Power for Power's Sake

Dear Elephant-

Today the Wall Street Journal published an interesting article about the bad political shape the Republican party finds itself in after 7 years of George Bush. I found the following analysis to be spot on:

What happens to the Republicans in 2008 will likely be dictated by what didn't happen in 2005, and '06, and '07. The moment when the party could have broken, on principle, with the administration – over the thinking behind and the carrying out of the war, over immigration, spending and the size of government – has passed. What two years ago would have been honorable and wise will now look craven. They're stuck.

Mr. Bush has squandered the hard-built paternity of 40 years. But so has the party, and so have its leaders. If they had pushed away for serious reasons, they could have separated the party's fortunes from the president's. This would have left a painfully broken party, but they wouldn't be left with a ruined "brand," as they all say, speaking the language of marketing. And they speak that language because they are marketers, not thinkers. Not serious about policy. Not serious about ideas. And not serious about leadership, only followership.

Marketers, not thinkers. Followers, not leaders. That is what the mighty Elephant brand has been reduced to, and rightfully so.

Donkey

"Cold Dead Hands"

Dear Elephant-

I saw this article this morning about a 3-year old shooting herself in the head. Tell me again why we think handguns in the home are a good idea? And how again does having a 9mm in you nightstand relate to having a “well regulated militia?” Ironic that this incident occurred at the same time as the passing of former NRA president Charlton Heston who once famously quipped "from my cold dead hands." If Heston wants to go to the grave with a gun in his hand, so be it. But what about the gun in the hand of the 3 year old? Why shouldn't we be fighting to protect little hands like hers?

Peace,

Donkey

One Reason Why Obama is Better in the General

Hillary Clinton likes to argue that she has been vetted and tested on a national stage, where her opponent Barack Obama has not. The implication of this argument is that the Republican attack machine will destroy the less experienced Obama, and will be unable to throw anything new at her. This argument is deeply flawed for a variety of reasons. First, there are always more skeletons in the Clinton's closet. Indeed there have been several news stories in this election cycle about Hillary's refusal to release her tax returns and her refusal to disclose the records surrounding Bill Clinton's presidential library. Moreover, the NY Times recently published a piece about Bill Clinton's questionable ties to the mining industry in Kazakhstan. These stories are likely to increase in a general election atmosphere. But perhaps the fundamental flaw in Hillary's argument is that it ignores the incredible hatred conservatives all across the country have for her and her husband. The thought of a Billary presidency elicits a reaction from the right similar to what the left might do if George W. Bush were to run for President again in 8 years. In other words, Hillary starts with half the country strongly against her. Whereas Obama appeals to independents and moderates and is running a campaign built on the idea of bringing people together. That is not to say that the right will not attack Obama, because they will. But those attacks are much less likely to drive a depressed and split Republican party to the polls. For a recent example of my point, see Exhibit A: Check out this picture of merchandise for sale at the recent C-PAC conference. Note how much of it is directed at Billary, and how none of it is directed at Obama.

Hillary's 35 Years

Anyone who has listened to Hillary Clinton campaign for more than 5 minutes has heard her familiar claim that she has "been working to bring positive change to people's lives for 35 years." A new article by McClatchy examines that cliam and finds that "Clinton spent the bulk of her career -- 15 of those 35 years -- at one of Arkansas' most prestigious corporate law firms, where she represented big companies and served on corporate boards.Neither she nor her surrogates, however, ever mention that on the campaign trail."
What annoys me is that Hillary tries to basic claims that everything she ever did since she graduated from law school was an effort to serve in the public sector. This is obviously not the case. The primary rationale for the Clinton candidacy is experience. When it turns out that experience isn't all its craked up to be, what else does she have to offer?

The full article can be found here.

Peace,

Donkey

Hussein deliberately fooled the U.S. about WMD

This is old, albeit conveniently forgotten, news, but I'm still curious how the following headline fits into the Dimmycrat's agenda?

Agent: Hussein let world think he had WMD

Here's a summary of the article:

• Hussein claimed he didn't think the U.S. would invade Iraq over WMD
• FBI agent says Hussein lied about having WMD to intimidate Iran
• But the Iraqi dictator said he wanted to start the WMD program again
• Hussein was captured in 2003 and hanged in 2006

Stimulus Killers

Dear Elephant-

Once again, George Bush Republicans have put partisan ideology ahead of economic reality by fighting against the most effective proposed stimulus measures. Yesterday, the executive director for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released this statement. The following is an excerpt:

Changes reportedly made last night in the stimulus package would reduce its effectiveness as stimulus. Although the package includes a reasonably designed tax rebate, the two most targeted and economically effective measures under consideration — a temporary extension of unemployment benefits and a temporary boost in food stamp benefits — were zeroed out, apparently at the insistence of House Republican leaders.

The two respected institutions that have rated stimulus options in recent days — the Congressional Budget Office and Moody’s Economy.com — both give their two highest ratings for effectiveness as stimulus to the two measures that were dropped.

-Of all tax and spending stimulus options that CBO examined, the only two that it found would have a large “bang-for-the-buck” as effective stimulus and act fast to boost the economy are the unemployment insurance and food stamp provisions. Both could start injecting more consumer purchasing power into the economy within one to two months. The planned tax rebate checks, in contrast, are not likely to be sent out until June.

-Economy.com found that for each dollar spent on extended UI benefits, $1.64 in increased economic activity would be generated. For each dollar in increased food stamp benefits, $1.73 in new economic activity would be generated. No other options rated as high.

-In contrast, Economy.com found that for each dollar in “accelerated depreciation” — the main business tax cut in the package — only 27 cents of increased economic activity would be generated. CBO and a Federal Reserve study in 2006 found that the business tax cuts adopted in the last recession, which closely resemble those in the current package, had only modest stimulative effects. Despite this evidence, the package apparently contains at least $50 billion in business tax cuts while excluding unemployment insurance — the single measure most focused on the people hardest hit by the downturn — and food stamps.

-The business tax cuts also would cause states to lose at least $4 billion in state revenue, due to linkages between federal and state tax codes. The package contains no fiscal relief for states, not even to offset this loss. As a result, many states will have to enact deeper and more painful budget cuts, likely hitting areas from health care and education to aid to local governments. Those state budget cuts will also act as a drag on the economy.

The unemployment insurance and food stamp provisions apparently were rejected by House Republican leaders, who reportedly said that the inclusion of spending measures would be unacceptable to the House Republican Caucus and would derail the package. Such a stance reflects the elevation of ideology over sound economic reasoning. As Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz and now-CBO director Peter Orszag wrote in late 2001, “Basic economic analysis indicates that increased government expenditures can indeed be stimulative, and, in fact, are often more effective as stimulus measures than tax cuts.”[1] This is because a significant portion of most tax cuts is saved rather than spent.

The statement does however praise the reasonably designed rebate provisions noting "The rebate component is vastly superior to the rebate proposal that the Administration developed last week, under which more than 25 million low- and moderate-income working families would have been shut out. Most of those families would get a substantial rebate under the new package."

Elephant, you tell me, do George Bush and the Republican party hate the working poor? Why do they consistently champion the interests of corporations over the interests of everyday Americans? It's not because of economics. It appears to be blind partisan ideology. And after watching last night's debate, its obvious that the new crop of candidates do not intend to deviate much from Bush economic policy. The same policy that has allowed and exacerbated the current economic slow down.

In 1992, Bill Clinton effectively ran against these ridiculous "trickle down" Reaganomic policies which had led the country into a recession at that time. If this downturn worsens and a recession is in full swing in November, you can look for Hillary Clinton (though I'm still hoping for Obama) to do the same. She will beat the Republican nominee like a piñata, and make the GOP pay for its heartless ideology.

Peace,

Donkey

935 lies, 8 lying liars, and a partridge in a pear tree

Dear Elephant-

Yesterday, the Center for Public Integrity released an in depth study which determined that "President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq." This does not count so-called "indirect falsehoods" -- like "Iraq has dangerous weapons."

Of course there is still the big Q question of what the administration acutlly knew when they made all of these false statements. But the study also found that "an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

For example the study notes:

On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "

Now if the above example was one of only a few false statements, you might be able to excuse the administration for going a little overboard. But given the uncertainity and doubt surrounding the information the administration had at the time, a calculated campaign to repeat these false statements close to a thousand times is inexcusable. Especially when we recognize the enormous cost, in terms of life and dollars, of going to war.

Is it any wonder that Bush's approval rating is so historically low (Only Richard Nixon -January to August 1974,when he resigned because of the Watergate scandal- and Harry Truman -January 1951 to January 1952, and January 1952 to January 1953- had lower approval rating averages for a year in office than Bush's most recent year.) I think it very possible that Bush will go down as one of the worst Presidents in the history of the country.

Peace,

Donkey