Today President Bush announced that Republican Congressman Christopher Cox would be replacing outgoing SEC Chairman William Donaldson pending approval by the Senate. Reuters and many others report:
President Bush on Thursday named Rep. Christopher Cox — a champion of curbing investor lawsuits — as the White House’s choice to head the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, prompting academics to predict a major shift in the market-regulating agency’s focus.
Rep. Cox’s current job is as Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security. The House Republican leadership has not yet announced who will take over Cox’s empty seat. Bobby Jindal is part of the House Committee on Homeland Security. He is in fact Vice Chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on the Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attacks. Now I am not ready to think that the Republican leadership would consider offering the chairmanship of the full committee to a freshman Congressman, but if John Linder of Georgia gets promoted to fill Cox’s seat then it could well end up that Jindal would take over chairmanship of the Subcommittee. Imagine that: A brown guy in charge of overseeing efforts to prevent nuclear and biological attacks against the U.S.
Maybe Jindal could join the Token parade that is the modern GOP. An “inclusive” party that kicks blacks off voter rolls (Florida), relies on the ignorance of geography and history (Al Queda = Iraq = All Muslims)from their voting base to win elections, and aids Lockheed-Martin (Military-Industrial Complex) to sell F-16 Fighter Jets to Pakistan – Jets that just happen to be capable of carrying a nuclear payload.
When Mushareff is ousted and hard-liners take over Pakistan, drop a nuke on India, and God-forbid something happens to our uncles, aunties, and grandparents – where will Jindal stand on that?
BTW – do you know what Bush/Rumsfeld et.al said when India protested the Pakistan’s purchase of F-16s – “listen pardnur, why don’t you get some fer yourself…”
Abhi, I was about to send you a link to a story about Rep. Jindal: Bobby Jindal a rising star, on the move on Capitol Hill. Good read. It’s been a while since I’ve heard about him on SM; truthfully, I’d rather hear about him (or anyone else for that matter) than MIA 🙂
truthmissile: Jindal represents Louisiana first and foremost, not India. You obviously despise the Republican Party. Fair enough, but don’t damn Jindal as an extremist because he is Republican. If you will cast him as an extremist, point to specific policies he has proposed or supported.
If Jindal held the same exact beliefs but were a Democrat in name only, I bet many peoples’ perceptions of him would be more favorable.
Disclaimer: I am NOT a Jindal fanboy. It just irks me to see him trashed because he is a Republican.
There’s a very good list of reasons not to support Jindal here.
I’m going to do my best to refrain from repeating the same arguments in the linked thread. However, I disagree with those reasons, and other posters have articulated it in the same thread.
At the very least, some of those are valid reasons not to support Jindal. But it’s ludricous to say he should not be supported solely because he is Republican and therefore complicit in kicking African-Americans off voting rolls and complicit in supporting the nuking of my relatives, among other things.
Wasn’t it our very own beta, Bobby Jindal that stuck his finger in ink in support of these sham elections in Iraq? That was back in February – how’s it looking out there now?
Where did he stand on disputing the fairness of that election, versus the fraud that took place in Florida? Jindal can look to a great man who stood up for the rights of all people – Rep John Conyers, just across the aisle.
Ask Jindal why he voted in favor of changing the Ethics rules so Delay could stay on as leader, even if he was convicted?
Jindal’s leading PAC contributors are here…it’s the same corporate powers that fund the entire GOP, including military-industrial kingpin Halliburton. Why should Jindal be any different?
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/fec/?id=140857&cycle=2003-2004
(His biggest contributor is the National Beer Wholesalers Association PAC? Jindal knows who pays the bills come Mardi Gras.)
Look, I don’t know Jindal personally, but his modus operandi is pretty clear. The fact is the Republicans are desperate for an articulate minority type to come and shill for the party – to give it some “diversity.” Jindal took the bait, and can we say that any of us would be any better?
We’re the wealthiest, best educated minority in America – but our people knew what it was like to be part of the underclass back when the Brits ran our grandparents lives in their own country.
The basic foundation of the modern Republican party, Nixon’s southern strategy to align with Dixiecrat bigots who left the Democratic party because of desegregation, should be reason enough to have some critical words to caste upon Jindal for supporting the modern GOP.
He can do what he likes, but he shouldn’t expect broad based support from Indians just because of the color of his skin. Policies and what the party he aligns himself matter a whole lot more.
“Look, I don’t know Jindal personally, but his modus operandi is pretty clear. The fact is the Republicans are desperate for an articulate minority type to come and shill for the party – to give it some “diversity.” Jindal took the bait, and can we say that any of us would be any better?”
“The Invisible Man” anyone?
I agree.
TRUTHMISSILE: “…sham election in Iraq.”
From the United Nations Website
“The Secretary-General welcomes the announcement yesterday by the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq (IECI) of the results of the elections of 30 January 2005. They reflect not only the courage and determination of the Iraqi people, but also their commitment to the political transition process that their country is underdoing. On this auspicious day, the Secretary-General congratulates the people of Iraq.” http://www.un.or/News/press/docs/2005/sgsm9720.htm
Many of those 8 million Iraqis braved suicide bombers and attacks from insurgents trying to place a vote; I have no idea where you are from, but if you are from the comfortable confines of the West, to belittle that particular act, whatever you feel about the Iraq war or the Bush administration, shows you have very little real feeling or solidarity for the people. One of the reasons I left the left (yes, I was a registered Democrat and voted for Clinton) was because I was tired of this sort of thing. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist on the right, doesn’t mean I don’t find a lot of what is on the right objectionable, but I just won’t be a part of that particular mindset anymore. If it means I have to become a libertarian, or grit my teeth as a libertarian-conservative and hang out with the others in the ‘big tent’ to keep it from going too much in one direction, so be it. I am tired of desi Republicans being assumed, automatically, to be any less sincere than there Democratic counterparts. I’m not talking about Jindal, I couldn’t care less, If you can’t see that the ‘other side’ is filled with people who simply have a different point of view, well, it’s sad because we could have had some rousing good discussion.
I am a registered Republican as of today. If you think you can devine the content of my character from that, well, what can I say, you are the TRUTHMISSILE.
As for you, I simply think you are a person with whom I disagree politically. No more, no less. Desi Republicans may actually believe what the believe, believe it or not. Argue the merits for or against, that is fine, but to say that all people of color in the Republican party must be shills is a type of racism: it means you don’t take the person at what they actually say, only what they look like. You devine true meaning from the pigment of their skin, and not the words falling from their lips.
You are right. Desis should not support him because of skin color, but should instead take a serious look at his politics. Really, I couldn’t agree more 🙂
However… it seems like some people oppose him precisely because he is brown and Republican. They see it as a paradox – as if it’s impossible for a self respecting brown man to be a Republican. In my opinion, the underlying reasoning is the same; that is no different than blindly supporting him because he is brown.
Sure, Nixon’s strategy was wrong and racist. But do the actions of one man reflect the inner thoughts of each and every Republican? No way! What does that have to do with Jindal?
As for Delay, all I have to say is that it is interesting that a Democratic attorney in Travis County, the most liberal county in Texas, files a lawsuit against Delay, representative of a district 200 miles away. But if you view this as wrong behaviour, that is fine and valid, so be it. I lived in Delay’s district and I lived in Travis county – I follow this issue, and I personally don’t find Jindal’s actions with respect to Delay to be disturbing.
Disagree with Jindal – I could care less – but disagree because you disagree with his actions and politics. He is not a shill; he’s the real deal.
Many of those 8 million Iraqis braved suicide bombers and attacks from insurgents trying to place a vote…
Warms my heart. Now how about working on that terrorism thing.
don’t forget his support for the REAL ID Act, which – even apart from its outrageous substance – was railroaded through by Sensenbrenner and Delay as an essentially nondebatable rider to an Iraq and tsunami relief appropriations bill that was “must pass.” no hearings, no markupm no amendments allowed – not exactly a model of good deliberative lawmaking. but not a peep from bobby about any of that.
Why is this ludicrous? He’s enlisted himself with the worst of the worst, politically speaking. Electoral politics (esp. in the House) is a team sport and every vote he casts is another vote for the agenda that Tom Delay, George Bush, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and others in Republican leadership are pushing. He’s either politically naive or compromised, because he’s not doing anyone much good by being a Republican Rep. from Louisiana except for a few special interests and himself. If he were a Democratic (or Green Party or Socialist) Rep., he would be slightly better, because he would be caucusing with the right people and working with a different constellation of groups and individuals pressuring him, particularly as he moves up.
Of course, you could look at this from a broader perspective than just electoral politics and consider the full range of things someone as bright as him might be doing, and then he really doesn’t look good. What can you do? Some people have bogus political beliefs.
True, electoral politics is a team sport. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that Jindal is a puppet whose strings are being pulled by the White House or Tom Delay. Additionally, Tom Delay and George Bush do have separate agendas and do not totally agree on everything. BUT, I will cede this to you: Jindal’s freshman voting record currently differs little from Tom Delay’s. I still disagree with your premise, and perhaps I will be proved right as Jindal builds up his voting record.
You really mean he’s not doing you much good. And who should he be representing – Indians or the people of Louisiana? If he should be representing the people of Louisiana, I think he has done a fairly good job of “doing the people of Lousiana much good” (judging by the bills he has passed). Also, by your judgement, how many of the other 434 representatives are “doing anyone much good”?
That’s funny. Looking at his credentials (since I don’t know the bloke personally), he could be raking in lots of money through n a lucrative private sector job. Instead he chose to serve the people of Louisiana and his country as a public servant. That looks pretty damn good to me.
According to the arguments of the leftist persuasion here, aligning with the Democrats will mean standing hand in hand with the Senator who was a Kleagle with the Ku Klux Klan, who voted against the Civil Rights Act, who voted against Thurgood Marshall as well as Clarence Thomas – Robert Byrd, and that sort of agenda. Isn’t that really the worst of the worst?
Classic outlier argument…
Come on now, be real. Which party contains a higher percentage of racists? Does anyone with even half a brain think its the Democratic party?
One CAN divine your political and ideological point of view. And as a Democrat I can say your point of view, like Piyush Jindal’s, sucks. Says nothing about your character, just your general belief system.
(Feel free to return the favor)
The larger question is this…runnerwalla, MD, foobar..
Do you believe in human rights, and the rule of law or don’t you?
Do you believe in policies that are good for the long term safety and economic security of the nation and world, or not?
I have no particular allegiance to any political party, but I do believe in these things – can you honestly say Bush and Delay do as well?
Jindal is either part of the solution, or he’s part of the problem.
Jindal’s biography only makes his support for current GOP policies all the more sad – he can’t say he was ignorant and not aware of what his party was doing when the current GOP leadership is inevitably held accountable for their Nixon-on-horse-steriods criminal policies.
Secrecy. War Profiteering. Torture. Abuse of Power. Propaganda. 1% economics. There’s really no debate on the record of the current GOP leadership, that Jindal obviously whole-heartedly supports, as blind allegiance is a pre-requisite to holding any position of power in the modern GOP (What happens to dissenters who tell the truth, O’Neil, Clark, , etc.).
This is a far cry from rank-and-file Republicans like yourselves, who I feel are on balance good natured people – but either subscribe to these current policies because of an ignorance served by a totally servile, stenographic American mainstream press, or feel in some sense that it’s fashionable to support these guys (it happened in the 60s and 70s too, it used to be cool to be ‘liberal’).
As for whether Jindal could be making more money in Private Sector – if past Congressional Reps careers are any guide, he might lose re-election and work as a War Industry lobbyist using the connections he developed…we just don’t know…but so far it doesn’t look good.
Jindal doesn’t represent Indians, India, or even anything close to approaching true traditions of this great nation.
We’re in a very dark period right now. Jindal is most likely more aware of this than I am, but it’s far easier to ride the current, than to swim against it.
“Secrecy. War Profiteering. Torture. Abuse of Power. Propaganda. 1% economics. There’s really no debate on the record of the current GOP leadership…”
“No debate?” Ugh, truthmissile, you otherwise sound like an intelligent individual, with whom I just happen to disagree on just about everything. But this type of holier-than-thou condescension is what discredits pretty much everytying you have to say. And it’s exactly the type of attitude you and others like you seem to scorn the Right for maintaining – it’s absolutely no different from the “Either you’re with us or you’re against us” policy of the administration. You can be presented with facts to no end, and it’ll still make no difference – you’re absolutely convinced the administration is scum and nothing will ever change that. Deposing a dictator did not change that. Free and open elections did not change that. Enacting a prescription drug benefit at home did not change that – apparently it wasn’t enough.
Meanwhile, how in the sam hell do you conclude that it is “cool” to be a Republican? All we do is get slammed by the MSM and the Left for being out-of-touch racist, elitist torturers and murderers who run home from our seven-figure jobs every day to swim around in our basements full of gold coins.
This editorial in the SF Chronicle sums up pretty well what I think has become of the Left today.
One more note, to vurdlife, who says “Which party contains a higher percentage of racists? Does anyone with even half a brain think its the Democratic party?”
Maybe. Or are you going to try to claim that affirmative action isn’t racist? Racism isn’t limited to white people, which is what I think you’re getting at with that ridiculous assertion.
The Congressional district Jindal represents is the place where David Duke has his offices (Mandeville). It’s also where David Duke hosted his call in radio show (Covington). If Jindal is supposed to represent his constituents, as some people have suggested upthread, then he certainly should be more of a racist and extremist than the average American.
When David Duke ran for senate in LA, he received 60% of the white vote. The main reason Jindal lost the Governorship of LA is because white republicans did not vote for him the way they normally vote for candidates of their own race. Racism is a driving force behind voting intentions in Louisiana.
Interestingly, David Duke says he became a white supremicist because of his visit to India in 1971. Its the flip side of globalization. Colour-prejudice and castism in India inspire racism and bigotry in America. Here are Dukes’ words
Aryans, or Indo-European Caucasians created the great Indian, or Hindu Civilization. … Sixteen Aryan states were partitioned by the sixth century AD, and Brahmanism became the chief religion of the India. After the conquest, the conquering race initiated a caste system to preserve their status and their racial identity. The Hindu word for caste is “Varna,” which means color. … The palest of skin were called the Brahmin, the warrior-priest class, the top of the social ladder. Untouchables, or Pariahs, the racially mixed, or “raceless ones,” were at the bottom.
Over the past few centuries, the clear racial differences faded, but one can still notice the lighter hues and taller statures of the higher castes. … In modern India, the greatest insult one could pay a fellow Indian is to call him “black.”
In spite of all the organized government and media efforts to root out racial feeling, there is still ample evidence that race does matter in modern India. Rodney told me that the “personal ad” columns catering to the English-speaking Indians are interesting in that the skin color of the advertiser is always described very precisely. Before I left India, I found that the ads often had an emphasis on the degree of lightness of the perspective husband or wife.
… In spite of strict religious and civil taboos, the ancient Aryans crossed the color line. Slavery, or a similar system, makes servant women easily obtainable and has proven a dangerous temptation for some of the basest of the slave holders. Only a small percentage of each generation had sexual liaisons with the lower castes, but over dozens of generations a gradual change in the racial composition had occurred, almost imperceptible in a single generation, but dramatic after a millennium.
Around the corner of the temple … I saw something that will forever remain burned in my memory. There in the shade sat a little, brown, half-caste Indian girl. … She was so malnourished that her face had not developed properly, but her eyes were very large … On one cheek was an open sore nearly the size of a quarter; there were more sores on her arms, chest and legs, and each sore was covered by dozens of flies. … I dug my hand deep into my pocket, pulled out all the Indian coins I had and carefully tipped them softly into her dark, skeleton-like hand. …
On the way back to my room I wondered if, in a few hundred years, some half-black descendant of mine would be sitting among the ruins of our civilization, brushing away the flies, waiting to die. Every day our nation grows a little darker from the torrential immigration of non-whites , high non-white birthrates, and increasing racial miscegenation; and with each passing day, we see the quality of our lives decline. … The healthy racial values of our forefathers are ridiculed and replaced by the pseudo-science of egalitarianism. Treason to our heritage prospers and corruption feeds in the highest places.
All that keeps our society afloat are the small number of scientists and technicians (predominately Caucasian) who continue to create technological wizardry that cushions the impact of the economic slide caused by lower individual productivity, and the dependency of the growing welfare underclass. Somehow, the increasingly hard-pressed, White middle class keeps the wheels turning (and taxes flowing into the social structure), but with lessening efficiency.
To the plaudits of the media, the Brahmins of America and the West are slowly being replaced by the pariahs, the Untouchables. Seeing that child in that prophetic setting was my glimpse of a remorseless fate toward which the United States and the Western World are hurdling. …
An often quoted passage from the Bhagavad Gita came to my mind with powerful meaning:
Likewise having regard for duty to your caste For in a warrior, there exists no better thing than A fight required of duty (Chapter 2, verse 30)
I realized that day in the scorching Indian sun that I had to adopt the spirit of a warrior — that my race was in a life and death struggle that transcended the centuries
Note: The above Duke quote is not to bash India. It’s to bash Duke, and to bash the castism and coour prejudice that exists everywhere in South Asian (including pakistan and other Muslim areas).
Ikram, I’m afraid your comment has one HUGE inherent inconsistency: if you’re going to point out that Jindal’s district is David Duke’s district and thus must be comprised of racists, then why did that same district vote overwhelmingly for Jindal to be their representative in the first place? Maybe it’s because they’re no longer as racist as you thought?
ROHAN wrote: “…You can be presented with facts to no end, and it’ll still make no difference – you’re absolutely convinced the administration is scum and nothing will ever change that.”
Open-minded – is it possible in any way, shape or form that we as a nation have been misled? That you’ve been misled? I had an open-mind when this Administration said that Iraq had WMDs and was ready to strike in a moment’s notice. I had an open-mind when Colin Powell went to the UN. I had an open mind when Duelfer went to Iraq after Kay came back and said there was nothing. Did we go to Iraq to “free” them? It all turned out to be bullshit.
I met two 25 year old Vets the other day – one of them had no legs, the other was missing one – did that NEED to happen? Did he lose his legs for some hazy notion of freeing the Iraqi people? No, he went to protect his nation. He was lied to.
This War is not justified. It’s wrong. And 100,000 Iraqis and 1700 soliders are dead – 17,000 injured.
See the photos of the wounded (WARNING: GRAPHIC): http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/wounded/gallery.htm
“Free and open elections”
It was another false milestone to be added to the fall of the statue, the capture of Sadaam, the killing of Uday and Qusay, etc. It was done more to placate American and Britain than it was for the Iraqis, Bush was opposed to it initially and only came in after the Sistani protested. Right now the country is on the verge of, if not in the middle of, a Civil War. We don’t know what’s really happening because journalists can’t leave the confines of the Green Zone. I don’t know what’s fully happening in Iraq – we get vague reports of car bombs, civilian and military casualties – but that’s it. Do you?
And that Prescription drug “benefit” – Medicare bill – you mean the one written by the Pharamceutical lobby, passed in the dead of night with fake budget numbers, that doesn’t allow the Government to negotiate the price of meds?
Is that the best you can come with on the success of this administration?
If your family is part of the 2% that pays Estate taxes, or you live off your stock dividends, then this is a great Administration for you. Congratulations!
For the rest of America, the 80% paying payroll taxes with Wall street breathing down the neck of Social Security, the middle class standing at the edge of a giant Real estate bubble – it’s all a shell game.
Rohan:
My parents live in Jindal’s district, so I certainly hope they are not all racist (though, most desis, they are colour-prejudiced). I know the area reasonably well. It is Louisiana’s only true exurb. Rich, mostly white, professional, full of brand spanking new developments built on golf courses and artificial lakes. And connected to (mostly black) New Orleans by 24 mile causeway, at once a giant metaphor and a facilitator of white flight.
I never said that Jindal’s district is made up of racists — you need to read more slowly and more carefully Rohan. I said (1) that Jindal lost the LA governor’s race because of racial preferences of some LA Republican voters (mostly in Northern Louisiana), and (2) that David Duke has his offices in Jindal’s district (which is not in northern Louisiana).
I also said (3) that if Jindal is representative of his district, he would have to have more racist and extremist views than the average American.
None of these points means that Jindal cannot win Louisiana’s first district. In fact, I think LA-01 is ideal for Jindal, and that he is doing all the right things to ensure re-election (like Introducing a Bill to ensure religious organizations are not precluded from receiving disaster and emergency assistance following a natural disaster. Helping the God-squads will win him votes.
If you want to better understand Mandeville, Coventry, and other parts of Jindal’s district (the richest in Louisiana), read this NYT article about class in America.
Ikram, I read it plenty carefully – I think you need to understand the logical conclusions that will be drawn from your points. Your point (3) is what I’m talking about here. You note that if Jindal represents his district, he naturally will have to be more racist than the average American. The clear implication of your words is that his district is more racist than average.
You’re trying to claim that the state is racist by not electing him for governor, and that his district is more racist than average because it once supported David Duke. IF you choose to conclude that the state of Louisiana is driven by racism by using Jindal’s loss in the governor’s election as proof, then you shouldn’t use it to describe the collective attitude of the district in which he actually won, regardless of past preferences.
I’m quite familiar with Louisiana politics. I was raised in and my parents still reside in Monroe, LA.
Truthmissile – it is quite possible that we’ve been misled. Is it 100% certain, such that “There really is no debate” as you say? Absolutely not. Frankly, I don’t even think it’s near that.
I’m not trying to debate the merits of the administration here, which we can certainly do elsewhere. I’m just trying to point out that it’s unfortunate that you think there is only one credible view, and that view is that the administration stinks and anyone who supports them is either trying to be “fashionable” or an ignorant fool “served by a totally servile, stenographic American mainstream press.”
Do you honestly see nothing wrong with considering every one of us Republicans as ignorant, blind followers? All you’re doing is exposing your own ignorance, masked by a superior vocabulary.
Rohan – Hear Hear! Thank you for stating the obvious…
Truthmissile – 100,000 dead is from a very controversial Lancet article; the UN has a study which is more recent and sampled many more households – their figure for both civilian and combatant is closer to 25-26,000. Still, an awful lot of suffering, we can both agree on that.
As for the situation in Iraq, I remember a thread on Sepia Mutiny a few weeks ago where people were arguing whether or not it would have been better for the British to quit India later if it could have saved the Partition (silly, I know, because they were the reason for the partition, but the rhetorical question stands). By what metric do you decide it is worth it to remove a tyrant like Saddam? People were dying during his regime as well….
Here are pictures from the Northern part of Iraq, not representative, but while some parts of Iraq are quite violent, others are doing ok, and some, like the Kurdish areas, are thriving. Of course, they had a head start due to the no-fly zones…click on over and see what the Mid-East could look like if the tyrants would cede power to the people.
Oh drat, here is the link again
Here.
Oh, and whatever you think of the war look at the pictures from the University of Dorhuk – they are fascinating. Utterly fascinating…
Rohan (and MD), I don’t think careful, intelligent left critques argue that everyone in the Republican rank and file is a racist or a bad person or a blind follower. However, there is a very distinct agenda being pushed by the current Republican leadership and its lead supporters who collectively making up a “rightwing” movement in politics, the media, the not-profit world, think tanks, etc. That agenda prizes consolidation of political power above fairness and in some cases the rule of law (e.g. Tom Delay–but by no means only him), which seeks to manipulate process and the press in order to get policy or political results that they want (e.g. the Iraq war, the Swiftboat veteran campaign, the smear campaign against John McCain in the 2000 primary in South Carolina), which eschews transparency (e.g. the Cheney energy task force), and engages in other actions and methods that fundamentally undermine the ability of the state to function effectively and democratically. It does so to a greater degree than was done before and thereby encourages anyone who participates in the whole political system to do the same.
To deny this is to have lived in a cave for (at least) the past six years or be completely blinded by partisanship. More importantly, to deny that the current failings of today’s Republican Party have roots going at least as far back as Reagan is to ignore what the history of the United States has been over the past 20 years (read some bios of Reagan not by Dinesh D’Souza, take a real hard comparative look at Iran Contra, the Clinton Impeachment, and the Bush approach to the Iraq war, take a good hard look at Reagan’s Iraq policy in comparison to the current President Bush’s (notice the overlap in figures), etc.)
The trends have progressed to the point where it is difficult for people on what is broadly called “the left” (a lot of which is actually quite conservative by the standards of, say, the EU) to understand what seemingly articulate and nice people like you and MD seek to gain by voting Republican (as opposed to identifying wtih core philosophies that Republican leadership often espouses like devolution of power to local government, an emphasis on private sector initiative, eliminating or reducing redistribution, supporting what it conceives of to be social conservatism, etc.–although, imo, most of which it still frequently if not consistently fails to act on) and more importantly by defending the Republican party as it currently stands. Those ideological views are totally separable from partisan political affiliation for most people except for one or two moments a year–when you vote. The mystery to me is why so many Republicans haven’t chosen to do that yet.
I haven’t gone into my feelings about the Republican Party’s specific policy agenda or the way many of its individuals thinks about economics, social problems or “foreign affairs”, because I first want to be on the same page as you or anyone else who’s on this thread who identifies as a Republican on the dangers that the way the rightwing movement is operating poses to Americans and others. Particularly in this week in which Deep Throat was revealed, and in light of the fact that figures as diverse as Christie Todd Whitman, Richard Clarke, Paul O’Neil, George Voinovich, Arlen Specter, Colin Powell, Jim Jeffords, and many other career conservatives have all recognized or called out pieces of it–why don’t Republican rank and file members who have nothing to lose do the same?
Yes, you are entitled to respectful discourse, but it has to be on a common ground where we agree to agree about what the facts are rather than to pretend that every criticism of the rightwing is built on biased portrayals by the MSM or vast conspiracies of the left (believe me, I wish we were that organized) or that “the current Administration” can be understood in complete isolation from the Republican Party and recent Republican leaderships and administrations. Otherwise, you’re just living in a different world than I am and you can’t blame people like me if we write you off in conversations about politics.
No matter how fiscally conservative you may be, no matter how deep your party allegiance, anyone who voted for this underperformer and his extracurricular war for another four years committed a sin in my book. Plenty of conservatives voted for true conservatives in ’04.
American politics isn’t exactly my forte but I find the notion that minorities have to vote for the Democrats as a result of some past debt ridiculous.
In Canada I have acually had a member of the Liberal Party (socially liberal, economically Keynesian) try to guilt me into voting for Liberals on the basis that the immigration reforms that the implemented in the 60s and 70s by the Liberal Party allowed my parents to immigrate here.
I told him I wasn’t aware that their was immigration was based on the condition they would have to vote Liberal and asked him how many generations it would take for their decendends to repay the debt. That shut him up.
On another note… @Saurav you say that there are relatively few differences between the Republicans and Democrats as if its a bad thing.
I actually think the two party system is one of America’s biggest strengths. The country is very politically unified compared to the EU or Canada (the people who cite the red/blue divide are making mountains out of molehills).
For example in Canada we have four major political parties and they all suck. – Liberals (used to be half decent, now their Corruption would put desi politicians to shame) – Conservative (will kill free healthcare and public education things that most canadians treasure, form alliances with the seperatists) – Bloc-qubecois (Regional sepratists, good at extroting fedral money for Quebec, very left leaning but would willingly form an unholy alliance with the Conservatives to get more power) – NDP (psuedo-socialist bad for the economy, tend to run huge deficits)
It becomes very difficult to get things done at a federal level and Canadian politics right now is a complete and utter mess.. This is largely because there are a lot of political parties who have radically different ideologies from each other, and parties now have to form weird alliances to pass bills and get things done.
Another good example of this would be India with its multitude of political parties from all across the spectrum. The political process in India is cumbersome and unwieldy. The same goes other countries with many parties like Isreal.
Now I am not suggesting that governments need to switch to totalitarianism like China in the name of efficiency, or effectively become one party states like Japan in the name of stability.
But there needs to be a balance between diverse democratic political representaion and voice v.s. efficiency of the political process and the economic stability of the nation.
The best example I can think of a country that has achieved this balance is America.
Epoch: Political parties and political fragmentation are a reflection of a country, not a cause. India is not divided because it has a lot of parties, it has a lot of parties becuase it is divided. American political parties are about the same becuase, despite the blather on blogs, Americans are pretty united on the most important issues (like the nature of the country).
Canada has a pizza parliament these days becuase the non-Liberal elements of the country have been unable to re-create the Mulroney coalition. You’re blaming the politicians when you should be blaming the citizens.
Rohan: I am argueing that LA-01 is more racist than the average district. After all, about half of all districts will be moe racist than average. And if Jindal represents his constituents, he will have to more racist than average. How much more racist? It’s an empirical question.
(Also, Duke has offices in Jindal’s district, but he was elected LA state rep from Metairie in New Orleans. I don’t think Duke could get elected in LA-01, even against a black liberal Democrat. I think he could get elected in Monroe,LA, though you would know better.)
Rohan:
A recommendation. You should read “The Colonizer and the Colonized,” by Albert Memmi. It’s a classic of politics and psychology. It’s a short book and a quick read, widely available in paperback (Beacon Press). The ideas it contains are very germane to this conversation.
peace, Siddhartha
Saurav made a very intelligent, impassioned case for questioning the motives of this Administration. Which is the duty of every citizen in a democracy, and for some reason has been abdicated to left and right-wing pundits/radio hosts with party agendas, who basically dictate how their side should think and talk about an issue. Bush himself admits that talking points have to be repeated to “catapult the propaganda.” Bush admits he is using propaganda to support his policies, he has a cynical view of his supporters, you should be questioning him Rohan.
A simple question – why is a questioning of policies perceived as a personal attack on Republican voters? This has been a very clever tactic of identity politics in America, as it makes a questioning of policy into a personal matter – which it isn’t. When people supported Clinton as it was becoming clear he had an affair in the White House, I was shocked at how far people were willing to defend him. He did something wrong, the system put him on trial for it – and he paid the ultimate price with his legacy.
But where is the outrage with Bush? People from the Democratic side within the press were willing to throw Clinton to the wolves as it became clear of his relatively minor misdeeds. But where is the outrage from Republicans about the deficits, the cost of the war, a missing $9 BILLION, war profiteering, our loss of standing in the world, our dependence on China economically and in terms of manufacturing? Clinton was partially responsible for parts of this via NAFTA, and it was supposed to be these “grown-up” Republicans that were to bring back dignity and sanity to the White House.
I have nothing personal against Republican rank-and-file voters, my Dad and uncles are Republicans – but they still have their qualms and have been hesitant to donate money as they did for Reagan.
The question I have is how many Iraqis and Americans have to die before we should STOP – a majority of the public has already lost support? MD and Rohan are basically left to say that “not THAT many were killed.” What a terrible place the leaders you support have put you in.
ItÂ’s okay to admit that we were lied to collectively as a nation, you and me. That this war was fought for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with the stated goals. That the price of this war will be left with our generation (18-35) to deal with for the rest of our lives.
When did the Iraqi people ever ask us to come free them from Saddam? We were the ones who imposed the sanctions that led to the deaths of over a million Iraqis. The only Iraqi I recall was Chalabi, who left Iraq as a toddler – and in hindsight now has become an embarrassment for the Neocons and Bush.
If Jindal doesn’t have the guts to question these policies, then he doesn’t deserve the support of the Indian community. Our ancestors were a colonized people once too – we should know better.
Saurav and truthmissile – note that I’m not making any elaborate extensions of truth’s argument by saying he’s (she’s?) coloring all Republicans with the same brush – he said it himself, in these exact words, which I’ll quote yet again:
“This is a far cry from rank-and-file Republicans like yourselves, who I feel are on balance good natured people – but either subscribe to these current policies because of an ignorance served by a totally servile, stenographic American mainstream press, or feel in some sense that it’s fashionable to support these guys (it happened in the 60s and 70s too, it used to be cool to be ‘liberal’).”
Well, at the very least, thanks for thinking we’re “on balance good natured people.” Straight out of truth’s mouth, though, is the contention that ALL Republicans are either 1) ignorant or 2) trend-followers.
And Saurav, saying the Left in the United States is pretty conservative compared to, say, the EU, is like saying that Michael Jackson is pretty black compared to, say, Larry Bird.
Believe me, truthmissile, I question it. I just don’t find the argument that compelling that the administration brazenly lied to us. Personally I believe we were misled by really awful intelligence, and our intelligence capabilities need to be addressed. I personally have trouble believing that any sitting president, knowing FULL well the potential repercussions (i.e. impeachment and possible imprisonment) should he be found to have lied, would willingly send thousands of troops overseas to their potential deaths on a premise he knew was false. That just happens to be a point on which you and I differ. (And apparently, Saurav seems to think that this is an undeniable fact which I’d have to concede in order for us to have respectful discourse. I’m sorry, but…no.)
Meanwhile, Clinton’s adultery brought disgrace into the highest office in the land, making it the laughingstock of the world at that time. Relative to what you claim is intentionally sending soldiers to their deaths based on a lie, of course that’s a minor misdeed. (And I happen to believe it wasn’t a lie; not that bad information is excusable, but I’d have been fine with the war if Bush had simply said “Saddam is a genocidal maniac, and there’s no room for his evil in the world. We are going to end him.”)
But in your mind, Bush’s gross misdeeds which far surpass Clinton’s adultery include things like a couple years of budget deficits? Really? And you’re annoyed that I bring up the Medicare Drug benefit as an example of policy? We lived through massive deficits in the 80s, we’ll live through them now. If it takes a substantial revaluation of the dollar, so be it. We still have the most capital-friendly markets on the planet and that will undoubtedly support the dollar’s value until the rest of the world’s economic policies/regulations change to more closely resemble ours.
And it’s Bush’s fault that the Chinese have had a manufacturing and growth explosion led by their being by far the lowest-cost producers on the planet? I’d love to hear your reasoning there, because I’m not buying it – and neither would most rational people, I think.
How many Americans would have had to die in World War II before you decided that Hitler wasn’t worth defeating? Is it that much of a stretch to compare Saddam to him? Hell, the MoveOn folks didn’t think it was much of a stretch to compare W to Hitler, and I think it’s safe to say that group was accepted as mainstream by the Left during the election. What do yo umake of that? Which comparison is more valid?
Look, I don’t agree with 100% of this administration’s policies and certainly do find certain things pretty questionable (the transparency of the energy task force, as Saurav mentioned). Overall though, the aspects of the administration with which I do have issues pale in comparison to those which I appreciate. That’s why I happily voted for W (and apparently sinned according to Cynikal with a k).
I just don’t find the argument that compelling that the administration brazenly lied to us.
Really? Not even when they’ve told you they lied to you re: the reasons for the war? Seriously, what would it take?
Meanwhile, Clinton’s adultery brought disgrace into the highest office in the land…
Blowjobs vs. mass killing of civilians. Great comparison.
That’s why I happily voted for W (and apparently sinned according to Cynikal with a k).
Not my problem if you miss references, kiddo.
I’d have been fine with the war if Bush had simply said “Saddam is a genocidal maniac
How about working on that terrorism thing instead.
Maybe in the very short term, but in the long term political systems do greatly affect nature and extent of the divisions within a nation.
The primary reason India is divided today is because of historical socio-political divisions. Now you could argue that these divisions were created because of an equally divided people.
But as a thought-experiment consider the following scenarios.
Scenario A: For the next 50 years India continues on its current path, allowing for a multitude of small, regional parties to weild influence.
Scenario B: For the next 50 years India adopts a pan-nationalist, syncretic policy.
At the end of the 50 years which scenario would result in a less divided people ?
Scenario B I think would be the clear winner if you judge solely on the basis of unity. But obviously the unity would come at a tremendous cost, many traditions and customs would be lost or assimilated.
Rohan – those who voted for Bush were ignorant NOT by their choosing. There has been a very calculated, intentional campaign to keep Bush supporting voters hazy if not outright misinformed on the facts. How and why do you think this happened?
“Supporters of President Bush are less knowledgeable about the president’s foreign policy positions and are more likely to be mistaken about factual issues in world affairs than voters who back John F. Kerry, a survey released yesterday indicated.
A large majority of self-identified Bush voters polled believe Saddam Hussein provided “substantial support” to Al Qaeda, and 47 percent believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the US invasion. Among the president’s supporters, 57 percent queried think international public opinion favors Bush’s reelection, and 51 percent believe that most Islamic countries support “US-led efforts to fight terrorism.”
No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, the Sept. 11 Commission found no evidence of substantial Iraqi support for Al Qaeda, and international public opinion polls have shown widespread opposition to Bush’s reelection.
In contrast, among Kerry supporters polled only 26 percent think Iraq had such weapons, 30 percent say Iraq was linked to Al Qaeda, and 1 percent said foreign public opinion favors Bush.
The polls results, said Steven Kull, the head of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, which conducted the survey, showed that Americans are so polarized two weeks before the election that many lack even a common understanding of the facts.
“It is rather unique the extent to which we have different perceptions of reality,” Kull said. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/10/22/divide_seen_in_voter_knowledge?mode=PF
How do you explain that, if not the by-product of the TV news media? This whole lie about a liberal media is a calculated tactic too – a “working of the Refs,” or as William Kristol states, a cover for “conservative policy failures.” http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=711509
In regards to trend followers, that’s well documented and occurs for GOP and Dem voters:
“Opinion leaders are referred to as “Influentials” in the report and are “the Americans who tell their neighbors what to buy, which politicians to support, and where to vacation” [15, p. 2]. Influentials are those that help others arrive at conclusions, thereby influencing their behavior. http://www.ipdi.org/
In regards to “they didn’t lie to us” – why hasn’t the press covered the story of the Downing Street memo with at least the same level as say, the Starr report?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
From JULY 2002… “There was a perceptible shift in attitude [of the Bush Administration]. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.”
And the end result of it all is well detailed in the NY Times this morning. A growing gap in wealth…an end result of people voting against their best economic and social interests.
“The Bush administration tax cuts stand to widen the gap between the hyper-rich and the rest of America. The merely rich, making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, will shoulder a disproportionate share of the tax burden.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/national/class/HYPER-FINAL.html
So if people aren’t supporting this Administration based on the facts, or influence from friends and neighbors – then what is it? That’s the billion dollar question.
Rohan, in response to my last comment (portions of which you substantially misinterpreted and the general thrust of which you were essentially dismissive of) and those of some other people, you wrote:
which collectively leave me to reiterate:
I’m not trying to be too snotty, but the amount of time it would take for us to come to a consensus about what the basic facts of recent world and U.S. history are would consume the rest of both of our lives. IMO, you don’t have a good sense of the history of the U.S. since about 1960 (and as it affects the rest of the world). If you did, you might see why I would rather spend my time reading this, this, this, or this rather than continue to argue with you.
As a last note, here’s an anecdote that might help:
Of my own accord, I spoke to a couple of Log Cabin Republicans today at the Queens LGBT Pride event; the conversation covered a number of different areas. At one point, one of them said something like “You know that most of the Bush tax cuts thus far have gone to middle class people”
to which I responded with something like “It’s a trillion dollar tax cut that over ten years will disproportionately benefit the very wealthy.”
He responded, “Okay, at least you know your stuff…” and he smiled.
And I said “Thanks for trying to con me.” and we both smiled.
You see–for some Republicans, it’s not that hard to admit reality when it confronts them 🙂
So if people aren’t supporting this Administration based on the facts, or influence from friends and neighbors – then what is it?
Fear of terrorism, and cognitive dissonance. “I like Bush, so I must not believe he would send people to their deaths without reason.”
Epoch, I hope I didn’t say or imply this and if I did, I take it back. What I meant is that the Republicans are extraordinarily conservative and the majority of nationally elected Democrats have been conservative and/or compliant for about 15 years. The most important difference is that the Republican Party and the constellation of NGOS, media, and other groups around them are the driving force behind the general push, while the Democratic Party has more been along for the ride more than anything else.
There is, imo, still a vast difference in what the actions of a Democrat-controlled government would look like than the current one (at least for domestic policy and to a much smaller extent for foreign policy), even though I find that both major political parties have the capacity to drive me nuts (for different reasons).
But, yes, I believe it is a bad thing for them to be controlled by the same ideology(ies) and working on behalf of the same interests. I think consolidated political power leads to a lack of accountability and a general trend towards poor policy. That’s why I like The Open Society Institute.
Think harder 🙂
I nominate the UK and Sweden to start with. I’m sure there are more…Luxembourg has the highest per capita income (by PPP) in the world (substantially higher than any other country) and had 5 different parties win seats in their last election, with none getting more than 40% of them. So they must be doing something right 🙂
First of all, Saurav, I don’t in any way take criticism of Republicans in general as being some vast orchestrated left wing conspiracy among the media and members of the left in general, or that an attack on one is an attack on all. I was specifically responding to truthmissile who clearly included ALL Republicans in his categorization. I think attitudes like that are what prohibit respectful discourse, and that was my only point. And I do appreciate the fact that you don’t categorize us all similarly.
Now, concluding that I have no knowledge of US History from 1960 to the present based on three lines, that’s terrific. I’d be happy to discuss things like historical currency markets with you any time.
Nice anecdote. I have one too: how about liberals who use articles like this Eric Alterman piece (with not a single ounce of data other than to say that two conservative fellas wrote for the NYT – at the same time (gasp!)) to claim that there is no liberal media bias, when all the facts in the world prove him so blatantly wrong?
And I’ll agree with your friend on the tax cuts. Of course they benefit the rich. The rich pay all the taxes.
Thanks for the article links, I’ll give them a read. Meanwhile, if you have the time, since you have an appetite for history, have a look at this and this.
I can understand why an Anglo American would be “conservative”… They got something to ‘conserv’ I guess… their hegemony, their way of life. (I’d do the same if I were in their position) … I dont get when Desis want to be “conservative” …what do they have to ‘conserv’ ?? You need to get and amass a lot of things (not just money) first and then try to ‘conserv’ that … Less taxes could be one of the reason .. but I dont see any other.
I’ve been pretty clear Rohan – and justified my comments based on the research available (PIPA study). Obviously not ALL Republicans fall one way or another – but we had ~90%+ Republicans voting for Bush, ~10% of Democrats in 2004 – so that group who voted for Bush, a majority of Republican rank-and-file, have been found to be misinformed, thus IGNORANT of the documented facts on Saddam, Al Queda, etc. – why is that?
Let’s be clear here. This whole conflict is about wealth, and how control of that wealth leads to economic destablization for the majority. The Saudi Arabian Royal family is wealthy because they keep oil pumping to the West, then use that money to fund Wahabbism, while at the same time depriving their own people of basic human rights, and access to the vast wealth their nation produces – the average income for a CITIZEN is $12,000, while the holdings of the monarchs is beyond comprehension. Don’t you think that policy might possibly lead to understanding why 16 of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers being from that country?
That was never mentioned by Victor David Hanson – whose used Saddam and Bin Laden in the same sentence repeatedly, as if they were one in the same? No wonder Bush supporters were so confused about why we went to Iraq – yes, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda keep “threatening to kill us,” so Bush goes into Iraq as a result, while Bin Laden roams free making video tapes? What if Roosevelt went into Mexico after Pearl Harbor – would Hanson have supported that too?
“…We are a society where many of our elite believe the killer bin Laden is less of a threat than the elected George Bush. Al Qaeda keeps promising to kill us all; meanwhile Ralph Nader wants the wartime president impeached for misuse of failed intelligence.”
This sentence is just a JEWEL and makes my point for me – this is EXACTLY why Bush voters were so confused in the last election – is there any clarification between FAILED, MANIPULATED, COOKED intelligence in going into Iraq vs. Al Queda and Bin Laden, who attacked America?
In America, the past 50 years have seen a vast decline in the power and economic security of the Middle class, which is a direct result of a strong effort to destoy Unions by the Elite wealthy – as it’s obviously been the biggest threat to profits. We’ve also seen an increase in religious fundamentalism in this country, quite obviously as a result of an inequitable economic system, and a breakdown of the middle class. Conservatives hark back to the 50s as an ideal time in American history that we should strive to restore, yet the 50s saw the height of the Union movement in this country – that’s a fact that’s never mentioned in the “liberal press.”
In re to a “liberal press” – when was the last time Union issues and news were even discussed? Unions are only mentioned when there’s a strike and they look like a bunch of whiny kooks. Wouldn’t a truly “liberal” media cover the issue of LABOR at least as much as CEO changes and payouts? What kind of “liberal” media sold a war to the public based on questionable intelligence? The fact is that people who WORK in the news media have as much control over the content of the news as factory workers who make GM cars have over the design of the vehicle. Mainstream media is controlled and paid for by corporations looking to make a profit – a purely capitalist system – how is that liberal?
If you want to trot out that haggard survey that a majority of people in the press are “liberal” – try and question the people who post that research and bring it to you. Brent Bozell and the Media Research Center are funded by a variety of Right-wing foundations – including Richard Melon Scaife, who funded the Arkansas project that led to Clinton getting busted for lying about blowjob.
So in America today we have a group of BILLIONAIRES essentially paying Bozell and his group to go after a liberal bias myth that they’ve created. BTW, why is it that no one knows the names of Scaife, John Olin, Bradley (as in the Bradley tank) the Carthage foundation – but everyone has heard of George Soros? How could the “liberal” media have missed that one?
Could it be that BILLIONAIRES want to keep making money, and the only real threat to that is a free and open mainstream press that might question the tactics used to maintain economic war on the middle class? BTWÂ…
One thing that Victor David Hanson mentions I agree with 100%: “Without an energy policy of independence, this war will be hard to win, since Saudi Arabia will never feel any pressure to purge its royal family of terrorist sympathizers or to cease its subsidies for Wahhabist hatred…”
So why does Bush and Cheney push so hard to keep our current Energy policy that maintains the wealth of the Saudi Royal Family and Oil companies? Tax breaks for SUV purchases – thatÂ’s a BUSH policy that Hanson never mentions.
You have to prove there’s a “liberal” media with more than Bozell and Bernie Goldberg – and their well-worn surveys. Alterman makes his point pretty clearly with quotes from Conservatives who ADMIT their tactics openly:
“…Even William Kristol, undoubtedly the most influential Republican/neoconservative writer and publisher in America today, is on record as saying that the “liberal media” canard is often used by conservatives as an excuse to cover up for conservative failures. Despite this, Kristol’s magazine, The Weekly Standard, joins its colleagues in the conservative media in trotting out the liberal bias canard virtually every chance it gets.”
Isn’t this enough of a fact to at consider that we have a CONSERVATIVE, RIGHT-LEANING press that uses the “liberal bias” charge to limit any dissent from the central dogma? Please argue how America is anyway is a “left-leaning” nation
IsnÂ’t this a unquestionable FACT that Alterman cited:
“…It’s odd that of most prominent liberals writing in the nation’s newspapers and opinion magazines – E.J. Dionne, Robert Kuttner, Paul Krugman, Hendrik Hertzberg, Molly Ivins – not one has ever been given a regular slot on television, like say, Bob Novak, Fred Barnes, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Tony Blankley, Pat Buchanan, Bill O’Reilly or Brit Hume.”
In re to taxes – Granted, the rich pay a majority of the taxes – but they pay the same percentage back in taxes as someone in the middle class? Is that an equitable, FAIR system? If a middle class person earns more in their lifetime, they pay more in taxes, but the wealthy are free from gradual increases? Do people in the middle class have access to the same tax shelter schemes as the “hyper-rich”? Are wealthy people put under the same scrutiny for their earnings by the IRS as the super-rich?
“…Studies by the government show that investors understate their capital gains by close to $200 billion each year. The IRS has no mechanism — none – – to check up on capital gains, according to two professors, Jay Soled, who teaches business at Rutgers in New Jersey, and Joseph Dodge, who teaches tax law at Florida State University. They estimate that capital gains tax cheating alone costs the government $29 billion annually.
But IRS auditors will catch people who cheat, right? Not really.
For more than a decade, Congress has steadily eroded the capacity of the IRS to enforce the tax laws, with one exception. Since 1997, Congress has approved more than $1 billion in extra funds to audit the working poor. In recent years, parents who work full time at the minimum wage have been as much as eight times more likely to be audited than millionaire investors in partnerships. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/04/10/ING0UC4LLO1.DTL
One other point about taxes – why is it that Bush has cut taxes on Estates and Dividends (Estate taxes are for wealthy families leaving $3 million or more to their inheritors, it was pushed by the Gallo and Mars family), and dividend tax cuts that favor people who live off the dividends of their stock earnings – namely the elite rich.
If Bush cared about the majority of working people, wouldn’t he cut PAYROLL taxes – something that 80% of the country pays?
And why would Bush do that, the lie about it by saying this?
“…President Bush said during the third election debate last October that most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans. In fact, most – 53 percent – will go to people with incomes in the top 10 percent over the first 15 years of the cuts, which began in 2001 and would have to be reauthorized in 2010. And more than 15 percent will go just to the top 0.1 percent, those 145,000 taxpayers.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/national/class/HYPER-FINAL.html?ex=1118203200&en=b2f4263612a25126&ei=5070
truth, saurav and co — keep your eyes on the prize. rohan’s argumentation is exhibiting troll-like tendencies. it’s a sandtrap. you’ve been completely reasonable open and fair. let him re-read your previous posts rather than waste your time with long answers he is simply going to dismiss with “the rich pay all the taxes”-level analysis. there are real fights worth waging out there.
peace
Rohan’s arguments are troll-like? Please. He’s presented coherent, rational arguments without engaging in personal attacks. Even Saurav has too – though I vehemently disagree with his opinions. This is why I read Sepia Mutiny.
Your comment, on the other hand, is a troll.
Briefly, and I will return when I have more time later: I agree with Bill Kristol’s comments 100%. But you’ve entirely misinterpreted his meaning. He’s not at all saying that there is no liberal media bias. Rather, he’s afraid conservatives will begin to use that as an knee-jerk excuse (because it’s an easy one to make) instead of admitting to policy failures. That is certainly a threat, and I think it’s admirable that he’s got clarity on that issue. (See Alterman vs Bozell on NRO or more stuff from your friends at MRC (you’ll have to CTRL+F to get to the Kristol part, as it is a ways down).
So you can quote the Center for American Progress freely and without concern, whereas I can’t quote the Media Research Center’s use of documented surveys without being biased? (And if you’re going to spout that the CAP describes itself as “nonpartisan,” then please read this.)Come on, now. It’s not like MRC conducted those surveys themselves, they’re presenting the results of others’ surveys. So perhaps in their selectivity they’re leaving out the surveys of journalists which indicate either impartiality or a conservative bias. If you have those, I’d love to see them.
Oh yes, and might I add: Haven’t we drifted far from the subject of Bobby Jindal? Abhi originally said that Bobby Jindal might replace Chris Cox as chair of the Homeland Security committee. However, this article suggests that Peter King (R-NY) might get the chairmanship instead of Jindal (who isn’t even named in the article).
Hah! This drifted away from Bobby, indeed. Thanks for the link.
More drifting away, in the meantime: couple discussions of the Downing Street Memo which align with my point of view here and here. And yes, I’m aware that both of those are conservative publications. That happens to be where you’ll find folks who think like me.