Rather Vindicated!

Just because you say it's "crap" doesn't mean that it is. Have you actually read the book? I have, and it is one of the most well documented books out there. I say, GO SWIFT VETS -- YOUR PATRIOTISM IS SOMETHING TO BE ADMIRED!!!

BLD

 

Tom-- I was at Berkeley over 20 years ago, and I'd like to remind you that they were probably worse than my depiction--perhaps time has cast a golden glow over your days there, but I can remember the Black Panthers, the SLA, etc. In any event, I did not generalize, read my post carefully--I said "some on the left", "far left", not all on the left fit that description. My point was that the growing fringe who believe in those four conspiracies are assaulting the Democratic party and taking it farther and farther away from the mainstream--this is not good if you happen to be a centrist Democrat.

1). You scare them - Tom, they have every reason to be scared, there are Islamic Extremists who want them all dead, and they'll prove it again if we let our guard down for an isntant--and probably even with our guard up.

2). John Kerry has been assuring us he'll raise taxes if elected--the Reps need do nothing here, they have no need to convince the American electorate, Kerry's doing their work for them.

3). Tax refunds are NOT meaningless - perhaps that money would have been more meaningful circulating through some bureaucracy--let's not forget whose money it is, it's sure not the government's.

 

"Republican fiscal conservatism"? Is this codespeak for deficit spending? The same Republican Congress can't seem to curb Mr Bush's $20 billion down the Iraq sinkhole.

As for the stock market/fiscal policy question, it's a bit of a chicken and egg argument. Both probably help each other, but it's hard to argue that Clinton/Reich/Rudin et al had a fair amount to do with 22 million jobs created, and that had something to do with the market boom.

The Republicans like to claim that Bush Sr. had already fixed the economy by the time Clinton took over, and that the economy had already soured by the time Bush Jr. took over. The truth is that Bush Sr. HAD finally got the picture about the economy, but too little too late. There wasn't nearly enough time to undo the deficit spending of Reagan-Bush. As for the other end, the stock market did sour in early 2000, and Gore would have had to navigate that development too. However, Bush Jr. apparently has not learned the lessons of his father about deficit spending and pouring billions into an industry (War) that helps a small sector and sucks the life (literally and figuratively) out of every other sector.

 

Aww politics and the media. They make strange bedfellows.

I never liked Rather very much anyway - he has always seemed arrogant and pompous on the tube. Much like O'Reilly, Hume, Hannity, and the bunch. All rhetoric, no substance.

 

What you said was, "...the left was full of harmless peace-loving hippies." Now you mention the SLA and the Black Panthers, which gets to my point exactly. The far left in Berkeley ran the gamut, but I would never characterize it as a bunch of harmless peace-loving hippies. Those "hippies" in Berkeley and in many other campuses, did a lot to bring Viet Nam to an end via their protests.

This is another reason why Robert McNamara had to return to Berkeley to finish off his tour of catharsis, and to admit his mistakes re Viet Nam.

So my main beef with your statement is that somehow the left has changed from a bunch of passive hippies. The left never was JUST a bunch of passive hippies. Those "hippies" were passionate and angry, and felt like they were being sold a bill of goods - much as the far left feels today, I'm afraid.

And to be nit picky, the SLA and the Black Panthers probably had very little to do with the "classic" liberal movement in Berkeley. These were fringe groups that essentially had their own agenda, rather than a beef with the way the country was heading.

And no, the years haven't "cast a golden glow" over my time there. My views come just from living my life there: I was born and raised there; My father was the managing editor of the local paper (a conservative paper, by the way); and I was part of the grand social experiment of busing for desegregation (Berkeley was the first city in the US to bus as part of its desegregation plan; and this was probably a liberal boondoggle that was purely political - yes I admit it.)

 

I just couldn't possibly disagree with you more. Deficit spending is a result of decreased revenues, which is a result of the economic downturn. Bush's spending on the military is a veritable drop in the bucket vis-a-vis the overall deficit and debt. The only way he could decrease the deficit is to cut spending dramatically, which I'm sure you'd excoriate him for, or to increase taxes--but of course, that wouldn't work, because you'd just reduce the economic activity and likely reduce overall revenues while hampering businesses and essentially destroying the economy. Don't you know that the more expensive an activity is, the less you'll see of it? Businesses have a bottom line to meet, and if you increase their taxes, they'll employ less people or just go belly up--this is so axiomatic that I can't believe I have to discuss it. If I offer you two doors and behind one is Garbo to kiss you and the other is DeVito to moon you, which door do you enter? Of course, the one that involves less cost--Garbo. In the same way, if you want businesses to produce things and want to increase overall tax revenues and take a bite out of that national debt, do those things likely to increase business activity and thus expand you tax base.

There's no way that Robert Reich, Bill Clinton, et. al. had anything to do with the creation of 22 million jobs! What did they do? Open new businesses? And what economic plan of Clinton's went into effect that stimulated the economy? Attempts at higher taxes? Congress spends all the money, and can pretty much eviscerate the president's plan and the handiwork of the OMB; thank goodness the branch of the government that really has an effect on the economy--the Legislative--was largely controlled by those more fiscally conservative than Bill Clinton almost throughout his administration. Had the Democrats been in control of Congress, we would almost have certainly had higher corporate taxes and decreased tax revenues and a vicious race to the bottom.

Tom, you'll find the great majority of economists are on my side.

 

Tom
Sorry to change the subject, but were you around during the early 1970's riots in Berkeley where a couple of protestors were shot by AC Deputies?

I have to agree with you on the Panthers and SLA. Hardly indicitive of the usual "hippie" movement of the day. I actually spoke to Huey Newton once before he ODed in Oakland - interesting character. Very intelligent.

 

Yes, of course, that blasted Vietnam that those infernal Republicans started.

 

The turth is that many Republicans, while disagreeing politically with Wellstone, liked him very much. Wellstone was a courageous, decent, well-meaning, hard-working, intellectually honest Senator.

I have missed him. Few American Senators match his decency. Although his replacement, Republican Norm Coleman, seems to be as genuine as Wellstone was.

 

I was in MN in much of the Wellstone Era, I thought he was a decent fellow, unlike the word-parsing stereotype of a legislator, breathtakingly straightforward--although I felt he was also breathtakingly wrongheaded on his policies, but could forgive him for that.

The only thing I can really fault him for beyond policy was when he decided to run for a third term. He'd sworn when first elected that he would serve no more than two, he reneged on that oath and decided to go for 6 more years, claiming that the situation was different than he expected it would be when he first made that promise 8 years before, that there was still "work to be done"--it was the only time I remember him sounding like a typical politician; of course there was still work to be done, there always will be, it was a poor stab at a rationale, and it dismayed Republicans and Democrats alike in Minnesota.

 

I'm sure that is true of some, but I can assure you that many of us that actually live in Minnesota didn't like him much at all. Of course, we were all grieved by his death, even though the Democrat party made a complete mockery of it.

BLD

 

You're not kidding, that political convention--ahem, memorial service--did more to put Norm into office than anything the Republicans ever could've done--an unmitigated disaster for Minnesota Democrats, and all self-inflicted.

BTW--Do you do DL learning? Just curious, because if there's one thing readily available in the Twin Cities (I lived there 8 years), it's education.

 

Funny - most business associates and friends who live in MA have always told me that they hate Kerry and Kennedy - and yet they both get elected time after time.

I guess most voters in MN liked Wellstone enough to vote him into office. If they didn't like him, they certainly respected him enough to vote for him.

 

I was specifically referring to Republicans. The Dems and most Independents LOVED Wellstone.

BLD