Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2007 > June > 05 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USTwo brands of conservatism begin to duel
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Those inclined to dismiss the tiff between Gov. Sonny Perdue and House leaders as the usual statehouse politics awaiting a kiss-and-makeup moment are wrong.
This dispute is not at all likely to end soon. Far more likely is that it will persist for the remainder of Perdue’s term.
No question, part of it is personal. But if it was the usual row between strong-willed personalities, the governor would have made his point with vetoes and House Speaker Glenn Richardson (R-Hiram) would have made his in the House’s 163-5 override of Perdue’s initial veto of the supplemental budget.
As the pattern of Perdue’s vetoes last week demonstrates, there’s something more going on, something that won’t be cured by the next legislative session or the one after. Or, most likely, during his remaining three years in office.
The problem is that they each define conservatism differently. Added to personalities, to the usual political games among those with higher ambitions, and to the traditional tension between the House and Senate and occasionally the governor, and the prospects are for a rocky next few years.
One example is the so-called rainy day fund, the cash reserves socked away to carry the state through economic downturns. Before the $142 million property tax rebate was vetoed, it stood at 4.26 percent, or about $693.5 million. Traditionally it’s considered full at 3 percent, though a governor has the discretion to increase that to 5 percent. Some legislators, and a key provision in a proposed constitutional amendment that passed the Senate, would raise that to 10 percent — or about $2 billion.
Prudent, right? That’s one fiscally conservative view.
Another is that elected officials lack the discipline to contain their spending appetite and, as with Ronald Reagan, the solution is to curtail revenues with tax cuts. Richardson, for one, believes that a generously endowed reserve fund insulates the governor and legislators from having to make difficult choices when revenues dip during downturns.
Some conservatives would “cap” state spending based on population growth and inflation. Some would cut taxes to impose spending discipline. And others would examine programs for effectiveness, with either program-based or zero-based budgeting, and shift or eliminate appropriations from those that don’t work.
Richardson favors zero-based budgeting, with one-third of the departments and agencies forced each year to justify programs from scratch. Perdue has launched a program-based approach that essentially contains decisions within the executive branch, with the governor evaluating and targeting programs for reductions or elimination.
On top of those disagreements, both the House and the Senate are now far more aggressive. Legislators new to power are just beginning to ask questions of the judicial and the executive branches, including the Board of Regents and the various off-budget authorities. It’s an extraordinarily healthy process of new eyes looking at old programs — programs that haven’t been independently examined in decades. They properly regard it as part of their oversight function.
One of the bills Perdue vetoed, House Bill 91, would have required agencies to provide detailed financial information to the General Assembly that includes contracts valued at more than $50,000 and consultants and others who receive more than $20,000. Perdue said in his veto that most of the information was available to the Legislature already and some of the rest of it was confidential.
Legislators think departments and agencies either ignore or slow-walk legitimate requests for information that is necessary for oversight.
Perdue also vetoed language in the budget that legislators inserted to target spending, saying they were improperly trying to write general law through an appropriations bill. That position sets up future conflicts if, indeed, the Legislature reacts by trying to put specific directives, like the number of pre-k slots it’s funding (77,775) in general law that must then be changed yearly.
This may be personal. But the real disagreement is not.
Permalink | Comments (67) | Post your comment | Categories: Column
Comments
By spaceman109
June 5, 2007 8:04 AM | Link to this
it sure will be interesting to see how the competing views of conservatism play out over the rest of sonny-boy’s term, although his vetoes seem to smack of someone who wants all decision-making power for himself.
it seems to me that perdue’s program-based approach concentrates far too much decision-making power within the executive branch. this power could very easily be used to reward those who do right in sonny-boy’s eyes and punish those who do not. the potential for abuse of power is huge.
as for the article’s contention that tax cuts would impose spending discipline…i wonder if jim realizes he made a good joke there. that sure did not work in washington and definitely would not work here in georgia without the constitutional requirement that the state budget be balanced.
By jbmlaw
June 5, 2007 8:05 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. Jim’s essay today is a microcosm of all conservative fiscal thought. The rainy day fund debate is equivalent to our ongoing national arguments between what we used to call the Jack Kemp pro-growth Republicans (who favor tax cuts to ensure growth) and the David Stockman deficit-hawks (who favor paying down public debt.) My libertarian conservatives, in contrast to those perspectives, would make spending reductions the top priority.
Even while acknowledging my antipathy for legislative micromanagement, I dislike the perspectives and regret the results in the two focal points in Jim’s morning essay. Mr. Richardson would delegate the principal responsibilities for zero-based budgeting to the prospectively-affected departments – rather like allowing the wolves to determine how many henhouses they should invade nightly. “Elimination of programs” is the duty of the legislature; the bureaucrats’ duty is to make effective those legislative directives.
Similarly, House Bill 91, despite the potential for legislative mischief, strikes me as a sound idea: why should any public funds be disbursed in private? The $50,000 and $20,000 limits seem pretty generous to me. If the bureaucrats are too busy to be bothered with explaining where the money is going, it probably ought not be going there in the first place. Gov Perdue erred.
Do Democrats have fiscal debates, beyond “how much can we weaken the military?” and “how much welfare can we spend today?”
By jbmlaw
June 5, 2007 8:14 AM | Link to this
My comment on Democrats was unfair. Clearly their top fiscal argument is, “how much can we crush the economy by repealing the Bush tax cuts?”
By jbmlaw
June 5, 2007 8:20 AM | Link to this
I guess I am being tricky: the Democrats top fiscal argument is, “how much can we crush the economy with phony Global Warming legislation, primarily designed to enrich certain ‘Green’ companies?”
By spaceman109
June 5, 2007 8:36 AM | Link to this
hmmm…democrats want to enrich certain “green” companies….you mean like general electric and walmart? :D
another way that republicans are like democrats is that they are just as eager to do the pork-spending thing. people’s exhibit a: the 19 million dollars to promote fishing in georgia.
By Jim Wooten
June 5, 2007 8:41 AM | Link to this
Morning jbmlaw, spaceman and others to come. I was unclear on what the Speaker is suggesting. He’d have the departments and agencies start at zero and make their case for the programs they administer, with the legislature deciding which should continue and at what level of funding. The reason for requiring only a third to zero-out each year that each year is that the legislature lacks the time, expertise or resources to evaluate them all in a single year.
By jbmlaw
June 5, 2007 8:43 AM | Link to this
Dear Spaceman109 @ 8:36, you will be disconcerted to learn I agree with every word you wrote, well done.
By jbmlaw
June 5, 2007 8:48 AM | Link to this
Good morning, Jim Wooten. Actually I think your explanation was clear. Perhaps my coffee consumption today is making my language more caustic than usual. The Honorable Speaker needs to ramp up his oversight program by hiring a couple of full time green eye shades – rather than having bureaucrats tell the legislature what they need, the jbmlaw solution is to create a state legislative budget office. I think three hundred thousand could save millions.
By Southern Democrat
June 5, 2007 8:52 AM | Link to this
Jbmlaw, your wit is razor sharp this morning.
Moderate Dems like myself would say that they’ll take the chance on enriching “green” companies and farmers (Wooten’s cursed ethanol) over large oil companies and Middle Eastern theocracies.
By lovelyliz
June 5, 2007 9:09 AM | Link to this
Calling a neoconservative a conservative does not make him so.
By Dusty
June 5, 2007 9:19 AM | Link to this
Well, honest, I don’t know much about this. But I would suggest (1) Cut taxes (2) Cut and monitor spending (3) Go fishing.
See, I told you. Oh yes, (4) Pray for rain.
By Jeff
June 5, 2007 9:22 AM | Link to this
So I just re-read a document written in 1796, 20 years after the Declaration.
President George Washington’s Farewell Address to the Congress.
Truly enlightening, and frighteningly prophetic.
NEITHER brand of “conservatism” fits. Nor does ANY brand of “liberalism”.
I find that unendingly scary.
By jbmlaw
June 5, 2007 9:29 AM | Link to this
A side distraction, I wish to say a word on Clete Boyer. I met Mr. Boyer last summer on a Sunday afternoon in Cooperstown, NY. It was a slow day – he was selling autographed baseballs – and after buying a ball I engaged conversation with one of the heroes of my youth. His handler pointed out that Mr. Boyer had so-many World Series rings as the third baseman for the Yankees, but I mentioned that in my part of the country we think of Mr. Boyer as an Atlanta Brave. Mr. Boyer opened up when I mentioned that in my neighborhood we had a perpetual debate on who was the best defensive third baseman, Clete or Brooks. He told me all about his happy relationship with Ted Turner, and that he lived in Buford, half-way between his two daughters in the Atlanta area. I asked him about growing up in a baseball household, and his famous older brothers; he told me of a hard-scrabble early life in rural Oklahoma. Great, charming fellow.
By DebbieDoRight
June 5, 2007 9:38 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw: WOW you’re on an anti-dem roll this morning!! And making the funniest jokes!! A couple of my favs are below:
Honorable Speaker, Jim’s essay today is a microcosm of all conservative fiscal thought (THAT one had me rolling in the aisles!!!! Conservative thought?! That is my new oxymoron for the week!!!!)….
And my absolute fav:
Gov Perdue erred
GASP!! NO!!! I’d never thought I’d see the day when you’d put those two words together, “Perdue/Erred”!!! I’m as giddy as a debutante!!!
By jabster
June 5, 2007 9:40 AM | Link to this
Not that this isn’t obvious, but Sunni Perdue is no libertarian. If he is not careful, he is going to tear down the GOP “big tent” of social conservatives and libertarians who elected him. He is looking more and more like Democrat Lite, with equally statist dreams.
It scares me when a Republican makes me long for Zell and (gasp!) Roy Barnes (!!!) on conservative/libertarian grounds, for crying out loud.
Don’t forget that Georgia has a strong libertarian streak (highest vote on a percentage basis for the LP in the 2000 presidential election, and second highest in sheer numbers behind California).
Alabama is still in the libertarian closet, but may be coming out soon. Look at the econ school at Auburn if you want to know why.
If I wanted to live in proto-fascist South Carolina, I would move there myself.
By jbmlaw
June 5, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this
Dear Debbie @ 9:38, thanks for alleviating my fears – we appreciate you for publishing the total encyclopedia on Democrat fiscal thought.
But of course, I offer apologies to Southern @ 8:52 if anything I wrote pushes too hard - not my intention.
By Van
June 5, 2007 10:03 AM | Link to this
Hmmm, each year, in the big business I work for, each department submits a budget and defends its own spending. Then higher management tells them to cut back by a certain percent. This keeps everything within budget and most folks keep their jobs - if we can keep the contracts and the jobs we bid on.
While every year we all face the possibility of a layoff and or drastic budget cuts, the push is for us to be more efficient and contain costs.
Whenever a government department budget is cut there is crying from all over. People do not fear job cuts, they are not encouraged to be more productive, in fact, just the opposite.
It does seem to work for big business, why can’t the state look at that model? Why do we have to expand every program every year? Why is it so hard to trim the work force in government? Why are budget overruns so common place with in government?
By jbmlaw
June 5, 2007 10:05 AM | Link to this
Dear Jabster @ 9:40, you raise an idea that has crossed my mind several times. With the manifest failure of socialism, the Democrats are left with no sustainable ideological soul. I have often thought that an intelligent Democrat party leader could move the party – the analogy is not perfect, but I am thinking of Tony Blair as the template – to a libertarian perspective, thus suddenly giving the Dem’s a rational economic platform. I fear the welfare dependence is too great in the party to permit such a shift, but it is a fun intellectual game.
By Repub Big Spender Debt Maker
June 5, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this
With the manifest failure of socialism, the Democrats are left with no sustainable ideological soul.
Are you on crack? Even those silly, sentimental Democrats are not falling for this vague, generalized, fact-free schtick anymore. “Dems spend all our money on welfare! Dems take from the rich and give to the lazy! Dems hate free enterprise!” I have a DEAD GRANDMOTHER that’s not as moldy and stale as these inflammatory slogans.
jbmlaw, you are a big disappointment. If you’re going to do the honorable duty of attacking the a large portion of your fellow Americans every day, please come up with some fresher, more accurate material. This is just lame!
By lovelyliz
June 5, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this
Political conservatives tend to be fiscally conservative and socially/morally libertarian.
By jbmlaw
June 5, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this
Dear rbsdm @ 10:21, your intellectual capacity is showing.
By RCH
June 5, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this
*lovelyliz I would tend to agree with you.But lets look at the reverse; African-Americans tend to have strong social/moral viewpoints, however they vote with their pocketbooks.
By jabster
June 5, 2007 10:53 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw, I don’t think it’s going to be the Dems that go the libertarian route. They will always have their “gimme gimme gimme”, moveon.org, eat-the-rich constituency. It’s small, but they own it. No, they pwn it, whether the constituency knows it or not. That’s why they call it the “Welfare Plantation”—you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.
The GOP, OTOH, is at a crossroads. They can either a) go back to being the “80%/Democrat Lite” party, which will resign them to long-term minority status in the wilderness like they were pre-Newt/Reagan; b) become a “Libertarian Lite” party, which would be great and present a real electoral alternative to the current “Coke vs Pepsi” political cola war, although I don’t know how it would sell to a nanny-state-addicted public; or c) take the Newt visionary route, with a strategic mix of conservatism and libertarianism that is probably more politically palatable while still providing a genuine alternative.
The problem with a 2-party system is that it results in a wretched consensus where new ideas get shut out, or it flies apart and nothing gets done. A 3-party system always has an odd man out that can bring in new ideas while forcing coalition-building to smooth off the rough edges. However, unless something changes, I think we are stuck with a 2-party system. Whether the GOP will remain one of them remains to be seen.
By spaceman109
June 5, 2007 10:53 AM | Link to this
i miised this earlier…jbmlaw said gov. perdue erred in regards to hb 91.
one hopes he is not thrown off the state republican party rolls (if he is a member) for such a (in state gop’s eyes) heretical statement.
van…in regards to overruns in state govt…that certainly needs to be cut back; however you seem to think a businesslike approach would be the magic bullet which would kill off cost overruns. anyone who has been paying attention to the numerous and sundry cost overruns by private contractors in iraq knows differently. i would pointedly remind you that the pentagon reprimaded halliburton for overcharging the pentagon in regaards to meals served to our troops in iraq.
By Dusty
June 5, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this
Dear Repub Big Spender@ 10:21,
Obviously the truth hurts and you sound like a bee in a bonnet. jbmlaw is as “fresh” as they come!!
But you, oh lame one, must have missed the Democratic debates of late. Talk about “vague, generalized, fast fall schtick”, it was shoveled out for all to see.
By the way, is Nancy Pelosi your grandmother?
By liberals are cowardly scum
June 5, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this
See (below) from today’s Telegraph how mohammedan interlopers in the advanced western countries all have the same sick mindset. This “poll” is very redolent of similar ones taken amongst the mohammedan enemy and the mostly silent mohammedan non fanatics within the US. The rabid dishonesty of the sickster Camus yesterday was freaking hilarious. This is where the constant stream of violent plots - however credible - come from. The complete lack of integration and innate, centuries old mohammedan racism/bigotry against all us kafirs.
Thus repulsive mega rich phoneys like the G. SOREos bought and paid for John lets exploit my wife’s cancer Edwards and morons like camus puke up this lets mimimise any mohammedan threats/plots and undermine any attempts to control mohammedan wannabe fascists (the Patriot Act etc) - whilst sickeningly and dishonestly reserving the far leftist right to just screech and screech about Bush’s failures if there is an attack, which they dismiss as just fear mongering 0 until it (eventually) happens. This is the far leftist treasonous hate America bollocks that they gleefully perpetrate day after day after day!!
7/7 bombs staged, say one in four Muslims By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor Last Updated: 2:01am BST 05/06/2007
A quarter of Britain’s two million Muslims believe Government agents staged the July 7 suicide bombings, a new survey has found.
They think the four men named as the killers of 52 passengers on the London transport system were not responsible for the attacks.
The poll, for Channel 4 News, discovered that conspiracy theories about July 7 are rife among Muslims - similar to those about the 9/11 attacks in the United States.
It came on the day Tony Blair attended a conference on Islam and insisted Muslims “overwhelmingly” wanted to be “loyal citizens”, despite the “disproportionate” public attention given to “small, groups” of radicals.
However according to last night’s poll, a significant proportion - six in 10 - of British Muslims say the Government has not told the whole truth about the 2005 bombings.
More than half of the 500 Muslims polled also felt the security services had made up evidence to convict terror suspects. Muslims interviewed by Channel 4 claimed the CCTV images of the four men arriving at Luton station en route to London were ”faked”. Others said the men were made ”convenient scapegoats”.
Some even dismissed as fakes the “martyrdom” videos left by Mohammed Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer admitting responsibility for the bombings.
More than 60 per cent of those polled for the GFK NOP survey said they were worried that British police could shoot to kill people they suspected of being Muslim terrorists.
Earlier, Mr Blair called on moderate Muslims to stand up to extremists. He told academics, scholars and religious leaders at Cambridge University that Islam was not a “monolithic faith”, but made up of a “rich pattern of diversity”.
Mr Blair added: “Muslims want to play a full part in the diverse societies in which they find themselves.
”Most seek to play a part as loyal citizens of their countries and as loyal Muslims. This is of course contrary to the often crude portrayals in the media or by those who deal only in stereotypes and seek to whip up Islamophobic sentiment.”
A poll for The Daily Telegraph shortly after the 9/11 attacks found a large proportion of Muslims that refused to accept they were carried out by members of their faith.
A survey after last summer’s alleged plot to blow up trans-Atlantic airliners suggested that a growing number of people fear that Britain faces “a Muslim problem”. More than half of the respondents to the YouGov survey said Islam posed a threat to Western liberal democracy.
Muslim groups say they are increasingly alienated from mainstream society, have no role models in key positions and are not listened to when they criticise foreign policy in Iraq and the Middle East.
Ahmed Versi, the editor of Muslim News, who attended the Cambridge conference, said: “These are the issues which are radicalising young people and he (Tony Blair) did not talk about that.”
Shahid Malik, the Labour MP for Dewsbury, where three of the July 7 bombers lived, said the findings were ”disturbing” and there were a lot of people ”in denial”.
By Jeff
June 5, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this
jabster:
Go back and read Washington’s Farewell Address. You’ll see many of the very same things you are saying.
How I wish we could/ would return to the political philosophies of the Founding Fathers….
By Repub Big Spender Debt Maker
June 5, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this
But you, oh lame one, must have missed the Democratic debates of late. Talk about “vague, generalized, fast fall schtick”, it was shoveled out for all to see.
You are so right! That’s why I expect so much more from the Republicans tonight, and again, why I have to admonish the well-intentioned Republicans here for their lame repetitive non-arguments. With our power base and approval ratings slipping, and those pesky liberals trotting out the facts and statistics of our failures, we cannot afford lame, tired, overused schtick! I hope the fine, borrow & spend, shove democracy down the world’s throat at the point of a gun Republicans on this blog will be watching! Let’s see something solid, fact-based and irrefutable on the part of our fine candidates, and then you can repeat their sage words for days or weeks to come!
BTW, clever Pelosi jab. Nothing earns the respect of the undecided like attacking a woman over 40 for being over 40. Nicely done!
By liberals are cowardly scum
June 5, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this
proto-fascist South Carolina
you nasty racist wanker - SC is heavily black so you’re saying blacks (there) are fascists??!!
where exactly is the evidence that SC is “proto-fascist”?
you’re just another sad libertarian nutter (nothing personal jbm) who’s been abusing all the illegal drugs you conveniently and personally want legalised!!!
By getalife
June 5, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this
Look for the answer of Newt’s comment on how the gop will fix what they broke.
They will not address this elephant in the room, it will be more of the same.
By Aquagirl
June 5, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this
By Van
June 5, 2007 10:03 AM | Link to this
it does seem to work for big business, why can’t the state look at that model? Why do we have to expand every program every year? Why is it so hard to trim the work force in government? Why are budget overruns so common place with in government?
Because, Van, the bosses in big business retain their jobs only if the company is turning a profit. Politicians retain their jobs if they keep special interests (and their narrow group of constituents) happy. Thus, politicians—-despite Jim’s touting of these “fiscal conservatives” like they are the long-awaited saviors—-will never have compelling reasons to cut government spending. Their aim is to keep and maintain power, not to keep the nation running.
By DJ
June 5, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this
Two brands of conservatism? Which two would that be? the (1) hate-filled divisive “wedge-issue” conservatism of Karl Rove; the (2) slash-and-burn christer social conservatism of James Dobson; the (3) anti-free-market screw the middle class “i never met a tax cut i didn’t like” conservatism of the supply-side market regulators; or (4) the “what is political and economic theory good for anyway” pie-in-the-sky idealistic neo-conservatism of the Bushies and their “government oversight is for liberals” crew of thugs and racketeers?
Barry Goldwater and Milton Freedman are spinning in their graves. George Bush can’t even spell “conservative” but Jim Wooton continues to fawn over anything and everything the right-wing comes up with. So much for Conservatism with a Conscience, eh Barry?
By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I
June 5, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this
One-fourth of British Muslims think the July 7th explosions were staged?
Well, 28% of Americans think George Dumbya Bush is doing a good job.
Which means that British Muslims, as a group, are almost as crazy as Americans.
But not as crazy as Brit-trannies that live in North Georgia, thankfully.
By getalife
June 5, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this
Libby gets 30 months should have got 30 years.
By DebbieDoRight
June 5, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this
By RCH June 5, 2007 10:52 AM — lovelyliz I would tend to agree with you.But lets look at the reverse; African-Americans tend to have strong social/moral viewpoints, however they vote with their pocketbooks
RCH played the race card!! RCH played the race card!!! I knew it was only a matter of time……….
By jbmlaw
June 5, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this
Dear Jabster @ 10:53, great argument, I can add nothing.
Dear spaceman109 @ 10:53, thanks for noticing, I truly am a non-discriminatory jerk. I know you are one of our leftists, but you often show real insight in your thoughts. So a personal note, in my first posts today I sought to be provocative without being offensive. I think you read my notes that way. From the absence of comment from our other leftist friends, I perceive “fiscal theory” is an eye-glazer, that leftists care no more for this topic than do conservatives on “global warming,” or any number of other leftist topics-du-jour.
Dear lacScum @ 11:15, no offense taken.
Dear Aquagirl @ 11:26, I thought Van’s 10:03 observations were on-point, as always for him, but your addition is brilliant.
By Dusty
June 5, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this
Dear Not Republican but Demo Imposter@11:14
You mentioned moldy and grandmothers first, unhappy one. You sound like Pelosi. Are you her feminist granddaughter?
I am sure you have your pen and paper ready for the Republican Debates. Yep, taking notes on “shoving democracy down the world’s throat at the point of a gun” and other names for fighting terrorism.
But stay cool. The glaciers are melting. The sky is falling. Gore can spell “potato” and Hillary is ready to lead the “village”. Sage is the word. Cheers, dear liberal undercover agent….
By DebbieDoRight
June 5, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this
Statistics on the demographics of the Population of Sotuh Carolina Blacks make up 28.5% of the total population.(just in case someone wants the facts and not just ridiculous rants):
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?event=Search&geoid=&geoContext=&street=&county=&cityTown=&state=04000US45&zip=&lang=en&sse=on&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010
By Repub Big Spender Debt Maker
June 5, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this
Dear Dusty,
You make Republicans look shallow and stupid. Please stop before you do any more damage. We have less than 18 months to win over the undecided. Stop throwing obstacles in our noble path!
“shoving democracy down the world’s throat at the point of a gun” — got that from Ron Paul, one of ours. How about a little more mouth shut and ears open, okay Dusty? Please.
By Van
June 5, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this
spaceman109
You mean the cost overruns by private companies with government contracts?
Between two private companies, this happens a lot less because it is not accepted and “normal” business.
By catlady
June 5, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this
It may seem inconceivable to some of you who paint with such broad brushes, but the Democrats also have divisions within their ranks. Seems like ALL shades of BOTH parties have one thing in common: their mantra is ME FIRST ME FIRST ME FIRST! How they get there is the largest difference.
By RCH
June 5, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this
*DebbieDoRight8 How am I playing the race card.This poll was taken by the Republican Party on BET. They found that most African_Americans have a strong religious base (against homosexual marriage),traditional family values, etc. However, vote Democratic by 85%.Why? Social spending programs.
By jbmlaw
June 5, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this
Dear rbsdm @ 12:13, I am with Dusty – you are not a very convincing imitation of a RINO. Dear Dusty @ 12:02, your last paragraph was magnificent, I wish I had written that.
By Dusty
June 5, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this
Dear jbmlaw, 12:17
Thank you very much. A compliment from a “master of the art” is indeed appreciated.
I leave for the afternoon with my head held high. Hold the fort!!!
By Dave
June 5, 2007 1:00 PM | Link to this
As I see it the Reublican party can be split between the Democrat-like Republicans (Sonny) and the Republican-like Republicans. Democrats are really split between Anarchists and Socialists.
By @@
June 5, 2007 1:09 PM | Link to this
Nowhere within today’s article do you mention Democrats Jim. I would think that the liberals might have noticed, but they didn’t.
Just like the hollywooders, the government do-gooders insist on correct spelling of their names so let me get this straight…
was that E-G-O-s or C-E-O-s.
I say let’s start from the ground up like they’re doing it in France. There they spell it “refaire”; here we spell it “redo-doo”.
Damn, my finger slipped on that American “typo”, but my mind was definitely engaged.
By liberals are cowardly scum
June 5, 2007 1:14 PM | Link to this
I see the depraved VT based child molestor rednekkks is still puking up its witless homo obsessed filth on here.
Lets hope that VT is the next terror target. That will teach the perfidious pinko perverts up there a long overdue lesson.
More proof of the deranged yellowbellied liar camus’ robotic lies about the wannabe terrorist towel heads in NJ.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/06042007/news/nationalnews/fedstargetnukephantomnationalnewsmurrayweiss_larrycelonaandbrigittewilliamsjames.htm
its utterly pathetic but freaking hilarious watching the sullen racist crackpipe debbie accusing anyone of playing the race card!!!
funny how the shrill lefty panderers COMPLETELY ignore the massive eco impact of mexican type leeches slithering over the border to freeload and commit crimes.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0603bordertrash-ON.html
By spaceman109
June 5, 2007 1:15 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw…you seem to be under the impression that i am a leftist. on what basis do you make such an assumption?
By liberals are cowardly scum
June 5, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this
FEDS TARGET NUKE PHANTOM OSAMA HENCHMAN NAMED IN JFK PLOT By MURRAY WEISS, LARRY CELONA and BRIGITTE WILLIAMS-JAMES
Al Qaeda’s so-called nuclear whiz kid - a “tantalizing terror figure” with a $5 million bounty on his head - was the radical big shot investigators had hoped to snag in their 18-month JFK-plot probe, The Post has learned.
The name of “invisible hand” Adnan Gulshair el-Shukrijumah, reportedly the man Osama bin Laden tapped to lead a previous scheme to detonate nuclear bombs simultaneously in several U.S. cities, came up at several points in taped conversations during the probe, according to law-enforcement sources familiar with the investigation.
Three Muslim men were nabbed Friday in the alleged plan to attack John F. Kennedy International Airport - the “chicken farm,” as they dubbed it - which involved exploding a jet-fuel pipeline. A fourth suspect is at large.
Given Shukrijumah’s notoriety in the terror world and the fact that he grew up in Guyana, as did three of the suspects, probers immediately homed in on him.
“Eyebrows went up,” said one law-enforcement source.
“We thought he could be the invisible hand. He’s always in the shadows, particularly in [the Caribbean]. He’s passed through it, he’s known, his name came up in the conversations.
“He would have been the prize.”
So the feds allowed the probe to continue until the last moment, which came when one of the suspects boarded a plane in Trinidad headed for Venezuela - where the United States has no extradition agreement. Authorities weren’t willing to risk losing him, so they “pulled the trigger” on the arrests, one source said.
Investigators had yet to collect evidence linking Shukrijumah to the JFK plot, but it’s clear his name and efforts were well-known to the suspects.
Shukrijumah grew up in Guyana, according to terror expert and author Paul L. Williams. Shukrijumah’s late father, Gulshair, an Islamic scholar, once served as a temporary imam at Brooklyn’s al-Farouq mosque, which is well-known in radical circles, Williams said.
The mosque has connections to a scheme to fund an al Qaeda-linked sheik as well as one of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers.
By jbmlaw
June 5, 2007 1:28 PM | Link to this
Dear lacScum @ 11:04, as our leftist friends don’t want to discuss fiscal policy, I hope you saw this essay in the WSJ, discusses your topic from an unexpectedly interesting Moslem perspective. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010164
Dear spaceman109 @ 1:15, just the vibes, man. (In all fairness, you seem no more leftist to me than my moderate friend Southern Democrat - just the jerk coming out in me.)
By Repub Big Spender Debt Maker
June 5, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this
Dusty and jbmlaw, please refrain from engaging in this public fell-ashee-oh. Don’t you know we Republicans are against that? Okay, we’re not really against it, but we have a record of impeachiing for it, so please stop. You’re embarrassing us.
By I Am Better Than You
June 5, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this
I am glad that my mind is big enough to think outside of liberal or conservative.
By spaceman109
June 5, 2007 1:50 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw….thanks for the compliment about me being a moderate :D i prefer such a viewpoint for myself since i am not inclined to assess an issue using a grimly doctrinaire worldview.
jbmlaw…since you are rattling on about fiscal policy…would you care to explain why this rino (republican-in-name-only) president lacked the stones to veto a domestic spending bill? the highway bill and the farm bill cried out for vetoes. as opposed to the democratic way of tax-and-spend, this president’s apparent fiscal policy is this: don’t tax and spend even heavier.
By spaceman109
June 5, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this
oops..let me clear up my statement: don’t tax….and spend even heavier.
By jabster
June 5, 2007 2:02 PM | Link to this
Dave @ 1:00 - Agreed on the Dems. You might could call them the Democr(A)tic Party and the DemocratiCCCParty, respectively. The old socially liberal, economically moderate Democrat is extinct, thanks to moveon.org (see Joe Lieberman).
The GOP has three, not two camps: —Democrat Lites/RINOs —Libertarians who don’t smoke dope —Social conservatives
The first group is usually “bipartisan” bait for the Dems.
The second group would join the LP except for its “Bong Hits 4 Capitalism” rep, and votes for the LP in the closet when the GOP candidate isn’t sufficiently libertarian. The GOP ignores these at their own peril, since they throw so many elections by sitting on the margin of politics.
The third group peaked before 9/11 and has been waning since. The GOP takes them for granted the most since they have nowhere else to go, except stay home on election day. They are the “welfare queens” of the GOP. The GOP pwns them like the Dems pwn the gimme class.
By jbmlaw
June 5, 2007 2:20 PM | Link to this
Dear spaceman109 @ 1:50, I would respectfully add the education bill and the steel import quotas to your litany, but you asked a question deeper than I can answer; if you would allow me, I would refer you to Peggy Noonan’s essay from last week, http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110010148 Interestingly, Jabster’s 2:02 touches on the Noonan topic. For the record, in 2000 I voted libertarian, but voted for President Bush in 2004.
By jbmlaw
June 5, 2007 2:23 PM | Link to this
Dear jabster @ 2:02, LP put me off with its Buchanan-esque Fortress America mentality – I believe the US must engage the world, I believe in free trade, and I believe in free immigration and emigration.
By DebbieDoRight
June 5, 2007 2:46 PM | Link to this
DebbieDoRight8 How am I playing the race card.This poll was taken by the Republican Party on BET. They found that most African_Americans have a strong religious base (against homosexual marriage),traditional family values, etc. However, vote Democratic by 85%.Why? Social spending programs.
Blacks vote Democrat because it’s the lesser of two evils. You have rampant racist hate mongering Republicans on one side with delusions of grandeur; then you have the semi opposite on the other side. The lesser of the two evils.
By jabster
June 5, 2007 2:48 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw @ 2:23 - I agree with you on the LP’s and Buchanan’s isolationism.
Although I am glad that Ron Paul keeps hammering the point—just to keep everyone else honest and remind everyone that freedom isn’t free.
The LP could be a contender, if they would quit picking the worst issues with which to grab the spotlight (drugs, isolationism). Drugs makes them look like a bunch of stoners and isolationism makes them look stoned.
How about something everyone can relate to, like eminent domain abuse, tariffs and other government economic interventionism, nanny state microregulations, federalism run amok, or wasteful spending?
Pat Buchanan is just an idiot, period. This guy couldn’t be a proper conservative if he tried.
By spaceman109
June 5, 2007 3:08 PM | Link to this
jabster wrote this: *The LP could be a contender, if they would quit picking the worst issues with which to grab the spotlight (drugs, isolationism). Drugs makes them look like a bunch of stoners and isolationism makes them look stoned.
How about something everyone can relate to, like eminent domain abuse, tariffs and other government economic interventionism, nanny state microregulations, federalism run amok, or wasteful spending?*
actually, jabster, the lp is against eminent domain abuse, etc. those of us who listen to neal boortz are aware of that. i will definitely agree with you (as does boortz) that the lp needs to vastly alter its stance on defending this country and lose the 1920’s-type isolationism.
jbmlaw…thanks for the link. peggy noonan is the kind of conservative writer that ann coulter can only aspire to be. for the forseeable future, ms. coulter is too busy being a junior-high-school punkette.
By jabster
June 5, 2007 3:34 PM | Link to this
spaceman109:
That’s my point. The LP supports all those things. But when they get media coverage, when they pick a signature issue, it’s always something that is divisive and something that Middle America won’t buy without a lot of thought (which is asking too much), if at all.
There’s plenty of planks in the LP platform that are much more palatable to much more of America.
By jbmlaw
June 5, 2007 3:42 PM | Link to this
Dear spaceman109 @ 1:50, you said of yourself, “i am not inclined to assess an issue using a grimly doctrinaire worldview,” meaning – I think – that you adjudicate each issue on an ad hoc basis rather that relying on any principle-based ethics system. I thought about letting it pass since I have many similarly-inclined friends, but it is such a slow afternoon my dark side got the better of me. I would respectfully suggest you consider a joyously doctrinaire worldview instead of the grimly egoistic “I am the only font of wisdom” basis of issue adjudication.
Silly adjectives aside, I suspect you operate from some deep set of principles, although it is possible you are not so introspective as to spend time considering, “what are those principles?” Many great minds have considered the nature of the world, to extract eternal principles that work: Immanuel Kant, embraced by most modern conservatives, John Stuart Mill and John Rawls, embraced by discrete groups of modern leftists, Robert Nozick for those of us of a libertarian bent. (Rawlsian theory is probably your foundation, and is the reason I called you a “leftist.”) I suspect you would find none of these is perfect – that is true of all of us – but much of the adventure is in the exploration, not in the discovery.
By jbmlaw
June 5, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this
Dear jabster @ 2:48, you clearly wrote the best line of the day, referring to the LP: “Drugs makes them look like a bunch of stoners and isolationism makes them look stoned.” Funny; mind if I steal that?
By spaceman109
June 5, 2007 3:56 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw…there are those who do have time to consider the underpinnings of viewpoints. however, the realities of life, that is, demands on time such as family, friends, work, play and sleep rarely permit such inward pondering. yours is a good suggestion. i will get to it in the available 2 minutes which i get per day.
By jabster
June 5, 2007 4:14 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw: Be my guest!
By Jonny
June 5, 2007 5:56 PM | Link to this
I only need to know where Wooten is on the issue. And go with the other side. That way I know I’ll be in the true Right.
By Dusty
June 6, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this
Oh dear,
Wonder about the answers if I asked Sec. Rice and Gen. Colin Powell if all Republicans hated African-Americans. You think they might say “they hadn’t spent much time worrying about it ‘cause they had better things to do”. I guess Thomas Sowell, Justice Thomas and other achievers might say the same. Oh well…