Vetting Bill for Hill

There's more: "Vetting Bill for Hill" >>

Sex and the Torturing Politician

Twenty years ago this Sunday, a Miami Herald reporter got a phone call and the rules of political campaigns changed forever.

When Tom Fiedler's phone rang the evening of April 27, 1987, he thought it might be another crank call, the kind political reporters get all the time. But Fiedler, a veteran campaign chronicler for the Miami Herald, couldn't ignore the caller's message: "Gary Hart is having an affair with a friend of mine."

Hart's inexcusable stupidity - he actually dared reporters to follow him - set a new standard for political coverage: sex lives are fair game.

The Clinton impeachment a decade later may seem to be the apotheosis of that standard, but in fact it was its nadir; it made most people realize that a politician's consensual adult sex really wasn't as important as how he did his job.

In Kentucky, Governor Paul Patton provided the egregious example of a public official who let his dick affect his job performance; he gave his mistress Tina Connor sweetheart contracts and regulatory exemptions for her businesses. His real crime, however, was that the exposure of his malfeasance led directly to the election of Republican Criminal Ernie Fletcher.

But it wasn't until the American people got collectively though metaphorically ass-raped by a frat-boy with arrested development who has probably never cheated on his wife that we really understood the moral calculus of presidential flaws.

In a president, which is preferable? Discreet extramarital affairs with consenting adults or treating the Constitution as toilet paper?

Let me put it more baldly: rather than a "good Christian" sociopathic failure bent on destroying the nation in a futile attempt to out-macho his father and who gets his jollies personally approving sexual torture of innocents, I'll take a homosexual, atheist, liberal, feminist, elitist, UN-loving, business-hating, gun-confiscating abortionist any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Cross-posted at BlueGrassRoots.

There's more: "Sex and the Torturing Politician" >>

Bill Clinton in Kentucky: Support Hillary Or Else

It's been obvious for quite some time that the only use Hillary Clinton has for the proles is as attendants carrying the train at her coronation, but this is ridiculous.

BenRay of What's Required reports from Bill Clinton's campaign tour of Kentucky:

So, I don’t know how many of you have heard Bill on his tour of the Commonwealth today–why he so scrupulously avoided population centers, I don’t know–but there’s something that shocked me about the rally: the price of admission.

No, it didn’t cost any money to get in, but it did require you to fill out a volunteer card for the campaign– presumably at least so you can receive direct mailers later. I attempted to refuse to fill one out, and was at first blocked, and then told by the sympathetic volunteer to just put my name on it. I wonder if the high school kids that just wanted out of class had to supply their info to the campaign?

Every campaign event I've ever been to asked everyone to fill out a card with name, address, email, etc., but none so far have been stupid enough (and I've been to some pretty stupid ones) to demand personal information as the price of admission.

Consider also that the Clinton events were specifically and broadly publicized as public events, at which all members of the public are welcome, and the "sign up or get out" behavior starts to look downright sinister.

Yes, BenRay got in (read his full report), thanks to a volunteer's common sense, and let's all hope his initial blocking was a freak occurance.

But if it wasn't, I'd say Hillary appears to have adopted not only Smirky/Darth's permanent war/fuck the poor philosophy, but also his campaign event technique of permitting loyal followers only.

Cross-posted at Blue in the Bluegrass.

There's more: "Bill Clinton in Kentucky: Support Hillary Or Else" >>

Nightmare Team

I haven't posted about the "Dream Team" meme, mostly because I considered the chances of either Hillary or Obama accepting the other as a VP to be slim and non-existent.

But now Bill Clinton is pushing the idea, meaning Hillary is seriously considering it, meaning it's time to strangle this Rosemary's baby in the cradle.

One of the major strengths of Obama as the Democratic nominee is that he is not Hillary. Yeah, most Democrats who dislike Hillary, like me, will probably hold our noses and vote Democratic in November if she heads the ticket, but the independents and even republicans who are now looking kindly on Obama will not.

And while there may be some Hillary partisans so bitter about her not being the nominee that they will refuse to vote for a Democratic ticket headed by Obama, there is no large bloc of Hillary voters who would prefer McCain to Obama.

(More after the jump.)

Adding Hillary to the ticket as VP gains Obama nothing and probably costs him millions of independent votes.

Adding Obama to the ticket as VP gains Hillary few, if any, of Obama's independents, and though it probably doesn't cost her any votes, won't gain her enough to beat McCain.

Until Bill opened his big mouth again, I doubted that Hillary would ever consider the VP spot. For the past year, she hasn't been running a campaign as much as planning a coronation. The fighting attitude she has displayed lately - and to apparent good effect in Texas and Ohio - strikes me less as aggressiveness than bitter fury at not being handed the nomination on Super Tuesday. Now I wonder if she could swallow her pride enough to accept the second spot.

I think Hillary's pride would also prevent her from offering VP to Obama. She knows his charisma exceeds hers by several orders of magnitude - a quality that is counter-productive in a vice-president.

The big danger here is the party poohbahs. If the race gets any closer, with Obama's lead in pledged delegates falling below 100, the Cowards of the DNC, in their terror of an actual nominating convention fight, may try to force a ticket with both Obama and Hillary.

If they do, we can all start planning the inauguration for President McCain.

(Cross-posted at BlueGrassRoots.)

There's more: "Nightmare Team" >>

At the end of the day

Campaigning in Cal-ee-for-nee-ah -- "Home to nearly one in eight Americans, California is a giant, diverse political landscape, enormously expensive for candidates yet offering the campaign's largest batch of delegates." Who's doing what from AP.

Joe Conason asked, Will the Press Get Over Its Love for McCain? Hmmm, probably not. But wingnut heads continued to explode over McCain's perceived liberal bent. Oh, those crazy wabbits!

Paul Krugman spoke glowingly of John Edwards: "If 2008 is different, it will be largely thanks to Mr. Edwards. He made a habit of introducing bold policy proposals — and they were met with such enthusiasm among Democrats that his rivals were more or less forced to follow suit." Amen to that! Also, from Krugman, "Obama does Harry and Louise, again."

Republican fraud? -- Say it isn't so! "As part of our ongoing efforts to institute and strengthen financial controls at the National Republican Congressional Committee, we learned earlier this week of irregularities in our financial audit process. Since these irregularities may include fraud, we have notified the appropriate law enforcement authorities. We are aggressively and thoroughly investigating the matter and, while we determine the details, we have terminated our relationship with a former employee who was engaged as an outside vendor." TPM

Quote of the day -- Sen. Saxby Chambliss spokeswoman on whether the senator would endorse John McCain: “We have a lot of balls in the air..." Oh? She had nothing more to report on the, um, endorsement.

James Risen subpoena -- Risen's attorney David N. Kelley said "the subpoena issued last week seeks the source of information for a chapter of James Risen's book "State of War regarding CIA efforts to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program." Spencer Ackerman pointed out, "The Justice Department is going after New York Times reporter Jim Risen for the non-crime of revealing President Bush’s illegal domestic surveillance program. It’s pathetic and unsurprising—a fixture of Bush Justice—that the activity DOJ pursues isn’t the blatant illegality of Bush violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but instead the fact that government sources blew the whistle to a great investigative reporter."

Spinning Gates -- "Yesterday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates attempted to spin the negative downturn in Afghanistan, claiming that 'NATO has had a very successful year in 2007' and that the significant increase in suicide bombings in 2007 was the 'manifestations of a group that has lost in regular military terms.' “ Uh huh. "Arguing that increased acts of violence are signs of progress is a common Bush administration tactic." Oh, yeah. Via TP.

The deadliest day since the Surge™ began -- 70+ dead, 170 wounded in Baghdad killed by two women suicide bombers who "were Down's Syndrome victims exploited by al Qaida.... The explosives were detonated by remote control in a co-ordinated attack after the women walked into separate crowded markets, said the chief Iraqi military spokesman in Baghdad General Qassim al-Moussawi." WaPo reported that the "two bombings killed 58 people, according to Iraqi police, and wounded more than 170 others."

Starting Monday -- At FDL, "the assault on civil rights laws in the last few years, with the impact of the Roberts Court on years of civil rights precedents front and center..."

From the land of absurdity -- What passes as American journalism continued to spread the lie about Clinton's remarks on the economy and global warming and "a new right-wing meme emerges." Carpetbagger Report

[That's all...no more after the jump.]

There's more: "At the end of the day" >>

Media bias borders on mental illness

Via Media Matters, Craig Crawford, columnist for Congressional Quarterly, answered Joe Scarborough's "assertion that former President Bill Clinton is 'divisive' " during the Jan. 26 MSNBC's Morning Joe. Snip (with emphasis):

CRAWFORD: You know, I have sat down here in Florida for the last month. And I have watched the coverage, and I really think the evidence-free bias against the Clintons in the media borders on mental illness. I mean, I think when Dr. Phil gets done with Britney [Spears], he ought to go to Washington and stage an intervention at the National Press Club. I mean, we've gotten into a situation where if you try to be fair to the Clintons, if you try to be objective, if you try to say, "Well, where's the evidence of racism in the Clinton campaign?" you're accused of being a naïve shill for the Clintons. I mean, I think if somebody came out today and said that Bill Clinton -- if the town drunk in Columbia [South Carolina] came out and said, "Bill Clinton last night was poisoning the drinking water in Obama precincts," the media would say, "Ah, there goes Clinton again. You can't trust him." I really think it's a problem. You know what? You guys make him stronger with this bashing. This actually is what makes the Clintons stronger.

According to Media Matters, Crawford's remarks followed a video clip cued up by Joe's co-host Mika Brzezinski in which Bill Clinton said (with emphasis):

[T]hey have systematically polarized the country, the right-wing Republican faction has. They first took over the Republican Party. And then they performed reverse plastic surgery on all the Democrats, right? ... And it worked for them every single time, except with me.

Joe then pontificated, "it's amazing how divisive he is compared to [Democratic presidential candidate] Barack Obama, who asks Republicans and independents to vote for him. And here's Bill Clinton fighting the right-wing Republicans. It's just like 1998 all over again, isn't it?"

[Keep reading... more after the jump.]

No, Joe, it's you and your kind that spread falsehoods -- like you did with Margaret Carlson -- and who refuse to hold Republicans accountable for using polarizing tactics. Like you do. How many news consumers have been informed of the unprecedented obstructionism by Senate Republicans? Are media reporting the facts about who's behaving divisively? Hell, no. The dumbed-down script for more than a decade is it's Clinton's fault and Hillary is polarizing.

When media manipulate the narrative into potshots at either Clinton and the Democrats, they keep the heat off the culprits responsible for the damage. It was the GOP that injected divisive issues such as the racially-exploitive southern strategy, attacks on abortion, gay marriage, and "amnesty" for illegal aliens, to name a few. They continue to misuse the Iraq war to taint Democrats as defeatists waving the white flag of surrender for advocating troop withdrawals. Forget that a majority of the nation supports leaving Iraq. That's an inconvenient fact the mainstream press corps readily dismisses when given a chance to bash Democrats.

That's how Big Media plays the game -- distorting and fabricating "evidence" -- and some foolish dupes fall for this crap. As Bob Somerby and Media Matters have documented for years, our mainstream press corps has unfairly attacked Al Gore and the Clintons sometimes with little proof other than innuendo, worthless trivia, and sometimes with blatant lies. And still do.

If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, expect to read and hear how divisive Barack is. Think it won't happen? Pat Buchanan has already floated a trial balloon raising the alleged rift between Hispanics and African-Americans. Earlier on Hardball, he insidiously alluded to Obama's campaign phrase -- "Yes, we can" translated "Sí, se puede" -- as "the cause of the illegal immigration movement and the amnesty movement." If you read of Buchanan's views on the invasion of America, his remarks weren't intended to flatter Obama's can-do message. At Faux News, Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama provided E.D. Hill with the opportunity to spout (with emphasis):

...Barack Obama, who has -- I mean, on his website, you look at it and sort of the whole thing is devoted to "I'm a man of change because I want to get away from all that -- the hate speech and the partisanship that you've seen in Washington." Ted Kennedy, you know, is that. You know, if you talk about the people of have sort of gone to the farthest wings, Kennedy certainly represents that. So it seems like an odd coming together, unless that's the direction Barack Obama is headed.

Par for the course, you know, of the scurrilous GOP-dedicated network.

Watch for how media begin to transform Obama's anthem of "change" into change for the worse. It won't matter if it's false. Not to them. You can count on our fetid press corps to "swift-boat" the nominated Democratic WH contender as they did in 2004. Using a tested strategy, when they're not yapping at shadows, media lapdogs will idly sit, giving air time to dubious claims without challenging the GOP surrogate or politician smearing the Democratic candidate.

That's the way they sell crazy.

There's more: "Media bias borders on mental illness" >>

At the end of the day

Clinton radio ad -- "The ad properly points out that Obama did not express any criticism of the GOP ideas. That is the problem." Per Armando. The alleged "party of ideas" that has "challenge[d] conventional wisdom of the last 10 or 15 years" has really, um, sucked. I can think of a list longer than what's in Hillary's ad.

FISA telecom immunity disunity -- Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will force "Dodd and Feingold to launch a filibuster that ruins their colleagues' nice European vacation." Why doesn't Reid STFU and get out of the way?! For details and what to do, see Yellow Dog.

Up yours to the U.S. Senate -- Bush re-nominated Steven Bradbury to head the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel. Bradbury wrote "a pair of secret legal opinions that endorsed rough techniques for suspects in the custody of the Central Intelligence Agency." TP

American evangelicals -- What do they want? "The answer, it turns out, is a little more complicated than 'Not Giuliani.' " Response to a Beliefnet questionnaire on favorability ratings of presidential candidates: 55% Huck, 53% McCain, 49% Obama, 27% Hillary, and 25% Mitt. For evangelical "hot-buttons" and how they've changed, read Tim Grieve.

Iraq debate: "The leading Democratic presidential candidates and their allies on Capitol Hill have launched fierce attacks in recent days on a White House plan to forge a new, long-term security agreement with the Iraqi government, complaining that the administration is trying to lock in a lasting U.S. military presence in Iraq before the next president takes office." Thursday's WaPo

Iraq explosions -- In Mosul, at least 15 killed, 132 wounded. In Kirkuk, a car bomb killed 5, wounded 11.

Environmental index: "A new international ranking of environmental performance puts the United States at the bottom of the Group of 8 industrialized nations and 39th among the 149 countries on the list." NYT

About those robo calls -- In comments, Shaun Dakin, CEO and founder of Stop Political Calls wrote, "These calls are an epidemic and are invading the privacy of All American Voters.... ...Our members are taking a stand and saying enough is enough at the National Political Do Not Contact Registry..."

Former SC Democratic Party chair Dick Harpootlian, an Obama supporter, likened Bill Clinton's campaign remarks to Lee Atwater. WTF? When CNN's Jessica Yellin asked Bill about it, Clinton disputed the charge and calmly confronted her and media in general -- despite CNN's hype that he "lashed out" -- for acting like the sensationalizing twits that they are. Later, CNN 's Soledad O'Brien screeched about Bill's response to Yellin. Media lapdogs don't like being called on their B.S. You can go Cheney yourself, CNN. Via Taylor Marsh.

"The rot of the Jack Welch Network" -- "For the record, the Post is a corporate partner of MSNBC—and Clinton is MSNBC’s long-term target. Simple logic took over from there. So did Jack Welch’s vile methods.... ...But in this morning’s New York Times, a certain semi-sane op-ed columnist gets busy trashing Hillary Clinton—due to Obama’s bit of deception." By Bob Somerby. For a fun pic of that certain NYT columnist, see Blue Girl.

Michael Savage gets the boot: Four advertisers pulled their spots "after Brave New Films launched a campaign against [the] hate-radio host." Heh. Heh. Heh. Heh.

UPDATE: Al Gore endorsed gay marriage. Video at Raw Story.

[That's all...no more after the jump.]

There's more: "At the end of the day" >>

Is Bill Clinton The Little League Dad We All Find Embarrassing?

If you have young kids who play little league sports you have seen Bill Clinton's recent behavior before. He is that dad who is so quick to yell at the referee or at the parents of kids on the opposing team. Worst of all he will yell at kids playing for the other team.

Little league dad isn't watching the same game you are watching. Every slight is blown out of proportion. Every close call is a deeply personal affront to his kid and to him. Sometimes he yells at the coach, often because his kid isn't the star player. For him winning the little league game isn't just nice, it is the central reason for his existence. He totally loses perspective. He forgets that he has had his day on the field. He has abandoned being a parent and is living vicariously through his child. You watch with sympathy as his own humiliated kid looks around trying to find a hole to crawl into.

Over the last few weeks we have been subject to the little league dad on steroids. In appearance after appearance Clinton has made charges about Barack Obama that upon close examination are hyperbolic at best and dishonest at worst. At one point he said that Obama claimed the Republicans had all the good ideas since Reagan.

Last week senior uncommitted Democrats including Ted Kennedy and Rahm Emanuel told Bill to pipe down. That didn't stop Bill. He made wild charges of witnessing Federal voter suppression crimes in Nevada. Today Barack Obama hit back hard in an interview on ABC. (The video is after the break.)

The media focus is on whether Bill Clinton is lying to help his wife. Howard Wolfson recently gave an interview to Greg Sargent at TPM who reports

This is getting interesting. In an interview with me a couple of minutes ago, senior Hillary adviser Howard Wolfson claimed that Obama's assertion this morning that Bill Clinton is fibbing about his campaign is a "right wing talking point."

For me the real issue in all of this is whether Hillary can control her husband. If she can't keep Bill under control how can we expect her to deal with the very real issues and strong personalities a president confronts everyday. If she can't keep him under control she shouldn't be elected President. I don't want a little league dad screaming at people in the White House for the next four years. Do you?

Hillary, if you have really found your voice, for your own good and the country's, tell Bill to stifle.

There's more: "Is Bill Clinton The Little League Dad We All Find Embarrassing?" >>

Campaign Video of the Day -- January 14, 2007

Today's Campaign Video is the portion of Hillary Clinton's interview on Meet The Press defending Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comment. Hillary has put the video up on her Youtube site. Essentially, Bill and Hill are calling Obama a "flip flop flipper." Their attack starts with the assumption that Obama is a one issue anti-war candidate and then takes out of focus snapshots of Obama's votes and comments over a period of years to draw the conclusion that Obama hasn't been consistent in his opposition to the war. Of course, the votes she introduces in support of her argument are votes to fund the soldiers in combat, votes no responsible public official could oppose. The comments she points to were made in connection with the 2004 presidential campaign and Obama's support of John Kerry--comments are completely consistent with being a good Democrat. Not surprisingly her own comments and votes during the same period are remarkably similar to Obama's.

The heart of Hillary's attack, however, is the claim that Obama is a one trick pony. In Hillary's opinion Obama's entire campaign is based on one anti-war speech given years ago. That is news to me and to millions of folks who are really impressed with his message of change.

You can find the video after the break. Hopefully, moving videos off the front page will speed up loading. Let us know if you prefer videos before or after the break. Your comments are solicited.


If you encounter a campaign video in need of broader play, please email the link to proctoring.congress@gmail.com subject campaign video of the day.

There's more: "Campaign Video of the Day -- January 14, 2007" >>

My further take on Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, “A Woman in Charge” and the 2008 race

About a month ago, I put up a piece on my take on the degree of “split” between Gore on the one hand, and Hillary and Bill Clinton on the other, over Hillary and Al’s competition for Bill’s support in their respective 2000 races.

Commenter TJM accused me of doing the work of A. The Republican Party and B. “The Village” in taking Sally Bedell Smith’s interview in Vanity Fair in advance of her book.

Well, I just got done reading Carl Bernstein’s bio of Hillary, “A Woman in Charge,” which I would at least give a solid four-star rating. It’s sympathetic, while yet well-researched. The fact that both Clintons ultimately chose not to cooperate speaks volumes, to me.

Anyhow, while Bernstein certainly has an armlist of MSM credentials, I certainly wouldn’t consider him a captive of the Beltway, certainly not to the degree his Watergate cohort Woodward has become.

Now, that said, Bernstein also notes, in agreement with Smith, how tension between Al and Hillary already started at the beginning of Bill’s first term, and, from the moment Bill said she was going to get a West Wing office.

So, I’ll stand by not only the Hillary-Al issues comments of the original post, but my assertion that they played a part in Gore not running this year.

On the flip side, as a newspaper journalist, I’m sad. The potential blood on the floor from, let’s say, a grudge match, would have been spectacular.

Oh, and contrary to TJM’s assertion at that time, I’m not a reactionary.

Interesting how a “gadfly” can get banned from Kos for being too Green and then called a reactionary by somebody else.

There's more: "My further take on Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, “A Woman in Charge” and the 2008 race" >>

Campaign Video of the Day -- November 23, 2007

Republican candidate Mike Huckabee is a Baptist minister from tiny Hope, Arkansas. Like all professional preachers Huckabee knows how to paint a word picture. Like that other politician from Hope, Arkansas, he can be spell binding on the stump. If you are a Democrat you better hope Rudy, Mitt, Fred or John wins the Republican nomination.

In today's video Huckabee responds when ask if he believes in evolution. His answer is clear and articulate. He sounds pretty mainstream. Of course, his comments don't stand close examination, but there isn't much time for close examination during either a sermon or a debate.



Mike Huckabee Responds To Evolution Question was posted to YouTube by HuckabeeForPresident.

If you encounter a particularly good campaign video, please email a link to proctoring.congress@gmail subject: Campaign Video of the Day.

There's more: "Campaign Video of the Day -- November 23, 2007" >>

Bill, Hillary and Al: The troika splits and part of why Gore lost in 2000

In addition to how much the MSM might have picked on Gore and given Bush the nod of the soft bigotry of low expectations, there were more legitimate reasons for Gore’s loss, and I’m not talking butterfly ballots or Ralph Nader.

Gore was sometimes wooden, sometimes preachy on the stump, and like it or not, American presidential contests are in part about personality.

But, there was another reason. Besides Gore’s concern about distancing himself from Clinton, the distancing went both ways.

In the new Vanity Fair, Clinton White House staffer Sally Bedell Smith spills all sorts of beans including:

1. Bill and Hillary really were co-presidents of a sort in many of their workings
2. Bill basically felt he owned Hillary anything she wanted in the way of Senate race support, fundraising, etc. in exchange for her having stood beside him in l’affaire Lewinsky.
3. From the time she decided to run for Moynihan’s Senate seat almost immediately after Pat announced his retirement, Hillary made a conscious effort to cut Al out of the loop of the lion’s share of Bill’s support, and to cut Tipper out of her personal ring as well.
4. Well, well, before this, Al and Hillary competed strongly, not just competed, but strongly, for Bill’s ear. And, often, Al was the fifth wheel or odd man out, take your pick.
5. Smith also rehashes some of the subtle putdowns (not nearly as bad as Ike for Dick in 1960 but putdowns, nonetheless) Bill had for Al.

This, to me, does a fair amount of explaining why Al isn’t running for president.

I don’t doubt that he’s not 100 percent interested right now, but the Hillary factor is at play.

He’d have to compete with her for former WH staffers and fundraisers, for one thing. For another, the contest, because of everything listed above, if entered by Al, could have gotten very personal, even fratricidal/sororicidal, very quickly.

The VF article is an excerpt from Smith’s upcoming book, “For Love of Politics—Bill and Hillary Clinton: The White House Years.”

There's more: "Bill, Hillary and Al: The troika splits and part of why Gore lost in 2000" >>

Rudy's commitment to tax cuts sounds familiar

Rudy Giuliani rolled out his "Twelve Commitments" on Tuesday. One promise will no doubt thrill the GOP base: "I will cut taxes and reform the tax code." It's tax cuts, baby! Tax cuts! How Rudy plans to reform the tax code, he didn't explain. However, Rudy's "commitment" to tax cuts behooves a look at his campaign rhetoric and his mayoral performance. Joe Conason, a long-time Salon columnist, journalist, and author, examined his record and reported Rudy's Scary Tax Tales:

...the war in Iraq is increasingly unpopular, so lately Mr. Giuliani is talking more about supply-side economics—and about Hillary Rodham Clinton, who irritates Republicans almost as much as taxes. During a campaign visit to California’s Silicon Valley on May 30, he resorted to familiar right-wing rhetoric in attacking his old rival.

What prompted Mr. Giuliani to pounce was Senator Clinton’s forthright declaration that she would, if elected, roll back some of the Bush administration’s tax cuts for the richest Americans. “This would be an astounding, staggering tax increase,” he said at a fund-raiser that included technology executives and lobbyists. “She wants to go back to the 1990’s …. It would hurt our economy. It would hurt this area dramatically. That kind of tax increase would see a decline in your venture capital. It would see a decline in your ability to focus on new technology.”

OK, America. Show of hands of who would like to return to the prosperity garnered under the Clinton economy? Yeah, me too. As Conason pointed out:

Once again, Mr. Giuliani’s memory seems to be failing him, as it did when he claimed that Ronald Reagan had stared down the Iranian mullahs (rather than secretly selling them missiles and giving them cakes). His Mayoralty, which lasted from 1994 until 2001, closely coincided with the strongest decade of economic growth in American history. He should remember those fat times, because the city advanced smartly along with the rest of the nation.

In fact, if he tries hard enough, he might even recall that those years of peace and prosperity began with a bitter debate over taxes, when President Clinton was seeking to enact his first federal budget. Upon entering the Oval Office, Mr. Clinton found to his dismayed surprise that his “fiscally conservative” predecessor had left a $290 billion deficit. He responded by imposing substantial tax increases on the top 1 percent of taxpayers and omitting the “middle-class tax cut” he had promised in his campaign.

Predictably, the Republican right threw a screaming tantrum, falsely describing the tax increase as the “largest in history” (that honor actually belonged to Reagan) and warning that it would result in a severe recession or worse. Conservative politicians and pundits unanimously predicted that higher taxes would mean fewer jobs and larger deficits.

They were resoundingly wrong, of course. Within a few years after the ’93 tax hike, we were enjoying full employment, shrinking poverty, rising household incomes at all levels, greater home ownership—and the prospect of a gigantic federal surplus.

Now it is true that the biggest opportunities for Mr. Giuliani to enrich himself (and start worrying about the top tax rate) arrived in the years after he left office. As a security consultant, book author, investment rainmaker and corporate lawyer, he has reportedly earned many millions of dollars. He commands more than $50,000 for every inspiring speech he delivers about the leadership he displayed on 9/11—a fact that annoys firefighters and other heroes whose opinion of him has soured.

But for the rest of America, the 90’s were better than the years since the millennium. Under George W. Bush, another economic Reaganite who cut taxes for the wealthy, wages have stagnated along with family incomes, while the income gap has grown—all thanks to the kind of policies advocated by Mr. Giuliani. He promoted those trends early on as Mayor, when privatization began to drive down wages among the city’s lowest-paid workers, causing family incomes to drop and poverty to rise.

Out in Silicon Valley, he bragged about his economic record in office. “The way I paid for preparing the New York City budget was by lowering taxes. I was collecting billions of dollars more from the lower taxes than from the higher taxes,” he claimed. “You can make money by lowering taxes.”

Indeed, under Repub governance, the richest Americans certainly have made more money... but people below the top 1%? Not so much. The idea that tax cuts generate more revenue hails from old Republican propaganda that's a tax-cut con. Yet those two words, tax cuts, warm the cockles of the hearts of the rubes who fall for the GOP talking point. Hey, it's magic. Slashing taxes increases revenue, right? Not exactly according to Paul Krugman. Early on, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities evaluated Bush's tax cuts: "The three rounds of tax-cut legislation (in 2001, 2002, and 2003) account for a substantial share of the nation’s current deficit." And, our current situation in Washington involves "budget chicanery" although the Bush Administration has managed to hide it.

Joe also uncovered the net result of Rudy's tax cuts and the news should alert voters interested in a return to fiscal sanity:

He forgot to mention what happened later.... When he departed City Hall, he left on his desk a gaping deficit of nearly $4 billion—and Mayor Michael Bloomberg had no choice but to raise taxes.

I don't see how much more debt the federal guvmit can stand after being soaked by the biggest gusher of red ink ever drilled by Bush. But I'm sure we will hear more from Rudy on how we "can make more money by lowering taxes."

Matt Miller of Fortune Magazine delivered a stinging assessment on Monday of Repub tax-cut policy overall:

New Census data show that the top 1 percent of U.S. earners now take home a greater share of national income than at any time since the height of the go-go 1920s. The top 300,000 earners together receive almost as much income as the bottom 150 million.

Democrats inhale these facts and breathe out fire.

Republicans say, "Hey, this is no time to be complacent. With a little effort we can push this closer to Louis XVI levels of inequality!"

At least that's what GOP presidential wannabes are sounding like as they genuflect before the altar of tax reduction, despite that creed's growing fiscal, moral, and mathematical indefensibility.

Mitt Romney wants more marginal and corporate rate cuts. Rudy Giuliani touts the endorsement of Steve "Flat Tax" Forbes. Even John McCain, the "straight talker" who opposed Bush's original tax cuts, now insists on their extension.

Before every red-blooded tax loather spits on this page in disgust, consider the context. Over the past six years we've borrowed nearly $2 trillion to cut taxes for the wealthiest during a time of war, meaning we've slipped the bill for our war and our tax cuts to our kids.

How do the candidates - who also claim to be "fiscally conservative" (not to mention devotees of "family values") - square all this?

Their stock answer is that we can cut taxes further if only we "get tough on spending." Sounds marvelous, but when Republicans controlled every corner of Washington, they balked at trimming a teensy few million from the next trillion in planned Medicaid expenses.

Bottom line: The outer limits of Republican spending-cut zeal won't get us anywhere close to balancing the books.

And that's before you toss in our $39 trillion in unfunded Social Security and Medicare liabilities.

I once asked budget gurus at two conservative think tanks what federal spending and taxes should be as a percentage of GDP a decade from now (it's 20 percent today). They casually replied 12 percent or 13 percent - meaning they think we'll slice government by more than a third as 77 million baby-boomers hit their rocking chairs.

This evidences either (a) deep disingenuousness or (b) deeper delusions.

Neither speaks well for the state of conservative thinking. Truth is, the only way GOP math adds up is if Giuliani, Romney, and company adopt the incentives for voluntary "transitions" (read suicides) for 65-year-olds featured in Chris Buckley's new comic novel, "Boomsday."

The most disappointing feature of the GOP case on taxes is a sin of omission. Tax-cut cheerleaders, like the Wall Street Journal editorial page, focus exclusively on the income tax. And it's true, the top 5 percent of earners do pay about 58 percent of federal income taxes.

But the income tax is only 47 percent of federal revenue today - something Republicans never want to discuss.

When you throw other federal taxes into the mix (especially the regressive payroll tax disproportionately borne by average earners), you find that "all in," the top-earning 5 percent make about 30 percent of the income and pay about 40 percent of overall federal taxes. In other words, we have a modestly progressive system.

As conventional political wisdom goes and modern history has shown, Repubs favor the rich and Dems champion middle-class and poor Americans. We don't yet know the specs on who Rudy's tax cuts will benefit or how he will address the bloated U.S. deficit and income inequality in America. My bullshit meter went off when I read how the conservative anti-tax Club For Growth "praised Giuliani's tax cutting and free-market approach." Their white paper states that Rudy inherited a $2.4 billion budget deficit but conveniently doesn't mention the $4 billion debt he left for Mayor Bloomberg. And that's too similar to the scary situation Bush has created, the budget crisis the next president will face.

Hopefully, voters have gotten wise to the GOP tax-cut scam but let's make sure to tell them.

There's more: "Rudy's commitment to tax cuts sounds familiar" >>

Breaking--Hillary and Barack

President Clinton Rescues Hillary at Debate,
While Obama announces his running mate.

Tonight's funny. Enjoy.

There's more: "Breaking--Hillary and Barack" >>

Oooh! Georgie boy is under siege.

Via the Daou Report, Gina Cobb has this to say:

The immediate implications of the endless partisan attacks on George W. Bush are
obvious. It becomes harder for him to accomplish anything in the war on
terror, either domestically or internationally, no matter how much it needs to
be done. Keep in mind that America has only one chief executive and only
one executive branch that can actually take action on behalf of the federal
government. Congress can only pass laws; the judiciary can only apply such
laws to individual cases that happen to arise. If our commander in chief
cannot function, we cannot function as a nation, and least not in matters
military.

So, because we're speaking poorly about the President, he can't do his job. If this were really true, then the Republicans have certainly made sure that Bill Clinton has secured his place as the Greatest.President.Ever.

When they weren't making any progress hamstringing him with idiotic attacks, they were investigating every little things he did. We all remember Lewinsky, but let's not forget Travel-gate, Whitewater, Vince Foster. The list of real attacks - more than mere words - was endless from the beginning of his Presidency to the end.

Yet, in spite of that, he delivered welfare reform, true economic growth and prosperity, and a truly contained Iraq Dictator who was left with NO way to attack American interests, just to name a few of very long list of accomplishments.

Georgie has left us with Iraq, Katrina, torture, no habeas corpus, illegal wiretaps - just the tip of a very big iceberg representing the disaster that is his Presidency. Well, his attention span is a little small. Maybe we really did distract him.

There's more: "Oooh! Georgie boy is under siege." >>