Year: 2008

If Bush Tax Cuts Don’t Kill Economy, Congress Will

Trish

Speaker Freckles, Senate Majority Leader Fluffy, Rep. Peanut, and Sen. Blackie

Let me see if I’ve got this straight. The economy is in recession following years of wild spending on private contractors and unwanted embassies in Bush’s Iraq occupation, combined with tax cuts for the very rich. So what are we are going to do about it? Give everyone a tax rebate, plunging us even deeper into debt. Or, as Dartmouth Economics Prof. Andrew A. Samwick put it:

It is ironic that additional borrowing is prescribed as the remedy for a malady that arose from unwise borrowing.

Somebody explain to me how giving American tax dollars to people in Guam will stimulate the economy in the United States.

Everyone loves Ronald Reagan now that he’s really dead so let’s bring back this old favorite: voodoo economics. That was the counterintuitive scheme that said money rich people were no longer contributing for the public good would trickle down and benefit us working stiffs. It caused Reagan’s successor, Bush Jr.’s father, to ban lip-reading and raise taxes, but we still wallowed in recession until Bill Clinton forced us to spend within our means.

So here we are again. But Samwick notes there’s a new buzzword this time.

Let’s drop the euphemism of “stimulus package” and call this agreement by its proper name: “deficit spending.”

When you and I get our $300, we will have two choices: go to Wal-mart and blow it on more cheap crap from China, or use it to pay down our credit card bills. Neither option stimulates our economy, although I’m sure the Chinese will laugh gleefully.

Wait, it gets better. Bush originally called for a “tax rebate,” which would imply that those receiving a check had actually paid into the system to begin with. But thanks to the bunny rabbits in Congress whose only concern is staying in office, coverage is now extended to retirees and people on public assistance, who never paid any taxes. And — hold on to your hat — even people who don’t live in this country.

[…]

Poll: Romney Pulls Ahead of McCain in California

Jon Ponder

The latest Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby daily tracking poll has Romney and Obama in the lead in California.

Here are the numbers from yesterday, Feb. 3:

Republicans
Romney: 40 percent, up from 37 percent
McCain: 32 percent, down from 34 percent
Huckabee: 12 percent, unchanged
Paul: 5 percent, unchanged
Someone else: 4 percent, down from 5 percent
Undecided: 8 percent, up from 7 percent

Democrats
Obama: 46 percent, up from 45
Clinton: 40 percent, down from 41 percent
Gravel: < 1 percent, unchanged Someone else: 5 percent, down from 6 percent Undecided: 9 percent, unchanged

Democrats Must Win in November — That’s Why I’m Voting for Clinton Tomorrow

Jon Ponder

There is nothing as fragile and elusive in politics as charisma. It has been sorely lacking of late. George Bush doesn’t have it, and neither did John Kerry or Al Gore. There is no question that Barack Obama has it, and that he could be in the same charismatic league as Bill Clinton and (the much lower wattage of) Ronald Reagan.
The Swiftboating of John Kerry in 2004 was nothing compared with what the rightwing did to the Clintons in the 1990s — and will pale in comparison with what they have in store for Barack Obama.
But in the knife fight that is today’s political way of war, when opponents are attacked not on their weaknesses but on their strengths, no personal attribute is easier to destroy than charisma.

If Obama is the Democratic nominee, I believe Republican political tacticians — whoever the next Karl Roves turn out to be — will have his charisma sliced to ribbons within a week or two.

The question is, without his charisma, who is Barack Obama? I don’t know, and, dear reader, neither do you. Compared with the other candidates in the race, he has barely been vetted. His opponent in his run for the Senate in Illinois in 2004 was Alan Keyes, who had no money and barely put up a fight.

I have no doubt Barack Obama is a smart and decent man who’d make a fine president. But then John Kerry and Al Gore were fine and decent men, too. Sans charisma, my fear is, Barack Obama is like them — an upright, honorable fellow whom the GOP can easily mow down. (Yes, I know they cheated at the ballot boxes too, but vote rigging only works if the margins are slim. We need a blow-out this year.)

Clinton may be thin on charisma, but she is as much a known quantity as we’ve had from any candidate in memory who was not an incumbent. If she is the nominee, most of what the GOP will have to throw at her will have already been vetted — and either has been proven false or accurately could be labeled “old news.”

I am generally neutral on the Clintons. I think the Clinton administration was a hallmark in good governance among administrations of the recent past (which is not really saying a lot) and that America made net gains during their eight years in office. On the other hand, I will never forgive Bill Clinton for signing the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 at the same time he was conducting an extramarital affair.

But having read extensively on the Republicans’ behind-the-scenes anti-Clinton campaigns in the 1990s, the record is clear: Most of what people seem not to like about Hillary Clinton is based on lies and distortions that had their genesis in the Arkansas Project and were fed to the public by the likes of Barbara Olson, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter and David Brock — all of whom were nobodies before becoming professional Clinton-haters in the 1990s.

We know now what liars the Republican blond squad turned out to be, and, in 2002, David Brock published a full mea culpa on his hatchet jobs against Hillary Clinton and others, titled “Blinded by the Right.” He has come out of the rightwing darkness and is using his considerable intellect as a force for good instead of evil, as the brains behind Media Matters for America.

[…]

Mitt-man Limbaugh: ‘A Vote for Huckabee Is a Vote for McCain’

Jon Ponder

The best entertainment going this season is the crack up on the right over the ascendancy of John McCain. What could be more fun than witnessing the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt and others in a full-bore panic because the conservative movement is imploding under their feet.

Hugh Hewett was just on CNN whining because the mainstream media is ignoring the rightwing radio talkers’ endorsements of Mitt Romney and, particularly, their message to their listeners that a vote for Mike Huckabee is a vote for McCain.

As a Democrat, I heartily endorse their efforts on Romney’s behalf, and since Dittoheads and Coulter Clones often troll these pages, here is Rush on Huckabee from his Thursday show:

RUSH: The popular vote right now doesn’t matter, it’s a delegate thing and that’s why right now Super Tuesday — I mean Hugh Hewitt ran some numbers here, worst-case scenario from Romney, just to be fair about it, and these numbers, I’m having to get them from my head and I may be off by a couple hundred but the point will be made.

At the end of Super Tuesday, the number of delegates McCain could have would be in the 700s, the number Romney would have would be in the 300s, that’s large to overcome. It can be done, it can still be done, but that’s monumental, and Huckabee will be in there with 150 some odd. The real key to this is Huckabee. A vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain in the primaries.

Just doing our part to help Republican voters!

Poll: Obama Pulls Even with Clinton in California – 18% Undecided

Jon Ponder

The Field Poll is considered the gold standard among California surveys:

A startling surge of support for Barack Obama has catapulted the Illinois senator into a virtual tie with Hillary Rodham Clinton in California’s Democratic presidential primary, a Field Poll released Saturday shows…

But the Democratic numbers are the shocker. Clinton, a longtime California favorite, saw her once-commanding lead slip to two percentage points, 36 to 34 percent, in the new survey. That’s down from the New York senator’s 12 percentage point lead in mid-January and a 25 percentage point margin over Obama in October.

But with 18 percent of Democratic voters still undecided just days before Tuesday’s primary, the election is still up for grabs, said Mark DiCamillo, the poll’s director.

About three weeks ago, Clinton had a 31 percentage point lead over Obama in the Bay Area. Apparently that advantage is collapsing, perhaps because Edwards’ supporters there are breaking for Obama. Clinton’s lead in Los Angeles (which has roughly double the population of the Bay Area) remains strong.

Among Republicans, John McCain is leading Mitt Romney 32 to 24 percent. Mike Huckabee has 13 percent and Ron Paul has 10 percent.

Comparisons to Bush Repulse ‘Talking’ Chimps

Jon Ponder

Click to Enlarge

Here’s evidence that chimpanzees are smarter than the Republican base:

Over the last few decades, researchers have been able to teach primates to communicate with American Sign Language, lexigrams, and computers. Although their vocabulary is rudimentary, it is more than adequate not only for asking for basic needs to be met, but for expressing feelings and opinions.

Their distress was first discovered when a researcher was working on basic math with signing chimp Washoe, and she overheard another scientist refer to Bush as a “chimp faced moron.” She stopped her lesson to sign over and over “bush dirty bad stupid not chimp,” and persisted until the offending person told her that he agreed Bush was not a chimp, and that chimps are not dirty bad and stupid like Bush.

In another case, Lana, a chimp taught to use lexigrams on a computer, asked her trainer to show her pictures of other chimps on the internet. When websites like Smirking Chimp or Bush or Chimp came up instead, Lana gave a distress howl and defecated on her computer viewing stool, which is highly unusual for the otherwise potty trained chimp.

One primate expert said the comparison is offensive to the Chimp-American community, and really should be avoided. The chimpanzees do not mind, however, if Bush is compared with lower primates like lemurs or baboons, said the expert.

Update: Read the full text here.

News Shocker: Anti-War Right Boosts Ron Paul to Top GOP Q4 Fundraiser

Jon Ponder

The campaigns have all released their fundraising reports from the fourth quarter of 2007, and the results show that three candidates who oppose the endless occupation of Iraq raised the most money.
There is real energy and excitement among the small minority of Republicans who oppose the endless occupation of Iraq.
Democrat Hillary Clinton led the field in both parties with $26.5 million, followed by Barack Obama with $22.8 million. (The Obama campaign says it has already raised $32 million in January alone.)

But the headline that ought to be in 40-point type is the fact the only Republican supporter of withdrawal from Iraq, Ron Paul, trounced his GOP rivals in the fourth quarter by raising nearly $20 million. As a Los Angeles Times blogger put it, it is a “news shocker“:

Well, it’s official, ladies and gentlemen. Believe it or not, Rep. Ron Paul, the 72-year-old Texan who hardly ever gets mentioned in Republican political news and the one-time libertarian who always gets the least time on TV debates if he isn’t barred completely, was, in fact, the most successful Republican fundraiser in the last three months of 2007.

By the thousands, Paul’s fervent followers donated $19.95 million to the “Ron Paul Revolution.” He spent $17.75 million, and at year’s end, had $7.8 million cash on hand, making him the only Republican candidate to increase his fundraising totals in every quarter of 2007. According to his website, Paul’s Paulunteers have contributed another $4.1 million this month…

Compare that impressive financial success with, say, ex-candidate Rudy Giuliani, who raised only $14.4 million from Oct. 1 to Dec. 31 and spent $18.2 million.

Or the departed Fred Thompson, who collected $8.9 million and spent $13.9 million.

Or even the newly-minted Republican front-runner Sen. John McCain, who raked in only $9.9 million, spent $10.5 million and had only $2.9 million cash in hand. Of course, McCain’s string of primary victories in January will have boosted his financial fortunes. Everybody loves a winner.

Mitt Romney actually raised only $9.2 million from other people last quarter, less than half of Paul’s haul. However, the former Massachusetts governor — and if he keeps spending at this rate, the quite possibly former multimillionaire — gave himself $18 million more of his own money last fall for a total of $27.2 million and $2.4 million cash on hand.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who’s had trouble raising money … [According to the Federal Election Commission website] he raised about $6.7 million, a third of Paul’s sum, while spending $7.08 million, leaving him on New Year’s Eve with cash on hand of only $651,300.68…

Paul, who’s done well in some symbolic straw polls and little-noticed state caucuses until his best showing so far as a second-place finisher to Romney in the Nevada caucuses, has repeatedly disavowed a third-party effort if his bid to be the Republican nominee in St. Paul next summer falls short.

His determined followers maintain that a news media conspiracy is holding down Paul’s success at the polls, although obviously word has gotten out to somebody for him to raise such sums. Paul’s outspoken stands, including withdrawal from Iraq and drastic downsizing of the federal government, run counter to each of his GOP competitors.

As for Paul’s campaign, his loyal troops plan another “money bomb,” a big fundraising day, today in honor of Ron and Carol Paul’s 51st wedding anniversary. One of the obvious gifts: the undisputed GOP fundraising championship for the last three months of 2007.

Paul also leads the GOP field in cash on hand with $8 million. MccCain has $3 million; Romney, $2.4 million; and Huckabee, $2 million.

This is strong indicator that there is real energy and excitement among the small minority of Republicans who oppose the occupation of Iraq.

Hartmann: It’s an ‘Occupation’ Not a ‘War’

Jon Ponder

Wars end in victory or surrender. Occupations end with withdrawals. Thom Hartmann made the point on his radio show this week that as long as the Republicans — and the media and even the Democratic candidates — continue to frame the Iraq occupation as a “war,” John McCain and other proponents of endless occupation will continue to falsely claim that leaving Iraq would be “surrendering to al Qaeda.”

Looking back on Bush’s adventure, it is increasingly clear that, even though it was called a war from the beginning, it has all the contours of an invasion and occupation. Our forces went in, routed the government, arrested and killed its leaders and installed a puppet regime, albeit by popular election. Except for the brief ground war after the invasion, there was nothing remotely like a traditional ground war.

Next month, we’ll mark the fifth year of the occupation. Unlike wars, Hartman pointed out, occupations are supposed to end. He may be right that the first small step toward withdrawing from this one may be reframing the debate.

Audience for Democratic Debate More Than Doubled GOP’s

Jon Ponder

Seats in the Kodak Theatre for the Democratic debate in Hollywood last night were said to be harder to come by than tickets to the Kodak for the Oscars later this month.

Like the Oscars, however, folks at home got to watch it for free. And watch it they did:

An estimated 8.3 million television viewers watched Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama debate Thursday night in California, more than double the audience for Republican candidates the night before.

The CNN audience for Clinton and Obama’s debate, the first one-on-one contest for Democrats now that John Edwards has dropped out, was second only to the 9.4 million people who watched the Democrats on ABC Jan. 5, according to Nielsen Media Research.

CNN also televised a Republican debate Wednesday night, highlighted by contentious exchanges between John McCain and Mitt Romney, that was watched by 4 million viewers, Nielsen said.

The Democratic debate eclipsed, by far, any other political debate ever shown just on cable television. The previous high was the Democratic debate in South Carolina on Jan. 21, seen by 4.9 million people.