So, in Sunday’s paper, Paul Rolly wrote:
Jake Garn is mad. He says he is tired of being called the last Republican mayor of Salt Lake City because he was not the Republican mayor when he served as the city’s chief executive in the early 1970s.
This stance strikes me as more of the empty “bipartisanship is the answer to all our problems” rhetoric that flows so freely from the punditocracy. The idea that somehow good people rise above partisan values is incredibly wrong – but as Atrios loves to point out, it also widely believed to be a sign of seriousness.
Rolly quotes Garn:
“When I served as president of the Utah League of Cities and Towns, I never asked any of the mayors of the other cities what their party affiliation was. It didn’t matter. We didn’t deal with partisan issues. We dealt with the mundane issues that you must deal with when you run a city.”
Broadly, Garn is right – there are no Republican or Democratic potholes in the roads. But there are different solutions and those solutions are partisan. Democrats believe in long range planning – in government actually taking an active role in planning for a community’s future. Republican dominated cities are as likely to passively approve every plan from a developer then panic when they realize they don’t have enough water, streets, or schools for the new residents. The Republican approach which denies government a legitimate role a wide variety activities – especially long term planning. The average citizen knows that large corporations have lobbyists and that special interest groups have lobbyists and that developers have lots of money and access. Citizens expect their elected officials to represent the citizens interests, especially when they are in conflict with the developers and corporations. Republicans, believing the corporations are the same as free enterprise, side with the corporations. In the broadest sense, partisan identification points us imperfectly in the direction of an elected officials governing philosophy.
I support Ralph Becker because he believes in urban planning and government taking an active role in planning for a communitys’ future:
- Emphasize that downtown is a “neighborhood,†and that it exists in relation to the city’s other neighborhoods in terms of infrastructure (housing, transportation, etc.)
- Promote nightlife downtown and the fact that downtown is Utah’s cultural hub
- Bring local artists back to downtown with an emphasis on small/medium-scale arts
- Evaluate and revise the RDA process to speed it up and give it guidance
- Integrate existing arts groups into festival planning and to help encourage the promotion of downtown’s nightlife
- Work closely with Salt Lake County to concentrate and develop cultural facilities downtown
Contra Jake Garn, partisan ID does matter for mayors – albeit with some limitations.
#1 by Larry Bergan - July 19th, 2007 at 02:00
Glendon:
I’m sure I read somewhere that Garn blames C-span for many of the problems in our country. I am also a C-span nerd and find that when people of ALL stripes are given a forum that is broadcast without bias or editing, we ALL benefit.
#2 by Alienated Wannabe - July 19th, 2007 at 13:17
Dear Glenden,
Back in our grandparent’s day, Salt Lake City was known for its extensive public transportation system — both light and commuter rail — the very kind of system we are now trying to rebuild. But, the Democrat partisan community planning you reference actually called for American cities to tear-up their rail lines in favor of building freeways. That is an inconvenient truth that very few Democrats of today will fess up to, but it is the truth.
The lesson in that story is not that Democrats are dumb and Republicans are smart. On the contrary, what it teaches us is that partisan positions are always changing, and loyalists who staunchly advocate a policy in order to fall in with the official party line may not be acting in the best interest of a community. What we need, then, are leaders who prove themselves to be thoughtful, wise, and prudent — not merely loyal to the central party line at a particular moment in time.
Now, as for Ralph Becker’s emphasis on nightlife, I believe that this is a mistaken position. I am convinced that in order to revitalize our capitol city we need to encourage a more family friendly environment, not just to play, but to live. In short, we need to clean up the city’s neighborhoods and make them desirable, affordable, and livable for families. That is where a community’s true energy comes from — real people living in the city, engaged in real everyday activities — not just strangers who occasionally drive in to get drunk and chase tail.
So, maybe Jake Garn wasn’t so wrong after all. What do you think?
Sincerely,
A.W.
#3 by Glenden Brown - July 19th, 2007 at 14:09
AW -
I’ve long maintained the freeway mania was a short-sighted mistake, especially as it was done without supporting mass transit at the same time. It was part and parcel of the post war boom and the belief that suburban living was better than urban living; American metropolitan areas abandoned their mass transit systems believing the everyone would want and have a car someday and without a full understanding of the consequences of mass car ownership – i.e. our lovely chewable air every winter. Building freeways was seen as a way to support suburban communities and allow broader based home ownership. Like many good ideas (at the time) it had a whole set of unintended consequences that we’re now dealing with. It wasn’t just Salt Lake that had good public transit – most American cities had world class public transit up until the 50s. The mass transit in European cities – that we Americans so envy – was largley modelled on American mass transit.
The freeway building boom you refer to could not have occurred absent another set of Democratic policies that fueled unprecedented growth in the middle class – policies that made education and good jobs available to more people than ever. Policies Republicans have been attacking (with varying degrees of success) since the 1930s. I agree that we need leaders who are thoughtful, wise, and prudent. That means leaders who can learn from past mistakes. (That said, I wish when we’d rebuilt I-15, we’d put in light rail running along side the freeway – we could have two lines – one that runs in town and stops frequently or high speed that runs the length of the valley with two stops).
Becker’s proposal for downtown doesn’t include just nightlife – it includes proposals to treat downtown as a neighborhood – just like Sugarhouse or the Aves – which means viable living communities. I think you’re understanding of nightlife is somewhat limited – nightlife is far more than drinking and chasing tail. Nightlife includes a vibrant arts community with performances, shows, and a wide array of other activities such as eating out, hanging out in coffee shops and visiting galleries – all of which are family friendly activities. I was sitting at a downtown cafe the other night having tea and dessert and watching as a stream of people of all ages came in and had a great time – there were elderly couples, groups of friends of many ages, families, and even some teenagers on dates. It was a great family environment.
I live in the Aves and head downtown all the time; there are coffee shops with life music, cafes, and walkable stretches of downtown where you can have a great time. Certainly drinking and hooking up are part of nightlife, but not the whole package.
#4 by Glenden Brown - July 19th, 2007 at 14:10
Larry – I hadn’t heard that Jake Garn blames C-Span but I’m not surprised. I think C-Span is a good thing – watching our elected officials debate is often informative. That’s why I go to the state leg every year.
#5 by trueredutahn - July 21st, 2007 at 01:18
Mr. Brown,
So, what you are saying by your contention that the freeway boom is that Democrats let our community down? How can this be? According to your original post, Democrats have The answer to each of the City’s problems.
In truth, no one has a monopoly on The answer. Each party has good ideas and bad ideas. The point that Garn was trying to make, the way I see it, is not that he didn’t associate with one political party or another. Rather, as mayor, Garn attempted to run the city from a neutral standpoint.
You may contend that this was impossible considering your very broad generalized (and not the least bit slanted) view of how Republicans and Democrats differ on their approach to government. Garn, as a Republican, must have turned over the entire city to Big Business and let them run the thing. Yet you have provided no examples of how Garn’s administration was merely a puppet whose strings were pulled by Big Business.
More importantly, it seems, is the point that the City should not fall into the blatant pushing and shoving that has become politics in this City. Rocky Anderson’s “my way or the highway” approach has done little to help bridge any divide that we citizens have forced upon us. You may think that the Democrats hold all the right cards, but I would wager a guess that with just about any problem this City may face, the best solution would only be drawn when political parties and affiliations are left out of the mix.
Perhaps that was Garn’s point.
#6 by Cliff Lyon - July 21st, 2007 at 10:41
Trueredutahn,
This statement, “In truth, no one has a monopoly on The answer. Each party has good ideas and bad ideas” in but an apology for disaster beset upon this country by the republican party and those of you who vote republican.
If your survey of ideas is limited to the two parties, there is in fact a monopoly on good ideas as expressed in legislation. The only motivation of the republican sponsored legislation in recent years at least, has been political.
You said, “Rocky Anderson’s “my way or the highway†approach has done little to help bridge any divide that we citizens have forced upon us”
The only divide is between people who would like their personal values expressed in law.
Let me give you an example. We all hate abortion, but some of us hate the idea government control over a woman’s reproductive rights.
Conservative political theory as it relates to free markets, unrestrained competition, and the elimination of social entitlement programs to help the poor is a failure on its face.
Name one successful democracy that does not provide safety nets for the poor through it’s central government. You can’t.
No, but you should wager that the best solution is drawn when personal religious values are left out of the mix and we stick with the guiding principle and liberties as expressed by our founding fathers and enhanced by solid science, good planning, and intelligent policy.
#7 by Gordon - July 21st, 2007 at 11:39
More revealing is that one who goes by the alias TrueRedUtahn would suppose to speak against partisan politics.
Classic Republican dripping with hypocrisy.
#8 by trueredutahn - July 21st, 2007 at 14:53
Apparently I’m good at saying more than I expressed in words. The original post attacked Jake Garn for declaring himself a non-partisan mayor while he held the office. I pointed out that Garn was more likely highlighting the fact that, given our dynamic and often volatile City, we would do better to divorce the mayor’s office from party politics.
I am a Republican and I most often vote Republican. However, for me to say that I agree with everything a Republican administration is going to do would be false. I believe that Pres. Bush has stepped away from conservatism and is turning to the (American) liberal thought that the government should provide the answers to all solutions. I disagree with this position. I would rather see less government intrusion on all aspects of life (including the redistribution of wealth).
However, we are speaking on two different subjects. The federal government is at once created and restrained in the Constitution. Most federal programs overstep their authority granted to them in the Constitution.
State and local governments operate on different constitutions and are their authority is not always circumscribed in the same manner as the federal government. There are, obviously, certain rights that know no state boundaries. However, we are talking about government involvement in people’s lives not the increasing limitations placed on our personal rights (be they from the right or left).
What we are talking about is a municipal government that runs better when political parties are not taken into account. As I stated before, I think that is what Mr. Garn was attempting to say.
Party politics have their place in our world. They have become part of the checks and balances instilled in our manner of government. However, party politics have become a new beast – people don’t seem to care what their Republican or Democrat representative really does with his/her position. All that seems to matter anymore is that they are from the desired party.
Such thinking limits possibilities and has no place at the local level. That is why we have an officially non-partisan mayor’s office and it should remain that way.
#9 by Cliff Lyon - July 21st, 2007 at 15:19
I understand well what you wrote and how it was meant. I simply decided not to let you get away with attempting to ascribe partisanship as being at fault for bad policy.
Yes it does. Good local government requires intelligent planning and policy in the areas of affordable heath care and prevention, public transit, social equality, access to quality education, restorative justice, energy conservation, sustainable urban planning and economic fairness.
These are all democratic issues. I can’t imagine a republican saying “I’m for all those things”. Can you?
Of course not. Thats why we ask?
I think what I’m hearing you say is, “Republican party values have no place in local government,”
In fact, they only really serve to promote national tyranny and intrusive government.
I’m pleased to see you admit to backing away from Bush. Is there anything else you’d like to get off your chest?
#10 by Larry Bergan - July 22nd, 2007 at 02:31
trueredutahn:
As you have seen, some people, including the “crazed”, (not really), Cindy Sheehan, have been more then willing to attack their own supporters, including Representative John Conyers who she stood with in a basement in Washington with Joe Wilson because cowards were sending her son and others to fight a war based on lies.
The Republicans, who refused to let the Democrats have a decent room to hold a conference in, were upstairs in a plush congressional setting holding hearings on, (I’M NOT FUCKING KIDDING TRUEREDUTAHN), Orrin Hatch’s flag burning amendment!
How does that make you feel, when you were unable to clearly project whether you were a Republican or not on this very thread?
#11 by Larry Bergan - July 22nd, 2007 at 02:35
Can anybody here illuminate what the “sagebrush rebellion” was all about? I’m having trouble putting this thing together.
#12 by Gordon - July 22nd, 2007 at 13:03
Trueredutahn (TRU) embodies the now classic born-again neo-conservative coaxed from under their rocks by the Madison Avenue assisted Rovian renaissance of the sheltered, frightened of the world, uninformed, self-validating, tribal, frat-boy, enveloped in a life-long inferiority complex, slither-sized fraction of our species, with the “all clear” signal to think out loud.
While we don’t really know TRU because he is not yet fully convinced that it really is “all clear” to spout his infantile, spoon-fed, world construct and stand proudly behind his thoughts by giving us a real name and rank, we can assume he is merely throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks.
Gee, no shit. Is that an apology?
Oh, I guess not. Now its ” (American) liberal thought” that is to blame for Bush. Thanks TRU, I was wondering whom to blame.
Not to worry though. Hopefully, it’ll be years, decades, maybe more before another faux-leader is foisted upon us such that the TRUs of the world feel safe enough to slither out from under the rock once again to chirp and snort their slimy reptilian-speak from in the safety of anonymity.
#13 by trueredutahn - July 23rd, 2007 at 23:42
I’ll admit that I am still forming my political opinions of much in this world. Given the ill-nature that most in this nation have espoused as political ‘debate’, I prefer to approach the issues without revealing my name so as to protect myself from the sting of inevitable gaffes during my learning curve. While each of you has spoken rather unfavorable words of me, I ask you to forgive me for being a coward.
I do vote Republican for the most part and consider myself a conservative Republican almost to the point of being libertarian. However, as I am young, I am still learning. One of the benefits of the internet is to listen to the ideas and opinions of others allowing ourselves to consider ideas without necessarily agreeing with them or adopting them. Perhaps one of the downsides is that people, like myself, can hide behind anonymity and spout off opinions. However, my intent is to hear what other people think of my opinions (hence my blog) but moreso, to hear what other people think.
That having been said, what is the optimum level of government?
Cliff, you stated that “Good local government requires intelligent planning and policy in the areas of affordable heath care and prevention, public transit, social equality, access to quality education, restorative justice, energy conservation, sustainable urban planning and economic fairness.”
I sincerely ask the following questions. Must all of this be mandated by the government? What I mean to say is, does the government represent the best (or perhaps only) means of providing the society that you would consider the best for each of us?
#14 by trueredutahn - July 23rd, 2007 at 23:45
Larry,
I have no doubt that Republicans in Congress have mistreated citizens with true concerns. I also do not doubt that the door swings both ways. This does not make it right. How do we tone down the political rancor so as to create a forum of debate where we listen to one another instead of shout over the top of others’ opinions?
#15 by Cliff Lyon - July 24th, 2007 at 07:47
Trueredutahn,
I appreciate your honesty, “I am still forming my political opinions of much in this world”. That would explain your having stumbled unwittingly into my lair.
You see, my interest in blogging came as the result of having discovered during the last presidential election, that a surprisingly large number of people who support Bush, were unable or unwilling to engage in rational discussion but rather engaged only to the point and for the purpose of validating their tribal loyalties as opposed to well-thought-out positions based on sound evidence and truths.
So I find it supportive of my argument that while you are still forming [your] political opinions”, that you chose your screen name. IOW, at some level, you have aligned your politics with your personal/tribal loyalties.
There is a test: If you were to announce political support for _(fill in the blank)__, would you risk losing the love and affection of family and/or friends. Now in your case, you might fill in the blank with John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, or “the impeachment and subsequent hanging of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney et. al.” Granted, people on both sides of the political spectrum can answer yes, however, it is up to each of us to be honest with ourselves and acknowledge the extent to which fear of the resulting tribal/family banishment informs our positions.
I have written about this subject many times in posts such as:
The New American Fascist Unveiled
Right Wing Blogs Reveal A Cultural Disease
How Evil Lurks in Some of The Nicest People
Conservatives Without Conscience
The subject fascinates me on a variety of levels starting with the fact that most of the people who voted for Bush voted against their own personal interest.
One excellent example of this is the death tax. This is a tax that affects only the very rich and yet appeals to people who are in the 95% that will never be confronted with this tax. Keep in mind, the more cattle you have, the more public land you consume to line your wallet. The bigger your fleet of trucks, the more of my air you pollute and the more of my roads you use…to fatten your bank account. (Keep in mind, today, you pay more in transportation taxes than the eighteen wheeler running 18 hours/day)
The Abortion question is another. The tribal right wants to call us pro-abortion. Yet, I can’t find anyone who LIKES abortion, but I can find many who oppose gov’t intrusion into peoples’ personal lives. For us, this question isn’t about the sanctity of life, it is about gov’t intrusion.
Tribalism is a strong behavioral factor. There are decades of strong scientific evidence of this. Read Conservatives Without Conscience for a good summary of this science.
Finally, regarding your question about government: THIS is GREAT question, and one well worth exploring. For this I congratulate you for it is far too easy to simply say smaller is better. The BEST government is just the right amount for government serves a very very important function to protect our liberties and restrain our greed (justice) and
Here is a good survey of the political philosophy that informed our founding fathers.
The overarching purpose of government is to “provide for the common good.”
Here is an excellent expansion on that idea.
And here is a good debate on the subject.
In order to think about government in an honest way, one must accept, as did the founding fathers, that there IS a good and proper role for government. It is our job to figure it out and vote accordingly.
#16 by glenn - July 24th, 2007 at 07:47
You don’t True. This is the manner in which large groups of people are mananged and their wealth fleeced from them. Hegelian dialectic, our leaders define or make the problem, the people react all sweaty, and the solution is offered by the very people who precipitated the crisis. Problem, Reaction, Solution. The upshot is that no matter what, their is ALWAYS a new crisis that no one agrees upon.
It is how idiots are ruled, and ALWAYS ends up costing the public money, which is generally directed into the pockets of those that have made the problem. Once the people recognize that most of what they disagree upon is largely spoonfed into their feeble brains, they may actually quit arguing with one another, and hold the people actually responsible for their disagreements and misery to account. After all, every one of our leaders has sworn an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. If they don’t and we let them rule us…well that is what all the non issues that mean nothing in the media are for, to divert the masses from actually seeing the funny little men behind the curtain.
#17 by glenn - July 24th, 2007 at 08:47
Interesting mis-spelling Cliff, are sure your lair is one of liars? Freudian slip?
#18 by Glenden Brown - July 24th, 2007 at 08:56
True Red – I was born and raised in Utah and at one time considered myself a Republican. Having seen the real world effects of the Republican conservative policies, I will probably never vote for a Republican again. In college, I was an American studies major and the policies and positons held by today’s conservatives are the same ones they held in the twenties and the same ones that failed America during the Great Depression and I don’t see any evidence that those policies work in the real world.
Take a look at American history over the last century and you see the biggest benefits for the most citizens have come when government has been active. Despite carping by Heritage foundation economists, the New Deal saved millions of Americans from going broke and starving to death. Not every program was equally effective, but the government under FDR took a simple approach – we cannot sit idly by, using Hoover’s laissez-faire approach, while millions of Americans are homeless, jobless, in danger of starving and we have government resources we can use to ameliorate the effects of the bad economy. The 1950s and 60s were a period of uprecedented economic vitality – a time when real incomes grew for the vast majority of Americans – and a time when the government was at its most active. The top marginal tax rate in the 1950s was 90%. The government invested that tax revenue wisely by building infrastructure; I think some of the investment decsions weren’t entirely wise but the overall philosophy that government needs to be involved and active was sound. It wasn’t a matter of necessarily the wrong solution, but of an incomplete solution.
The 1990s – which began with a series of tax increases under Bush one and Clinton – were a similar period during which real incomes rose for a majority of Americans and millions upon millions of new jobs were created. As the federal government at long last got its financial house order after the disastrous Reaganite 1980s, things got better. By investing in infrastructure and managing its money well, the Federal government actually made things better. Education and job training were major initiatives of the Clinton administration. Al Gore led the RIGO initiative which aimed at making government agencies run more efficiently and it paid off – saving billions of dollars and making agencies more effective; under Clinton FEMA was a model government agency. We know what happened to it under Bush (think New Orleans under water).
Before the creation of Social Security, more than 1/3 of senior citizens lived in poverty; today it’s less than ten percent. Today, 1/3 of American children live in poverty, without proper health care and nutrition. And George W. Bush is threatening a veto of program to provide children with health insurance. Despite the real world evidence that private companies cannot and will not meet the needs of the American people, conservatives tell us to believe that they will somehow magically do so. There’s a reason tens of millions of Americans don’t have health insurace – and it’s because private insurers won’t give it to them. I have a pretty good health insurance plan through my employer, but I could be in an accident and denied coverage if I don’t pre-approve treatment. The private, “free market” approach doesn’t meet the basic needs of the American people. For someone like me, who is basically healthy, my insurance works well; if I get sick, I could lose my house and car.
Since Bush and his cronies took over and have relentlessly pursued conservative tax policies, we have seen GNP increases, but real rages have fallen or been stagnant; job creation has been poor (Bush was the first President since Hoover in the Great Depression to see his first term in office be a time of net job loss for the nation).
America needs at all levels to invest in infrastructure. The party that believes that government is problem isn’t going to do that. At every level, Democrats are saying “Government needs to be part of the solution on behalf of the majority of Americans” – the majority that don’t have massive budgets to pay for lobbyists that don’t have armies of lawyers working overtime for them. Government must be the bulwark for the majority of us against the well-healed minority.
#19 by glenn - July 24th, 2007 at 16:46
Yes, it’s all bushs fault, but not before clinton passed nafta,and improved GATT…. real rages? Don’t we wish?
Investments in infrastructure? I can’t see money better spent to build the fence on the southern border to disable the employer criminals from further abusing us and lowering our wages… the rest of you drive SUV’s, you will need them as our roads corrode. Surely, as we fall, SUVs could well meet their real purpose for the first time in our history.
Ever seen a model T? Ever wonder how it traveled America 1920, in the absence of paved road? Perhaps soon…you will…if you can afford the gas.
#20 by trueredutahn - July 25th, 2007 at 00:36
Interesting points, all. I have a couple of follow up questions. Admittedly, I have not read all that you (Cliff) have provided as homework so you may have already answered my questions.
However, I wonder, then, where, between allowing abortions to take place and providing health insurance for all (and similar programs), do we draw the line for effective efficient government?
I am of the mindset that the Constitution was written both to create and to limit the power the federal government can exercise in our lives. So, how do we attribute more power to the federal government than the Constitution allows? Do we rely on the all-purpose general welfare clause?
If so, how do we ensure that the power used by one president is indeed for the general welfare? Glenden decried Pres. Reagan’s policies but assuredly no one believes that he acted out of personal interest. I guess some people may think that about any president – look at some of the arguments against Pres. Clinton. However, I think the majority of us believe that each president acts with the common welfare in interest even if we disagree with their plans and policies.
Cliff, I admit I don’t have all the answers. My political opinions can always use a little enlightenment. I fear, apparently as you do, that people don’t necessarily engage in the clearest thinking when choosing for whom to vote. However, is it possible, in your humble opinion, that someone might come to a well-reasoned rational decision and disagree with you?
#21 by Cliff Lyon - July 25th, 2007 at 07:04
Trueredutahn,
I have a sneaking suspicion I know you. Regardless, I think you are indeed, a novice and conservative by personal identification as opposed to reasoned thought.
Two indications give you away.
One, you don’t address the tribal loyalty issue, but rather predictably attempt to validate your opinion by equivocation, “is it possible, in your humble opinion, that someone might come to a well-reasoned rational decision and disagree with you?”
Two, you have it stuck in your mind that social assistance programs are inherently bad.
I’ll start with number two: Your description of the intent of constitution is overly simplistic. Our constitution is unique among constitutions in how little it says. That, however, is why virtually all the SCOTUS judges and pretty much every constitutional scholar, refer to it as a living document. Did you know for instance that only white men who owned property could vote for the first almost 100 years? Did you know that the NRA interpretation of the second amendment is inarguably NOT how it was intended? Or that several supreme court decisions have found that their is no basis in statute to collect income taxes on labor wages? My dear man, things are not as simple as we would all like.
The argument against social welfare is not found in the constitution so give up on that. You also beg the question that social welfare is bad. But you can’t argue that there is not a direct and positive correlation between those programs and the overall economic strength and standard of living in other industrialized countries.
Turns out, we all benefit when everyones’ “boat rises”. Yeah, you might see a bigger chunk taken out of your paycheck, but you would also get a bigger one. Have you noticed the average American has not see a raise in over ten years? Did you know we rank in the low middle of industrialized countries for standard of living, and at the bottom for infant mortality? Did you know we are NOT the greatest nation on earth by almost every measure?
But whats classic, is your issues. You, like most Reagan worshipers are fixated on social programs when you should be more concerned with deregulation, trade policy and the military complex. If we had forced abortions and gov’t paid for everyone, it would be a blip on the federal budget.
As for number one: Of course it is possible “that someone might come to a well-reasoned rational decision and disagree with you?” The key word is well-reasoned. For example, the position that “trickle-down” or “rugged individualism (Reagan) works or worked is wrong, so is “healthy forests”, “clear skies”, and fight’em over there or fight’em over here.
I sense you are of the mind that Reagan was a great president. He was not. In fact, history has and will continue to confirm that. The only reason one would think otherwise, is if they were:
a. Not paying attention in the eighties
b. Spending too much time around people who glorify him because he is the only republican president in recent history not closely associated with criminal behavior and therefore the darling of the republican party. Pretty pitiful eh?
#22 by glenn - July 25th, 2007 at 08:36
It is pretty simple to say, that government is pretty inefficient and wasteful, and that offering up others peoples money to provide social assistance is a grand idea, but we as a public would be better off if we built a simple office of assistance that qualified people, and then had agents hand money out to people at their homes or shelters on a small % commission.
How far in debt, and how much phony worthless money do you want to print?
The points about the validity of social spending are pretty moot at this point, as we are so far in debt, foreigners hold our paper, and are not likely to take any more willingly, which is why we war. It is the only activity that can stave off collapse. This is known by the dems, which is why they have supported the killings the whole way. It keeps us afloat.
Meanwhile the hole that has been dug for us by our own profligate personal spending, and the unimaginable pile printed up and spent by government, is so deep, that we will certainly be killed when we inevitably fall into it. There will be no doubt. At least we won’t languish, and all this BS theory will fall to the reality of being dead broke. Which has been an entirely bi-partisan affair.
The constitution cliff is only a living document after the original interpretations are respected, and any changes to come to it, can only legally happen through constitutional convention, and super-majorities in the house and senate. Any other changes, other than Supreme Court interpretations, are illegitimate, and simply unlawful.
If as you claim the Constitution is a living document, woe be to you, as bush has packed the court with stooges, and they are about to “living document” much of what progressives have stood for. In that regard, you hope it ISN’T a living document.
Meanwhile, blather is the first amendment, the 2nd amendment is where the rubber meets the road.
#23 by glenn - July 25th, 2007 at 09:29
This is cute, and truly, where the rubber meets the road for the twisted “economy” which really is just a dressed up version of any crown based corporation 200 yrs ago.
Our prospects for any peace with the developing world is nil. They know, we been made.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_3K1PCZHE0