Unlike the 19th-century originals, who emerged from an irrepressible bloody conflict seeking to end socioeconomic and political inequality (though for males only), these modern namesakes are fixated on undoing 2 centuries of socioeconomic and political progress. Any way you cut it, their intentions and deeds are revolutionary indeed -- and to a consensual society unaccustomed to scheming governmental upheavals, their steered course is nothing less than unAmerican. Nary a week passes in this brave new era without further testimony to Radical arrogance and democracy razing.

Last week alone a few Central Intelligence Agency officers, disgruntled over Rummie-Wolfie manipulations of information gathering, disclosed the existence of an internal investigation into prewar intelligence … oddities? Swaggering Radical administration claims of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorists have proven themselves baseless, just as most war opponents alleged they were. So honest C.I.A. analysts are applauding the review's targeted mission, which is to compare predicted reality with subsequent goose-egg reality. (Initially requested last fall by the defense secretary as a somewhat casual examination of intelligence capabilities, the agency's probe has since taken on an air of focused urgency.)

Prior to Bush II's globally condemned invasion, these few good C.I.A. men grasped -- again, just as war opponents did -- that administration ideologues were politicizing objective intelligence findings. Now they'd like a little vindication. There's always a chance that any explosive revelations resulting from the study will see the public light of day, I suppose, but I'm not holding my suspicious breath. This White House hasn't gained a reputation for clinical paranoia and despotic secrecy for no reason.

In the same week, under their commander-in-chief's iron heel Radical Republicans made official their intense dislike of economic fairness and equal opportunity, while blowing fiscal kisses to ominous militarism with absolute minimal democratic debate.

Even though a recent internal Pentagon audit revealed the defense department seems to have lost track of more than one-thousand-billion dollars of spending -- including tangibles such as nearly 5-dozen airplanes and almost 70 tanks and missile launchers -- Republican Congress-pods busied themselves with cramming a bloated $400-billion defense budget down taxpayers' throats. One appropriations watchdog organization, the Project on Government Oversight, commented that with a record like the Pentagon's "any other agency would be closed down," but to "challenge" the military these days "is seen as unpatriotic." Radicals are more than happy to conspire with the extortionate defense department, of course, and given the accuracy of the watchdog's observation, most Democrats are sitting mutely on the sidelines.

What's more -- and this sort of thing now passes as a mere sidebar -- Radicals are ramming through Congress a related bill titled "Defense Transformation for the 21st Century." Innocuous though it may sound, this gratuitous legislation preauthorizes Pentagon waste by slashing away at legislative oversight of military spending. So much for constitutional concepts. Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering wasn't burdened with cost-benefit justifications for his toys: soon, our brass will have similar freedom from that inconvenience.

As for economic fairness or at least avoiding fiscal Armageddon? Instead of blowing kisses, Radical Republicans simply kissed propriety goodbye. A close second to the dumbest fiscal move in American history -- Bush's first tax "victory" that turned a $5-trillion surplus into crushing debt -- last week's tax bill is nevertheless on a revolutionary par with 2001's plutocratic usurpation.

By now you are familiar with the horrifying basics. The bill adds not the advertised $318 billion to the national debt over ten years, but more than $1 trillion. In ballooning an already eye-popping deficit it will broaden federal begging and in turn hike interest rates, cut savings and do injury to job-creating capital formation. So say legions of sober economists and even sprinklings of expected supporters such as Wall Street investment firms. "Some argue there is no link between budget deficits and interest rates, citing the lack of correlation," said Goldman Sachs's analysts. "This argument is not compelling."

One of the bill's few provisions not sunsetted is the reduced income-tax rate for America's wealthiest, although no one expects any suns to set anyway, hence the titanic addition to debt. The most comfortable among us realize an $80,000-a-year windfall, while the squeezed classes will see from $0 to $800. And of course the bill cuts capital gains and stock dividend rates -- something received with little fanfare by the unemployed, the underemployed, the job-worried and the just plain disgusted.

There is barely a supply-sider left who still insists that massive tax cuts will generate anything close to lost government revenues. Rather, because they now feel secure enough in revolutionary power, Radicals are likewise bold enough to admit aiming at permanently crippling the government by starving all but the Pentagon. You may have thought you and your children had a social contract with high officeholders, and rightly so since you were holding up your end of the deal. But the ins are in a snarling, contract-ripping mood. They are foreclosing on your tomorrow, insignificant as it is compared to the monied elite able to bankroll mutual self-interests today.

As revolutions go, this one is fast assuming a stubborn and lasting face. It is nothing what the insurrectionists market it as: all Americanism. In its plutocratic militarism, the quiet revolution is the death of that.

© Copyright 2003 P. M. Carpenter

Mr. Carpenter's column is published weekly by History News Network and buzzflash.com.

Joe De Bolt - 5/15/2005

I found Thomas Sgovio several years ago when I read his excelent autobiography, MY DEAR AMERICA! I found his address and wrote to him (I work in Russian studies)only to get back a note from his wife with his funeral notice. One of his great contributions in that volume was a set of drawings of GULAG life, for such visual images are rare. These works now are archived in the Hoover Institution. Another GULAG artist, Nikolay Getman, who passed away December 2004, is being touted as the only known GULAG artist, a claim made by the Jamestown Foundation, who arranged to sell his paintings in the U.S. Getman's work deserves attention, but so does Sgovio's. Let's bring him into the light and let him take his place in history. He and his work deserve it!

Ilko D. Davidov - 11/26/2004

Hi Patti!

I am a documentary film producer, working on a film on the Gulag which will consist of interviews with survivors of the labor camps. I have been trying to find out if anyone ever inteviewed Thomas Sgovio on camera about his experience.
We are interested in obtaining that footage, if it exists, as well as obtaining images of his artwork relating to the Gulag which we hope to be able to use in the film to help visually illustrate the survivors' stories. Anyone who can further help in any way, please contact me at ilbom@yahoo.com
Thank you!

Ilko Davidov
Chicago, IL

Jerry Daniel Reed - 9/14/2004

I'm not sure who I'm responding to, but I assume a historian or an amateur history buff. It's regarding the Fannin County Texas vote in the 1960 presidential election. First, the number of "registered voters" were probably less than half the number of people legally entitled to vote, so the electorate in Fannin County when voting started in 1960 was closer to 10,000 than to 5,000. So, the 6,300 or so votes would not be out of line.
It's true that in about 100 counties, the vote exceeded the number of "registered voters." But for the same reason as in Fannin County, the number of legally eligible voters total was much bhigher than the registered voter total. IN Fannin County, for instance, the total votes cast still totalled less than 40 percdnt of the voting age population (people 21 or older in those days.)

As for the election board refusing to recount the vote, the board had no authority to do so absent a court order.
See, if a precinct's vote was reported by proper procedure, a county canvassing board had no asuthority to go behind the returns and recount. Same applied to state canvassing board in accepting county returns. An election contest was the proper procedure to look at questionable returns.

Finally, as to
Nixon's not challenging the results: he didn't have to. Republicans in three states filed a total of eight lawsuits trying to overturn the results in those states -- Illinois, Texas and New Jersey. Two suits were filed in Illinois, one each in state and federal court. One suit was filed in Texas federal court -- as a Texan, I've read every line of that 200-plus court case file -- and five in New Jersey (there, each suit challenged the results in a particular county.)

In New Jersey, the lawsuits resulted in recounts starting in those counties, but well into the counting, the plaintiffs had gained fewer than 1,000 votes, so the tossed in the towel.

In Illionis and Texas, the legal contests lasted almost until time for the electoral college to cast votes. (Sound familiar?)

Oh, and in Hawaii, Democrats contested the results that showed Nixon winning by a few hundred votes. The resulting recount, which was settled AFTER the electoral college met, was a Kennedy win of a few hundred votes, and despite the fact that the issue was settled post electoral college, the Congress -- Democratically dominated, to be sure -- ruled a Kennedy victory in the Aloha state.

Hope this helps.

Jerry Reed

patti b. mesches - 7/19/2004

This is a little bit late.. but through searching I found this article about Tom. Mr. Sgovio lived in Buffalo, New York for a long time and was a great...family friend.
We miss him and his wife, Joanne.
He was put through hell in the gulag (as did his father who died in the gulag) He was one of the few survivors of Kolyma. Which was the worst..of the Labor camps.
His parting quote was always "Never Forget"
The many personal stories he has told us will remain deep in our hearts and souls forever. Many times Sol Schnitzen visited him at his home in Buffalo. They were friends.
His illustrations of prisoners some of which were catholic nuns, still haunt me. His was a true life story which can be found in his book "Dear America".
The young who feel the need to rebel and become "far-left" need to read his true account. His story will make any horror movie seem tame. I am hoping to find copies of his prints depicting his horrendous ordeal. I once owned some, that he personally gave me, but were lost in a flood.
On a somewhat lighter note,
He was a very good artist who did a portrait of my parents and I am also looking for his original oil paintings of landscapes etc.
I already have some from our years as friends but wish to locate more.
Again, anyone who doubts what communism has done to it's people, needs to read his story. Remember, he started out as a young communist and wanted...OUT!
Many articles can be found by entering Thomas Sgovio onto a search engine.
Also, if anyone has the prints I am looking for or information about additional oil paintings or his family
perhaps we can get in touch through this service.
"Never Forget!" I won't! patti
o

John L Cimasi - 5/17/2004

Hi Pattie,

My name is John Cimasi. I am a VP of Technology at a Citigroup Operations center in Amherst, NY.

For almost 10 years I have admired an awsome collection of dozens of T Sgovio's pen and watercolor prints of Buffalo, NY hanging on the corridor walls of our site.
All of the prints are of buildings in Buffalo.

I have tried and tried to track him on the Internet but have been unsuccesful until I Googled him.

Other web sites have identified him as an important cold war political figure but until I ran accross your article, I didn't realize that it was the same guy that composed these remarkable pieces of art.

Is he recongnized as an artist? Are his works valuable? I would love to purchase some pieces but I doubt if the bank will be willing to sell.

John Cimasi
Amherst, NY
jcimasi@yahoo.com

Mel McKee - 11/17/2003

Why do people keep saying, "George W. Bush was AWOL." He was gone from his post possibly as much as two years during wartime. So

"GEORGE W. BUSH IS A DESERTER! GEORGE W. BUSH IS A COWARD IN FACE OF THE ENEMY."

MRS ROSE ABED - 10/20/2003

From:Mrs Rose Abed.

Attn: Dearest One,

With due respect, trust and humanity, I write to you this proposal which I believe would be of great interest to you. I am Mrs Rose Abed, the wife of late EL-MUSTAPHA ABED, of blessed memory. Before my husband was killed by forces loyal to MAJOR JOHNNY PAUL KOROMA, he was the Director-General of Gold and Diamond Mining Corporation (GDMC) of Sierra-Leone.

My husband targeted by the rebel forces in the course of the revolution. Two days before his death, he managed to sneak a written message to us, explaining his condition and concerning one trunk box of valuables
containing money and gold, which he deposited with a private Security & Finance Company in Abidjan Cote d'Iviore.

He instructed me to take our two children(Ibrahim and Zinat) and move out of Sierra-Leone immediately to Abidjan Cote d'Iviore before the Peace Keeping Forces of the Economic Community of West African States
(ECOMOG) monitoring team intervened to arrest the situation of mass killings by the rebels, which was the order of the day.

Eventually it resulted into full war. I became a widow overnight; helpless situation without partner. At that moment of calamity, every person was running for his/her life. In the content of the deed he signed with the Security Company, he used the name of his son Master Ibrahim Abed as the next of kin. The real content of the box were not disclosed to the Security Company due to security reasons. Now as a refugee, we have very limited financial rights here, we intend to leave this country immediately with the whole money for investment in your country because of the stable situation and mostly for the future benefits of my children.

We have since applied for political asylum. The cash involved inside in the box is US$ 9.5 Million ( nine million and five hundred thousand united state dollars). I want you to assist us to claim the box from the Security Company as the new beneficiary so that the change ownership of the documents covering this consignment/box will be legally effected to your name as to enable you have this money deposited in a local account here in Abidjan in your name for the easier transfer of this money in to your oversaes bank account.

We also source for good investment so that we can invest the money wisely. We have in mind to establish a rewarding investment and good relationship with you. Concerning the money, we are prepared to offer you a reasonable percentage of 30% of the total sum proceeds. Meanwhile 5% has been mapped out for any expenses you may incurred in the course of this transaction and 65% will be for my family.

For the interest of this business, do not hesitate to contact us with the above email addresss immediately you receive this message for more information to enable us proceed in earnest towards concluding all our arrangements.

No other person knows about this money apart from my children and I. We await your most urgent response.

Thanks for your co-operation and God bless you.

Best regards,
Mrs.Rose Abed and children.

Tim - 8/20/2003

Bush is president, I acknowledge that, but we shouldn't and won't get over the theft of democracy, or the shady dealings that took place in 2000. These things are supposed to happen in third world bananna republics, not in the U.S. Subsequent and continuing events with regards to administration double-speak, secrecy, and outright lying to the American people convince me that a subtle coup has been perpetrated. I'm not sure that the results of future elections can be trusted.

NYGuy - 6/4/2003

Happy days are here again.

Saddled with the Clinton Recession two months after he took office and the the World Trade Center six months later, GW had more on his plate than any President before him. But, as was stated by King Abdullah II of Jordan,

"Mr. President, you have stayed the course. Your presence here today to witness the two leaders meeting together, agreeing on common grounds to solve this conflict, provides a great impetus to move forward and a clear answer to all the skeptics."

I thank you, sir, for your leadership and your courage."

This are the same character traits that are getting us through these trying times. He helped to restore the confidence in investors this year which resulted in the market rising sharply and increasing the "wealth effect" for nearly all Americans. Now with his tax cut policy beginning to take effect, we are well on the road to greater confidence by the American people in our future, and the prospect of strong economic growth.

Unlike Clinton, he did it on his own and not as an inheritance from his father, as our former President got.

Thanks GW. Better days are here again. I thank you, sir, for your leadership and your courage."

ian august - 6/3/2003

first i am no democrat, second restore faith, restore hope in the economy,more confident consumer?? maybe for republicans with out a brain. you have gone off the deep end . read a list i found of your presidents attributes. and if it does not make you sick to your stomach than nothing can help you my lost friend.

George W. Bush (Dubya)
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Past Work Experience

Ran for congress and lost.
Produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.
Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas; company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago Cubs.
With father's help (and his name) was elected Governor of Texas.
Accomplishments in Previous Positions

Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union.

Replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog-ridden city in America. Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money.

Set record for most executions by any governor in American history.

Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my father's appointments to the Supreme Court.

Accomplishments As President

Attacked and took over two countries.
Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.
Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.
Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.
Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.
First president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
First president in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.
First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in U.S. history.
After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.
Set the record for most campaign fundraising trips than any other president in U.S. history.
In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.
Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in U.S. history.
Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in U.S. history.
Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.
Signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any president in U.S. history.
Presided over the biggest energy crises in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.
Presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.
Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.
Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind. (http://www.hyperreal.org/~dana/marches/)
Dissolved more international treaties than any president in U.S. history.
My presidency is the most secretive and unaccountable of any in U.S. history.
Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history (the 'poorest' multimillionaire, Condoleezza Rice, has an Exxon oil tanker named after her).
First president in U.S. history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously go bankrupt.
Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.
First president in U.S. history to order a U.S. attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation.
Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.
Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in U.S. history.
First president in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the human rights commission.
First president in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the elections monitoring board.
Removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in U.S. history.
Rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.
Withdrew from the World Court of Law.
Refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
First president in U.S. history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. elections).
All-time U.S. (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.
My biggest lifetime campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).
Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in U.S. history.
First president in U.S. history to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world community.
First president to run and hide when the U.S. came under attack (and then lied saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)
First U.S. president to establish a secret shadow government.
Took the biggest world sympathy for the U.S. after 9/11, and in less than a year made the U.S. the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in U.S. and world history).
With a policy of 'disengagement' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.
Fist U.S. president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.
First U.S. president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the U.S. than their immediate neighbor, North Korea.
Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated U.S. law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts.
Failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive.'
Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capital building. After 18 months I have no leads and zero suspects.
In the 18 months following the 9/11 attacks I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.
Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in U.S. history.
In a little over two years created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the U.S. has ever been since the Civil War.
Entered office with the strongest economy in U.S. history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.

Records and References

At least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available)
AWOL from National Guard and deserted the military during a time of war.
Refuse to take drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.
All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my father's library, sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
All minutes of meetings for any public corporation I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.
For personal references please speak to my daddy or uncle James Baker (they can be reached at their offices of the Carlyle Group for war-profiteering.)

NYGuy - 6/3/2003

Ian,

I am an expert in business and economics. The Clinton Recession began two months after GW took office. The account gimmicks took place while Clinton was President and his democratic pal, Terry McAuliff did very will with bankrkupt Quest.

Six months later the Twin Towers were destroyed. Name another President who faced such complex world problems? But he had the character to restore the faith of the American people in their country and in the Oval office, and for having the guts to make this a safer country.

He then put into words a great economic plan to restore confidence, get the market to improve and cut taxes, but the democrates do not want to see a recovering economy since they wanted to win back the Presidency. So much for caring for the little people.

This year because of his character GW got the stock market to improve which is very critical since we are all now benefitting from the wealth effect and now have more confident consumers.

Meanwhile his tax cut now goes into effect and with the wealth effect, improving consumer and business confidence and the new tax cuts we are set for a major economic recovery. At the same time we are safer because of his leadership.

I understand this is too brillant of a plan for many people to understand, but you should not be scared, everything is going to be OK.

ian august - 6/2/2003

i will take you up on that offer to give you some ideas of what to do.
1. tax cuts for the rich, dont tell me they are not for them cause they are, fox news channel( unfair and unbalanced) claims if you are single and make 30,000 a year you will get back 50 dollars, and gw expects that to boost consumer confidence and jump start manufacturing thus jump starting hiring's. right. how come you cannot find anyone outside the republican party who actually beleives the tax cut will help the economy? i have an idea , why not fine all those corporations who have moved off shore so as to not pay taxes in the united states, what patiots, and how about fining those corporations who took tax breaks in order to supply more jobs and jump start the economy but instead chose to move there factories to malayasia, taking food off the tables of hard working americans, once again very patriot.
2. wmd , bush wants to get rid of em, but not all of em, only with the countries that dont agree with us 100%, like iraq. what about israel , china , russia, france, or us, its ok for us and not ok for them
3. war on terror. we have the most technologically advanced tools on earth yet we cannot find osama or saddam, bullshit.we want to stop aiding nations that support terror, yet we rely on them for there oil like a crack addict rely's on his fix, how about pumping cash into technology to switch from oil to a new, envirnmentally sound source, thus killing two bird with one stone, by removing money from the hand of our enemies and creating new jobs from a new industry.bush says's no , and just takes the oil he wants, plus he gives increased tax brakes to those who buy the least fuel efficient trucks,

he thinks short time we need long term ideas to preserve our super power status for the next 100 years, and at this rate i dont see that happening,

ian august - 6/2/2003

i understand perfectly well how great our nation is and how great the people are that make up this amazing country, i love it, i am a die hard american patriot, but i will not follow blindly our president, it is my duty as a patriot to be dissentfull. I am not afraid, so chill, but bush does make you scared, what if bc of him i can only get news from one newspaper in a few years, how could that be good.

YOu should remember the twin towers my friend and not follow one mand blindly because you both belong the republican party , or else another twin towers disaster will soon be here

ian august - 6/2/2003

HUH we are out of the clinton recession? corporations robbed american blind last year and bush has done not only nothing to punish them but has rewarded some with iraq contracts( worldcom, stocks might be up in may but it is the first up month in years! consumer confidence is back? no way. ny guy is either bush's brother, lover, is a die hard conservative, because bush is ruining the nation. he just spent huge sums on afghanistan, now iraq, and tax cuts, all a waste. he promises one million jobs with the tax cut, is he kidding me. and as for making you a proud american, he has made me look for another nation to make my home YOU HAVE FALLEN OFF THE WAGON NYGUY AND I WILL BET THE FARM IT IS NOT THE FIRST TIME. write back and i will help you get yourself back to reality. i hate name calling but you pushed me over the edge, i will listen to decent debates but come on, restoring respect to the oval office. i am gonna have nitemares tonight because of you

Clayton E. Cramer - 6/2/2003

You know, it really helps to read the URLs you post, so that you don't look stupid. The first one: http://bartcop.com/bushabortion.htm contains unnamed sources, is basically an email floating around the net, and says at the beginning, "This is an e-mail I received from a man named Roger.. I have no reason to doubt it, ...plus, ...so far, ... Larry Flynt has always been right on-the-money." And this is high credibility to you?

The second URL http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,8494,00.html says quite directly, "Phillips' story has little apparent credibility. The Enquirer itself concludes - 19 paragraphs into its story - that 'while her story may have the appearance of truth, it's false - although Tammy vehemently defends it.'"

If the first two URLs are this week, why should I bother checking the rest?

Look, I don't doubt that Bush misbehaved plenty as a frat boy, and as an adult. By his own admission, he had a serious alcohol problem at one time. He might even be a bad boy in private right now. But when the news media, which fiercely hate Bush and everything he stands for, fail to pursue these matters, why should I believe you? Especially when the URLs you give are, shall we say, less than persuasive that you have even read them with even a tiny bit of discernment?

NYGuy - 6/1/2003

Bill,

Brillant.

Remember the Twin Towers, Remember our troops, Keep them safe.

PS: I graduated from college and as you know we don't have to know or write english today. I am product of affirmative action.

Bill McWilliams - 6/1/2003

Now, I understand better.

You not only cannot THINK, you can't communicate. Did they teach grammar and punctuation at your high school? I know they didn't teach manners or history.

I know now that I needn't bother clicking on any more of your juvenile ramblings.

What in the world ever possessed YOU to come on THIS board? Doesn't Rush have one for his ditto monkeys?

NYGuy - 6/1/2003

Bill,

You are still upset that you now have to work and can't live off the American taxpayer. Yes things would have been different with Gore we would be moving back to a welfare state.

Bill McWilliams - 5/31/2003

I've not only IMAGINED what the unelected fraud is doing to most of us, I've become even more appalled than I thought I would.

Twin Towers: unelected "president" bush doesn't want us to know the truth about what happened. WHY?

Support our Troops: fine, whatever that means. As more and more troops and the families of those who lost their lives in an illegal war perpetrated by a military deserter learn the truth about the real reasons for sending so many people to their deaths in Iraq, they're becoming outraged. Rightly so.

God Bless America: one wonders why God would want to bless a country whose "leaders" are moving it inexorably to a condition like that of combination Nazi Germany and Pakistan.

Just imagine how much better off we would all be if the person we elected to be President, had not had the election stolen from him...and us, too.

P.S. Now, when can we expect for YOU to post an original idea?

NYGuy - 5/31/2003

Bill,

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I am touched that you would take the time to honor me.

Just imagine the great country GW is building for both of us.

Remember the Twin Towers, Support our Troops, God Bless America

Bill McWilliams - 5/31/2003

Have YOU ever had an ORIGINAL idea? If so, post IT.

NYGuy - 5/31/2003

Thanks for your knowledge of economics Mr. President. Your tax cuts are just what we need to get out of the Clinton recession.

Driving the Dow
How the tax cut helps

By Marshall Loeb, CBS.MarketWatch.com
Last Update: 12:10 AM ET May 31, 2003

NEW YORK (CBS.MW) -- June was bustin' out all over on Wall Street last week.

Summer sizzle hangs in balance next week
Driving the Dow -- how the tax cut helps
Stocks

Though there were only four trading days because of the Memorial Day weekend, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (INDU: news, chart, profile) surged 249 points on the week, closing at 8,850, a high for the year. The Nasdaq ($COMPQ: news, chart, profile) rose 5.6 percent, to 1,595, and the Standard & Poor's 500 (SPX: news, chart, profile) rose 3.3 percent to 964.

At last, mutual fund investors began putting money into the market instead of removing it. And the market began to pay more attention to positives in the economy.

Yes, there were still many soft areas -- in employment and business spending, to cite just two. But consumer confidence was rising strongly, according to the latest surveys. Home buying continued to defy imagination, largely because mortgage rates were down below 5.3 percent.

There was yet another factor: the new tax law made the stock market a much better place for investors. See related story.

The third tax law in three years, delivered by Congress to President Bush last week, should give the stock market a substantial lift, now and over the long term.

It'll do this by pouring more money into the nation's pocketbooks, stimulating spending. After all, a reduction in the top income tax rate to 35 percent from 38.6 percent, and commensurate cuts in other lower rates, retroactive to Jan. 1, 2003, is no small thing. The extra money will start showing up in the form of lower withholding in paychecks in July.

The tax cut also changes some of the important rules of the game in investing. It's hard to overemphasize the one-two combination of bringing down the tax on profits from long-term capital gains and stock dividends. Put simply: Investors stand to pocket more of their profits.

Just consider:

Until now, you were hit with a federal tax of at least 20 percent on your long-term capital gains. That meant, if you made a profit of, say, $1,000, you got to keep $800. But now the tax goes down to 15 percent, meaning that you get to keep $850. (For lower income people, the capital gains rate falls from 10 percent to 5 percent.)

Similarly, stock dividends until now were taxed at your regular income rate, up to 38.6 percent, meaning that on, say, $1,000 worth of dividends, you got to keep $614. Now, with the dividend tax down to 15 percent for most taxpayers, you get to keep $850. The new rate for lower-income payers is 5 percent -- they get to keep 95 percent of their dividends.

The change favors long-term investors over the in-and-outers. If you buy a stock and sell it in less than one year, your profit will be taxed at your ordinary income rate, up to 35 percent. But if you hold it for a year and one day or more, the tax melts to a much more reasonable 15 percent.

The bottom line is that, with these changes, the stock market appears to be a more profitable investment.

Of course, the legislation calls for some of the reductions to last just a few years. But once enacted, popular reductions like these have a history of hanging on.

The changes even strike a blow for love and marriage. The so-called marriage penalty, which sometimes charges a lawfully wedded couple more than two taxpayers co-habiting, has been largely phased out. And, except for very high or low-income people, the child credit jumps from $600 to $1,000 per girl or boy under 17. This, too, is retroactive to Jan. 1. Twenty five million checks covering the first six months of credit should be in the mail by late summer. So it pays to be a parent.

What all this means, in examples worked out by Deloitte & Touche, is that if you're married with two children and a household income of $126,000 (including from investments), you stand to save $3,028. If you're single with a household income of $126,000, you stand to save $1,867.

Marshall Loeb, former editor of Fortune, Money, and The Columbia Journalism Review, writes "Your Dollars" exclusively for CBS.MarketWatch.com. Researcher Alicia Ferrari contributed to this article.

NYGuy - 5/31/2003

Josh,

Have you ever had an original idea of your own. If so please post it.

Josh Greenland - 5/31/2003

I agree with every word in your post, Stephen.

NYGuy - 5/30/2003

Stephen:

Stock Market turns around and is up in May. Puchasing Managers Index (PMI) highest in three months. Consumer confidence in sharp recovery.

What part of my statement is delusional. These are facts that appear on TV and will in every newspaper tomorrow.

One can not live in their mind but must come out to face the facts and reality. Tell me what is happening in the economy and what you would do diferently. Raise taxes. Cower in fear. Which choices do you propose? I an a NYer and we face the facts and move ahead. What are your remedies?

If you believe that GW and I are wrong, tell us what your scenario for the future is. What should have been done differently? Then we can see which one is solving problems or which one is is truly delusional.

V.A. - 5/30/2003

I agree.

V.A. - 5/30/2003

I agree.

Stephen Kriz - 5/30/2003

NYGuy:

Get help. You are delusional and borderline psychotic. This country is in deep, deep trouble as a result of Dubya's incompetence and mismanagement.

Steve Kriz

NYGuy - 5/30/2003

Name another president who faced both the national and international problems that GW has faced and now is solving them.

This is one of the greatest efforts in U.S. history. Some, like bob Connors were freaking out not knowing what to do and he feels the democrates were also paralyzed as he says. Meanwhile, GW calmly and resolutely solves some of the most difficult and complex problems in modern times and restores the confidence in our economy and rallies the American people.

Seems like some on this post are still living in caves and crying themselves to sleep at night.

If you understood how great our ciurrent leadership is and how great our country is you would not be afraid.

Based on what is posted on this board I would hate to think what a mess we would have been in if Gore was elected. Probably still doing polling on what the next step would be. Ugh.

What a great country.

Remember the Twin Towers. Support our Comander in Chief and the troops who he commands.

V.A - 5/30/2003

That was a very bushlike posting. It raised the same questions I wonder about whenever I hear Bush speak: Is he being intentionally stupid, or is that just his natural state... ?

V.A - 5/30/2003

That was a very bushlike posting. It raised the same questions I wonder about whenever I hear Bush speak: Is he being intentionally stupid, or is that just his natural state... ?

Stephen Kriz - 5/30/2003

NYGuy:

A prime example of the blind seeing only what they want to see. Let's examine your blindness a little more closely:

[Thank you GW for bringing us out of the Clinton recession]
> What an interesting and thoroughly unsupportable comment. A recession is defined as three consecutive quarters of contraction in GDP. Using this definition, the recession began in late 2001, long after Clinton left office. Oh I know, you will come back with some sort of foolish statement about Clinton causing the recession with his "tax and spend" policies. And at the same time, you will give him no credit for eight years of economic growth, attributing that instead to the "Reagan miracle". These fatuous arguments are the result of extremist minds trying to rationalize away the fact that trickle-down economics is an abject failure that belongs on the scrap heap of history. Better to tax and spend than to borrow and squander.

[...being a world leader]
> In what, raping the environment? Invading Third World countries? Gutting civil liberties? Ruining the world economy? The world hates George W. Bush, so I don't know how you can say he is leading anything.....

[...one of our history's best Commanders in Chief as we fight the war on terrorism.]
> Oh, puh-leeze. The smirking chimp is about as much of a commander in chief as I am a Datsun. He is a disgrace and a fraud and went AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard. This inarticulate, incompetent ex-drunk is a failure at everything he touches

[Thank you for restoring the Oval Office.]
> To what, a video game arcade? This clown has gotten less work done in the Oval Office in two years than Clinton did in two weeks, and that is even with Monica under the desk!

[Thank you for making us all proud to be American.]
Correction - Over half of America is ashamed that Smirky is president.

[History will remember you well.]
> As the most moronic, incompetent fraud in American history.

Herodotus - 5/30/2003

I'm confused. When was George W. Bush AWOL as commander in chief?

Bill McWilliams - 5/30/2003

You said that mr. bush is:
"one of our history's best Commanders in Chief"

Question: Does that mean going AWOL and staying AWOL long enough to be defined as a Deserter (like gwbush) should NOT result in punishment, but rather might suggest the kind of swagger one looks for a potentially "best" leader?

Herodotus - 5/30/2003

In your haste to be right you forgot to be thorough.

Johnson delivered Texas with similar voting shenanigans. In one well known instance, in Fannin County, Texas, over six thousands votes were cast in on a registered voter roll of only 4,900 voters. Similar incidents occurred in precincts and counties all across the state and is not a fact in dispute. The Texas Election Board refused to recount the votes, and Nixon, again, elected not to challenge the matter. As the tallies across the country came in of state electoral votes, it was neck and neck until Illinois--where the margin was only 9,000 votes, and under control of the Daley family--came out for Kennedy.

Personally, I don't care whether Kennedy or Nixon won the election. But I do care that you're not being consistent in decrying either the Electoral College or "fraudulent" elections. It's either both 2000 and 1960, on proceedure, or its neither. If you can't decide, then you're welcome to your irrelevance because your convictions won't carry any weight on here any more.
    

NYGuy - 5/30/2003

Stock Market turns around and is up in May. Puchasing Managers Index (PMI) highest in three months. Consumer confidence in share recovery.

Thank you GW for bringing us out of the Clinton recession, being a world leader, and one of our history's best Commanders in Chief as we fight the war on terrorism. Thank you for restoring the Oval Office.

Thank you for making us all proud to be American. History will remember you well.

Elia Markell - 5/30/2003

The name is "K-R-I-Z", not "K-I-R-Z".

Finally, a criticism backed up by facts.

Stephen Kriz - 5/30/2003

Mr. Markell:

I am not interested in keeping score regarding who is on "my side" vs. who is not. I would hardly regard Andrew Sullivan as a true liberal in any case. I thought conservatives were opposed to the "tyranny of the majority"?

Steve Kriz

P.S. The name is "K-R-I-Z", not "K-I-R-Z". I know four letter words can be tough on conservatives, but work on it, O.K.?

Stephen Kriz - 5/30/2003

Herodotus:

While there may have been voting irregularities or fraud in Illinois during the 1960 presidential election, it didn't affect the ultimate outcome of the election and who sat in the White House. Florida in 2000 did.

Kennedy won the 1960 election with 303 electoral votes to 219 for Nixon. Without Illinois' 27 electoral votes, Kennedy would still have won, 276-246.

Some historian you are......

Steve Kriz

Josh Greenland - 5/30/2003

"The problem is the red states. How do we win any of them?"

Stop pushing gun control, for one thing. It's a big loser in the hardcore red states. It may have made the difference in one or more of the closely contested states. I'm sure it hurt the Dems in each and every one of the red states.

Bill McWilliams - 5/30/2003

You said:

"I agree with you and want to help you, but the American people love GW too much and feel safer because of him. How can we do it with such a popular president."

RESPONSE: It's too late. The train has already left the station, and the Democrats are funded by the same oligarchs as the Republicans are. The wealthy, their patrons in Congress, their accolytes in academia, and the rednecks who can be so easily fooled by the conservative-owned media ("stenographers to power"), are moving the country inexorably to the far right. I think it's reasonable to infer that many people who unwittingly support and vote against their own economic interest are little different from Hitler's willing executioners. Others have jumped on the fascist bandwagon, possibly out of a desire to avoid what they fear might be the consequences of not "getting with the program."

bob connors - 5/29/2003

There is a concerted GOP plan to ruin our economy in order that the right-wing schemers can then under-fund the social welfare network of our country. The scheme is to gut these necessary programs to such a radical extent as to ruin them. Coincidentally, the Democrats use these programs to help the majority of the country and consequentially win votes.

Talking about tax cuts isn’t sexy, but if the present situation persists, the prognosis for the middle and lower classes in the U.S. is very poor.

I thought that this latest tax cut was disgusting, until I read the article, “Stating the Obvious”, by Paul Krugman. If his thesis is correct then the current economic structure of the U.S. is definitely being challenged by 43’s administration.

Krugman writes, “”The lunatics are now in charge of the asylum." So wrote the normally staid Financial Times, traditionally the voice of solid British business opinion, when surveying last week's tax bill. Indeed, the legislation is doubly absurd: the gimmicks used to make an $800-billion-plus tax cut carry an official price tag of only $320 billion are a joke, yet the cost without the gimmicks is so large that the nation can't possibly afford it while keeping its other promises”.

That sounds bad, but Krugman predicts a destruction of the U.S. economy so that the “social safety net built up over the past 70 years” vanishes. He hypothesizes that this is a calculated strategy. He attributes this dishonorable plan to laziness by moderates and liberals and further states,”But the people now running America aren't conservatives: they're radicals who want to do away with the social and economic system we have, and the fiscal crisis they are concocting may give them the excuse they need. The Financial Times, it seems, now understands what's going on, but when will the public wake up?”

In my background, as an ex-Social Worker, I’ve noticed that in that profession, it is known that the GOP has traditionally under-funded social welfare budgets. Krugman is from a disparate discipline, economics, and he reaches the same conclusion.

Let me digress to a personal anecdote related to the comparatively small welfare programs for low-income people. Back in the mid 1970’s I was a Social Worker. One of my jobs was at the Salvation Army in Philadelphia. Only once as a Social Worker did I get a case of mine into the papers, and that one incident I’m ashamed of.

I had a client who went by the name of Saint Jane, and considered herself to be in direct contact with God. She also didn’t feel that she needed to use bathroom facilities when she needed to do a bowel movement. She didn’t travel light as she had 10 shopping carts full of empty soda bottles and tuna fish cans. Around Thanksgiving I had given her the ability to receive welfare payments from the Philadelphia Department of Public Welfare and I had arranged for her to get a miserable room in a nearby hovel.

On Christmas Eve she again came to my office. Since, I had previously given her lodging in our residence, according to the rules, I couldn’t do so again. The resources were just too limited for such frivolous wasting of funds.

In Philadelphia, the Daily News is the sensationalistic rag. The front page photo showed Saint Jane and her grocery carts of prized possessions in a huge snow bank in front of the Salvation Army. The caption underneath it read something about “Merry Xmas”. They didn’t mention the limited funds or that in the preceding month we had helped as far the rules allowed us to.

Never reported in the press, but in case reports, was what happened next to Saint Jane. On Christmas, Philly DPW sent her and her carts of crushed dreams on a train to Chicago. The storage of the carts on the train cost more than Saint Jane’s ticket, but she wouldn’t go unless she was certain that her possessions were going with her. She knew not a soul there, but said she wanted to visit the “windy city”. I had to get her onto the train, because I had developed a good rapport with her. The Salvation Army couldn’t afford the long distance call to the Traveler’s Aid in Chicago, so she arrived with no fanfare and with no one to look out for her.

This incident took place in the last part of Carter’s term. Later, during Reagan’s term, all of the social welfare system was much worse than in Carter's term. Social Workers in Child Welfare Departments had caseloads big enough for 10 people. In Hospital Social Work, patients were pushed out of hospitals with no after care available.

If the Financial Times and Krugman are correct there will soon be many more Saint Janes, maybe some on the block where you live.

In addition, I’ve found a former Chief of Staff to Ronald Reagan, Kenneth Duberstein, who states that this is a traditional GOP tactic, and in addition to ruining the lives of approximately 99% of the citizens of our country, this cunning scheme destroys social welfare policies that the Democratic Party is dependent on.

If you gotten this far, you have the main points. The rest is just substantiation of these points.

There are 3 items for consideration:
1 There have been previous GOP tax cuts. When they are considered in relation to domestic policies they exhibit an historical pattern—that being to reduce the revenue for domestic social welfare legislation that has always been sponsored by the Democrats.
2 The “Pioneer” buddies, the riches of the rich, will get richer and the GOP will pass legislation to aid them in their quest for every last cent they can wrench away from over 98% of the country.
3 The GOP has manipulated the media to such a dangerous extent that none of it even mentions the tax cut. All that is featured is how the GOP is making the terrorist quake in their boots. Nothing has been uttered about how the Grand Old Party is planning to entirely squeeze out the Democrat’s agenda of providing a social welfare net of protective services.

Regarding point 1, the duplicitous, hidden agenda of the GOP, The Washington Post article, “GOP Eyes Tax Cuts as Annual Events” has this duplicitous quote, “A tax cut bill a year keeps the Democrats away”, from Kenneth Duberstein, who was Chief of Staff to Ronald Reagan.

There is no honor and dignity in this tax cut. It will just favor the select few and obliterate the policies that their loyal, adversarial party has always championed.

Kindly review this quote from an article by Ronald Dear, DSW, entitled, “Social Welfare Policy”, “During the Reagan-Bush era, not only were large segments of the welfare state under withering attack, but defense budgets skyrocketed as a result of a philosophy that the United States can (and should) police the world. Thus, the budget increased during a time of recession and massive tax cuts. Not surprisingly, deficits and the national debt soared”.

When this tax cut is palmed off on us, what happens? Democrats can not attempt to provide domestic policies for our needy, as there will be no revenue for these desperately needed objectives. This tax cut plan #2 to infinity, has many clandestine advantages for the GOP, most of which are virtually unassailable by the Democrats. This can be labeled as tax cut #2 because the last one was actually a Democratic Party initiative that actually helped the economy and the lower classes.

Their leader’s rehearsed scam called “compassionate conservatism” is hypocrisy at its highest level. It serves the GOP as it diminishes the impact of the truthful Democratic objections to the destruction of necessary federally funded domestic policies.

A decent person wouldn’t believe this if it couldn’t be verified. 43, through his evil GOP minions, has shafted the poor for the benefit of the rich many times, and this latest tax cut is just another example. Any sane person, with an income less than $300,000 has no reason to vote for 43.

If people would just take a calculator and see how these domestic budgets and policies negatively impact them, they would inevitably reach a sound conclusion. That being that they are being pillaged, and therefore could not vote for this regime. To understand GOP policies you can’t listen to their rehearsed rhetoric. For GOP schemers the bottom-line of ledger sheets is the place in which it is apparent what their motives are. Every policy will show a credit for the rich and a debit for the rest of us.

From the article by David Firestone, “Tax Law Omits Child Credit in Low-Income Brackets”, please read the substantiation of my comments, "I don't know why they would cut that out of the bill," said Senator Blanche Lincoln, the Arkansas Democrat who persuaded the full Senate to send the credit to many more low income families before the provision was dropped in conference. "These are the people who need it the most and who will spend it the most. These are the people who buy the blue jeans and the detergent and who will stimulate the economy with their spending."

These GOP thugs are shameless and I can predict how the media will never bother to jump all over this. These following quotes from the same article turn my stomach, “Ms. Lincoln noted that nearly half of all taxpayers in her state had adjusted gross incomes that were less than $20,000. Families with incomes lower than $10,500 will also not receive the refund checks. But under the 2001 tax revision, they would not have been eligible for either the $600 or the $1,000 credits because they do not pay federal taxes. Proposals to give them the credits failed on the House and Senate floors on party-line votes”.


As of now the GOP majority is in full agreement on the major piece of the White House economic plan, the never mentioned acceleration of income tax cuts that otherwise would have been phased in through 2006 and beyond. With this in effect, the Democrats will have essentially nothing to run on in 2004.

In sum, they are planning to have annual tax cuts, they are planning on speeding up the implementation of tax cut #1, and they vaguely talk about sunsets, which will never occur in the perpetually nightmarish world they are creating.


Regarding point 2, this GOP regime has already shamefully helped its contributors. When the Office of Homeland Security legislation was passed who benefited?

This legislation, which resulted in the most significant reorganization of the federal government since the creation of the Department of Defense, was rushed through by Bush’s order and received talking-points caliber deliberation. When the mess was looked at what appeared?

The wily GOP attached riders to their bill, which were utterly non-related to Homeland Security. The riders got the pharmaceutical companies off the hook, particularly Eli Lilly. What does that have to do with Homeland Security? As far as a reasonable person can see, nothing, but the pharmaceutical companies paid their way into 43’s favor by contributing to the GOP coffers.

In an article of May 15, 2003, entitled, “Mind the Gap”, Robert J. Shiller, professor of economics at Yale writes, “According to the Census Bureau, the bottom 40 percent of American families earned 18 percent of the national income in 1970, but by 1998 they earned only 14 percent — and that figure could fall to 10 percent before too long”.

Things are getting better for the rich and worse for the poor. He continues, “The political argument is true in at least one sense, however: this change will become only more difficult as inequality becomes more pronounced. When the top tenth of the population has attained such a high percentage of society's wealth that it can effectively block any reform, it can be counted on to use its power to keep its riches. America ought to act now to make to sure this never comes to pass”.

I came upon an ironic article written in January of 2001. Remember that this is before the selected resident’s previous tax cut rip-off. In this Amarillo Globe-News piece entitled, “Bush's 'voodoo economics' won't work this time either”, the author describes that President 41, this President’s father, called President Reagan's big tax cut and increased defense spending "voodoo economics".

Regarding point 3, the GOP has manipulated the media shamefully. The USA Today article entitled, “Goal is to invest in the future”, was written by a guest author. Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif., who is chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, which has jurisdiction over all federal tax legislation, was allowed to spread his propaganda on an unwitting public.

For the unmitigated audacity of this read the following quote, “Help is on the way for American workers and taxpayers as the U.S. House of Representatives votes today on bold legislation to jump-start our economy and generate jobs for every worker. Initiated by President Bush, the Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Tax Act of 2003 will create 1.2 million jobs and pump $200 billion back into the private economy by the end of 2004”. The nerve to call this scam by this two-faced moniker is amazing, but par for the course.

To let Thomas spew his lies in a paper that is known for its lack of nuance makes you wonder. How did the GOP get this much control of the media?

We have had columnists attack this “Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Tax Act of 2003”, but their political leanings are known. How many of the red states voters read the New York Times? To these folk that paper is a communist rag.

This part of Paul Krugman’s article of May 9th, 2003, “Into the Sunset” addresses the deceitful job creation aspect of this tax cut #2 in this quote, “Finally, as in 2001, we're being told that this tax cut will create lots of jobs. But why should we believe that? It's hard to find an independent economist who thinks that the Bush proposal would create the 1.4 million jobs claimed by the administration — and as I've explained in this column, even that many jobs would be a poor payoff for a tax cut that big. And bear in mind that Bush-style tax cuts now have a track record. Of the 2.1 million jobs lost over the past two years, 1.7 million vanished after the passage of the 2001 tax cut.”

Since he writes for the New York Times how many of the voters that Bush will win in 2004, even would consider looking at an honest analysis of tax cut #2?

Just as with the New York Times, the Washington Post is never read by 43’s GOP base. Therefore, this Washington Post article, “Tax Cuts Complicate Democrats' Campaigns”, will only reinforce to non-GOP voters, the awful struggle that the Democrats will have in 2004. Please review this quote, “Bush has already charged that Democrats seeking to block future tax cuts are trying to raise taxes. Stumping for GOP candidates last fall, he said a freeze on future tax cuts is "Washington, D.C., code for 'I'm fixin' to raise your taxes.' “If nothing else, the charge blunted Democratic efforts to tar Republicans with the ballooning budget deficit.
Walter F. Mondale's 1984 promise to raise taxes to help reduce the burgeoning budget deficit is widely believed to have hurt his campaign against President Ronald Reagan. But recent history also shows that Democrats can campaign on tax increases and win, said Stanley Greenberg, who was Bill Clinton's pollster in 1992. That year, Clinton pledged to raise taxes on the wealthy to help balance the budget and fund what he called "investments."

Clinton ran on this hard to sell issue and won. He ran against 41, who after Iraq #1 had amazingly high poll numbers. For 41, the economy stunk, and he was labeled as being uninterested in how the awful economic plight hurt the middle and lower classes.

Another stunning recent revelation regarding the GOP takeover of the media is articulated in Jeffrey Chester’s AlterNet article “Rupert Murdoch's Digital Death Star”. Colin Powell’s son is giving the GOP control of the media, and the stupid media and Democrats are letting it happen. Please review these quotes, as sometimes I wonder if I’m losing my mind, “Even as Michael Powell and the GOP sweep away long-standing media ownership safeguards, media mogul Rupert Murdoch is mobilizing to further expand his TV empire beyond broadcast and cable. His plans to acquire the key direct broadcast satellite service (DBS) -- DirecTV -- will allow Murdoch to advance his conservative political agenda, creating new channels and services that disseminate the rightwing ideology now espoused by Fox News”.

He predicts, in this quote, a terrifying Outer Limits future in which the GOP controls everything, “Imagine Fox News on steroids. Worse, with DirecTV's capacity to "spotbeam" channels to serve distinct communities, localized versions of Fox programs could be available in major cities across the nation’.

Suppose, say 43 wants to attack a specific Senator. He loves trying to campaign against Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle and in the 2002 elections tried and failed to unseat his protégé, Tim Johnson. If Murdoch wants to “spotbeam” certain South Dakota cities to work against Daschle, when this latest evil GOP scam is finalized, he can. When you consider the apathetic voters the U.S. has, and the fact that most of them are too lazy to read a paper, and depend on getting their news from TV drool, this is ominous.





How can the Democrats combat this when the media only listens to 43’s operatives? We all know how this is going to go. The current illegal resident has the issues of homeland security and his “everlasting wars against terrorism”. Some poor Democratic candidate will, as Kerry has already, articulate that the acceleration of tax cut #1, and the implementation of tax cut #2 has taken revenue away from desperately needed federally funded social welfare programs. This is red meat in shark infested water. As soon as this is uttered every GOP operative will call the Democrats “the tax and spend party”. This has been going on since Nixon, and it has not worked well for the Democrats, except for Clinton.

This tax cut #2 scam is the worst in history, by far! No one ever compelled a country to undergo tax cuts during a war! Even worse, what happens less than a decade from now when the baby-boomers start retiring? It was only as recent as during Clinton’s term that the GOP pushed for the “lock box” and “balanced budgets”. Now it is to their advantage to abandon their earlier beliefs, and they do so gladly.

USA Today recently had an article entitled, “Congress uses gimmicks to mask costs of tax cuts”. Like Alice looking through the looking glass, read this, “But the House's plan for cutting personal and business taxes over 10 years isn't even a more modest version of the president's plan. Instead of reducing tax cuts to a more affordable level, it merely gives them cosmetic expiration dates. The legislation is only less expensive if lawmakers have the political will to let most of the tax cuts die after three years. Otherwise, the 10-year price tag jumps to $760 billion, nearly 40% more”.

In this article Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, admits the expiration dates are for show. "No one believes there will be any difficulty in extending them," he said.

In sum, the GOP realizes it has the pat phrase, “the tax and spend party” and it can get away with anything it wants as long as their “Southern Strategy” wins them the red states. In the wings, waiting for a chance is their “negative campaigning tactics”, as utilized to defame Max Cleland in 2002. What do the Democrats have?

The economy stinks worse now, and will get worse, if the GOP has its way. For 43 only his “Pioneer” buddies exist! We have a chance, but we have to notify the country that the GOP is planning to ruin the economy and then the social welfare network that has existed for seventy years! Where did 43 state this as a plan of his? Why can he be allowed to get away with this?

The problem is the red states. How do we win any of them? In Arkansas, Senator Lincoln mentioned that ½ of her voters make less than $20,000. Not one of them has any reason to vote for a GOP candidate in 2004.

With Murdoch getting FOX into every TV in the U.S. how can a Democrat get any TV reporter to listen to their plans to help the vast majority of the U.S.? Unfortunately, the TV channels, which comprise the method in which most voters get news information, are GOP gofers. To get a share of the market, even formerly moderate network TV news have changed. Now, they are essentially GOP information manipulators for the vast majority of our disinterested voters.

In 2004, we need a simple speaking candidate, someone who is also a poster boy like JFK. Then he has to clearly articulate a moderate viewpoint easily understandable by our drooling voters. Then he needs a miracle. He’ll have no access to the major media, and 43, in 2004 will break all of the records for campaign funds. 43 also has timed it right. He’ll attempt to have a coronation to run concurrent to the anniversary of the event that transformed him from a chump to our war-time leader. His handlers will use the 9-11 tragedy as a backdrop to ensure he gets every possible vote he can squeeze out of the fools who worship “the leader of the free world who doesn’t do nuances”.

Bob Connors

Herodotus - 5/29/2003

"Are you drunk or something?!?"

Reduced to ad hominems?

Elia Markell - 5/29/2003

By the way, for those of you unable to fathom the world as other than either/or, I consider my side of the ideological divide to include Nat Hentoff, Christopher Hitchens, Vaclav Haval, Andrew Sullivan, and other lonely voices of what used to be a liberal-left tendency in America. There is no such tendency any more of any intellectual substance. Also, though I doubt any of you will recognize the name, in memory of Thomas Sgovio -- a 1930s Italian American Communist imprisoned for 16 years in the Gulag, who returned to tell the tale, not that the "left" EVER wanted to hear. Now THOSE were jackboots.

Elia Markell - 5/29/2003

You two prove my point perfectly. Nothing left but Florida, 2000, bitter anti-Americanism and paranoid lusting for the sound of jackboots approaching. You have nothing positive to offer, so you think piling on the invective and ad hominem will suffice to impress us. It won't. Not one vote worth. Ever.

V.A - 5/29/2003

Markell, this hardly comprehensible spew is emblamatic of the filthy bullies on your side of the idealogical divide. I find it almost unbearable when people like you skulk out of your dark mean corners to expel your fatuous opions on:
1) What the left is about
2) Why the left historically has taken the positions it has
3) and how this somehow betrayed by the current left
Your words are so gratuitous they almost satirize your fat, loud, swaggering, party. If you would please desist from ignorantly ranting on the nature of our politics, pehaps you would lend some credibility to the often suggested notion, but rarely seen, that right wingers aren't just a bunch of thoughtless, ignorant reactionaries.
Your view on the 2000 election is truly sad to hear from any American. American's are supposed to fight for democracy, Markell, not shirk from their responsibilty to uphold it. This what everyone, left and right, is doing when they refuse to simply forget the reprehensible events in Florida. I don't believe democracy is dead in the United States, but its pulse beats weekly under that attack of facist turncoats like yourself.

Herodotus - 5/29/2003

You still haven't replied to my suggestion that a 4% failure rate isn't any reason to get rid of the electoral college...

but I wonder what your position on the voting irregularities in Chicago and Illinois in the 1960 election, since you're so keen on making sure that voting irregularities that lead to illegal elections be done away with. It is hardly disputed now that Nixon would have won the election had he challenged the voting tallies in Chicago (which would have given him Illinois, and thus the whole country in the Electoral College), but he decided for the good of the country (and against the advice of other Republicans) not to contest the election.

Consistency requires that you condemn Kennedy as much as Bush, for Nixon and Gore won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College.

Can we mark you down as opposed to Kennedy's election, or is that some kind of special case?

Stephen Kriz - 5/29/2003

John:

I think something other than your fingers are fat - specifically your head. Your fixation on the unborn suggests you are of the extreme right-wing political persuasion. So sad. As to the "dry drunk" tag, I am afraid you are quite wrong. Never have been and never will be.

I attack George W. Bush because he is destroying this country that I love so much. From the economy to our standing in the international community to the environment to civil rights to our historical legacy - this country is so much worse off since he stumbled into office. If you are having trouble with your fingers, I would happy to give you a finger.... :-)

Peace,

Steve Kriz

Stephen Kriz - 5/29/2003

Wow. What incredibly dense and inscrutable writing. Are you drunk or something?!?

Elia Markell - 5/29/2003

While Mr. Kirz and his allies are a laughable example of delusion and paranoia, what ought to be of concern here is that their animus and incredible alienation are now endemic among even more moderate-seeming segments of what used to be called the left. I say "used to" in the sense of a left that once would have lead the world in mounting campaigns calling on the West to do its duty with respect to truly fascistic tyrannies, such as in Iraq formerly, and still now in Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Saudi Arabia. This list is carefully chosen. Were the "left" now anything more than anti-American bilge such as Mr. Kirz distills so exquisitely it would have mounted its own American Lincoln Battalions to all these regimes, which are in reality as hideous as Kirz's imagined America times a million. In so doing it would have backed its own country proudly with respect to the first three on my list, would have hectored the U.S. but even more so the EU and UN on the fourth, and would have led all of the West in taking on the fifth. THAT would be a real task for a political left.

Instead, the left a la Kirz, is setting itself up to fight against the Supreme Court, Florida and the year 2000, and to fight for the filibuster and the restoration of taxes to higher levels again after 2006. Roll over Eugene Debs, tell FDR the news.

NYGuy - 5/29/2003

I agree with you and want to help you, but the American people love GW too much and feel safer because of him. How can we do it with such a popular president.

AnotherNYGuy - 5/29/2003

Bush won and that is that! Anybody that doesn't like it should get over it by now. Debating it doesn't change it! Stop acting like sore losers.

Josh Greenland - 5/29/2003

I agree with VA's post.

Here's the Field Guide to Trolls in case you don't think NYGuy fits the bill:

http://philelmore.com/profiling/fieldguidetotrolls.htm

Stephen Kriz - 5/29/2003

NY Guy:

Please show me where I said Bush=Hitler. I didn't, so stop lying. Hitler was much more intelligent and also a better public speaker than George. Rather than address my points, you resort to ad hominem attacks, in typical right-wing fashion. Thanks for agreeing that Gore won the 2000 election, but it doesn't speak to what should be done. My suggestion: Impeachment.

Steve Kriz

Charles V. Mutschler - 5/29/2003

Mr. Kriz,

Thank you for the reply to my post. I am not ready to blame only one party for the current situation. White there is something in what you say, I respectfully suggest you are overlooking some serious failings by the political left. You write:

"I see the extreme right-wing as being solely responsible for turning politics into a blood sport. There is a clear historical thread of right-wing politicians using villification and demonization of their opponents to gain political advantage - from Father Coughlin to Joseph McCarthy, through Spiro Agnew to Lee Atwater to Rush Limbaugh and the army of right-wing talking heads (Savage, Coulter, Farah, et al), who serve as proxy warriors for the Republican Party. "

While Father Coughlin certainly had a political agenda, I don't think I would see him as primarily a political player. And there were others who were political players at that time who were making extreme statements from the left. Going back a little earlier, the political left's extreme political statements might well start with the IWW, calling for class warfare and One Big Union.

McCarthy was a nasty, mean-spirited man, but he was repudiated by many in his party, though some certainly used the anti-communist banner for political advantage. Eisenhower hated McCarthy, but chose political expediency rather than defending General Marshall. Not one of his better moments. On the other hand, the folks across the aisle were not exactly pure. The administrations of FDR and Harry Truman had also chosen political expediency over honesty by sweeping the embarassing little matter of Katyn under the rug during the latter half of World War II.

Your point about McCarthy's demogogic methods is well taken, and both he and Agnew were politcal figures. However, note that both were disgraced in fairly short order, and many Republican moderates apparently lost no sleep over the demise politically (in McCarthy's case literally) of either man.

The talking heads are a somewhat different issue, I believe. Both parties used them, and often the claims were greatly exaggerated. Many of them *did* adopt extreme langauge. However, they were not alone. The fiasco in Chicago in 1968 basically gave Richard Nixon the election on a silver platter. Many American citizens believed that the Democratic party was out of control, and the riots they watched on television did not give them faith in either the young activists or the party's leaders as being capable of governing the nation.

I suspect the Democratic Party's efforts to reach out to the young people who engaged in protest movements didn't help the party, especially as some of the extreme tactics have continued to the present. Stifling speech by invited speakers is not a new feature on college campuses. However, it apparently isn't something that has been widely practiced on the political right during the past half-century. Until just a few weeks ago. I would argue that this was an example of the right taking a page from the left's play book. more than a long-standing practice on the political right, though there are certainly some examples.

You are correct, the Republican party has often let talking heads act as the shapers of public opinion. So have the Democrats. In fact, one rather interesting place to examine this question is Richard J. Ellis's book, _The Dark Side of the Left: Illiberal Egalitarianism in America._ Ellis, by the way, is a card-carying Democrat who voted for W. J. Clinton, according to his preface.

"To the extent that the left has adopted these techniques, (and I would argue that it is very rare), it has only been due to a perceived need to retailiate. Conservatives waged a ten year war against Bill and Hillary Clinton, calling them every name in the book, bringing false charges against them, nearly bankrupting them through endless specious lawsuits - why would you expect that Democrats would sit back and take it?"

Mr. Kriz, one might argue that your examples (above) are really no different than the methodology used by various groups which tend to be supported by the Democratic party. Again, I recommend reading Ellis. I also think it is desirable to have an open mind. That means being able to read material by people I don't generally agree with and consider the possibility that it might be true. To evaluate the factual evidence, not my personal opinions, and then to draw a conclusion based on the evidence. I think the increasingly closed minded attitudes by the people at either extreme of the political spectrum are damaging both political and historical discourse.

Thanks for reading.

CVM

Charles V. Mutschler - 5/29/2003

Mr. Kriz,

Thank you for the reply to my post. I am not ready to blame only one party for the current situation. White there is something in what you say, I respectfully suggest you are overlooking some serious failings by the political left. You write:

"I see the extreme right-wing as being solely responsible for turning politics into a blood sport. There is a clear historical thread of right-wing politicians using villification and demonization of their opponents to gain political advantage - from Father Coughlin to Joseph McCarthy, through Spiro Agnew to Lee Atwater to Rush Limbaugh and the army of right-wing talking heads (Savage, Coulter, Farah, et al), who serve as proxy warriors for the Republican Party. "

While Father Coughlin certainly had a political agenda, I don't think I would see him as primarily a political player. And there were others who were political players at that time who were making extreme statements from the left. Going back a little earlier, the political left's extreme political statements might well start with the IWW, calling for class warfare and One Big Union.

McCarthy was a nasty, mean-spirited man, but he was repudiated by many in his party, though some certainly used the anti-communist banner for political advantage. Eisenhower hated McCarthy, but chose political expediency rather than defending General Marshall. Not one of his better moments. On the other hand, the folks across the aisle were not exactly pure. The administrations of FDR and Harry Truman had also chosen political expediency over honesty by sweeping the embarassing little matter of Katyn under the rug during the latter half of World War II.

Your point about McCarthy's demogogic methods is well taken, and both he and Agnew were politcal figures. However, note that both were disgraced in fairly short order, and many Republican moderates apparently lost no sleep over the demise politically (in McCarthy's case literally) of either man.

The talking heads are a somewhat different issue, I believe. Both parties used them, and often the claims were greatly exaggerated. Many of them *did* adopt extreme langauge. However, they were not alone. The fiasco in Chicago in 1968 basically gave Richard Nixon the election on a silver platter. Many American citizens believed that the Democratic party was out of control, and the riots they watched on television did not give them faith in either the young activists or the party's leaders as being capable of governing the nation.

I suspect the Democratic Party's efforts to reach out to the young people who engaged in protest movements didn't help the party, especially as some of the extreme tactics have continued to the present. Stifling speech by invited speakers is not a new feature on college campuses. However, it apparently isn't something that has been widely practiced on the political right during the past half-century. Until just a few weeks ago. I would argue that this was an example of the right taking a page from the left's play book. more than a long-standing practice on the political right, though there are certainly some examples.

You are correct, the Republican party has often let talking heads act as the shapers of public opinion. So have the Democrats. In fact, one rather interesting place to examine this question is Richard J. Ellis's book, _The Dark Side of the Left: Illiberal Egalitarianism in America._ Ellis, by the way, is a card-carying Democrat who voted for W. J. Clinton, according to his preface.

"To the extent that the left has adopted these techniques, (and I would argue that it is very rare), it has only been due to a perceived need to retailiate. Conservatives waged a ten year war against Bill and Hillary Clinton, calling them every name in the book, bringing false charges against them, nearly bankrupting them through endless specious lawsuits - why would you expect that Democrats would sit back and take it?"

Mr. Kriz, one might argue that your examples (above) are really no different than the methodology used by various groups which tend to be supported by the Democratic party. Again, I recommend reading Ellis. I also think it is desirable to have an open mind. That means being able to read material by people I don't generally agree with and consider the possibility that it might be true. To evaluate the factual evidence, not my personal opinions, and then to draw a conclusion based on the evidence. I think the increasingly closed minded attitudes by the people at either extreme of the political spectrum are damaging both political and historical discourse.

Thanks for reading.

CVM

Stephen Kriz - 5/29/2003

Yes, John?

John Kipper - 5/29/2003

Mr Kriz:
I apologize for the previous abortlive post. Fat fingers often betray me on my keyboard.
What I wanted to say to was to remind you of the words of a famous Italian; "Let me change what I can, accept what I cannot and the wisdom to know the difference." Of course, St. Francis is now a dead white guy, but surely you recognize the Serenity Prayer that is a basic of AA's recovery process.
Your fixation on the Florida recount(s),your hyperbolic rhetoric and your anti-Bush venom, in my opinion, qualify you for the coveted dry drunk of the week award. Keep up the good work, if you actually come up with a fact, you could qualify for the dry drunk hall of fame. By the way, you have yet to attack W's unborn grandchildren. Why wait, villify them now, establsih your credentials for future hate before anyone else beats you to the punch! Get ahead of the game and become a true visionary.
And don't worry that these unborns have not yet offended you, they are the inheritors of an evil seed that is intent on removing you, personally, from the cosmos. Therefore your pre-emptive strikes shall be as justified, and as well received, as your present rantings.

Charles V. Mutschler - 5/29/2003

Gentle Readers,

I confess to drawing my interpretation from the opening of Mr. Carpenter's essay, and his earlier comments about the contested election of 2000. Specifically, I believe Mr. Carpenter's reference to the 'tawdry power grab" and the "3rd year of an ugly coup d'etat as real as any in history" to be references to the election of 2000. See quote below:

"The Looting of America
By P.M. Carpenter

Any American who thinks that only other nations -- especially those of Third World nether regions -- are susceptible to tawdry power grabs should think again, for it seems we're in the 3rd year of an ugly coup d'etat as real as any in history."

Perhaps I am mis-understanding Mr. Carpenter. If I he wishes to correct me, and show me where I have erred, then I will gladly apologize for mis-representing his ideas. However, if my reading is correct, then I believe my original point is fairly made.

Thanks for reading.

CVM

John Kipper - 5/29/2003

Mr. Kriz:

Stephen Kriz - 5/28/2003

Grant:

The SCOTUS had no business overruling the Florida Supreme Court. Read the 10th Amendment. It has never happened before in a matter involving an election. It was a pure political move. That being said, both Scalia and Thomas should have recused themselves, in which case Gore would have won 4-3 and would now be president. 9-11 might never have happened, the environment would be cleaner, and the world might still respect us. Several thousand people who are now dead might be alive and we would not be facing budget deficits as far as the eye can see. You can get over it if you want to, but I never will. The American Republic died on December 12, 2000. R.I.P.

Steve Kriz

NYGuy - 5/28/2003

F. Teague posted the following:

Charles,

Where does Mr. Carpenter make "the simple assertion that Mr. Gore should have been president"?

For that matter, where does Mr. Carpenter discuss the 2000 election at all?

The answer is that Mr. Carpenter in his article does not discuss the 2000 election. How then do 70% of the headings on this post report on the 2000 election and not the article written by Carpenter? .

Simple, Stephen (Johnny One Note) Kriz has come forward once again with his obsession that “Bush did not win the election” and Bush = Hitler. Nothing new, he has tried to dominate these boards for many months with the same old story.

He described his no holds bared philosophy in response to Charles V. Mutschler” and his comment that he would continue to 2050 with his crusade.

1) “While I appreciate what you have said, you fail to ask, "How did we get to this point?" I see the extreme right wing as being solely responsible for turning politics into a blood sport.”

2) “"Sorry, but I don't "move on" when the most serious election fraud in American history is perpetrated. I will be screaming about this in 2050!"

We can then expect another 47 years of this diatribe. The best way to avoid it is to just say, “There goes Kriz again." His message is “Bush = Hitler” and then move on without opening his post. Then go back and read the article in question to see if you want to comment.

If it makes him happy, humor him and let him believe that Gore won the election.

Then, we can carry on a civil debate as suggested by Charles V. Mutschler.

Grant Fritchey - 5/28/2003

End of discussion?

End of rant you mean?

I voted for Clinton, twice. I voted for Gore. Hell, I voted for Dukakis. I, umm, did vote for Ronald Reagan, but I was in the military at the time, it doesn't count.

That said, Gore bloody lost the election. Walk away.

The Florida Supreme Court was given two chances to follow the laws of the state of Florida. They failed both times. Those are simple facts. The Supreme Court voted 9-2 to set aside the Florida court decision. It wasn't a conspiracy.

Gore lost. Learn to live with it. Move on. Get ready for the next election and stop living in the past.

ps:

The only people who want to get rid of the electoral college are those from the coasts that want this country to be a democracy. It's a democratic republic and works nicely. I grew up in Oklahoma. I live in Massachusetts. Thank heaven for the electoral college and the Senate or these less populous states couldn't have equal representation when compared to California, Florida & New York.

Stephen Kriz - 5/28/2003

V.A.

I am glad someone else is concerned about the most corrupt president in American history. Bush has the longest criminal rap sheet of any president ever, and the media treats him like some kind of saint. Let's see, how many times was Bill Clinton arrested again? Oh yeah, zero.

Some links for you:

About Bush committing statutory rape and the resulting abortion:

http://bartcop.com/bushabortion.htm

About Tammy Phillips:

http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,8494,00.html

About Bush Going AWOL:

http://www.awolbush.com/

http://villagenews.weblogger.com/stories/storyReader$8085

About Bush getting arrested for cocaine:

http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#cocaine

Prescott Bush, Financier to the Nazi Party:

http://www.clamormagazine.org/features/issue14.3_feature.html

http://www.bk2k.com/bushbodycount/prescott-bush/index.shtml

About general Bush corruption:

http://www.spitfirelist.com/f319.html

http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm

And the definitive text about George H.W. Bush and all of the corruption surrounding the Bush family:

http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm

There is a lot of corruption in this horrible, horrible family, so you have a lot of reading to do!

Steve Kriz

Herodotus - 5/28/2003

"Harrison also got screwed and the electoral college has now twice failed the American people. It belongs on the scrap heap of history."

Hardly. Hmm...by your logic, the Electoral College has 'failed' 2 out of 55 times. That's rought a 4% failure rate, assuming you're right.

Stephen Kriz - 5/28/2003

No, Mr. Markell:

It has nothing to do with "bait and switch". It's all of the above. The Florida election debacle of 2000 has so many rotten and corrupt aspects to it (much like the GOP itself), that space here doesn't permit a full accounting of it. The Florida recount was flawed, black voters were disenfranchised by the thousands, illegal military ballots were counted, hired thugs were brought in to disrupt the ballot counting, GOP ballots were re-certified illegally in several counties, and on and on. Rather than defend your political party, you instead try to deflect the issues by spewing some nonsense about "bait and switch". Bush lost the election under any fair and reasonable scenario. He will never, ever, ever be a legitimate president in my estimation or that of over half the voting public. Bush v. Gore was the most flawed and politically motivated decision in the history of the SCOTUS and Bush and his entire band of illegitimate pirates should be breaking rocks in Fort Leavenworth, instead of looting the U.S. Treasury and sending our brave soldiers off to fight wars for their illegal and unConstitutional wars for their economic benefit. End of discussion.

Steve Kriz

Elia Markell - 5/28/2003

Here we have the typical leftie bait and switch. Now it's not the recount that matters or the "intent of voters." Its the canard about thousands of disenfranchised black voters. One problem. This supposed disenfranchising was NOT the issue in ANY of the Gore or Bush legal gambits leading up to the Supreme Court case that I thought was the basis for the Oliver Stonite koo-koo coup conspiracy hypothesis in the first place. Funny how Al never thought to make that the issue -- guess he didn't have as much time on his hands as folks here do.

Ken Melvin - 5/28/2003

Before the election, thinking they would win the popular and loose the college, Bushes lawyers were geared to challenge the Electoral College.

Elia Markell - 5/28/2003

A ton of hoots here. My favorite is this

"Regarding point 3, the GOP has manipulated the media shamefully. The USA Today article entitled, “Goal is to invest in the future”, was written by a guest author. Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif., who is chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, which has jurisdiction over all federal tax legislation, was allowed to spread his propaganda on an unwitting public."

I never realized the audacity of the GOP plan to destroy the American economy and "ruin the lives" of 99 out of 100 of us. It goes all the way back to the First Amendment, which shamelessly allows Republican lawmakers to become guest authors in newspapers. Takes your breath away, doesn't it? And to think, in 1789, the GOP was still some sixty years or so away from even existing!

Stephen Kriz - 5/28/2003

Mr. (or is it Ms.?) Markell:

Keep in mind Bush only gained the requisite number of electoral college votes because of the treachery that occurred in Florida. Read "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" for details of how thousands of black voters were illegally purged from voter rolls in the Sunshine State, thanks to Katherine Harris and her lover, Jeb Bush. Bush could not have won the election any other way. No other combination of contested states could have given him enough electoral college votes. The Supreme Court should have thrown out Florida's votes, due to the massive fraud perpetrated by the GOP there. Under that scenario, Gore wins, with a preponderance of the electoral votes. Under a statewide recount in Florida, Gore wins.

Harrison also got screwed and the electoral college has now twice failed the American people. It belongs on the scrap heap of history. Bush was, is and always will be a loser. He is the very embodiment of failure. Democracy in America died on December 12, 2000 with the Bush v. Gore decision. We are now living in a fascist monarchy.

Elia Markell - 5/28/2003

I love this. A standard developed in Texas is to be applied to Florida. WHY? Because it miraculously reads minds and determines "the clear intent of the voter"? Any reason this "standard" was only to be applied in FLORIDA only and not every other state? This is supposed to be proof of something. Pathetic

And as for the popular vote, does that mean Harrison also pulled off a coup in 1888? Like it or not, pal, the Electoral College exists. Had Bush "conceded" to Gore on the basis of the popular vote, THAT would have been a coup.

V.A. - 5/28/2003

Hey Stephen, where did you find all these serious allegations against Bush and the Bush family? I would love to read further into them...

V.A. - 5/28/2003

I would like to sincerely make a plea to Herodotus and Heuisler to try to get this moron to stop posting. We all don't agree, we're on different sides of the playing field, but I can't imagine you guys appreciate this unintellectual, rude, inflammatory jackass being on your team any more than I'd appreciate having someone of a similiar ilk on mine. Try posting him a message like, "you'd help our cause more by throwing your computer out the window and taping you hands to your mouth."

V.A. - 5/28/2003

I would like to sincerely make a plea to Herodotus and Heuisler to try to get this moron to stop posting. We all don't agree, we're on different sides of the playing field, but I can't imagine you guys appreciate this unintellectual, rude, inflammatory jackass being on your team any more than I'd appreciate having someone of a similiar ilk on mine. Try posting him a message like, "you'd help our cause more by throwing your computer out the window and taping you hands to your mouth."

V.A. - 5/28/2003

Hey Stephen, where did you find all these serious allegations against Bush and the Bush family? I would love to read further into them...

Stephen Kriz - 5/28/2003

Mr. Mutschler:

While I appreciate what you have said, you fail to ask, "How did we get to this point?" I see the extreme right-wing as being solely responsible for turning politics into a blood sport. There is a clear historical thread of right-wing politicians using villification and demonization of their opponents to gain political advantage - from Father Coughlin to Joseph McCarthy, through Spiro Agnew to Lee Atwater to Rush Limbaugh and the army of right-wing talking heads (Savage, Coulter, Farah, et al), who serve as proxy warriors for the Republican Party. To the extent that the left has adopted these techniques, (and I would argue that it is very rare), it has only been due to a perceived need to retailiate. Conservatives waged a ten year war against Bill and Hillary Clinton, calling them every name in the book, bringing false charges against them, nearly bankrupting them through endless specious lawsuits - why would you expect that Democrats would sit back and take it?

Instead, maybe we need to begin filing endless lawsuits against the Bush family and exploring every facet of Dubya's extremely checkered past - his rape of a 15 year old girl when he was 22, the abortion his family paid for, his arrest for cocaine possession in Houston in 1972 that was expunged from his record, his affair with Tammy Phillips, the Bush's family connection to the bin Laden family, Prescott Bush's financing of the Nazi war machine, the multitude of conflicts of interest inherent in the Bush administration's connections to the Carlyle Group, Trireme Partners and Halliburton Company.

Then maybe the right-wing will back off and we can have civility in national politics again. Until then, expect brutal internecine warfare.

Stephen Kriz - 5/28/2003

In fact, had a state-wide recount been done in Florida using the standards developed in Texas when Bush was governor that sought to determine "the clear intent of the voters", as should have been the case, Gore would have won handily. You can live in your cozy little conservative dream world if you like. Bush lost the election. GET OVER IT!!

If he had a decent bone in his body, which he clearly doesn't, Bush would have conceded the election, having lost nationwide by over a half million votes. Instead, it was Bush that hired an army of attorneys, led by the slimy James Baker, to overthrow the will of the people. Remember, it was Bush v. Gore, not Gore v. Bush. Bush was the plaintiff. If that means anything to you......

F. Teague - 5/28/2003

Charles,
Where does Mr. Carpenter make "the simple assertion that Mr. Gore should have been president"?
For that matter, where does Mr. Carpenter discuss the 2000 election at all?

Charles V. Mutschler - 5/28/2003

Is it just me, or does anyone else think there is a serious shortage of reasoned discourse here?

Mr. Carpenter calls the current administration the result of a coup in the opening to his column. Stephen Kriz writes in his response to that column:

"What is interesting to me is how the U.S. has become so partisan, that the right and the left can't even agree on what the facts are, so how can we ever agree on matters of opinion? Oh, but I forgot, George Bush is a uniter, not a divider, right?

This country hasn't been so divided since the Civil War and I see a real possibility of open warfare between political parties soon..... "

It would be much easier to have a meaningful intellectual exchange if less emotionally charged language were used, and more care was given to independently verifiable facts. I recall those points being key elements in graduate study of history twenty-five years ago. It might be a good idea to reconsider our current practices.

Has there really been a coup? I would like to see Mr. Carpenter offer some better proof of that than the simple assertion that Mr. Gore should have been president. I have not found any credible evidence of a conspiracy, and much evidence of ineptitude and poor choices by many persons and groups.

For starters, it appears that many people who typically voted for the Democratic candidate chose to stay home or to vote for Ralph Nader. Granted that exit polling is not precise, but the results of those polls indicate that many more Democrats than Republicans voted for Nader instead of their party's candidate. This certainly hurt Mr. Gore's chances of winning a close election.

Which brings me to Mr. Kriz' points. The degree of partisan rancor is a real problem, possibly for historians as much as it is for politicians. The willingness of many to treat facts as subordinate to political ideology is, in my opinion, a large part of the problem. This is what went wrong with Michael Bellesile's _Arming America_. An author who let his political agenda trump research was not caught by peer review. This suggests that many of the peer reviewers either (1) were not well versed in the field, and consequently should not have been peer reviewers, or (2) that they, like Mr. Bellesiles, subordinated facts to ideology. It would help to consider the evidence first, and the political aspects secondly in writing history. I repeat - where is the solid historical evidence of a coup to place Geroge W. Bush in the presidency?

Likewise, it might help encourage reasoned discourse if participants would, in the words of one of my professors, "agree to disagree agreeably.' I fail to see how the gratuitous remark about President Bush being a uniter instead of a divider adds anything substantive to the discussion. I think two things which make politics work are (1) the art of compromise, and (2) the ability to treat political opponants as people who are fundimentally decent, responsible folks like yourself. Both of these are in short supply today. Senators Goldwater and McGovern were miles apart poltically, but they were friends and genuinely liked each other. They could get together for a drink after debating on the Senate floor. I think that is much of what is missing from today's political and scholarly discourse.

It seems to me that both the Republican and Democratic parties have been increasingly moving toward their extreme viewpoints, and are rejecting the centrist viewpoints that are closest to those of most Americans. Part of this shift toward the fringes has included increasingly shrill and intollerant rhetoric, aimed at portraying the opponant as not merely wrong, but evil. Perhaps that has something to do with the decreasing participation in elections, as the vast, middle of the road majority finds no centrist candidate to vote for.

Thanks for reading.

Charles V. Mutschler

Elia Markell - 5/28/2003

Not a single one of the various "recounts" conducted by newspapers and others (taking MONTHS in some cases) EVER gave Gore a victory in Florida. All the U.S. Supreme Court did was short-circuit the need for such nonsense and forestall the otherwise inevitable act of Congress that would ultimately have recognized Bush's victory. The fiasco was due solely to Al Gore's relentless, lawyer and court-driven effort to find a Florida majority vote that never existed and is utterly unproved today. The fact that Bush and Co. also employed lawyers and courts to thwart this does not relieve Gore of responsibility for subjecting the nation to a month or so of Jay Leno-style monkey business -- hanging chads, dimples, and all. THIS, not some fevered coup d'etat of the left's imagination, is ALL the public recalls or cares to recall about 2000. To the degree the Democrats insist on dredging it all up, to that degree they guarantee no recounts anywhere will be needed in 2004.

Josh Greenland - 5/27/2003

Herodotus,
Many people haven't gotten over the election of 2000. There seems to be a constant level of anger over this that isn't going away, judging by what I read in the print media and on the Internet, and from what I hear when I talk to people.

Ken Melvin - 5/27/2003

Why allow republicans, republicans in democrat clothing such as Dell Miller, or some talking head like say David Brooks to repeatedly define the presidential political contest by saying that any viable democratic contender for president must run as a centrist to win? This ploy to define the contest, what I call the republicans Heap of Dung Strategy, also known as the George Deukmejian or Pete Wilson strategy, worked well for the Repubs in California and, in a somewhat more subtle form by Bush in 2000. The four-bit question is, will the demos fall for it again or will they raise up on their hind legs as did Mary Landrieu, look around them, look at what is happening to America, then stand up for the needy and down trodden, social justice, and working people of all races and economic levels?

The analogy of the dung heap sprang to mind when I was involved in the city politics of what was either a small city or a large town. Nearly built out, real estate interests waged vicious battles over the remaining scraps. Dog fights are most honorable in comparison these. Watching this, image of flies about a dung heap came to mind. The citizenry, wearied of the bickering, biting, and, yes, sex; bailed out and let the lyingist, meanest, dirtiest, least scrupulous of the lot win. They even quit voting. So, after a while city government was little more than a fly swarm with only flies bothering to show up. No great minds need apply, this was down and dirty what’s in it for me stuff.

Scaled up, it’s a workable strategy for taking over government at any level. Allst one need do is turn off the majority of the voters then make sure his or her supporters vote and voila! they win big just like Wilson and Deukmejian did in California, and Dubya did in Texas in 98. The turn out for Dubya’s reelection was some 30% which means that this ‘popular governor’ genius was reelected by some 17% of Texans. Five to one this 17% were not 17% of Texas’ finest people, but they ran Texas and now their ilk run America.

Democratic Boys and Girls everywhere take a lesson from Mary; run to the left of whichever Republican you run against. You can get a good portion of their vote and all the votes of a lot of folks just waiting to finally have a real choice. Running to center as the center is defined by these Repub talking heads means heads they win tails you lose.

Ken Melvin

bob connors - 5/27/2003

There is a concerted GOP plan to ruin our economy in order that the right-wing schemers can then under-fund the social welfare network of our country. The scheme is to gut these necessary programs to such a radical extent as to ruin them.

Talking about tax cuts isn’t sexy, but if the present situation persists, the prognosis for the middle and lower classes in the U.S. is very poor.

I thought that this latest tax cut was disgusting, until I read the article, “Stating the Obvious”, by Paul Krugman. If his thesis is correct then the current economic structure of the U.S. is definitely being challenged by 43’s administration.

Krugman writes, “”The lunatics are now in charge of the asylum." So wrote the normally staid Financial Times, traditionally the voice of solid British business opinion, when surveying last week's tax bill. Indeed, the legislation is doubly absurd: the gimmicks used to make an $800-billion-plus tax cut carry an official price tag of only $320 billion are a joke, yet the cost without the gimmicks is so large that the nation can't possibly afford it while keeping its other promises”.

That sounds bad, but Krugman predicts a destruction of the U.S. economy so that the “social safety net built up over the past 70 years”. He hypothesizes that this is a calculated strategy. He attributes this dishonorable plan to laziness by moderates and liberals and further states, ”But the people now running America aren't conservatives: they're radicals who want to do away with the social and economic system we have, and the fiscal crisis they are concocting may give them the excuse they need. The Financial Times, it seems, now understands what's going on, but when will the public wake up?”

In my background, as an ex-Social Worker, I’ve noticed that in this profession, it is known that the GOP has traditionally under-funded social welfare budgets. Krugman is from a disparate discipline, economics, and he reaches the same conclusion.

In addition, I’ve found a former Chief of Staff to Ronald Reagan, Kenneth Duberstein, who states that this is a traditional GOP tactic, and in addition to ruining the lives of approximately 99% of the citizens of our country, this cunning scheme destroys social welfare policies that the Democratic Party is dependent on.

If you gotten this far, you have the main points. The rest is just substantiation of these points.

There are 3 items for consideration:
1 There have been previous GOP tax cuts. When they are considered in relation to domestic policies they exhibit an historical pattern—that being to reduce the revenue for domestic social welfare legislation that has always been sponsored by the Democrats.
2 The “Pioneer” buddies, the riches of the rich, will get richer and the GOP will pass legislation to aid them in their quest for every last cent they can wrench away from over 98% of the country.
3 The GOP has manipulated the media to such a dangerous extent that none of it even mentions the tax cut. All that is featured is how the GOP is making the terrorist quake in their boots. Nothing has been uttered about how the Grand Old Party is planning to entirely squeeze out the Democrat’s agenda of providing a social welfare net of protective services.

Regarding point 1, the duplicitous, hidden agenda of the GOP, The Washington Post article, “GOP Eyes Tax Cuts as Annual Events” has this duplicitous quote, “A tax cut bill a year keeps the Democrats away”, from Kenneth Duberstein, who was Chief of Staff to Ronald Reagan.

There is no honor and dignity in this tax cut. It will just favor the select few and obliterate the policies that their loyal, adversarial party has always championed.

Kindly review this quote from an article by Ronald Dear, DSW, entitled, “Social Welfare Policy”, “During the Reagan-Bush era, not only were large segments of the welfare state under withering attack, but defense budgets skyrocketed as a result of a philosophy that the United States can (and should) police the world. Thus, the budget increased during a time of recession and massive tax cuts. Not surprisingly, deficits and the national debt soared”.

When this tax cut is palmed off on us, what happens? Democrats can not attempt to provide domestic policies for our needy, as there will be no revenue for these desperately needed objectives. This tax cut plan #2 to infinity, has many clandestine advantages for the GOP, most of which are virtually unassailable by the Democrats. This can be labeled as tax cut #2 because the last one was actually a Democratic Party initiative that actually helped the economy and the lower classes.

Their leader’s rehearsed scam called “compassionate conservatism” is hypocrisy at its highest level. It serves the GOP as it diminishes the impact of the truthful Democratic objections to the destruction of necessary federally funded domestic policies.

As of now the GOP majority is in full agreement on the major piece of the White House economic plan, the never mentioned acceleration of income tax cuts that otherwise would have been phased in through 2006 and beyond. With this in effect, the Democrats will have essentially nothing to run on in 2004.

In sum, they are planning to have annual tax cuts, they are planning on speeding up the implementation of tax cut #1, and they vaguely talk about sunsets, which will never occur in the perpetually nightmarish world they are creating.


Regarding point 2, this GOP regime has already shamefully helped its contributors. When the Office of Homeland Security legislation was passed who benefited?

This legislation, which resulted in the most significant reorganization of the federal government since the creation of the Department of Defense, was rushed through by Bush’s order and received talking-points caliber deliberation. When the mess was looked at what appeared?

The wily GOP attached riders to their bill, which were utterly non-related to Homeland Security. The riders got the pharmaceutical companies off the hook, particularly Eli Lilly. What does that have to do with Homeland Security? As far as a reasonable person can see, nothing, but the pharmaceutical companies paid their way into 43’s favor by contributing to the GOP coffers.

In an article of May 15, 2003, entitled, “Mind the Gap”, Robert J. Shiller, professor of economics at Yale writes, “According to the Census Bureau, the bottom 40 percent of American families earned 18 percent of the national income in 1970, but by 1998 they earned only 14 percent — and that figure could fall to 10 percent before too long”.

Things are getting better for the rich and worse for the poor. He continues, “The political argument is true in at least one sense, however: this change will become only more difficult as inequality becomes more pronounced. When the top tenth of the population has attained such a high percentage of society's wealth that it can effectively block any reform, it can be counted on to use its power to keep its riches. America ought to act now to make to sure this never comes to pass”.

I came upon an ironic article written in January of 2001. Remember that this is before the selected resident’s previous tax cut rip-off. In this Amarillo Globe-News piece entitled, “Bush's 'voodoo economics' won't work this time either”, the author describes that President 41, this President’s father, called President Reagan's big tax cut and increased defense spending "voodoo economics".

Regarding point 3, the GOP has manipulated the media shamefully. The USA Today article entitled, “Goal is to invest in the future”, was written by a guest author. Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif., who is chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, which has jurisdiction over all federal tax legislation, was allowed to spread his propaganda on an unwitting public.

For the unmitigated audacity of this read the following quote, “Help is on the way for American workers and taxpayers as the U.S. House of Representatives votes today on bold legislation to jump-start our economy and generate jobs for every worker. Initiated by President Bush, the Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Tax Act of 2003 will create 1.2 million jobs and pump $200 billion back into the private economy by the end of 2004”. The nerve to call this scam by this two-faced moniker is amazing, but par for the course.

To let Thomas spew his lies in a paper that is known for its lack of nuance makes you wonder. How did the GOP get this much control of the media?

We have had columnists attack this “Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Tax Act of 2003”, but their political leanings are known. How many of the red states voters read the New York Times? To these folk that paper is a communist rag.

This part of Paul Krugman’s article of May 9th, 2003, “Into the Sunset” addresses the deceitful job creation aspect of this tax cut #2 in this quote, “Finally, as in 2001, we're being told that this tax cut will create lots of jobs. But why should we believe that? It's hard to find an independent economist who thinks that the Bush proposal would create the 1.4 million jobs claimed by the administration — and as I've explained in this column, even that many jobs would be a poor payoff for a tax cut that big. And bear in mind that Bush-style tax cuts now have a track record. Of the 2.1 million jobs lost over the past two years, 1.7 million vanished after the passage of the 2001 tax cut.”

Since he writes for the New York Times how many of the voters that Bush will win in 2004, even would consider looking at an honest analysis of tax cut #2?

Just as with the New York Times, the Washington Post is never read by 43’s GOP base. Therefore, this Washington Post article, “Tax Cuts Complicate Democrats' Campaigns”, will only reinforce to non-GOP voters, the awful struggle that the Democrats will have in 2004. Please review this quote, “Bush has already charged that Democrats seeking to block future tax cuts are trying to raise taxes. Stumping for GOP candidates last fall, he said a freeze on future tax cuts is "Washington, D.C., code for 'I'm fixin' to raise your taxes.' “If nothing else, the charge blunted Democratic efforts to tar Republicans with the ballooning budget deficit.
Walter F. Mondale's 1984 promise to raise taxes to help reduce the burgeoning budget deficit is widely believed to have hurt his campaign against President Ronald Reagan. But recent history also shows that Democrats can campaign on tax increases and win, said Stanley Greenberg, who was Bill Clinton's pollster in 1992. That year, Clinton pledged to raise taxes on the wealthy to help balance the budget and fund what he called "investments."

Clinton ran on this hard to sell issue and won. He ran against 41, who after Iraq #1 had amazingly high poll numbers. For 41, the economy stunk, and he was labeled as being uninterested in how the awful economic plight hurt the middle and lower classes.

How can the Democrats combat this when the media only listens to 43’s operatives? We all know how this is going to go. The current illegal resident has the issues of homeland security and his “everlasting wars against terrorism”. Some poor Democratic candidate will, as Kerry has already, articulate that the acceleration of tax cut #1, and the implementation of tax cut #2 has taken revenue away from desperately needed federally funded social welfare programs. This is red meat in shark infested water. As soon as this is uttered every GOP operative will call the Democrats “the tax and spend party”. This has been going on since Nixon, and it has not worked well for the Democrats, except for Clinton.

This tax cut #2 scam is the worst in history, by far! No one ever compelled a country to undergo tax cuts during a war! Even worse, what happens less than a decade from now when the baby-boomers start retiring? It was only as recent as during Clinton’s term that the GOP pushed for the “lock box” and “balanced budgets”. Now it is to their advantage to abandon their earlier beliefs, and they do so gladly.

USA Today recently had an article entitled, “Congress uses gimmicks to mask costs of tax cuts”. Like Alice looking through the looking glass, read this, “But the House's plan for cutting personal and business taxes over 10 years isn't even a more modest version of the president's plan. Instead of reducing tax cuts to a more affordable level, it merely gives them cosmetic expiration dates. The legislation is only less expensive if lawmakers have the political will to let most of the tax cuts die after three years. Otherwise, the 10-year price tag jumps to $760 billion, nearly 40% more”.

In this article Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, admits the expiration dates are for show. "No one believes there will be any difficulty in extending them," he said.

In sum, the GOP realizes it has the pat phrase, “the tax and spend party” and it can get away with anything it wants as long as their “Southern Strategy” wins them the red states. In the wings, waiting for a chance is their “negative campaigning tactics”, as utilized to defame Max Cleland in 2002. What do the Democrats have?

The economy stinks worse now, and will get worse, if the GOP has its way. For 43 only his “Pioneer” buddies exist! We have a chance, but we have to notify the country that the GOP is planning to ruin the economy and then the social welfare network that has existed for seventy years! Where did 43 state this as a plan of his? Why can he be allowed to get away with this?
Bob Connors

NYGuy - 5/27/2003

Stephen:

Your strong feelings and emotional outbursts are ok for VA and your other followers, but for those of us who deal in reality it is merely a little child crying, "Momie, Daddy, I want to have it my way." Such juvenille behavoir is well recognized and not suitable for debate with PhD's and other educated posters.

If Carpenter had any real character, in my opinion, the title of his article should have been:

Phony scholars Politicize Looting of Baghdad.

At least such a topic would legitimize his reason for being on this site. But, no, he prefers to be a political hack rather than a respected commentator.

Of course false documentations has become a part of the history profession, and evidently it appears that he supports such behavoir for a bankrupt profession by failing to address these problems and shifting the focus to America.

Stephen said:

"Sorry, but I don't "move on" when the most serious election fraud in American history is perpetrated. I will be screaming about this in 2050!"

My god, we have to listen to your ranting and raving, and saying nothing, for another 47 years. You may have nothing to say but at least you are tenacious. An admirable trait. Unfortuneately the world may be passing you by.

However, what makes this country great is the ability of you and your followers to perpetuate themselves for another 47 years without any message.

That makes me appreciate this country even more.

Remember the Twin Towers. Support our troops.

Joey G - 5/27/2003

>Gore gaining the Presidency "... solely because of Florida Supreme Court action..

Baloney, the actions of a majority of Floridians also would have contributed to a Gore Presidency, which is the way it's supposed to work.

Right wing denial and willful ignorance are the most amazing American phenomenon post 2000.

Stephen Kriz - 5/27/2003

Herodotus:

I take it you work for a biomedical research company? Yup, those doggone ecoterrorists are a much bigger threat to our democratic republic, than thousands of voters being wrongfully purged from voting rolls. You really have your priorities in order, don't you?

Sorry, but I don't "move on" when the most serious election fraud in American history is perpetrated. I will be screaming about this in 2050!

Steve Kriz

P.S. Thanks for the kudos, VA.

V.A. - 5/27/2003

First of all "getting over it" is a euphemism for sweeping under the rug awful and deadly serious election fraud. Any and every American should see this as a travesty, a terrible threat to democracy reagrdless if they're pleased with the outcome. By ignoring Florida it doesn't mean that it didn't happen, or that it is somehow a historically unimportant footnote.

I do agree with you however that election turnout is a serious problem in the United States. It is interesting you bring this up because conservatives have made tremendous effort to minimize election turnouts by killing legislation that would keep the polls open longer, move voting to weekends, giving a holiday for voting etc. This directly impacts millions of low paid wage earners ability to vote. Wonder why the conseravtives did this...

Lastly, why are you ranting and making allegations about about eco-terrorists? Did someone mention them or did you just want to blow off some steam? Must be getting desperate...

ps My congratulations to Mr. Carpenter on another excellent article and to Stephen Kriz for his reply Ron Carr's ridiculousness

V.A. - 5/27/2003

First of all "getting over it" is a euphemism for sweeping under the rug awful and deadly serious election fraud. Any and every American should see this as a travesty, a terrible threat to democracy reagrdless if they're pleased with the outcome. By ignoring Florida it doesn't mean that it didn't happen, or that it is somehow a historically unimportant footnote.

I do agree with you however that election turnout is a serious problem in the United States. It is interesting you bring this up because conservatives have made tremendous effort to minimize election turnouts by killing legislation that would keep the polls open longer, move voting to weekends, giving a holiday for voting etc. This directly impacts millions of low paid wage earners ability to vote. Wonder why the conseravtives did this...

Lastly, why are you ranting and making allegations about about eco-terrorists? Did someone mention them or did you just want to blow off some steam? Must be getting desperate...

ps My congratulations to Mr. Carpenter on another excellent article and to Stephen Kriz for his reply Ron Carr's ridiculousness

Herodotus - 5/27/2003

Ugly displays of fascism?

While you're busy yelling about supposedly 'fascist' behavior in a contested election that everyone's gotten over and which both candidates were at fault for failing to appeal to more voters (and in which there were more contested states than just Florida), the rest of the world has moved on to real fascist threats, like the eco-terrorists who are selectively targeting the executives of companies remotely connected to biomedical research companies...and stalking their children in order to scare them into divesting from the target company.

Stephen Kriz - 5/27/2003

Mr. Carr:

What is interesting to me is how the U.S. has become so partisan, that the right and the left can't even agree on what the facts are, so how can we ever agree on matters of opinion? Oh, but I forgot, George Bush is a uniter, not a divider, right?

This country hasn't been so divided since the Civil War and I see a real possibility of open warfare between political parties soon.....

In response to your post, two comments:

(1) That Bush stole the election is factually beyond dispute. Database Technologies, Inc. was hired by Katherine Harris, the former Florida Secretary of State, in 2000 for the express purpose of purging voter rolls of "suspected felons". Not known felons, suspected ones. The result was that upwards of 50,00 voters, mainly black, were illegally and wrongfully purged from voter rolls and were not allowed to vote in the 2000 presidential election. Since 90% of blacks in Florida voted for Gore, do the math.....It more than makes up for the 537 votes that Bush supposedly "won" by. Not to mention the estimated 1,000 military ballots that were filed late, were unsigned or had other flaws and rightfully should have been disqualified, but the slimy James Baker got to be counted by appealing to people's mock patriotism. Pardon me for saying so, but military voters should not get special voting rights. Who knows, half were probably manufactured by the Bush campaign. We won't even discuss the hired thugs who shut down the ballot recount in Miami-Dade county in the ugliest display of fascism ever seen in the United States. No, Mr. Carr, Bush lost by a substantial margin and the wrong man is in the White House and we are all worse off because of this treachery and WE WILL NEVER, EVER GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!!!
(2) While your second point has merit, space and time do not permit a comprehensive discussion of the "unified budget". As far as reversing a budgetary trend, even discounting the SS surplus, there can be no doubt that this Administration is the most fiscally profligate in history. And they don't even seem to care. Suffice it to say, Bill Clinton's Administration was much more fiscally responsible than the village idiot from Crawford. Bush will bankrupt the U.S. if he is allowed to continue his mismanagement and irresponsible governance for another four years!

Steve Kriz

Herodotus - 5/26/2003

Mr. Carpenter alleges here:

"A close second to the dumbest fiscal move in American history -- Bush's first tax "victory" that turned a $5-trillion surplus into crushing debt -- last week's tax bill is nevertheless on a revolutionary par with 2001's plutocratic usurpation."

that there was a $5 trillion surplus before the first tax cut in 2001. This is factually incorrect. Will there be a correction?

ron carr - 5/26/2003

While I agree with much of what PM Carpenter said in this article, there are a couple of disagreements:

1) Yes, there was an attempted coup in 2000, but it was foisted on us by Gore - not Bush. I am constantly amazed at the assertions of those who claim Bush is President "... solely because of Supreme Court action...", because they apparently would have had no problem with Gore gaining the Presidency "... solely because of Florida Supreme Court action..." The election would never have reached the Supreme Court if Gore hadnt challenged the voting. Never forget that his challenge was in the grandest Stalin tradition of "I dont care who votes - so long as I get to count the votes". Gore only challenged the votes in counties that he won and did control the recount.

2) For anyone to claim that Bush has reveresed a budgetary trend completely overlooks the reality that AT NO TIME in the past 20 years has the National (Admitted) Debt EVER reduced. And, yes, during those vaunted years in the late 90's when there was to be "... surpluses for years to come..." and when politicians claimed "... we paid $50 billion down on the national debt.." the DEBT CONTINUED TO INCREASE. The (claimed) Budget Surplus was an accounting gimick - much like the sort of record keeping for which former Enron executives are going to jail, but of course politicians never will.

No surprise that these comments are made in an historical context - because historians have difficulty telling their right hand from their left - let alone understanding the dynamics of economics and the outright lies of politicians.