican, would sweep the South against a Democrat from Tennessee?

What if in the glory days of the Reagan administration I had told you that welfare reform (or some semblance thereof) would happen with a Democrat in the White House?

And what if I had told you in 1995, with the Contract With American front and center in public attention, that the largest expansion of the welfare state since LBJ would be signed by a GOP President after GOP Congressional leaders twisted arms to pass it?

Libertarian rhetoric is easy when you're the party out of power. Sustained hegemony breeds bloat, and will eventually scare the small-l libertarians away from the GOP.

Civil libertarians may become more prominent in the Democratic party if the police state becomes a permanent fixture of American life. We've been told that this war on terror may last forever, and we've been told that the Bush administration's policies are necessary in time of war.

The sheer insanity of the current level of spending may move the opposition party to start whispering about spending cuts. (It's easy to call for spending cuts when you don't get to do any of the spending.) And generational warfare may drive younger voters to demand entitlement reform. I know that all of the talk of entitlement reform currently comes from the GOP, but how much action comes from the GOP? Give them another decade of hegemony, and they'll be thoroughly wedded to the status quo.

So the Dems might actually become the (alleged) party of smaller government. Of course, here's the catch: Once the Dems regain power (with the help of voters who were promised small government), they'll do the exact same shit. It happened with Bush, and if the Dems pretend to switch sides it will happen with them as well.

[joe]

Bush's poll numbers are an LBJ-topping 35%, too.

[John]

No they are not Joe. God, you really do live in an alternate reality.

As far neither party being the party of small government, the American public has no one to blame but themselves. When the Republicans actually embraced small government and tried to do something about the entitlement disaster and went to the wall with Clinton shutting down the government in 1995, they were derrided as scrouges out to throw grandma into the street and saw their poll numbers go through the floor and Clinton get re-elected the next fall.

In that sense, there is some truth to what Thoreau is saying in that only a Democrat would have any chance at reducing spending. Any Republican who tries to do so, no matter how needed the spending and regulation cuts are, is immediately going to be tagged by the Dems and their allies in the media as evil incarnate out to turn the US into some kind of Dickinson nightmare. Because of this, a Democrat would be able to get away with cutting spending a lot easier than a Republican. Clinton was able to reform welfare. Can you imagine what the Washington press would have said about Reagan or Bush I if they tried to do welfare reform? The media would have crucified them. Unfortuneately, since the public sector Unions, big money leftwing nutjobs like George Soros, and the wingnut Kos Atrios base own the Democratic party, I don't think there is any way a Democrat who was serious about reducing the size of Government could ever get the nomination, even though a small government, serious on defense, populist Democrat could probably win a general election. It is a pretty depressing state of affairs.

[Kevin Carson]

Karl Rove is a shithead about everything that doesn't involve fucking somebody over.

I especially liked his complaints about "activist courts," and his demand that they "interpret the Constitution instead of legislating from the bench."

Of course, he conflated two entirely different things: 1) deference to the Constitution, and 2) deference to the political branches.

In fact, kowtowing to the political branches' claims of unconstitutional power is ITSELF "judicial activism." That would include accepting a Congressional reading of the Commerce Clause broad enough to overrule state medpot laws, or the kinglike "national security" prerogatives which the presidency has gradually claimed for itself over the decades.

Reminds me of Bob Dole, proud supporter of food stamps and the Americans with Disabilities Act, who pulled his little copy of the Tenth Amendment out of his pocket at every stump speech.

If a politician ever displayed critical thinking ability, his party's National Committee would probably call for an exorcist.

[Amy Alkon]

We're winning the war on terror, he says. Let's see, we totally ignored Osama and the real threat of nukes in Iran to go after an admittedly evil dictator who kept all the nutwads in his country in line. Sure, he murdered many people -- then again, they're doing it in Sudan, and I don't see us winning any wars on brutality over there. Can somebody, for once and for all, give me a reasonable explanation as to what the fuck we're doing in Iraq?

[thoreau]

Welcome back, Kevin.

[thoreau]

Oh, Kevin, you would enjoy quasibill's 8:26 am post in this thread:

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2006/01/intel_gathering.shtml#012316

[Rick Barton]

...when Republicans at least feigned interest in limiting when Republicans at least feigned interest in limiting government, not its growth

A crucial point! To only advocate limiting government growth is to advocate larger government.

[Rick Barton]

If a politician ever displayed critical thinking ability, his party's National Committee would probably call for an exorcist.

That's a friggin riot, Kevin! Course it assumes that critical thinking ability would be discernible by a political National Committee.

Amy:

Can somebody, for once and for all, give me a reasonable explanation as to what the fuck we're doing in Iraq?

There is no legitimate justification for our government's war on Iraq. The real politick reason is that influential neocons in and out of the administration used 9/11 as a pretext for the war. Taking out Saddam is something that they have long advocated as being beneficial for the Israeli government.

[amazingdrx]

Smaller government through contracting?

That's the neo-conservative plan. Goverment converted into a figurehead, ceremonial entity beholden to corporate power.

That funnels tax dollars right from citizens to the corporate bottomline.

Libertarians, you have been duped.

[John]

There is no legitimate justification for our government's war on Iraq. The real politick reason is that influential neocons in and out of the administration used 9/11 as a pretext for the war. Taking out Saddam is something that they have long advocated as being beneficial for the Israeli government.

Neocon, (polite liberal way of saying JEW!!)
Invading Iraq done because it was good for Isreal (polite liberal way of saying JEWS are a fifth collumn and can't be trusted)

Rick where you born a facist anti-semite or just raised that way?

[joshua corning]

I always thought neo-con ment big gov lefties who changed thier minds and became big gov righties...I think that is what joe calls them anyway. Jews I think fall everywhere in the spectrum.

John when did you start smoking crack

[Mike Laursen]

How so that libertarians have been duped? I'm a libertarian and I'm aware of corporate welfare, the military-industrial complex, etc. Most libertarians I know are hip to the tie between big corporations and big government.

[Mo]

John,
Is there a single bit of Rick's statement that is not factual? Are you saying there isn't a hawkish, pro-Israel faction in the Republican party? Is it not true that they did say that taking out Saddam would help our Israeli allies? I've met Rick and anti-Semetic fascist is one of the last words I would use to describe him (liberal would probably be the very last word I would use to describe him).

Funny how the only people I hear saying neocon = Jew are conservative.

[Rick Barton]

John,

No, neocon is obviously not just a polite way of saying Jew. There are neocons who aren't Jews and plenty of neocon detractors who are Jews.

And John, it's also ridiculous and unfair to conflate the Israeli government with Jews in general. Which is why equating critisism of that government and its supporters with anti-Semitism is absurd.

Fire away insult boy. Coming from one who appears to have so much trouble thinking logically, I'll consider your silly insults to my credit.

[SM]

I think that Rick Barton is very wrong on Middle-Eastern politics. But it takes a R.O.B.O.T to assume that Rick is anti-semitic. He's explained himself on this blog at great length to anyone who cares to listen.

[R C Dean]

a small government, serious on defense, populist Democrat could probably win a general election

Hell, I'd vote for him/her.

He's explained himself on this blog at great length to anyone who cares to listen.

That's why some of us are a little suspicious that he might have a problem with, you know, those people. To know him . . .

[thoreau]

Rick has never crossed the line into racist territory in any thread that I've followed. He's come close to the line, he's stood near the edge of it, but he's never crossed it.

[Frank Sinatra]

Any of you so-called libertarians who voted for Bush once or twice are getting exactly what you deserve. This guy John is really an asshole.

[Doc]

Say a lie enough times and people will believe it.

Scream it loudly enough on Fox News and eventually CNN will follow suit just to try to get ratings.

[Rick Barton]

Mo, SM, thoreau, Frank Sinatra,

Thank you very much. It amazes me that criticism of the Israeli government and its supporters can still elicit responses as vulgar as John's.

Rick has never crossed the line into racist territory in any thread that I've followed.

And I never would. I despise all racism for what it is, cruelly unfair and the most primitive form of collectivism. BTW, on at least one thread on this stellar blog, I confronted an anti-Semitic racist.

[Ken Shultz]

Can somebody, for once and for all, give me a reasonable explanation as to what the fuck we're doing in Iraq?

I suspect neocons in the Bush Administration, and their sympathizers, genuinely believed what they told us. ...I think they genuinely believed that removing Saddam Hussein would help stabilize the region, that it would help spread democracy and that this would, in turn, help the cause of American security, that it would eliminate the threat of Iraqi/Al Qaeda collaboration, etc. ...Quite simply, I think the Administration was wrong about those things--they were wrong on the facts and they were wrong on the strategy.

When people make mistakes, whether it's a fund manager, an errant husband or an Administration advisor, there's a tendency to make all sorts of justifications for those mistakes. It's easy, after the fact, to come up with really smart reasons for having done really stupid things. (People send you letters all the time doing that, don't they?) ...and from war justifications to interrogation policy and from habeas corpus to surveillance, this Administration has had oodles of smart sounding reasons for the stupid things it's done.

I guess what I'm saying is that the real reasons we went may have been entirely unreasonable. I don't think this poll got the press it deserved, but I think that kind of misinformation justified Iraq in the general public's mind. As for the Administration's reasons, like I said, I think it was a poorly conceived project from the beginning; we thought we could do things there that, maybe, couldn't be done.

There are a few among us with stronger character. We admit mistakes, identify the reasons we made a particular mistake, and formulate a strategy to avoid the mistake in the future. President Bush, recently, admitted that there were mistakes made--it took him long enough. I don't think this President's got what it takes to get to steps two and three. ...and those are really important steps. That's part of what I'm talking about when I talk about incompetence.

John,

You must know that there are some of us, most of whom disagree on a host of issues, who have commented here for years now, and we've read Rick's comments regarding the State of Israel, for instance, for years now, and when someone we've known to be a fine, upstanding non-anti-Semite gets accused of something like that, accused on the basis of the comment above...

...If you mess with one of us like that, you gotta expect that you're gonna have to deal with the whole trailer park. ...and surely, if you had issues with Rick's comment, you could have addressed them without resorting to that. I mean, I've seen racist comments here on this board; there were some in last week's "New York Times Wrong Again" thread. ...and I'm as quick as anyone to denounce such comments, but if Rick's comment above is your evidence for this...

I hit you with that link last week kinda tongue-in-cheek, but sometimes you really do seem to jump on people for what you've imagined they've said rather than...

[mediageek]

"Can somebody, for once and for all, give me a reasonable explanation as to what the fuck we're doing in Iraq?"

It's been a proposal going back to at least 2000 that the US needs a permanent military presence in the Middle East in much the same way that we had one in Western Europe during the Cold War.

Saddam Hussein is a big meanie/WMD's/oil are just the reason given.

In actuality, it's all about expanding the borders of hegemony.

Long live Pax Americana.

[SM]

"That's why some of us are a little suspicious that he might have a problem with, you know, those people. To know him"

So can we be a little supsicious that guys like you and GOP John have a problem with "AY-rab like" people ? Or that guys who argue for building the wall have a problem with the pesky mexskins ? You guys tend to be pretty monotonous on the subject.

[SM]

BTW - I am definitely NOT saying that RC or John is anti-arab or anti-mexican or whatever.

[b-psycho]

"It's been a proposal going back to at least 2000 that the US needs a permanent military presence in the Middle East in much the same way that we had one in Western Europe during the Cold War."

***NOTE: first to see the following as an anti-semetic remark rather than a criticism of US intervention in a conflict that doesn't concern us gets laughed at***

We already have a military prescense there, it's called "Israel"...

[Asshole Police]

Where'dya go, John? No more comments to make on this thread? Something like an apology, maybe?

[Rick Barton]

R C Dean:

That's why some of us are a little suspicious that he might have a problem with, you know, those people. To know him . .

You've never once read anything that I've written that would justify that suspicion, and you know it. It makes no sense at all to have problems with ethnic groups. It's governments that are the focus of my critiques.

[Ken Shultz]

There does seem to be some kind of online pro-Bush, blog thuggery rule that says anytime someone criticizes the state policies of Israel that you're supposed to scream anti-Semitism. ...I'm not saying John is privy to that (I don't think he is.), but it happens often enough that I have to wonder where it all started.

...I suspect its ultimate origins have something to do with Evangelical, dispensationalist interpretations of the Book of Revelation, but that's pure suspicion.

Still, show me a thread where someone criticized the policies of Israel and anti-Semitism didn't come up. ...and I'll be impressed.

The anti-Semitism charge for criticism of Israeli policy isn't the only issue that makes Bushbots throw charges around like that. I've been called "racist" for questioning how the mechanical process of Reverse Domino Theory is supposed to work. ...by more than one Bushbot poster, more than once. There are other issues they throw charges around like that too. ...I was once accused of being a terrorist sympathizer for comin' out big against torture.

...and, by the way, if joe was off, he wasn't off by much. I'm seeing the President's approval numbers between 35% and 40%. Take a look/see.

Here in California, it looks like the Governator's takin' a page from Bush's spend big strategy. I was on the Governator's side when he had state employees picketing him for wanting to cut the budget. ...Now I hope he fails, miserably. So much for the new face of the Republican Party. Maybe if the grand ol' party conservatives spent their energy on budget and tax issues instead of defending every stupid thing the Presidents does...

[mediageek]

"We already have a military prescense there, it's called "Israel"..."

Yeah, but why let the Israelis have all the fun?

[thoreau]

mediageek-

Hegemony may explain why our leaders wanted to go. WMD and Saddam's atrocities may explain some of the public support. But I also think that after 9/11 there was just a visceral urge by many Americans to go unleash hell on a Middle Eastern country. Iraq was the easy target.

Others on this forum might couch that notion in more flowery language: "Demonstrate that we pose a credible threat", "Regional transformation", etc. But the result is the same. They want to go unleash hell on an Arab country.

Which I guess goes back to hegemony. But I think 9/11 is the reason why so many ordinary Americans are cool with the hegemony agenda: We'll show them!

[kwais]

Wow BDS guys are out. A couple of points while it is still fresh in my mind.

To label anyone that defends the president as a Bushbot is silly. There are Bushbots and there are BDS types. But I don't think John or RC Dean or myself are in that category. We all have criticisms of the man, but we tend to seem to defend him when the charges get ridiculous, or seem to us to be so.

As for it being the Bush defenders being one and the same as the Israel defenders; not always so. The person I have most seen butt hurt about Ricks statements has been Apostate Jew. I don't even know if the guy likes Bush. I have seen some other people I assume to be Jews come on and get upset about Rick Barton, but I don't think they are regular posters.

BTW I think John was wrong about RB but surely you can all see how he came to that conclusion?

[kwais]

Dr T,

Ever consider that "we'll show them" might be part of the right idea?

After all there is the theory out there that we were attacked in the first place because we were seen to be a paper target. All the terrorist attacks that we suffered during the Clinton era were met with nothing.

In Somalia we got our nose bloodied and we ran like the French. (Our government, not our troops).

The theory goes; they thought "how to get the American's nose bloodied again so they take their women and their nonbeliever soldiers out of our land?

But the result was different than they expected. Now we have more troops over there. We have succesfully occupied Iraq. Iraq is now a democracy and the Al Q resistence over there is not planning attacks on us they are fighting for their lives (and generally losing IMO).

I think that OSAMA expected us to attack Afghanistan, and he wanted it. He couldn't get the tough Afghan tribesmen to the US, but he could get us there. I don't think he expected us to go into Iraq. He expected us to bomb and invade land of Afghans, not land of Arabs. Then he expected Iraq to be a safe haven. One of the safe havens from which money and troops could come to those fighting us in the forbidding, technology neutralizing, empire crushing mountains of Afghanistan. He expected all the money and all the bad guys that are now going into Iraq, to instead be going into Afghanistan.

[thoreau]

kwais-

I admit that I can see why Rick is a target for such allegations. Many people here may have opinions about the Israeli government, but for Rick the Israeli government is clearly one of his pet issues. Which means he'll bring it up a lot, and perhaps even bring it up in contexts where other people wouldn't think to (as so many of us may do with our pet issues).

And he definitely has some...non-mainstream theories about the Israeli government.

Of course, the thing that distinguishes him from a racist is the clear distinction he draws between the government and its citizens. Nonetheless, I can see why some might draw the wrong conclusions about him.

[Les]

BTW I think John was wrong about RB but surely you can all see how he came to that conclusion?

Because he was frustrated, responding reflexively and not thinking about the implications of what he was saying, is all I can think.

It's ridiculous to suggest that a steady critic of the Israeli government and our government's relationship with it might be anti-Semitic based solely on those criticisms. There are orthodox Jewish groups which level similar criticisms of Israel and the U.S.. Are they self-hating Jews? Probably not.

It's downright juvenile (though predictable of a loyalist) to suggest the very use of the word "neocon" is evidence of anti-Semitism.

[kwais]

Amy,

On the off chance you are still reading this thread, and are not a bot. And/or not satisfied with the circle jerk you got up to now.

Here are a couple of facts.
We were already at war with Iraq. They were not living up to the standards of our ceasefire. (read above how us cutting and running encouraged 9/11).

Saddam's Iraq was sheltering and providing money and training to Al Q guys that had fled Afghanistan. Zarqawi for one.

We needed a non Jewish foothold in the middle east. Preferably and Arab country that could be a democracy, and provide an example to other Arabs that they didn't need to live the way they are. (that would be either Syria or Iraq, Egypt and SA were not good ideas as they are in name our allies, and Iran is not Arab)

Still if you want to you can make the case for us going into Iran. I'm sure there is going to be an audience for such a thing in the upcoming news cycles.

[kwais]

Dr T,
Very well put. I agree that RB is not a racist. But the fact that it is his pet peeve and that he brings it up when other people wouldn't think to throws people off sometimes. It threw me off the first time.

Les,
I read, I think in Slate, about how the Jewish Neo-Con connection. It was a leftist attempt at discrediting them. I can't remember all the details though.

[Rick Barton]

Ken,

First off, thanks very much for your support as well. And your: If you mess with one of us like that, you gotta expect that you're gonna have to deal with the whole trailer park cracked me up! BTW, what if you said the "whole country club"? Woulda evoked a whole different image...

Here in California, it looks like the Governator's takin' a page from Bush's spend big strategy. I was on the Governator's side when he had state employees picketing him for wanting to cut the budget. ...Now I hope he fails, miserably.

Do you think that losing those refferendi that you folks had out there to the state employees unions has pushed him in that direction?

Maybe if the grand ol' party conservatives spent their energy on budget and tax issues instead of defending every stupid thing the Presidents does...

Absolutely! And if we Republicans don't fight for smaller government, we have no useful political purpose.

The only purpose for politics is to bring an end to politics, (someone call ruthless, he'll dig that) or at least minimize its importance.

[Hakluyt]

thoreau,

Please stop copying the whole "only Nixon could go to China" schtick. Have you ever had an original idea?

Oh, and Jews aren't a race. People accuse him of anti-semitism, not racism.

_______________________________

As to why someone might think that Barton is an anti-semite, that's easy to see. The man villifies Israel like it was the worst nation on the entire planet. That sort of one-sided, overwrought, over the top, hyperbolic, etc. commentary should give one pause to say the least.

[Rick Barton]

thoreau,

for Rick the Israeli government is clearly one of his pet issues.

It seems that it should be a pretty big issue for us libertarians*. The Israeli government is by far our government's largest foreign aid expense and our tax dollars go to Egypt and Jordan as well as a payoff for Israel for making peace. Our governments support of the Israeli government's brutal occupation of Palestinian land was the main reason for the 9/11 attacks.
Note that the findings of the 9/11 commission reveal:

"Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong disagreement with American support for Israel, said the final report of the Sept. 11 commission."

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/news/nation/9222612.htm

This is exactly what the founders of our republic were talking about when they wisely warned of "destructive foreign entanglements". And, as I said before; influential neocons in and out of the administration used 9/11 as a pretext for the Iraq war. Taking out Saddam is something that they have long advocated as being beneficial for the Israeli government. They used a fabricated WMD scare and fabricated "terrorist connections" to con this nation into a tragic waste.

*(Philosophically, I'm a libertarian. My registration is GOP, but I will often vote for libertarian candidates. The last time that I didn't vote LP for president was Reagan. Imperfect as his administration was, God I miss him...discretionary spending actually shrank and that book of all the Fed regs actually got smaller)

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Yes, and JFK was more conservative than GWB.

[kwais]

What are you referring to TWC?

[Rick Barton]

Hakluyt:

Have you ever had an original idea?

Oh come on. That's not fair. thoreau has lots and lots of original ideas.

Oh, and Jews aren't a race. People accuse him of anti-semitism, not racism.

In common parlance, antipathy toward ethnic groups is called racist. Anti-Semitism is considered an instance of racism. Although Hispanics are grouped as Caucasians, antipathy toward them by other Caucasians is considered to be racist. When Arial Sharon came out in favor of "Jews only" housing laws on government land, this was correctly labeled as a racist action against Israel's own 15-20% Arab population, even though both Arabs and Jews are categorized as Semitic Caucasians.

BTW, to understand the back ground of the racist, fundamentalist Jewish religious extremism that Israeli polity is currently gripped by, as well as some very interesting and surprising Jewish History, see the fascinating: "Jewish History, Jewish Religion" by Israel Shahak and then one might want to read: "Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel" by Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky. Shahak was a non-leftist human rights advocate and a concentration camp survivor.

The man villifies Israel like it was the worst nation on the entire planet.

What ever your characterization, I don't consider Israel anything close to being "worst nation on the entire planet".

That sort of one-sided, overwrought, over the top, hyperbolic, etc. commentary...

Sans examples to back them up, your words are meaningless. Don't just tell me that you think I'm wrong. You gotta tell me why.

[Rick Barton]

Oops. I spaced a link for the Shahak book. Here tis:

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jewhis1.htm

[Rick Barton]

...Make nothing of the fact that the link is biblebelievers.org It's just a cite where they have the actual text. This one is very interesting and gives you a good idea of his writing:

http://www.ukar.org/shahak01.html

You can buy the volume here or at Amazon, I'm sure:

http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=114956

[Rick Barton]

kwais:

Very well put. I agree that RB is not a racist

Thank you, kwais. I assure you, you're quite right about that.

I'm surprised that you like Bush. Domestically, he seems far too much like a Democrat to me.

[kwais]

I'm surprised that you like Bush. Domestically, he seems far too much like a Democrat to me.

Yeah, domestically I hate so much of what he has done.

I don't like the medicaid thing, I don't like the TSA, I don't like the Patriot act, I don't like McCain-Feingold, and on and on. (I also would like him to be even more confrontational with the democrats, and the UN.)

But I think he understands what he is up against, he realizes his strengths and his limitations. I mean I am hoping all of this, I don't really know for sure.

I think he saw what happened to Gengrich and he knew he could not go toe to toe with the democrats and the press who would put stuff out about hurting the poor, and the old and minorities and such. And he doesn't have half the propaganda machine to explain his side. Hell I can't do it when I am talking one on one to people, sometimes.

So the Dems loath him, and they bring everything they have against the dude. He did Katrina and killed the guys in the mine, and everything else bad that ever happens. If he turns left he is wrong and if he turns right he is wronger.

But all in all what are they going to run on? Everybody looks at his poll numbers after all this bashing and they say the Dems are going to win big in '06. They might, but I'm not going to bet money on it. What are they running for? They aren't saving old folks, where do they want to spend more money, and how much more do they want to spend? Do they want to raise taxes? They can say they don't all day long but you know they do.

Also, I assume that he is getting somewhat constitutional judges in. Getting them in is huge. When a senator raises taxes you can get rid of him next term. Getting rid of bad judges doesn't happen.

I don't know if there is a plan there to get a smaller govt in time. It seems nobody else here thinks there is. But if you were president how would you do it? I mean really without getting impeached and without getting the Dems to totally control congress?

As president you are not emperor, you don't control the newsmedia, you don't control congress, and you don't control the courts.

Bush's plan for better or worse, control the debate (if you can't ague evenly this helps a lot) get the judges you want elected, then xxx.

The TSA sucks, but my 2nd Ammendment airlines wouldn't get public approval. The Patriot act sucks, but it was already in place for drug warriors, and my plan to get rid of it and legalize drugs, and to end the militarizing of local and federal police would also probably not fly.

[Rick Barton]

Amy Alkon,

Look what you (ok, we) started!

[Rick Barton]

kwais,

Aren't you back east? Isn't it like 4:00 where you are? Ya know, if you are back east, the Broncos come on at 11:00 your time. I better crash, myself.

[Rick Barton]

...of course the game would come on at 3:00 your time, not 11:00. My bad.

[Stevo Darkly]

OK, I had to look up what the hell "BDS" is.

For everyone else who didn't already know:

Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS): the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush.
Dec 5, 2003
by Charles Krauthammer

[Phil]

We were already at war with Iraq. They were not living up to the standards of our ceasefire.

Um, by "we" and "our," you mean the United Nations, right?

In re Krauthammer and "BDS," I've always found it interesting that few conservatives have any qualms about the ethical issues involved in a board-certified psychatrist making up a term that allows him to dismiss his political opponents as insance.

[thoreau]

In that sense, there is some truth to what Thoreau is saying in that only a Democrat would have any chance at reducing spending. Any Republican who tries to do so, no matter how needed the spending and regulation cuts are, is immediately going to be tagged by the Dems and their allies in the media as evil incarnate out to turn the US into some kind of Dickinson nightmare.

John-

I don't think it's just a matter of having the street cred to get away with it. I was trying to point out that parties change over time, and things get flipped around. If the GOP remains a hegemon for too long, then the small government types will eventually become disillusioned, while the Dems will adopt federalist and small government rhetoric. They're already casting a few social issues in federalist terms, arguing that gay marriage should be a state issue. And they're starting to pay more attention to the ACLU wing of their party again, now that the Republicans are the ones controlling the levers of the police state.

Given enough time in the wilderness, I think the Dems could fool the voters into thinking they're the party of small government. Just like the GOP did during their decades in the wilderness. The hegemon always loves the power of the state, and the party out of power always pretends to hate the state.

[joe]

I think there's another dynamic going on that helps explain John's observation about Republicans not being allowed, politically, to control spending the way Democrats can, and it's particular to this Congressional leadership and, to a certain extent, administration: the determination NOT to pass bipartisan legislation, and to work to make every bill as offensive to half the country as possible.

Dennis Hastert has talked about not moving any legislation that doesn't have "a majority of my majority," meaning that a bill that's supported by 80% of Democrats and 49% of Repblicans won't go anywhere, even though that's nearly 2:1 support overall. Tom Delay has made similar comments about bills with broad support being a waste of time, and has often loaded up popular bills with enough right wing "poison pills," gifts to ideological comrades or big donors, to turn 70% bills into 51% bills.

And the ultimate example is the dead Social Security reform. Rather than craft a bill around solving the problem they laid out, the Republicans tried to exploit those problems to push through a highly-divisive program - privatization - that even Bush admitted didn't address the bugetary problems that were, allegedly, its justification.

If the Republicans were to try to pass a balanced budget and formulate appropriations rules that set fair groundrules to keep the deficit under control, they could do so with broad support - as happened in the 90s, with the pay-go rules that were adhered to by the first President Bush, President Clinton, the Democratic Congress, and the Repubican Congress of that day.

But these Republicans won't do that. If they ever do try to bring about budget sanity, it will be in a manner - on purpose, as a political ploy - that will get them accused "as evil incarnate out to turn the US into some kind of Dickinson nightmare." If there isn't anyting in their proposals that would bring about such a charge, they'll make sure to put something in, just as they did with the bill that created the DHS, because their political manual tells them that picking fights is how they win.

[Ken Shultz]

To label anyone that defends the president as a Bushbot is silly. There are Bushbots and there are BDS types. But I don't think John or RC Dean or myself are in that category. We all have criticisms of the man, but we tend to seem to defend him when the charges get ridiculous, or seem to us to be so.

I think there are Bushbots, which, in my opinion, exhibit, at least three characteristics. 1) They have no criticism of the President. 2) They don't know whether to listen to you until they know whether you support the President. 3) They ape party hacks.

Just to be clear, I don't think you or RC Dean or John are Bushbots. If you look at the "New York Times Wrong Again" thread from last week, you'll see a list of comments by what I would call "Bushbots". Like I said toward the end of that thread, I'm glad I don't have to apologize for them anymore.

[Rick Barton]

I think we're kidding ourselves if we we think that a Democrat controlled congress would exercise fiscal restraint on the Bush administration. The evidence is that they would be all too willing to be partners in ever-bigger government. Consider:

As much as federal spending has exploded, the administration has proposed even more spending than has passed! And the Dems in congress have voted for even more spending than the Bush Administration has proposed! The Republicans in congress are the relatively frugal ones of the three.

The GOP members in congress have failed to restrain Bush's big spending agenda like they did Clinton's. This is probably due to, at least in part, the unfortunate post 9/11 "rally round the Pres." sentiment. But as I said, the Republicans in congress tend, however, to be far more frugal then the Dems. If the Dems in congress had gotten their way on spending votes, federal spending would be even far higher.

However, it appears pretty likely that if we had a Pres. Gore and the GOP congress, we would have smaller government cuz the GOP would throttle Gore the way it should have done with the Bush administration.

Now there is the Blue Dog Coalition, a small group of more fiscally conservative Democrats in the House who are indeed more fiscally conservative that the Bush administration. They have started to work with the larger, fiscally conservative, Republican Study Committee to press for fiscal restraint. If the Blue dog agenda would ever be adapted by a majority of Dem office holders, ( a very, very long shot right now) liberty would have a better chance.

John:

Any Republican who tries to do so, no matter how needed the spending and regulation cuts are, is immediately going to be tagged by the Dems and their allies in the media as evil incarnate...

Among the Republicans, there is non-trivial number of small government partisans. I think we should encourage them and work for their election since in previous elections; they've ridden the small government vision to victory. We have to if liberty is to survive. Small government can win at the polls. It has in the past.

[Rick Barton]

joe:

...as happened in the 90s, with the pay-go rules that were adhered to by the first President Bush, President Clinton, the Democratic Congress, and the Repubican Congress of that day.

Perhaps pay-go gets held up now partly cuz it ties tax cuts to the requirement as well, and thus limits them. Maybe we should propose that only spending increases must be paid for by revenue increases or they don't happen. And that spending that exceeds revenue must, at least, start to be paired back.

[Rick Barton]

thoreau:

Given enough time in the wilderness, I think the Dems could fool the voters into thinking they're the party of small government. Just like the GOP did..

It doesn't always HAVE to be a case of fooling the voters. Real change in the small government direction is doable.

[joe]

Rick,

I don't think looking at the voting records of Democrats since Bush came into office is a very good measure. First of all, the opposition party is allowed to act irresponsibly, because it's the opposition party. While the majority party has to think about the impact of its bills on the overall budget, because its bills are actually going to pass, the opposition party can vote for the sun and moon just to stake out a position, safe in the knowledge that these purely symbolic votes aren't going to succeed. They don't have to add up the cost of their votes, so they "send messages."

Second, with the GOP controlling what comes up for a vote, we never see what budgets the Dems would cut or eliminate, because those programs that the GOP likes never come up for a vote.

[thoreau]

All I know is that the situation seemed to work out much better when we had a Democrat in the White House and Republicans controlling Congress. We even had Republicans talking about limited government.

[Ken Shultz]

Couldn't the President have sold Social Security and Medicare reform as a function of the War on Terror?

[theCoach]

Since this thread is far enough astray and probably vacant, a few thoughts.

With tax levels as they are, if you want to cut the deficit you need to look at Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Defense. Cuts in other areas just do not cut it enough.

Let's also try to understand that if I have a pension system through my employer, or if I have the government control my pension, and they work exactly the same way, except that one is administered by government employees, and the other is administered by some third party corporation employees, that there is very little difference between the two. ( I am not arguing at this point that there is little difference between, say, Social Security, and say a GM pension).

Very few people believe that Americans in general are investing enough in their retirement plans. Almost no one believe that we are providing too many people with Health Insurance in this country, although there are quite a few of us who think that some rationing, epsecially of end of life care, might be the best policy.

Then there is defense, which some people want more of some less, but everyone wants it to magically become more efficient and not wasteful.

By all accounts, medical care can be acheived more efficiently in a some sort of a government paid program. So it is more efficient, for the government to take x dollars from your paycheck and spend it on heath care than for your employer to deduct it from your salary and purchase health care (there are unaddressed issues of redistribution, of course).
Social Security, as a defined benefit system, also has some enormous benefits such as very, very low administrative costs, and it is a very popular program - I would prefer not to get into the details, but the debate over the last year pretty clearly showed that there are no viable and honest alternatives on the horizon.

The question becomes, what is the point of changing the label on spending for, say healthcare, from government program, to private program, if it is not efficiency? Isn't it really just quasi-shrinking of the governement if, say medicare is dropped, yet people end up paying more for private insurance?

The only viable way to shrink medicare, is to reel in the costs of medical care, which has heretofore only been done by allowing a national program to negotiate lower prices, and to impose some system of rationing of care.

Now, I guess this all falls to liberty, but, like I mentioned above, almost no one thinks we insure too many people, or that are pensions systems are too flush, and arguments that more new Freedom would fix those issues is laughable.

[Rick Barton]

joe,

I think that the bigger spending voting records of the Democrats vs the GOP records since Bush came into office are a good measure, but I think that the considerations that you raise in your first paragraph are valid and would be interesting to explore.

I think indicitive of the voting records being a good measure is the fact that there have been a number of votes on spending issues where an overwhelming number of Democrats voted with the administration for higher spending while a much smaller portion of the GOP members did so.

Second, with the GOP controlling what comes up for a vote...those programs that the GOP likes never come up for a vote.

They have to be voted on to become law in the first place. Also, are you sure it works that way? Can't the minority party propose and bring to a vote the elimination or reduction of spending programs?

[TallDave]

It's true what they say about power and corruption.

Shadegg seems to be our only hope.

Ending earmarks would help, too.