A Richly Deserved Smackdown

Hitchens delivers a vicious beating to the idiots on the left comparing Iraq to Vietnam:

I suppose it’s obvious that I was not a supporter of the Vietnam War. Indeed, the principles of the antiwar movement of that epoch still mean a good deal to me. That’s why I retch every time I hear these principles recycled, by narrow minds or in a shallow manner, in order to pass off third-rate excuses for Baathism or jihadism. But one must also be capable of being offended objectively. The Vietnam/Iraq babble is, from any point of view, a busted flush. It’s no good. It’s a stiff. It’s passed on. It has ceased to be. It’s joined the choir invisible. It’s turned up its toes. It’s gone. It’s an ex-analogy.

Heretofore, the advocates of the Vietnam analogy will be known as the Dead Parrot society.

I also suggest that ever time a Democrat tries to raise the specter of Vietnam, you quickly retort:

“Vietnam? You mean the Democrat conceived, Democrat initiated, and Democrat run war that is widely regarded as the only war the modern United States has ever lost? That Vietnam?”

Maybe that will slow the idiots down. Doubt it. But maybe.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






84 replies
  1. 1
    BumperStickerist says:

    French-initiated, Democrat conceived ….modern war the US ever lost. That Vietnam?

  2. 2
    Kimmitt says:

    Hey, we learned our lesson and didn’t nominate anyone else from Texas. What’s your excuse?

  3. 3
    Bob says:

    Comparisons are only that, not exact equations. You can compare anything. Hitchens may not want to compare the two, but I see nothing in Hitchens’ bleat or the wraparound to explain why the two wars shouldn’t be compared. You compare not only to find similarities but also to find differences. It’s the inquisitive mind to compare things. It’s closed mind to refuse to examine parallels and differences.

    By the way, people with a very limited view of history seem to think that JFK started that war. The French colonies had been seized by the Japanese, who were eyeing the OIL across the straights in Indonesia. The native population fought with the allies for their independence. After WWII the U.S. backed the French reacquisition of area. The French collapse and takeover of the U.S. colonial effort took place in 1954. You folks can check your world almanacs, but I do believe that the Republican President Eisenhower
    was in office at the time. To say that the Vietnam War was Democrat-conceived would be a tad untruthful. It was a bipartisan effort at the least.

    I know shared guilt doesn’t have a place in your black and white world here but try.

    In 1963 JFK’s NSAM a month before his death called for the removal of all troops by 1965. Granted, we know how these promises seem to evaporate, (hey, that’s one thing we compare between Iraq and Vietnam!) but that was his policy.

    LBJ turned around the policy based on a phonied up report of the North Vietnamese attacking Americans, but then he was as tight with Texas oil as the Bushes.

    It wasn’t surprising, then, that not much more than a year or so after JFK was out of the way there was an American-aided coup in Indonesia removing the independent Sukarno and replacing him with Suharto. The U.S. embassy supplied lists of suspected Communists or sympathizers or whatever to the coup leaders, and a jassacre of somewhere between 500,000 to 1,000,000 people occurred. Many of those 1,000,000 were children. Ethnic Chinese were a major target. A guy in the American embassy, years later, said, “We just wrote the list.”

    When the American-aided coup by Pinochet overthrew a duly-elected Allende during Nixon’s reign (by the way, over 33,000 of the Americans who died died after Nixon got into office), the fascists in the streets of Santiago ran about smashing things and chanting “Jakarta! Jakarta!” What do you folks think that they meant?

    That’s the way history is. It just keeps coming up, acid-reflux style.

    Here’s something to compare: LBJ’s favorite oil construction firm, Brown and Root, made big bucks in Vietnam. Brown and Root is now a subset of Halliburton these days. So we can say that some things don’t change all that much.

    The difference between Vietnam and Iraq? Dubya had a plan for getting out of Vietnam. Ha ha ha ha!

  4. 4
    Oliver says:

    And then Hitch crawled back to the bottom of his bottle of rum, where he belongs.

  5. 5
    nick says:

    Hichens writes well.
    too bad he doesn’t “think” as well

  6. 6
    Kimmitt says:

    I read Hitchens to get a contrarian piece, not necessarily to get a fully-formed and coherent argument.

  7. 7
    Gary Farber says:

    “…the Democrat conceived, Democrat initiated, and Democrat run war….

    Certainly Democrats, both in Congress, and JFK and LBJ, deserve significant credit/blame for our part in the Vietnam War.

    But Eisenhower started that, and Nixon ended it, and Ford presided over the final throes. I’m unaware of their being Democrats. It would be quite silly to deny that Eisenhower didn’t begin our commitment, or that Richard Nixon didn’t fight the war for an entire term, and another year of his second term, wouldn’t it? You don’t need links, surely?

  8. 8
    capt joe says:

    yeah Kimmit, I think you forget that Kennedy was not from texas.

    And Eisenhower, while he gave moral. lukewarm support to the French who really started the whole mess, pissed the French off by not giving tehm the 3 nukes they wanted for Dien Bien Phu.

    So in that regard, perhaps Eisenhower showed a modicum of sense that the others did not.

    An no matter how you cut it, Nixon did finish the war, did he not

  9. 9
    capt joe says:

    On reading Bob’s thingee about LBJ, did he say that Vietnam was a war for oil!?? That’s just delusional

  10. 10
    Paul says:

    “Hey, we learned our lesson and didn’t nominate anyone else from Texas. What’s your excuse?”

    Unlike you, we don’t need excuses. We win wars AND elections.

  11. 11
    Paul says:

    The most shameful in our history was when the Donks, in a fit of pique, voted to renege on our commitment to support the S Vietnamese with money and material, without which they were doomed considering the support the North had from China and the Soviets.

    Three million people died when the commies and the Khmer Rouge swept through S Vietnam and Cambodia. Hundreds of thousands wound up in lefty reeducation camps, or took to the open seas in anything that might float. Many of them drowned, of course, but many made to the shores of the hated imperialist warmongering USA.

    Of course Viet Nam and Cambodia are shining examples of worker’s paradises now, unlike S Korea, which still has thousands of troops of the evil occupation keeping the population under the thralldom of capitalist exploitation.

    You people are despicable.

  12. 12
    Ernest Brown says:

    “You people are despicable.”

    Oliver’s hypocritical whining about being called out for his self-prostitution while making ad hominem attacks on Hitchens is an excellent example of same.

  13. 13
    Tom L says:

    I just knew this post would elicit another assinine comment from Oliver “The Very Hungry Hippo” Willis. A lot of people who used to tolerate WannaBurger’s bullshit and cover for him when folks commented on his trouble with the English language, his morbid obesity, and his downright ugliness now believe he deserves any thrashing he receives, Butt Boy for Soros that he is. Anyone still think Oliver can be engaged on a civil level? Ollie, my jumbo-sized friend, eat a sack of Krystal burgers and return to your spank magazines.

  14. 14
    George Saras says:

    I see that Bob, otherwise known as the Moron of the Blogosphere, has blessed us with another of his almost daily brain hemorrhages. And, today we learn that Vietnam was ALSO because of Halliburton!! What a delusional idiot! Bob, you absolutely must check back into the loony-bin.

  15. 15
    Bob says:

    capt joe, No one gave nukes to the French.

    Paul, play the blame game. The Vietnam War destabilized Cambodia, and Nixon and Ford never lifted a finger to put it back together. It’s real simple to lump the Khymer Rouge and the Vietnamese together, but they didn’t sweep in together. They were enemies.

    Back to capt joe, if the Japanese forces invaded that part of the world for OIL, why would
    U.S. forces not concern themselves with the OIL there? Or, why are you incapable of understanding that American forces are deployed around the world to protect its corporate investments, like OIL? Why do you really think we are in Iraq? To bring democracy? To guard the sand?

    By the way, Nixon didn’t finish the war. He came in, more than half of the Americans to die there did so under his watch, and then he was about to be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors not involving oral sex, and he went home. He did not end the Vietnam War. In 1968 his operatives extended it.

    Paul, live in his black and white world. Let’s see, he says we (Republicans) win wars. That would be Vietnam? That would be Korea? Maybe you meant that little island in the Caribbean that had a landing strip.

  16. 16
    Oliver Witless says:

    No, YOU guys suck.

    Ta-DOWWWW! Here endeth the lesson, bitches.

  17. 17
    capt joe says:

    Well, Bob, if you aren’t going to even read what I wrote, Why should I respond at all to you.

    Yes, luckily, no one gave any nukes to the French. But they nukes were withiun a hair of being used in Vietnam during the fall of Dien Bien Phu.

    At the moment, during the long torturous fall of that final campaign of French in it’s Indochine, A high level group of French diplomats met with the Americans. At that meeting they relayed a request from De Gaule that the Americans use 3 nukes to dislodge the and annhilate the communists. The Americans agreed to that and brough it back to Eisenhower who nixed the deal.

    The French were incensed and felt that the US had betrayed them. This simmered, first by blaming the whole Vietnam issue after the US, then finallt by withdrawing from Nato altogether.

    And I asked you if, as you said, The Vietnam war was for Oil. You did not answer instead you are talking about Iraq. Well, who cares, I asked about Vietnam.

    So I guee, dialectic is impossible with you. So what do we have left, perhaps ridicule?

    I went back and read you other posts. You are a low rent Michael Moore aren’t you? Such taudry conspracy theories. For example, some “guy” from some “embassy” says we wrote a “list”. Wow, was it the caterer? Did he leave off the foie gras? Terrible mon vieux, c’est tragique!, Non?

    And apparently the denizns of the chilean street were up un arms ove the jakarta open source movement (Jakarta.apache.org). Well, I knew open source would bring the hob nailed boots of the coporate power brokers on their heads.

  18. 18
    derek says:

    Ollie, my jumbo-sized friend, eat a sack of Krystal burgers and return to your spank magazines.

    Easy tiger.

    He’s crazy. I’ll give you that, but I think the personal weight attacks on Oliver Willis gotta stop.

  19. 19
    ape says:

    “Three million people died when the commies and the Khmer Rouge swept through S Vietnam and Cambodia.”

    erm.. it was Kissinger and Nixon who started the bombing (mass slaughter of civilians) in 69/70, after Nixon (R) had deliberately prolonged the Vietnam war.

    they supported the overthrown of Sihanouk. the Khmer Rouge arose in response to these events. they were then defeated by the communist vietnamese regime, despite Reagan’s (R) support (and Carter’s (D)), which continued till 1986, with efforts to have Cambodia’s seat on the UN occupied by the KR. The World Food Programme was used to covertly supply the KR army.

    the 100,000 killed by kissinger and the 1.7m killed by pol pot do not, of course, care whose fault it was.

  20. 20
    Tim C says:

    And the winner of the Schanberg/Chomsky Prize for Distorted “Reasoning” In the Field of Apologetics for Communist Mass Murder is … ape. Congratulations, ape: your free issue of Counter Punch is in the mail to you.

  21. 21
    John Cole says:

    Thanks, Derek. I agree.

  22. 22
    TJ Jackson says:

    Kimmit:
    The Democrats haven’t learned their lesson, they still nominate cretins form Taxachusetts.

  23. 23
    Kimmitt says:

    While both Gov. Dukakis and Sen. Kerry had their issues, I don’t think “cretins” accurately describes either gentleman.

  24. 24
    Ricky says:

    “Losers” fits the bill.

  25. 25
    Paul says:

    “Losers” fits the bill.

    For the entire Democrat party.

    But their nominee this time around was also a traitor and the biggest phony imaginable. Pathetic.

  26. 26
    RW says:

    Well, I don’t think he was a traitor.
    He was a liberal.
    He was a phony.
    He was a liar.
    But, he wasn’t a Republican, which is all it takes for folks like Kimmitt. Anything is better than a Republican to them.

    You see, Republicans are closed minded.

  27. 27
    Bob says:

    Capt Joe: Was the Vietnam War about Oil?

    What was WWII about? Freedom? Saving Jews from the Death Camps? The control of oil in Southeast Asia? The end of European colonialism? A war by capitalists to establish a cordon sanitaire against communism? Protection of corporate investments? Profits? The growth of centralized governments? The expansion of human knowledge in the fields of science? Removing all boundaries to mass murder? The end of racism in the world? The merger of politics and business into a smooth corporate state?

    I offer these things to point out to you that a war is not a simplistic one-theme adventure. When God told Israelites to wipe out a neighboring city, I am sure that someone in the conquering army was thinking about the capital acquisition side of looting. In Vietnam, there were true believers who so feared Communism that they were willing to kill strangers rather than let them fall into someone else’s hands. There were many in the military-industrial complex who viewed Vietnam as a great money-making opportunity. There were poor people who saw the army and going to Vietnam as a means of making money for his dependents back home.

    Was Oil an important goal in the Vietnam War? Of course. The Japanese saw the region’s oilfields as necessary to run their factories. That was the central core of Japan’s military push into the area.

    I know you want to discount all this by saying that there has been no significant oil found in Vietnam. Yes, the oil is in Indonesia. And when Japan wanted to control the oil in the Pacific, they attacked Pearl Harbor.

  28. 28
    Bob says:

    Interesting how these strings die in the throats of the bully boys:

    “Gurgle gurgle, Dukakis. Gurgle, gurgle, Kerry,” as they bubble blankly in their own phlegm. “Losers, gurgle, gurgle. Wimps, gurgle, gurgle.”

    And when someone asks you guys to actually think about something, you shout, “Conspiracy theory!” You see, all facts must be disconnected. The only glue that holds your universe together is the phlegm in the throat of focused hatred against liberalism. Back in the 1930s Germany they used to call conspiracy theorists “alarmists.” Just because you allow torture here doesn’t mean you’ll allow torture there. To think otherwise would be “alarmist.” To wage a war for false reasons here doesn’t mean they are lying to us there. To believe so would be “alarmist.”

    You guys must all have your honorary Aryan badges.

  29. 29
    Kimmitt says:

    Anything is better than a Republican to them.

    Nah, I voted for Edgar in Illinois back in ’94, before the Republican Party self-immolated. I’m sure y’all will eventually start caring about the country’s welfare again instead of just demagoguing liberals, and things will get better.

    Now, Bush, though. I’d vote for a goat before I’d vote for Bush. A senile goat. With herpes.

  30. 30
    RW says:

    My apologies. Kimmit voted for a Republican 11 years ago, but has been in lockstep with the losing party ever since.

    I’m sure y’all will eventually start caring about the country’s welfare again instead of just demagoguing liberals, and things will get better.

    Yeah, like I hinted earlier, we tend to over-generalize, stereotype and act closed minded. Maybe one day we can become liberal Democrats so we can lose elections and ruin the lives of generations of our most loyal constituents.

    Give us time….we’ve only been kicking your asses for about a decade or so. We’ll get better.

  31. 31
    Kimmitt says:

    Give us time….we’ve only been kicking your asses for about a decade or so. We’ll get better.

    I sure hope not; if the Blue state economies end up as lousy as the Red state economies, y’all are going to have to find something other than sucking at the Federal teat to keep yourselves fed and housed.

  32. 32
    caroline says:

    Wow, I haven’t stopped by here in a while and I had thought that perhaps some rational conservatives hang out here but I see I must have been wrong. Some of these commenters look like they have been Goebellized the way they are repeating freeper talking points. Gee, I find it amazing that people are unable to make a point without repeating predigested GOP statements.

    As far as the war, it isn’t won yet. If you believe that it is won, then you should be agitating to get out of Iraq. We are going to run out of troops in June and many lives have been ruined so the sooner we get out the better.

  33. 33
    Ricky says:

    if the Blue state economies end up as lousy as the Red state economies,

    LOL, did you get that line from Gray Davis? I’m looking at the 2004 job growth numbers by state and am literally chuckling.

    Got a bit under the skin, eh? Heh.

  34. 34
    Ricky says:

    Caroline,
    Congratulations. You made it until the second sentence before a nazi reference reared its head.

    At least Kimmitt spreads his “racist” charges sporadically, depending upon his mood.

  35. 35
    caroline says:

    Not arguing with the facts are we? Why do you guys constantly repeat the same things over and over? It sure looks like you guys are just swallowing statements without checking them out for yourselves.

  36. 36
    RW says:

    Needless to say, the debating critique from one who quickly charges that others have been “Goebellized” prior to ignorantly claiming that they’ve been derived from a source that isn’t visited, illustrates a lot, Caroline.

    You sound a lot like an atriette. AAMOF, I would say that you’ve come here and done little more than recite what you’ve read at the dailykos.

    But, I’d prefer to be taken seriously. Lighten up, hon, we’re all just blokes typing on a keyboard.

  37. 37
    caroline says:

    atriette? What’s that?

    Well, I got your attention.

    What’s the dailykos?

  38. 38
    RW says:

    Well, I got your attention.
    Congratulations.
    Have a nice life.

  39. 39
    Kimmitt says:

    I’m looking at the 2004 job growth numbers by state and am literally chuckling.

    Nowhere to go but up.

    Ten poorest states by per-capita income:

    Mississippi (23,448)
    Arkansas (24,289)
    West Virginia (24,379)
    Utah (24,977)
    New Mexico (25,541)
    Idaho (25,911)
    Montana (25,920)
    Louisiana (26,100)
    South Carolina (26,132)
    Kentucky (26,252)

    Red states: 9
    Blue states: 1

    Ten richest
    Illinois (33,690)
    California (33,749)
    Colorado (34,283)
    Minnesota (34,443)
    New Hampshire (34,702)
    New York (36,574)
    Maryland (37,331)
    Massachusetts (39,815)
    New Jersey (40,427)
    Connecticut (43,173)

    Red states: 1
    Blue states: 9

    Source, US Census, bea.gov

    Employment movement is just as noisy as you’d expect. From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

    Over the year, nonfarm employment increased in 48 states and the District of Columbia and decreased in 2 states. The largest over-the-year gains in employment occurred in Florida (+172,300), California (+152,300), Texas (+124,800), Virginia (+79,500), and North Carolina (+76,400). The largest percentage gains were reported in Nevada (+4.8 percent), Hawaii and Utah (+3.2 percent each), Idaho (+3.1 percent), Arizona (+2.8 percent), and Washington (+2.4 percent). The largest over-the-year employment decrease was registered in Michigan (-46,500, -1.1 percent).

    Of course, this doesn’t take into account population changes; it doesn’t help to add 1% in jobs when you increase 3% in population. One way to get at this is to look at the unemployment levels, and again, we get little but noise:

    Kentucky and Washington reported the largest rate decreases from a year ago (-1.5 percentage points each), followed by Hawaii, New Jersey, and Oklahoma (-1.4 points each)…Mississippi reported the largest over-the-year unemployment rate increase (+0.8 percentage point). No other state had a rate increase greater than 0.4 percentage point.

    In other words, the red states are poorer, and nothing much is happening to change that.

    Like I said, you’d best hope you lot don’t keep running the country for your own sake. There’s only so much we on the left can do to prop you up if you take away our ability to compensate for your awful policymaking.

  40. 40
    caroline says:

    LOL!

  41. 41
    TJ Jackson says:

    Kimmit:
    Lies, really big lies and statistics. These figures mean nothing since they ignore tax rates, cost of living, and various other factors. Anyone who believes 35,000 in NY is a great thing must be on medication, while the same amount in Idaho would be a completely different story.

    But I realize such an anlysis would destroy your thesis in the same way facts do.

    What is more interesting is that in terms of charity the Kerry states give significantly less than Bush states. Perhaps this is a better indicator of their humanity.

  42. 42
    caroline says:

    It’s interesting that you guys have now decided that “big government” is a positive. I like what Andrew Sullivan said best “Bush believes in big insolvent government.”

  43. 43
    Ricky says:

    TJ
    As you found out, no one expects Kimmitt to be honest in his representations, so he puts forth OT comparisons that have nothing to do with reality, as your example showed. The job growth numbers – which were the basis – obliterated his half-assed assertions, to he decided that they weren’t good enough (the population is included in the dwindling blue state job numbers, as well, Kimmitt….ask Gray Davis) and thought the average salary should be put forth. That’s fine, but that and $800,000 will get you a one bedroom apartment in Manhatten (if you’re lucky) or a mansion in the south….where the economies are booming. Which is part of the reason why so many are leaving the blue states & headed red.

    You’re just the latest to see why our seemingly decent and obviously intelligent friend Kimmitt is rarely taken seriously.

    It’s the dishonesty. Many of us have come to expect it…it’s just how it’ll be presented that’s the mystery.

  44. 44
    caroline says:

    You can’t talk about tax rates in any real sense unless you consider the large government subsidies. My state of SC, for example, gets 1.50 for every 1.00 it sends to the federal goverment. So, in effect, if SC were to become self-supporting, it would have to raise taxes by 50%.

    As far as CA goes, Arnold isn’t doing what he promised with the debt. Perhaps CA could solve it’s debt problem is they didn’t have to support these “red” states who are constantly sucking at the teat.

  45. 45
    Kimmitt says:

    These figures mean nothing since they ignore tax rates, cost of living, and various other factors. Anyone who believes 35,000 in NY is a great thing must be on medication, while the same amount in Idaho would be a completely different story.

    I dunno; are we comparing upstate New York to Boise? But your point is well-taken. There are of course differences in costs of living. The problem is that unfortunately costs of living are only calculated for cities, so states with differing urban/rural splits are effectively incomparable given the data available. On the other hand, if the cost of living is higher in a state, that must be because people really want to live there, which says something in and of itself.

    State tax rates range from a low of 4.4 percent of personal income to a high of 9.6 percent of personal income. I chose not to discuss them for two reasons:

    1) There isn’t an enormous variance there; a 5% decrease in per-capita income isn’t going to shift any state more than a few places on the chart.

    2) It’s irrelevant to my point. My statement was that blue state economies are more productive — that each person in them makes more than in red state economies. Public policy, in the form of tax rates and public expenditures is an integral part of that comparision.

    Top ten states, ranked by ratio of dollars received from the Federal Government to dollars sent to the Federal Government:

    New Mexico
    Mississippi
    North Dakota
    West Virginia
    Montana
    Virginia*
    Maine
    Louisiana
    Missouri
    Alabama

    Red states: 8
    Blue states: 2

    *probably has more to do with the number of Federal employees living there than anything else.

    Bottom ten states, as per above:

    Indiana
    Wisconsin
    Delaware
    Minnesota
    Michigan
    Illinois
    New Hampshire
    Nevada
    New Jersey
    Connecticut

    Red states: 2
    Blue states: 8

    source.

    We’re propping you guys up. Seriously, don’t disrupt the gravy train; we lefties really are soft enough to keep shovelling money at you in the hopes that you’ll do better in the future, which allows you to continue to run your states in the fashion to which you have become accustomed.

  46. 46
    Kimmitt says:

    What is more interesting is that in terms of charity the Kerry states give significantly less than Bush states.

    I’ve read that study (it uses charitable deductions on income taxes). It’s unconvincing, due to the fact that its measure is inherently badly flawed. In particular, because many more people in richer states take itemized deductions — and because there are probably cultural differences in terms of who actually reports their charitable donations — the charitable contributions were spread over more individuals in the blue states than the red states. You can find the information here. Also note that the FAQ supports my contention that cost-of-living indicies for different states do not exist.

    the south….where the economies are booming.

    Again, where is your support for the contention that southern economies are booming? Is their unemployment rate lower than other economies? Is their (adjusted) per-capita income higher? Are their state tax receipts increasing at a faster pace than the state tax receipts of other states? For someone who is obsessed with “dishonesty,” you certainly are stingy with support for your factual assertions.

  47. 47
    Ricky says:

    The source is the real jobs gained, Kimmitt. You saw it, you just didn’t like the answer, so you made up another criterial. If that’s still not good enough, just ask one of the people fleeing a blue state & headed to a red state. Seen any electoral votes, lately?

    We’re propping you guys up.
    I ignored that the first two times because I figured you were just kidding, but it appears that you really are that ignorant as to the federal outlays…..sigh.
    First off, the numbers are simply a total, so they include the social security outlays. And as everyone knows, people leave Florida and retire to Minnesota, right? No, they retire to the south for the weather. Thus, the social security checks are mailed to the red states. I have a detailed spreadsheet and know the numbers.

    Secondly, it includes military bases which are overwhelmingly in the south and on the coasts, for deployment reasons.

    Thirdly, the majority of military contractors are located in the south, so the multi-billion dollar airline fleets that have been flying missions over in Iraq right weren’t made in Berkeley….a good number of them were made at the Lockheed-Martin plant in Marietta, Georgia. But, of course, to the dishonest and ignorant, that’s “propping” up people instead of providing for the national defense.

    Fourth, I’m all for eliminating pork. Let’s do it. We can look at the “red” state of South Dakota, which until the ouster of Tom Daschle (November really was a bad month for you, eh?) was represented by two Democratic senators bringing home the pork. Or, we can go to Louisiana, which until January hadn’t had a GOP senator since reconstruction, yet was a “red” state. Next, we can go to North Dakota, solidly red but still represented in the senate for years by pork providing Democratic senators. And, of course, we can’t forget West Virginia, which has long gotten federal dollars via Rockefeller and KKKer Robert Byrd….yet, that’s a “red” state since the people voted for Bush, so you assign Robert Byrd’s pork that gave us the Robert Byrd bridge, the Robert Byrd library, the Robert Byrd monument, etc., to Republicans. Throw in Tom Harkin’s ethanol to Iowa, Harry Reid’s pork in Nevada, Dick Gephardt’s in Missouri and you have a lot of ignorance on behalf of some bitter partisans who really hate it that people voted for Bush. Tough.

    But, it’s nice to see a Democrat in favor of ridding the nation of welfare. Thank goodness Clinton signed the welfare reform act and overturned decades of Democrats paying the lazy to sit on their asses. Maybe we can agree on that….let’s end welfare, Kimmitt. Corporate and personal. Are you with me? Let’s just END it.

    Look at the real jobs gained, Kimmitt. Then look at the population figures (or the electoral college, although I’m sure that one gives you indigestion).
    Then look in the mirror and tell yourself that all of those people moving to the south and getting jobs don’t exist. I’m sure if you repeat it, you’ll even believe it.

    Heck, maybe you can convince yourself that you guys can actually win elections.

  48. 48
    RW says:

    BTW, I’ve only been jerking your chain because I like watching you flail away while trying to spin some of your ridiculous assertions, and this instance has been precipitated by the obvious “well, whatever they say, I’ll remind them that they get more than they pay in” stance that seemingly is some sort of trump card. Well, even though that wasn’t said when Clinton and the Dems won in ’92 or when many of those same states re-elected him in ’96, I’ll go ahead and concede that Robert Byrd’s, Tom Harkin’s, John Breaux’s, Harry Reid’s, etc., excess pork are within the states that swung from the DNC to the GOP. If lashing out at the states that don’t want your candidates any more is your best “shot”…fine by me.

    Politics is cyclical and your guys will eventually win, Kimmitt. Hopefully, when that happens, if I’m still alive (I’m 38, and looking at the direction of the Dems, that caveat is needed) I’ll try my best to maintain consistency.

    Something to consider.

  49. 49
    caroline says:

    Wow, RW, what a nice post. I’m not being snarky here either. Were you not feeling well before? Once again, I’m not being snarky when I ask that. I was just being snarky about the goebels comment but it wasn’t directed at you, however, there are some that make you wonder….

    Anyhow, I came back here to tell you that military spending is a problem in that there is sooo very much waste in it. A friend of mine lives in Pascagoula, MS and tells me that perfectly good and serviceable navy ships are decommissioned strictly to make work for the people there. Also, there is a big problem with the military contractors. They suck up so much money. It’s one of the reason why the wii is costing us so much money.

    I don’t think that there is any personal welfare anymore. I’m all for getting rid of corporate welfare. As I understand it, Bush in the SOTU wants to add an additional approximate 5 trillion dollars to the deficit. Everytime I hear “more and more” money I want to scream.

    You might be right tho-you seem to be making the case that government spending does win elections. I think that some people believe that nothing has to be paid back or that they will just magically appear.

    I live in SC and yes, the jobs have increased but unfortunately most of them are not “liveable” wage jobs. In my area, textiles were the “liveable wage” jobs and most of them are gone and the few that are left will probably be gone soon with the trade quota with China being lifted. These jobs are being replaced largely with government jobs and low wage jobs.

  50. 50
    Kimmitt says:

    The source is the real jobs gained, Kimmitt.

    I did, and they were nothing but noise. Looking at just “real jobs gained” does nothing but make large states (and states which are experiencing population growth) look good, so you have to look at percentage job growth to start with, and probably percentage job growth minus percentage population growth, which is imperfectly approximated by unemployment. What I’d really like to see is change in the percentage of working-age adults employed, but that’s harder to track down.

    just ask one of the people fleeing a blue state & headed to a red state.

    Yes, I’m well aware that people who don’t need to work, especially retirees, head south for the weather. That has nothing to do with the fact that blue state economies are more dynamic than red state ones — in fact, it masks the real difference, since the blue staters accumulate savings in blue states, then boost the economies of red states by spending them there.

    yet, that’s a “red” state since the people voted for Bush,

    I actually called West Virginia a blue state by mistake in my count.

    Then look in the mirror and tell yourself that all of those people moving to the south and getting jobs don’t exist.

    Again, look at the numbers. The largest percentage gains in employment came in four red states and two blue states. That’s noise, not a pattern.

    If you’re concerned that undue receipts due to military spending are what’s causing the pattern, let’s look at the top ten contributors per capita to the Federal Government (from the detailed report located at the source above):

    Connecticut
    New Jersey
    Massachusetts
    New York
    New Hampshire
    Washington
    Wyoming
    Illinois
    California
    Minnesota

    Blue states: 9
    Red states: 1

    Bottom ten contributing states, per capita:

    New Mexico
    South Carolina
    Montana
    Oklahoma
    Alabama
    Louisiana
    Idaho
    Utah
    Arkansas
    West Virginia*
    Mississippi

    *erroneously referred to as a “blue state” in previous analysis

    Red states: 10
    Blue states: 0

    Yes, the South gets plenty of expenditures, due to various factors. But it also contributes among the least, per capita.

    Again, I’m not particularly upset by this as long as you let us run the country. I’m happy to keep shovelling money at you as long as you let me make the money in the first place.

  51. 51
    RW says:

    Caroline,
    I’m always willing to engage in a discussion. I felt fine yesterday, just as today….just a note: any reference to anything nazi is akin to someone tattooing “pay no attention to my opinion” on their foreheads. Or, for example, had my first comment to you something about “all you commies”. See?

    That said, I know all about SC. My in-laws live there (Greenville) and I’m here in Georgia so I’m aware of the economy. I know it’s growing in some areas….all one has to do is look at the constant expansions of I-85 to know that. However, the state has been decimated – greatly – by the loss of textile jobs. I’m an IE by trade (high-tech, but my degree & background is still IE) so the textile industry is something I’ve long followed (my first resume’ went to a Monsanto plant in SC) and that’s something that the state is going to have to adjust to. Like the candle-making industry at the start of the 20th century, you can’t continue assuming that things are going to be as they have been…the light bulb changed all that. It sucks (I was laid off due to 9/11, so I know all too well) but that is the means of capitalism…..you provide what the market wants. There must be a shift in the industrial process within the state, much like what Pittsburgh went through after the demand for steel dwindled in the 80s. Or, the dot-com jobs recently (yep, me again).

    As for welfare – yes, it still exists. The welfare reform bill called for there to be a limit for how long an abled bodied person could be on it (2 yrs, IIRC). It was a good first step. Same with corporate welfare. No checks to companies unless it’s for goods or services.

    As I understand it, Bush in the SOTU wants to add an additional approximate 5 trillion dollars to the deficit.

    I stand behind no one when it comes to castigating Bush’s hyper-spending, but any of those figures are put out by partisan organizations that are based on projections (it’s the debt, not the deficit, btw). No one knows what the GDP will be in 2009 any more than they know what the weather will be in Boise next Thursday — they can simply make an educated guess….and someone with an extreme bias against social security reform will most certainly use the numbers to guess that it will take megazillions to “pay” for it, while the opposite is true for the backers. Such is the way of politics.

    You might be right tho-you seem to be making the case that government spending does win elections.

    Never said or hinted at that. It does garner a lot of votes, however, which is why so many politicians run on it and do it. If more spending is what wins elections, President Gore would be preparing for his second term and Ted Kennedy would be his Veep. Bush spends way too much and Harry Reid’s “Marshall plan for America” didn’t make me mad….I could only laugh. Here we are listening to them talk about the money needed for social security and he’s calling for massive spending on the scale of the Marshall Plan. Who wrote that speech?

    Spending does get a lot of votes, but I think that the trend is swinging away from that a bit. Bush is the first pol to win by running on reforming the “third rail of politics” and has promised a budget with a lot of spending cuts.

    Of course, I’ll believe it when I see it (and I mean when I see it, not when somesite.org tells me it’s spin).

  52. 52
    Kimmitt says:

    If more spending is what wins elections, President Gore would be preparing for his second term and Ted Kennedy would be his Veep.

    Gore consistenly proposed spending less than Candidate Bush in 2000. Remember the “lockbox” discussion?

  53. 53
    RW says:

    Remember a prescription drug benefit for *all seniors* under Medicare?

    Where do you get your ridiculous material?

  54. 54
    caroline says:

    RW,
    Are you still laid off? It’s a very hard situation to deal with.

    The one thing that I think we can agree on is that Republicans are not fiscally responsible. I left the party actually, not due to the financial issue so much as who was garnering control of the party.

    Well, with Bush, you are right. You have to watch what he actually does not what he says. He has put out some very crappy stuff like NCLB so we shall se.

    It’s interesting that you think that the Dem’s aren’t going to win an election soon. I was surprised to hear several of my GOP friends say that they were positive that a Dem would win in 2008. They seemed to think that the american people will chafe under the GOP control. My husband voted for Kerry in 2004. It was the first time he had ever voted for a Dem for President.

    I have a question for you though. Why is the GOP so concerned with what people do in the privacy of their own homes? I don’t understand it.

  55. 55
    caroline says:

    As far as Bush v. Gore goes, it seems to me the whole election was based on who had the better government program. I think that Bush has pretty much proven, imho, that the era of small government is gone. If people had such a problem with his spending, they wouldn’t have voted for him. Or either they really didn’t care how much money he spent.

  56. 56
    RW says:

    No, I was laid off for 4 months after the 9/11 attacks. Now I have the best job I’ve ever had. Very lucky.

    The one thing that I think we can agree on is that Republicans are not fiscally responsible

    Interesting wording. When I see that I wonder “do they mean that they spend too much” or “do they mean that they don’t raise taxes enough?”. My inclination is that the GOP is for bigger gov’t & the DNC is for massive gov’t.

    Why is the GOP so concerned with what people do in the privacy of their own homes? I don’t understand it.

    Got anything specific in mind? I’ve seen Clarence Thomas’ video rental records bandied about in the press, Jack Ryan’s personal MARRIED life put in the press, saw Larry Flynt offer a million for any dirt on any GOPer without one negative thing said by a Democrat, seen accusations that Bob Barr’s wife had a legal abortion, etc. Normally, that line means “abortion”, which is the most overhyped subject in politics and one that I couldn’t care less about, or homosexuality which I’ve written about.

    Am I correct? Are you asking me, in essence, “why is the GOP so conserned with abortion and gay marriage” or are you talking about something else. Personally, I’ve never seen anything else pertain to “privacy of their own homes” or “bedrooms”, but I’m wondering if I’m wrong.

  57. 57
    caroline says:

    Actually, Bush isn’t the first pol to run on the third rail-it was Reagan but in truth Bush didn’t run on the third rail. He promised that he wouldn’t privatize social security before the election and promptly switched over after it.

  58. 58
    RW says:

    If people had such a problem with his spending, they wouldn’t have voted for him. Or either they really didn’t care how much money he spent.

    Actually, folks like me who were apalled with his educational spending, health care spending and prescription drug spending plans were given little choice when John Kerry criticized the president for not spending enough in those areas.

    And before Kimmitt chimes in with an alternate reality, that’s exactly what happened & I’ll get sorta pissed if I have to go get quotes for the reality that we all lived through. I have no problems with folks not liking or agreeing with Bush, but Kerry proposed more spending.

  59. 59
    caroline says:

    I guess I should have worded it better. I should say “Why are they so interested in legislating what people do in the privacy of their own homes?” As far as the other stuff,-Ryan et.al. the press and the American public are a big part of that problem. The media puts out this stuff and the American public laps it up so the media gets the message that it’s what the people want to hear. Also, scandal makes money and honestly, I think a lot of Americans looooove scandal!

  60. 60
    RW says:

    “Why are they so interested in legislating what people do in the privacy of their own homes?”

    I don’t know what legislation you’re meaning. If it pertains to gay marriage, I’d point to the fact that it was voted down by the citizenry of 11 states in November, two of which were fairly blue.
    If you’re talking about abortion, then I’d say that the GOP is, whether or not one agrees, the party that represents the people who honestly think that abortion is the killing of a child. So, that’s “inside someone’s bedroom” to those people in the same manner that rape is. Again, one can disagree, and I’m not saying that I do or don’t (I don’t care whether or not a pol it pro/anti), but that’s how they feel.
    If you mean legalizing drugs, I’d say that it’s about as bi-partisan as one can get. There are no prominent Dems in the last decade that support legalization, nor have their been any proposals from either side. The reason: their constituents don’t want it legalized.
    I know of no other
    legislation proposed or still on the books that would be covered under what people do in the privacy of their own homes, so I’m at a loss as to what else to say. Whenever you hear someone talking about “social issues”, chances are it’s abortion & gay marriage. Right now, the country is fairly split on abortion: legal in the first trimester, don’t like it in the second and want it banned in the third (save for the mother’s life, not health, life), but it’s basically legal no matter what….so you have arguments over it.
    The country is against gay marriage, period. Kerry wouldn’t even run on it, as it is a loser.

    Good enough?

    He promised that he wouldn’t privatize social security before the election and promptly switched over after it.

    IIRC, Bush talked about personal savings accounts during the debates with Gore, caroline. It got pushed to the wayside, like most everything else, after 9/11, but I recall him running on it in ’00.
    All I remember Reagan running on was fixing the impending problem (hello payroll tax hikes!), whereas Bush ran on & is proposing a fairly significant reform to the system. That’s no small thing.

  61. 61
    Kimmitt says:

    John Kerry criticized the president for not spending enough in those areas.

    Ah, but what John Kerry did not propose doing was spending $2 trillion on a Social Security plan. Still, there wasn’t a lot of difference between Bush and Kerry on spending, mostly because Bush is too dumb to cut the antimissile defense system and Kerry is too weak.

    When I see that I wonder “do they mean that they spend too much” or “do they mean that they don’t raise taxes enough?”.

    Fiscally responsible to me means acknowledging that you have to pay for things. If you want a bigger military, fine — raise the taxes for it. If you want social programs, fine — raise the taxes for them. If you want lower taxes, fine — tell me which programs you’re cutting. But don’t pretend that we can fund the Federal Government on 16% of GDP when we haven’t done so since before WWII, unless you have some intention of essentially ending Social Security, the US military, or both.

    Let’s keep in mind that the Federal Government shrank under Clinton, as a percentage of GDP. He didn’t do this because he loved small government (nationalized health care is not small government); he did it because he recognized that if he wanted to be a responsible President, he had to make sure that receipts roughly matched expenditures.*

    *and because “reinventing government” programs are just plain good policy.

  62. 62
    caroline says:

    Yes, Bush mentioned the private accounts issue in 2000. What I’m talking about is prior to the 2004 election he stated that he would not privatize ss when asked about it.

    Yes, people are against gay marriage but they aren’t against civil unions or the ability of gay people to visit their partner in the hospital. In OH, for example, people thought that they were voting against “gay marriage” but in reality they voted for gays to not even have the ability to visit their partners in the hospital. So I have to wonder some times if people really know what they are voting for?

  63. 63
    caroline says:

    I have to agree with Kimmitt here on the fiscal issue. The GOP seems to think that you can have your cake and eat it too. Even Cheney said “Deficits don’t matter.” Hmm, where’s Ross Perot when you need him!

  64. 64
    RW says:

    Still, there wasn’t a lot of difference between Bush and Kerry on spending

    Are you under the assumption that if you simply type such ridiculous statements that they’re fact? A few comments up you have caroline saying that Bush didn’t run on social security and you saying Bush ran on spending 2 trillion on social security.
    Additionally, you state the amounts that the DNC partisans use (I remember when it started as 900 billion…inflation sure has changed) and run with them. Funny, that.

    Fiscally responsible to me means acknowledging that you have to pay for things.

    Today’s word redefinition is complete.
    In my household it means not spending on what you can’t afford, but I’m using MY money in this case so things look a bit differently.

    Let’s keep in mind that the Federal Government shrank under Clinton, as a percentage of GDP.

    And, coincidentally enough, it started around the time Newt & the gang came to town. Imagine how much more it’d have shrank had Clinton not shut down the federal gov’t because he was mad that the GOP wanted to cut spending TOO much.
    Perhaps you thought people didn’t remember that?
    Hey, I give Clinton credit for signing all those GOP bills, personally. More power to him. I didn’t consider him a “liberal”.

    What I’m talking about is prior to the 2004 election he stated that he would not privatize ss when asked about it.

    And his plan doesn’t do that. It allows for some people to have the choice to invest a portion of their payroll taxes. That’s not privatization, which is one of those DC word games.

    Yes, people are against gay marriage but they aren’t against civil unions or the ability of gay people to visit their partner in the hospital.

    I’m for civil unions, but the fact that, what, 49? states are agin them says that we are in the minority.

    So I have to wonder some times if people really know what they are voting for?

    That’s what people always say when they come out on the losing end of an election. The right did it every time Clinton won a battle/election.

    The GOP seems to think that you can have your cake and eat it too.

    They certainly know how to spend. You’ll have to forgive me if adding on a new “Marshall plan” paid for by someone else (the dreaded top 10%, which is always a Democratic target…..and no, Kimmitt, that’s not the Dem base, no matter what spin you try) is supposed to make me look for alternatives. If I want even more spending and my taxes raised, I know exactly who to vote for.

  65. 65
    caroline says:

    Well, as far as not knowing what they were voting for-I’m really speaking specifically to OH here. People were telling the pollsters the opposite of the way they voted. Maybe the polls were flawed or maybe they lied to the pollsters. Who knows? And there is always a percentage of voters who don’t know what they are voting for issue wise because they don’t vote based on issues. Do I think that this is the reason elections are lost? No, because people have the right to vote for a person for any reason that they dream up.

    You seem to be making the case that the GOP is bad but Dems are worse. In the end, it really doesn’t matter what the Dem’s say or do because the ones who control everything is the GOP and they will be the ones that will be held accountable. I sense a lot of anger coming from some Republicans. I think some of it is the fact that for once they can’t blame someone else. The blame game is very popular here in SC. Right now it’s hispanics who are to blame for every problem that SC has. This stuff is very tiresome to me.

    Who do you think will win the upcoming GOP civil war? I think that the far right will win because they are the majority of the party right now.

  66. 66
    Ricky says:

    You seem to be making the case that the GOP is bad but Dems are worse.

    That I am. My evidence is darn near every big/inner-city that is the home to almost every state’s highest crime, taxes and lowest test scores. They have been run by Dems unabated for decades (in some cases, generations). If you want your children to go to a bad school, find a county that has been run by Democrats and you’ll probably find your bad school. Sometimes the correlations are too obvious to ignore.
    Now, this doesn’t mean *Democrats* are bad……southern Dems are quite differnet than NE Dems and there are plenty of bad GOPers….I’m just saying that affter a while, it should dawn on the folks having the terrible schools that President Bush/Reagan probably isn’t the problem.
    Now, I’m sure you disagree and I wholly respect that opinion – we can agree to disagree. I’m quite sure you think the GOP is worse. That’s fine.
    I’m not for higher spending or tax hikes. Thus, I disagree SOME with the GOP.
    I’m not for massive spending and tax hiks, thus I wholly disagree with the DNC.

    And there is always a percentage of voters who don’t know what they are voting for issue wise because they don’t vote based on issues.

    You’re right (sorry, I originally misread). Georgia had an amendment to the constitution that basically outlawed civil unions but the ballot had a summary about banning gay marriage, which sailed through.
    The mayor of SF and the Mass SC put this in motion and the public struck back because the nation isn’t ready for gay marriage. Had they not acted, I think that some areas could’ve expanded civil unions eventually. However, having the prospect of some court saying “you will have gay marriage” floating over their heads, Ds and Rs said “no, thank you. We’ll put it in our state constitutions, so don’t even try to go there”.
    I voted agin it, but that IS why they were on the ballots. If the people didn’t want them, they wouldn’t have passed so overwhelmingly….they weren’t close, anywhere.

    I sense a lot of anger coming from some Republicans.

    Go visit dailykos.com or atrios.blogspot.com, the largest blogs from the left. Be sure to read the comments. Then visit Democratic Underground.
    Trust me, anger is not relegated to one party and is most significantly displayed by the moveon.org segment of the Democratic party.

    Who do you think will win the upcoming GOP civil war?

    I wasn’t aware that one was on the horizon. I can’t recall the party ever being on a higher peak, so I wonder why they’d have a civil war.

    I think that the far right will win because they are the majority of the party right now.

    Interesting. I’ve heard that the far right has been in control of the GOP as long as I’ve been interested in politics and yet I look at what has happened and I see that the president that the “far right” re-elected is spending more than Bill Clinton ever dreamed, has signed Ted Kennedy’s education bill that was passed by a GOP congress, has extended the executive branch’s affirmative-action policies, originally implemented steel tarriffs before rescinding them, has hinted that he’d allow for the amnesty of illegal aliens, has proposed and signed the biggest social program since the great society (the prescription drug plan) and I wonder exactly what “right wing” means to some people.

    What “right wing” policies have been enacted and what “right wing” policies are on the table? (By that I mean things that are plausible, not what someone heard Jerry Falwell say on television).

    I think the better question is who will win the battle for the soul of the Democratic party, which is in the process of redefining itself (let’s face it, it’s on the outs in the south after ruling it for 50 years): the DLC wing or the Howard Dean “I hate Republicans and everything they stand for” wing? It appears that the Dean moveon.org-esque faction is about to take over……and if you’re a Dem, that’s not good.

    We may need to take this elsewhere, btw.

  67. 67
    caroline says:

    High peaks are when civil wars happen most of the time. Majorities are hard to maintain.

    And I do agree with you regarding the bills that have passed. They are baad. Bush has never met a spending bill he didn’t like. Bush seems to be the opposite of where America is moving-they seem to be moving into the social liberal/economic responsbility mode.

    They way I see it, you can laugh at people like Jerry Falwell but he and Pat Robertson and James Dobson command a lot of respect from the social conservatives. They want the FMA and the Right to life amendment passed. And why not? They have been promised this stuff for a quarter of century yet every GOP President doesn’t do it. Now is their big chance. With the GOP finally in control of the government, they should demand the fruits of their labor, I guess.

    PS. You’re not supposed to attack Ted Kennedy anymore since his niece is now first Lady of CA and his sister went out and campaigned for Arnold :)

  68. 68
    caroline says:

    Hmm Does Howard Dean=Newt Gingrich? Your statement makes it sound that way.

  69. 69
    Ricky says:

    They have been promised this stuff for a quarter of century yet every GOP President doesn’t do it.

    A president can propose legislation and sign legislation, but he cannot pass legislation. Congress has not passed legislation overturning Roe V. Wade (amendment), so a GOP president can’t do anything other than appoint judges. 7 of the current 9 have been appointed by GOP presidents. And, abortion is still legal, so that should tell you something about the rhetoric we’ve heard for the last 30 years about what would happen if a Republican were to be elected.

    The only legislation passed has been the banning of PBBs, which the president signed.

    With the GOP finally in control of the government, they should demand the fruits of their labor, I guess.

    They’ve been in control for quite a while.

    they seem to be moving into the social liberal/economic responsbility mode.

    Gay marriage was banned in 11 states last November and you think the nation is moving to the left socially?

    And…I love Arnold!

  70. 70
    caroline says:

    As far as moving to be more socially liberal, I’m talking about the majority of people in the country opposing an FMA. Yes, I know congress has to initiate legislation and GOP Presidents always blamed the congress for not being able to pass things like the Right to Life amendment. But there aren’t any excuses anymore. As I understand it, Dobson is threatening to form a new party if these things that have been promised for a long time don’t come to pass.

    As far as the Dems and the south, well, I’m quite surprised it took so long. LBJ said he had lost the south when he signed civil rights legislation and that has turned out to be the truth. At least here in Sc, people can’t handle two party rule for the most part. It used to be the Dem’s and now it is the GOP. Who wins the seat is generally decided in the GOP primary.

  71. 71
    Ricky says:

    But there aren’t any excuses anymore.

    Fil
    A
    Buster

    Dobson is threatening to form a new party if these things that have been promised for a long time don’t come to pass.

    Feh. As Travis Tritt said, “here’s a quarter….” That “threat” rings as hollow as the bi-annual threats from black leaders that if the Dems don’t stop taking AAs for granted, they’ll withdraw their support.

    LBJ said he had lost the south when he signed civil rights legislation and that has turned out to be the truth.

    So, you’re honestly going to run with the line that the reason that the south is now solidly red is because of the civil rights bill? I know that’s the standard excuse, but do you really think that the GOP took over Fritz Hollings’ seat because of civil rights (I know who put the confederate flag on the SC capitol, btw).

  72. 72
    caroline says:

    Well, you must admit that civil rights legislation had something to do with the south turning solidly republican in presidential elections for the past thirty years. No, it didn’t have anything to do with Hollings but I’m talking about it happening over time as the “dixiecrats” retire and their seats come open. We in
    SC believe in “Senator for Life.” It was kinda funny about DeMint. All these people here who bitch and moan about free trade voted for him. I’ve told them that I don’t want to hear it anymore. Also, all of their problems are somehow Bill Clinton’s fault or the fault of people who live in NYC or the governments fault. It’s pretty pathetic, imo.

  73. 73
    Kimmitt says:

    You’ll have to forgive me if adding on a new “Marshall plan” paid for by someone else (the dreaded top 10%, which is always a Democratic target…..and no, Kimmitt, that’s not the Dem base, no matter what spin you try) is supposed to make me look for alternatives.

    Look — what you’re saying is, “Because Harry Reid, a senator from the minority Party, made a single comment after the State of the Union, he represents the true vision of the Democratic Party, not William Jefferson Clinton, who left office after eight years as President with a government smaller than the one he entered with.” You’ll forgive me if I believe that you’re looking for excuses not to vote Democratic.

    Federal outlays as a percentage of GDP:

    1993: 21.4
    2000: 18.4

    2001: 18.5
    2004: 19.8

    Clinton decreased the size of the Federal government by three percent while in office. Bush increased it by over one percent. It’s absurd to use one speech to make up your mind when you have access to information on what people do when they have to make the hard choices.

  74. 74
    Ricky says:

    Well, you must admit that civil rights legislation had something to do with the south turning solidly republican in presidential elections for the past thirty years.

    So were the voters in the south racially tinted when they voted for Nixon at the top and D all the way down? When they voted straight D ticket & Carter? Clinton? Or is it only when they vote for a Republican?

    Y’see, the south was ruled — ruled — by Democrats until the last decade. Georgia elected its first GOP governor & house since reconstruction in ’02, so it’s not just “senators for life”….folks have been voting D in the south since FDR. It only started to change, coincidentally enough, around 1994.

    So, if you’re going to argue that civil rights over time has to do with the GOP taking over, I’m going to respectfully ask why in the hell VA, TN, SC, OK and NC have Dem governors *right now* (IIRC) and why Georgia was Democrat from top to bottom until ’02.

    As we found out from Vietnam, just because LBJ said something, didn’t necessarily mean it was true, and it’s asking a bit much for me to believe that people are voting against legislation that was signed 40 years ago, especially when nary a soul today is even against that legislation. I’m not saying there isn’t racism or discrimination or that there’s only a small bit of it but really, is there any one who is against the civil rights act? And yet, I’m being told that people are voting a certain way because of their opposition to it? Who is opposed to it?

    Or, better yet, is it a good throwaway line to hint that the reason people aren’t voting Democratic (any more) is because they’re really closet-racists. It couldn’t be that the citizenry as a whole are a bit more to the right than the Democratic politicians that are on the ballots, could it?

  75. 75
    Ricky says:

    Look — what you’re saying is, “Because Harry Reid, a senator from the minority Party, made a single comment after the State of the Union, he represents the true vision of the Democratic Party,

    I’m saying that because the Democatic party chose he and Peolosi TO SPEAK FOR THE PARTY and to present their rebuttal.

    ????????????????????
    WTF?

    BTW, I voted for a couple of Democrats last November. Sorry to disappoint.

    BTW, I’m on record as being as against Bush’s spending as I can be, yet you’re presenting spending numbers as some sort of fall back, as if the freaking WAR ON TERROR that includes tons of money that you’ve bitched about for two years is worthy of a direct comparison, is illustrative of the dishonesty that you’ve been accustomed to presenting, Kimmitt.

    I know spending went down in the 90s. Thank you, Newt.

    If you want to say that Bill Clinton represents today’s Democratic party, fine. Would you like a list of the candidates he’s endorsed? I have it handy.
    I don’t think you’ll like it, because the person you say represents the embodiment of the party, can’t get his boys elected.

  76. 76
    caroline says:

    People in the south didn’t vote for Clinton. As a matter of fact, they hate him-by and large. Unfortunately, I personally know people who vote for the Republicans (and I know this is not representative of all republicans) because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It’s hard to believe that people would carry a grudge for that long. Thankfully, the GOP no longer does this, but for a number of years they continually glorified the fifties. The message here was “things were so much better back then when they knew their place.”

    :) I thought that we didn’t win elections! Anyhow, Easley of NC campaigns against his own party so you really can’t count him. VA is slowly turning blue. Bresden in TN-an interesting story. A lot of this probably has to do with the opposite thing happening in other parts of the country. Republicans can win the governship of NY but haven’t carried the state in a presidential election in decades. The GOP plays a good game of “lowest common denominator” as a former Republican friend of mine says.

    You live in GA right? Don’t you have 2 African American office holders elected statewide? You have to remember that that probably could never happen in SC-at least not the way it is now.

  77. 77
    RW says:

    People in the south didn’t vote for Clinton.

    Yes, they did. Not in Bush like numbers, but Clinton carried the south.

    Republicans can win the governship of NY but haven’t carried the state in a presidential election in decades.

    Ahem, Georgia until 2002. Oklahoma right now. It goes both ways.

    You have to remember that that probably could never happen in SC-at least not the way it is now.

    I asked my BIL about that when he was in school there and he noted how “naturally” segregated the schools were, as in the blacks wanted no more to do with the whites than the whites wanted with the blacks. That’s a shame, since they’ll be working with them in the future. The south is about 25% black, so the closeness adn acquaintenceship has a lot do do with how racism has dwindled away (even though there is still work to do).

    I personally know people who vote for the Republicans (and I know this is not representative of all republicans) because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    And I’m quite sure that the 90% figure of blacks voting Dem has to do with the civil rights act. No, some folks can’t let things go.

  78. 78
    Kimmitt says:

    I know spending went down in the 90s. Thank you, Newt.

    Spending went down under both Democratic and Republican Congresses. Nice try, though.

    BTW, I’m on record as being as against Bush’s spending as I can be, yet you’re presenting spending numbers as some sort of fall back, as if the freaking WAR ON TERROR that includes tons of money that you’ve bitched about for two years is worthy of a direct comparison,

    Fair enough; lop off a half percent of the increase in spending. The rest is things like the prescription drug benefit and the huge piles of pork passed out to Republican Senators and Reps.

    And who the hell cuts taxes in the middle of a war?

  79. 79
    Kimmitt says:

    Forgot to post the numbers that those who are so fond of calling me dishonest are allergic to:

    From cbo.gov:

    Domestic Discretionary Spending, percentage of GDP:

    1993 3.4
    2000 3.1
    2001 3.2
    2004 3.5

    Again, Clinton cuts and Bush increases. There’s just no support for the contention that the Republican Party is in favor of less spending than the Democratic Party.

  80. 80
    RW says:

    Perhaps you forgot that the Democrats were no longer in congrol of congress after 1994, Kimmitt, before you posted the numbers. You know, the numbers that have the higher amount in 1993, when Dems last ran the federal gov’t.

    Goodness. Please stop the dishonesty. Please.

  81. 81
    RW says:

    The rest is things like the prescription drug benefit
    I don’t think that it’s been phased in, yet. And, here it comes, the opposition from the Democrats was that it (surprise) didn’t spend enough and didn’t cover enough people.

    Please.

  82. 82
    Ricky says:

    Wha?
    What happened, Kimmitt? Did you realize that the Democratic congressional control ended in ’95 and that the previous sessions increased spending? Or, did you see what the official donk response to the latest budget was & decide that it was best to Willis (short for “haul ass because it’s too hot”) away?

  83. 83

    Senator Bluster Rides Again

    Is there a bigger, more blustery, bloviating, horse’s ass in the history of the U.S. Senate than Edward (“Teddy”) Kennedy? Yesterday he made what some might call a speech regarding our progress and presence in Iraq. (VIA New England Republican) Here…

  84. 84

    A Richly Deserved Smackdown

    A Richly Deserved Smac…

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. A Richly Deserved Smackdown

    A Richly Deserved Smac…

  2. Senator Bluster Rides Again

    Is there a bigger, more blustery, bloviating, horse’s ass in the history of the U.S. Senate than Edward (“Teddy”) Kennedy? Yesterday he made what some might call a speech regarding our progress and presence in Iraq. (VIA New England Republican) Here…

Comments are closed.