Thinking Right

By jbmlaw

April 16, 2007 8:41 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. Jim’s penultimate sentence is the funniest line we will read on the blog this year – if you don’t get the joke, re-read Mr. Obama’s speech declaring his candidacy.

I think we would all agree that Ms. Clinton has proven less “inevitable” than we all believed six months ago. The fact is that our leftist friends are just as unhappy with their electoral prospects as we are in the sane precincts. Fred Thompson pokes his head up, and Rudy’s polling numbers drop double digits. Our democrat friends are going through the same gyrations, mostly after hearing Ms. Clinton’s impassioned delivery on the stump. Mrs. Edwards’ health problems may compel her husband to withdraw from the race, even though the race will be over in less than one year.

Our democrat friends were successful in taking Congress without campaigning on any issue other than “we are not republican big spenders.” 100 days into the new Congress, the effect of the change is manifest – the largest tax increase in history is set in their five-year plan (where did they get the idea for a five-year plan?), the first bill of consequence – funding for the foot soldiers – is larded up by 20%. I think Ms. Pelosi is attempting to sabotage whoever will be the democrat standard bearer in 2008.

By TW

April 16, 2007 8:42 AM | Link to this

“It would have been a great honor to serve this nation again. But after thoughtful discussions with people both in and outside of this administration, I concluded that the current Washington decision-making process lacks a linkage to a broader view of the region and how the parts fit together strategically. We got it right during the early days of Afghanistan — and then lost focus. We have never gotten it right in Iraq. For these reasons, I asked not to be considered for this important White House position. These huge shortcomings are not going to be resolved by the assignment of an additional individual to the White House staff. They need to be addressed before an implementation manager is brought on board.” The writer is John J. Sheehan, a retired Marine Corps general.

In your assault on liberals today, thought one of you tough conservatives might want to take a shot at this guy as well.

By Mid-South Philosopher

April 16, 2007 9:00 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jim,

There are a tremendous number of Americans out there, like me…in fact, it may very well be a 21st century Great Silent Majority…who were hoodwinked by Cheney, Powell, and the President as to the necessity of invading Iraq because of Saddam Hussein’s “amassing” of weapons of mass destruction. We know now that, that was not really the reason we went to war. The President now tells us that Saddam Hussein was an evil man and needed to be removed.

OK, that Great Silent Majority and I may even buy that, but what came later was atrocious. George Lost in Alabama During Vietnam Bush, following the advice of Donald On the Cheap Rumsfeld, sent too few troops to conduct the occupation of Iraq following the conquest. Many of the combat units sent into battle and post-battle situations were not provided the state of the art armor and other armaments. Bush and Rumsfeld were lost balls in high grass as to how to win the peace. Neither of them had a tenth grade understanding of Islam or of the West Asian mind-set.

Now Georgie has ordered a surge to regain control.

So here are how things stand. If the surge works…and I mean “works” to the point that the mainstream media has to admit it…by September, then pro-war candidates such as McCain, Thompson, Clinton, etc. may have a chance with us of the Great Silent Majority. If the surge is not successful…and I mean successful to the point that the mainstream media has to admit it…McCain is toast. Clinton can be defeated by Obama. Thompson might still have a chance, but Rudi will give him a run for his money.

For Georgie and Dickie, not to mention Rummy’s old Defense Department, it is time to put-up or shut-up. If the surge is successful, Georgie will become a Republican version of Harry Truman. If it fails, he will have to stand on his tip-toes to reach Warren G. Hardings bottom level.

By Brett

April 16, 2007 9:10 AM | Link to this

TW, for every senior military personnel that is against the war, there is another who is in support of it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, pro or against. Just thought you’d like to be aware of that, as if you libs never assault the right out there. Assault? Everything is an assault to you libs if it comes from the right, isn’t it?

By getalife

April 16, 2007 9:22 AM | Link to this

The Iraq government is collapsing.

Al Sadr’s group has left the building.

But the gop is worried about one thing in Iraq:

“Graham: On the oil from the counsel of ministers have passed an oil agreement that needs to be ratified by the parliament…

Wallace: But it’s been sitting in the parliament for weeks now, Senator.

Graham: Well, the parliament got bombed yesterday—it’s pretty hard…

Wallace: Wait a minute, it’s been sitting there for weeks before the parliament got bombed…”

Just in case you had any doubt about the Iraq occupation, It is slaughter for oil.

Where does the buck stop for this tragedy?

By deegee

April 16, 2007 9:29 AM | Link to this

“Anti-war hippies of a bygone era?” Did JW forget how the Vietnam war ended?

By getalife

April 16, 2007 9:47 AM | Link to this

Check out Buy Danish’s melt down yesterday:

”{{{{By Buy Danish

April 15, 2007 6:05 PM | Link to this

Getalife,

Stop with the “strawman” complaints.

You are feverish over nothing right now. Fitzgerald has had access to those emails all along. We all know that emails can’t be destroyed. Surely Karl Rove knows that too. There is no there, there - this is just a great big, disgraceful witch hunt and Karl Rove is the target of your persecution.

In contrast, I don’t recall you ever uttering a peep of outrage about Sandy Berger.}}}”

Gee, all I asked was “where does the buck stop”?

It is a simple question with a simple answer.

The President but for some stupid reason, the wingnuts can’t say it.

I ruled wooten’s blog so bad yesterday that he decided to post on Obama.

I can’t get past the fact that Obama campaigned for Lieberman because Joe is with the gop.

If they support the slaughter for oil, I do not think they should be in office.

That just me, ashamed of those who do support the slaughter for oil.

By Dusty

April 16, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

Lotta laughs here this morning..

MidSouth thinks he is part of the Great Silent Majority when he is really part of the Loud retreating Democrats.

Getalife ruled the blog yesterday. He certainly did. He dumped more trash on here than could be hauled away. Now he is working on today.

Deegee remembers Viet Nam. We are going to WIN this one, Deegee.

jbmlaw is absolutely correct. Ms Pelosi is trying to sabotage the Democratic standard bearer in 2008. Not only that, but sabotage the whole Congress and Executive branch of the USA.

And Jim Wooten is “Thinking right” correctly. Obama offers a new face..same pitch as the most liberal of Democrats in Congress. Need I say more cut-n-run in the mill?

By jbmlaw

April 16, 2007 10:10 AM | Link to this

Dear TW @ 8:42, we all acknowledge that Gen John J. Sheehan was author of our highly successful strategy against the worldwide Bosnian threat and is eminently qualified to speak on the risk to the US of allowing Serbian violence to run unchecked. Of course, then he was fighting to protect Moslems. He may be over his head dealing with the Middle East violence – not that I would allege a political agenda. We salute his service. http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=155

I’m not certain what your post has to do with Obama, but it was an interesting stray thought.

By getalife

April 16, 2007 10:14 AM | Link to this

Dusty,

I am ashamed of you.

We are not going to win an occupation and slaughter for oil.

Do you consider winning passing the oil law for big oil like your party?

May God have mercy in your soul.

By getalife

April 16, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this

Correction.

For Jim and all those who support the slaughter for oil:

May God have mercy on your souls.

Peace.

By JP

April 16, 2007 10:25 AM | Link to this

Needless to say, the minute a Democrat shows some appeal to the masses, the Conservatives are out in DROVES calling him that most despicable of slurs, the Rolls Royce of slanders: “the most liberal”!

Do you people realize that America is sick and tired of 20 years of name calling from the right? Conservatism is not proving to be protecting the interests of this great land; the population has become more centrist compared to its previous center-right alignment. Calling someone a “librul” doesn’t cut it anymore, you guys need to elevate your game.

By deegee

April 16, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this

Considering what has taken place in Indochina over the last 30 years, perhaps we can say that we won a victory of sort. While there is no doubt that many innocent lives were lost prior to and immediately after the fall of Saigon, Vietnam is at peace and is prospering, and the Indochinese peninsula is at peace and is prospering.

By Fred

April 16, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this

Obama: “I am not an Al Queda plant”.

By Patrick Pass

April 16, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this

Al Sadr says his illegal army must fight to kill American military members. Why is this guy not in custody? Sounds like he’s no different than Bin Laden.

By LS

April 16, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this

To clarify Jim’s statistics:

“To come up with its annual and lifetime rankings, the National Journal compares senators’ voting records to other senators’ voting records and House members’ voting records to other House members’ voting records. The resulting “liberal scores” and “conservative scores” are percentiles.

Thus, Obama’s “lifetime liberal score” of 84.3 means only that, by the National Journal’s math, Obama’s Senate voting record makes him more liberal than 84.3 percent of senators. And Kucinich’s “lifetime liberal score” of 79.4 means only that Kucinich is more liberal than 79.4 percent of House members. As the National Journal’s Richard Cohen confirmed for us in a telephone call this morning, you can’t do an apples-to-apples comparison of the two. And even if you could, the difference between an 84.3 and a 79.4 would be less than meaningless given (1) Obama’s short tenure in the Senate, (2) Kucinich’s evolution from center to left over the years, and (3) the sheer number of farther-left liberals in the House.”

By Dusty

April 16, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this

JP,

Did you actually READ what Wooten wrote before you commented? A matter of record is not a slur. Obama’s voting record showed that he was the most liberal voter in a count from life time comprehensive Congressional records.

Getalife,

Are you going to seminary soon? I see that you have started preaching.

By getalife

April 16, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this

I will pray for you Dusty.

PP,

He is in Iran, enlist and go get him.

While you are over there, OBL and his gang are in Pakistan.

Get them too.

Geez.

By Howard

April 16, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this

Jim…20,000 people proved conclusively PT Barnum’s old sayin g that a “sucker is born every minute.” Do those cheering and adoring idiots not realize what a man like Obama could do to this country? Oh, excuse me…a man like Barack Hussein Obama…could do to this country?? I can see it now…slavery reparations, high as hell taxes and gas prices, environmental wackos in control…you name everything asscoaited with bringing this country to its knees and you have what this “wolf in sheep’s clothing” would bring to this country. Don’t even mention national security…he’d turn the keys over to the Muslim fanatics in a heartbeat. The only positive thing to come out of this evil man trying to get the nomination is that Hillary is sweating buckets over him…and that is a good thing. Hillary is a mini-Hitler, but I really think she’d do a better job at defending the USA than Barry Obama…which is a scary thing!!!

By Dennis

April 16, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten writes, “Any chance that Obama could be the national Democrat with a serious shot at carrying Georgia in the 2008 General Election evaporated with rhetoric such as this: The war in Iraq, Obama said Saturday, is about “an administration that is trying to preserve its own political viability.” That’s the entrenched cynicism that has come to define the national Demcrats, the jaded and the fresh-faced alike. New face, same pitch.”

After one read of his column today, one has to ponder three questions; 1)if Mr. Wooten has read a newspaper lately, 2)or knows which political party won in the last national elections, 3)and, why?

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Dusty

April 16, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this

LS, re liberal Obama @10:49,

I seeeee…..If it talks like a liberal, walks like a liberal, and votes like a liberal, it may be a liberal but not the MOST liberal of the “liberalist” liberals because the MOST means etc., etc., Richard Cohen, etc., etc…..dum de dum dum….

By Jack

April 16, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this

Obama’s campaign reminds me of that movie,”The Candidate” with Robert Redford. He looks good and the ladies like him but is he qualified?

By jm

April 16, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this

Well, maybe if the spendthrifts in power for the last six years (aka “fiscal” conservative republicans) had not ran up such a massive deficit, maybe there would not be a need to raise taxes.

By Dusty

April 16, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this

Howard @ 10:56,

I do not think Obama is an evil man. As he said “I am not an AlQueda plant.” I believe that. But in the liberal “garden”, he is a “blooming anti-war rosebud” of retreat. That is not what I want in the White House.

By getalife

April 16, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this

Finally Dusty is right:

She is:

dum de dum dum

Jack,

He is as qualified as w (the bar is set very low).

20,000 in Atlanta is a very high turnout.

By LS

April 16, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

Dusty, Duh, no one is doubting Obama is a liberal. I just wanted to shed light on possible misleading data. Jim said he was the most liberal and that was misleading. It seems to me that the right is afraid of Obama. My very conservative brother-in-law uses his full name (hussein) whenever he refers to him. I look for that to become more commonplace among the conservatives.

By @@

April 16, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this

Just a quick drive-by Jim. I’m on my way to work.

I’m always inclined to give all candidates a looksee.

Obama was young, fresh, articulate, and was saying what all Americans wanted to hear. That’s usually a good indication that “someone” is a professional politician and seeking a path to “personal” acclaim. Other than that, I’ve come to realize, he hasn’t a clue.

Then I read this at Breitbart:

Clouds Part for Obama’s Appearance

TAMPA, Fla. (AP) - Presidential hopeful Barack Obama strode on stage Sunday for a fundraising event hours after a series of powerful thunderstorms raked the city. “We were feeling a little worried,” Obama told a crowd of about 2,000 who waited in strong, blustery winds to hear him speak. “The sun is shining on me, that’s what’s going on.”

I asked if he had “annointed” himself with a “halo” or something.

The liberals didn’t like it over at Luckovich’s. I’m certain they’ll repeat their “media distortions” for all to see here.

The one where they say Bush claimed G_d spoke to him, told him to invade Iraq.

Given that liberals tend to sleep late, the lies that travel around the world before the truth can get out of bed, are inclined to permeate many liberal dreams.

Have a great and SUNNY day Jim.

By Patrick Pass

April 16, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

Nice movie reference, but it’s patently obvious after six years that Obama is more qualified than the current occupant of the White House. Unfortunately, so am I and everyone who lives on my street. Man, I wish politics attracted our best and brightest.

By jbmlaw

April 16, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this

Dear Deegee @ 10:30, an interesting argument, if we could only cull the 2.2 million most offensive people in the Middle East – as happened in the killing fields and among the boat people of SE Asia – perhaps 30 years from now Iraq and Iran could enjoy peace even if there is no prosperity. I respectfully observe many more died after the US pulled out than would have died had our stabilizing influence remained.

On that line, isn’t it time we developed an exit strategy for Bosnia and Germany?

Dear Patrick @ 10:33, a brilliant and apt question. Would it not be worth it to the US to place a $10 million bounty on his head?

Dear jm @ 11:17, I respectfully clarify – they may have been republicrats, but they were not conservatives. On the other hand, even the republicrats did not muzzle the Congressional Research Office the way Ms. Pelosi did – CRO is forbidden to even calculate earmarks now. Typical leftist cover up.

Dear LS @ 11:34, actually most of us take our cue from Sen. Kennedy and refer to him as Osama Obama. But now you have me intrigued, LS. If Mr. Obama is not the most leftist candidate, who is?

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

April 16, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this

Patrick…

Politics does attract our best and brightest…our best and brightest politicians.

Unfortunately, we need people who can run a government.

As of late our choices haven’t included any of those.

By Patrick Pass

April 16, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this

jbm, that or a JDAM.

Good point, cherry picker.

By ron

April 16, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

So here’s how it is with Ron.Unless the Republicans come up with someone different than the clowns pushed forward so far,Ron votes for Hillary.Don’t even think that Newt counts with me.

By Van

April 16, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this

Jim’s a Cherry Picker

I finally agree with you - Unfortunately, we need people who can run a government.

So far the announced candidates have shown us nothing that would be mistaken for leadership. They are all managed and handled well. They are the cream of the crop in politicians, but not leaders - they are all being lead by their managers and other cronies.

By JP

April 16, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

Dusty, what I’m saying is that perhaps more than any time in the last 20 years, a liberal record DOESN’T SCARE PEOPLE the way you conservatives think it should. We’ve seen the results of conservatism, and we want something different. So he’s the most liberal—I must ask, SO WHAT??

By LS

April 16, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this

JBM, Hard to tell since Obama and Kucinich can not be measured directly against each other. At any rate, who cares? Let’s go for the best candidate, which could turn out to be neither the most liberal for those on the left or the most conservative for those on the right. I don’t know who that is yet, but the country sure needs that person.

By For the Record ...

April 16, 2007 1:01 PM | Link to this

The Khymer Rouge guerillas caused most of the deaths in SE Asia during the post-US involvement. Their rise to power was primarly due to two causes: a US-supported 1970 coup that ousted the neutralist Prince Sihanouck in favor of just another corrupt, incompetent, illegitimate right-wing junta (like the long line of “stabilizing” fascist generals that we propped up in Vietnam, who all were so dearly loved by the Vietnamese people for their “stabilization” programs of repression, thievery, torture, and murder); and Nixon/Kissinger’s secret (illegal) bombing campaign that forced the guerillas inland towards the populated areas.

Thank God the (reunited, Communist) Republic of Vietnam overthrew the murderous dictator Pol Pot and the Khymer Rouge and ultimately brought peace and stability to that decimated country.

Anyone have any credible evidence that the Laotians, Cambodians, and Vietnamese people want the US back in their countries in order that they can be “stabilized” once again, like in the good old days of, say, General Khanh?

By jm

April 16, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw@12:07 - they called themselves “conservatives”, though I doubt few if any meet the criteria set forth by F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman (interstingly, he called himself a “liberal”) and Senator Barry Goldwater.

As for leadership, right now I am more interested in competence, something W is sorely lacking (and judging by his history, has always lacked).

By deegee

April 16, 2007 1:23 PM | Link to this

JBMlaw, I don’t know how we can speculate on how many lives would have been saved if we had stayed at war in Vietnam indeterminantly. Considering that the war was being escalated into Cambodia then you could speculate that the US military would be spread out all over Indochina by this time.

At that time I don’t think that there was much popular support for the US following NATO peacekeepers as was the case in Bosnia. The U.S. military went into Bosnia on a mission, accomplished their mission, participated in a NATO peacekeeping force until 2004 and now has a small contingent of troops to help Bosnia with their defense strategies and help hunt war criminals. That’s a far cry from what we have going on now in Iraq. If we could get some international support for our cause in Iraq that would help us out. I don’t see the U.S. leaving any time soon but we need a change in strategy and I think it is going to come about with diplomacy, not more troops.

By Realist

April 16, 2007 1:31 PM | Link to this

This just in….”Va Tech shooter was heard yelling..it’s Time for the truth, liberals!”

By Realist

April 16, 2007 1:34 PM | Link to this

Howard @10:56 am,

You make us paranoid white men proud!

By Jack

April 16, 2007 1:48 PM | Link to this

Glad you could joke about it Sicko.

By Realist

April 16, 2007 1:54 PM | Link to this

Jack is a woman.

By Dusty

April 16, 2007 2:05 PM | Link to this

JP@12:56

There was a time when liberals did not fighten me. In fact, I found some of their policies beneficial. I felt that America was cherished by Democrats in the same way that I felt. But that has changed.

After Democrats lost twice to Republicans in the last presidential elections, they became vindictive. No matter what this government did, Democrats vociferously protested it, truthfully or untruthfully, whatever caused the most damage. They turned against the votes they had made and have tried to undermine the war in Iraq. They condemn Bush because this is not a perfect war, as no war has ever been.

I began to see that Democrat’s main goal was to undermine President Bush, even if they undermined the government, the troops and lost the war at the same time. They demolished a unified front against our enemies.

Now it is almost impossible to believe anything good about Democrats as their leaders such as Pelosi and Murtha try to replace the presidency and consort with the leaders of enemy countries.

I will support the President and leaders of this country who were elected. If I don’t like their policies, I will not vote for those like them next time. At present, I will not vote for any Democrat.

By getalife

April 16, 2007 2:12 PM | Link to this

A message from Obama

By ABS

April 16, 2007 2:13 PM | Link to this

Dusty, You must not be old enough to remember Bill Clinton’s term in office. Bob Barr and the ultra-right wing Congressmen were out for his blood before he was sworn into office. Everything Clinton did was criticized….the Congress issued subpoenas to the White House on a daily basis…if Clinton had done one-tenth of what Bush has done in his six year debacle of a presidency, the Republican Congress of the mid-90s would have found of way to have him, Hilary, Chelsea, and their DOG executed on the White House lawn…oh how you people are so forgetful and one-sided!

By Craig

April 16, 2007 2:13 PM | Link to this

Realist,

Thanks for showing those great conservative colors. We all know how easily you dismiss our soldiers deaths…or Katrina victims…but damn man, students being shot? geez!

By deegee

April 16, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this

“I will support the President and leaders of this country who were elected.”

So Democrats aren’t elected? I didn’t elect Bush but Dusty wants me to support him. How come she won’t support the people I elect to office? Talk about vindictive.

By Realist

April 16, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this

Craig is a woman.

By Jack

April 16, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this

Great comeback. You should do standup.

By Realist

April 16, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this

I started a joke, that started the whole world crying.

‘Til I finally died, which started the whole world laughing.

By Van

April 16, 2007 2:33 PM | Link to this

deegee,

How come she won’t support the people I elect to office?

I’ll tell you. The democrats are going to repeal or let die the Bush tax cuts.

This will raise the taxes on the lowest tax payers when the 10% tax bracket expires and the 15% bracket is brought back.

Married couples will pay more taxes when the marriage penalty is removed.

If these were proposed by a democrat back in 2001, they would have been left alone, but these came from President Bush, so they are deemed “bad” and must be sunset’ed.

So much for a party of the working poor.

By deegee

April 16, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this

Van, the Bush tax cuts are a joke. Inflation has consumed every bit of your precious tax cut and some. Do you think this war isn’t costing us plenty?

By Realist

April 16, 2007 2:44 PM | Link to this

Does anyone know Marcus Vick’s whereabouts?

By Van

April 16, 2007 2:52 PM | Link to this

deegee,

Core CPI is at a monthly .2% or for those in mid-town, 2.4% inflation.

12 month deficit at -$204 bln from -$328 bln a year ago. Strong tax receipt growth continues to leave path toward lower deficits given the stronger economy, profits and income growth.

March payroll growth 180K, unemployment 4.4%, earnings 0.3%, workweek 33.9 hours.

I guess your right, things are in the dumper.

By deegee

April 16, 2007 3:04 PM | Link to this

Van, See below from August of 2006. National deficit aside, have you considered what the war is doing to the national debt?

The 2.4% year-over-year gain in core inflation exceeded the 2.3% pace most economists had been expecting. It was the biggest yearly rise in core inflation in 11 years, matched by an equal 2.4% gain in September 2002, when the inflation rate was briefly boosted by a statistical anomaly related to insurance payments stemming from the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

Consumer prices including food and energy also rose 0.2% in June, and are up 3.5% in the past year. Meanwhile, personal incomes rose 0.6% in June, outpacing the 0.4% increase in consumer spending.

The personal savings rate rose to negative 1.5% from negative 1.6%, the 15th consecutive month of negative savings. Consumers can have negative savings by spending previous savings, or by borrowing or selling assets to support their consumption.”

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

April 16, 2007 3:08 PM | Link to this

Van, re your 12.32 comment,

At the risk of pointing you towards some liberal media, check out the Frontline series on marketing to teenagers.

The same thing is occurring with politics. We’re not getting any real choices, just the ones that are packaged for us by political investors. And not only that, they’re manufacturing the issues and presenting them to us prepackaged, so that the debate and results are already framed.

There’s too much at stake to allow something to happen randomly…too many folks out there with waaay too much money attempting to hedge their risk.

Frontline in general is really, really compelling. But that program is particularly disturbing in an Orwellian kinda way.

By jm

April 16, 2007 3:35 PM | Link to this

Van@2:52 - it always amazes me how people can spin “a decreasing” deficit as somehow being better than the “surplus” that W the incompetent inherited from the previous administration.

By Van

April 16, 2007 3:38 PM | Link to this

deegee,

Guess what is not included in the personal savings rate - 401k’s, 403c’s,IRA’s and Roths.

This is where most savings are. Those of us that work are saving at a higher rate than shown, why, I don’t know.

“Meanwhile, personal incomes rose 0.6% in June, outpacing the 0.4% increase in consumer spending.” This is a good sign, less folks using credit cards. Don’t buy it if you can’t afford it.

From a business point of view the future looks good - until the democrats let die the tax cuts.

Briefing.com

By Boot Strap Kid

April 16, 2007 3:39 PM | Link to this

I see I need to pull some coats today, because ya’ll are going to leave Obama alone.. He’s smarter than GW on a bad day. I see the fear of Obama becoming President in the writings of some of you characters. Since we are thinking his name should limit him from being president, then no one bearing the name George should ever, ever, ever, ever have anything to do with politics again as long as we are still called the US. I see the underhanded, cowardly, deceitful pundits also call him Osama and then say excuse me I meant Obama.. Terrible.. Oh yeah and the Dollar sunk to an all time low against the Euro since were doing so well.

By JP

April 16, 2007 3:39 PM | Link to this

I’d say what ABS did, but he beat me to it. Conservatives brought a President to an impeachment proceeding due to something totally inconsequential—showing that they want to “conserve” only their repressive social policy and their positions of power. Clinton’s poor judgment with Monica should have been left simply as a bad episode of a Presidency, but conservatives wanted blood.

I’ve been hearing “Bush hatred” for 6 years, with people thinking Gore voters wanted some kind of “Revenge” for 2000. That’s long over. The fact is, and only rarely will conservatives admit this, that Bush has continued since day 1 in office to give his opponents things to be upset about. Remember the secret Cheney energy meetings, that was a biggie that occurred before 9/11. Conservatives see the hatred they had for Clinton in their opponents.

Conservatives managed to insulate Bush from the threat of impeachment by impeaching Clinton—knowing full well the people won’t put up with 2 in a row—when Bush has done far more to deserve it. And lest you try to paint Bush as not conservative enough, perhaps on economic policy you are correct, but where it counts—the secretive and aggressive foreign policy disaster—THAT is the heart of conservatism. Bush can’t escape that one.

Therefore, cry “liberal” all you want, I’m voting Democrat in 2008. Perhaps one day I’ll consdier voting Republican again, but don’t hold your breath.

By Van

April 16, 2007 3:42 PM | Link to this

Deegee, This is something to think about.

“…about 1 in 5 Americans hold a government job or a job reliant on federal spending. A similar number receive Social Security or a government pension. About 19 million others get food stamps, 2 million get subsidized housing, and 5 million get education grants.”

By Mark Trumbull | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor.

Not exactly a right wing news paper.

Seems our beloved government is the source of income for over 40% of the population and it is getting its revenue from the same folks. How long can this go on?

By Van

April 16, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this

jm,

When is spin not spin? If the deficit, like the President promised, is getting smaller, that is good.

If we are decreasing the deficit and running a war in two countries, that is not a good thing???

Spin is in the eye of the beholder, pure and simple.

By Van

April 16, 2007 3:53 PM | Link to this

JP,

You’re right, “Conservatives brought a President to an impeachment proceeding due to something totally inconsequential…” perjury, lying under oath in a federal civil trial. Kind of does fit the words, “…high crimes and misdemeanors”

A crime, perjury, committed by a person in high office. Hmm, it seems to fit.

By Congrats Cindy

April 16, 2007 3:54 PM | Link to this

This just in …

Cynthia Tucker, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial page editor, whose columnns have inspired and enraged readers and public figures for more than 20 years, won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary on Monday.

By ABS

April 16, 2007 3:54 PM | Link to this

Thanks JP…you continued my rant…I remember how Cheney refused to turn over his “secret energy” documents and Congress, of course, said nothing. Nothing….they didn’t dare. He also had that idiot Scalia lap dog backing him up. You are right…that was before 9/11 and since then, nothing has been said about it. The list could go on and on about the lies and cover ups that have gone on in this administration….and there are still 33% of you, who, yes, can be fooled ALL of the time!

BTW…I’m a woman…. :-)

By ABS

April 16, 2007 4:01 PM | Link to this

Van…you are missing the point. Bush has done all that Clinton did plus much, much more. The list of high crimes in this administration is staggering and you know it…everybody knows it.

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

April 16, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this

JP,

It’s pretty simple, really. I’m just not understanding how folks don’t see it the way you described, but I have a theory:

Herr Rove is smarter than the average bear. The whole idea behind integrating the Christain Right with the Bush Admininstration was to develop a base of supporters that were “faithful”. And by that, I don’t mean people of sound moral grounding or judgement, but rather people who are unquestioning of their chosen leadership.

People of faith, by definition, accept the dogma that they choose and do not question it critically. To do so would be to tempt fate and put at risk their belief system. Therefore, if you have a core group of supporters who are of faith, and subscribe to your system of governance faithfully, you will be able to govern in any manner you choose to without fear of being challenged by that base.

And to take it further, those who do challenge the leadership are seen as un-faithful, godless, dissenters, treasous, etc…further insulating the chosen leader with his group of core supporters.

Rove is the master. He could probably murder someone on live tv in broad daylight and the Bushies would support his use of the 2nd amendment.

By ABS

April 16, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this

Jim the Cherry Picker - you should read this Op-Ed article from the NY Times…a friend of mine emailed it to me today…along the EXACT same lines you just mentioned:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041307D.shtml

By Van

April 16, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this

Jim’s a Cherry Picker,

In my youth, the first Presidential Campaign I remember that the marketing of a President was the primary push, was during the first debate between Nixon and Kennedy. The Kennedy crown knew about how to make JFK look good under the studio lights, while Nixon’s folks knew the issues.

Does anyone remember the issues from that debate? No, we just remember that Nixon looked bad and JFK looks great.

BTW, it was domestic issues. Those that heard it on the radio said Nixon won. During the campaign, a chain of movie theaters ran a promotion. They sold bags of popcorn with either Nixon’s or Kennedy’s picture on them. Kennedy won there also.

By getalife

April 16, 2007 4:10 PM | Link to this

Good for Cindy.

You know Jim, this liberal crap you spew will never get you nominated.

Makes you look like a member of that kooky cult that blames liberals for your hate party failures.

Jim,

Where does the buck stop?

By deegee

April 16, 2007 4:13 PM | Link to this

Van, what happened? did you take a good look at the CPI graphs in the website and come to understand that inflation year over year has been trending upward since Jan ‘03 when it hit a peak of near 5% before the energy price dip prior to the November ‘06 elections? Now we are on to government employees and dependents. Where do you think that money goes, Van?

By Van

April 16, 2007 4:23 PM | Link to this

Jim’s a Cherry Picker,

Which is it, I am getting confused with all the lefties conspiracy theories. Is it “hate Bush”, “Hate Rove”, “Hate Cheney” or hate the right - period?

And are you just talking about the faithful right or left Christians? Are not the lefties Christians, an oxymoron?, not subject to the same logic?

I guess you have never been a Catholic or Lutheran or any other main stream Christian. Never any dissension in those ranks.

By getalife

April 16, 2007 4:27 PM | Link to this

Van,

You know you hate the Godless “liberals”.

Where does the buck stop Van?

By Van

April 16, 2007 4:29 PM | Link to this

Getalife, the buck stops at the same place as my boot. Understand.

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

April 16, 2007 4:37 PM | Link to this

Van,

Relax. I don’t believe I used the word “hate” in any of my posts.

I’m very interested in how a group of people who continually claim ownership of morality godliness in this country can get away with so much lying, cheating and overall slimy-ness in broad daylight and have any support whatsoever.

How is that?

My theory is posted above. And I think a lot of holds true when explaning Clinton’s popularity among blacks during his impeachement, or the fact that several hundred thousand people voted for Cynthia Mckinney during this last go-round, despite clear evidence of her mental instability.

The difference here is Rove’s (the architect…GW isn’t smart enough to put all this together) explicit courtship of the faithful not only as a means of getting elected, but as a means of retaining a vocal minorty of rigid believers in the toughest of times.

Your support may or may not be faith based, but it explains a lot of it.

True critical thinkers without a huge economic iron in the fire have abandoned the man.

By Patriotic Foreskin

April 16, 2007 4:46 PM | Link to this

Congratulations to Cynthia Tucker! A Pultizer Prize at 52. What an amazing woman. She deserves her success.

I see her now and then on television. We’ve got a superstar in the making right here in Atlanta. I really like her style. That gal can write! I cant believe such a creature as she exists in this day of illiterate malaprops and blogging tins.

By getalife

April 16, 2007 4:48 PM | Link to this

Van,

The buck stops at your foot?

Geez.

No silly, it stops with w.

The buck stops with w.

You are witnessing the worst President ever.

Speak out man.

By jm

April 16, 2007 5:06 PM | Link to this

Van@3:47 - I will answer your question in parts.

1) running a deficit during a period of economic expansion, not a good thing. 2) mismanaging a war in two countries (after claiming that major combat operations in one were over almost four years ago), definately not a good thing. 3) passing the bill for those two mismanaged wars on to future generations, not only not a good thing but highly irresponsible.

By Van

April 16, 2007 5:14 PM | Link to this

getalife ,

A little too strong. I have no feelings for the godless. They made their decision on life and I will let them live it. As long as they leave me alone, I will return the favor.

Jim’s a Cherry Picker,

Yes, you did not use the word hate - but other lefties have used it over and over. The relentless pursuit of Rove is evident of their “dislike” of the guy. Same thing for all the others involved in the wacko conspiracy theater of politics.

By JohnD

April 16, 2007 5:16 PM | Link to this

JaCP,

I remember an article on the Tri-Lateral Commission during the Carter administration. The article indicated the last four Presidents had been supported by the Commission - now just look at those Presidents: Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon and Carter. There is hardly any common agenda in that group.

The only thing that comes to mind is the Commission’s view of the need for a global economy and government. I do not recall any of the four openly supporting the Commission’s goal but they must have quietly. This is a reference to your “packaged politicians” comment.

As to your “people of faith, by definition, accept the dogma…” - I must disagree. I am a Protestant Christian and most all those I know well have often questioned the dogma. How do you develop a faith without some questions? Assuming you have a mind.

I sometimes agree and other times I disagree with your general premise but when anyone starts with Bush lied, Herr Rove, etc. I start to lose interest. Those are easy things to say, stir passions in Republican supporters and Conservatives in general, and even in Republican and Conservative opponents but if the lies are about Iraq (the WMD’s and on and on) then the speaker needs to read the statements by the Clintons, Albright, Kennedy, Kerry and most every Democrat leader in the 90’s. They all said the same things spoken by the current administration in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

Even you have to admit the Democrats have been demonizing Bush since December of 1999 and I doubt any other President has been forced to withstand such an assault by the opposition party.

This administration is not manned by Conservatives but by a President and Cabinet put in power by Conservatives who were then abandoned. The current Congress also came to power on the strength of the 15-20 Democrats who ran as Conservatives, and might well be, but will never have a voice in the Reid/Pelosi Congress. There was a very thin majority for the current and prior Congress and the current administration.

Pronouncing either party dead or destined for the scrap heap of political history is simply a failure to recognize there is no clear majority on either side.

By Van

April 16, 2007 5:19 PM | Link to this

Folks,

Given Nancy Pelosi’s promise to allow the 2003 Tax cuts to die, is the middle class ready for the massive tax increase?

“Capital gains taxes will go up. The death tax will have new life. The marriage penalty will once more punish husbands and wives. Child tax credits won’t continue. And the alternative minimum tax will hit more and more middle-income workers.”

The average American family will have to pay an extra $2,641 a year if President Bush’s 2003 tax cuts are allowed to expire — but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats have given no indication they plan to extend the cuts.

By SingleMan

April 16, 2007 5:27 PM | Link to this

Someone PUHLEEZE explain how married couples are “penalized”. When it is all said and done they still have more disposable income than the truly penalized taxpayer, the single person. Or is it another entitlement for a protected class of citizen?

By Sam

April 16, 2007 5:29 PM | Link to this

If higher taxes is the price I have to pay to get rid of the Bushies,so be it.

By jm

April 16, 2007 5:39 PM | Link to this

Van@5:19 - Since government under both republicans and democrats have been unwilling to cut spending and costs to bring the budget in line, the only other alternative is to increase revenue (meaning taxes). Until the reign of W the incompetent, Presidents have used taxes (from inheritance, to income, even that silly tax on phones) to pay for the wars they entered into. While I don’t care for W’s politics, I could put up with them if (unlike his younger brother Jeb) he was not so incompetent.

By deegee

April 16, 2007 5:51 PM | Link to this

Van, How much more is the average American family spending on gasoline since 2003? To make it simple and modest, consider that the price of gasoline in 2003 was around $1.50 a gallon and now it averages around $2.70. At some point it was hovering around the $3.00 mark. Consider that the family has one car that gets 20 mpg and puts 25,000 miles per year on the car. That’s 1,250 gallons of gas for the year. At a average dollar a gallon increase, that family has paid about $3,750 dollars more for gas from 2003 through 2006. I’d be better off with the tax increase than the Bush energy policy.

By JP

April 17, 2007 8:38 AM | Link to this

Van @ 5:14 - Like I suggested earlier, Rove has been behind intolerable behavior (including the Plame affair) since the 2000 campaign. He gives people a steady diet of things to abhor. Therefore, it appears constant as a form of hatred might. You really need to stop and examine more carefully. It’s easy to dismiss attacks as hatred.

JohnD - As I said earlier, conservatives may well have been “abandoned” on domestic policy but that argument falls flat when discussing foreign policy. This has been an extremely conservative administration (more like reactionary) in that regard. Bush can’t wiggle out of that one, so you’re stuck with his association with conservatism.

And Van, I’m with Sam—taxes have been cut far beyond what was appropriate in a time of war. I’ll gladly accept an increase to (a) balance the budget and (b) pay for the conflict that we’re fighting in now rather than later.

ABS - Sorry if I mischaracterized your digital gender. :)

By Liberal Drive-By

April 20, 2007 6:44 PM | Link to this

“We live in a society where individual ego is at the forefront”

“Response”

“Yes I have a response, What?”