Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[SlaveNoMore]

This is, to me, the most interesting thing that Sullivan has written since his August "surprise":

FORCING THE DEMS INTO RESPONSIBILITY: It's a simple argument and it goes as follows. One reason to vote for Kerry this time is that, whatever his record, he will, as president, be forced by reality and by public opinion to be tough in this war. He has no other option. You think he wants to be tarred as a wimp every night by Fox News? Moreover, he would remove from the Europeans and others the Bush alibi for their relative absence in the war on terror. More important, his presidency would weaken the Michael Moore wing of the Democrats, by forcing them to take responsibility for a war that is theirs' as much a anyone's. As Bob Kagan put it recently,

• There are many reasons why, in theory, the US would benefit from a Democratic victory. It is important for the Democrats to own the war on terrorism and not simply be the opposition. Also, we would have a fresh start with the Europeans and other allies, though they would quickly be disillusioned to learn that Kerry wouldn't be that different from Bush in some respects.

Max Boot, another neoconservative, echoes the theme:

• I am not at all averse to giving a Democrat a shot. In fact, a Democrat might be better able to sell skeptics abroad and at home on the need for toughness. It also would be good for the Democrats to buy into this long-term struggle, just as Republicans bought into the containment policy with Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1952 election.

I'm not saying this is obvious. I am saying it is perfectly possible to be pro-war and pro-Kerry. Especially after the mishandling of the last year in Iraq, our frayed relations with important allies, and the president's fiscal undermining of our future military capacity.

Interesting theory, but looking at Kerry's record post-Nam, Gulf 1 and the present, I just don't see it in him.

etft -- t.s.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Let's put aside the issue of the specific number. Is your point that Bush is distorting the record or that Kerry is not a liberal on tax matters (i.e., that he is not more likely than most to support tax raises)?

The second-to-last paragraph of Chait's piece says, "If Bush had merely said that Kerry was more likely to raise your taxes, at least the accusation would be meaningful and plausible. After all, Kerry did vote for the last two major tax increases, in 1990 and 1993, and he openly plans to restore the top tax bracket to where it stood under Clinton." But the 98 line is just stoopid.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Those are not facts, those are conclusions. I don't know whether the report's "author" was a careerist at Justice or not, but I do know who his boss was. And I do know that whoever was there at that time had to join in Ashcroft's prayer meetings or be frozen out. And I believe it is no secret that Ashcroft has been remaking Justice in his (or is it His) image. Sorry, but I wouldn't trust any public official who has himself annointed in oil before assuming office.

Let the eagle soooooooooar.



TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Kerry is not a New Democrat. He is a liberal Democrat that is more fiscally conservative than the Democrats from the 60s and 70s, but that is just a matter of degrees. Fundamentally, he still believes that government, rather than the individual, is still the primary fix for societies ills, and as long as he holds this view, he is going to need public money to support it.

Do you have any basis for this stuff, apart from the "Massachusetts Democrat" caricature?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The second-to-last paragraph of Chait's piece says, "If Bush had merely said that Kerry was more likely to raise your taxes, at least the accusation would be meaningful and plausible. After all, Kerry did vote for the last two major tax increases, in 1990 and 1993, and he openly plans to restore the top tax bracket to where it stood under Clinton." But the 98 line is just stoopid.

So you are objecting to the political speak that sells the substantive point? I can get behind that, but it goes both ways, and I don't see you calling Kerry to the carpet for his political speak.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Hmmm. Voting record over the last year and a half measured by your metrics. I'm suspicious.

This was some mag study the ID of which I'm not remembering at this time. It may be that I read it last year, which would make the period chosen more logical, since he's been campaigning the last year and not voting much.

In the last year and one-half, Bush has been simultaneously spending like a drunken sailor . . . .

Damn that NCLB!

. . . . and seeking tax cuts. The latest Pork Bill is the most recent example.

Remember that this bill started simply as a way to make up for some disadvantageous international trade rulings. Then everybody (and I mean everybody) jumped on and added their own measure. It had very broad support. I doubt you can accurately call this Bush's bill.

If you're measuring liberal by whether or not he's supporting the Republican's policies of the last year and one half, I think you're getting the answer by the way you're asking the question.

He's not made us fiscal conservatives happy, no. But, on balance, I like my chances better with him than with Kerry.

And, on the 20th percentile, again, whose metrics? The Republicans (and its not all of them) who believe that you cut taxes first and figure out how to cut spending are not preaching fiscal discipline.

Keep in mind that a desire for fiscal conservatism and a desire for lower taxes usually align, but not always. In fact, a longterm desire primarily for lower taxes and smaller government footprint can be served in the shortterm by overspending and undertaxing.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I've said before that I think Bush is a fiscal liberal, but I've been laughed off the board.

Not by me, you haven't.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
How about his health care plan? Fundamentally, it increases the government's involvement (i.e., our costs) in the health care system.

How about his proposal to increase taxes on the wealthiest 1% (or is 2%)? From each according to . . .

How about his view that the tax cuts were not equitable because the "wealthy" received more in gross dollars than the middle class did?

How about his views on Free Trade and outsourcing?

How is it that when we're talking about Repubican fiscal (ir)responsibilty, you can pretend that spending is fine so long as taxes are being cut, but when the subject turns to Kerry's fiscal responsibility, you start talking about how he wants to spend money on health care?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How is it that when we're talking about Repubican fiscal (ir)responsibilty, you can pretend that spending is fine so long as taxes are being cut, but when the subject turns to Kerry's fiscal responsibility, you start talking about how he wants to spend money on health care?

Stick to the topic. I have already conceeded that Bush is a fiscal liberal. The point we were discussing is whether Kerry is a liberal, which you don't want to concede for some reason.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
So you are objecting to the political speak that sells the substantive point? I can get behind that, but it goes both ways, and I don't see you calling Kerry to the carpet for his political speak.

I don't know what "calling to the carpet" means exactly, here. I wouldn't say that Bush is lying about Kerry's votes. I would say more that he's engaging in an utterly predictable form of political rhetoric that does little or nothing to further the Socratic dialogue in which we all seek the truth. The charge is stoopid.

Kerry surely says some things that are equally stoopid. Nothing jumps to mind just now, but I'm sure it's there.

On the bigger issue, I was surprised that Kerry, in the second debate, pledged not to raise taxes on those earning less than $200,000/year. It seems to me that the pledge really limits his freedom of action once elected. If he flip-flops on this, he'll take major, major political heat. So you should be celebrating. The attacks on him worked so well that he made this pledge. If you cared about low taxes more than electing Bush, you would be able to declare victory on this point and move on.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Stick to the topic. I have already conceeded that Bush is a fiscal liberal. The point we were discussing is whether Kerry is a liberal, which you don't want to concede for some reason.

I can't keep the topic straight. You have this strange view that spending and taxing are two different things, and need not be discussed in conjunction. (Many of us feel that one should not spend more than one has, but whatever.) I thought we were discussing Kerry's votes on taxes, so I didn't understand why you brought up what he would spend money on. Moreover, I think a discussion of all of this is a little silly, given that Kerry's freedom to spend or tax will most likely be constrained by a GOP Congress.

If the topic is, Kerry: liberal or moderate?, what should we be discussing -- taxing or spending?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Stick to the topic. I have already conceeded that Bush is a fiscal liberal. The point we were discussing is whether Kerry is a liberal, which you don't want to concede for some reason.

I don't know what "liberal" means to you. Social liberal? Fiscal liberal? What are you talking about? The initial discussion was about raising taxes (and for the record, I'd agree with Bilmore's assessment of Kerry's record on taxes), not fiscal responsibility, which in my mind are two entirely different yet related things.

Additionally, I don't think anyone can assess in a vacuum whether or not someone will be likely to raise taxes. Certainly Bush I ran on the idea that it wasn't going to happen, and that certainly came back to bite him in the ass.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
On the bigger issue, I was surprised that Kerry, in the second debate, pledged not to raise taxes on those earning less than $200,000/year. It seems to me that the pledge really limits his freedom of action once elected. If he flip-flops on this, he'll take major, major political heat. So you should be celebrating. The attacks on him worked so well that he made this pledge. If you cared about low taxes more than electing Bush, you would be able to declare victory on this point and move on.

Agreed. Essentially he was conned into giving the same stupid "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge that came back to bite Bush I in the ass.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
On the bigger issue, I was surprised that Kerry, in the second debate, pledged not to raise taxes on those earning less than $200,000/year. It seems to me that the pledge really limits his freedom of action once elected. If he flip-flops on this, he'll take major, major political heat. So you should be celebrating. The attacks on him worked so well that he made this pledge. If you cared about low taxes more than electing Bush, you would be able to declare victory on this point and move on.

That would be true if I was a member of the "middle class."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
On the bigger issue, I was surprised that Kerry, in the second debate, pledged not to raise taxes on those earning less than $200,000/year.

you do admit that this was complete bullshit, don't you?