OT: Dean Goes Nuts last night

[-Jar-]

this is hilarious..

http://drudgereport.com/dean.mp3

I'm not sure, but I think the sound there at the end is Dean shooting himself in the foot..


-jar

[Mr MidFi]

Yeah, that was pretty horrid. Even my sister, a Dean supporter, had to call it a career-ending moment.

The correct answer, however, remains Wesley Clark.

Oh, BTW, I received your discs last night, Jar. Wow...I'm not worthy! Many thanks, and happy new year!

[Swish]

and I had to laugh out loud. This guy seems to be very intelligent (a doctor as I recall) but he was a total goober the other night. I've made no secret of the fact that I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, so it's been fun watching these guys attack each other and, on occasion, making total fools of themselves. Dean appeared to have the nomination wrapped up a few weeks ago, but he's detroyed himself down the homestretch. If the Democrats really want to unseat Bush they have to do a lot better than this. In fact, they've done nearly as much to solidify a Bush reelection as the economic boom (best in 20 years) and the victory in Iraq.

Swish Baby

[-Jar-]

and I had to laugh out loud. This guy seems to be very intelligent (a doctor as I recall) but he was a total goober the other night. I've made no secret of the fact that I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, so it's been fun watching these guys attack each other and, on occasion, making total fools of themselves. Dean appeared to have the nomination wrapped up a few weeks ago, but he's detroyed himself down the homestretch. If the Democrats really want to unseat Bush they have to do a lot better than this. In fact, they've done nearly as much to solidify a Bush reelection as the economic boom (best in 20 years) and the victory in Iraq.

Swish Baby

I have high hopes for the economy.. but the jobs situation seems to be lagging behind. If people are going to judge the economy on jobs (esp. those that don't have investments, or those that have lost their jobs to people in Mexico and India), then Bush might have a problem.

I'm glad my 401K is going up, but I'm pretty scared that if for some reason I do lose this job (a position was "eliminated" in my department last month), I'm going to have a ***** of a time finding a new one.. I generally don't vote by party, so I probably won't make up my mind until October what I'm going to do..

-jar

[-Jar-]

Yeah, that was pretty horrid. Even my sister, a Dean supporter, had to call it a career-ending moment.

The correct answer, however, remains Wesley Clark.

Oh, BTW, I received your discs last night, Jar. Wow...I'm not worthy! Many thanks, and happy new year!

it's safe to say that Dean has "jumped the shark"

Glad you got the comps, hope you enjoy 'em.. I've been spinnin' those Meta comps of yours quite a bit.. and Radio Bativia keeps finding its way into the cd player too..

take care,
jar

[Swish]

I have high hopes for the economy.. but the jobs situation seems to be lagging behind. If people are going to judge the economy on jobs (esp. those that don't have investments, or those that have lost their jobs to people in Mexico and India), then Bush might have a problem.

I'm glad my 401K is going up, but I'm pretty scared that if for some reason I do lose this job (a position was "eliminated" in my department last month), I'm going to have a ***** of a time finding a new one.. I generally don't vote by party, so I probably won't make up my mind until October what I'm going to do..

-jar

with Comparative Advantage. Yes, it's tough to lose jobs to other countries, but if they can produce comparable goods cheaper than we can, then they should do it! If you can go to JC Penney and get a shirt for $20, why would you go to Sears and pay $30 for the same item? That's a very basic analogy, but we're in a global economy, and losing jobs to foreign countries is the downside of it. Remember Japanese steel and how it hurt the US? Our steel industry paid a lot in wages and benefits to their workers and the big shots stuffed their pockets, but they didn't reinvest anything (or too little) in technology, and some of the plants that I saw were still in the same condition as they were during WW II. I live in a town that lived this nightmare, so I have first-hand knowledge. Anyway, the Japanese figured out how to make steel more efficiently and cheaper, so why blame them? The same thing has happened to our garment industry, whether you want to blame "sweat shop" labor or not (we have our own skeletons when it comes to child labor, so don't get me started). The thing we need to do is to create jobs in new, emerging industries and forget about the jobs going overseas. I know that's a tough pill to swallow, but it's the right thing to do. Spending money for retraining is a great way to start, and many programs have been and will be available. I happen to know several people who went that route and came out fine. They got extended unemployment benefits and free job training. Not bad, eh?

Man, are we "off topic" or what?
Swish

[JDaniel]

JD - Libertarian at heart. But I vote republican. And Yes, I did major in economics in college - undergrad & grad school. And I like my music a little on the blues and alt-country side. End of confessional. There, now I feel better.

JD

[Troy]

If the Democrats really want to unseat Bush they have to do a lot better than this. In fact, they've done nearly as much to solidify a Bush reelection as the economic boom (best in 20 years) and the victory in Iraq.

Dean smacks of your basic Dukakis or Mondale. A bland loser spouting the same old rhetoric right from the get-go. MidFi is right, at this point Clark's the only one that can beat Bush out of office.

Now, about this economic boom . . . Economic boom times for major corporations to be sure . . . while virtually every small business owner I know is starving. I know SO many people suffering layoffs and wage cuts right now, it's appalling that anyone can call these economic boom times. Ludicrous. The rich getting richer is all this regime is about.

Somebody explain to me about "victory" in Iraq please?

[DariusNYC]

The correct answer, however, remains Wesley Clark.

I'm starting to think the correct answer (if the question is who has the best chance at beating Bush) may be John Edwards. Did anyone catch his speech after the Iowa caucuses? Very substantive and compelling, and likeable too. He's also had quite strong performances in the debates so far, and just comes accross as optimistic. Wish he was more of a committed free-trader and less of a wuss on farm subsidies and steel subsidies and stuff like that, but otherwise, I like him. Kerry isn't likeable enough, even though he's got good experience. Clark is a great resume but he's never been well-liked; I'm going to stay tuned on him. But Bush is going to be hard for anyone to beat.

[Mr MidFi]

I'm starting to think the correct answer (if the question is who has the best chance at beating Bush) may be John Edwards. Did anyone catch his speech after the Iowa caucuses? Very substantive and compelling, and likeable too. He's also had quite strong performances in the debates so far, and just comes accross as optimistic. Wish he was more of a committed free-trader and less of a wuss on farm subsidies and steel subsidies and stuff like that, but otherwise, I like him. Kerry isn't likeable enough, even though he's got good experience. Clark is a great resume but he's never been well-liked; I'm going to stay tuned on him. But Bush is going to be hard for anyone to beat.

I more or less agree with everything you just said...and you're dead right about Edwards. But I just can't help seeing a lot of Jimmy Carter in him, and I think most voters will too.

I don't want to start a political flame war here...that's what fark.com is for. But to me, the only issue that matters is who can beat Bush. And right now, I think that guy is Clark.

[Swish]

Dean smacks of your basic Dukakis or Mondale. A bland loser spouting the same old rhetoric right from the get-go. MidFi is right, at this point Clark's the only one that can beat Bush out of office.

Now, about this economic boom . . . Economic boom times for major corporations to be sure . . . while virtually every small business owner I know is starving. I know SO many people suffering layoffs and wage cuts right now, it's appalling that anyone can call these economic boom times. Ludicrous. The rich getting richer is all this regime is about.

Somebody explain to me about "victory" in Iraq please?

Ok, if you're a pacifist, I'm not going to try to convince you that we did the right thing, even though I think we did. We removed a murderous dictator and his mass-murdering regime from power and have given freedom back to millions of Iraqis. Yes, it was at the expense of more than 500 American lives, and that is a tragedy, but also one of the unfortunate sacrifices we had to make. The fact that we have now captured Saddam and that peace is finally starting to be restored (most of the rebels factions have been exposed and eliminated) and a new Iraqi governing body will soon be in place, is another sign of victory for all the countries involved in the liberation of Iraq.

Ok, go ahead and take your shots, but you won't sway my opinion or beliefs.

Swishster

[Troy]

Ok, if you're a pacifist, I'm not going to try to convince you that we did the right thing, even though I think we did. We removed a murderous dictator and his mass-murdering regime from power and have given freedom back to millions of Iraqis. Yes, it was at the expense of more than 500 American lives, and that is a tragedy, but also one of the unfortunate sacrifices we had to make. The fact that we have now captured Saddam and that peace is finally starting to be restored (most of the rebels factions have been exposed and eliminated) and a new Iraqi governing body will soon be in place, is another sign of victory for all the countries involved in the liberation of Iraq.

Ok, go ahead and take your shots, but you won't sway my opinion or beliefs.

Swishster

Oh, is it really over? Has the deathtoll stopped? Maybe it's slowed, give it another few weeks.

Regardless, We continue to hemhorrage cash over there to the tune of a billion or so a week and I have yet to see an end to it in sight. Sure, cheap oil is great, but who really reaps the benefit of that? The oil companies and the contractors that supply them. Who's profits are way, WAY up? Same guys. Yet, who's constantly on the grope for government handouts and tax exemptions and getting them? Same guys again. It's gonna take this country 1000 years to pay for this mess . . . if it stopped now. But it shows no sign of stoping.

How W (well, his handlers, he's just a corporate tool) turned basically the whole world against us in the space of 3 years, especially after we had virtually the entire bunch of 'em (even many Arab and Muslim states) on our side after 9/11 just shows how far greed will push some people.

The whole thing was, and continues to be, about money.

[poneal]

Yeah, I haven't made up my mind which to choose but I know its not going to be Bush. As far as I am concerned Bush has lined the pockets of the rich and has done nothing for me. That tax package he touts did nothing for me - the middle class white collar worker. Did I mention that Bush and Ken Lay (Enron) were buddies and look where Enron is now. Same with Dick Cheny and Haliburton, bunch of crooks as far as I am concerned. Well, enough ranting.

[dld]

Regardless, We continue to hemhorrage cash over there to the tune of a billion or so a week and I have yet to see an end to it in sight. Sure, cheap oil is great, but who really reaps the benefit of that? The oil companies and the contractors that supply them. .

Hey Troy, I think you're a pretty intelligent dude and I would never question your opinions, Debates over war, religion,, and politics often lead to polarization so I don't really like opining about them myself. But I do like correcting factual misstatements, when i've got the cred to do so. So lets get this goddam straight right now,

OIl profits are almost entirely dependent on price. But Troy, you ignorant slut they profit from high prices, not low. Low oil prices are the bane of the oil industry. Profiteers from low oil prices are energy consuming industries like airlines, steel mills, utilities, etc., and of course, good ol you and me. Right now, oil prices for WTI on the NYMEX are running between $35 and $36/bbl. for February delieveries. Thats freakin high. During the Iraq war they topped out at about $38 or so, Desert Storm they were as high as $40 (their historical high). Today's hi prices are due to cold weather cutting into natural gas supplies with resultant increase in demand to fuel oil due to optionality in heavy industry and utilities, increase in overall demand due to improvement in the economy, and of course, the unprecendented growth of demand in China (economy growing at a rate of 9.2%, give or take).

So repeat with me, LOW oil prices = bad for oil companies, layoffs, bankruptcies, no drilling, worse for service companies and contractors. High prices = good for oil companies. hi profits, new hires, new wells (which eventually lead to low prices but thats another story of the boom and bust cycle of extractive industries) yada yada yada.

One other point, I don't think any president deserves too much credit for boom cycles in the economy. The business cycle is a very powerful machine that mere politics and non radical fiscal policy can do no more than nudge. I usually don't cast a lot of blame nor do I give a lot of credit when the cycle bottoms out or tops out during any given administration. (you did catch the "wink" after ignorant slut I hope)

Oh yea, if Mexicans or Asians can manufacture stuff cheaper over there, more power to em. Lets seem em make Boeing 777, lets seem em drill wells better than us, lets see em grow wheat more efficiently, Theres a sheetload of stuff we do a helluva lot better than anyone else. Devote yer resouces to what you do good and efficietnly and let someone else do the crap we can't do efficiently. Trade yer excess for their excess. As Professor Medow used to tell us in grad school, "that way, everbuddy wins". Yes, he was from Texas. Neo Classical Theory of World Trade. Lecture over. Recess

[-Jar-]

Oh yea, if Mexicans or Asians can manufacture stuff cheaper over there, more power to em. Lets seem em make Boeing 777, lets seem em drill wells better than us, lets see em grow wheat more efficiently, Theres a sheetload of stuff we do a helluva lot better than anyone else. Devote yer resouces to what you do good and efficietnly and let someone else do the crap we can't do efficiently. Trade yer excess for their excess. As Professor Medow used to tell us in grad school, "that way, everbuddy wins". Yes, he was from Texas. Neo Classical Theory of World Trade. Lecture over. Recess

Most people don't/won't see the big picture like this. They lose a job they've held for 20 years because they moved the factory to Mexico.. they don't wanna hear no friggin lecture on World Trade Theory. And they'll probably blame the President. The bleeding of factory and tech jobs overseas is going to happen regardless of who's in office, but, again, when you're desperate to put food on the table for your family, someone has to pay. If some guy is 60 years old and has made furniture all his life, and suddenly loses his job to someone in China, it's small consolation that "everybuddy wins" - sure, he should have prepared better, should have saved more, we all need to do that.. but realisticly, it just doesn't happen. He's got a few years until Social Sec kicks in.. guess he'd better get down to Wal-Mart.

-jar

[dld]

Hey Jar, I feel for em. I lost a job too at Mobil when the crunch hit in '98-'99. Took a job in government. Its happened before and it'll happen again. Workers in Mexico have the same problems, only worse. Why do they immigrate to the states by the millions a year? Why do Asians immigrate to BC by the droves? By the way, I feel Troy was due a little ECO 101 for that falling prices = profits for big energy bullsheet. Just couldn't help my self. Trust me, I would never and have never laid that theory crap on anyone whose job has been sheetcanned for whatever reason. But thats an entirely different matter when it comes to internet discussion chat boards......

[jack70]

Dean smacks of your basic Dukakis or Mondale. A bland loser spouting the same old rhetoric right from the get-go. MidFi is right, at this point Clark's the only one that can beat Bush out of office.

Not knowing much about Dean at the time, I watched him on Meet The Press a few months back. Tim Russert is the gold standard for political interviews. He's an ex-Dem, but treats everyone fairly, asks great questions, and then shuts the hell up and lets you talk (hang yourself). Even Limbaugh goes on every year because he's treated with courtesy.

Dean was on for the whole hour. I sat there with my mouth open at some of his gaffs... the worst showing I've ever seen by a politician. Surprising because he WAS a governor, not a NON-politcal type outsider, and should know the drill by now. He looked REALLY bad. It showed just what a chaotic mess he (& the other dems for that matter), had in the way of public policy. I'm not saying Bush's political vision is 20/20, but at least he has one (wish he'd follow it...LOL). Afterwards, he started avoided ANY & ALL such (serious) interview shows, especially O'Reilly (who's actually a pussycat compared to Russert, who has a crack staff that does their homework).

Having said that, this thing is far from over, and Dean has LOTS of cash, and is planning to go the distance. Even if he finishes 2'nd or 3'rd in some states, he may end up with enough delegates to wield enough power at the end... this game is just getting started. One of his biggest pluses is the huge web of organized young people helping him... but it also hurt him big time in IA because those young punks (generally) had NO class and pissed off voters with their condescension and bad manners. That kind of behavior just turns most people off. (It's just one reason the Reps are praying he wins it.)

Originally Posted by Mr MidFi: The correct answer, however, remains Wesley Clark. I'm starting to think the correct answer (if the question is who has the best chance at beating Bush) may be John Edwards.

I think Clark is just as wacko as Dean, just a different flavor of wackiness. He has NO experience in this game, and it shows when he's pressed. Might he be able to improve that down the road? I don't know... it's just as likely the daily grind will wear him down and he'll look even worse. I think he got in this game because certain Dem leaders saw his resume as perfect, and his ego couldn't resist. Most military types that had such YOUNG & quick rises to the top have also had huge ego "problems," with their resultant fallout... the loose cannon thing. The truth is, Clark has said more stupid things than any of the others, even Dean & Kucinich... he's contradicted himself so many times it ain't funny. He could well come off looking worse than Dan Quale... and that's saying something. Both Clark & Dean look too MEAN, and the "image thing" is more important than anything else for most people in the middle (the majority who don't follow this stuff everyday like most political junkies).

Edwards has the most things going for him... he's very likeable and well spoken. His main defect is the fact he's a stinkin' lawyer.... he claims he's an outsider & "regular guy", and wants to get special interests out of politics, but doesn't think that pertains to lawyers...LOL. He reminds me less of Jimmy Carter than Bill Clinton (early pre-Pres Bill). Carter only won because Ford was as appealing as a rock (great legislator... poor national campaigner). Clinton only won (w/ less than 50% of the pop vote) because Perot siphoned off from Bush. But I agree Edwards has the brains and temperment to win the nomination... as for a match with Bush, that would depend on what happens next summer & fall. Impossible to predict now.

One other point, I don't think any president deserves too much credit for boom cycles in the economy. The business cycle is a very powerful machine that mere politics and non radical fiscal policy can do no more than nudge. I usually don't cast a lot of blame nor do I give a lot of credit when the cycle bottoms out or tops out during any given administration.

That is SO true Dave. But 95% of the voters don't think like us. It's partially a result of poor basic education about logic and economics in school. The media also does a lousy job here too... they tend to run with negative stories which can skew the truth. For example, as bad as the Enron fiasco was, the amount of corporate corruption has remained fairly low here (US) over the past few decades. I'm not saying those ripples didn't hurt the economy & Wall Street, or that such coruption is getting rarer (it ain't), just that they were way over-covered, and that made other equally important problems grow and get worse. Of course, it was all a drop in the bucket compared to the corruption, theft and waste that goes on in Washington every day...LOL.

Back to the Economy & Presidential Credit -- what did Clinton do, exactly to make the go-go 90's anyway?

Well, here's just 3 (of the major) things that effected that 90's economic boom:

1- The digital/internet boom which not only had large corporations restructuring their way into the digital age, but small business's (the heart of our economy) and just regular people. Between hardware, infrastructure and software, the whole culture & business environment was in a state of explosion for the entire decade. Add Y2K for effect. Unless you believe Gore really did invent the internet, it was simply serendipity for Clinton.

2- Clinton wanted (really wanted) to do what most democrats want to do (spend all the increased tax flow). But it was Gingrich and the first Republican Congress in ages (who controls the budget) that forced Clinton to cut back on spending (well, at least the RATE of increase of spending... something that's only "normal" in the land of Washington weasels...LOL). After a few vetoes he finally went along with Gingrich (his frenzied daily polling probably helped push him that way), although it was Clinton, not Gingrich that got the credit for this a few years later...LOL. (remember the "contract with America" that Clinton demonized as the "contract ON America"? Clinton signed 80% of it...LOL. I do give Clinton some credit here, even though he came kicking & screaming (even with the tax coffers overflowing). But Gingrich's (relative) fiscal restraint and unexpected tax revenues helped our dept profile (& world economic ripples). Where Clinton failed miserably, was lack of leadership in NOT reforming Social Security in that fiscal environment, something that would have made him a great president. Instead, he'll be seen as average at best.

3- It was Bush Sr that made a stone-cold hard decision to pay off the federal liability that the savings & loan scandals placed on the federal budget. Most of the congress flunkies wanted to pay off that (huge) bill (debt) over the next 20-30 years, just like they do with everything else... let the next generation pay for their mismanagement after they're pushing up daisies. Bush stood his ground on principle and paid it off quicky. It made the economy struggle for a while, but it was ironically already well on the way to the boom-boom times ahead when the '92 election took place. Most people believed the economy was still tanked... it wasn't, but that wasn't so obvious until a year further down the road. Clinton steps in after Bush Sr does the dirty work, and Clinton looks the hero. (but I guess his Karma finally caught up with him)

Government can effect the economy, but they can't steer the ship... if they could, we'd NEVER have recessions. Economics is one of the most misunderstood subjects for regular folks to understand... even worse than basic science or history. Whenever government (laws) are enacted to "help" or protect" certain "economic" problems, they usually make things worse. Virginia Postrel, someone who's linked on my site, wrote a recent article on Friedrich Hayek, the great libertarian thinker... here's a sample:

Hayek, who died in 1992, was not just any economist. He won the Nobel Prize in economics in 1974. His 1945 article, "The Use of Knowledge in Society," is a touchstone work on the role of prices in coordinating dispersed information. His 1944 bestseller "The Road to Serfdom" helped catalyze the free-market political movement in the United States and continues to sell thousands of copies a year.
Economist Milton Friedman calls him "the most important social thinker of the 20th century".

Hayek's most significant contribution, he explains, "was to make clear how our present complex social structure is not the result of the intended actions of individuals but of the unintended consequences of individual interactions over a long period of time, the product of social evolution, not of deliberate planning." Indeed, Hayek is increasingly recognized as one of the 20th century's most profound and important theorists, one whose work included political theory, philosophy of science, even cognitive psychology.

Hayek (& the principles and economic laws he saw and understood), was as important a 20'th century thinker as Einstein or Freud, yet he's virtually unknown, even by many economists. Even if every weasel in Washington understood his work, we'd still have major problems of government interfering with economic forces and the resultant effects to freedom etc... but until that happens don't expect society to reach Utopia just yet.

[Troy]

OIl profits are almost entirely dependent on price. But Troy, you ignorant slut they profit from high prices, not low. Low oil prices are the bane of the oil industry. Profiteers from low oil prices are energy consuming industries like airlines, steel mills, utilities, etc., and of course, good ol you and me. Right now, oil prices for WTI on the NYMEX are running between $35 and $36/bbl. for February delieveries. Thats freakin high. During the Iraq war they topped out at about $38 or so, Desert Storm they were as high as $40 (their historical high). Today's hi prices are due to cold weather cutting into natural gas supplies with resultant increase in demand to fuel oil due to optionality in heavy industry and utilities, increase in overall demand due to improvement in the economy, and of course, the unprecendented growth of demand in China (economy growing at a rate of 9.2%, give or take).

You can't deny that big oil is making enormous profits. Low BBL prices mean higher profit margins. A settled and westwernized Middle East means easier (ie: cheaper) operating conditions for big oil. Continued high demand in the US also means higher profits. The Bush administration WANTS the US to depend heavily on oil because W is owned by the big oil lobby.

As far as the prez not taking the fall in economic boom and bust times. It always seems to be that the guy you voted for can't be blamed for the bust and the guy you did vote for is responsible for the boom. Ever notice that? That old saying applies here: "The fish stinks from the head".

I see it that the president sets the tone for the country. He creates a specific climate for whichever lobby that owns him to do well. Clinton was owned by high tech and medical, Bush is owned by oil.

Moving on:
In the long term, there is no way the US can win a war in the Middle East. The ideology is just too different. The only way to "win" is to not buy oil from these barbarians. God forbid the Bush administration would create a climate where we could, as a country, move away from dependency on oil.

I notice that no one has an answer to my comments about how much this war is costing taxpayers and how the industry that pressured the US into the war in the fist place is the same industry that constantly looks for tax exemptions.

[dennis]

undefined

Not knowing much about Dean at the time, I watched him on Meet The Press a few months back. Tim Russert is the gold standard for political interviews. He's an ex-Dem, but treats everyone fairly, asks great questions, and then shuts the hell up and lets you talk (hang yourself). Even Limbaugh goes on every year because he's treated with courtesy.

Dean was on for the whole hour. I sat there with my mouth open at some of his gaffs... the worst showing I've ever seen by a politician. Surprising because he WAS a governor, not a NON-politcal type outsider, and should know the drill by now. He looked REALLY bad. It showed just what a chaotic mess he (& the other dems for that matter), had in the way of public policy. I'm not saying Bush's political vision is 20/20, but at least he has one (wish he'd follow it...LOL). Afterwards, he started avoided ANY & ALL such (serious) interview shows, especially O'Reilly (who's actually a pussycat compared to Russert, who has a crack staff that does their homework).

Having said that, this thing is far from over, and Dean has LOTS of cash, and is planning to go the distance. Even if he finishes 2'nd or 3'rd in some states, he may end up with enough delegates to wield enough power at the end... this game is just getting started. One of his biggest pluses is the huge web of organized young people helping him... but it also hurt him big time in IA because those young punks (generally) had NO class and pissed off voters with their condescension and bad manners. That kind of behavior just turns most people off. (It's just one reason the Reps are praying he wins it.)





I think Clark is just as wacko as Dean, just a different flavor of wackiness. He has NO experience in this game, and it shows when he's pressed. Might he be able to improve that down the road? I don't know... it's just as likely the daily grind will wear him down and he'll look even worse. I think he got in this game because certain Dem leaders saw his resume as perfect, and his ego couldn't resist. Most military types that had such YOUNG & quick rises to the top have also had huge ego "problems," with their resultant fallout... the loose cannon thing. The truth is, Clark has said more stupid things than any of the others, even Dean & Kucinich... he's contradicted himself so many times it ain't funny. He could well come off looking worse than Dan Quale... and that's saying something. Both Clark & Dean look too MEAN, and the "image thing" is more important than anything else for most people in the middle (the majority who don't follow this stuff everyday like most political junkies).

Edwards has the most things going for him... he's very likeable and well spoken. His main defect is the fact he's a stinkin' lawyer.... he claims he's an outsider & "regular guy", and wants to get special interests out of politics, but doesn't think that pertains to lawyers...LOL. He reminds me less of Jimmy Carter than Bill Clinton (early pre-Pres Bill). Carter only won because Ford was as appealing as a rock (great legislator... poor national campaigner). Clinton only won (w/ less than 50% of the pop vote) because Perot siphoned off from Bush. But I agree Edwards has the brains and temperment to win the nomination... as for a match with Bush, that would depend on what happens next summer & fall. Impossible to predict now.





That is SO true Dave. But 95% of the voters don't think like us. It's partially a result of poor basic education about logic and economics in school. The media also does a lousy job here too... they tend to run with negative stories which can skew the truth. For example, as bad as the Enron fiasco was, the amount of corporate corruption has remained fairly low here (US) over the past few decades. I'm not saying those ripples didn't hurt the economy & Wall Street, or that such coruption is getting rarer (it ain't), just that they were way over-covered, and that made other equally important problems grow and get worse. Of course, it was all a drop in the bucket compared to the corruption, theft and waste that goes on in Washington every day...LOL.

Back to the Economy & Presidential Credit -- what did Clinton do, exactly to make the go-go 90's anyway?

Well, here's just 3 (of the major) things that effected that 90's economic boom:

1- The digital/internet boom which not only had large corporations restructuring their way into the digital age, but small business's (the heart of our economy) and just regular people. Between hardware, infrastructure and software, the whole culture & business environment was in a state of explosion for the entire decade. Add Y2K for effect. Unless you believe Gore really did invent the internet, it was simply serendipity for Clinton.

2- Clinton wanted (really wanted) to do what most democrats want to do (spend all the increased tax flow). But it was Gingrich and the first Republican Congress in ages (who controls the budget) that forced Clinton to cut back on spending (well, at least the RATE of increase of spending... something that's only "normal" in the land of Washington weasels...LOL). After a few vetoes he finally went along with Gingrich (his frenzied daily polling probably helped push him that way), although it was Clinton, not Gingrich that got the credit for this a few years later...LOL. (remember the "contract with America" that Clinton demonized as the "contract ON America"? Clinton signed 80% of it...LOL. I do give Clinton some credit here, even though he came kicking & screaming (even with the tax coffers overflowing). But Gingrich's (relative) fiscal restraint and unexpected tax revenues helped our dept profile (& world economic ripples). Where Clinton failed miserably, was lack of leadership in NOT reforming Social Security in that fiscal environment, something that would have made him a great president. Instead, he'll be seen as average at best.

3- It was Bush Sr that made a stone-cold hard decision to pay off the federal liability that the savings & loan scandals placed on the federal budget. Most of the congress flunkies wanted to pay off that (huge) bill (debt) over the next 20-30 years, just like they do with everything else... let the next generation pay for their mismanagement after they're pushing up daisies. Bush stood his ground on principle and paid it off quicky. It made the economy struggle for a while, but it was ironically already well on the way to the boom-boom times ahead when the '92 election took place. Most people believed the economy was still tanked... it wasn't, but that wasn't so obvious until a year further down the road. Clinton steps in after Bush Sr does the dirty work, and Clinton looks the hero. (but I guess his Karma finally caught up with him)

Government can effect the economy, but they can't steer the ship... if they could, we'd NEVER have recessions. Economics is one of the most misunderstood subjects for regular folks to understand... even worse than basic science or history. Whenever government (laws) are enacted to "help" or protect" certain "economic" problems, they usually make things worse. Virginia Postrel, someone who's linked on my site, wrote a recent article on Friedrich Hayek, the great libertarian thinker... here's a sample:

Hayek, who died in 1992, was not just any economist. He won the Nobel Prize in economics in 1974. His 1945 article, "The Use of Knowledge in Society," is a touchstone work on the role of prices in coordinating dispersed information. His 1944 bestseller "The Road to Serfdom" helped catalyze the free-market political movement in the United States and continues to sell thousands of copies a year.
Economist Milton Friedman calls him "the most important social thinker of the 20th century".

Hayek's most significant contribution, he explains, "was to make clear how our present complex social structure is not the result of the intended actions of individuals but of the unintended consequences of individual interactions over a long period of time, the product of social evolution, not of deliberate planning." Indeed, Hayek is increasingly recognized as one of the 20th century's most profound and important theorists, one whose work included political theory, philosophy of science, even cognitive psychology.

Hayek (& the principles and economic laws he saw and understood), was as important a 20'th century thinker as Einstein or Freud, yet he's virtually unknown, even by many economists. Even if every weasel in Washington understood his work, we'd still have major problems of government interfering with economic forces and the resultant effects to freedom etc... but until that happens don't expect society to reach Utopia just yet.

[dennis]

Jack 70...you're absolutely correct....not about your lengthy dissertation about BILL CLINTON being at fault when the weather is bad and when the dinner gets overcooked and when you and your spouse have an argument....and on and on and on ........I'm sick of you %&**#@ CLINTON bashers blaming him for everything that goes wrong in YOUR daily lives...and never giving HIM credit for the best * years AMERICA has had in the past 40 years! YOUR ENTIRE TIRADE IS DRIVEN BY EMOTION....NOT FACT! I know it; you know it; and everyone that reads your post knows it. So why even write it and waste everybody's time.............Jack 70...you're absolutely right on with the last line you wrote...YOU DON'T KNOW JACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dld]

You can't deny that big oil is making enormous profits. Low BBL prices mean higher profit margins. .

Low prices mean they Can't and Don't recover drilling costs. End of story. Profit is made on the E & P side. I know this for a fact. This is not a political issue and its not one thats even debated by democrats, greens, liberals, tree huggers, etc. Refineries operate at a more or less given profit margin. If their aquisition costs are lower, then their raw markup amount is lower. their still gonna contribute profits in downtimes, sure, thats what keeps the company afloat. But those profits PALE in comp-arison to profits that E & P makes for sales of oil at the wellhead or at market centers. thats where the bucks are and thats that.

[jack70]

What a snappy retort dennis.

Ya didn't even read what I wrote. I didn't knock Clinton in that post... (I COULD do it, but that wasn't the point of my post). It was that presidents can only worsen economic forces. I put Clinton & Bush on the same level... average at best... and poor leaders. If you knew anything about me, you'd know I'm a libertarian and don't rely on any of the losers in Washinton to ensure my happiness. People like yourself, who only spout hate and namecall... and never utter a coherent debatable point, or original or constructive thought are part of the problem. Why don't you read a book occasionally... ya might learn sumpin' (you can read can't ya?)

Go have another beer and kick yer dog.

[dennis]

After Reading Your Reply........it Only Confirms That "you Really Don't Know Jack" ...don't You Read What You Write? Bookboy........................................... ps. I Hug My Dogs ...and What's This Thing You Got About "beer"? Are You Really Better Than The Rest Of Us Or Do You Just "think You Are?

[dld]

After Reading Your Reply........it Only Confirms That "you Really Don't Know Jack" ...don't You Read What You Write? Bookboy........................................... ps. I Hug My Dogs ...and What's This Thing You Got About "beer"? Are You Really Better Than The Rest Of Us Or Do You Just "think You Are?

Hey Dennis. I read Jack's post and as I see it, he was saying that he agreed, presidents shouldn't get the cred nor should they take the blame for ups and downs due to the business cycle. he said a lot more, i, uh, can't remember it all. But I do remember a very literate presentation that shows intelligence and maturity. I don't know you, and by the way, welcome aboard, but you're not showing a whole lot of intelligence in your responses.I know Troy is intelligent, but some of the claims he's spouting as absolutes, are baseless. But thats for another post.

As for me and Billy C, I worked closely with his administration. In the energy area, he did just fine. He (actually through Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbit) struck a nice balance between industry's "Gimme Gimme Gimme" line of crap, and those who wanted to cripple them in as far as operating on public lands were concerned. I'd also give VP Gore some cred there too. But I'm not dishing out a whole lot more props to those guys.

One of the things that miffs me about the whole process and this extends to both sides of the aisle, is the " my side is always right, and the other side is "always wrong" mentality. Thats why I dropped my membership in the Republican National Committee. Too much goddam mindless rhetoric.

By the way, call me "bookboy" anytime. Do you think thats an insult? Can you read? Glad you hug yer dogs. Watch out for fleas. Beers are good. Try some. It'll keep you regular.

Where's Nobody when you want a nice, civil, intelligent argument?

[nobody]

Don't vote. It only encourages them.