Home › Blogs › Jon Henke's blog ›

Empower People, Not Politicians

Submitted by Jon Henke on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 23:39

I really dislike the false choices being posed to the Republican Party right now.  "Principles VS Reform" and "Conservative VS Moderate".  No.  We need reforms to make the principles more viable.  We need a policy agenda that wins the moderates.

And no, "cut taxes" won't do it.  Hope is not a plan.  In recent years, tax cut rhetoric without concurrent, viable plans for addressing the spending problem has become a pretty good sign that a politician is unserious.  But that couldn't go on for ever.  The deficits are catching up with the rubes.

So, Michael Barone is singing my song here.  I'll excerpt at length, because this is really important.

If opinion is arrayed along a single-dimension, left-to-right spectrum and clustered in the middle in a bell-curve pattern, then a party on the right needs only to move a few steps toward the center or just beyond to convert itself from minority to majority status.  But the world is a lot more complicated than that. ... Success in politics often comes not from readjusting one's stand to conform with current opinion, but in redefining what is at stake and reframing issues so that you have majorities on your side.

So I think Republicans today should be less interested in moving toward the center and more interested in running against the center. Here I mean a different "center" -- not a midpoint on an opinion spectrum, but rather the centralized government institutions being created and strengthened every day. This is a center that is taking over functions fulfilled in a decentralized way by private individuals, firms and markets. [...]

Defenders of these decisions might reply that if Republicans were running this system (as they were, at least in part, until Jan. 20) there would still be political favoritism, just with different favorites. But that's the point. When government gets this intertwined with the private sector, when it makes decisions not based on neutral economic criteria but by what is at best guesswork about the allocation and valuation of vast amounts of capital, bailout favoritism and crony capitalism are inevitable. [...]

After World War II, Democrats wanted to retain wartime high taxes, pro-union labor laws, and wage and price controls -- all manipulatable for political benefit by political insiders. Republicans ran in 1946 on the theme of "Had enough?" and won big enough majorities to lower taxes, revise labor laws and abolish controls.  The 1946 Republicans didn't move to the center. They ran against the power of the center and permanently redefined where the center of the political spectrum was. That's a path today's Republicans might want to consider.

Recently, Democrats have won on promises to "empower" people.  But Democrats are much more concerned with entitlements than empowerment.  Progressives mostly succeed in making progress towards Washington, DC.

This disparity between rhetoric and action is a major opportunity for the Right.  Republicans can take advantage of it with an agenda that actually empowers people.  That means government closer to the people, more freedoms of choice, more accountable politicians and more transparent decisions.

A Republican who can run on all of that will encounter stiff resistance from the Republican Party, and sometimes even the conservative movement.  But the status quo is death.  And the people maintaining it are dying. 

 

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Earth to Henke: good government?

Submitted by lgm on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 07:21.

Jon Henke, as you say, Hope is not a plan.  You want Republicans to come up with a platform that is at the same time libertarian and popular.  But the libertarian platform is not yet popular.  People are not willing to give up large government programs for the sake of lower taxes.  Go to the most conservative county in Montana and run a ballot initiative to eliminate Medicare in return for a 5% tax cut.  Medicare would win. 

Republicans could (and used to) get elected as the party of integrity, efficiency, and good government.  They could be the party that doesn't live high on the hog by racking up debt.  They could be the party that puts a stop to earmarks and wasteful projects like Star Wars and the Bridge to Nowhere.  If someone ran on that platform in my state, I would vote for him/her in a heartbeat over sleazebags Schumer and Gilibrand.

re: Earth to Henke: good government?

Submitted by Jon Henke on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 08:14.

While I think there are many popular and libertarian-compatible ideas, I didn't say anything about a "libertarian platform".  Nor did I say anything about eliminating Medicare. 

What are they?

Submitted by lgm on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 06:05.

You write:

In recent years, tax cut rhetoric without concurrent, viable plans for addressing the spending problem has become a pretty good sign that a politician is unserious.

This correct but courageous sentence could get you expelled from the Rush Limbaugh main stream wing of the Republican Party today.  It also puts you at odds with every other blogger at NextRight. 

I'm asking you to take the next step and state the spending cuts you think Republicans should propose in order to bring spending back into line with taxes.  I presume you prefer this to increasing taxes.  Medicare was just one example, chosen by me (not you, as you say) to illustrate the difficulty of cutting the big ticket items. 

Another example is farm subsidies.  Most Democrats and Republicans agree that they make no sense.  Yet neither Bush not Obama, each with majority control of both houses of Congress, could cut them. 

The bottom line seems to be that spending cuts significant enough to justify real tax cuts are politically impossible.  If Republicans want a platform that has a chance to be enacted, it has to be something else.  My proposal: good government, clean govenment, open government.  I would vote for that.

re: What are they?

Submitted by Jon Henke on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 08:45.

Here are three ideas.  Incidentally, I've run these past both conservatives and progressives (policy people) and virtually all of them have considered these good policies.

  • Means-testing entitlements.

  • An effectively progressive (through a few, substantial exemptions) flat tax (across both labor and investment) that is indexed to spending (which would require taxes and spending to rise or fall together).

  • Unbundling legislation (i.e., line item budgeting), which would require more granular votes on legislation.

 

Thanks, now test market your ideas

Submitted by lgm on Thu, 06/04/2009 - 07:25.

These are all serious ideas that have bipartisan support (supporters in both parties) but not majority support.  Only the first one would have real impact on spending.  The net effect of your first two proposals would be a noticable tax increase.  The second seems to call for a large increase in capital gains taxes. 

Do you think the Republicans could run on these ideas?  Do you understand that the Rush Limbaugh and the Laffer Reaganomics wings of the party are firmly against them? 

The NextRight web site seems to be all about testing ideas on Republicans.  In that spirit, how about making a post entitled: "Balancing the Budget Through Automatic Tax Increases"  and one called: "Restoring the Capital Gains Tax". I think you would get a digital earfull (eyefull??). 

All three of them would have

Submitted by Jon Henke on Thu, 06/04/2009 - 08:28.

All three of them would have a significant impact on spending.  The first by cutting out unneeded redistribution, the second by improving the price mechanism for government, the third by improving the decision-making process and eliminating the legislative collusion that greases the skids for spending that would be otherwise democratically unpopular.

I do think Republicans could run on these ideas, but probably only after they crash and burn and get desperate enough to go outside their comfort zone.  Like, for example, now.

Balancing the Budget Through Automatic Tax Increases

Submitted by lgm on Fri, 06/05/2009 - 07:38.

What would happen if every American got a bill on April 15 for government services the year before?  Your letter from the IRS would say:

Dear Taxpayer:

In the fiscal year 2010, federal government spending was 23.7% of GDP.  The provisions of the Balanced Budget Act of 2009 require that your tax rate be 39.2% of your adjusted gross income.  This is 25.3% higher than your tax rate last year (31.3%). 

As required by the BBA, we are providing a breakdown.  You are spending 13.5% of your income to support national defense, 12.8% to pay debt service on the national debt, 11.4% to pay for entitlement programs, .6% to support NASA, and .005% to support the National Institute for the Arts. 

It is fair to guess that Americans would start thinking seriously about national priorities.  They would ask their Senators about the $294.93 of their money going to support pork barrel projects.  Yes, Americans would pay painfully high taxes the first few years.  But you can bet that spending would come under control in a hurry. 

Republicans used to be the party of fiscal responsibility, and we can be again. 

Note to Jon Henke: make a post like this (Of course, you are a better writer than me) and see what your core Republicans say. It's one thing to seek new ideas.  It's another to really try to sell them to your base.  Good luck.

 

Very thought-provoking idea...

Submitted by acinphx on Fri, 06/05/2009 - 11:33.

I agree with your idea that an itemized breakdown of the allocation of federal expenditures would be eye-opening and would do a lot to educate far more people on national priorities.  I think you're right that spending would respond to taxpayer pressure and would even venture that I'd pay higher taxes for a few years for a system that would ultimately put downward pressure on spending.

The concept isn't completely unprecedented; at least in Maricopa County, AZ, our property tax bills are similar in that the portions allocated to schools, fire, water districts, jails, etc., are itemized in the tax bill. 

I guess the Earth-2-Henke beamcast missed its mark, eh?

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 09:27.

To be blunt, nice spin Henke but you missed both Igm's and Barone's points by a wide mile.

The Medicare example wasn't raised by you --it was Igm's example of a typical LibbieLoon-atic proposal to end govt largesse by ending Medicare in exchange for a 5% federal tax reduction... the example could have been privatize SocSec, return the 12+% payroll tax to the individual if they agree not to become SocSec dependents... or some other example of govt benefit traded for a tax reduction.  You missed that it was an example... a "for instance" offer to reduce govt programs with a cut in taxes --and, according to Igm's view-- not even a conservative taxpayer in Montana would go for the trade in his example.

As for your claim that you weren't advancing a libertarian platform, frankly when have you EVER proposed something that wasn't a thin masquerade for moving the GOP toward the LibbieLoon-atic fringe?  Igm is right in the assumption and right on using an example to demonstrate how difficult and unpopular it is to sell those LibbieLoon-atic policies.  Which you STILL don't get.

Otherwise, the LibbieLoon-atics would be in power, controlling the WH, Congress, SCOTUS and God Knows What Else.. and please, no dodge about you mean libertarian principles withing the GOP and not the LibbieLoon-atic Party. If the LibbieLoon-atics can't sell their brand of political ineffectiveness, what makes you think loon-atics with a GOP membership card can sell it any better?

Now for the main point, I think you missed Barone's message entirely... but not unexpectedly. 

Barone's point is that the GOP needs to run against and offer alternatives to a statist-centrally managed economy with a big govt presence.  Not run away from the political center... run away from and propose good alternatives to a statist-centrally managed economy with a big govt footprint.  LibbieLoon-atics and some conservatives wrongly translate Barone's point into "don't abandon the farRight fringe... you need us!"... all while condemning GOPers who aren't as pure and true as the LibbieLoon-atics might demand.  Barone has argued that there is more to be gained in reaching out to the political center and political independents than in getting mired in the failed issues of the soc-cons and libbieloon-atics who contend they are the GOP base.

I agree with Barone.  Where the GOP needs to be is in the business of reclaiming their histroically-correct policy positions advocating smaller govt, less taxes, more private choice, less regulation, stronger defense, competent natl security, greater opportunities, etc.  It doesn't mean arguing for decriminalizing dope, letting hookers go wild, allowing kids to drop out of school at age 10 and work in manufacturing or withdrawing from all treaties and decommissioning American military bases in foreign lands... or some other LibbieLoon-atic position.

You, I gather, want to take Barone and turn him into some new guru proclaiming and affirming your world view that if the GOP would just embrace all those unpopular libertarian policies, the GOP would win, win, win... just like the LibbieLoon-atic Party does.

Sorry, Charlie, that bait won't catch fish and it won't win over moderates or independent voters or Latino voters or... well, the political center.

Finally, I have to say that the real irony in your piece is this line: "In recent years, tax cut rhetoric without concurrent, viable plans for addressing the spending problem has become a pretty good sign that a politician is unserious" --I can only recall the trashing and thrashing that John McCain rec'd on the campaign trail from libertarianloons and conservatives about his principled opposition to Bush's earlier tax cuts.  McCain reserved his support of the tax cuts until the WH pledged concurrent budgets cuts to offset the tax cuts... exactly what you claim marks a "serious politician".  What did the farRight and CATO and other loons do?  Trash him as opposing tax cuts and using it to "prove beyond a reason of a doubt" that McCain was a RINO, an Obama-liter, an unserious politician.

Now there's some first rate irony and hypocrisy.  And all from Libertarians, no less.

re: I guess

Submitted by Jon Henke on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 10:10.

Lay off the strawman.  I don't know to whom you are responding, but it's not me. 

More dodge, Jon. No strawmen here.

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 10:32.

It's you, baby... all you.

Are you willing to now claim that you didn't dys John McCain on his position regarding the Bush tax cuts, Jon?  Especially given your hypocritical comment above: "In recent years, tax cut rhetoric without concurrent, viable plans for addressing the spending problem has become a pretty good sign that a politician is unserious".  McCain wanted to do exactly that but you trashed and thrashed him roundly.

Are you willing to now claim that you aren't advancing a LibbieLoon-atic fantasy policy plank for masquerading as some drive to the right for the GOP?  Give me one Libertarian Party plank or policy that is 1) unique to the LP and not a GOP position already and 2) is popular with a majority of voters?  You can't because if you could, the LP loons would be the majority party. The GOP has its core principles and values --it needs to return to them, distance itself from the ill-gotten branding as Soc-conCentral and move to the center with clarity and responsibility.

Are you willing to now claim that Barone is arguing for the GOP to adopt unpopular, widely discredited loon-atic policy positions? Because if you are, Jon, I stand corrected.

No Jon, you routinely try to dodge people here with a bemused look of confusion or "I don't know what you're talking about"... when you DO know, it's just that you can't muster a good enough answer to reply.

Nice dodge... you gotta get a better act or at least think before posting this nonsense.  No strawmen here, Jon.  Just bad political advice from you and you called on it.

Your move

Submitted by Jon Henke on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 11:10.

Point out where I've done that. 

They're simple questions Jon; time to Man-Up little fella

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 12:48.

I'll reduce them for you and you can do a yes and no response, my little fella of little skills.

And please, no more of the tired, old "anti-elites" rhetoric that all we need do is empower the people and not the pols, ok?

1) Are you willing to now claim that you didn't dys John McCain on his position regarding the Bush tax cuts, Jon?

2) Are you willing to now claim that you aren't advancing a LibbieLoon-atic fantasy policy plank for masquerading as some drive to the right for the GOP?

3) Are you willing to now claim that Barone is arguing for the GOP to adopt unpopular, widely discredited loon-atic policy positions?

Despite your self-serving contention, there are no strawmen in my points. It was your move three steps ago, Jon... you chose to avoid responsibility for your arguments.  I'm intent on holding you accountable --just like you think needs to happen to all those evil politicians ought there undermining the Republic and liberty and freedom.

You're holding me accountable

Submitted by Jon Henke on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 13:08.

You're holding me accountable for what?  You have yet to cite a single example of me saying these things.

1. I've criticized aspects of McCain's tax rhetoric, but I've supported him on other aspects.  I like that he's concerned with the spending side, rather than just tha tax side.  I don't like how he characterizes tax cuts in some cases.

2. I have no idea what you mean by "LibbieLoon-atic fantasy policy plank".

3. Again, I have no idea what you mean by that, or what you consider "unpopular, widely discredited loon-atic policy positions."

If you have something specific that I've written in mind, then cite it.  If you won't cite something, then I don't intend to play word games with somebody who won't even make their case.

Settled

Submitted by Jon Henke on Thu, 06/04/2009 - 08:30.

Color me unsurprised that you won't provide evidence.

Good Government

Submitted by amorphous on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 09:54.

Two points:

When I think of big, overreaching government, the most dramatic examples I can think of are indefinite detention, torture, secrecy, and warrantless wiretapping.  What would libertarians say about those issues? 

Secondly, I don't think Barone or Henke are addressing the biggest problem conservatives/Republicans face:  the image of mendacity and incompentance arising from the WMD/Iraq issue, the conduct of the war in Iraq, the response to Katrina, the scandals (Mark Foley, Larry Craig, David Vitter, etc.), and the financial system implosion.  The problem with regarding government as a necessary evil is that you tend to do a lousy job of running things.  You don't just need to do better "reframing", you need to demonstrate you can formulate and execute policies effectively.

For instance, you said you don't want to eliminate Medicare.  Do you regard Medicare as a political necessity to be run in an indifferent, uncaring manner, or is running an effective Medicare program important to a libertarian platform? 

Nice job trolling, amorphous... but you're needed at DailyKos

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 10:17.

Most Americans don't agree at all with you, Amorphous.  GOP doesn't face a problem on Iraq or the farLeft's nonsense about "there are no WMDs"... the farLeft has as many, if not more, scandals from Prez Clinton's famous trists inside the WH to his felony perjury charges that got him impeached in the House but not convicted to the latest involving ACORN's fraud and stealing the 2008 election... the farLeft and BarneyFrank and his cronies at Freddie & Fannie have a huge burden in the housing bubble collapse that responsible GOPers tried to regulate into moderation but the farLeft wouldn't allow it... and now, we have Obama running past 100 days and Osama bin Laden IS STILL FREE!

What the GOP needs to do is to return to its core values, ditch the issues of the soc-cons, move toward the political center and attract back those political independents and moderates who are showing signs of "Buyer's Remorse" in their purchase of all the hot air behind Hope & Change, Hype and Small Change.  They are now thinking that the Democrats and Obama have "fooled them once" but they won't do it again.

Thanks for trying to troll like a DailyKossack... it just doesn't work too well for you.  I think it was the smiling, upturned little corners of your mouth that gave the trolling operation away for you.

GOP doesn't face a problem on

Submitted by NextRightNando on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 10:29.

GOP doesn't face a problem on Iraq

Quinnipipiac Poll, May 2008: Regardless of how you usually vote, do you think the Republican Party or the Democratic Party is more likely to make the right decisions about the war in Iraq?

  • Republican 34%
  • Democratic 50%
  • Both 3%
  • Neither 4%
  • Unsure 9%

So - you consider the loss of your party's once seemingly unshakeable advantage in terms of being more credible and competant on military matters to be not a problem?

Good Government

Submitted by amorphous on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 16:32.

"Most Americans don't agree at all with you, Amorphous.  GOP doesn't face a problem on Iraq or the farLeft's nonsense about "there are no WMDs"

So can you tell us why the 2006 and 2008 elections turned out so badly for the GOP?  Why did GW Bush leave office with much lower approval ratings than Clinton?  Lost the House, lost the Senate, lost the Presidency.  I think Dems can put all that together and call it a mandate. 

Prez Clinton's famous trists inside the WH

And the GOP was so incensed about Clinton's adultery that they decided to keep adulters like Mark Foley, Larry Craig, and David Vitter around, in addition to nominating McCain, a known adulter, on the 2008 ticket.  And let's not forget the biggest single screw-up on any recent president's watch, 9/11.

stealing the 2008 election

Tell us all about that.  Just like he's a Muslim and isn't a natural-born US citizen.  Right.

What the GOP needs to do is to return to its core values

What GW Bush proved was that the GOP has no core values.  Government became bigger, more intrusive, more corrupt, and less accountable during his administration.  If torture, indefinite detention, warrantless wiretapping, and doubling the debt aren't big government, what is?

ditch the issues of the soc-cons,

and while you're at it, ditch the soc-cons voters as well.  Smart.  Do you really think the GOP lost in 2006 and 2008 because voters didn't like their positions on abortion on gays?

 

NextRightNannie... try getting current, will ya?

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 10:46.

You pick a poll that's 13 months old... I pick one that's less than 30 days old.

Republicans continue to hold solid leads on national security and taxes. On national security and the War on Terror, voters trust the GOP more by a 48% to 41% margin. Republicans have been ahead of Democrats on this issue for seven straight months.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues/trust_on_issues

I'm trying to think of a better example of your intellectual dishonesty trumping your base need to attack someone who disagrees with your wrongly-held view.

Kind of like the farLeft's sudden quietude on where is Osama bin Laden and why hasn't the Charcoaled-Kennedy-Camelot-Obama caught him yet??  I thought it was easy?

Or why isn't the economy jumping back to robust expansion??  Since George W laid down the framework to accomplish that already.  I thought it was easy?

Or why aren't the troops out of Iraq?? Since George W wanted to do that and adopted a framework to accomplish it.  I thought that was easy?

Or why isn't Gitmo closed??  Since George W wanted to do that and was working toward getting allies to accept some Gitmo terrorists.  I thought that was easy?  Isn't our Charcoaled-Kennedy-Camelot-Obama great-lovin buds with the French now?  And the I-tals?  And all the other allies?  I mean it's all changed now; where's the beef?

And why haven't we repealed the anti-gay DADT policy in the military?  Obama promised gays that he'd meet with the JCOS the first day in office and get that and Gitmo and Iraq and Afghanistan under control?  It was easy.

Nice try, NextRight Nannie.  Pick up the pacifier you dropped and put it back in your mouth, ok?  It's nap time for you.

So even an in-house pollster like Rasmussen can't make

Submitted by NextRightNando on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 11:14.

a convincing case for continued Republican dominance in defense-related issues, and you think it is cause for celebration?

You ask a lot of questions, and the answers to all of them is: becasue Obama is facing an Augean task. But despite all the crap you've picked up from those stables and thrown his way, he still enjoys a 62% approval rating - becasue people understand what a mistake it is to have people like you in power.

NextRightNannie... I said pick up the pacificer

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 11:40.

you really need to know when you've lost the argument and it's best to remain quiet... but no, no, no... you're going to persist and try to dodge and spin and get away from the simple truth that you lied, misstated and misrepresented what I said.

And you used polling that was more than 1 year old to do... when current polling proves you categorically, undeniably, unequivocally W-R-O-N-G.

You do a lot of spinning here, NextRightNannie, but that soiled, heavy diaper you have on is holding you down.

Please, put the pacifier back in and take your afternoon nappie... it'll be better for us all.

The fact that you attack me personally with your childish

Submitted by NextRightNando on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 14:02.

taunts doesn't cover up for the glaring error of your original mistake - the idea that Iraq is not still a millstone around your party's neck. In fact, it actually shines a spotlight on it. So you go right ahead with your nonsense.

 

 

NextRightNannie, they're accurate; not childish

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 15:25.

And like with most rebuttals here, you prefer to avoid responsibility for your silliness and try to spin it into another rant about how evil the GOP is... how DarthVaderCheney still manipulates the seemingly witless George W Chimpy... or something equally cartoonish.

Here's the simple truth that I predicted you'd continue to avoid: the search for WMDs in Iraq were just a part of many reasons for America and her allies invading Iraq and ousting the Middle East's worst tyrant.  One of many; the farLeft Democrat activist lie is that it was the only reason.

But you know what, NextRightNannie, in the effort you'd like to debase for political expediency we freed 30 million people and put them in charge of their own arab and Kurd destinies.  We might have brought a democracy to the arab world where none currently exists.  And we got rid of ColDaffyDuck in another country because he paid attention to American prowess and wisely chose an alternate path from the one he had been treading upon.

The UN resolutions make a good list of the reasons including Iraqi attacks on allied flyovers, violations of peace treaties, failure to repay the Kuwatis, genocide against the Kurds and fellow arabs, etc.

But you stick by the great liberal lie that America invaded ONLY because of the actual presence of WMDs... and not the threat of WMDs or Saddam Hussein's threat to provide dirty bombs to "super suicide bombers" in Israel and the West.

Because, I think, for you and your liberal pals Nannie, it's all about repeating the lie until the mantra drowns out all reason.  Just like the editors of regional newspapers across the US noted with the other Democrat activist lies --ie, W stole the election, there were no WMDs, ValerieNonAffariPlame, etc.

Iraq War my biggest regret, Bush Admits

Submitted by NextRightNando on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 15:46.

 

George Bush, in a moment of reflection ahead of his departure from the White House, last night admitted that the decision to go to war against Saddam Hussein on the basis of flawed intelligence was the biggest regret of his presidency. The acknowledgment marks the first time that Bush has publicly expressed doubts about his rationale for going to war on Iraq.

In the run-up to the war, the White House adopted a position of absolute certainty that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, basing its arguments on intelligence that was later exposed as flimsy and wrong.

"The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq," Bush told ABC television in an interview scheduled for broadcast last night. "I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess." But he followed that moment of candour with an attempt to try to deflect charges that the White House misled Congress and the public to build a case for war, arguing that there had been widespread belief that Saddam had a nuclear arsenal.

"It wasn't just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington DC, during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world, were all looking at the same intelligence."

He was not asked about allegations that political pressure was brought to bear on the CIA and other intelligence agencies in the run-up to the war.

 

It appears that even W is capable of more intellectual honesty and candor than you are.

We can trust you like we can the Guardian -NOT

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 15:59.

No surprise that both you and the UK's Guardian would try to spin that commentary to a position that supported your view.  Some papers took it as a headline to read "President Bush's 'biggest regret': I was unprepared for war" -the DailyNews.  Reuters got it a bit more accurate: "Bush calls flawed Iraq intelligence biggest regret".

I'm very capable of candor and honesty; you, however, have shown again that you can't be honest even if you muster up the selectively edited, redacted quotes NextRightNannie.

Here's what Prez Bush said without your redaction and the UK Giardian's very, very selective editing for partisan gain:

BUSH: I don't know -- the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. It wasn't just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence. And, you know, that's not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess.

 

Do you trust the White House transcripts?

Submitted by NextRightNando on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 16:01.

Now, look, I didn’t—part of the reason we went into Iraq was—the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t

President George W. Bush, White House Press Conference, August 22, 2006.

Suddenly, Nannie is now credible? N-O-T

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 16:29.

Nice try there Nannie but the claim made was that the farLeft and Democrat activists have used the Great Liberal Lie "that we invaded Iraq because of the presence of WMDs" has been roundly, solidly, unequivocally, undenaibly discredited.

You tried to use some selective, highly edited, biased news story retelling the facts in Bush's outgoing interview with ABC News.  You got caught redhanded in the old partisan spin and lie game.

Now you want us to believe you have credibility to spin the Great Liberal Lie farther and claim that Bush's comments back you up?  Nice try but you failed again.

Go get a little nappie time with the binkie, NextRightNannie because you've been wrong all day and it isn't getting anymore productive for you.  Take the Democrat Party blinders off and take a little, bitty nappie.  'K?

Have a little look at the quote above

Submitted by NextRightNando on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 16:43.

and you will see it is directly from W's lips, spoken at a White House Press Conference.

Not at all...

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 06:53.

Much like the GOP strategists and moderate pundits said for years, if Bush WERE to appear to apologize for having made a mistake, the farLeft demiGods (yeah, that's the right spelling) would nail him for admitting "a mistake, any mistake, anytime" and if he didn't, Bush would be labeled "arrogant, out-of-touch, unrealistic and unrepentant when all know the farLeft wont' eb happy until Bush recants everything right down to his choice in neckwear for the day".

Sorry, not going to join you in that little spider-hole you've dug for yourself, Nannie.

The Great Liberal Lie remains: the ONLY reason we invaded Iraq was because of the presence of WMDs.  The Great Liberal Lie is now joined by Nannie's: "and W agrees"!

Keep 'em coming Nannie... I know you've had a rough week backing up your bluster and BS.

 

Let me respond by quoting you the words of George W. Bush

Submitted by NextRightNando on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 08:01.

Now, look, I didn’t—part of the reason we went into Iraq was—the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t

President George W. Bush, White House Press Conference, August 22, 2006.

 

Now Nannie does what he complains of others doing...

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 09:14.

hey Nannie-o, does the phrase "repetition is not an answer" ring a bell?  That was you saying it a few threads ago.  You can quote Bush all you want as your rebuttal to my simple, unequivocal, undeniable, unerringly correct statement that the farLeft has a standard lie they will continue to repeat and that Great Liberal Lie is that the ONLY reason the US and her allies invaded Iraq was because of the presence of WMDs.

The Great Liberal Lie.  And you keep at it no matter how discrediting it is to your own credibility or intellectual honesty.  The Great Liberal Lie.  That's you, in a nutshell, Nannie.  Diapers, pacificers, blanket and nappie times, too.

I note that you have changed your assertion

Submitted by NextRightNando on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 09:30.

You started out with:

The editors really noticed when the "Bush Stole the Election" lie started to fly like jets with afterburners and no missles to weigh 'em down.  Then the "There were no WMDs" lie got similar traction

Now you are at:

that Great Liberal Lie is that the ONLY reason the US and her allies invaded Iraq was because of the presence of WMDs.

Now that the idea that it is a lie to say that there were no WMD - your original assertion - has been demolished by the words of Bush himself, I see that you have changed the formulation. Never mind - your original unsupportable and frankly lunatic idea is still there for everyone to see.

Repetition is not proof - but proof is proof, and since you have indicated that you are sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "LALALA" to anythinthing that is inconvenient for you, I'm going to provide my proof again:

Now, look, I didn’t—part of the reason we went into Iraq was—the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t

President George W. Bush, White House Press Conference, August 22, 2006.

 

Not at all, you just failed reading comprehension, Nannie

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 10:14.

sigh, again... there's no change in any assertions... one of the Great Liberal Lies was that Bush stole the election in 2000 from the saintly AlGore.  Another lie was that the ONLY reason America and her allies invaded Iraq was the presence of WMDs.  Another lie was that ScooterLibby outed ValeriePlame... etc.

There are others and liberals will keep repeating their lies until the lie is accepted as truth.  It's the Brave New World according to the farLeft.

You're doing that here.  Without the intended effect.  There were WMDs in Iraq before the invasion.  The Clinton WH believed that fact and trusted the intel.  The UN SecCouncil listened to countless briefings and issued to the GA dozens of draft resolutions indicating same.  The majority of world leaders were aware that there were many valid, solid, creidble reasons from invading Iraq.

It's only you, the MSM, the farLeft wing of the Democrat Party and anti-American kooks who think otherwise, Nannie.  Your end game: discredit all who supported the Iraq invasion.

Case made.  Proof delivered.  Maybe you should go back to the beginning and try again because you only continue to prove reading comprehension isn't in your skill set.

You started with X, you are now on Y, but you say there has been

Submitted by NextRightNando on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 10:22.

You started with X, you are now on Y, but you say there has been no change. Since X is not equal to Y, there has, indeed, been change. The one thing that hasn't changed is the feces-throwing.

Not at all, Nannie, you just continue to fail

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 10:39.

reading comprehension... sigh, again.

It's a pattern and practice for you.  It's tiresome, too.  You get the last word, ok?  Go for it, Nannie.  Put down the pacifier and go for it.

Stab in the GOP's back: Corporate America

Submitted by ToddLuvsLounging on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 15:32.

Take it a step further, GOPpers. Capitalism and capitalists have failed you and the capitalists are abandoning the GOP. You can't just attack Washington, but let the corporate welfare blood suckers slide. Search deep into your conviction and say: if you are too big to fail, then you are too big to exist. If the GOP is truely the party of small business, they would mount a Teddy Roosevelt style revolution. This would appeal to many moderates.

-Liberal ToddLuvsLounging

good article, well done

Submitted by bfire52 (not verified) on Wed, 07/15/2009 - 20:41.

good article, well done post

tiffany jewellery is the best

Submitted by submit102 on Fri, 07/24/2009 - 02:10.

tiffany jewellery is the best online links of london charms stores where you can buy the cheapest tiffany jewelry and Links of London. Our huge selection of Tiffany Jewelry.

Several factors

Submitted by Aniya (not verified) on Tue, 07/28/2009 - 08:13.

Several factors contribute to effective empowement. Your organizational culture must support empowerment. It won't work if managers feel threatened by a loss of authority, for example. There is also the question of what to empower and when. In addition, self-awareness is essential to be sure that you are not actually disempowering employees.

Fta Files

Several factors

Submitted by Aniya (not verified) on Mon, 08/03/2009 - 07:11.

Several factors contribute to effective empowement. Your organizational culture must support empowerment. It won't work if managers feel threatened by a loss of authority, for example. There is also the question of what to empower and when. In addition, self-awareness is essential to be sure that you are not actually disempowering employees.

car delivery

 

Empowerment

Submitted by Aniya (not verified) on Tue, 08/11/2009 - 16:03.

Empowerment means letting go of the authority to make certain decisions. This is partly a good management practice and partly about facing reality - the reality that modern employees won't accept jobs where they have no say in their day to day operational decisions.

Girls Games