August 13, 2007

"They are likely to nominate a tough, tenacious, fatally flawed candidate."

Paul Gigot interviews Karl Rove, who's got some predictions:
Looking ahead, he adds, "Iraq will be in a better place" as the surge continues. Come the autumn, too, "we'll see in the battle over FISA" -- the wiretapping of foreign terrorists -- "a fissure in the Democratic Party." Also in the fall, "the budget fight will have been fought to our advantage," helping the GOP restore, through a series of presidential vetoes, its brand name on spending restraint and taxes.

As for the Democrats, "They are likely to nominate a tough, tenacious, fatally flawed candidate" by the name of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Holding the White House for a third term is always difficult given the pent-up desire for change, he says, but "I think we've got a very good chance to do so."...

... Americans "do want change," but "every election is a change election"; even in 1988, when Ronald Reagan was popular, the Gipper famously said at the nominating convention for George H. W. Bush that, "We are the change." Adds Mr. Rove, "I don't want to be Pollyanish about it, but if we keep our nerve and represent big things, we'll win." He won't cite a favorite, if he has one, among the GOP candidates, though he has friends in the various campaigns. He'll offer advice, if asked, but at 56 years old says he is done with political consulting.
Hmmm.... 56 doesn't sound old to me. I wonder what Rove really will do. Anyway, what's "fatally flawed" about Hillary? Flawed, I get. But why fatally? Someone has to win. Who's so less-than-fatally flawed on the other side?

It seems so obvious, so early, that Hillary will get the nomination. That allows the other side to develop an elaborate attack on her and then to wait and wait to unleash it. Meanwhile, she can't concentrate on just one of the Republicans, and they really are rather different. Who knows? I assume Hillary will win the presidency. I find myself going through an involuntary process of accommodation to the idea. That is an advantage of emerging as the inevitable nominee so early. On the other hand, a year from now, she'll still be hovering around, not achieving anything, but just being what she always was, the inevitable nominee. That's going to be really boring. What happens to the hunger for change?

56 comments:

MadisonMan said...

I have to say (well, not really, but I will) that that's a pretty predictable interview. What's next? An interview with Bill about what a dyn-o-mite President Hillary will be?

Bissage said...

Fatally flawed candidate?

I heard that Freakonomics dude is soliciting ideas how to fatally wound Hillary.

No fair suggesting that Apollo guide Paris’ arrow.

The Exalted said...

at this stage for the 2004 election, lieberman dominated the democratic field.

dont count her cleavage just yet.

vet66 said...

Hillary's past associations with characters of the far left during her formative years will come back to haunt her. Her associations with the Communist party and deep love of all things socialist will be likened to Kerry's thinly orchestrated attempt to duplicate the heroics of his namesake; JFK. They are what they are and not some construct designed to dazzle the unwashed masses like a first trip to the carnival.

SteveR said...

I find myself going through an involuntary process of accommodation to the idea.

Me too. In 1992, I could not imagine that nearly 20% of the electorate would vote for Perot, so I was unprepared for the result.

"fatally flawed"? Maybe they know things we don't know. Hmm Probably not. We know.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I assume Hillary will win the presidency. I find myself going through an involuntary process of accommodation to the idea.

I hope not. But if she does, I'm moving my clients to cash positions and taking capital gains profits now before the tax hammer destroys the market and kills the economy and we turn into a socialist state. I'll wait for interest rates to get to Carter year levels (which should be within a very short time) and then we'll pounce on some long term bonds. :-)

Jeff said...

"Anyway, what's "fatally flawed" about Hillary?"

Because the majority of those on the right can't stand her. Is there any other candidate with such a high level of built-in disgust?

For ever lefty she brings to the polls squealing at the notion of Big-Lovable-Bill being in the whitehouse for eight more years, she'll bring two Republicans to the polls who'll desperately check the box next to whoever has an (R) after their name.

It's a lot like the "Anybody but Bush" message the left tried to use in 2004, but aimed at a much older - and much more likely to vote - demographic.

ricpic said...

All the strategery in the world won't mean a thing when the economy tanks just as we move into the thick of the election cycle. Say hello to President Heillary, God help us.

Ben said...

She's a divisive figure -- but that doesn't mean she can't take 51%.

I wonder -- I see many people who supported President Bush in '04 saying they're not exactly against her. I also see liberal Democratic (male) friends who say that they may cast their first Republican vote against her, if Giuliani is the nominee.

It would be a very interesting campaign dynamic.

I think that there's a sort of grudging respect that many conservatives (esp. conservative intellectuals) have come to feel for Senator Clinton. So... who knows? Maybe she's number 44. I wouldn't bet against her.

P. Rich said...

"...what's "fatally flawed" about Hillary?"

She is a confirmed socialist running for president of a democratic republic on a major party ticket. That would seem sufficient.

Richard Fagin said...

"Fatally flawed" refers to Sen. Clinton's character rather than her electability. She is a narcissist and has such an incredible sense of personal superiority that as President she will antagonize a large fraction of the citizenry.

Her husband is fatally flawed (he's a rapist and a sociopathic philanderer), and we elected him President, didn't we?

Pogo said...

Bill Clinton, Jimmie Carter, Richard Nixon, and Lyndon Johnson were all fatally flawed.

The fatal flaw became widely recognized or operable only after each had become President. Hillary has some character traits and policy demands that may prove fatal for her, but probably only in the long run.

My concern is that her socialist ideas will become a fatal flaw for the US, like that currently undoing the EU.

Joan said...

Hillary's fatal flaw is that she is a bad manager. If Hillary gets the nomination, expect to hear repeated horror stories of how she killed the universal health care committee she was supposed to be chairing, with her bullying, micro-managing, and inability to delegate. It's the only time she's ever had to run anything as an executive, and she was a dismal failure. In the time since, what other experience has she gained? Has she done anything to convince us that she would be more competent now? Running a senate campaign and serving in the Senate do not hone the skills required for the presidency, IMO. GWB, at least, had shown that he could be successful as an executive, having been re-elected to the governorship in TX. The only thing that Hillary ever led -- that health care initiative -- she screwed up. I don't think her talk about competence can cover up the fact that, save winning a senatorial election, she's never done anything.

Plus, she's really quite unpleasant, and as much as her supporters try to spin that away as an insignificant detail, I don't think that's something that can easily be discounted.

AllenS said...

Hillary! is a very competent woman. Any woman who can take $1,000 and turn it into $100,000 in 9 months deserves...

Simon said...

"[W]hat's 'fatally flawed' about Hillary? Flawed, I get. But why fatally?"

Remember: Rove has seen the VRWC's dossier on Hillary.

Theo Boehm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Theo Boehm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Theo Boehm said...

Bissage: LOL!

Rule of Flaw.

Just what is Rove talking about?

People have said it again and again, but it's true: Any person who would successfully seek the Presidency has to be a flawed human being.

Presidents themselves, starting with George Washington, have pointed out how the job kills all their friendships and makes normal life forever impossible.

What decent human being would want this?  What person without serious flaws would sacrifice everything for power?

I always liked Dwight Eisenhower's attitude. He said, "I'll do this damned job if it kills me." Obviously ambitious, he was also a true American patriot, and viewed the Presidency as the ultimate sacrifice he would have to make for the country he loved. In the quaint 18th century phrase, he was "disinterested."

In many ways, Eisenhower was the most "disinterested" President since Washington, and, like Washington, massively competent as a political general.  Being a general successfully entrusted with high command is one of the best preparations for the Presidency.  A general at that level, unlike many lower-ranking officers, will know that you cannot simply issue commands and expect them to be carried out.  He will have learned everything there is to know about the psychology of bureaucracies, of groups of ambitious people, of politicians looking to the next election, and of the media.  And he will have a better idea about how to manage all these than a person whose outlook has been, say, strictly political.

Although her background is political, Sen. Clinton possesses perhaps the closest thing to this breadth of understanding among the candidates.  As my wife puts it, "She knows where all the skeletons are buried.  She's got Bill just where she wants him, and she manages to get lots of other people where she wants them, too."  Tough, knowledgeable, experienced, an excellent manipulator and judge of people, she seems to have everything going for her.  Will she be a terrible manager?  I don't know, but I think she has learned.  I plan to vote for her.

But is she flawed?  Of course!  She's a horrible human being!

I'm not voting for a friend.  I'm voting for some awful person to do this damned job.  And, frankly, her flaws as a human being will not necessarily translate to flaws in her Presidency.  They might, as in the examples Pogo mentioned, but I don't think so.

One of my wife's cousins did some business with the State of Texas when George Bush was Governor.  He spent some time with Bush, and found he was a great guy.  Cousin X was enthusing about how smart, friendly, and down-to-earth George Bush was.  Cousin X was saying all this well before Bush became an announced Presidential candidate, so he had no obvious political ax to grind.  I'm sure Cousin X was right.  From all reports, George Bush was well-liked and even respected, despite, or perhaps because of his turning to Christianity to help overcome his drinking problem.  Being a drunk is a flaw, but a very common one, and turning to Christ to overcome it is a time-honored tradition that often seems to work.

No, George Bush's flaws are not those of Mrs. Clinton.  She has all the flaws of ambition, but I think she will make a good President.

George Bush is a more decent, understandable human being who might make a fine friend, yet he has presided over one of the most flawed Presidencies in memory.  It certainly looks fatally flawed as things have turned out, doesn't it?

DaveG said...

Theo,

You are aware, aren't you, that she won't be running against Bush?

Doyle said...

You are aware, aren't you, that she won't be running against Bush?

Translation: We're talking about how bad your nominee will be, so pay no attention to the disaster we elected twice.

Theo Boehm said...

Of course. I was just ruminating on flaws, past, present, and future.

Simon said...

Doyle said...
"'You are aware, aren't you, that she won't be running against Bush?' Translation: We're talking about how bad your nominee will be, so pay no attention to the disaster we elected twice."

No, the translation is that tearing up someone who isn't on the ballot isn't going to help your candidate.

Doyle said...

Simon -

Sure it will. The American people will want assurances that they won't get more of the same from the next president.

NSC said...

I read something, somewhere in the sphere today (can't recall the blog but it is not a nutty one) that quoted some Dem party leaders - state not national - saying they weren't very happy about her being the nominee either since her negatives were as strong or stronger than her positives.

She is flawed - perhaps not fatally, but certainly greatly. Her advantage is that compared to her competition (Obama, Edwards, etc.), she looks pretty damn presidential.

I, too, am preparing for her victory by restructuring my investments and tax plans. Taxes are going to go up, up, up.

MadisonMan said...

Taxes are going to go up, up, up.

Well, duh. All that's been happening in the Bush presidency is Spend Spend spend. How did you think all those unpaid bills were going to be settled? A Republican President in '09 will have to do the same thing that a Democratic one does: Clean up the fiscal mess that 8 years of Bush have guaranteed.

Pogo said...

"A Republican President in '09 will have to do the same thing "

Democrats and Republicans have both led the charge to relentlessly expand the size of the government slice of GNP.

The curious thing is, neither party seems to have figured out that cutting spending is an option. Only tax increases seem to be on the table, and not even the simplest recognition of the effects that higher taxes will have on future receipts as the economy enters another 1970s style tailspin.


We seem to have learned nothing from the debacle of the 1930s and 1970s in America, nor from the UK 's disaters in the late 70s, nor from the wholesale failures of nations like the Soviet Union and China to function under totally planned economies. Instead, both parties have embraced socialism as the operative paradigm, even though this concept has failed every single time its been tried. They are enamored with centralized planning, damn the evidence.

Revenant said...

Flawed, I get. But why fatally?

Well, there was that poll a while back that showed a majority of Americans refused to even consider voting for her. She was the only candidate from either party that was true for.

Of course, her numbers may have shifted since then, but that's still a pretty serious flaw.

Revenant said...

Well, duh. All that's been happening in the Bush presidency is Spend Spend spend. How did you think all those unpaid bills were going to be settled?

Oh, please. We're going to need a steep tax increase just to cover the couple of hundred billion a year in *additional* spending the Democratic candidates are pushing for.

If you think a President of either party is going to eliminate the deficit during the next eight years you're crazy. The only time the deficit ever gets eliminated, even temporarily, is when the government underestimates tax revenue by mistake.

SteveR said...

Hey I have an idea, let's try spending less. And I'll make a deal, instead of paying taxes to the government so they can provide me health care, I'll just provide for my own health care and leave the government out. I'll also require no "Bridges to Nowhere" or support to mysterious Johnstown PA high tech firms.

Still need a tax hike? Yeah, I guess so.

Jeremy said...

But of course, Pogo. It's not too often that you see a people demanding less benefits or services (at least not for themselves). What would that be?

Farm subsidies, law enforcement, transportation, environmental protection and management, job training, health care. Everyone is a special interest group. I've yet to see anyone march on washington demanding a smaller slice of the budget pie.

NSC said...

Well, duh. All that's been happening in the Bush presidency is Spend Spend spend. How did you think all those unpaid bills were going to be settled? A Republican President in '09 will have to do the same thing that a Democratic one does: Clean up the fiscal mess that 8 years of Bush have guaranteed.


A solid fiscal conservative would not increase taxes - he or she would keep the tax cuts we have and cut spending. It works.

And as to the fiscal mess of the Bush years - well, considering we had 9/11, the war, and Katrina, the economy is still in pretty damn good shape. Yeah, it could be better, and yeah there are problems, but increasing taxes won't solve them and will probably only make things worse. No, not probably, definately.

michael farris said...

At this early, early stage she's probably the candidate I prefer (given that's a very weak field).

I really don't think she'd do a worse job than any of the other candidates and her being elected would piss off so many of the right people...

I'd describe myself as a social liberal, fiscal moderate who hasn't believed for a second that GWBush has been serious about anything like a WOT (except as a vehicle to get reelected) for a second. And I have no effin' idea what to do about the mess in Iraq (short of going back in time and choosing the 'do not invade' option, which is probably not possible now).

michael farris said...

As for cutting government. Does anyone remember the old Michael Moore show TV Nation?

In one episode IINM he went to Newt Gingrich's constituency and asked people what they thought about federal government spending.

Of course, everybody said the federal government was spending way too much and nobody wanted their community to get one penny less of federal government money.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

A solid fiscal conservative would not increase taxes - he or she would keep the tax cuts we have and cut spending. It works.

Amen. It has been proven time and time again that cutting taxes increases the total amount of money going into the government. The unfortunate thing is that the professional politicians can spend it faster than we can make it and ALWAYS vote to spend MORE.

When have they ever actually cut a program? And don't give me that they cut programs because they didn't increase them as much as in previous years or projected to increase? I mean really spend less than in previous years. You can fool some of the people with symantics but you can't fool the balance sheet

The Democrats always want to make it a class war and rich against poor proposition instead of actually understanding how an economic system works. We have a bunch of people who haven't got a clue on how the real world works and probably couldn't hold a real job who deciding the fate of our economy. God help us all.

They never ever learn. Get ready for taxes to increase, business revenues to go down, unemployment to go up, stock market down, interest and borrowing rates up, small businesses to go out of business, big business to move offshore and outsource more to other countries.

From Inwood said...

Shades of 1932. Hoover doing his best, even increasing government control over things, not connecting with the public. And with flaming Hoovervilles, actually disconnecting. FDR did connect with the public even tho the then Best & Brightest commentators thought him a lightweight. An empty vessel. (Note I’m not suggesting that Hill is a lightweight or an empty vessel, just that not everyone thought that FDR was the Second Coming & few think Hill is (no pun intended).) People felt desperate; wanted a change.

Or ’52. HST’s poll numbers were in the 20s, people tired of him & the Dems & he had to withdraw. So ‘twas Ike vs. Adlai, both flawed, but only Adlai fatally, & he was from the incumbent party.

And History has been kind to flawed Harry, Ike, & Adlai. A statesman is a dead politician, as some Presidential speechwriter might copy.

Anyway, the thing about an empty vessel is that we can pour our dreams into it.

Here’s what I see now, 15 months out, the dream of many.

Dreamer: Hill’s now The Alternative. to all the bad things happening.

Don’t wanna get into specifics, but she’s better than the present malaise & than anyone running in either party. The GOP will have been in for 12 years & time for a change. Even a Dem Congress, will force her to compromise on loony left programs. And she’s not gonna surrender to some thugs or even call the thug leaders begging them to meet with her. And she’ll only increase taxes on the really rich, not us. So even tho not perfect, she’s not “fatally flawed”, & she gets my vote today.

My Dreamer also rejects Obama as not ready for prime time & Edwards as just a pretty-boy movie-star version of what a President should look like. Or a televangelist.

Hard to tell 'em their dream is fatally flawed & hard to ignore the possibility that such dreams collectively represent a reality in the voting booth. And let’s assume that 15 months from now (assuming she’s the nominee), she won’t have accomplished anything of substance. She’ll still be what she always was, from 1992 on, the Inevitable One.

Or, maybe some will awake & say: Why should she be the Inevitable One? What does she offer as an alternative to the Republican?
Look at the crooks in the Democrat Congress; is this is what I voted for in ’06 when I wanted change?

And, if pushed to think substantively, some might notice that Hill’s gonna move far left, far beyond her nominal husband. Will they then see her as "fatally flawed”?

Or maybe, like FDR or Ike, she is The Inevitable One. I don’t know, but I’d want odds before I bet against her.

Revenant said...

Of course, everybody said the federal government was spending way too much and nobody wanted their community to get one penny less of federal government money.

Rather than "everybody" and "nobody", say "all" or "none" of "the people whose interviews Moore saw fit to air".

From Inwood said...

Jeremy

Your point to Pogo about how we are the enemy 'cause we all want our part is well taken.

But it was also said in the '70s when Reagan was campaigning & he got elected & got tax cuts. As did Bush.

And they work.

But since most people don't see how they work & since never before have so few paid so much & so many paid so little, even a GOP Congress & WH gave in.

And, most important, you forgot to note that besides the good things you mentioned, there's all those "Bridges to Nowhere". With the 'net, not all of these faux benefits need sneak by anymore.

*****************

M Farris

Michael Moore is your economist?

michael farris said...

"Rather than "everybody" and "nobody" ... "all" or "none" of "the people whose interviews Moore saw fit to air".

Well, duh.


"Michael Moore is your economist?"

No. He's an occasionally engaging, occasionally entertaining provocateur(and yes, you're right: he's fat).
Another point that the story in question made IIRC (looked for it youtube but not there yet) was that people ("whose interviews [he] saw fit to air" pace, revenant) had very little idea (wild understatement) about what the federal government actually was paying for in their community.

Simon said...

Ben said...
"She's a divisive figure -- but that doesn't mean she can't take 51%."

51% is irrelevant, except as a matter of coincidence. It'd be interesting to see an electoral college map drawn out asessing how Hillary would play in each state. Which states that Kerry won might she lose? Which states did Kerry lose that she might win?

michael farris said...
"Of course, everybody said the federal government was spending way too much and nobody wanted their community to get one penny less of federal government money."

Judge Easterbrook observed in a recent speech that the definition of pork is government spending that you think is a waste and somebody else doesn't.

I do agree, of course - the problem isn't the tax cuts, which have been very productive, the problem is out-of-control domestic discretionary spending and earmarks.

Pogo said...

Re: "...out-of-control domestic discretionary spending and earmarks."

As surgeons say, "all bleeding eventually stops".

Revenant said...

Well, duh.

Well if you knew that, why cite Moore's show to illustrate your point? It doesn't tell us anything.

michael farris said...

"why cite Moore's show to illustrate your point? It doesn't tell us anything."

It illustrates one of the reasons why it's so hard to cut spending. Namely, lots of people _love_ government spending if it's on them and get all principled only when it's spending on someone else.

Try campaining for the senate on a campaign platform of: "I wont' bring one red dime of federal money to this state!" or "This state (or district) is receiving far too much federal money. We're not gonna take it anymore!"

The Exalted said...

ha, revenant, good show

you're being purposefully obtuse towards the old saw bandied about on moore's show, and then you completely misrepresent the facts:


The only time the deficit ever gets eliminated, even temporarily, is when the government underestimates tax revenue by mistake.


we had surpluses, huge surpluses, very recently. like, in the past 7 years. sorry your memory is so frail.

blake said...

Well, of course, the states could do it, by leading for an end of the Federal ability to tax individuals.

Logically, we should pay our states and the states should pay the government. It could even start at the municipal level.

Then you could campaign your little heart out on that exact platform: Keep the Federal government out of our lives.

cyrus pinkerton said...

Dust Bunny Queen wrote:

It has been proven time and time again that cutting taxes increases the total amount of money going into the government.

Absolute rubbish! Federal revenue data proves your claim wrong. Why don't you rely on facts instead of partisan talking points that are easily shown to be false?

From Inwood said...

M Farris

I didn't say anything about Moore's weight.

Why would you say I did?

That helps you avoid having to come to grips with him as your economic guru, I guess.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Laffer curve. The results of lowered (not zero but lowered vs higer) taxation have been known for over 600 years. "Ibn Khaldun, a 14th century Muslim philosopher, wrote in his work The Muqaddimah: "It should be known that at the beginning of the dynasty, taxation yields a large revenue from small assessments. At the end of the dynasty, taxation yields a small revenue from large assessments." If we want to be at the end of our dynasty, by all means, raise taxes.



Over the past 100 years, there have been three major periods of tax-rate cuts in the U.S.: the Harding-Coolidge cuts of the mid-1920s; the Kennedy cuts of the mid-1960s; and the Reagan cuts of the early 1980s. Each of these periods of tax cuts was remarkably successful as measured by virtually any public policy metric.

And now the Bush tax cuts.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm

If you want to pay higher taxes, have at it. Personally, as a self employed person, when my income becomes taxed at the next to highest bracket....I quit working. Why should I continue and give away over 50% of every dollar I make to fund social welfare programs that I don't approve of? If you think that most other self employed and small business people don't think the same, then you have not been around many business owners.

The same thing is true for unrealized capital gains. When they are taxed at a reasonable rate, people will take the gains and spend or reinvest them. Tax too high, they will generally not do so or look for tax shelters.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Here you go Cyrus
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/50036417.gif

Seldom in economics does real life conform so conveniently to theory as this capital gains example does to the Laffer Curve. Lower tax rates change people's economic behavior and stimulate economic growth, which can create more--not less--tax revenues.

Simon said...

blake said...
"Well, of course, the states could do it, by leading for an end of the Federal ability to tax individuals.

Right - the two primary drivers of the expansion of the federal government (or at least, the indispensible enablers of it) were the sixteenth and seventeeth amendments. By eliminating the proportionality requirement, the former - again, in Judge Easterbrook's words - "gave the federal government the power to control 100% of the entire economy." So after the Sixteenth Amendment, not only does the federal government now have access to almost unlimited funds to do practically anything it wants with (judicial limitations on the spending clause being but a fever dream), placing the states effectively on the gallows, worse yet, a short time later, the seventeenth amendment drops the trapdoor. Because having provided the necessary financial fuel, once you eliminate the representation of the states qua states in the Congress, you eliminate the one remaining check on federal aggrandisement vis a vis the states. All you need is a national crisis insoluble by the states individually to create the demand for the federal government to act - which is precisely what happened in the great depression. (This is why, by the way, Garcia is wrong, even on its own terms, and the federal courts must police federalism, because there is no other body, none at all, that is institutionally competent to do so.)

The only difference is that I think the 16th amendment has enough worth to be salvagable, but as I've said many times before, the 17th Amendment is a tragic mistake, well-intentioned though it may be, and I would effectively repeal it.

Freeman Hunt said...

Namely, lots of people _love_ government spending if it's on them and get all principled only when it's spending on someone else.

Okay, count me as someone who will settle for national defense, roads, police, firefighters, national treasury for printing money, and a patent and copyright office. I promise to make due with only those things if it means we can get rid of everything else.

MadisonMan said...

Which states did Kerry lose that she might win?

I would put Ohio at the top of the list, given the state of the imploded Republican party in the buckeye state.

Simon said...

MadisonMan - yeah, that's the worry. If everything else stays stable, flipping Ohio is game, set and match.

Revenant said...

"The only time the deficit ever gets eliminated, even temporarily, is when the government underestimates tax revenue by mistake."

we had surpluses, huge surpluses, very recently. like, in the past 7 years.

Yes, exalted -- that would be the aforementioned time "when the government underestimates tax revenue by mistake". The tech bubble caused an unexpected spike in tax revenues, temporarily giving Congress more money to spend than it had planned on spending. That's why we got surpluses.

And I'm not being obtuse about Moore, I'm just pointing out that if he interviewed a hundred Georgians and found three people who fit the "Gingrich voters are hypocrites" image he's looking to push, those are the three you'd see. You'd never hear about the other 97. So who cares what was on his show when there's no reason to believe it is even vaguely accurate?

Inside said...

I find it interesting that conservatives are trying so hard to paint Hillary Clinton as a communist, while Democrats don't like her because she is a bit too conservative for the current 'core' of the liberal party.

Republicans won't be out in full force to keep Hillary out! Repeating it won't make it so. Most conservatives will be uninspired, maybe pop some pills as they wait for the inevitable.

The only reason some of you are suggesting that conservatives will flock to the polls to stop Hillary is because it's the only chance you have at an upset in 2008. You've determined that Hillary is inevitable, so the fight has begun-- Hillary is a commie, and everyone will flock to the polls to vote for anyone-but Hillary.

This is a sign of desperation. It doesn't mean it'll fail, but the likelihood of this strategy overcoming Clinton's momentum thanks to Bush's unpopular presidency is slim at best.

cyrus pinkerton said...

Dust Bunny Queen wrote:

They never ever learn. Get ready for taxes to increase, business revenues to go down, unemployment to go up, stock market down...

Apparently, when Dust Bunny Queen wrote "they never ever learn" she was referring to anyone foolish enough to believe what she's written.

As we know, federal taxes were increased in 1993, and this was followed by a steady decline in the unemployment rate, strong growth in business revenues, and vigorous increases in the DJIA. This is the exact opposite of what Dust Bunny Queen asserts accompanies a tax hike. Examining the facts seriously undercuts Dust Bunny Queen's credibility on economic matters.

It has been proven time and time again that cutting taxes increases the total amount of money going into the government...

This is factually incorrect and can easily be shown to be incorrect by looking at recent federal revenue data available online. Let's take a quick look at how federal tax revenue (in constant dollars) responded to recent tax cutting measures:

Bush Tax Cuts (2001, 2002, 2003)

YEAR | Federal Revenue (billions)
2000 | 2025.5
2001 | 1945.9 <- tax cut
2002 | 1777.8 <- tax cut
2003 | 1665.5 <- tax cut

Reagan Tax Cut (1981)

YEAR | Federal Revenue (billions)
1981 | 1077.4
1982 | 1036.9 <- tax cut
1983 | 961.7
1984 | 1016.8 <- tax hike

Dust Bunny Queen, I hope you'll notice that federal revenue declined in each of these instances following a tax cut. I'm sorry, but once again an examination of the facts proves your claim to be false.

cyrus pinkerton said...

Dust Bunny Queen,

One more thing... Please don't try to spin with Heritage Foundation garbage. All we need to discuss any of your claims is the raw data available online from sources such as the Treasury Department.

Also, I suspect that if you had any real understanding of the Laffer Curve, you wouldn't be spouting such nonsense. The Laffer Curve, as you should know, is a qualitative tool. There is no sensible basis for drawing conclusions from the Laffer Curve about how the US economy will respond to tax hikes or tax cuts.