"The Democrats are doing everything they can to blow this presidential election. This is a skill that comes naturally to the party. There is no such thing as a can’t-miss year for the Democrats. They are truly gifted at finding ways to lose.Jimmy Carter managed to win the White House in 1976 by looking pious and riding a wave of anti-Watergate revulsion. After four hapless years, he dutifully handed the keys back to the G.O.P.
Bill Clinton tried hard to lose, with sex scandals and whatnot, during the 1992 campaign. But Ross Perot wouldn’t let him. Mr. Clinton won with a piddling 43 percent of the vote. For eight years, Mr. Clinton tried to throw the presidency away (with sex scandals and whatnot), but he was never able to succeed.
That’s been it for the party for the past 40 years. The Democrats have become so psychologically battered by these many decades in the leadership wilderness that they consider the Clinton years, during which the president was impeached and they lost control of both houses of Congress, to have been a period of triumph."
Bob Herbert, of the New York Times, finally setting the record straight
How anyone thinks that's a record that'll win over the American public is beyond me. Why the Democrats don't "get it" is beyond me: you're losers. Your causes are bogus, your whining is demoralizing, and you can't even trust each other - much less, ask someone else to trust you to run the country.
You believe in nothing - that's why you flit from issue to issue. You "think" in bumper stickers. You laugh at your own country's failures while pretending to care more than anyone else ever has in the history of the place (sure.). You have no humanity - that's why you can diss the president with such vigor: you can't be bothered with him as a human being. You're practically French in your deceptiveness. If you were honest with yourselves - tall order, that one - you would admit that all you really care about is yourselves. But you're so easily led you're not even worth it. Everybody else sees it. Why not you?
Too busy admiring betrayal's lop-sided smile.
"How anyone thinks that's a record that'll win over the American public is beyond me."
ReplyDeleteEven Bill's core of support - the sex workers of Washington DC - I don't know if even they would raise their legs ---- ARMS, HANDS, hands to vote for him (hillary) now.
Since the 1960s, the Republican and Democrat administrations have switched places on economic policy. The pattern is so well established that the generalisation can no longer be denied: the Republicans have become the party of fiscal irresponsibility, trade res-triction, big government and bad microeconomics.
ReplyDeleteSurprisingly, Democrat presidents have, relatively speaking, become the proponents of fiscal responsibility, free trade, competitive markets and neoclassical microeconomics. This characterisation sounds implausible. Certainly, it would not be recognisable from the two parties' rhetoric. But compare the records of Presidents Carter and Clinton with those of Presidents Reagan, Bush senior and Bush junior.
A simple look at the federal budget statistics shows an uncanny tendency for the deficit to rise during Republican presidencies. There is no mistaking the link between the Reagan and Bush tax cuts enacted in 1981 and 2001, respectively, and the dramatic deterioration in the long-term budget outlook that ensued. Meanwhile, by the end of the Clinton administration, the federal government achieved record surpluses.
Although many factors determine the overall budget situation, two deliberate steps enabled this achievement: Mr Clinton's 1993 budget package; and his 1998 "Save Social Security first" strategy, which blocked Congressional attempts either to cut taxes (Republicans) or raise spending (Democrats).
It is not just a question of the budget. Republicans are supposed to place more emphasis on fighting inflation. But in practice, Presidents Reagan and Bush senior pressured the Fed to ease monetary policy, while Mr Clinton deliberately and unprecedentedly let Alan Greenspan do his job.
Republican presidents have been big on free trade rhetoric. But their actions have been protectionist, judged not by some free trade ideal, but compared with Mr Clinton's record. Highlights include George W. Bush's tariffs on steel and lumber and Ronald Reagan's voluntary export restraints on autos. And the trend toward deregulation that most imagine began in the Reagan administration? It began under Jimmy Carter in airlines, trucking, natural gas and banking. Mr Reagan continued the trend.
If Republican and Democrat presidencies have indeed reversed roles, what is the explanation? After all, the Democrats in Congress, in general, are still less supportive of free trade and small government than the Republicans. One answer is that Democrats remain saddled with the image of big government. Many voters are wary of backing a Democratic presidential candidate who has not demonstrated the will and ability to grapple with the problems of government's role in the economy. The public seems willing, however, to accept Republican presidents who believe that it is enough to adopt the rhetoric of small government, even while their actions have the opposite effect.
It's either feast or famine around here. Can't you edit comments, CMC???
ReplyDeleteRichter,
ReplyDeleteI do what I can. When I have time - or you make sense - I print 'em (you can't say I don't) but when I've got other (offline) concerns, like today, I do my best. Sorry.
Anon,
You're stuck on the "small government" mantra - which I understand - but, first, Bill Clinton only did it under Republican pressure, and, second, Bush ain't trippin' on it (he has other, more important, goals to achieve.) because - as he keeps repeating - he wants to leave the country in better shape, over-all, than when he found it (or after the war started) so, just like when you re-arrange your house and have to move furniture into a mess before you can get the new configuration right, there's some work that has to be done - like letting the dollar fall so we can sell more shit to kill off the deficit - before he turns over the reigns to the next president.
And one more thing: small government, a balanced budget - whatever - aren't laws, they're ideals; goals sometimes (when they're possible to achieve) but mostly ideals we shoot for. They're not fixed in stone. To treat them as such - under all circumstances - is immature.
I understand the Left-wing tendency for cheap shots but, mostly, all you're proving is how silly Democrats can be when considering policy decisions. And, especially, in wartime.
"he wants to leave the country in better shape, over-all, than when he found it"
ReplyDeleteBush is also good with physical fitness. He bikes. I think he used to run. Maybe that is why you like him? (I've never heard of him doing yoga.)
See y'all? That's why I like Richter:
ReplyDeleteThat shit's funny.
Got a laugh out of me, anyway.
aw, thanks.
ReplyDeleteSee folks, he likes me, he really likes me.