Volume 5

[chrisfan]

So the first poll is showing that Bush got that elusive bounce. Obviously this early, it's hard to know how accurate the polling data is. But with good job growth news, and a good poll coming in the same day, Bush may want to consider picking up a lottery ticket when he lands in Ohio tonight.

[stratman19]

I agree Chris, it'll be interesting to see the polling of Mon.-Tues., to see how the convention shook out.

[chrisfan]

With the new jobs numbers out, here's a question I've been pondering lately ...

One of the biggest flaws in the way that the job starts numbers are calculated, IMO, is that businesses with less than 500 employees are not included in the count (and this is believed to be where the biggest job growth is) President Bush has put a strong focus on small business growth. It makes a lot of sense to focus here, IMO, because in an business environment like we are in, growth in large businesses is somewhat stagnant, due to mergers, etc. But, by focusing on encouraging job growth in the small business sector, and encouraging people to set out and start their own businesses, Bush doesn't necessarily get the job start numbers that would reflect best on him. So politically, is it a mistake to take this route, because he doens't get the credit? Or smart, because the benefit for the country is greater?

[stratman19]

Chrisfan said:

I've been thinking about this since I typed it, and I think I have to revise it. I can't say that i'd be mad to see some of the programs he proposed come to fruition in the same way I was mad to see McCain-Feingold or the drug benefit for medicare signed. A great deal of what he proposed was more enpowering people, falling under the "Ownership Society" umbrealla, than your typical "let the government fix it" type of program. And that's one of the things I've always liked the best -- his belief in people achieving great things when they are enpowered. So maybe I'm not the conservative I think I am. Maybe George W Bush isn't either. I want to know more about some of these programs. I might end up liking them.

Oh, I agree Chris. I'm not against all federal programs. I do share your thoughts on McCain/Feingold, and the prescription drug benefit. McCain/Feingold for what I think are obvious reasons, and the prescription drug benefit because I thought it would cost a kajillion dollars, be confusing, and be minimally effective, and I think I'm right on that.

I'm squarely behind the concept of an ownership society. Mary mentioned earlier about President Bush wanting to privatize part of social security, thinking it was a bad thing. I disagree, and there's several surveys out that indicate younger voters would be in favor of this.

The argument that if you increase spending and don't raise taxes there will be a deficit only works if you assume that people's income will remain the same. If more people are working, tax revenue goes up. If peopleare making more money, tax revenue goes up. In addition, if you cut spending in areas deemed outdated or unnecessary (and even if we don't agree on what they are, we can all agree that there are areas like that out there) that contributes to balancing the budget too. There are countless examples of taxes being cut, and tax revenues going up.

This is true of course. As long as the economy is expanding, tax revenues increase, when companies are more profitable, tax revenues increase, when people make more money, tax revenues increase. It's also been shown time and time again, that cutting taxes actually raises tax revenues. I'm all for making the tax cuts permanent, as well as cutting taxes even more. My problem with this administration is the high amount of spending has to be brought under control.

Another thing that has to be brought under control are government entitlements and unfunded mandates. I believe privatizing part of social security is a step in the right direction. Government entitlements consume so much of the federal budget, and are locked into the budget, that the budget already starts out with a structural deficit. And it's just going to get worse unless reformed, because we are not always going to be able to count on our economy growing faster than the need to fund these mandates and staying (barely) ahead of the game.

[stratman19]

Some things that Mary thought were bad things that I disagree with:

-- the judicial branch - he has appointed, or tried to appoint, a host of ultraright federal judges across the judiciary

I agree with President Bush on this. I would much rather have judges that simply interpret the law, than activist judges that attempt to legislate from the bench.

-- his foreign policy is very obviously a neoconservative wet dream - pre-emptive wars, capitalist reshaping of the middle east, scorning international institutions, dropping out of treaties

While I wouldn't use the term "wet dream", I see no problem with the concept of pre-emptive war. Capitilism is also the finest system I know of. The UN is corrupt, impotent, and thru it's history, largely anti-American. If it were up to me we would withdraw our funding and our membership. I have no problem scorning the UN. As for dropping out of treaties, I have no problem with that either, when they threaten our sovereignty or our economy (see Kyoto).

-- he wants to privatize part of social security

As for privatizing social security, I already mentioned that in a prior post.

-- his welfare reauthorization policy increases all the conservative tendencies of the welfare reform act

First, it was a Democrat that introduced the welfare reform act (one Bill Clinton), and for that I could hardly believe my eyes. Mary, these programs cost a fortune, and whether you like it or not, they have to be reformed.

[chrisfan]

stratman19 said:

-- he wants to privatize part of social security

As for privatizing social security, I already mentioned that in a prior post.

I actually disagree with Bush here. I think that "part of" needs to be taken out of the goal. I just think we need to privatize it period.

[stratman19]

Chrisfan said:

With the new jobs numbers out, here's a question I've been pondering lately ...

One of the biggest flaws in the way that the job starts numbers are calculated, IMO, is that businesses with less than 500 employees are not included in the count (and this is believed to be where the biggest job growth is) President Bush has put a strong focus on small business growth. It makes a lot of sense to focus here, IMO, because in an business environment like we are in, growth in large businesses is somewhat stagnant, due to mergers, etc. But, by focusing on encouraging job growth in the small business sector, and encouraging people to set out and start their own businesses, Bush doesn't necessarily get the job start numbers that would reflect best on him. So politically, is it a mistake to take this route, because he doens't get the credit? Or smart, because the benefit for the country is greater?

I'd vote for smart, because the benefit to the country is greater. Anything that makes the country better is ultimately more important than what is better politically for any politician, IMO.

[stratman19]

Chrisfan said:

I actually disagree with Bush here. I think that "part of" needs to be taken out of the goal. I just think we need to privatize it period.

I don't have a problem with that on principle. The only reason I agreed with "the part of it" part, is that I think such a solution comes too late, and would be too traumatic for current seniors, and those about to collect benefits. I think you need to pick an age, cut-off date, whatever, and start from there. Let current beneficeries, and those retiring in the next few years get grandfathered into the current system, and begin privatization for everyone else. I'm not sure I made much sense, but I hope you know what I'm trying to say.

[chrisfan]

stratman19 said:

I don't have a problem with that on principle. The only reason I agreed with "the part of it" part, is that I think such a solution comes too late, and would be too traumatic for current seniors, and those about to collect benefits. I think you need to pick an age, cut-off date, whatever, and start from there. Let current beneficeries, and those retiring in the next few years get grandfathered into the current system, and begin privatization for everyone else. I'm not sure I made much sense, but I hope you know what I'm trying to say.

It makes sense, and I agree with that. But the way Bush was talking about it last night (as I remember it at least) was that even people just starting their careers would have the option of investing PART OF their social security in private accounts.

On an unrelated note ... I just watched Hillary Clinton's remarks on Bill's health outside the hospital. I find it fulfilling of every negative stereotype and criticism of the woman that she had to throw in a "we're just glad we have good health insurance" remark into her statement. The woman is pathetic! She even makes her husband's heart surgery into a poltical event!!!

[stratman19]

The woman is pathetic! She even makes her husband's heart surgery into a poltical event!!!

She's not just pathetic, she's evil incarnate! ;D

[melon1]

Concerning ampage's post back on CE Vol. 4 I'm as far as one could get from a leftist Democrat and I think Radiohead is the greatest, most innovative and artistic band out there today. So....

[stratman19]

I've never listened to any Radiohead.

[strat-0]

Bypass surgery isn't as big a deal as it used to be - Chaney has had how many now? I agree it was crass for Hillary to say that, but I haven't heard it to note the vocal inflections, etc. At the same time, if I were having to have heart surgery, I'm sure one of the first things I'd say was, "I'm glad I have good health insurance" (if indeed I did).

Now, everybody go and take the new "scientific" poll at the main CE page.

[chrisfan]

Kerry's showing he just can't take the heat

September 5, 2004

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Both candidates gave speeches late on Thursday night. George W. Bush was more or less expected to. John Kerry didn't have to, but reported for duty even though nobody wanted him to. Unnerved by sagging numbers, he decided to start the post-Labor Day phase of the campaign three days before Labor Day. The way things are going, Democrats seem likely to be launching the post-election catastrophic-defeat vicious-recriminations phase of the campaign round about Sept. 12.

At any rate, less than 60 minutes after President Bush gave a sober, graceful, droll and moving address, Kerry decided to hit back. In the midnight hour, he climbed out of his political coffin, and before his thousands of aides could grab the garlic from Teresa's kitchen and start waving it at him, he found himself in front of an audience and started giving a speech. As in Vietnam, he was in no mood to take prisoners: ''I have five words for Americans,'' he thundered. ''This is your wake up call!''

Is that five words? Or is it six? Well, it's all very nuanced, according to whether you hyphenate the ''wake-up.'' Maybe he should have said, ''I have four words plus a common hyphenated expression for Americans.'' I'd suggest the rewrite to him personally, but I don't want him to stare huffily at me and drone, "How dare you attack my patriotism."

By about nine words into John Kerry's wake up call, I was sound asleep again. But this was what he told Ohio's brave band of chronic insomniacs:

''For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as commander in chief. Well, here's my answer. I'm not going to have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve.''

Oh, dear . . . growing drowsy again . . . losing the will to type . . . what's he saying now?

''Two tours of duty''

Ah, yes. As usual, he has four words for Americans: I served in Vietnam. Or five words if you spell it Viet Nam.

So we have one candidate running on a platform of ambitious reforms for an ''ownership society'' at home and a pledge to hunt down America's enemies abroad. And we have another candidate running on the platform that no one has the right to say anything mean about him.

And for this the senator broke the eminently civilized tradition that each candidate lets the other guy have his convention week to himself? Maybe they need to start scheduling those Kerry campaign shakeups twice a week.

There was an old joke back in the Cold War:

Proud American to Russian guy: ''In my country every one of us has the right to criticize our president.''

Russian guy: ''Same here. In my country every one of us has the right to criticize your president.''

That seems to be the way John Kerry likes it. Americans should be free to call Bush a moron, a liar, a fraud, a deserter, an agent of the House of Saud, a mass murderer, a mass rapist (according to the speaker at a National Organization for Women rally last week) and the new Hitler (according to just about everyone). But how dare anyone be so impertinent as to insult John Kerry! No one has the right to insult Kerry, except possibly Teresa, and only on the day she gives him his allowance.

Several distinguished analysts have suggested that the best rationale for a Kerry presidency is that it would be a ''return to normalcy'' -- a quiet life after the epic pages of history George W. Bush has been writing these last three years. Even if a ''return to normalcy'' were an option, I doubt whether John Kerry would qualify. As we saw in those two Thursday speeches, Bush takes the war seriously but he doesn't take himself seriously -- self-deprecating jokes are obligatory these days, but try to imagine Kerry doing the equivalent of Bush's gags about mangled English and swaggering. The president is comfortable in his own skin, which is why he shrugs off the Hitler stuff. By contrast, Kerry doesn't take the war seriously because he's so busy taking himself seriously. If ''return to normalcy'' means four years of a grimly humorless, touchy, self-regarding Kerry presidency, I'll take the war.

That's surely why Kerry is running his kamikaze kandidacy on biography rather than any grand themes. Senator Kerrikaze is running for president because he thinks he should be president -- who needs a platform? One of the most revealing aspects of the campaign this last week were the interviews given by his various surrogates. Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic National Committee chairman, went on Hugh Hewitt's radio show and was asked about the swift boat veterans' ads, and he laughed and blustered and stalled and floundered. That sounded weird. This thing's been going on a month now, and the Kerry campaign still hasn't come up with a form of words to deflect questions about it. If they had an agreed spin, McAuliffe and Co. would be out using it. But the seared senator feels it's lese majeste even to question him. He can talk about Vietnam 24/7, but nobody else is allowed to bring it up.

Sorry, man, that's not the way it works. And if he thinks it does, he's even further removed from the realities of democratic politics than he was from the interior of Cambodia. Instead of those military records the swift boat vets are calling for, I'd be more interested in seeing his medical ones.

As for Bush, to be sure at one level his convention was a ''soft-focus infomercial,'' just as Kerry's was. But the infomercial came into sharp focus just often enough to clarify, piercingly, the differences between the parties. On opening night in Boston, the Democrats staged a tasteful, teary candlelight remembrance of those who died on 9/11. On opening night in New York, the Republicans put up one speaker after another -- John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Ron Silver -- resolved that those thousands of innocents shall not have died in vain.

I remember a couple of days after Sept. 11 writing that weepy candlelight vigils were a cop-out: the issue wasn't whether you were sad about the dead people but whether you wanted to do something about it. Three years on, the two conventions drew the same distinction. If you want passivity and wallowing in victim culture, the Dems will do. If you want to win this thing, Bush is the only guy running.

[Proud]

still looking for my means of physical punishment. if anyone has any ideas, shoot (... figuratively).