Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Also, given that most people lack the qualifications "to judge the actual science soundly", (and many lack the brains) that premise suggests that either no one except scientists should criticize anything or, that everyone should criticize everything -- even though we lack basis.

Or, we insist on a more peer-reviewed publication process, in which "scientific" assertions are subjected to a more rigorous testing than what we currently see. You probably end up using just as much personal "faith" for the dummies, but at least it would be a well-supported faith.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
No, I think he's making the point that we shouldn't be less critical of an assertion merely because it's offered on some "scientific" basis without being willing (or able) to judge the actual science soundly. Taking either simply on faith results in stories of arks as well as stories of melting igloos. There is no more merit in simply believing there are beelyons and beelyons of stars 'cuz Sagan said so than there is in believing that someone turned into salt after seeing his wife 'cuz you read it in a Book.

If you would continue to translate Hank's ouevre into harmless platitudes, we could avoid misunderstandings of this sort and get back to agreeing, liberals and conservatives alike, that Bush's deceptive and profligate ways are bad for the country:

• President Bush defended the recently enacted Medicare overhaul on Friday despite a dramatic increase in its projected costs, as his budget director received an earful from angry Republican lawmakers.
  * * * * *
  The budget for Fiscal 2005, which he will release Monday. will project the price tag of the Medicare measure at $534 billion over the decade ending 2013. That is up substantially from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's $395 billion estimate that Bush and congressional leaders cited when winning votes to push the bill through Congress last November.
  * * * * *
  [Conservatives] expressed disbelief over why the administration did not reveal the new, higher Medicare estimates earlier. Some of them said they believed the bill would not have passed had the higher cost projections been known, the participants said.
  * * * * *
  Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas....was among several conservatives who voted for the measure after being told by Bush and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., that the costs should follow the CBO projections.
  Other conservatives said privately they were owed an explanation as to why the White House did not provide them with the figures before they voted.

My question: Why did they ever believe those numbers? They were being roundly questioned at the time.

[bilmore]

California, suffering through a debilitating budget crisis caused, in part, by over-regulation and over-control, looks at a measure mandating that building design now also be vetted by feng shui guides.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/30/na...partner=GOOGLE

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I spit up my drink on this one.

Lesson: Comedy can be messy. See also:

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If you would continue to translate Hank's ouevre into harmless platitudes, we could avoid misunderstandings of this sort and get back to agreeing, liberals and conservatives alike, that Bush's deceptive and profligate ways are bad for the country:

I forget - how much did you guys want to spend on Medicare?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I forget - how much did you guys want to spend on Medicare?

I don't recall wanting a prescription-drug benefit, so that would be 0. Thanks for asking. But recall that pro-pharma Republicans put provisions in the bill that prevent the government from using its negotiating power to drive prices down, increasing the costs of the program. Dems were against this giveaway to corporations, which greatly increased the price of the bill.

So, to recap: GOP leaders borrowing money to reward their fat-cat corporate supporters. This OK by bilmore, just so long as we don't borrow to provide health-care to citizens.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

So how about placing a gentle-persons wager on how things will turn out next Tuesday in the primaries?

Here are my bets for win place and show:

S. Carolina -- Edwards, Kerry, Clark
Missouri -- Kerry, Dean, Clark
Oklahoma - Clark, Kerry, Edwards
Arizona - Kerry, Dean, Clark
New Mexico -- Kerry, Clark, Edwards
Delaware -- Kerry, Dean, Clark
N. Dakota -- Clark, Kerry, Dean

Big Stories: Kerry gets delegates everywhere, Clark wins multiple states and comes in second on delegates, appears to have only other credible national campaign

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If you would continue to translate Hank's ouevre into harmless platitudes, we could avoid misunderstandings of this sort and get back to agreeing, liberals and

I am at my wits end on this ridiculous spending spree. I simply cannot believe what I am seeing. The republican congress needs to smack some sense into itself and then into the Admininstration. If only there were a viable alternative that I could stomach . . .

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I am at my wits end on this ridiculous spending spree. I simply cannot believe what I am seeing. The republican congress needs to smack some sense into itself and then into the Admininstration. If only there were a viable alternative that I could stomach . . .

Maybe you and your bretheren on the fiscally conservative side should look to make your changes in the Congressional races instead of the Presidential one. Should you begin by focusing your efforts on the race in Ft. Bend County, Texas, I'd be much obliged.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I am at my wits end on this ridiculous spending spree. I simply cannot believe what I am seeing. The republican congress needs to smack some sense into itself and then into the Admininstration. If only there were a viable alternative that I could stomach . . .

I think we're seeing the Nixon in China dynamic at work. Nixon could come to an accomodation with communists while the Dems could not because Nixon could withstand an attack from the right.

Bush spends money to win an election because he knows the right can't abandon him. But, while no Dems will propose to cut anything specific during the primary season because they don't want to offend anyone, I think a different dynamic will emerge in the general. During the general election, a Dem can push a more fiscally conservative approach, because the left can't abandon them. Given the way Bush has been spending of late, I think this is where the Democratic strategy is likely to go.

And for credibility, we'll hold up the Clinton years, and compare them favorably for fiscal restraint to the Bush years.

More like the Kennedy/Nixon race, where Kennedy took out Nixon by moving right of him on foreign policy.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Maybe you and your bretheren on the fiscally conservative side should look to make your changes in the Congressional races instead of the Presidential one. Should you begin by focusing your efforts on the race in Ft. Bend County, Texas, I'd be much obliged.

Not going to work for me. I'm stuck with Palosi

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I don't recall wanting a prescription-drug benefit, so that would be 0. Thanks for asking. But recall that pro-pharma Republicans put provisions in the bill that prevent the government from using its negotiating power to drive prices down, increasing the costs of the program. Dems were against this giveaway to corporations, which greatly increased the price of the bill.

I think Tauzin spearheaded this, and is now leaving Congress to go head up a pharmaceutical lobbying group. The job of lobbyist for the MPAA (or something like that) didn't pay enough.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Bush spends money to win an election because he knows the right can't abandon him. But, while no Dems will propose to cut anything specific during the primary season because they don't want to offend anyone, I think a different dynamic will emerge in the general. During the general election, a Dem can push a more fiscally conservative approach, because the left can't abandon them. Given the way Bush has been spending of late, I think this is where the Democratic strategy is likely to go.

And for credibility, we'll hold up the Clinton years, and compare them favorably for fiscal restraint to the Bush years.

It pains me to say it, but I think you are right. The GOP never learns. They will never get credit for spending, even on "good" things, so I don't know why they bother. This is going to be a potentially disasterous public debate for the general election. I am going to be wincing every time the DEMs hammer at the over/reckless spending issue, because (a) its true, and (b) it is so far from what the bulk of the party (exclusive of its elected representatives, apparently) actually stands for. A part of me is hoping for a DEM win, to knock some humility back into the party (which, since 1994, has gotten fat and happy, as well as unprincipled).

[SlaveNoMore]

sgtclub
A part of me is hoping for a DEM win, to knock some humility back into the party (which, since 1994, has gotten fat and happy, as well as unprincipled).

Bring back Gingrich!!!

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Bring back Gingrich!!!

Exactly!