What about the NSA scandal. Did Alito give legal cover to the BushAssmin to spy on us illegally. Can Alito be called as a witness, and testify under oath, to the NSA hearings that are upcoming in Congress?
Why go thru the pain of impeachment and all that? He can just get dead from rat poison in his oatmeal. I read that's the prefered way to rid ourselves of a bad SC justice.
Posted by Sharon at January 28, 2006 05:30 AMIts a happy thought, but can he be impeached for anything he did prior to his confirmation hearings?
Was Alito the tipping point for total Republican control so that he would never be brought to trial anyway?
Posted by m at January 28, 2006 05:32 AMWell, I tend to agree with Ford when he says an impeachable offense is anything the House thinks is impeachable given the current situation. Looks like at least 2 Justices get impeached in 2008. Fuck the neo-cons. They are scum. It'll take a while to clean up after their little frat party of the last few years, but clean it up we must.
Posted by phidipides at January 28, 2006 06:43 AMSeriously...why don't you guys come up with some serious viable ideas, put forth by some serious viable people instead of trying to manufacture fake scandal and fake scandal.
Other than murdering innocent little babies and aiding and abetting terrorists, the left stands for nothing.
Posted by dipshit at January 28, 2006 06:58 AMThere's one problem with your idea. You begin the thought with "when we have rid ourselves of the right wing ..."
The problem is that they are not going to let us rid ourselves of them. They have too much to lose if we take over. They would all end up in jail. So, there's no way they will allow us to win an election again -- ever.
I'm not sure where that leaves us.
Posted by walldon at January 28, 2006 06:58 AMFascinating read. I enjoyed the link as well.
A Couple Comments-(Yes here it comes)
Ford objected to Douglas and wanted to impeach him.
1. The Democratic Controlled Congress-nuff said.
2. Ford was a moderate, so why he would object to this left wing liberal wacko is just plain funny, but moderates have never been consistent.
3. Ford ironically had a chance to "set the record straight" when he appointed the Douglas successor, and guess what he appointed a liberal. Way to go Ford, appoint Stevens whose been on the bench for 30 years writing ignorant opinions year after year.
Now as to the Impeachment issues.....
The Last Two federal Judges IMPEACHED....
Alcee Hastings impeached for corruption and PERJURY. Now he is a wonderful DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN.
William Nixon-Impeached for Perjury to a grandjury. Impeached by a Democratic Congress for lying to a grand jury. Go figure. How that wasn't widely reported when Clinton was being impeached, I don't know, or I don't remember.
Thanks for the link. I was but a mere boy when Ford wrote that article, although I did help in his Campaign against that idiot Carter.
A paralegal friend of mine has pointed out that an impeachible offense for a judge is proof of judicial malpractice. In Antonin Scalia's case, we have such proof: he's made claims about how he would rule if a certain case came before him, which means he'd prejudged the case.
Of course, Scalia's also taking judicial junkets which brings up the issue of conflict of interests.
So yes, they most certainly can be impeached. I think it's something we need to start taking a greater interest in, frankly.
Posted by Jonathan at January 28, 2006 07:08 AMCarpe Diem,
Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. He was acquitten on both. That's really all that matters.
Fascinating to me that wingnuts always seem to forget that Clinton was never convicted of perjury (in three courts), yet they seem to keep thinking that he was guilty. What does it take with you guys? And why don't you apply remotely the same standards to your own politicians?
Could it be that partisanship is really the only issue?
Posted by Jonathan at January 28, 2006 07:11 AMSince this is an open thread. and Impeachment is being discussed.
One of my best memories was actually going to the U.S. Senate to watch the IMPEACHMENT trial of Bill Clinton. It was a phenominal experience, I'll never forget the proceeding.
I also remember that we only had a short time to watch. I believe thirty minutes or so, and then the next group of people would want to come in, so we promised to return our tickets right away.
But while there we were of course told of the decorum. No talking, remaining completely quiet, we had to remain in our seats....
Across from us, the Democrats had an area where their people were coming in. And lo and behold, there was Whoopie Goldberg. Well, she showed all of the respect that a $10 whore shows at a wedding with an open bar. She spoke out loud, and hung over the front banister like a 8 year old watching a baseball game. It was embarrassing to watch her rude behavoir, but not unexpected.
I'll be glad to send the jpg copy of the "golden ticket" that I used at the hearing.... for those that enjoy this sort of thing.....or that want to have a little salt rubbed into your still festering wound.
Posted by carpediem at January 28, 2006 07:17 AMCarpe,
The wound isn't ours. It belongs to the entire country. You tried to bring down one of the best presidents of the last 50 years for entirely political reasons -- and don't give me this crap about how impeachment is "a political proceeding". The Constitution sets standards, however ambiguous, to this sort of thing -- standards that you now ignore (hell, you now ignore your own standards that you applied to Clinton, so I guess that's par for the course).
Good job, guy. This country will be ever so much better once you and your ideological kin are driven back under the rock from whence you crawled, and are once again treated as the circus freaks and psychological case studies that you are.
How's that for salt?
Posted by Jonathan at January 28, 2006 07:23 AMcrappy, this week Republican Ann Coulter said that someone should poison a Supreme Court justice. Why do the Republicans always think that murder is the way to solve their problems. Why do you want to murder people you don't agree with?
Posted by iamcoyote at January 28, 2006 07:27 AMJonathon....
Sad so very sad, I think you've said this silly little comment before....
The Clinton legacy will forever have the "stain" of Clinton's illegal and immoral behavoir imprinted upon his presidency.
Its true, so take all the warmeth in the glow of this statement, that Clinton was never found guilty in a Court of Law for perjury.
Politics helped bring about his impeachment and politics saved his hide from crmininal prosecution.
Clinton did lie in a Federal Deposition. He was allowed merely to "admit" to "misleading" and giving "incorrect" answers etc. He was disbarred for unethical behavoir and fined, I believe about $250,000 for his lies.
I guess whether Clinton lied depends on your definition of the word "lied".
He was given a pass, and perhaps history will find that this was the right thing to do.
Even George W, said Clinton should be allowed to remain active in his further life pursuits not held down by this controversy.
But believe everything and anything you want. I really could care less....
Oh, and O.J. was found not guilty of murdereing two people... So who do you suppose actually did it? Using your standard of logic, I suppose George Bush killed those two people.
Pathetic, but typical left wing lunacy...
Oh, and I don't recall his federal lawsuit being thrown out... I do recall Clinton paying Jones about $900,000 though.
Clinton's legacy....the best President in 50 years.
The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court
Sorry, I did plagerize the above. I've done my best to forget his presidency, so I have to be reminded from time to time.
Posted by carpediem at January 28, 2006 07:42 AMHere are some more "facts" that I've not specifically verified, but for which I believe is fundamentally true....
Care to debate these figures?
Here's what happened to the Democrats under Clinton:
- GOP seats gained in House since Clinton became president: 48
- GOP seats gained in Senate since Clinton became president: 8
- GOP governorships gained since Clinton became president: 11
- GOP state legislative seats gained since Clinton became president: 1,254
as of 1998
- State legislatures taken over by GOP since Clinton became president: 9
- Democrat officeholders who have become Republicans since Clinton became
president: 439 as of 1998
- Republican officeholders who have become Democrats since Clinton became president: 3
By all accounts the Clinton Presidency almost Destroyed the Democratic Party....Clinton single handidly did more to HELP get Republicans elected than any other single thing.
So now lets see, Clinton was the best president in 50 years.... Well in some ways, I agree....
Posted by carpediem at January 28, 2006 07:48 AM[T]he second offense would clearly be something that would betray the Constitution and in my opinion would be treason is the most formal sense of the word.
This would still be "treason" in the casual, figure-of-speech sense of the word. The Constitution makes a point of limiting treason to active support of America's enemies.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 28, 2006 07:49 AMdj, isn't Bush actively supporting enemies of the US by giving bin Laden exactly what he asked for?
Posted by iamcoyote at January 28, 2006 07:51 AMIamacoyote,
Ann has a tendancy to get "carried away" and although the actual story indicates that she was jesting, I thought it was repugnant nonetheless for her to say such a thing.
Ann is too bright and too smart and too knowledgeable and her message is often appropriate, but this kind of thing destroys any credibility that she might have had in helping to advance her position....
She reminds me of most of you guys, Like Dog of Whining, and a few others, that frequently wish death upon others. I find that repugnant too.
But since I've never seen you post anything that suggests Dog of Whinning should cease with his comments, then I suspect you have little credance in saying Ann was wrong... I will however, say both Ann and Dog of Whining are wrong...
Posted by carpediem at January 28, 2006 07:53 AMIt is usually thought that the impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase in 1805 set a standard requiring proof of actual criminal or legal wrongdoing by the justice. Chase was acquited; we haven't tried it since then.
An interesting question might have arisen if the Dems had filibustered and the Reactionary Brownsuit Party had been forced to push Alito through the Senate by breaking the existing rules of the Senate over the objection of the Parliamentarion (i.e. via the nuclear option). I think a strong argument could have been made that Alito had not validly received the "advice and consent" of the Senate in such circumstances.
Remember, though, that all impeachments require a 2/3 vote of the Senate---pretty big number.
Posted by euzoius at January 28, 2006 07:57 AMSTOP THE PRESSES....
GREAT NEWS........
ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK IS FINALLY GONNA PAY OFF....
ALITO IS GOING TO BE STOPPED!
WHY DO I KNOW THIS?
Hillary just announced her support of the filibuster.....
With leadership like Hillary and Kerry, how can the Dems go wrong...
Just curious, after your leaders F#%K you over, do they ever kiss you afterward?
I think you have Battered Spouse Syndrome.... Seek help immediately.
Posted by carpediem at January 28, 2006 08:09 AMMust be a rainy weekend in Atlanta and Crape is trapped in the house, given the absurd promiscuity of his posts.
Posted by euzoius at January 28, 2006 08:20 AMcrappy suffers from a distinctly fascist party malady..head up the ass syndrome..there is no known cure and is fatal...
Posted by headxray at January 28, 2006 08:21 AMSymptoms & Signs of Battered Supporter Syndrome...
1. Feelings of depression, anxiety, hypervigilance, extreme timidity & hopelessness in response to abuse & battering by one’s Leaders.
2. Lack of self-confidence & poor self-esteem
3. Illogical desires in "seeing" fiction as fact.
4. Always considering other leaders to be much worse than your own.
5. Ignoring the abuse, until you can not tolerate it any longer, then joining a blog and crying openingly until another abused follower props you back up with asinine comments.
Treatment includes....
1. Taking off the rose colored glasses.
2. Moving from your "blue" state which is a sign of depression.
3. Quit going to blogs in general, get a job, pay your taxes, and take a full dose of reality.
4. Check your bleeding heart at the door, and start using the grey matter between your ears.
5. Open your eyes to the truth.
6. Open your ears to wisdom.
7. Run like hell away from ignorant people that somehow tell you that Clinton was the best president in the last 50 years.
crappy advocates for murder of Democrats, and can't deny it. He's said it many times, that's what Republicans stand for.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 28, 2006 08:35 AMI think that crappy has battered spouse syndrome. Bedwetters that are willing to give up all their freedoms because Bush says "ooga booga" sounds an awful lot like someone who's been beaten up a lot in life.
If he lives in GA, he must be one of those sonny perdue fundamentalist whackjobs. They are a new breed of bush apologists. One thing you must understand with these idiots is that they think that Bill Clinton is the antichrist and that jr. is the savior who "saved" them. They are a bunch of dumb bushbots who are unable to reason. Ask 'em a question and they will spout out exactly what Rush has told them! LOL! I deal with these idiots all the time. You can't reason with these people. They are brainwashed cultists.
Posted by Ga6thDem at January 28, 2006 08:39 AMcrappy's right. what good is peace and prosperity when there's oral sex going on. much better to have crushing debt, big government and a middle east meat grinder.
Posted by benjoya at January 28, 2006 08:45 AMthat's crappy..all crap all the time...
Posted by headxray at January 28, 2006 08:47 AMTime to go and do work around the house.
As usual, no real debaters on line this morning.
Where is Moonbat or Steve when I need them?
Clinton the best president in 50 years...yeah good stuff.
So nobody wants to address the complete meltdown of the Democratic party since 1992....
Do you just prefer to be blind? Sort of like Kerry is now our leader because he is gonna fight for the filibuster...You create fabrications to assauge you poor bleeding hearts...
You are a slowly dying breed. . . unless something changes dramatically, you will have even less power in the years to come.
Isn't it sort of sad, that you have to rely on a Republican scandal to get Democrats elected. Its not your policies or positions, its a scandal...
Posted by carpediem at January 28, 2006 08:52 AMWow, crappy is really out of touch. Privatization of SS was a real winner. LOL! The GOP is collapsing not only under the weight of scandals but the fact that the general public doesn't like their ideas.
If crappy lives in the south, then he probably does think that the GOP is winning. Because that's the only place they are winning. Look at places like CO and MT, former GOP states where the GOP is being wiped out. Fundamentalist sells well in the south but it is a sure loser in the rest of the country.
Posted by Ga6thDem at January 28, 2006 09:00 AMLook no further than the statement of Alan Simpson: We're becoming the party of antiabortions and anti gay marriage. You can't win elections based on that.
Posted by Ga6thDem at January 28, 2006 09:02 AMI have no interest in defending Bill Clinton.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 28, 2006 09:09 AMmoonbat, you're right. clinton looks great next to dear leader, but so does what's stuck on my shoe.
Posted by benjoya at January 28, 2006 09:13 AMcarpe, So if not Clinton, then who is the best pResident of the last 50 years? Reagan?
Reagan's administration is also marred by the criminal actions of some of his staff. Twelve staff members whom he personally appointed were later convicted of crimes, and several served prison sentences after their convictions. The twelve are: Elliott Abrams, Deborah Gore Dean, Michael Deaver, Thomas Demery, Alan D. Fiers, Clair George, Rita Lavelle, Robert C. McFarlane, Lyn Nofziger, Joseph A. Strauss, James G. Watt, and Philip Winn.
Elliot Abrams, huh....isn't he the same guy working for bu$h now!
BTW, I stole that info from Wiki!
Posted by bbtb at January 28, 2006 09:20 AMreagan also tripled the national debt!
Posted by benjoya at January 28, 2006 09:26 AMI've wondered for years why they could never prove that Clarence Thomas lied under oath when he said he never dicussed Roe V. Wade with anyone ever.
On another note, we may soon be able to buy a piece of the failed Iraqi reconstruction as Halliburton plans to spin KBR off as an IPO.
http://edwardcopeland.blogspot.com/2006/01/you-too-can-own-piece-of-iraqi.html
Posted by Edward Copeland at January 28, 2006 09:27 AMiamcoyote: dj, isn't Bush actively supporting enemies of the US by giving bin Laden exactly what he asked for?
No. Article III, section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Bush's actions may be (indeed, I'm sure they are) giving aid to bin Laden. But Bush is not an adherent of bin Laden's; he's just an idiot.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 28, 2006 09:38 AMCrappydime, sorry -- carpediem said of Whoopie at the Clinton impeachment conducted by the Republican Congress:
Well, she showed all of the respect that a $10 whore shows at a wedding with an open bar.
What kind of metaphor is that?
Anyway, from where I'm sitting, throughout most of the history of this country, the Federal government including the president, Congress and the Supreme Court deserve about as much respect as I show my toilet no matter who is in office, but that's especially the case with today's Republicans. F _ _ _ them. They deserve no respect.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 28, 2006 09:46 AMVery little time to comment this morning, but it's an unmistakable trend to notice -
How did we get to talking about Clinton here? Amidst all the current controversies, folks like Carpe have successfully come back to the blaming and comparing of Clinton.
Nevermind that big fat, keeled over elephant in the room, let's talk about that 65$ million tax-payer funded partisan attack against the man with a rusty zipper who brought 22 million jobs to our markets by making reasonable adjustments to our budget. And speaking of budget, anyone also notice how Clinton was the only president who knew how to balance it in comparison to the last 3 Republican ones? Let alone being the guy who had the SMALLEST government in comparison to the last 3 Republican Presidents?
Yes, let's shift the conversation away from this current president who's blatantly breaking the law and has one of the most corrupt scandals brewing in his party we've ever witnessed. Let's not focus on this president who's "Christian moral agenda" includes cutting funds to the poor and poverty-ridden, cutting funds to the elderly, cutting funds to the minorities (including wanting to cut 300$ to Indian tribes last year), cutting funds to the disabled, cutting funds to those who actually value an education, while shoveling ooodles of the majority of taxcut monies to those who need it the least - the very affluent. Let's not talk about how this President's "Christian moral vision" is to affectively bankrupt our entire economy because he's never seen a Congressional spending bill he doesn't like, so he could have that excuse to cut all those programs to those who need it the most mentioned above and hauling it over to those who need it the least.
What a Christian.
Let's also not talk about how this President goes after one hapless dictator while completely ignoring the bastard who actually attacked us, all in the name of supposedly spreading "democracy" (which given that we have an Islamic fundamentalist Shiite regime there now that holds the Koran as the sacred text of government, and who's in leagues with Iran, that's hardly what we had in mind), while patting other lovely dictators and turning a blind eye to those like the one in Uzbekistan who boils his dissenters alive because he does some great "anti-terrorist" business with us.
(Of course the kicker is this lovely Uzbek guy turned around and kicked us in the nuts, and told us to leave his country).
Yes, Carpe, please tell us all to keep ignoring that gigantic DEAD elephant in the room, and let's keep focusing on a President who stained a few dresses in the White House but gave us some of the best peace and prosperity we've ever seen in this country. Because God only knows I don't want to focus on the shit this President is putting us through right now. We need fucking obfuscators like yourself to effectively distract us all.
So please, by all means continue.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at January 28, 2006 09:53 AMadhering to their enemies
would pulling troops out of SA, as per OBL's instructions, qualify?
Posted by benjoya at January 28, 2006 10:09 AMMisteropus1,
Your arguments are specious. Antedotal evidence sounds good but doesn't always apply.
For Example: Clinton's projected budget deficits were predicted until 2012 when he was setting the Budgets for 1995. No one was more surprised than he, that before he left office that the budget would have a surplus.
Add to this, Clinton's House of Representatives, which controls Federal Spending, came under control by the Conservatives in 1994. So they CUT the Budget and the Economy was growing. Unfortunately, the Republicans have lost their way when it comes to spending.
Clinton came into office months after the recession was over, (but before the media would report it) so it was already cycling back.
He was present when Al Gore's Internet was peaking. Money was being made all over the place, not because of Clinton, but because of the internet.
Then the bubble burst 9 months before the election and evidence says we were either in a recession or going into one at the beginning of 2001.
I don't give Clinton credit or blame for either example. He rode the wild bull while it was asleep and therefore things were calm.
He did ignore the bombing of WTC in 93. He ignored the bombing of the Cole, he ignored Sadamm for 8 years. He ignored Somalia, he ignored Rwanda, but decided to move on Bosnia and stop a 600 year civil war.
He rode a sleeping bull, that was a result of the years of research spent in the 80's that created the basis for the internet, that Gore created.
Clinton didn't screw the economy up, he just did little to help it. The economy is too hard to stop when things are good, unless war or calamity hits.
Posted by carpediem at January 28, 2006 10:19 AMBoy, there sure are a LOT of trolls spewing on the liberal blogs lately--much more than usual. I've seen them in great force on MANY of the blogs I've looked at during the past couple of days. They're also even more venomous than usual. Could it be that they're a-scared of what's coming down the pike for their Dear Leader and beloved Republican/Facist/Nazi party.
Or are they paid to disrupt our very effective blogs by spewing their crap and making us waste our time replying to them and trying to reason with them (a pointless exercise, by the way). And if they can turn people against each other or change the direction of the argument, all the better.
I say: IGNORE THEM when they're on "our" blogs. Why waste the time and energy? We KNOW they are full of shit. We KNOW they can't be moved by reason or love of their country or concern for their fellow man.
Let them talk to themselves. Don't be drawn into their game!!
OK, I'm done ranting!
Posted by FilibusterDammit at January 28, 2006 10:24 AMcrappy for you to call another's arguments specious is a case of the pot calling the kettle black..not only are your arguments weak you personally are simply full of shit...run along and play at lgf's or somewhere else your second grade mentality is welcomed...fucking loser..
Posted by headxray at January 28, 2006 10:27 AMDear Muckdog,
Perhaps you can opine about the roaring 90's. I did not get into the stocks for fear they were bogus for years. I couldn't understand on how merely have a website that has no revenues is worth so much money. No real advertising revenue, selling no product, but for some reason, billions were changing hands. IPO's were running amuck.
Then the bubble did burst and god forbide, merely having a cute name wasn't enough to prove value, traders starting requiring proof of revenue.
The 90's were good years in general, but many economists were asleep at the wheel. NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE PREDICTED that our tax revenues would increase so rapidly and exceed federal spending. I attribute that to the internet profit taking 90's. Then when the bubble burst...no more tax revenues.
Bush years in office have seen
1. the effects of a declining internet and the reinventing of the web to more realistic standards of value.
2. A recession that was already beginning or about to begin When he took office. (some economists say the slowdown was not a recession, and others say it was, I'm not an economist, but I've read opinions on both sides of this issue.
3. 9/11 and the crumbling of the Stock market.
4. The War on Terror has cost alot, Stocks don't always favor a war that is this unpredictable.
5. Hurricane upon hurricane, national disasters have been peaking of late. (Because Bush refuses to sign Kyoto)
6. Energy crisis in oil that is moving further and further out of our control unless we drilled in ANWR and on the Gulf Coast of Florida (Bush Hypocracy)
So, I don't know, but I'm pretty happy with our economy being where we are currently in light of the aforementioned facts.
So tell me Muckdog, how are my talking points, any validity? I'm not an economist, but I can't help but think things are a whole lot better than I would have imagined.
Posted by carpediem at January 28, 2006 10:31 AMDear Left Wing Wackos,
Please do not allow us Trolls to dissuade you from your more intelligent and logical conclusions about how the Democrats should continue to run their campaigns and to Govern.
You think we are paid to disrupt, if I am in any way slowing down your growth and control over the Democrats, then I'd stop this very minute.
I want you to take more and more control. Continue to give people like Dean, Kerry, Biden, Hillary more excuses to move further and further to the left.
You help define the debate. America sees the looney left being run by bloggers, and Kerry and Hillary calling for a filibuster is evidence of your power, so this is proof, the crazy's are running the asylum.
Keep up the fight....Get LOUDER, Start Acting, and not civil discourse. Move to remove Bush Immediately as Dog of Whining implores in his left handed threats...
Don't stop believing that you represent the mainstreet American citizen and that only you know the truth, that Republicans are evil and that we are Nazi's. Keep up your ramblings....
How are we going to win elections, and kick murdering theocrats out of office, when we can't even ignore one paid white house blog-clogger? Start telling draft age men that there is a good chance the draft will be reinstated. Let single females ( no. 1 group that does'nt vote)know that there may not be abortion choice in the future. Tell entry level workers the minimum wage may never be raised. Tell them their vote counts (depending on the machine they use).
Posted by TIKI AL at January 28, 2006 10:44 AMMeltdown Carpe? What meltdown? Take away Osama’s last-minute campaign pitch for Chimpy, and the Democrats elect President Kerry in November, 2004. Take away the GOP’s shameless pillorying of an American war hero, and Kerry wins in a landslide. Meltdown indeed. I'm enjoying my popcorn while watching the bu$hco castle of corruption collapse before my eyes. The rethuglicans would be well advised to avoid Colonel Sanders’ place any time soon, ‘cause the American people have finally wised up and the chickens are comin’ home to roost this fall!
Posted by redstater at January 28, 2006 10:51 AMCarpe...me thinks thou dost protest too much...
Sitting in your room, alone, lashing out at strangers, hoping to score that elusive point that will buoy your self esteem until the next pathetic day you have to get up and do it all over again.
Posted by Roy Batty at January 28, 2006 11:02 AMThen the bubble burst 9 months before the election and evidence says we were either in a recession or going into one at the beginning of 2001.
Posted by carpediem at January 28, 2006 10:19 AM
****
More GOP revisionist history. The economy was purposely slowed down by Greenspan thru a series of steep rate hikes to cool the economy down from a sizzling 6 percent growth rate. Kool-aid drinkers always use this in a cheap attempt to marginalize economic success during the Clinton years.
Carpe writes:
"Dear Muckdog,
Perhaps you can opine about the roaring 90's. I did not get into the stocks for fear they were bogus for years."
I'm not Muck, carpe, so I'll assume you were mistaking my identity since you somewhat addressed my point. Now truth be told, we cannot address the "roaring" 90's without addressing the overvalued tech stocks.
"Then the bubble did burst and god forbide, merely having a cute name wasn't enough to prove value, traders starting requiring proof of revenue.
The 90's were good years in general, but many economists were asleep at the wheel. NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE PREDICTED that our tax revenues would increase so rapidly and exceed federal spending. I attribute that to the internet profit taking 90's. Then when the bubble burst...no more tax revenues."
True, but how much are we to attribute that to Clinton? A president does not have control of the stock market, nor can we expect a President to control overvalued stocks going out of control. In most analysts opinions on either side of the aisle, if there was a burden to share outside of the stock market traders and consultants themselves, it would be placed right on the shoulders of Greenspan. Telling us we have "irrational exuberance" doesn't do squat, let alone telling us too little too late to boot. He had control of the Fed and the interest rates, yet he ignored the beast that was building.
"Bush years in office have seen
1. the effects of a declining internet and the reinventing of the web to more realistic standards of value."
While this is true under Bush's watch, how the hell does Bush have anything to do with this? Surely you realize the stock market is a beast all in itself that controls and corrects itself.
"2. A recession that was already beginning or about to begin When he took office. (some economists say the slowdown was not a recession, and others say it was, I'm not an economist, but I've read opinions on both sides of this issue.
3. 9/11 and the crumbling of the Stock market.
4. The War on Terror has cost alot, Stocks don't always favor a war that is this unpredictable."
All true, but isn't it funny how Bush refuses to put the cost of the Iraq war in his Annual Budget?
Or is the Iraq War part of the War on Terrorism at all? I digress.
And how does any of this explain anything that I mentioned previously about Bush cutting funding to those needing it the most and giving $ to those needing it the least?
"5. Hurricane upon hurricane, national disasters have been peaking of late. (Because Bush refuses to sign Kyoto)"
Interesting admission on your part. Personally I think Kyoto is flawed, but we do need to be more pro-environment in so many ways.
"6. Energy crisis in oil that is moving further and further out of our control unless we drilled in ANWR and on the Gulf Coast of Florida (Bush Hypocracy)"
ANWAR will take 10 years to even get any oil out of it. Here's a thought - how about we actually look to the future of alternative energy so we can actually milk ourselves off of foreign oil altogether? No Iran, no Sauds, no Venenzuela, just us.
Maybe we should have thought about that over the last 20 years rather than be the little whores to the Middle East instead? And yes, even Clinton shares some of that blame, though it's not hard to say the bulk of the blame goes towards the last 3 Republican presidents.
"So, I don't know, but I'm pretty happy with our economy being where we are currently in light of the aforementioned facts."
Given those facts don't support the actions of Bush deliberately bankrupting our economy in efforts to cut all programs to those who need it the most, and given the fact that we are now literally owned by China, Japan, and much of the European nations due to our wreckless borrowing to support giving so much money to those who need it the least, I'd say your vision is quite a bit shortsighted
"So tell me Muckdog, how are my talking points, any validity? "
They need some work.
"I'm not an economist, but I can't help but think things are a whole lot better than I would have imagined."
Just wait. It all sounds familiar to the times under Reagan - borrowing like there's no tomorrow. The only difference is that it actually took a Republican Senator from my state (Dole) to tell Reagan his tax cuts were too drastic, and Reagan actually had to increase taxes. Still didn't help - his wreckless policies that brought prosperity came back to bite us all in the asses in the early 90's, as well as his vice President Bush Sr. who had to go back on his word of new taxes.
Responsibility with controlling our economy and balancing the budget's a real bitch, I realize. But it's painfully evident that it's simply not up to the task of a Republican president to do it.
Thanks to this president, we have a lovely birth tax on every new child being born since we'll leave it up to them to pay off our Republican irresponsibility. Thanks all around to you folks, carpe.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at January 28, 2006 11:19 AMIn my e-mail this morning....
"If you haven't seen it, there was an announcement in front of a Baptist Church - "Will Someone Give Him a Blow Job, So that We can Impeach Him"
Neither I nor Oprah I suppose can speak for its veracity but I like its essential truthiness.
- Bob
Posted by at January 28, 2006 11:25 AMBob, if you had posted your above post on Kos, I'd have given you a 4!
Posted by redstater at January 28, 2006 11:30 AMWOW! Carpediem better sieze some sedatives....
"Dear Left Wing Wackos,"
Politeness is a good start.
"Please do not allow us Trolls to dissuade you from your more intelligent and logical conclusions about how the Democrats should continue to run their campaigns and to Govern."
Thank you.
"You think we are paid to disrupt, if I am in any way slowing down your growth and control over the Democrats, then I'd stop this very minute."
This a free county.....FOR NOW.
"I want you to take more and more control. Continue to give people like Dean, Kerry, Biden, Hillary more excuses to move further and further to the left."
They don't need excuse they need COURAGE which is short supply in the Democratic camp theses days.
"You help define the debate. America sees the looney left being run by bloggers, and Kerry and Hillary calling for a filibuster is evidence of your power, so this is proof, the crazy's are running the asylum."
You claim to know what "America sees" yet you call us "looney"
Seize a dictionary.
"Keep up the fight....Get LOUDER, Start Acting, and not civil discourse. Move to remove Bush Immediately as Dog of Whining implores in his left handed threats..."
Bush should be removed immediately. Yes. He is an admitted FELON.
"Don't stop believing that you represent the mainstreet American citizen and that only you know the truth, that Republicans are evil and that we are Nazi's. Keep up your ramblings.... "
Mainstreet America is not represented by Democrats NOR Republicans. We do know the truth that George Bush is a liar and a felon.
Now, troll, GO AWAY.
- Bob
Posted by at January 28, 2006 11:34 AMRedstater. Unfortunately, I am not a regular KOS reader. I pretty much stick to C and L and The LeftCoaster and Huff Post so I hope "4" is a compliment.
- Bob
Posted by at January 28, 2006 11:38 AMYes Bob, its a compliment.
Posted by redstater at January 28, 2006 11:45 AMMary,
This topic is very timely, thank you for bringing it up.
Alito is a member of the Federalist Society, the same society that Bush was eager to distance Roberts from.
The Federalist Society and the Unitary Executive theory traces it's roots to the Reagan admin, and 1 of the founders of the Federalist Society, Steven Calabresi, is also the foremost proponent of the unitary executive theory. At it's core is the dogma that the President has as much right, and perhaps even more right than the Supreme Court, to interpret the Constitution, and that the President must have no interference from the other 2 branches of Government. Their theory is the President is entitled, indeed obligated, to disregard any laws he regards as unconstitutional.
The doctrine of Unitary Executive promoted by Alito is a carbon copy of the doctrine of law devised by Carl Schmitt to justify the Hitler dictatorship of Feb 1933 and the Pinochet dictatorship of Sept. 11, 1973.
So no doubt he did lie to Bob Byrd, and I am sure as soon as he has the chance he will rule in favor of the Unitary Executive position.
Those who don't understand history are condemned to repeat it.
Posted by Monica at January 28, 2006 12:02 PMFilibuster Alito: You can send faxes to 13 Senators for free at SaveTheCourt.org
Posted by at January 28, 2006 12:21 PMGuys,
What you must realize is that Bill Clinton caused many republicans to have a mental breakdown, crappy being one of them. All their pet theories were proven wrong. They lost the culture war and can't accept it. We're not going back to 1950 no matter how hard they might try.
Clinton single handidly did more to HELP get Republicans elected than any other single thing.
Cool! That means the idiot son of George Bush should give it back to us for the next 100 years. You are obviously way out of touch with anything except Faux news, Hanoi-Hannity, O'Strifely, and Rush the Lush. Noooooo...you seem to be more the Glenn Beck type. Sieg Heil, matey! "Little Annie 'bulimia is my freind' Coulter, light the ovens in the camps! We have work to do," eh?
"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee," Coulter said. "That's just a joke, for you in the media." Ann Coulter
I never want again to hear that we are the Party of hate from any fucking neocon. Between Pat Robertson and Coulter, they have spread more murderous hatred than any Democrat would dream of doing.
Posted by Judith at January 28, 2006 02:12 PMAgain guys, don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument.
Since Clinton Took Office, the overall National and State and local offices have dramatically changed from Democratic to Republican.
Now ignore this as you wish, but do so knowing full well, that ignorance is not bliss. The right will keep winning elections, while you keep scrambling back onto the sinking ship which is Captained by the Lib of the Month.
No one dares even suggests that my figures are inaccurate, you just ignore them.
Since Clinton took office, Republicans have been trouncing the Dems repeatedly....
Get used to it, or you will forever be miserable... which coincidentally is the definition of liberalism. Shared and equal misery.
The Republicans want Hillary to run in the worst way, don't they. Even Bush has come out and said she would be a "formidable" candidate. When Bush says something like that, you can be sure they have plans to destroy her already in the works.
Posted by Judith at January 28, 2006 02:43 PM"And just because Abramhoff may have bribed some scum Republicans doesn't mean all of his money was bribes."
So you admit he may have bribed some "scum Republicans". Of course, it doesn't mean that all of his money went for bribes, but I bet 99.9 percent of it did. Furthermore, how many bribes does it take before it is considered illegal Carp? One bribe, 4 bribes, 80 bribes?
Posted by Judith at January 28, 2006 02:53 PM…No one was more surprised than he, that before he left office that the budget would have a surplus. Posted by carpediem
That is incorrect and a complete distortion of the facts. When Bill Clinton took office, the government was running huge deficits from the time of Ronald Reagan and George H. W Bush. Bill Clinton forced his party to support a budget reducing tax increase that passed by one vote (Al Gore's) without any Republican votes whatsoever. After several years of cutting spending and reducing the size of government, Clinton was able to show budget surpluses.
Bush originally used the projected surpluses to sell his irresponsible tax cuts, and when the surpluses disappeared, Bush called for greater irresponsible cuts.
…So they CUT the Budget and the Economy was growing. … Posted by carpediem
Clinton came into office months after the recession was over... Posted by carpediem
He did ignore the bombing of WTC in 93. He ignored the bombing of the Cole, he ignored Sadamm for 8 years. He ignored Somalia, he ignored Rwanda, but decided to move on Bosnia... Posted by carpediem
Al-Nashiri, believed to be the operation's mastermind, is currently being held by the U.S. at an undisclosed location. Al-Badawi, in Yemeni custody, denounced the verdict as "an American one." Four others were sentenced to prison terms of five to 10 years for their involvement, including one Yemeni who had videotaped the attack.
Bin Laden is still free.
Clinton didn't ignore Somalia. It was George H. W. Bush that sent troops to that country to fight a famine. The troops were untrained for that type mission and under equipped, just like Bush II's war in Iraq. Clinton, realizing the US was not interested in nation building, sensibly withdrew.
His first SecDef Les Aspin resigned when it was shown our troops were ill equipped. Too bad Rumsfeld doesn't have the same standard of honor and personal responsibility.
In September General Powell asked Aspin to approve the request of the U.S. commander in Somalia for tanks and armored vehicles for his forces. Aspin turned down the request. Shortly thereafter Aideed's forces in Mogadishu killed 18 U.S. soldiers and wounded more than 75 in attacks that also resulted in the shooting down of three U.S. helicopters and the capture of one pilot. In the face of severe congressional criticism, Aspin admitted that in view of what had happened he had made a mistake, but stated that the request for armored equipment had been made within the context of delivering humanitarian aid to Somalia rather than protecting troops. In an appearance before a congressional committee to answer questions about the Somalia disaster, Aspin made an unfavorable impression and appeared weak in response to the detailed probing and criticism of his performance. The president publicly defended Aspin but made clear that the White House was not involved in the decision not to send armor reinforcements to Somalia. Several members of Congress called on Clinton to ask for Aspin's resignation.
On 15 December 1993 President Clinton announced Aspin's resignation, for personal reasons.
Clinton acted in Bosnia to stop the ethnic cleansing and continue the policy agenda set by George H. W. Bush. The sad genocide in Rwanda is repeated today in Dafur, and Bush is also doing nothing.
… Clinton didn't screw the economy up, he just did little to help it… Posted by carpediem
…Since Clinton Took Office, the overall National and State and local offices have dramatically changed from Democratic to Republican. … Posted by carpediem at January 28, 2006 02:32 PMIt is true that the South has continued to follow the trend Nixon began with his Southern Strategy: based on racism, the Republican Party is dominant in the South. That should be a cause of shame but Republicans, the Party of Lincoln, revel in it. As for bragging about politics trending your way, it is a truism that things change. In the last couple of elections to gain national attention, Democrats did well. Posted by Mike at January 28, 2006 03:41 PM
Hey Carpediem, I think you're correct on your talking points. Every generation seems to go through a period of rampant speculation and enthusiasm about the economy and stock market. We had ours in the late 90's. The crowd got really excited after supersonic stock returns from 1982-1999.
Your points (and my comments/opinions...)
1. the effects of a declining internet and the reinventing of the web to more realistic standards of value.
I think the 90's saw the birth and speculation over the internet. Much like the excitement when cars were first produced and there were tons of car companies (that eventually went out of business). After the 2000-2002 bust, where companies with no business model went away (pets.com sock puppet, for example), we've now entered a more mature stage of the market. Companies with good business models are now making money and growing.
2. A recession that was already beginning or about to begin When he took office. (some economists say the slowdown was not a recession, and others say it was, I'm not an economist, but I've read opinions on both sides of this issue.
Economic booms and busts are controlled by the Federal Reserve, and Greenspan went too far. The stock market anticipated the recession starting in January 2000 when the DOW peaked, and the Nasdaq had a blow-off top in March 2000.
3. 9/11 and the crumbling of the Stock market.
9/11 probably extended the stock market losses, but the economy was already rebounding by that point.
4. The War on Terror has cost alot, Stocks don't always favor a war that is this unpredictable.
Similar to LBJ in the 1960's, Bush seems to have a Guns and Butter budget. He's spending like crazy.
5. Hurricane upon hurricane, national disasters have been peaking of late. (Because Bush refuses to sign Kyoto)
Of course, after the tragedy, natural disasters also stimulate economic growth as cities, counties, and states have to rebuild. People have to rebuild their lives, too. Kyoto wouldn't have changed anything, because India and China refused to sign it.
6. Energy crisis in oil that is moving further and further out of our control unless we drilled in ANWR and on the Gulf Coast of Florida (Bush Hypocracy)
Oil demand will continue to rise because India and China have booming economies, their people are becoming more affluent and will be buying cars. Democrats in the US are now warming to the idea of building more nuclear plants, which we need urgently. We also need more oil sources, and we will drill in Alaska and off of Florida eventually. All you have to do is read the predictions of $200/barrel oil and you know the public will urge their lawmakes to get busy as gas prices continue to rise.
Posted by muckdog at January 28, 2006 03:57 PMcarpe, if you want to talk to muck, he has his own blog! Help the muckbitch out, give him some hits!
Posted by bbtb at January 28, 2006 05:23 PMI have one faithful commenter who shows up on days the market goes down and just goes crazy with how the market's going back into a bear mode. Then the market rallies and I don't hear from him for awhile, until the next down day. He or she is a very emotional investor.
Posted by muckdog at January 28, 2006 08:17 PMThanks Muck,
As to Kyoto, I said it in jest, I would have thought this blog would know my opinions by now, but alas, I must be more direct in my glib comments.
Am I not correct though that Clinton was just as amazed by the increasing revenues that were being produced after the supposed "worst economy" in fifty years...as Al Gore cited repeatedly.
I recall Clinton's own economic forecasts placing a balanced budget way into the next administration, for some reason I recall 2012, but it might have been much sooner. Then the tax revenues from all of the IPO's came in and BOOM more money comeing in, and with a Conservative congress trying to act conseravative, the expenditures were decreased. (remember ketchup was a vegatable, and Newt is the mean old grinch for cutting federal programs for the poor.)
He was just surprised, he was no economist, just riding a bull that was already out of the gate.
Carpe Diem?
Clinton also benefitted from Roth IRA conversions. Remember when the legislation was signed, tons of online calculators sprung up showing folks that they must convert immediately and pay taxes now rather than later. Everybody thought "why not?" After all, tech stocks were going up everyday, and the greed of not ever having to pay taxes on those investments suckered some folks in.
Clinton got their tax money.
After the conversions were over, Clinton was gone and left Bush with a plunging stock market and tax revenues.
They don't call him Slick Willie for nothing!
Posted by muckdog at January 29, 2006 12:06 AMrecall Clinton's own economic forecasts placing a balanced budget way into the next administration, for some reason I recall 2012…Posted by carpediem After the conversions were over, Clinton was gone and left Bush with a plunging stock market and tax revenues. Posted by muckdogReading you two fellate each other has to be the funniest bit of the day: Clueless, meet slackwit. Clinton's economic forecasts depended on a responsible government following his. Sadly, for American, we didn't get one. By the way, converting to Roth IRA's was only beneficial to high income individuals. Posted by Mike at January 29, 2006 04:17 PM