The bad thing about being on the road yesterday was being away from my computer. My poor husband was subject to my ranting and raving about Bill Clinton’s now infamous appearance on Fox News Sunday. Poor guy was a captive audience for four hours. At least you people choose to listen to what I have to say.
Two things struck me listening to the interview. First - if Bill Clinton was as obsessed with getting Bin Laden as he says he was, trying so hard to get the guy that he gave orders to the CIA/FBI to take him out like he said he did in Sunday, and the CIA/FBI refused or failed in executing the order, wouldn’t someone be fired? Like say, George Tenet? Clinton doesn’t strike me as the kind of guy that would tolerate incompetence or insubordination. Yes, I know there’s a joke in there, but I’m trying to be serious.
Looking at it from the real world perspective, you know, what you and I deal with everyday… If my boss was hot on something and wanted it done right away, and I failed or completely ignored his request, I’d be fired on the spot. I don’t recall any intelligence official being asked to resign or leaving for unexplained reasons during Clinton’s administration. Tenet didn’t resign until well into Bushie’s first term. About two and a half years late, if you ask me.
While I think Clinton’s anger was genuine, plenty of members of the VRC have proven everything he said on Sunday was total crap. And we all remember what happened the last time he wagged his finger. If he’s going to go on the evil Fox and spew his horse puckey, you’d think he’d at least make it somewhat plauseable.
Secondly, Clinton’s repitition of “I tried, and failed” over and over is really a sumation of all liberal policies. The intent is genuine and good, but the implication and end results are total failures and it’s always someone else’s fault.
Cam Edwards » Blog Archive » The Trouble With Liberalism Says: September 26th, 2006 at 8:44 pm[…] Farrah nails it. Permalink […]
Woody Says: September 26th, 2006 at 8:55 pmClinton couldn’t legally send the CIA, FBI, Mr Rogers, Me or Suzann, you, Cam, or Mike McCarvill out to get him without rescinding or modifying Executive Order 12333, part 2.11. He never did that. No one has. It’s still in effect. Clinton is either lying or confessing to an illegal order.
I haven’t gone after bin Laden because the $50,000,000.00 is only for his capture.(As if I’d even go EVER!) If Congress were to make it dead or alive, you might see a little action from some bounty hunters or war lords.
Woody
Scrapiron Says: September 26th, 2006 at 9:50 pmPresident Bush did recend the law (after 9-11)signed by President Reagan. Woody, your post is almost the same as mine except for some inaccurate statements in yours. The reward is for dead or alive and is now legal.
I guess the FBI/CIA agents didn’t want to be charged with murder. Slick may have tried to order it in private so he could deny it later, but at that time Slick didn’t have the authority to order the murder of anyone (legally). Several others that crossed the Clintons died of ‘unknown’ causes, but not Osama. Ordering even Osama’s death would have been in violation of federal law until President Bush changed the law after 9-11 (signed by President Reagan). If there is a lawyer on here they can correct me if i’m wrong, and cite the law, page and para that he could have used…
Terry Says: September 27th, 2006 at 5:46 amWhat was beautiful was comments that Rush Limbaugh expounded upon. Clinton kept saying to go read Richard Clarke’s book. Turns out Rush did and Clarke’s book proved Clinton a liar because Clarke wasn’t demoted. He chose to leave that post.
Also, Rush spoke of Clinton’s book “My Life” never mentioned either al-Qaeda or bin Laden until late in the book. Considering that Clinton spoke of be “obsessed” with getting bin Ladin, you would have thought his book would have had more emphasis on the terrorists.
But then, Clinton is a proven LIAR. So, why should we believe anything he says anyway?
Phil Says: September 27th, 2006 at 7:11 amTo repeat what Cam said, “you nailed it Farrah.”
Cosrai Says: September 27th, 2006 at 7:48 amAnd dare I ask how successful President Bush has been in going after bin Laden? And how many incompetents has he fired in his five years in office? The problem with many conservatives today is they think if they just say they did something it makes it so.
I don’t think this is going to come out good for the Republicans. The history is there, and while Clinton did fudge some in saying Bush never held any meetings on the threat from bin Laden prior to 9/11 (3 in 8 months is the last count I heard), the 9/11 report certainly makes it clear Bush didn’t take the threat prior to 9/11 as seriously as Clinton had before leaving office. Also, there was a detailed plan written by Clarke given to the Bush Administration in January 2001 describing how to combat terrorism. This flies in the face of what Condi is saying, who it should be remembered testified under oath that the PDB “Bin Laden determined to attack in US” was just of historical note and nothing to worry about at the time.
So I ask how has everything Clinton said on Sunday been proven as total crap? Because Rush said it was? Please, a little more substance.
This same argument is going on over at Cam’s place. Woody says there was no rescinding of EO 12333 which proves Clinton is either a liar or a criminal, to which I say Clinton didn’t need it to use lethal force against (i.e. kill) bin Laden- no more than Bush does now. My argument is based on the opinion of Executive Branch lawyers, who I dare feel are better and more experienced lawyers than most of us here. Clinton may have stretched the truth a little on Sunday (and oh yes, lied about Lewinsky), and failed at what he attempted to do, but Bush has been guilty of the same on mamy occassions as well.
Again, I don’t think this is going to play out well for the Republicans because while we can argue legality, or whether Clinton is a liar, or excerpts from Clarke’s or Clinton’s books, the 9/11 commission report is just as damning, if not more so, to the current administration than it is to the previous. With the recent April NIE report making the headlines the political question becomes a twist on the old Reagan line, “Do you feel safer now than you did five years ago?”
Scrapiron Says: September 27th, 2006 at 10:07 amThe WMD attack (failed and covered up) on the WTC in 1993 and the attack of 9-11 proved we had a false sense of security prior to 9-11. Now we know that there are people out there trying to kill us all (yes that includes you and your family) but we also know that thousands of dedicated patroitic americans are doing they’re best to protect the homeland and us. I feel un-secure due to the fact that every program designed to track and arrest the terrorists in this country and over the world is ‘leaked’ by democrats to the NYT who immediately provides the information to the terrorists. They publish it to warn the terrorist, Don’t do this any more or you will be caught.
Facts are now coming out that the attack in 1993 was a WMD attack designed to kill every person in the tower by use of poison. It only failed due to the heat destroying the poison that was to spread throughout the building. The terrorists that planned the attack excaped to where? Iraq where he was protected by Saddam. No terrorist in Iraq, Democrats proven wrong again.
When will the democrats start protecting Americans instead of the terrorists? Right now the more American that die (due to their terrorists support) the more they think it helps their cause and gains them a vote or two.
Do you feel safer now than you did five years ago? Absolutely yes, now we know who the enemy is, democrats and terrorists, so we can fight both. One with a ballot and one with a bullet.
Woody Says: September 27th, 2006 at 11:10 amScrapiron, I’ve done the research. Part 2.11 in EO 12333 has not been rescinded. The actions we are engaged in, in going after bin Laden, are as a result of a declaration of war, not an assassination.
The bounty on bin Laden is for his capture. You claim it is dead or alive. Can you back that up? Here is my source:
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t21t25+2581+0++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%2822%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%282708%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20
You’ll have to cut and paste.
Woody
Terry Says: September 27th, 2006 at 12:25 pmWell, let us see. Has anyone seen bin Ladin live on TV lately? No? Seems he is hiding out somewhere. Bush must have done something successfully.
“The problem with many conservatives today is they think if they just say they did something it makes it so.” Really? Would you be suggesting that the liberals AREN’T saying things hoping that something will prove them wrong? How many accused Karl Rove of “leaking” Valerie Plame when it turns out to have actually been someone else? How many times have the liberals accused Bush of being stupid, a warmonger, knowledgable about 9/11 before it happened, etc? All of which aren’t true.
Bush had 8 months to do something before 9/11 but Clinton had from 1993 on to do something. In fact, he stated after each terrorist attack that he was really going to do something about bringing those people to justice. How many did he actually capture and prosecute? There is also this:
“Michael Scheuer, who led the CIA effort to get bin Laden, is telling a different story. Scheuer says in The New York Daily News that plans for an invasion were never presented or discussed in his presence. And he says the only order he received following the attack on the Cole was to come up with a target list for air strikes. He also says Mr. Clinton had 10 chances to kill or capture bin Laden before 9/11, but the president did not use the information he was given.”
(Pay close attention to the last sentence….10 chances.)
Then, if the Clinton administration had a comprehensive plan for fighting as-Qaeda, as Clarke’s transition memo and PowerPoint presentation imply, why didn’t they implement any of it?
Personally, I don’t put much faith in “all” of the 9/11 Commission Report, simply because there was a commissioner who should have been a witness instead of a commissioner. That was Jamie Gorelich, who wrote the policy that prevented the CIA and FBI from sharing information that would have an impact on national security.
I would also like to point out that the NIE that was just declassified has about 3 1/2 pages of information that agrees with the Bush administration assertions. By contrast there was only about 3 lines that agreed with what the NYT printed from their “leaker” source in the administration. So I have to disagree with Cosrai that the information will not play well for the Republicans.
Over and over again, from many of the Democrat leadership, we hear about pulling out of Iraq, protecting terrorists with “rights”, attacks against just about everyone in the Bush administration. With that in mind, and no plan from the Democrats for what they would do (except impeach Bush and raise taxes), I have to say that I think the Republicans aren’t as bad off as many would like them to be.
As far as the oft quoted phrase about “are we safer than 5 years ago”, I have to say that we weren’t safe then. We were attacked but there hasn’t been a “major” attack yet in the US. In fact, several terrorist cells have been exposed since then. While we aren’t completely safe, I do have to believe that we are safer.
Cosrai Says: September 27th, 2006 at 4:48 pmTerry,
You’ve already read the declassified NIE report? I thought Negroponte was still in the process of deciding what parts were going to be released.
In the 8 months prior to 9/11 the Bush Administration held 3 meetings regarding bin Laden, and only one principals meeting. This after being warned by Clarke of his importance and threat. Condi Rice discounted and ignored the threat given in the PDB. What did the Bush Administration actually do in those 8 months? Nothing. How does this play well for the Republicans?
Oh, and here’s some more on Michael Scheur:
“Michael Scheuer, who in his book “Imperial Hubris†calls the Iraq invasion “an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat.”
and,
“Public interest in the book [Imperial Hubris] itself isn’t at all hard to understand: it’s not every day that an active US intelligence officer publishes a work that disputes the Bush administration’s assertions, holding that, among other things, bin Laden is not on the run; the invasion of Iraq has not made the United States safer; and that Islamists are in a campaign of insurgency, not terrorism, against the US because of US policies, not out of hatred for American values.”
Whose side is this guy on, anyway?
Or this:
“During an interview on Hardball with MSNBC’s Nora O’Donnell, former CIA analyst and bin Ladin expert Michael Scheuer revealed an interesting tidbit about the mindset of government lawyers, and their weird interference with plans for the potential capture of Osama bin Ladin in the 1990s:
O‘DONNELL: Let me ask you what you know about what we‘ve read recently about a secret military operation known as Able Danger. There are people involved in that that say that the United States knew about Mohammed Atta a year before the 9/11 attacks. Is that true? And was there a massive failure by our government?
SCHEUER: I don‘t know firsthand information about Able Danger, ma‘am, but from what I‘ve read in the media, that the lawyers prevented them from passing the information to the FBI, that certainly rings true. The U.S. intelligence community is palsied by lawyers.
When we were going to capture Osama bin Laden, for example, the lawyers were more concerned with bin Laden‘s safety and his comfort than they were with the officers charged with capturing him. We had to build an ergonomically designed chair to put him in, special comfort in terms of how he was shackled into the chair. They even worried about what kind of tape to gag him with so it wouldn‘t irritate his beard. The lawyers are the bane of the intelligence community.”
Damn lawyers.
Terry Says: September 28th, 2006 at 5:52 amCosrai,
First of all, Bush said they would declassify the “major findings” and they have. And yes, I read them.
Second, I never said that Michael Scheuer was a friend of the Bush administration. You must have merely presumed that I meant that to be. While Scheuer is critical of the Bush administration, he was also critical of the Clinton administration.
I don’t know about you, but I think that gives him “some” credibility simply because he is critical of both.
Tony Says: September 28th, 2006 at 10:51 amThe whole Clinton episode reminded me of when the Undertaker threatened to kick Batistas’s ass in the next cage fight (PURE FICTION)
Cosrai Says: September 29th, 2006 at 7:53 amTerry,
After reading the report do you still feel all 3 1/2 pages of the released parts of the NIE disagree with the major point of what the NYT printed, that the Iraq war has increased the number of jihadists, and agrees with the Bush assertion that the Iraq war is helping in our counter-terrorisem efforts? Here’s a link to it for those that want to read it: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/060926_Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf
I certainly don’t read it that way, but then again I was never in favor of the Iraq invasion.
My point with Scheur is I think he’s a very unreliable source, and simply a hack out trying to sell a book after having his program to get bin Laden closed down at the CIA just a few months ago. I see him as a man with a mission- namely to sell his book- and in that role he’ll smear whichever administration is up at bat. What he says about the lawyers thwarting the capture of bin Laden sounds like a bad joke.
Terry Says: September 30th, 2006 at 3:58 pmWas your opinion of Richard Clarke the same as your opinion on Scheur? Both might have been trying to sell books, but many on the left believed wholeheartedly in Clarke because he was attacking Bush. However, I don’t remember seeing or hearing Clarke attack or accuse Clinton of anything. Perhaps I missed that. Also, supposedly Clarke left his job because he didn’t get the job he wanted. But, go ahead and attack Scheur’s credibility. But keep in mind that they had bin Laden “targeted” but the Clinton administration couldn’t come to a decision. I heard somewhere that at one point Clinton wasn’t answering the phone when they were trying to get authority from him to act.
Having read “assessment papers”, one has to remember that analysts tend to try to show “all” sides of an issue for their client. Thus, the few lines indicating that the war in Iraq is “creating” more terrorists may be nothing more than covering that side. However, looking at other documents, in particular a letter found after Zarqawi was killed, one finds that al Qaeda “analysts” were complaining that they were unable to recruit fast enough. Shoot, they are even out there advertising for scientists in the areas of chemical, biological, and nuclear technology to come to their aid. How many do you think really want to answer that advertisement?
Point is…I can’t bring myself to put too much faith in those few sentences in the NIE report.
Cosrai Says: October 2nd, 2006 at 1:38 pmI take Clarke with a grain of salt as well, knowing he has an axe to grind and a book to sell like Scheur. Unfortunately for some, both Clarke and Scheur agree the invasion of Iraq was a mistake and a serious diversion from the war against al Qaeda.
If you believe assessment papers are written to CYA the authors, then why believe any of it? Why believe the War in Iraq is worth winning? Couldn’t that just be CYA stuff as well?
In reading the released parts of the NIE report I see more than just a few lines indicating there’s a problem. There’s lines on every page that describe a growing and dispersed jihadist movement. Considering the number of agencies involved in this report I’d put more credence in it than any letter found after Zarqawi was killed, or any number of ads placed by al Qaeda. They’re the enemy after all, aren’t they? Why would we trust their analysis over ours?
Terry Says: October 3rd, 2006 at 8:59 amFor one thing, al Qaeda’s analysis was letters to each other informing each other of their problems. It isn’t as if they were trying to convince us.
You seem to want to move away from certain points. We were talking about accusations that Clinton didn’t do enough and then you take other parts of what someone says to justify your belief that the war in Iraq was a mistake. I disagree for these reasons:
Saddam was supporting terrorists in various ways to include allowing training to be conducted within his country and providing money to the families of suicide bombers.
Those that say that Saddam and al Qaeda were not colloborating together because Saddam was too sectarian to please al Qaeda are ignoring the fact that Muslims consider “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” to be a reason to colloborate together. Don’t forget that we are the “Great Satan”.
Saddam still had, at the very least, the capability of ramping up programs for creating WMD’s. It is still my belief that he had weapons and that those weapons were moved out of Iraq. So far no one has been able to provide information as to what it was that the Russians were doing with convoys going into Syria. So long as Saddam had the capability, if not the actual weapons, to provide weapons to terrorists, he was a danger.
Now for CYA. I hardly consider it that. While the war in Iraq probably will be a reason for some to sign up to be terrorists, in the long run the war in Iraq will hurt al Qaeda’s capabilities.
Cosrai Says: October 3rd, 2006 at 12:46 pmI see Clinton’s reaction to Wallace in a bigger picture than just whether or not Bill was lying. The fact is Clinton is not President, Bush is. Also, the Republicans hold both the Executive and the Legislative branches. And the upcoming elections have, at least in my opinion, a lot riding on the overall perception by the voters of the two parties. So Clinton’s outburst, or more accurately the questions he raised in regards to the handling of 9/11 (which happened under Bush’s watch), is as much (or more) a part of the issue here as what Clinton actually did or didn’t do while in office. Unless, of course, you just want to focus on whether Clinton was lying. Which if that’s the case you might as well still be pondering the blue dress and Whitewater and forget about the impact this may have in November.
I thought we were the ones who consider “the enemy of my enemy is my friend?” Doesn’t that explain our support of Saddam one moment then our support of Iran the next? Does that make us Muslims ourselves? I don’t think so, anymore than grouping Saddam’s regime with all Muslims proves he was collaborating with al Qaeda.
But if I was getting off subject here, by noting a shared sentiment by both Scheur and Clarke (both of which you brought to the discussion), why are you wanting to go down that road even further? To summarize, you are in the minority in your views on Iraq. Your connective rationale of collaboration between Saddam and al Qaeda, Saddam’s supposed potential to make WMD’s, and the Syrian/Russian “missing” WMD’s explanations, have all the veracity of conspiracy theories. Obviously we can all believe what we want, but at some point the preponderence of evidence leads to certain shared realities for the majority.
Terry Says: October 4th, 2006 at 6:07 amIt seems that some continue to try to defend Clinton. The statement that Bush is president now and not Clinton just seems like a ploy to deflect comments away from criticism of Clinton. But it seems to be a normal tactic for many to only blame the current president. While 9/11 itself did happen on during Bush’s presidency, don’t forget that he had only been President for 8 months. So, are you saying that it was all Bush’s fault and that al Qaeda and bin Ladin did all the planning and logistics of the attack within that 8 months?
Your claim that I am in the minority in my opinion on Iraq is based on what? Polls? Any reasonably intelligent person knows that polls are a flawed reasoning because of how the poll questions are worded, who is polled, where the poll respondents live, whether or not the respondents wish to lie, and other factors. I have long said that polls are basically worthless due to that and the only true poll to consider are elections themselves. Is you claim based on the media? Well, we all know that the media is largely left leaning, so their opinions are far from the a basis to make claims upon.
Cosrai Says: October 4th, 2006 at 4:16 pmWhat I tire of is the constant blame game against Clinton by some on the right. Am I defending him? Only in the sense of defending the truth. I’m a lifelong registered Republican and voted for Bush in 2000.
It seems many like to stretch the blame game from presidency to presidency until the time comes to blame their side. The bad economy George Bush has fostered was all Clinton’s fault, while the good economy Clinton managed was all due to Bush Sr’s efforts.
The truth, undisputed by any opinions, is that George Bush had 8 months to thwart a conspiracy to fly airplanes into the World Trade towers after receiving warning (the amount can be disputed) from the previous administration. Now, you can point fingers at Clinton, and say what about the World Trade Tower bombing in 1993? Well, that occurred on February 26th. That gave Clinton about 2 months to thwart that attack. Using the same logic with Clinton as you want to use with Bush, Clinton should be absolved four times over for what happened to the World Trade Towers. Or would it be better if we blamed Reagan for it? Your choice.
I know, I know. Polls are worthless, the media is flawed, etc., etc. So what, pray tell, do we use as any measure of the opinion of the populace? Stick a finger in the wind? Use a divining rod? Maybe a seance?
Like I said earlier, people can believe anything they want but at some point there needs to be a reckoning with reality. You are in the minority in your opinion by any measurement of the opinions of people man has yet devised. If you have a better one then share it with us. Or better yet, share it with the world and become a millionaire.
Cosrai Says: October 4th, 2006 at 9:11 pmI didn’t have time to add this earlier, so with Farrah’s indulgence I’ll do it now.
You say we all know the media is left leaning, as if that is an established, undisputed fact. I’ve had this discussion on many occcasions and you may (or may not) find it interesting to know those on the left make the exact opposite claim- saying the media is obviously right leaning. My take on it all is the media may be populated by liberal leaning reporters but by and large it is owned and managed by conservatives. I believe the media owes its allegiance to the almighty dollar, and little else. It prints or shows what entices the most people to buy their papers or magazines or listen to their broadcasts.
To clarify, my saying you are in the minority with your Iraq views goes beyond mere polling of public opinion. There has been plenty written and said on the subject from sources outside the media (such as President Bush himself, our Republican led Congress, and our intelligence community) that do not support your views.
Terry Says: October 5th, 2006 at 10:56 amCosrai,
In reference to political leanings of the media, the link below is interesting.
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664
More later on some of your other points.
Cosrai Says: October 5th, 2006 at 2:05 pmYes, I’ve read this before. Let me ask you, do you think Drudge is left leaning? Or do you think the following, ABC’s “World News Tonight,” NBC’s “Nightly News,” USA Today, NBC’s “Today Show,” Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR’s “Morning Edition,” CBS’ “Early Show” and The Washington Post are less liberal than Joe Lieberman? Well, this is what this study purports and I don’t believe it. I think their measuring stick is a bit off, but then again, that’s just my opinion.
Here’s an interesting take on the subject of media bias by a Libertarian blogger. Especially note the Chris Mattehws reference towards the bottom.
http://blog.mshiltonj.com/2006/05/28/on-mainstream-media-bias-proof-that-people-see-what-they-want-to-see/
And here’s something to go along with my theory, that the media reports whatever sells papers or ups their ratings:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62453-2004Jun22.html
An excerpt:
All news organizations must satisfy their audiences. If they don’t, they go out of business. “Media bias is product differentiation,” says James T. Hamilton of Duke University; his book “All the News That’s Fit to Sell” shows how economic forces powerfully shape news judgments. If liberals and conservatives migrate to rival media camps, both camps may ultimately submit to the same narrow logic: like-minded editors and reporters increasingly feeding like-minded customers stories that reinforce their world view.
Terry Says: October 5th, 2006 at 7:17 pm“It seems many like to stretch the blame game from presidency to presidency until the time comes to blame their side. The bad economy George Bush has fostered was all Clinton’s fault, while the good economy Clinton managed was all due to Bush Sr’s efforts.”
This is because that is how the economy works. The economy generally has a slow reaction to the actions and policies of a President, except in the case a some major tax CUTS. That is because business leaders and owners have a tendency to be optimistic. Following a tax INCREASE, the tend to wait and see what happens with their cash flow and profits before scaling backing and letting people go. On the other hand, after a tax CUT, they react quicker to expand and rehire because they know their profits will be taxed less. Reagan’s tax cuts were instrumental in creating a long term growth in the economy. Bush Sr’s tax increase at the end of his term had little effect, but after Clinton raised them yet again in 1993 it began a slowing effect. Thus, we saw a recession before the end of Clintons second term. By contrast, GWB instituted a significant tax cut which had a quicker effect on the rebound of the economy, ever after 9/11.
As far as Bush’s “bad economy” is concerned, the stock markets are at record or near record highs, home ownership is at record highs, and we are seeing “statistically full” employment. Meaning that the low percentage of unemployed is a percentage that will never go away because there will always be a small percentage that isn’t working. So, what do you consider in measuring a good or bad economy?
I don’t ever recall saying anything about Clinton not being able to prevent WTC 1993. He could no more have known that would happen like it did than Bush could have known al Qaeda would hijack planes and crash them into buildings. However, after several attacks on Americans or American property like the embassies, Clinton promised something would be done to get and punish those responsible. So, what did he do to keep those promises?
Polls: pay close attention to the specifics of the polls. Were the respondents listed as “adults” (less likely to vote then others), “registered voters” (more likely than “adults” but less than-), “likely voters” (more likely to vote than the first categories? How were the questions phrased and what answers were available to choose from? Where and how many respondents were asked? Many times, different media outlets conduct polls, and then they break major news stories about how “Bush sucks and starves babies” according to this poll they have taken. (Yes I took a little liberty with the one phrase.) Point is, the media takes polls and tries to present the results as major news. Thus the gullible public is subjected to negative stories and then when the next poll is taken, the tend to think, “I remember a story saying that ‘Bush sucks and starves babies’, and since I can’t believe that the news would lie because they could be sued, it must be true.” Then guess what….the next poll bears out the first. Are you one of the gullible?
You may be right on one point. The media sells papers and advertising on tv so they must be conservative. So then, if the New York Times and the Los Angeles times are selling what people want (so the can get the almighty dollar), why is it that their subscriber base keeps shrinking and they have to keep laying off employees and making their papers smaller? The parent company of the Los Angeles Times is about to fire someone at the newspaper because they refuse to cut back on staff like the parent company is demanding. As for the broadcast media, the FOX News channel is getting most of the higher ratings. Why then, doesn’t the “alphabet” channels in both broadcast and cable changing their marketing to regain their lost ratings? Perhaps it isn’t really conservatives that are running things at those “liberal” media locations.
Media bias: I suggest two of Bernard Goldberg’s books. The first one I suggest is “Bias” and the second is entitled “Arrogance”. He has another one out entitled “110 People Who Are Screwing Up America”, but I haven’t read that one yet. Bernard Goldberg worked for CBS and basically became a pariah after publishing “Bias” because he documented and explained why the media is biased and can’t recognize it. Goldberg is a “social liberal” by his own admission. Fiscally, I think he is more moderate.
The UCLA study is flawed to some degree. Their only source for their study seemed to be the ADA (Americans for Democratic Action), which rates congressmen by how they vote for liberal causes. There didn’t seem to be any mention of the ACU (American Conservative Union) numbers. The ACU ranks congressmen based on how they vote on conservative issues. So, the UCLA study is flawed because it doesn’t study multiple sources. As for ABC’s “World News Tonight,†NBC’s “Nightly News,†USA Today, NBC’s “Today Show,†Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR’s “Morning Edition,†CBS’ “Early Show†and The Washington Post, from what I have seen and read from those sources, I would actually rate them MORE liberal than Joe Lieberman. Maybe that is why it just kills me to consume any of their news. Many times the bias is so obvious.
Cosrai Says: October 5th, 2006 at 8:19 pmTerry,
I’ve heard much of your arguments about media bias about two years ago, including reading the Goldberg book.
I define a good economy by how the middle class is doing. My reasoning is that without a strong middle class America is just a third world country with good haircuts. Currently, under Bush, personal savings are at a low not seen since the Great Depression. The gap betwen the rich and the poor has widened faster than at any other time in the past 30 years, and the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few has increased to the point that the 500 richest people are all worth more than a Billion dollars. Go tell the story about how tax cuts to the upper tiers (trickle down economics) is driving job growth to all those that have been laid off due to mergers, acquisitions, and plant closings. Net job growth has stagnated under Bush, so those rosy unemployment numbers are so much smoke and mirrors. Personal real wages have also stagnated in the past 6 years. Home ownership is up, but so is the percentage of people paying 50% of their gross income on mortgages. With a looming burst of the housing bubble, it won’t take much to drive the mortgaged to their eyeballs middle class out into the streets. Health care costs have continued to outpace inflation and businesses are shucking their retirement plans to lay off debt and place it on the government’s shoulders. Bush’s tax cuts and increase spending policies have eroded faith in the dollar with an ever growing trade imbalance while shouldering future generations with a national debt that only ever be corrected through draconian tax increases. Basically, Bush thinks deficit spending is inconsequential. OIl is at $60 a barrel and gasoline spiked to over $3 a gallon (talk about your political timing, how’s $2 a gallon gas just weeks before the election?). Yes, the rich are certainly doing quite well in Bush’s America, but everyone else is not so fortunate.
If your theories of economics are correct, then we have to keep going back in time to Carter. Apparently his significant cut on the Capital Gains tax was the spark that gave the Reagan years their economic sparkle. The Clinton recession, which started in about 1999, occurred six years after his tax increase? Are you saying business reacts so slowly to tax increases it takes six years to materialize a downturn? Then explain how Clinton got elected on the “It’s the economy stupid” platform if Bush Sr.’s tax increase had fewer years to afffect business? Or are you going to say the economy was rocking along under Bush Sr. as well? That’s why all those stupid voters (your idea of a poll) voted him out after one term. Or was it the failings of Reagan just taking hold? It seems in your world the economy is only good when Republicans are President or when their policies come to fruition under lucky Democrats. Sorry, but I don’t buy it.
And Clinton prosecuted and punished six terrorists in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Did you forget that?
Lastly, you’re still talking about polls when I said it’s more than polls that put your views on Iraq in the minority. Do you have an answer to why President Bush has said there was no connection to Saddam and Al Qaeda and there were no WMD’s in Iraq? Do you have an answer to why the 9/11 report says ther same thing? Or are both Bush and Congress wrong on this one, along with the pollsters?
Terry Says: October 6th, 2006 at 9:50 amBut, Cosrai. Have you read either of Goldberg’s books? Just because you have heard my arguments doesn’t mean anything unless you can really refute what Goldberg states in his books. Much of what I say about media bias has been written about in his books. I’m merely asking you to read the books and then comments.
You are defining a good or bad econony based on how well the middle class is doing? As for the gap between rich and poor, couldn’t that “widening” gap possibly be because the risk takers in business are taking advantage of a good economy? As far as mergers and aquisitions is concerned, that happens during both good and bad economies. Plant closings and “downsizing” are also a natural effect in business. For example, when was the last time you saw buggy whips in a retail store? Technology brought about the automobiles and all those buggy whip makers were suddenly out of business. Was that because of that evil “rich” Henry Ford or whomever was president that year?
Speaking of that last statement, how many factors of our economy are actually controlled by a President? How much can a president or congress actually do about the price of oil, and thus, the price at the pump? Are they setting the prices, or is supply and demand and the actions of the futures traders having more of an effect?
Also, we have been hearing about the housing bubble breaking for quite some time. Most of that is pure speculation. And as far as my economic “theories” are concerned, I hate to say it but they ARE taught in colleges because the one who explained all of that to me was a college professor. For your Carter example, don’t forget it takes more than just a tax cut or increase to explain some results. In addition to that tax cut by Carter, he also embargoed Iran after the hostage taking in Iran. That led to gas shortages, which will definitely be a negative factor on business because of the sudden increase in transportation cost on goods and services. So, while he did cut taxes a bit, the results of the oil embargo far outweighed the benefit of the tax cut. You need to look at more of a picture than just one part.
As for Clinton and his “its the economy, stupid” campaign, that was pure hype dreamed up purely for the 2000 election. If one repeats the same negative story about someone or something long enough, some people will begin to believe. Also, Bush had raised taxes (after receiving promises from congress that were never fulfilled), so he was hammered with the “read my lips, no new taxes” comment by the Democrats and the media. However, keep in mind if it hadn’t been for Perot being a candidate in 1992 and 1996, Clinton probably wouldn’t have been elected. I have heard others say that Perot siphoned off democrat votes more so than republican votes. However, I have seen nothing in the way of proof of that. However, I do know that Clinton never had a majority.
As far as Iraq is concerned, it is a fact that there was an al Qaeda training facility north of Baghdad, and another training center at Salman Pak that had an airliner for the purpose of training people to take one over. It was also reported that that location had railroad cars and buses. Huh, I wonder who might have wanted to practice on those? WMD’s have been found, WMD technology was being hidden by Iraqi scientists, Iraqi military personnel had reported the secret movement of “materiel” from Iraq to Syria. Wonder what that all means. Perhaps, since the President can’t “prove” that those were done yet, I suspect he is merely covering the bases until he gets proof.
Cosrai Says: October 6th, 2006 at 1:47 pmLet me ask you, have you read either of Al Franken’s books? They pretty much refute what Goldberg writes. Really, I don’t have the time or the inclination to read Goldberg, or the book I cited in one of my posts. I have read several excerpts, commentaries, and associated regarding Goldberg’s theories and from that I couldn’t see much to support a definitive intent of bias.
I see the claim of media bias pretty much like an accusation that a crime has been committed. In either case, there has to be a motive established. I just can’t see a clear motive for the majority of the Mainstream Media (a term I think needs definition to begin with) to favor the left to the point of attempting to sway elections one way or another. Like I said before, it can be pretty easily established most rank and file journalists are left leaning in their personal views. But the ones who pick the placement of the articles, the headlines, and the choice of articles are the editors, and they have to answer to management.
Yes, I definitely gauge the health of the American economy on the health of the middle class. Without it, who’s going to buy all those things the risk takers are selling? Mergers and acquisitions do occur in all economic cycles, but the policies and attitudes of the government can affect the numbers and types. As an example, we now have AT&T basically reassembling itself after their forced breakup through acquisitions and mergers of SBC, and others, that wouldn’t have gotten past the SEC a decade ago.
I will agree with you to a point about the widening income gap. The risk takers are certainly taking advantage of something, but it’s not so much a broadbased economic boom as it is a boom that profits them most. They are reaping more from the current government policies than the rest of us. Bush Sr. said it best, trickle down economics is voodoo economics. It exposes the greatest vulnerability of capitalism, namely greed. As Americans we applaud those that do well, but only to a point. When the gap between rich and middle class gets too great the people will speak and the government will step in to take the edge off our capitalistic society. Mark my words, that day is not that far off. This is the biggest threat to the Republicans because they have exasperated that gap.
And blaming it all on advancing technology is just more trickle down propaganda. The jobs Bush has created are for the most part either government jobs, or low paying. Neither is good. And yes, the President does have an influence by setting the tone of the country through policies, selections of personnel, and the Bully Pulpit. You are answering your own quesiton with your teatise on Carter’s mistakes and your never-ending villification of Clinton. Is it only Republican Presidents that have no influence on the economy and are simply the victims of bad events? That makes no sense. If Carter and Clinton affected the economy then Bush Sr. and Jr. must have as well. The difference, at least with Clinton, was the results were positive.
You are correct, the housing bubble is based on speculation, just like the natural has bubble, the technology bubble, and any other bubble. So what does that have to do with anything? Are you saying because the housing bubble is speculation based it has no merit as a bubble? No matter the cause, when middle income wage earners who have tapped their home’s rising equity like an ATM machine suddenly find themselves upside down on their mortgage, what’s gonna’ happen? Good times? Oh wait, that will probably happen when a Democrat is President so it will be his fault.
So, without Perot Bush Sr. would have been elected? Was that taught by that same economics professor you had? Just kidding… In my opinion, Bush Sr. suffered from the same disjoint from reality Bush Jr. has. They think if they believe everything is going fine it must mean it is. Perot wasn’t running on the economy is great platform, after all. He was saying the economy was suffering as well. Bush Sr. was hammered from those in his own party on his “read my lips…” line, not just the Democrats and the media. And yes, Clinton never had a simple majority, but so what? He got more votes than the other two. Heck, Bush Jr. hasn’t had a decisive majority with only two candidates running, and actually lost the popular vote the first time.
Lastly, with all the assets at the disposal of the President he still can’t prove what you’re saying about Iraq. With that in mind, what makes you think you are right about any of this? What proof do you have that’s better than the President’s?
Cosrai Says: October 6th, 2006 at 1:54 pmTerry, I also wanted to let you know I left you some more religious thoughts to ponder over here:
http://raisingfarrahzona.com/2006/09/21/a-question-for-debate/#comments
Terry Says: October 7th, 2006 at 5:24 pm“Let me ask you, have you read either of Al Franken’s books? They pretty much refute what Goldberg writes. Really, I don’t have the time or the inclination to read Goldberg, or the book I cited in one of my posts. I have read several excerpts, commentaries, and associated regarding Goldberg’s theories and from that I couldn’t see much to support a definitive intent of bias.”
You don’t have the time or inclination to read Goldbert, or the book YOU cited in one of your posts? You have read excerpts, commentaries, and assiciated (?) regarding Goldberg’s theories..?
Unbelievable. From what you read you you couldn’t see much to “support a definitive intent of bias.? If you don’t wish to read Goldberg and ACTUALLY see what it is he says, how can you know that your excerpts, etc., have any credibility if you can’t compare the two sources? And your reference to Goldberg’s “theories” seems strange. The man worked at CBS for a number of years, including with Dan Rather. I think it would be best described as evidence, not theories. If nothing more, he had credible OBSERVATIONS of what the media was doing.
Franken? You must be simply throwing out an individual who happens to be on the opposite side of the political spectrum. If not, keep in mind that Franken, although educated, chose to become a comedian. It leaves me wondering where his political education has been. I don’t know how well his books sold, but I do know that his radio show is so close to being down the drain that I feel sorry for the man. Having said that, I don’t know how much he might have in influence regarding the operation of Air America, so the fact that the network(?) it’s failing may not be able to be linked directly to him.
Perhaps I have just read the wrong excerpts and commentaries of and about Al Franken, but from what I have read, I am not impressed with him.
“I see the claim of media bias pretty much like an accusation that a crime has been committed. In either case, there has to be a motive established. I just can’t see a clear motive for the majority of the Mainstream Media (a term I think needs definition to begin with) to favor the left to the point of attempting to sway elections one way or another.”
Motive? Suppose those “rank and file journalists are left leaning in their personal views” have a real desire to see a liberal in office. Is it not possible that their bias, and thus desire, would give them a motive?
How do you explain that a newspaper runs a “racial” story on George Allen of Virginia on the front page and an even worse “racial” story on his opponent buried in some obscure place inside the paper? How does that show as an example how editors are “answering to management”. As far as management is concerned, you are the first that I have heard say that management is conservative while the newsroom is more liberal. There have been many more examples of newspapers putting conservative scandal on the front page and liberal scandal inside. I won’t bother to go research them and present them due to your lack of time and inclination.
Since you are ignoring economic indicators that are used by business and government agencies to guage the health of the economy, I won’t continue with economic FACTS for you. Like Goldberg’s books, you may not have the time and inclination.
If I am so wrong, please inform me of what specifically Carter and Clinton did to HELP the economy. I didn’t say that president’s didn’t have an effect on the economy. In post #23 I explained how the economy usually has a slow reaction to presidential policies and actions. The gist of which was that tax cuts have a quicker effect than tax increases. Go back and read what I wrote.
Look at what happened when Ralph Nader ran. Perhaps you may be able to understand why the Democrats tried to get him to NOT RUN. They knew that Nader would siphon votes from the Democrat base away from the Democratic Party candidate. So my assertion that Perot affected the 1992 and 1996 elections is valid. Sorry that real facts are getting in your way. As for Bush Jr.’s elections, the 2004 election saw him win with one of the highest percentage of margins.
Iraq. The training camps did exist. Saddam did have WMD’s. I put two and two together and with my understanding of Islam and Muslims, I say Saddam was a threat. Everyone wants to parse words, for instance that the 500 rockets and artillery shells that were later found were pre 1991. Point is, they were there and Muslims do have the ability to figure out how to use even a weapon that can’t be used as it was intended. But why bother. Time and inclination work against you.
I saw the posts on religion. I’m still reading through the one from the “encyclopedia”, and since it is so long, it will take some time. While I am still wrapping my mind around some of the wording, there MAY be a contradiction in there. At any rate, thanks for the links. They are interesting, though not convincing to me as yet. I would have many more questions but we are doing enough damage to Farrah’s bandwidth. (Sorry, Farrah.)
Cosrai Says: October 9th, 2006 at 1:46 pmSo, I have to read any books you prescribe I read that further your point of view. If I don’t, and rely on multiple excerpts and reviews, I am somehow lacking? You certainly must have more time on your hands than I do. I honestly don’t have the time to read Goldberg’s, or a lot of other books, so the best I can do is gather from the available resources the gist of their position from excerpts and other sources. If you want to call Goldberg’s books an observation rather than a theory, go ahead. Either way, they are not proven fact, and that’s all that really matters in this context. Like you with Franken, I’m not impressed.
Yes, Al Franken chose comedy before politics. Reagan chose acting before politics. I don’t see your point. People who choose one career are not limited to it the rest of their lives. You can certainly go on about how Air America show is going down the drain, but it doesn’t mean Franken’s books, and the information presented, is false.
The point I make with asking if you have read Franken is that you telling me what to read makes no more sense than my telling you what to read. Franken makes a lot of interesting observations, and has done a sizable amount of research, in writing his books. But I doubt you would ever accept any of it as fact because of your bias against the author, or more importantly, the author’s subject matter. I’ll admit this may be why I feel the way I do about Goldberg, as well. But until you read Franken don’t think you have some moral or intellectual superiority over me because I don’t want to take the time to read Goldberg.
There are examples of negative stories about right wing politicos getting buried in newspapers as well as those of left wingers. And I thank you for not wasitng my time linking to all of them. The trouble in all this is proving media bias is pretty much impossible. Sure, you can list a study here , or a study there, but most of them only come up with bias statistics that are relatively small and whose analysis is dependent on a subjective measuring point. One can say the media is left of Congress, but then again, the majority of Congress is right at the moment.
So that’s where it gets to motive for bias. You say the fact journalists are left leaning should be enough. Like they’re all a bunch of Birkenstock wearing ex-hippies who want to see the “man” put in his place. I say the only motive that makes sense for any mainstream media source is making money for their corporate owners. And the source they have for making money is selling advertising. If they alienate their customers too much with an obvious bias then people will quit buying (or watching) and their advertising profits go down. So by its very nature, mainstream media has to be somewhere near the middle in its bias for fear of losing customers. Sure, some may be more left, or some may be more right, but none of them that exist to make a profit are going to be so far one way or the other to lose a significant amount of market share. It just doesn’t make good business sense.
It is an economic fact that the health of the middle class is an important gauge of economic prosperity. Why do you think they measure such things as CPI, same store sales, job growth, real wage earnings, median family income, consumer confidence, etc.? Just to see how the Dow was doing? No, it’s to measure how the middle class is doing. You know, the people who buy all this stuff. And by the way, while Bush can take credit for a record with the 30 companies in the DJIA, the other indices, like the S&P 500, aren’t doing so hot. Explin that away with your economic FACTS.
I’m just trying to follow your theories on Presidents and their effects on the economy. The only thing you seem to be able to cite is that tax cuts have a faster effect on the economy than other measures. Sounds good. Now, can you tell me what the long term effects of these tax cuts are other than massive budget deficits? It happened under Reagan, and now under Bush Jr. But when Clinton raised taxes the economy just kept on running.
A couple things Carter and Clinton did for the economy:
Carter- Deregulated the airlines, trucking, railroads interest rates, and oil. I’d say he cut the Capital Gains tax from 39% to 28% and it was a good thing, but it actually ended up working the other way. Better yet, he appointed Volcker as Chariman of the Federal Reserve. Volcker’s double digit interest rates curbed the double digit inflation headed Carter’s way since the sixties, and his expansion of the monetary supply in 1982 helped fuel the magic of Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts.
Clinton- At the time he took office the budget deficits were huge and pulling the market down. To combat this he shrunk the government, including the civilian government work force, from a 21.5% share of GDP to 18.3% (which was double Reagan’s reduction). And by raising taxes he balanced the budget. BTW, that’s why Bush Sr. raised taxes as well. So it could be argued Reaganomics (and the recession of the late 1980’s) cost Bush his second term.
The bottom line was that under Reagan the growth rate was 3.4%, under Clinton 3.6%. Not much different for two completely different theories of government. In the end, Presidents need to do what needs to be done at the time. Sometimes that means cutting taxes, sometimes it means raising taxes. That’s the problem with Bush Jr., he doesn’t seem to know what needs to be done so he just cuts taxes.
I never said Perot didn’t affect the 1992 election. But it is in dispute whether he siphoned votes mostly from Bush, or from both Bush and Clinton evenly. Those real facts aren’t getting in my way. And neither are these. In the 1996 election, Clinton received 49.2% compared to 40.7% for Dole and 8.4% for Perot. If every single voter who voted for Perot would have voted for Clinton, Dole still would have lost by a pencil thin margin. Bush Jr. won in 2004 with 50.7% of the vote to Kerry’s 48.3%. The only significance of that margin was that it was the first time a president won a simple majority in 16 years, since his father beat Dukakis 53.4% to 45.6%. Bush’s 2004 results were closer to the 50.1% to 48.0% margin Carter had over Ford in 1976. Whoopee!
I’m not parsing words when it comes to Iraq. I’m just agreeing with Bush Jr. on this one. After all, he was the one who said we needed to go to war there to stop those al Qaeda connections and Saddam’s WMD’s. Either he was a fool, or a liar, and neither one is good. Which do you think he was? Or was Bush just parsing words before the invasion, knowing full well Saddam had no connection to those training camps and there were no current WMD’s or WMD program?
I’m surprised you’re reading the full account in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I thought the historical account of Bibles printed in America, by Rev. Ken Collins, was the more challenging of the two links. He’s not Catholic, btw, but Disciples of Christ.
Apologies to Farrah as well.
Cosrai Says: October 9th, 2006 at 9:21 pm“If every single voter who voted for Perot would have voted for Clinton, Dole still would have lost by a pencil thin margin.”
Correction, it should read:
“If every single voter who voted for Perot would have voted for Dole, Dole still would have lost by a pencil thin margin.”
Terry Says: October 12th, 2006 at 11:10 amYou should really just sign the posts “No time or inclination”.
First of all, Goldberg is a journalist and familiar with producing news stories. Franken is a comedian with a side line of political commentary. Please tell me how it is that Franken can refute Goldberg regarding media bias. Beyond that, if you wish to remain in denial about media bias, that fits with your “no time on inclination” comment.
In regards to my asking about you reading Goldberg: you have not refuted what he writes of this “observations” (not “theories” as you professed earlier). I just thought you might like to see what he has written.
I have been waiting for someone to say that the tax cuts leads to deficits. You have not disappointed me. Thanks. Now for the explanation, which I’m not sure you will accept.
Deficits are created when expenditures are MORE than what revenues to the treasury are. However, while you state that tax cuts are the cause, I beg to differ. Tax cuts have in the past and currently are creating an INCREASE in revenues to the treasury. (That means more coming in than what what was coming in before the tax cuts.) Therefore, the reason for the deficits is too much SPENDING. While I believe that there is too much spending, the deficit is LESS than what was previously forcasted because of the increase in revenue due to the tax cuts. And I might ask, who is in control of Congress at the time of the deficits? The House of Representatives is charged with creating bills regarding either tax cuts or spending.
As I said, I believe there is too much spending, and there is much that has happened during GWB’s terms in office that has pressured both the President and Congress to spend. Not only the terrorist attacks and the response to them, but also natural disasters. But again, the deficit is declining. The “tax cuts create deficits” crowd really hate to hear the truth.
Regarding growth rates during the Reagan and Clinton administrations, what party was primarily in control of Congress during those times? Do you not believe that the actions of Congress might be a factor on growth rate based on their actions? The slight difference between the two administrations may be caused by congressional control.
“That’s the problem with Bush Jr., he doesn’t seem to know what needs to be done so he just cuts taxes.”
Why don’t you just join the crowd that says that Bush is stupid? I heard arguments from a liberal just this last Sunday that I refuted so well that he left saying that Hitler was the “father” of conservatism. Typical liberal comment as he walked away so that I wasn’t allowed the opportunity to refute that comment as well. Bush has said ever since he was running for President the first time that he would cut taxes. Your comment seem to imply that he doesn’t know what he is doing, but I believe that he is well aware of economic results from various forces.
As for the Clinton/Dole race, I apologize for being wrong on that one. After your comments, I went back to check and found that the original numbers that I had seen regarding that race was incomplete. Sorry about that.
I am more interested in the Catholic document because it is the Catholic document. I’m not as interested in the historical account of bible printing in America as I am in what the Catholics are teaching. As I mentioned in an earlier post, there could be a contradiction. Apparently the early years of the Catholic church did not recognize the “extra” books of the bible, but they were later added. I’m just wondering what the later “scholars” knew that the earlier ones didn’t know. I would have thought that the earlier ones would have had better access to accounts of eye witness testimonies.
Cosrai Says: October 12th, 2006 at 1:59 pmTerry,
Why not stop with the personal attacks? I might suggest you sign, “don’t respond to pointed questions.”
What Goldberg has written is just his opinion, theory, observation, etc. To my knowledge (and you can certainly dispute this if you like) his book is simply anecdoctal evidence, making Franken’s book just as valid in refuting it as anything else. Goldberg may have been a journalist, but he was not a scientist. I am in no state of denial about media bias, I am simply waiting to see some real evidence it exists, and what motivation there is behind it. Something more than “they’re all a bunch of liberals.”
You have not disappointed me as well. I knew the “tax cuts increase revenues” argument was coming. Lest you forget, after six years of Republican control of both the Executive and Legislative branches, the deficit is still staggering at $296 billion. Yes, there has been some recent short term relief, due to an increase in revenues. 40% of those increases have come from Corporate taxes. While this may seem like good news, it’s not really surprising. The tax cuts of 2004 allowed those businesses to defer tax debts until this year, so really this “increase” is due in a big part to taxes that were deferred two years earlier. And this increase is still less than the increase experienced in the high tax late 90’s.
More importantly, the White House forecast is that the deficit will continue to increase to $339 billion by 2007. Or is this all smoke and mirrors, because that same forecast says it will magically decrease to $188 billion the next year- the year of the next election? Were I a cynical person, I’d say all this number crunching is pure politics timed to match election cycles.
You ask, who was in control of the Congress during these deficits? Well, the Republicans have been in control of Congress since 1994, so I guess they were spending away during good times (surplus) and bad. Or is this just another excuse for Bush’s poor performance? Now it’s Congress’ fault. Oh wait, no, it’s all those bad things that have happened on Bush’s watch. If all those bad things were pushing the deficit then why reduce taxes? I’m not saying increase taxes, why reduce taxes? But if the deficit increase was due to the spending of Congress, then why has Bush not vetoed a single bill to reign in that spending?
Bottom line is you’re celebrating a reduction of the deficit to $296 billion when Bush inherited a budget surplus just six years ago of $284 billion. Not to mention increasing the national debt to $3 trillion. If Bush leaves office with a balanced budget I might agree with you that tax cuts work, but so far there has been no proof whatsoever that tax cuts spur long term deficit reduction. But then again, so long as you can lower taxes and keep the economy churning for now, who cares about the long term, right? But I will agree with you wholeheartedly that there is way too much spending.
I don’t follow you on the Reagan/Clinton year question of who was in control of Congress. The Democrats had it under Reagan and the Republicans had it for most of the Clinton years. So are you saying they controlled the economic growth, or is it the balance between the two branches resulted in similar numbers?
Okay, I’ll say it. Bush is stupid. Or is it something else? I really don’t know, but I don’t compare him to Hitler either way. What I do know is his economic policy is flawed and the only tact he seems to take, no matter the events, is lower taxes. Nothing else, just lower taxes. That doesn’t appear smart to me and a lot of other folks, some on both sides of the aisle (no polls here, just pure anecdotal evidence).
I find the historical account of the printing of the Bible interesting because it explains why there are more books in the Catholic Bible than the one you use. That was the original question, wasn’t it? If you want to examine why there were more books in the beginning and less later in the Catholic Bible, you come to the crux of my argument. That this thing called the Bible is a Catholic compilation. There is the possibility (although unlikely) that even today the Church may choose to add or subtract from it, as it is, after all, a Catholic item of reference.
A major difference between Catholicism and many other religions, from my perspective, is the near deification of the Bible by these other religions. Catholics follow the Canon and the Canon was the basis for what was included in the Bible. This is the explanation for the contradiction you see- the Canon came before the Bible making the books included in the Bible subject to change in the work of compiling a reference in agreement with the teachings of the Apostles. And at the Council of Trent there were no eye witnesses left. This is one reason, in my opinion, there was so much discussion and study as to what needed to be included.
Kelly Says: October 12th, 2006 at 7:09 pmTerry,
Cosrai has more than adequately covered the majority of my thoughts on your past two posts. I have one outstanding question though…why is it that you feel Goldberg, though a prize winning journalist, would have a more worthy opinion than Franken on anything.
Franken built his comedic career on a life long interest and study of politics. From my vantage point, I see two smart men with very different political leanings and opinions. I am more interested in what Franken has to say. Perhaps I am biased as my exposure to Franken’s writings is greater than that of Goldberg’s.
I did read 100% of Goldberg’s most recent book, 100 people who are screwing up America. I was amazed that a prize winning Journalist would choose to spend the time and resources to basically trash 100 people. I found many of his comments witty, many weak, agreed with a few, and felt that some were just good old fashioned juicy trash talk. Overall though, it left me with the feeling that he had stooped to…oh yea, what Franken does.
Somehow, his writing did not inspire me to go buy one of his earlier books. After reading your post to Cosrai I thought, well maybe reading one book is not enough to form an opinion. So I picked up Biased at the used book store last night and have been plowing through it. I am two thirds through it and have come to the realization that if he has not make his case to me by this point, why keep reading?
Honestly Terry, we read more of what we like and are inspired by. Some of us read some of the opposing views to keep things in perspective. That does not mean that someone’s opinion is not as worthy as yours just because they were smart enough not to believe that you have to “read up” on everything to have your opinion be worthy.
I do enjoy your posts though as your commentary is smart and it sounds as if you have done a good bit of homework to reinforce your opinion. Reading the sparing between you and Cosrai who reads as having an equally smart and well researched opinion has reminded me that this diversity of opinion is what has made our country great.
Oh, and Bush is stupid.
Cosrai Says: October 12th, 2006 at 8:41 pmSorry, but another correction I need to make. The budget deficit announced today was $248 billion, not the $296 billion figure I quoted above. It gets confusing. The $296 billion figure was the projection in July. Of course, Bush saying today he’s cut the deficit in half is off as well. When he made that statement in 2004, the deficit was projected at $521 billion. Turns out it was about $100 billion less, so he still needs to save another $50 billion.
Terry Says: October 16th, 2006 at 5:27 pmWell, it is obvious that the obvious escapes people still. Kelly, our discussion with Bernard Goldberg began with the question of media bias. Key word. MEDIA. Since Golberg is a journalist, and thus a member of the MEDIA, I thought his observations would be more pertinent to media bias than Franken’s.
Perhaps you missed where Goldberg mentioned that he was a “social liberal”. Since he said nothing about his fiscal philosophy, I find it hard to say that he was definitely a Democrat. But, my guess is that he is. If so, he is not just an opposite of Franken.
Perhaps you also missed where he explained that those he wrote about in “Bias” were liberal, and that they tended to work and socialize with like minded people. Over a period of time, they developed the idea that they were “moderates” and anything they wrote was therefore centrist, not biased, and could not bring themselves to believe what Goldberg wrote in “Bias”. Then considering the treatment Goldberg got from the liberals, it would be obvious that he might be led to write “Arrogance” and then his last book. That one I haven’t read yet, so I won’t comment on it yet.
“That does not mean that someone’s opinion is not as worthy as yours just because they were smart enough not to believe that you have to “read up†on everything to have your opinion be worthy.”
The only problem I see with that comment is that some could be arrogant enough to believe that their “opinion” is enough, thus why study anything else. Shouldn’t opinion also be based on facts?
Cosrai,
I am sorry if you feel offended that I turned your own words on you in that one post. Maybe Kevin is right. While my comment was not meant as a personal attack, apparently you felt it was. I merely used your own words against you.
In one posting, you asked if my belief in living according to the Bible might not lead me to believe that I was right and others were wrong. Sorry, I’m not God. While I don’t know everything that He will judge by, I prefer to err on the side of caution and worship according to Biblical teachings. On the other hand, you admitted that the Catholic church believe they were the true church. If you subscribe to that belief, does that make you believe that you are right and no one else is?
“Goldberg may have been a journalist, but he was not a scientist.”
Since we were talking about media bias, how does science enter into that realm?
You say you aren’t in a state of denial on media bias. Yet you seem to not take into account the observations of a journalist, a UCLA (Berkely) study regarding bias in the media. To you, it seems that just because it goes against your opinion, it isn’t proven. Sorry, but that sounds awfully close to denial to me.
Last but not least. Both of you have stated that Bush is stupid. I would bet that is only your opinion. However, Bush has a degree and an MBA. He has run at least two businesses. That makes him more educated than me and with more business experience than me. So, does that mean you are calling me stupid as well?
What you answer doesn’t matter because I am confident in my intelligence as well as Bush’s. You have said nothing to prove his stupidity. And don’t forget, yours is only an opinion and can easily be discounted because I bet both of you have no evidence.
Now, however, I take my leave of this thread. It is getting way down in the rotation and I tire of debating with those that cannot see the obvious. Sorry if that offends you as well.
Kelly Says: October 16th, 2006 at 8:36 pmTerry,
If my point was that Franken had more media experience than Goldberg, then your observation would be correct. My point was that an “opinion” is just that, whether it be yours, mine, Franken’s or Goldberg’s. I have not found that being an insider is an adequate basis for insuring that someones opinion is irrefutable.
Nope, I didn’t miss that Goldberg believes himself to be a “social liberal” I just can’t see where being either a liberal, Democrat or both has any bearing on my comment that these two men think differently. All you have to do is spend one Thanksgiving dinner with my family full of liberals and Democrats to figure out that there are many many flavors of both. I am going out on a limb here by assuming that you and Cosrai are Republicans. If so, you seem to have very different points of view for sharing a party affiliation.
Yes, I prefer to listen to someones opinion when it is based on facts. I just don’t assume that the “fun facts” that someone prefers to “know and tell” have to be the same set as mine. I finished reading Biased as it is my personal habit to “do my research”…… but to be honest, I imagine it is more that I am a reading junkie. (hence my habit of reading blog sites).
Terry, I think that I made it quite clear in my post that I found your commentary smart and well researched. Of course, I do not think that you are stupid even if I don’t share your viewpoint. I can not see how having a degree or owning one or more successful businesses is a measure of significant intelligence. I am a corporate Financial Operations Manager for a national insurance company but have never had the time to complete my business degree. I have also built and sold two successful small side businesses. I don’t think that this makes me smarter than you or anyone else. Though, for other reasons, I do think that I am smarter than Bush.
I think that Bush is Stupid. Part of my opinion is based on the fact that the leader of our country can not even keep the functions of our executive branches straight and despite his educational advantages, he has an appalling command of the his native language. Gosh Terry, I could provide you example after example, link after link if I thought that providing proof of his stupidity would sway your opinion. Still, if his decision making ability was stronger, I might be moved to forgive him for his poor public speaking skills and his habit of making statements that are the opposite of what he means.
As for his businesses, he was not particularly successful in the oil business and only an idiot would trade Sammy Sosa. But then, that is just my opinion.
Terry, I am understand if you are tired of this exchange. I assure you that I was not offended by your comments.
Terry Says: October 21st, 2006 at 10:19 amI hadn’t intended to reply, but something needs to really be clarified.
“My point was that an “opinion†is just that, whether it be yours, mine, Franken’s or Goldberg’s. I have not found that being an insider is an adequate basis for insuring that someones opinion is irrefutable.”
“Yes, I prefer to listen to someones opinion when it is based on facts. I just don’t assume that the “fun facts†that someone prefers to “know and tell†have to be the same set as mine.”
Without some factual evidence or at least some LOGICAL progression back to factual evidence, an opinion is nothing more than pure speculation. Thus, since we have not been to Venus to collect samples and return those samples to earth for analysis, then one could speculate that Venus was made of strawberry gelatin.
For that reason, I believe that a journalist working in the business has a lot more credibility than one that merely comments on what he has heard from others, simply because the one basing comments on what he has heard may be hearing biased comments from others. Goldberg is an insider, Franken is not. Therefore, I still contend that Goldberg’s observations are more accurate and factual than Franken’s comments, provided Franken has NOT been a news media insider.
Fun facts? That leaves a lot of speculation about the validity of opinion unless one can show that one’s facts are not “fun facts”. Plus, what constitutes “fun facts?”
So, Bush is still stupid. You did leave an out for yourself. You said, “if his decision making ability was stronger, I might be moved to forgive him for his poor public speaking skills and his habit of making statements that are the opposite of what he means.” Basing on that statement, would you consider that Bush’s overall choices of cabinet members were examples of good decisions? I also could provide links and facts that Bush isn’t stupid, so based on my comment that without evidence of fact, both your opinion and mine are suspect until that those facts are seen. Then, having said THAT, if one doesn’t want to accept the facts presented by another, regardless of the validity of the arguments of facts, then you are just back to pure speculation.
Personally, I like strawberry flavored stuff.