-
Barack’s Brave New World Blarney
June 19, 2013 | 46 comments
-
The Grey Lady’s Grudging Abortion Admission
June 14, 2013 | 63 comments
-
The Casual Tyrant
June 12, 2013 | 157 comments
-
Washington Gets a Wetumpkan
June 5, 2013 | 182 comments
-
Slow Lerners
May 29, 2013 | 77 comments
The Obama Watch
Cautiousness You Can’t Believe In
Recruiting Clinton-era leftists isn’t “governing from the middle.”
Like Barack Obama, Bill Clinton ran on the mantra of “change,” but many of his plans for it ran aground not long into his presidency. Now Obama seeks to enact the radical changes Clinton couldn’t.
His recruitment of Clinton-era leftists isn’t “governing from the middle,” but an attempt to implement the thwarted radicalism of Clinton’s first two years in office. It suits the ideological purposes of the media to push “the middle” gradually leftward and cast the return of experienced Clinton-era hands as a measure of Obama’s caution and moderation.
But this is circumspection at the service of radicalism. Obama is not choosing experience over radical change, but choosing experience for the sake of it. What the Daschles and Holders couldn’t accomplish in the 1990s they will try again now. The passage of time hasn’t made their positions any less radical.
A sign of the ease with which Obama practices stealth radicalism is that he can even take positions to the left of those early Clinton-era positions and still retain the media’s halo of moderation.
Notice that at change.gov legislation Clinton passed — legislation that was considered outrageous at the time — is deemed insufficiently liberal in Obama’s eyes. Take Clinton’s job-killing Family and Medical Leave Act. It is just not good enough for Obama: “The FMLA covers only certain people who work for employers with 50 or more employees. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will expand the FMLA to cover businesses with 25 or more employees, and to cover more purposes including allowing: leave for workers who provide elder care; 24 hours of leave each year for parents to participate in their children’s academic activities at school; leave for workers who care for individuals who reside in their home for 6 months or more; and leave for employees to address domestic violence and sexual assault.”
Expansion of past liberal legislation, not modification of it, is the theme of the web page for the most part, whether it’s Clinton’s minimum-wage hikes (which Obama thinks should be turned into a “living wage”) or “hate crimes” legislation: “Obama and Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice’s Criminal Section.”
That an incoming president has a special section devoted to the “LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender] Community” isn’t exactly a sign of governing from the middle either. Obama hints at his support for gay marriage on the page by including the word “full” in front of same-sex civil unions: he favors not just civil unions but “full civil unions.” Or, as his wife put it during the campaign, “robust” civil unions. Whenever Obama arrives at that nebulous destination point to which he referred in his victory speech, euphemisms like “full civil unions” will apparently no longer be necessary.
The Clinton-era retreads Obama is selecting wanted these purer liberal positions in the first place and will have another crack at advancing them. They are eager to sweep away the very compromises, such as the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in the military and Defense of Marriage Act, that political resistance forced them to craft reluctantly. This prior experience, and the bogus media-decreed establishment respectability that comes with it, will make their task all the easier. An Eric Holder or Tom Daschle are far more effective conduits for radicalism than any fresh face championed by Daily Kos.
Obama likes to present his positions in the form of triangulation — he is just offering a reasonable third way. But he invariably places the third position to the left of the first liberal one, or at best restates it (as in the case of tax hikes, in which he used tax rates under Clinton to argue for the moderation of his plan; he wasn’t raising taxes, he said, but “restoring” previous tax rates).
His decision to clear the bench of old Clinton hands in Washington fits this game plan perfectly. Still ringing in their ears is the Fleetwood Mac-performed inaugural them of “yesterday’s gone.” While they couldn’t accomplish that in two years or two terms, they now have a chance to get “there” with Obama.
About the Author
George Neumayr, a contributing editor to The American Spectator, is co-author, with Phyllis Schlafly, of the new book, No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (44) | Leave a comment
More Articles by George Neumayr
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2008/11/21/cautiousness-you-cant-believe
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- A World Turned Right Side Up
- Behind a Quilt of Mist
- Way Beyond the Lemonade Stand
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Michael L. Hauschild| 11.21.08 @ 6:55AM
I am absolutely dumbfounded. The Republicans just lost due to the inane selection of a beltway, stab in the back, political dinosaur and the democrats are flocking to staff their new administration with the rag tag regime that lost to George W. Bush.
Bob| 11.21.08 @ 7:28AM
As I read through these blogs, all I see is evidence of Phil Gramm's "nation of whiners". Obama has not been President for one day and you are already complaining. This is what is wrong with today's conservatives -- recommend nothing and complain about everything.
If conservatives want to lead this country, then we should be recommending solutions to our problems. Obama won the election -- get over it. Determine how we can make the government fiscally conservative and strong from a national security perspective.
This is one reason I continue to claim that Republicans should not kowtow to social conservatives who are intolerant and complain the most.
Grow up and start using this space for discussion of solutions rather than complaints.
It's time that you guys think of America first, and party second....
Michael L. Hauschild| 11.21.08 @ 7:50AM
What Bob said.
Rick Megahan| 11.21.08 @ 8:27AM
I agree Michael: conservatives should hold their fire until the radical agenda is actually introduced. I think when Community Organizer -elect Barack Obama sees the REAL choices a president has to make he may actually make some good decisions we can approve of; like NOT surrendering Iraq and maybe even nailing bin Laden.
No doubt there is planning going on with the Left that is aimed at the heart of capitalism and free speech that should chill the grown-ups around us. Hopefully conservatives will use these examples and our remaining visibility in the media effectively as teaching moments.
God knows contemporary education did not teach history to the boomers in office that would help them avoid some the foibles of failed societies.
Jason | 11.21.08 @ 8:40AM
With zero executive experience, it's no wonder Obama is being so cautious.
http://rightklik.blogspot.com/
Bob| 11.21.08 @ 8:43AM
Rick - "teaching moments"? After the past 8 years, what would make any rational individual believe that anyone Republican would have a "teaching moment"? You can only teach if you are recognized as being successful. This attitude is wrong! When you see a piece of legislation, or a problem, come up with a solution and ARGUE ON THE MERITS! Please, none of this "I know better than you do". State your case and let others respond. That's how you build competence.
Again, the attitude of social conservatives, who believe they are right and everyone else is wrong, is the big problem with the party. Republicans have become the party of dumb nominees. Let's have some smart leaders and smart bloggers for a change.
Here's the truth about the Obama administration -- if they actually govern from the center, they will wipe out the Republican party for the next generation. They are choosing extremely competent, experienced, smart people. I heard they are going to choose General Jones for NSA and leave Gates at Defense. Napolitano for immigration is an inspired pick. I'm not sure about Hillary, but she does have street cred overseas. Holder as AG will reinvigorate the FBI as he is a straight shooter. These are strong people, and we'll have to see whether Obama can bring them together as a team.
I am most concerned about the pick at Treasury. It looks like it's going to be Geithner -- and he is supposed to be strong, but I don't know if he is going to have the investing background.
Let's see what these people recommend and reply intelligently instead of acting like chicken little.
saleboter| 11.21.08 @ 9:42AM
Obama was just voted the best president elect ever
Alan Brooks| 11.21.08 @ 10:22AM
You guys at AmSpec have your jobs to do (like counterbalancing the Left) but can't you see Obama is going it one better than Clinton? He'll triangulate your heads into a spin.
I didn't vote for Obama but admire him as a winner-- being a winner is what counts in America, don't kid yourselves. Nothing succeeds like success, and O. WILL be reelected. He may play you for a chump, but not me.
Alan Brooks| 11.21.08 @ 10:28AM
...But Bob is wrong about social cons, they may be angry rednecks some of 'em-- or worse-- but they know America has no morality and never will. We're not a utopia.
Obama Rules| 11.21.08 @ 10:30AM
Awww, booohooo. Hey, how about this: America has spoken. You lost, get over it.
Obama Rules| 11.21.08 @ 10:35AM
Bob speaks the truth. I may be an Obama supporter but I agree with many conservatived viewpoints as well. Like Bob said: Stop whining and get to work. Obama hasn't been prez for one day, yet everything he is "doing" is already wrong. Come on.
Howard| 11.21.08 @ 11:00AM
I have to reluctantly agree with "Obama Rules". We lost the election. People bought into Obama's brand, and we will have to live with it. I do get a chuckle from the audio of several morons who voted for Obama, who thought the GOP still control Congress. But, I digress. "Who is John Galt"
Alan Brooks| 11.21.08 @ 12:08PM
I was told by libs in 1983 "Reagan can't be reelected, he's senile".
In 1995 I was told by cons "Clinton can't be reelected, he's a lecher and was a pot smoking draft dodger".
now i'm told Obama will fail 2009-2012 and not be reelected.
Cant trust ANYONE.
Rick Megahan| 11.21.08 @ 12:13PM
Yes Bob; Teaching Moments. I agree there are not many Republican pols that are capable of it; that's why they lost.
Believe it or not though Bob, there are some conservative principles that are timeless and can be proven to work. Here's just a few:
Lowering marginal taxes on the investment class increases tax revenues to the government DRAMATICALLY. Yes, I know about the spending side. But low income people do not generate jobs, unless you work for the government. That's right; trickle down.
A strong proactive foreign policy BACKED by the correct use of force prevents successful major terror attacks here at home.
Communists will lie to you, Madeline Albright.
'Right to carry' states have lower violent crime rates.
Fairness is achieved through freedom; not the other way round.
I could go (teach) on. Have a peaceful day.
Alan Brooks| 11.21.08 @ 12:21PM
if we'd listened to foreign policy libs and Commies, we'd have lost the Cold War.
or we'd be dead.
Obama Rules| 11.21.08 @ 12:22PM
Look, I DID vote for Obama, but many of you fail to realize that I am conservative on many viewpoints. For instance, guns. I believe in gun ownership and am against restrictions. OK, if it comes down to restricting semi-automatics, like AK-47s, then sure---maybe there should be stricter laws or a longer wait time. But as far as gun ownership and hunting rifles, there should be no change. I would be surprised if Obama messed with the 2nd amendment. If he does, then rest assured, he will lose in 2012.
I think the Repubs have the same problem as the Libs; both parties tend to drift too far right or too far left to scare away the average voter. The key is sticking to the center. If Obama goes too far to the left during these 4 years, again, rest assured, he won't win in 2012. If he stays to the center and puts some Repubs in his administration, he will remain in office.
Again, I believe that if the ultra-right continues to control the GOP, you guys are in trouble. I have many people in my family who voted for McCain; they voted for Bush, too. But these same family members could not stand Palin. So, like Bob pointed out, why not try to find intelligent leaders to run for prez? I'm sorry, Palin may be your definition of an all-American girl, but she was not fit to be VP. I mean, if some of my family members, who voted for Bush in 04 and McCain in 08, complain about Palin, then that's all the reassurance I need that you're obviously out of touch with many in your own party.
I realize that Powell endorsed Obama; however, I can't fathom that a ticket like McCain-Powell would have lost vs. Obama-Biden.
The GOP has a lot to offer; the trick is to get back to the drawing board and figure out what the American people of the 21st century expect. I guess, in short, you guys need to find a Ronald Reagan of the new millennium. A strong, intelligent leader, willing to listen to the will of the people and work both sides of the aisles.
Tim| 11.21.08 @ 12:55PM
There is reason to be very optimistic if you are a true conservative.
The silver lining in all of this is that at a minimum,
four wacko far left Senators will be out of the Senate....Obama, Biden, Clinton, Kerry and with any luck a couple of more will be offered Jobs in the Obama Administration.
All in all, the establishment of Clinton's third term at the expense of Obama will grow old fairly quick and people will want change from the change that never happened.
If we conservatives really learn from our own mistakes the future will be brighter than ever and sooner than most people think.
The real good news here is that all of the left loones are going to be in one place and once they are are done they are done so to speak.
We can finally put an end to the 60's era.
Naturally the Reps need to hold on to the Senate Fillabuster which should occur and the Old Liberals on the Supreme Court need to hold on for two more years and the rest will take care of itself.
David| 11.21.08 @ 1:56PM
True, we should wait until Obama starts making policy decisions before we criticize him. We should also wait until he accomplishes something before we start naming elementary schools after him, as was recently done on Long Island.
As for the social conservatives, they ARE the backbone of the Republican party, whether you like it or not. They are the workers and the volunteers. If we think McCain was a poor candidate, you moderates like Bob try running a pro-abortion, or pro-homosexual marriage candidate for president and watch a total blowout of the Republicans.
Stan redmond| 11.21.08 @ 2:26PM
Obama Rules.
How can you say the far right controls the GOP??? We put McCain, only slightly less left then Obama, on the ticket. the ONLY life support McCain had WAS the far right Palin. Bush is in no way a far right winger. If he were, we wouldn't have the largest most bloated most expensive most indebted federal government in the history of the universe. If Bush were a far right winger we would not be pissing away a couple trillion dollars to reward bad decisions and poor business practices. Reagan and Thatcher proved going far right is the way to win and devistated the leftists by calling them out for what they are. Obama proved the way to win is going far left against a poorly spoken uninspiring man who agreed with him on most everything. There is no great middle out there with moistened fingers in the wind. If we put up a far right winger with a clear record of conservatism and libertarianism Obama would have been crushed. Palin proved it being second on the ticket and carried McCain. The media and those liberal Repubs are hell-bent on destroying Palin and the right wingers because they are scared to death that they can win, and will ruin their little socialist paradise. As for fixing things...Pull your kids out of public education IMMEDIATELY. Groom local conservative politicians to run for office in local governments. Stop rewarding bad behavior on the local level. Educate people on the history and universal failures of socialism and the marxism Obama embraces. Learn to debate and persuade.
But what do I know. I'm just bitterly clinging to my guns and religion...and my paycheck
Rick from Washington State| 11.21.08 @ 2:28PM
I generally agree with most of what Mr. Neumayr writes in his articles, but as a gay man whose political leanings are very much on the right (I guess for the most part I'm libertarian then with a small "l"), it seems to me that in most any article of his he just can't refrain with some attack on gays and the so called "gay agenda." I realize that most gays are horribly liberal and voted for Obama. But I, and many gays, more than I'm sure Mr. Neumayr realizes or cares to admit, did not vote for Obama and feel he and his ilk, including the Democrat controlled Congress, is bad for this country. I'm sure that Mr. Neumayr, when he thinks of gays, thinks we are nothing but a collection of flamboyant lefties and radicals in the ACT-UP type of mold. Yes, there are some of those, and they are the ones who are noisy and get all the media attention. But all of my gay friends, even if they are, as I say, horribly liberal and staunch Democrats, have respectible jobs and comport themselves in a very conservative fashion. Most of my gay friends, me included, were once married (to women) and have children, even grandchildren. My gay friends are every bits as responsible and grounded as the people one would find among Mr. Neumayr's acquaintances. My friends, me included, want nothing more than to simply live our lives in freedom, which for many of us means living in a committed relationship with another person, yes of the same sex. Most gays that I know want very much to part of the "leave me alone" coalition that the right talks about so much. I think most gays become Democrats because they feel (know?) that the straight of the right, particularly those of strong religious backgrounds are hostile to them and wish them not only ill, but wish to reform them and make them something they can't be, i.e, straight. This is unfortunate, since I really feel the Democrats use gays as just another interest groups to gain votes. And it is also unfortunate that the Republican Party is so openly hostile to gay people, even "conservative: gays like myself who probably agree with them 75 to 90% of the time. As to the issue of gay marriage, I think civil unions are fine and sufficient; I understand the desire for gay marriage, but having come out of heterosexual marriage, I really am not all that energized to jump into another marriage, whether gay or straight. To me, there are more pressing issues facing our country. However, as a small "l" libertarian, I often wonder why the State has to be involved in the first place in defining what a marriage is and who can be married to whom. In my thought experiments, I often wonder if the State could remove itself from the defining and legislating marriage, and stop given preferential (or non-preferential) treatment to those who are married or to those who are single. I wonder if this is something that couldn't be handled through contract law (after all, from the Romans we adopted marriage as a form of contract). If two people want to live together in a commited relationship, share property and whatever, then let them draw up a contract, enforceable by the State, which defines the nature and limits of their relationship. If they want that blessed in a church , and the church calls it marriage, fine. If other churches won't recognize it, who cares? Gays can then have their "marriages" if that's what they want their relationships called. The social cons and religious right can say "those really aren't marriages, only those between a man and wife are." Again, fine. It then boils down to a matter of opinion as to what a marriage is or is not. But in either a "straight marriage" or a "gay marriage" or whatever label one wants to give these unions, the couples involved are free of State coercion, the rights and responsiblities of the couples are recognized and enforced by the State (via contact law) without the State taking position as to whether the relationship consitutes as marriage or not. My point being, that both the left and the social cons/religious right currently want marriage sanctioned and regulated by the State; the only difference is they want the State to define and regulate marriage according to their own ideologies. As a small "l" libertarian, I'm for anything that gets the State more out of my life and allows me more personal liberty and freedom. If only the left would stop interferring in the market place, and right would stop interferring in the bedroom and the private decisions of individuals, and both groups would allow our nation to have more liberty and less government involvement and interference in ALL spheres of life, and adopted a more live and let live attitude toward each other, perhaps we wouldn't have these contentious and nasty arguments in our public discourse. If Mr. Neumayr, who really is a person whom I respect and usually agree with, at least considered my points above, perhaps I wouldn't have to suffer anti-gay remarks in every single article of his.
George Bruce| 11.21.08 @ 2:31PM
Bob, you posts above sure sound a lot like complaints.......even whines. Practical suggestions were lacking.
O.R., I expect you and Bob agree about a lot of things.
George Bruce| 11.21.08 @ 2:37PM
Rick, I think there is a lot of truth in your post. I confine my criticisms to leftists, regardless of sexual orientation....and their useful idiots and fellow travelers.
I suspect that a lot of those rowdy anti-8 demonstrators were not gay....or at least, more red than lavender.
Obama Rules| 11.21.08 @ 2:49PM
Stan redmond: Funny how Bush is not a far right-winger anymore. Of course not. Since he messed up this country, you can pretend that he isn't a "real Republican" and if he had been, things would be better. So, if you keep blaming Clinton for everything, can I just pretend that Clinton was by no means a "real Democrat," much too centrist, and had he been a real Democrat, things woulda been great.
Here's an idea: Why don't you grow a pair of cojones and take some responsibility for your guy Bush, instead of pretending he isn't a "real Republican."
Bob| 11.21.08 @ 2:54PM
Rich, your "teaching moments" are far too simplified. Lower marginal rates on capital gains is having a decreased effect on job creation. The reason for this is the significant increase in productivity which requires less labor. Productivity has been the greatest factor in job losses -- much more than outsourcing to other countries. People who present this argument go back a decade or two before the widespread use of distributed computing. In the current economy, consumption accounts for about 2/3 of the total -- the highest it has ever been. The "investment" class is keeping its income at higher levels than ever before which is why trickle down is no longer the easy cure it once was. What is killing the economy right now is that the distribution of wealth is wider than it has ever been. The most efficient way currently to stimulate the economy right now is to increase the disposable income of the middle class. You need so speak with some current economists to get a better view. Greenspan and others have admitted their mistaken views of this conservative orthodoxy.
I agree that the appropriate use of force is important, but that is no longer a "conservative" value. What's even more important in the era of an all volunteer military is setting appropriate goals for the efficient use of force. We put our effort in Iraq and lost Afghanistan. We don't have the physical resources to depend on old definitions of force.
The reason "right to carry" states have lower crime rates primarily is that they are less urban. Crime rates are related directly to level of urban development and socio-economic levels. It is also related to level of education. Oversimplification of "right to carry" is dangerous.
I totally agree about the naivete of Dems like Albright. But then, Republicans like Bush and Cheney have proven to be naive as well. I spent time in Vietnam when I was young and understand what it's like to face an enemy. I understand the concept of overwhelming force quite well. I even found McCain lacking understanding of this concept since he never had to really fight the enemy in close quarters. Colin Powell understood this quite well. They should have listened to him.
"Fairness is achieved through freedom"????? I'm sorry, that's just bunk and that's where we disagree. Fairness is achieved when the rights of minorities are upheld. The majority is generally treated with fairness in most democracies. That's one of the reasons we have courts.
Again, "teachable moments" is a fallacy and dangerous. If you believe that you are right and others are wrong, then you won't listen. Learning is achieved by listening, studying, putting forth a point of view, and then discussing it with people that have differing views.
Bob| 11.21.08 @ 3:00PM
George, I've made many recommendations here. I believe, as a party, we need to elect the best and the brightest, not people who graduate at the bottom of their class like McCain. We need to elect people who have good knowledge of the issues, not intellectual lightweights like Palin. We need to concentrate more on conservative pragmatism and less on religious belief. We need to unite on the basis of conservative principles and not because we have a position on abortion. We need to demonstrate to our children that doing well in school, and in your job, is important by not electing examples of people who did not do well. If you would like my point of view on any specific issue, let me know.
Obama Rules| 11.21.08 @ 4:04PM
Bob for President! This guy is great!
PJD| 11.21.08 @ 6:36PM
I understand how all of you Obama supporters feel. You are happy with your victory and don't want to hear negative stuff from those who didn't vote for him. But you need to understand where some of us are coming from.
I am nearly 54 years old and I think I have learned a lot during those years. One of the things I've learned is that: societies run by Communists and Marxists always take away the rights of the people; always ruin the economy of the country in the name of "equality" by "distributing the wealth", aka taking from the productive people, keeping the best for themselves, and giving what's left over (not much) to the masses; always silence, punish, or imprison anyone who speaks out against them. I've seen these thugs in action my entire life, in the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, present day Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, et al. I've learned what a Communist/Marxist looks like and I have no doubt what their intentions are. So you see, I am not interested in taking a "let's wait and see" approach with President-Elect Obama. He is a Marxist and I know what he intends to do. He intends to "change" the USA into a Marxist state.
I may someday end up in one of his "gulags", but I will fight against Marxism with my dying breath.
Alan Brooks| 11.21.08 @ 9:24PM
Bob, Palin is as competent as Dan Quayle was, and Quayle was a stand up guy.
So hypercritical of decent, educated GOP politicians! Geez.
Alan Brooks| 11.21.08 @ 9:38PM
America has its faults, but is the most advanced nation, so it has the most advanced problems. Everybody in every country was status.
again, far too many progressives are so hypercritical of decent conservatives, to then it's as black & white as to the far right. And they want to change the situation just like THAT.
Rick Megahan| 11.21.08 @ 10:10PM
Bob; I appreciate your point by point rebuttal but we're not finished...
On economics; your description of how productivity erodes job creation flies in the face of what (record levels of employment) took place during the G W Bush years until VERY recently. You cannot seriously be telling me that raising taxes on any group produces growth and prosperity. Like the Gore argument for human caused global warming you're accurately describing a phenomena but leaving out the SCALE and what larger factors determine the outcome.
On right-to-carry; I don't consider Florida much less than an urban area. Crime is not directly tied to poverty. It is tied directly to the disintegration (thank you Great Society) of the family unit and the resulting lack of character in children that results.
And finally, fairness is best demonstrated in striving for equal opportunity, not guaranteeing equal result. The most widespread good results come from FREEDOM. Ask the folks in Eastern Europe how freedom changed their lives. I don't think they'd opt to go back to guaranteed equality.
Principles and results, Bob, can be demonstrated. Feelings and intentions, we know, run amok.
See you on the nex thread.
Paul Nelson| 11.22.08 @ 10:16AM
to ObAma Rules 11:22 AM: hmmm actually an AK 47 is a fully automatic assult rifle not, repeat not, a semi-automatic. As such it would be effectively banned under current 1930's era law.
Bob| 11.22.08 @ 10:17AM
Rick, please use facts and not "feelings"...
During the Bush administration, taking into account population growth, there was a 4.6% decline in employment versus approximately an 8% increase during the Clinton years. You cannot use the simplistic argument that raising taxes hurts the economy. It is a complex calculation including elements like decreasing benefit, deficit interest expense, investment outside of the U.S., tax shelters, effect on regressive taxation, etc. Again, we need smart people who can look OBJECTIVELY at the econometric arguments and not use simplistic explanations that are just not true. In fact, if you raise taxes on one group and lower taxes on another with higher economic impact, the net effect will be positive and vice versa.
On the crime and poverty front, there is a strong statistical correlation but no concrete analysis on causation. You cannot use a subset argument, like you used with Florida, to make this argument since there will always be statistical variation with any one sample. I'd like you to provide evidence of a statistical correlation showing causation between the disintegration of the family unit and crime. The family unit has been disintegrating/progressing since the 1950's and so has relative poverty levels. I could make the argument that poverty is a contributing factor to the family unit.
Your statement shows "feelings and intentions", and broad unproven beliefs, not results. This is exactly what I'm railing against -- the social conservative emphasis on belief over reason. Thank you for the example.
Bob| 11.22.08 @ 10:21AM
Paul Nelson -- I've used AK47's, and they come in both semi-automatic and fully automatic versions. The semi-automatic versions can be owned in the states. Please do your research before you post.
Andy| 11.22.08 @ 12:49PM
Obama Rules: why can't conservatives complain? I thought dissent was the highest form of patriotism. How about a little consistency here?
Tim| 11.22.08 @ 2:47PM
Andy, that's calling the kettle black!
You are so right and yet millions of people actually think that the far left organizations and individuals are actually the ones who speak for the civil liberties of all.
The only only civil liberties worth defending to the far left are the ones that invoke far left ideas or counter culture norms that they want to impose on society.
If you are a God Fearing, Hard working, Gun Toating, Bible reading Father or Mother of four you are on your own.......because according to the left....you are a norrow minded paranoid schisophrenic mother hubbard and certainly not worthy of any defense.
If this was not the case, the ACLU for one, would be all over defending "Joe The Plumber and Sarah Palin to name just two "
Rick Megahan| 11.22.08 @ 3:19PM
Bob; surely you obfuscate.
I can see what we're in for this next 4 years...re-definition of terms, contortion of argument, gray areas, up is down, black is white, Change means hiring a flock of Clintonoids, blah blah blah.
If you want the stats on guns/crime, read John Lott's book, 'More Guns, Less Crime. I have a head ache and this is boring.
See you on a Global Warming thread.
Bob| 11.22.08 @ 4:18PM
Rick -- when people don't understand the details of an argument they accuse their opponent of obfuscation. That's true in your case.
If the economic precepts you mentioned were so simple to understand and execute, we wouldn't be in this financial conundrum. The oversimplification of issues is a major problem with our increasingly impatient electorate.
I wish those precepts were both absolute and static in nature. But unfortunately, there are many factors that affect those types of analyses and they do change over time. Something that worked well 20 years ago may be less effective now.
Business and economics is my field of expertise -- I've spent the last 35 years working in this field. Over simplification of these issues and the anti-intellectualism that we see in knowledge -- especially with social conservatives -- is frightening. People look for simple explanations rather than trying to search for the truth. For example, the argument that you used about trickle down and jobs. There is no econometric data that proves that to be true. In fact, there is some evidence that the reverse is true given the concentric lowering of taxes at the high end and loss of jobs during the past 8 years. You think it is true because the logic makes some sense to you. But that is like fool's gold -- once you actually test it you find it is not true. When we had a manufacturing based economy and a dearth of specialized Wall Street investment vehicles, then trickle down did work. Now we have more of a service economy and much of the investment goes off shore so there is no increase in domestic jobs. Jobs do increase in China, Malaysia, etc., but not here.
Anyone can make a case for and against guns using specific examples to prove their point. I've read good sounding articles on both sides of the issues. However, that is not my area of expertise so I won't argue that further with you.
I can discuss the economics of alternative energy sources, but I am not an expert on Global Warming to I won't join you in that thread.
`Obama Rules| 11.22.08 @ 4:44PM
Clinton retreads left and right. now Hilary takes over 4th in line to the Prez.
Bill and Hill must have some nasty stuff on
Barry. What could it be that they could'nt use
in the election but they can use now?
Daphne Kenward| 11.22.08 @ 6:40PM
John McCain was never going to win the eclection after G W Bush Nazi past, and to have McCain who is closely associated to the Mafia, it would have been too much. Cindy McCain with her 100Million Usd, in her Beer plant that Money came from her father association to the Mafia, Politics is a dirty business indeed. (Bronfman)
T the D | 11.23.08 @ 10:22AM
I hear a lot about conservatives "complaining" about Barack Hussein Obama. I think these people are confusing complaining with looking at his decisions with a critical eye.
For the most part conservatives have been MORE than fair to the president-elect. We have criticized him based on fact and his past decisions. That is a heck of a lot more than most of the liberals can say about their blatantly cruel attacks on President Bush.
Just get over it...conservatives don't care for Barack Hussein Obama. Congratulations, you got your president. But that doesn't mean I'm going to like it, or keep my mouth shut when he makes decisions I don't agree with.
T the D
http://thedrunkelephant.blogspot.com/
Alan Brooks| 11.23.08 @ 6:15PM
Cons have been fair to Obama,
but were hearing the same things about Obama that we heard about Clinton in '92, and the outcome is predictable: Obama will win again in 2012.
After i was told by libs that "senile" Reagan would never ever, oh, no, never win in '84, and it seemed as if he would win and he then he won by a landslide over Mondale, I stopped listening to others' opinions and made my own predictions.
So it wasn't hard to figure out Clinton would be reelected. And it isnt hard to see Obama will probably be reelected unless in the next 4 years some guy like Vince Foster is found dead, and Obama has an affair with a White House intern; and even THEN...
Gary | 2.11.09 @ 3:59PM
Who was that hate-America-first jerk who said voters are somehow duty-bound to put "country first and party second," which implies an obligation to vote left (Obama). I did put country first when I voted for McCain, a flawed candidate but not a socialist or oligarch either.
jacky | 3.21.11 @ 3:45AM
I have to agree.................................!