What's The Matter With What's The Matter With Kansas

I'm a Tom Frank fan. I think he's a wonderful and passionate writer. But, now a respected political scientist is arguing that the "Great Backlash" Frank chronicled in his last book, in which "conservatives won the heart of America" and created a "dominant political coalition" by convincing Kansans and blue-collar, working-class people to vote against their own economic interests in order to defend traditional cultural values against bicoastal elites "isn't actually happening--at least, not in anything like the way Frank portrays." (Thanks to Doug Henwood--editor of the invaluable Left Business Observer and longtime Nation contributing editor--for turning me on to this new study.)

In a fascinating paper called "What's the Matter With What's the Matter with Kansas?", Princeton professor Larry Bartels uses data from National Election Study (NES) surveys to test Frank's thesis. He examines class-related patterns of issue preferences, partisanship, and voting over the past half-century. Bartels concludes that the white working class hasn't moved right and that "moral values" are not pushing them to vote Republican.

Moreover, for the most part, voters' economic and cultural attitudes are either both liberal or both conservative rather than the bifurcated split Frank sees. Bartels also disproves the argument that there's been a long-term decline in turnout.

Here's a summary of the report's findings if you don't have time to read the full 43 page paper, first presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association this September. You can also click here to listen to Henwood's interview with Bartels.

Conclusions:

* Has the white working class abandoned the Democratic Party? No. White voters in the bottom third of the income distribution have actually become more reliably Democratic in presidential elections over the past half-century, while middle and upper-income white voters have trended Republican. Low-income whites have become less Democratic in their partisan identifications, but at a slower rate than more affluent whites--and that trend is entirely confined to the South, where Democratic identification was artificially inflated by the one-party system of the Jim Crow era--itself a holdover from the legacy of the Civil War and Reconstruction.

* Has the white working class become more conservative? No. The typical views of low-income whites have remained virtually unchanged over the past 30 years. (A pro-choice shift on abortion in the 1970s and '80s has been partially reversed since the early 1990s.) Their positions relative to more affluent white voters--generally less liberal on social issues and less conservative on economic issues--have also remained virtually unchanged.

* Do working class "moral values" trump economics in determining voting patterns? No. Social issues (including abortion) are less strongly related to party identification and presidential votes than economic issues, and that is even more true for whites in the bottom third of the income distribution than for more affluent whites. Moreover, while social issue preferences have become more strongly related to presidential votes among middle- and high-income whites, there is no evidence of a corresponding trend among low-income whites.

* Are religious voters distracted from economic issues? No. For church-goers as for non-church-goers, partisanship and voting behavior are primarily shaped by economic issues, not cultural issues.

Click here to read the full study and let's hope that Democratic Party strategists are doing the same.

Comments (278)

1. Maybe this is beyond a millionairesss like Van den Heuvel and the other Wall Street rich kids at The Nation, but working class is not synonymous with lower income.

   Posted by RonS at 10/11/2005 @ 12:22pm

2. Echo your post Rons! I was immediately struck by Katrina's callousness that only "lower income whites" are part of the working class. She specifically lumps in the middle class with the wealthy (a nice vague label). Just part of Katrina's socialist class warfare.

   BTW, I have read a great deal of analysis pointing in the opposite direction of the studies Katrina cites.

   Just more socialist dreaming.

   Posted by love liberty at 10/11/2005 @ 12:51pm

3. Zero--I think your point is indeed the point. That if the Dems want to ever regain power they need to come up with an economic program that will help and potentially appeal to the vast majority of American. That approach, rather than tacking to the right on so-called cultural issues, seems to me the Party's best and probably only chance at renewed relevance.

   Posted by Peter Rothberg at 10/11/2005 @ 12:53pm

4. LL--Cd you send cites? I'd be interested in checking out your sources/analysis.

   Posted by Peter Rothberg at 10/11/2005 @ 12:54pm

5. "Click here to read the full study and let's hope that Democratic Party strategists are doing the same."

   What the hell is that supposed to mean? That the DP should repudiate its recent obsession with class politics and return to its usual winning strategy of selling out unions, encouraging the pillaging of pension funds, cheering on corporate mergers and acquisitions, signing off on "free trade" agreements etc.

   Earth to van den Heuvel: every serious Democratic presidential candidate has committed him or herself to the neo-liberal, DLC line which has driven the party into deserved irrelevance. None shows any signs of having read any of Franks' book. For what its worth, their DP preferred pundit is new agey, faux linguist George Lakoff, and his absurd "framing" hypothesis.

   And, for what it's worth, the alleged "hard" empirical data on which political scientists have supposedly grounded their conclusions has time and again been shown to be no more than eye wash, as the recently deceased Yale math prof Serge Lang never tired in pointing out.

   That doesn't mean that Bartel's critique should be ignored a priori, but rather that it should not be seen as the last word any more than, say, Samuel Huntington's equally rigorous work on "counter-insurgency theory" should have been genuflected to in the mid-sixties.

   The Nation's willingness to do so is troubling, and alas typical.

   Posted by john.halle at 10/11/2005 @ 12:54pm

6. LL,

   I think you have misread the article. The limitation of the working class to lower class whites was made originally by Frank, not Van Den Heuvel: "Frank chronicled in his last book, in which "conservatives won the heart of America" and created a "dominant political coalition" by convincing Kansans and blue-collar, working-class people to vote against their own economic interests..."

   It's just a pointed response to a pointed study. In any case, such studying and head scratching is futile. One would hope (and I know this means dream) that the Democrats could outline and follow a list of principles that would be sensible enough to attract the majority of voters. How many votes have they lost in the last two big elections because voters just weren't sure what the Democrats stood for?

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/11/2005 @ 1:05pm

7. The analysis by Prof Bartels is interesting but it does not address the content of What's the Matter with Kansas. Tom Frank wrote about Kansas specifically (and selected districts in Kansas), not about America generally. If people have taken what Frank wrote about Kansas and applied it to the nation as a whole then that is their mistake. You can't test a hypothesis that covers localized sections of a given state by examining the voting patterns of the entire United States.

   Additionally, when you look at the entire united states you are deriving a picture that includes all the major population centers. When you do that you homogenize the viewpoint you are receiving. A state like Kansas has fewer people than one borough of NYC so what is happening in that state can hardly be studied by looking at the US as a whole. From the NES website "Following the specifications provided by the NES Project Staff, the Survey Research Center Sampling Section draws our national face-to-face samples from their National Sample. The sample universe is traditionally all U.S. households (including civilian households on military bases) in the 48 coterminous states and the District of Columbia."

   Lastly, this is only a working paper and has not been peer reviewed or published. It may, in fact, pass muster as an analysis of US voting patterns but not, I think, as a critique of Frank's work.

   Posted by MikeURL at 10/11/2005 @ 1:15pm

8. If you want to win the next election all you have to do is map out a sensible Iraq withdrawal strategy. Withdrawing 150,000 US troops tomorrow is not realistic or even in our best interests. However, the party / candidate that say's "we're getting out when 75,000 Iraqi's have been trained and we can do that in six months" is the party / candidate that has this country's best interests front and center and will be the party / candidate that is willing to make decisions and realistic promises and will win an election where the electorate is tired of the bullshit platitudes.

   So which candidate / party wants to win?

   Posted by colmes at 10/11/2005 @ 1:20pm

9. I think a more interesting aspect of the political development of the US is the de-urbanization/suburbanization of the US. It seems to me (from my dealing with clients as their financial advisor) that the more urban someone is, generally the more likely they are to not vote for Republicans (note I did not say that they are more likely to vote FOR Dems). And vice versa, the more suburban or even rural someone is (in terms of where they live, of course) the more likely they are to not vote for Dems.

   The point to this is two-fold. Generally, as people's relative standard of living increases, they become naturally more reactionary, hence less traditionally (as in, not recently) "Democratic", and the lower their relative standard of living is, the more likely they are to be less reactionary, i.e. more in the traditionally "Democratic" camp. Hence, there is a definite geopolitical aspect to this phenomenon, just not necessarily the one that Tom Frank recognizes.

   The second point to this is, generally, our country has become less and less involved in the electoral process. I personally think this is due to the fact that people, on some generally subconscious level (although many, such as people on this blog) realize that even when we vote, the results are rather disheartening. Even when you vote for the person who promises those things that hit closest to home, when he or she gets elected, they renege... and they fall into the same process of representing wealthy, cash-flushed corporations who can afford to pay for junkets and lobbyists. It's a simple matter of people opting out of the system, because the system no longer even remotely represents their interests, and there is, in those same people's eyes, no hope of a change in the status quo.

   Posted by jorcheim at 10/11/2005 @ 1:45pm

10. I agree and disagree with you mikeurl. I don't think this paper really cuts it as a critique of Frank's book, however I do think Frank meant this to be applied to the country as a whole. In the interview he did with Now on PBS he actually said that "The matter with Kansas is actually the same as America". That's paraphrasing but it gets the jist of what he was saying, his book was actually meant to represent the country as a whole.

    Posted by simonak at 10/11/2005 @ 1:51pm

11. Sometimes these days it's hard to figure out what the Dems are for--or against. One thing the GOP has done is to actually stand for something. Of course W's cronyism is starting to effect the public's perception of what the GOP does indeed stand for these days.

    When you have government by, for and of the corporation the two party system is merely a quaint anachronism. Should the Dems ever gain back a majority status will they behave in any less a subservient way towards their corporate sponsors? Will the ghost of Ron Brown escort them through the halls of power to worship at the alter of unfettered commerce?

    Posted by John Earl at 10/11/2005 @ 1:51pm

12. JOHN EARL:

    The only way that will ever happen is if we somehow achieve true campaign finance reform. It would require the elimination of ALL political contributions. This would serve a number of purposes. FIrst and foremost, money would cease to be the primary motivating factor in the minds of politicians. Second, it would decrease the importance of parties (and the party line in general). It would also go a long way toward creating an equal time paradigm in the media (or at the very least, make it patently obvious whether a channel or company is overtly pro- or anti- a particular candidate). This could be done in a number of ways.

    Either eliminate ALL private contributions, or limit the contributions so much (5 dollar maximum contribution, for example) for both hard and soft contributions that the money becomes superfluous.

    One can dream.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/11/2005 @ 1:59pm

13. Jorcheim,

    It's a dream that the electorate really has to demand become a reality (and if democracy is going to survive it will have to happen). A corporation (or individual) has many demands for its largess. A corporation can choose to plow its money right back into its business. They can choose to give it to the owners (shareholders) in the form of a dividend and some of it they choose to do good work with (mostly for PR), such as building a local baseball field or donating money to Katrina victims etc. Some corporate money is used as a "donation" to political candidates / parties. There is no way, this would be the best use of shareholders money if corporations did not get their money's worth. Same is true of union dues that become political contributions. Sooner or later money needs to be out of democratic politics or the coruption will destroy democracy. Just look at Delay for the prime example.

    Posted by colmes at 10/11/2005 @ 2:09pm

14. COLMES:

    Agreed. Consider this, though. When Enron and other companies were plowing millions of dollars into getting Bush elected both to the Txas governorship and the White House, consider the energy bills and the tax cuts that have gone into play. Now, consider that those political contributions are looked upon by people in those corporations as investments. And the fruits of those investments can be measured in the BILLIONS rather than millions. If I could get that sort of return on my clients' money, I would be part of their family. Oh, wait... was that Bush who called Ken Lay Kenny Boy? Almost like they are old family friends. Hmmm... funny how he doesn't seem to recognize him now that Lay is on the hot seat. At least one crook got caught.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/11/2005 @ 2:15pm

15. Zero--I cdn't agree with you more. In fact, I think the corporate dominace of the Dems is far more damaging to the Party's chances (and morality if we can get utopian for a minute and imagine that the Party has any morals) than any tacks to the right on "values" questions.

    Posted by Peter Rothberg at 10/11/2005 @ 2:16pm

16. ZERO:

    What we really need is (now don't laugh) a patently MANLY figure whose manhood cannot be questioned (like, for example, Jesse Ventura, but not a nut), whose politics are extremely progressive, and who is loud and unabashedly outspoken about his views.

    Does such a person exist?

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/11/2005 @ 2:22pm

17. Why Kansas? I mean isn't this the state that is trying to decide to teach "Intelligent Design" as science? I might argue that folks on both sides of the politcal fence are abandoning normal, rational thought. But why? The numbers of folk who disbelieve evolution are increasing.....even in light of the increasing scientific knowledge base supporting it.

    Sure this is a politcal thread, but I would further argue that these phenomena are connected at some level. The continual "dumbing down" of expectations in schools is reverberating in the fabric of our society. (I teach at a local CC...so I see fiirst-hand the products of our public schools. It is indeed sad at times.) The result is you masses that vote people in on "non-issues", or that vote folks in that degrade their own economic positions - and then vote them in again.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 10/11/2005 @ 2:27pm

18. Umm, working class is a term that has replaced lower class. See Correctness, Political.

    The corporate dominance of politics is a trend that can be reversed only by public financing of political candidates and their campaigns.

    Bloomberg of NYC is buying the position of Mayor again this year. Corzine of NJ is perhaps buying the position of Governor again.

    I don't think the answer to this issue is more purchases, this time by the right people, though I don't object to "my" candidates getting elected anyway they can.

    Posted by jkrogman at 10/11/2005 @ 2:28pm

19. "Low-income whites have become less Democratic in their partisan identifications, but at a slower rate than more affluent whites--and that trend is entirely confined to the South, where Democratic identification was artificially inflated by the one-party system of the Jim Crow era--itself a holdover from the legacy of the Civil War and Reconstruction."

    The above holds PARTLY true in my home state of Tennessee. East Tennessee was before the Civil War & up through today staunchly Republican. Middle & West Tennessee, where slave-holding was more prevalent, were Democratic until 1966 - when the Republican party made state-wide strides & got Howard Baker elected to the Senate. Until 1994 (Ginrich revolution) it was very balanced between the two parties. Since then, the GOP has dominated. Finally, Gore lost Tennessee in 2000, which cost him the presidency (cheating notwithstanding).

    Tennessee ain't Kansas, and you can't trend the whole country by evaluating one state. But the strides the Republicans have made have cut across economic classes down here - and the Democratic Party is basically regarded as out of ideas & pretty much gutless. Sound familiar to anyone else out there?

    Posted by EnviroVarmint at 10/11/2005 @ 3:41pm

20. While I don't live in Kansas and woudn't know anything about local politics there, but what exactly has the Democratic Party done for Kansas? How many family farms there have gone belly up because Democrats have sided with Republicans and big corporations?

    Posted by Zeddmen at 10/11/2005 @ 3:41pm

21. Funny Rio Bravo, I scolled up and did not see one reference to taxing the rich.

    Posted by Hman23 at 10/11/2005 @ 3:48pm

22. RIO BRAVO, how is it that the top 1% of earners are paying half the rate they used to, but twice the tax? Obviously they are making one hell of a lot more money now. Maybe this is because they are geniuses. Maybe not. It could be because they've bought off so many politicians that there's no one left to legislate meaningful regulations that prevent the gap between rich and poor from becoming an uncrossable divide. It looks like that's a concept that hasn't occured to you. You wouldn't happen to be from Kansas, would you?

    Posted by MyParadigm at 10/11/2005 @ 4:03pm

23. I have to say I don't really buy this. I was working in Ohio before the election, and abortion, gay marriage & terrorism were the only things people voting for Bush talked about (& I was working in heavily Republican, working class counties). Plus, presidential elections are won by such small margins now that even if it's only a small part of the electorate that is going to respond to certain tactics, it may be exactly what you need.

    Posted by champion at 10/11/2005 @ 4:05pm

24. Maybe it's more about what gets the vote out, or which people actually bother to vote, than about class-leanings as a whole. And let me tell you, the gay marriage propositions seemed to get the vote out in Ohio.

    Posted by champion at 10/11/2005 @ 4:09pm

25. RIO,

    Thanks for the post. It has been a trying day, but a feel good post like yours brightens the darkest day. I believe you are using some form of English, but I'll have to have my linguist friends study it more deeply. Either that or they can decompose it for me.

    One question to all,

    What do you think the current strong supporters of the Dem's would do if suddenly we woke up tomorrow and found Feingold as the Minority Leader in the Senate and Kucinich in the House? Would they panic and run with their bucks to the Republicans, who are in many ways not too far from their own ideals? Or would they take the time to rethink their warped ideals and recognize them within a true liberal? I think that many of those who call themselves Democrats would be more comfortable as Republicans than as members of a truly liberal party. We could only hope that a change in leadership might jolt voters into actually taking a look at what a liberal Democratic party would be, and vote the conservatives out.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/11/2005 @ 4:12pm

26. The Nation should try getting directly in touch with the working class instead of relying of academics or foundations. How often do you get out here in the hinterlands? After the last election, you ran an issue that analyzed what went wrong. No workers were consulted, only "experts," most of whom were from either the East or West Coast institutions.

    Put some writers out in the Midwest, South or Great Plains and have them wander around for a year. Have them file reports on what they see, without cherry-picking in a manner that only confirms preconceived or romantic notions about what you want to hear.

    I am a reader of The Nation and find value in many of your articles. I've never voted Republican and travel in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan working with farmer co-ops. In my opinion, many folks I know would consider the staff at your publication to be just as privileged as Republicans. Nobody I know, for example, could afford one of your cruises. And it is insulting that you write on behalf of working people without actually going to the source--at least very often.

    Yes, let's analyze what's the matter with "What's the Matter With Kansas?". But, let's also analyze what's the matter with The Nation, and the the disconnected American Left.

    Posted by T-Bone Finn at 10/11/2005 @ 4:14pm

27. Sorry to bring up a touchy subject, but we need to grow up and understand that it is pretty much irrelevant what we, as liberals or progressives, think the Democratic Party should do. They will do what they need to do to keep the corporate checks rolling in; they have shown time and time again that they couldn't care less what we, whether we are are grassroots DP activists, disenchanted former Democrats, think.

    So why even bother to address them when they aren't listening?

    What we may have some influence over, on the other hand, is the editorial position of the magazine sponsoring this board. The Nation's editor has made it clear in the above that she believes that "Democratic strategists" should repudiate the class based analysis which is at the heart of Tom Frank's argument in What's the Matter with Kansas. What she endorses, presumably, is maintaining the Clintonite neo-liberalism which has defined the party for a generation-balancing a milquetoast social liberalism with a capitulation to an ever intensifying corporate agenda which has left the economy, and the society, an empty shell of what it once was.

    Based on the discussion above, it appears clear that most of us find this program abhorrent. What we need to do is to make clear that the Nation does not speak for us, and to prevent it from giving aid and comfort to those forces in the Democratic Party whose access to corporate connections and corporate cash will, if unchecked, insure their continuing domination of the party's agenda, and not coincidentally, the party's continuing to lose election after election.

    The Nation's role in this, as a high circulation journal, is not insignificant, and we can choose to either enable it or protest it's continuing capitulation to Clintonite neo-liberalism.

    Succeeding in the former would constitute a small but by no means insignificant victory and we can engage in this struggle right here and now.

    Arguing about what strategy Democratic Party will adopt is a diversion from the real issue at hand, which is not about the Democrats but about the Nation's and the establishment progressive media's relationship with it.

    Posted by john.halle at 10/11/2005 @ 4:19pm

28. Rio's point about taxes: Of course higher earners are paying a higher share of total taxes than their share of the "adjusted gross income" in relation to the whole--people at the bottome are exempted altogether, and should be. Have you tried raising a family of four at federal poverty line wages of 19K? Come on.

    Posted by champion at 10/11/2005 @ 4:21pm

29. j. halle is right about the democratic party--i even have misgivings about supporting them because i don't really feel like they speak for me on the vast majority of issues, and a lot of it is the drift to the center caused by being beholden to corporate interests-- at worst, with mainstream dem gestures to activist groups & the blogosphere, we fringers will end up getting the sort of appeasement that the right wing christian bigot wing of the repub party gets--that is, we'll mention the gay marriage amendment just to get you all excited, but we don't really mean it, and instead of luttig on the supremes, you're going to get miers, although i guess she is a tammy faye miers, more or less

    Posted by champion at 10/11/2005 @ 4:28pm

30. The USA's democratic set up has always and will always skew to the right until it is checked. Only once in history has the fabric snapped which was when the gross injustice of the wealthy class's slave's became too obvious for the Northern part of the nation.

    In the 1920's the fabric stretched and eventually women were begrudingly allowed to vote. In the 1930's again it stretched and the "Socialist revolution" of the New Deal calmed the masses before a real revolution happened.

    In the 1960's we saw the last real stretch of the fabric and the inevitable pullback of the monied interests to appease enough to deter real rebellion.

    Today you can "choose" between corporate owned democrats or corporate owned republicans. Since there really isn't a choice I think we can all hear that fabric stretching again. Does anyone want to save the republic and give us a real choice again?

    Posted by colmes at 10/11/2005 @ 4:45pm

31. The Nation should try getting directly in touch with the working class instead of relying of academics or foundations. How often do you get out here in the hinterlands? After the last election, you ran an issue that analyzed what went wrong. No workers were consulted, only "experts," most of whom were from either the East or West Coast institutions.

    Posted by T-BONE FINN 10/11/2005 @ 4:14pm

    The "limousine liberals" don't call it "fly over country" for nothing. Their borders of America do not go outside of Manhattan, LA or San Francisco.

    Posted by dscott at 10/11/2005 @ 4:47pm

32. JH--You've missed the point and if you take any time to read the magazine and the articles on the website you'll find scant evidence of any arguments at all for Clinton neo-liberalism. In fact, the mag's position is just the opposite. If there's anything on which Nation writers and editors agree it's that the Dems need to come up with an economic agenda that helps people rather than corporations and that is more than a stale, slightly more progressive, rehash of what the GOP is offering. The only repudiation of Frank's thesis here is that the white WC aren't all dupes and that the Dems don't have to jettison things like the right of choice, etc in order to win elections.

    Posted by Peter Rothberg at 10/11/2005 @ 5:01pm

33. This discussion is largely based on the fallacy that voters know what they're doing, or at least that things would be better if they did. Republicans know that voters work from the subconscious and invest in better ways of fooling the public. Democrats seem to be too morally superior for that. Perhaps if we activists would stop demanding that they "connect" with us and starting figuring out how to work with what we've got - who really gives a fuck if it's Hillary - and get the critical number of votes to win, then we can actually reverse this slide into oblivion. The problem with us is we're too damned democratic. Until we start working like a team, we'll keep getting screwed.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 10/11/2005 @ 5:05pm

34. In response to Peter Rothberg, nonsense. I read the magazine every week and continually notice articles like Greg Sargent's Brand Hillary from June 6 which send the unmistakable signal to Democratic elites that the Nation will, with perhaps minor grumbling, whip the left into shape perfoming its usual service of marginalizing any serious independent oppositional politics which may emerge to, for example, a Clinton presidential bid.

    The favorable reaction to the Bartel article is entirely of a piece with this pattern. It attempts to show that the kind class politics which should legitimately be the province of a serious progressive party is losing politics, thus the Democrats are justified in ignoring Frank's critique.

    In any case, what planet is van den Heuvel on if she believes that Democratic strategists have already taken to heart Franks analysis. They have done nothing of the kind, and her recommendation that they take seriously Bartel's critique will insure that they will do nothing of the kind.

    Nation reader have more than a little reason to be suspicious as to the Nation's underlying agenda. Which is not to say that there is not excellent work published there on occassion, yours included.

    Posted by john.halle at 10/11/2005 @ 5:09pm

35. Dude, we agree on that piece by Sargent. You did well in citing one piece that was, in my view and many others here, very soft on HRC. But that was the only piece that guy has ever written for The Nation; there are about 15 articles in each issue and you picked ONE from many months ago. Seriously, read just the most recent cover-story by Borosage and some other pieces that are more representative of the mag's general positions and you'd be happier about the mag's stance than you seem. And all Bartels was saying, I think, was that the white WC aren't a bunch of racist bozos completely out-of-touch with reality. Arguable maybe but hopefully, to me, not necessarily completely false.

    Posted by Peter Rothberg at 10/11/2005 @ 5:17pm

36. Zero--I think the lesser-evil argument is very complicated and has two sides with merit, esp in the days of Bush, who I see as a more threatening radical Republican than most of his party-establishment brethren. But think you make many sharp points and I hope to take them up as I can in the future.

    Posted by Peter Rothberg at 10/11/2005 @ 5:29pm

37. Thomas Frank's book "What's the Matter with Kanas," goes well with another of his books, "One Market Under God." The two together bookend the corporate-baloney/culture-war, divide-and-conquer, political-economic strategy of today's rabid reactionaries in Republican America. Still, the first of these books reminds me more than anything else of George Orwell's "Road to Wigan Pier," which dealt with a similar slide in the North of England towards a "ready-made fascist party" by squeezing the middle class -- thus generating economic anxiety if not panic -- and then deflecting the anger and frustration at fellow members of the same economic class who just happen to display in their lives different dress, speech, or educational attributes.

    The currently decrepit remains of the Democratic Party don't get any of this. The mawkish mavens of milquetoast middle-ism (as I call them) have abandoned the working-class (both hourly and salaried) for Republican-lite militrist-corporatism and its occasional campaign handouts to sell-outs like the Lieberman-Clintons.

    Posted by Michael Murry at 10/11/2005 @ 5:32pm

38. Whether Bartel's piece should be read as merely arguing that "the white WC aren't a bunch of racist bozos completely out-of-touch with reality" or as apologetics for the failure of the Democratic Party to seriously develop a class based economics and politics is, in my opinion, a red herring. The point is that it will be read as the latter and when arguments are provided to the effect that a renewal of new deal liberalism is winning politics are presented they will be dismissed on the alleged empirical authority provided by a peer reviewed journal by a distinguished Princeton professor, as VDH refers to him. And this will be the basis on which a new neo-liberal candidate will be sold to the DP base, which has, after all, never repudiated its committment to new deal liberalism.

    As for the content of the Nation from week to week, most of what is there, including Borosage's recent piece, is nothing more than raw meat of the sort which creates a facade which unites principled progressives and Democratic Party hacks and opportunists of the Alterman variety. This usually involves bashing of the patent cynicism, corruption, and hypocrisy of Bush administration policies, though always with the subtext that these reflect ultimately a deep philisophical difference between the two parties.

    These pieces are convenient for the DP in that they obscure the essential fact that while only one party suppots Bush, both parties are committed to two variants of Bushism. Thus, Grover Norquist wants to drown government in the bathtub, and Bill Clinton announces with great enthusiam that "the era of big government is over."

    In capitulating to the kinder, gentler variant of Bushism and without taking seriously the sort of political mobilization that is necessary to combat it, the Nation editorial board has a lot to answer for.

    I don't think it is going overboard to claim that a part of the solution to the the left's perennial marginalization will involve the Nation, as the leading outlet of the establishment progressive media, taking a good hard look in the mirror.

    Which is not to say that many other sectors of the left should not engage in a similar self-analysis.

    Posted by john.halle at 10/11/2005 @ 5:58pm

39. Zero, One can be critical of the Left without being a supporter of George W. Bush. My point, hardly hysterical, is that, although many working folks although I know might consider W. to be a cake-eater, they wouldn't feel too comfortable would hobnobbing with the shining lights of The Nation on a cruise ship, either.

    Posted by T-Bone Finn at 10/11/2005 @ 6:16pm

40. John--I can assure you that the argument that "a renewal of new deal liberalism is winning politics" is absolutely a fair assessment of where most people at The Nation are currently at. The debate is between the perspective of folks like Zero who question the efficacy of backing the Dems at all and those who propose a more reformist approach that does indeed take into account the lesser-evil argument. There's really no pole of opinion around neo-liberalism--though as you pointed out with reference to Sargent--there are indeed occasional positive pieces--occasional--about pols who may argue that idiocy.

    Posted by Peter Rothberg at 10/11/2005 @ 6:22pm

41. I have a difficult time reading Alterman during election years--he seems to be democrat first and liberal second. But I have also read occasional opinions by Cockburn that are extremely extreme on the other extreme. I have disagreed with both at times. Alterman was rah-rah Gore, rah-rah Kerry; Cockburn has had nothing but disdain for the last two D candidates.

    Not to be too much of a defender of The Nation, I think one of its important values is that it does provide a wide range of opinions that go from one side to the other of "liberal" thoughts. I have read articles that have made me cringe, articles which were so cheesy and attack-oriented that they came across as written by outcast teenagers making snide remarks about the popular kids.

    As for the get out of New York and Los Angeles argument, remind me again where John Nichols is stationed?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/11/2005 @ 6:49pm

42. Have not had the time to keep up with all of the above post so if repeat something that someone else has said I apologize. In my humble opinion the party that will win the next two elections (2006,2008) will be the first party to do two things: 1. do something about securing our borders and preventing illegal immigration. This is an issue that the American people are ready to get behind. 2. Be more specific in coming up with a plan to get out of Iraq but do so in a sensible manner that can give Iraq an excellent chance of becoming a legitimate democracy that can defend itself from challenges within and without.--a cut and run plank in either party will not win a national election.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 10/11/2005 @ 6:57pm

43. John.Halle and Peter Rothberg,

    The problem that I perceive is that we toss around a lot of political labels and adjectives that no longer have much meaning, or have redefined meanings to most present-day Americans. We need to define what these labels and adjectives really mean, or develop new ones.

    For example, what is meant by "New Deal Liberalism"? The heck if I know.

    Now, I do know what basic truths and beliefs that I hold. But not everyone holds these same truths and beliefs, or hold them in a fashion that is similar to mine.

    Maybe the defining of political ideas and philosophies, such as "New Deal Liberalism" is like pornography; we know it when we see it.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 10/11/2005 @ 7:00pm

44. If our administration has not come up with a plan to get out of Iraq by next November, the Republicans will be toast.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/11/2005 @ 7:01pm

45. Republicans will do fine in the next two elections if the current administration clarifies their objectives and sets some goals,I don't believe dates are as important. For example when Iraq has so many divisions ready for active duty then we can withdraw a certain number of troops. Dates are not as important as reaching goals.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 10/11/2005 @ 7:06pm

46. Nichols is based out of Wisconsin and also spends much time on the road and in DC.

    Posted by Peter Rothberg at 10/11/2005 @ 7:10pm

47. Peter,

    Since the Democrats are unable to rally around any common statement of principle, has The Nation ever thought about presenting its version of a Contract for America to current and wannabe office holders?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/11/2005 @ 7:14pm

48. Zero & Jorcheim - Keep going down this track...it definitely leads to success in '08.

    Posted by seattlescribe at 10/11/2005 @ 7:18pm

49. TJ,

    Re: Contract Idea

    I've been having similar thoughts, and I think Howard Dean might be building a consensus for such an idea.

    However, I would not label it a "contract"; sounds too corporate and Republican; I would call it a "compact". Although the term "compact" could be described as a synonym for contract, I think the term carries a more progressive and liberal meaning than the term "contract"; it is less sterile and more humanistic.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 10/11/2005 @ 7:30pm

50. TJBEHRENS1

    .. posted from Daily Kos reposted from subscription edition of Roll Call

    Seeing an opening to reach voters while Republicans are beset by turmoil, House Democrats are privately planning to accelerate the timing of the release of their platform and the major policies they will promote on the campaign trail next year.

    Key Democratic sources say Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other House leaders are putting the finishing touches on what arguably will be Democrats most detailed "positive" election-year agenda since the party lost power more than a decade ago. Pelosi has been coordinating with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), key Democratic strategists, advisers and outside interest groups on the policy platform as well as the party's broader 2006 message.

    The move comes as many in the party have argued that Democrats need to do more than just complain of Republican excesses and the "culture of corruption" they charge the GOP with fostering.

    An early draft of the agenda outlines the specific initiatives House Democrats will pledge to enact if given control of the House. Leaders have been working on the document for months, and have already started encouraging Members to unify around it and stick to its themes.

    Among the proposals are: "real security" for America through stronger investments in U.S. armed forces and benchmarks for determining when to bring troops home from Iraq; affordable health insurance for all Americans; energy independence in 10 years; an economic package that includes an increase in the minimum wage and budget restrictions to end deficit spending; and universal college education through scholarships and grants as well as funding for the No Child Left Behind act.

    Democrats will also promise to return ethical standards to Washington through bipartisan ethics oversight and tighter lobbying restrictions, increase assistance to Katrina disaster victims through Medicaid and housing vouchers, save Social Security from privatization and tighten pension laws.

    One Democratic leadership aide said Democrats want to roll out their agenda this fall rather than early next year as leaders originally had planned. This aide suggested that the latest string of events -- from the Republican response to Hurricane Katrina, growing concern about the war in Iraq and mounting questions about GOP ethics -- made it clear Democrats must move quickly [...]

    Members on both the left and right of the Caucus seem receptive to a detailed party outline to present to the public and hope party leaders can put something together this election year that will improve their electoral prospects.

    But Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.), a leading centrist New Democrat, said no matter what detailed policies Democrats offer up this cycle, they must also make the broader case for why Republicans should no longer be in charge. He said all of the specific proposals will easily fit into that theme that Republicans "are out of touch."

    "Democrats fell short in '02 and '04 because we didn't make a compelling case of how Republican policies have allowed American families to lose ground," he said. "We have to make that case."

    Posted by dscott at 10/11/2005 @ 7:35pm

51. Champion,

    You are right about what motivated Bush supporters in Ohio. Were you in the Cincinnati area? From what I've seen, there are plenty of working class Democrats in Ohio -- but they're further north, in Ohio's rust belt, and in the Appalachian counties in the Southeast.

    Posted by 9patch at 10/11/2005 @ 7:36pm

52. The fact that a presumed Nation reader like oraibi can't identify what new deal liberalism is a pretty good indication that the Nation isn't doing it's job. So to start with the facts, new deal liberalism, of the sort associated with Keynes and J.K. Galbraith assumes a significant role for government in the economy, particularly when it comes to investments in public infrastructure such as transit, power generation, housing, education, etc. Taken for granted by Democratic administrations from the depression until the seventies, it was first explicitly repudiated by the Carter administration via the tight monetary policies instigated by then fed chairman Paul Volker and then most dramatically by the Clinton administration which took its primary cues from a core of Wall Street bankers, most notably Robert Rubin (now CEO of citicorp) and Lawrence Summers.

    In response to Peter, let me be clear, I have no doubt that a majority of Nation contributors subscribe to some variant of traditional Keynesian (i.e. new deal) liberalism and its goal of modest redistribution of wealth from those who will naturally accumulated it under unregulated market conditions and towards those who will be most vicitmzied by devil take the hindmost, eye gouge capitalism we are suffering under.

    However, it is a question of strength of their committment particularly when confronted with a theorcratic right wing social agenda. Commentators like Katha Pollitt, as became clear in the wake of Kerry's defeat, made little effort to disguise their contempt for those in the flyover states who can't afford Nation cruises, as T-Bone Finn notes above. They smell bad, drink lousy beer, talk too loud. Their upper west side social networks almost entirely insulate Pollitt et. al from any contact with those who are the real victims of neo-liberalism, while continually putting them in close proximity with the technocrats who administer and benefit from the "knowledge based" new economy cheered on by Robert Reich and others.

    So while I agree with you there is no pole of opinion around neo-liberalism, when push come to shove too many Nation contributors and the editorial board will show themselves willing to make concessions to it, with the ultimate costs imposed on those who they have very little temperamental and emotional affinity with, indeed, a great deal of contempt for.

    Posted by john.halle at 10/11/2005 @ 7:45pm

53. John.Halle,

    I'm a reader.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 10/11/2005 @ 8:04pm

54. John.Halle,

    Accorging to your post, New Deal Liberalism sounds a lot like Keynesian economics, and I support much of the economics advocated by John Maynard Keynes and advanced by John Kenneth Galbraith.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 10/11/2005 @ 8:11pm

55. ORAIBI1952:

    From an economic standpoint, I agree with you both. It all starts with the economy. Trust me, eventually, when the economy tanks, and there is nothing left of the public commons, and we are wallowing in quadrillions in debt, eventually the huns will be forced from the city. I just hope there's something left of the city to save when they are gone.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/11/2005 @ 8:14pm

56. The Democratic party and the liberal mainstream media are trying to drive a wedge between the worker making $25-50K/year and the CEO making $5 million/year by targeting the weakness of the human psyche. With sick perverse pleasure, they are fanning the flames of envy and jealousy in society.

    If you want to find a division within society that warrants concern, focus attention on the cultural/language divide that has rendered Miami a non-English speaking, unassimilated Cuban/Latin American enclave.

    The disparity between the very wealthiest elite and the rest of the population is irrelevant.

    As long as all American citizens have a fair opportunity to meet life's basic needs of food and shelter, there's no basis by which government should interfere in our free market economy.

    If a successful businessman earns $10 million more this year than he did 5 years ago, and an employee of his earns $50,000, just $10,000 more than he made 5 years ago, that growing disparity does not make him a 'have not'.

    What it does mean is that employer now has more disposable income to grow his business and increase production through the hiring of more employees.

    Both the worker and the CEO earn enough to maintain a standard of living that does not require dependence upon government welfare.

    Those happiest in our society are people who have what they need; not more, not less.

    Democrats represent those who do not pay taxes, and thus remain dependent upon pandering to the poor to garner their support come election time. For the Democratic party to survive, it is essential to their existence that a sizable segment of the population remains dependent upon government entitlement programs than to be self-sufficient.

    From a survival standpoint, it is not in the Democratic party's interest to see those on welfare or in the lower income brackets achieve financial independence or economic success.

    What is the rationale for instigating class warfare between the employee earning $25-50K and the CEO making $5M?

    Those earning $50-75K/year voted for Bush over Kerry by a 56-43% margin last November. And those earning $200K/year, voted for Bush over Kerry, 63-35%. The only segment Kerry garnered that kind of support was amongst the non-taxpaying poor (those earning under $15K/year), where Kerry got their vote by a 63-36% margin.

    Nothing would make the New York Times or The Nation happier than to make its readers feel they, economically, identify more with the poor than with the super-rich.

    If Democrats truly had all American peoples' interest at heart, their ultimate goal would be the dissolution of their own party, as it would signify the overwhelming majority of our population had achieved a satisfactory level of achievement.

    But, unfortunately, for our nation's poor, Democratic politicians aren't that stupid or well-intentioned.

    Posted by aronscott at 10/11/2005 @ 9:12pm

57. The democrats have abandoned the working class where they haven't been successful in co-opting or decimating working class leadership. The working class will create new organizations, because it must. And everyone here who denies the possibility of same are either not paying attention to the details, or standing in the way of the process, trying to convince us it's not possible. But it is, and we're making it happen. It's a tiny, minority spark, just as the Sons of Liberty were, but it will take hold.

    Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/11/2005 @ 9:43pm

58. Counter Points to ARONSCOTT:

    1. A wedge that is the inverse of the hidden wedge of the Republican party.

    2. Little Havana, Florida (aka Miami); that is Republican country and it makes a mockery of the illegal immigrant arguments of Republicans like Tom Tancredo.

    3. The vast separation between the wealthiest elite and the rest of us is relevant; revolution is the result when ignorant leaders perceive it to be irrelevant.

    4. Democrats represent those who do not pay taxes is more Republican propaganda scatology. Equally, non-tax paying citizens deserve representation too.

    5. Your voting statistics, in view of the numerous problems with voting machines and the lack of them in sufficient numbers urban areas, have no validity, and they reflect nothing other than the voting system failed the American people.

    6. You are probably a person who benefitted from strong progressive ideas, but now for some reason you feel the urge to condemn these same ideas converted to policies that helped you. No one is successful based on his or her abilities alone; we are all helped by other people or by some governmental action - something Republicans tend to forget.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 10/11/2005 @ 9:51pm

59. ARONSCOTT, I really feel sorry for you if those are your original thoughts. Hopefully it's just your summary of what you hear on right-wing radio.

    What is this idea of "driving a wedge" in the gulf between minimum wage jobs and CEO compensation? A wedge is used to separate things, but those are already pretty well separated.

    Your idea that high executive compensation creates jobs is idiotic. It subtracts from company capital, which is where the jobs come from.

    And there's this little thing called inflation that slowly turns a person whose income is not growing into a 'have not'.

    You are basically saying that the poor should be happy. In a society that is animated by the desire to become rich! And then you conclude that Democrats/The Nation/liberals want the poor to stay that way. Apparently so they can never get elected to anything. The lack of logic here is truly astonishing.

    But why listen to me, I'm just some damned intellectual. Enjoy whatever it is you're listening too.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 10/11/2005 @ 10:13pm

60. ORAIBI1952

    Great rebuttal. About the vast separation between the wealthiest elite and the rest of us: wealth is a form of power. All citizens can vote, try to persuade their neighbors, write their congressmen, and organize others. A wealthy indiviudal has these powers and more: they can shape elections through large donations to parties, candidates, and advocacy organizations, and lobbying groups. While all individuals shape the economy, the wealthy individual has far more influence. His purchases and investments disproportionately effect what companies, industries, and geographic regions flourish, and which whither off. The concentration of wealth into the hands of a few is also a concentration of power to shape the lives of the rest of us, and it is relevant to ALL of us.

    Posted by 9patch at 10/11/2005 @ 10:26pm

61. What does "working class" mean, exactly, in twenty-first century America? Could someone tell me whether the following are members of the "working class" as VDH (van den Heuvel, not Hanson), Franks and Bartels define it:

    -- a self-employed contractor in a north Dallas exurb who dropped out of high school, now makes $60,000 per year and owns free and clear a house that's now worth $250,000, with two acres of land, and enjoys listening to Rush each day;

    -- a teacher with a master's living in San Fran or NYC who earns $45,000, rents a one-bedroom apartment for $1800 per month and is $50,000 in debt, and enjoys listening to NPR each morning and evening;

    -- a 20-year UAW member from Grand Blanc or Flint MI who makes $75,000 per year, has a house, a boat, two SUVs and a motorcycle, and pays next to nothing for the best health insurance package in the US, and enjoys listening to his iPod all day.

    From the above, a few conclusions leap out to my mind:

    1) the Democrats today have only the faintest idea as to what animates the thought and behavior of that majority of voters who consider themselves neither rich nor poor, neither "working" nor "middle" class;

    2) until the Democrats' intellectual leadership defines the term "working class" with some clarity and coherence, this conversation will continue to lead nowhere and our party will continue to founder and fiddle;

    3) probably the best way, and perhaps the only way, to unite the little-guy contractors, the teachers and the labor elites is to focus on three overwhelming sources of insecurity in American life: --insecurity of access to affordable and high quality health insurance; --insecurity of pensions and ability to retire; and of course --insecurity arising from terrorism, porous borders, dependence on foreign capital and epidemics.

    Yes, most Americans are very vulnerable. No, these same Americans do not view themselves as victims or children seeking to throw themselves on the mercy of the state. And I would argue that at the end of the day, the "moral issues" aren't all that important, either. The grand pissfest over a SCOTUS abortion decision that no one will touch and an affirmative action consensus that no corporate or political leader wants to disturb, is a side show that distracts the political and intellectual classes from the issue of issues in US life today, which is the insecurity alluded to above.

    Get serious about addressing those three sources of insecurity-- and serious means not Hillarycare pipe dreams but *actually delivering* a solution to the health insurance access problem, also treating national security as a legitimate and core, indeed threshold, voter concern that must be addressed first if anyone is to listen to us-- and we just might put together a lasting majority.

    Posted by thibaud at 10/11/2005 @ 10:50pm

62. by convincing Kansans and blue-collar, working-class people to vote against their own economic interests in order to defend traditional cultural values against bicoastal elites "isn't actually happening--at least, not in anything like the way Frank portrays."

    Katrina, I have the same problem with this that I did when Gregg Easterbrook's wrote something similar in The New Republic: While technically, yes, low- to -middle-income Americans who vote for Bush are not voting in their economic best interests, I beg to differ that they accept that they're indeed doing just that. Seriously, go up to some white welfare couple in, say, Nocona, Texas, who are collecting social services for their kid who they couldn't afford to have (these are the same people, of course, who hypocritically deride "those n*ggers for living on welfare), or some elderly lady in Thackerville, Oklahoma who's collecting food stamps, and they'll never admit that Bush doesn't have their economic interests at heart. Hell, these are the same kind of people who despise the blacks in their own country, yet they try to put on an altruistic air about "liberating" the Iraqi people just so to fall in line with the Bush administration's spreading-freedom load of bull.

    This is why Bush, who'd previously averred before he became president that he didn't favor a gay-marriage amendment because he didn't want to discriminate against gays, flip-floppingly pushes this amendment and says God a lot: to appease these kinds of people into voting his way -- blinding them with bigotry and see-through Bible talk to draw attention away from the fact that he innately cares about nothing more than that top 1%.

    And if you think that's off-the-wall, consider the administration's push for banning affirmative action at universities: they have a problem with race playing a factor yet not a problem with rich boys like himself earning extra points for being the son and grandson of an alumni. (There's also the hypocrisy of opposing affirmative action on meritocracy grounds yet seeing no problem with cronyism in their picks by the likes of FEMA's Michael Brown and their recent Supreme Court pick.)

    Bottom line: If these people knew for absolute sure that voting for Bush would mean no more welfare for their kid or no more food stamps for 'ol granny, they'd pull the lever for the other candidate in a nanosecond. In the meantime, they choose to ignore inconvenient facts -- in addition to Bush not having their economic interests at heart but also their lying about the Iraq war.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 10/11/2005 @ 10:53pm

63. I said:

    The Democratic party and the liberal mainstream media are trying to drive a wedge between the worker making $25-50K/year and the CEO making $5 million/year by targeting the weakness of the human psyche. With sick perverse pleasure, they are fanning the flames of envy and jealousy in society.

    You responded:

    What is this idea of "driving a wedge" in the gulf between minimum wage jobs and CEO compensation? A wedge is used to separate things, but those are already pretty well separated.

    Rather remedial reading comprehension for a self-professed intellectual.

    An adult working full-time, earning minimum wage, grosses $10,816 annually. That individual's opportunity for advancement and outlook on life is in stark contrast to both the worker who earns $25-50K and the CEO who earns $5 million.

    It is factually true that those happiest in our society are the middle class; not the poor who live without peace of mind or the meeting of basic needs, nor the rich who bear an increased burden of responsibility with the accumulation of wealth.

    You said:

    Your idea that high executive compensation creates jobs is idiotic. It subtracts from company capital, which is where the jobs come from.

    The vast majority of those earning over $200,000 in America are small business owners like myself who attain success by re-investing profits back into our companies; not Fortune 500 CEO's.

    Posted by aronscott at 10/11/2005 @ 10:55pm

64. Kevin,

    You are wrong on the affirmative action issue. The Bushies do believe in affirmative action; affirmative action for the wealthy white friends of his economic class.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 10/11/2005 @ 11:00pm

65. Rio Bravo wrote:

    Better yet, why do liberals and social democrats oppose all the tax cuts the hated Bush republicans gave poor tax payers like me and my wife?

    Probably because, genius, that the money for these deficit-contributing tax cuts don't just fall out of the sky -- they get borrowed from foreign banks (like China) who in turn hold one hell of an IOU over this country's head. And these IOUs will have to be paid by our kids and grandkids for many years to come. How moral, huh, to pass on this massive debt to our future generations (which, of course, contradicts Bush's bald-faced-lie claim that we wouldn't pass on debt to them)? Then again, moral people don't ignore lies connected with a war that's killing and maiming people in Iraq by the tens of thousands, yes?

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 10/11/2005 @ 11:03pm

66. In the absence of a consensus as to what "working class" means, let me propose a very clear, easily-defined demographic target as a starting point for our strategic thinking and policy formulation: military families, and their neighbors, in places like San Antonio TX: not hardscrabble poor but not wealthy or terribly comfortable; generally accepting of a strong government role but not tied to urban political machines or municipal public-sector unions; racially diverse and patriotic optimists.

    Oh, one other minor point: has it occurred to Franks et al that the fastest-growing, most important swing voter group in the fastest-growing swing states (AZ, CO, NM, NV; not to mention CA, TX and FL) is HISPANICS, and that this demographic is deeply attached to the military? Somehow I suspect that if our party's ranks were dominated by people with 10 years or more of military experience-- as opposed to trust-funders, academics and Andy Stern types-- we'd have long ago cemented our status as majority party.

    Posted by thibaud at 10/11/2005 @ 11:07pm

67. "As long as all American citizens have a fair opportunity to meet life's basic needs of food and shelter, there's no basis by which government should interfere in our free market economy."

    Fair opportunity for the most basic needs? This is what the American dream has come to? So if I got myself a nice place in a homeless shelter sponsored by a private foundation you would check me off as another successful American citizen? Since it is the government who has established our free market economy (and this establishment is the stuff of another debate), shouldn't the government have an interest in at least providing its citizens the means to participate actively in this free market?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/11/2005 @ 11:15pm

68. Kevin Collins' misguided comment about a war that's killing and maiming people in Iraq by the tens of thousands illustrates my point about the need to get some understanding of the view of the world from the military's perspective. Our soldiers in Iraq know well that this is a progressives' war against a fascistic death cult and assorted gangsters who bear responsibility for the vast majority of deaths in Iraq-- ie those teachers, trade unionists, doctors, patients, policemen etc whom they target for mass slaughter virtually every day. This is why the soldiers are vastly in favor of the war, and why our party is simply not taken seriously on national security measures. To blame the UNited States for the slaughter of the innocents occurring now in Iraq is an act of moral blindness that one expects from 1968er European leftists, not from the American party of the working man. Get closer to working men and women. Get closer to the military. It'll do wonders for your moral bearings.

    Posted by thibaud at 10/11/2005 @ 11:15pm

69. DSCOTT,

    Thanks for your post. It is a good example of why we cannot depend on the Democrats to find solutions to any problems. We need to feed the solutions to them, poor hapless group that they are. They are good little followers for the most part, but left to their own devices...

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/11/2005 @ 11:18pm

70. HISPANICS, and that this demographic is deeply attached to the military

    Really? What are you witnessing that I've not heard of? I live among people of Cuban, Puerto Rican, Mexican, and various South American heritages. I've not witnessed an attachment among them that is as close to that of the high school educated, white males I know.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/11/2005 @ 11:22pm

71. TJBehrens-- practically every other mexican family here in Texas has a male relative who's serving in the military. Walk into a southwestern hispanic family's house and there's a good chance you'll see at least one framed portrait of a marine family member. It's a point of tremendous pride in that community. And keep in mind that hispanics' very rapidly growing share of the population (already 14%, will probably be >25% by 2020) is overwhelmingly due to Mexican, not Cuban, PR, Dominican or other latin immigrants.

    For a little color on same I'd direct you to recent NYT article on San Antonio's military culture: http://tinyurl.com/7jovd

    Posted by thibaud at 10/11/2005 @ 11:30pm

72. TJ - here are the hard numbers, from a 2001 Pew study combining DoD and Census data.

    Hispanics' proportion of the eligible military pool, ie 18-44 year olds with either a HS degree or a GED: 9.8% (7.4M out of 77.8M)

    Hispanics' proportion of active-duty US marines: 14%

    In other words, hispanics are over-represented in the US marines by more than 40%. As anyone who's spent any length of time in El Paso or San Antonio or Albuquerque or Phoenix will attest.

    Posted by thibaud at 10/11/2005 @ 11:49pm

73. Wow, some very thought-provoking posts on this thread, as well as some flaming. It has been very intriguing! Thanks everyone for the raucus debate.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/12/2005 @ 01:28am

74. TJBEHRENS1 wrote:

    Fair opportunity for the most basic needs? This is what the American dream has come to? So if I got myself a nice place in a homeless shelter sponsored by a private foundation you would check me off as another successful American citizen? Since it is the government who has established our free market economy (and this establishment is the stuff of another debate), shouldn't the government have an interest in at least providing its citizens the means to participate actively in this free market?

    The American dream is one of opportunity and the pursuit of happiness. No guarantees, no equality of outcome. The challenge, the chance to succeed...and conversely, the chance to fail.

    When I wrote:

    As long as all American citizens have a fair opportunity to meet life's basic needs of food and shelter, there's no basis by which government should interfere in our free market economy.

    I would expect the reader to understand that I am referring to the opportunity for all Americans to find gainful employment; earn enough money to be sufficiently nourished, adequately clothed, and living in a safe dwelling, without government assistance or private charity. Your default presumption that one is not to be self-reliant, absent serious physical or mental disabilities, reveals a fundamental divide in our expectations and responsibilities of We, the People, and government.

    The implementation of standards and accountability as required by the No Child Left Behind Act is a positive step toward ensuring all American citizens will reach adulthood with the necessary education and foundation to participate actively in the free market.

    Posted by aronscott at 10/12/2005 @ 01:48am

75. ILP - Heisenberg would have enjoyed this thread.

    Posted by thibaud at 10/12/2005 @ 01:48am

76. Kevin Collins, I'm curious to know the source of your extraordinary bitterness toward working class Americans in Texas and Oklahoma:

    go up to some white welfare couple in, say, Nocona, Texas, who are collecting social services for their kid who they couldn't afford to have (these are the same people, of course, who hypocritically deride "those n*ggers for living on welfare), or some elderly lady in Thackerville, Oklahoma who's collecting food stamps, and they'll never admit that Bush doesn't have their economic interests at heart. Hell, these are the same kind of people who despise the blacks in their own country, yet they try to put on an altruistic air about "liberating" the Iraqi people just so to fall in line with the Bush administration's spreading-freedom load of bull

    It's pretty clear that you've never been to Afghanistan or Iraq, which are now, thanks to the US military and the progressive wars we've waged over there, setting up popular governments that are far more representative, free and democratic than any in the middle east save Israel's.

    But have you been to Nocona or Thackerville? I've no doubt that one can find a white racist couple or granny or even several in those towns, but how representative are they? As to your sneers at your mythical Moconan or Thackervillian's economic condition, I did a quick housing search-- you should know that people out here are very keen on homeownership, regardless of their income-- and found this not-so-little house for $225k on a lakefront in Nocona that is well within the reach of any household with a combined income of $30,000 per year (a fixed 30-yr mortgage on this would be less than $1,000 per month): http://tinyurl.com/chqdq

    This Nocona TX house, btw, was built in 2000, is 2,600 sq feet, and comes with 2.16 acres. A welfare couple couldn't afford this mortgage, but a Walmart supervisor and a part-time day care aide could. In fact, given that the 2000 census indicated Nocona's median household income to be $28,893, and that incomes have probably risen by ca. 15% since then, it's now the case in 2005 that slightly more than 50% of Nocona households could afford this 2,600 sq ft, 2-acre newly built house whose equivalent in one of the coastal blue states would cost a million dolllars or more.

    This little factual example suggests how many of your "working class" people in Texas and other red states actually live today. In three words, pretty damn well.

    Do you have some facts and insight to add to this debate, or just spleen and hatred of working people?

    Posted by thibaud at 10/12/2005 @ 02:42am

77. I find it fascinating to note the hatred shown by supposed "progressives" for working people who actually own houses, support the military, are proud of their country generally, not least when it goes to war to destroy vicious fascist regimes.

    What on earth happened to our party to give us so many sneering haters who side with fascists abroad and rally against mythic images of red-state white working men and women as racist crackers?

    The trouble's not with Kansas, or Oklahoma or Texas or any other red state. The trouble's within ourselves and the creepy little reactionaries who lay false claim to the mantle of progressivism.

    Posted by thibaud at 10/12/2005 @ 02:51am

78. Posted by THIBAUD 10/11/2005 @ 11:15pm | ignore this person

    Thibaud's position is basically one dimensional and patronizing. He chastises as "moral blindness" the blaming of innocent deaths on US presents in Iraq and attempts to redefine "the working man."

    While asserting that our soldiers favor the invasion of Iraq because they see the war as opposing "a fascistic death cult," he fails to recognize that there are soldiers serving in theatre who oppose the war – the Pat Tillman-type military point of view. Granted MSM news reporting of contrary opinions among the troops over there is sparse; we learn of it mostly from returning soldiers and marines. Some join vets against the war-type organizations, some even run for congress.

    The linkage of innocents slaughtered in Iraq with groups progressives recognize as part of our constituency here, e.g., teachers, trade unionists, etc, seems to be a patronizing effort to lasso support for his proposition that America is without culpability in their deaths. Let us concede that innocent Iraqis are killed, but due to a paucity of news coverage of civilian deaths, it is very difficult to ascertain their occupations or even their number. Johns Hopkins University has produced some work to at least quantify these hapless souls.

    Lastly, Thibaud's exhortation to support our troops associates the soldier with the new "working man." He provides a Southwestern perspective based upon the growing Hispanic demographics in that region and their apparent disproportional representation in our armed forces. While most can agree we should better understand military families, it would be a leap to conclude that therein lays the key to union rapprochement

    Posted by seattlescribe at 10/12/2005 @ 03:12am

79. Scribe,

    Reasonable people can disagree as to the pragmatic, or realpolitik, case for this war. In fact, leftist critics of this war often parrot Henry Kissinger, with all sorts of talk about "stability" in th region. (Or Pat Buchanan, and his neo-Coughlinist isolationism).

    Regardless of one's views as to the realpolitik case for or against this war, the deep and strong support of a large majority of our soldiers for it is a fact.

    As is the over-representation of hispanics by >40%, in the all-volunteer marines.

    As is the deliberate, targeted slaughter of innocents in Iraq by a ragtag band of jihadist death cultists, ba'athist fascists, and ordinary gangsters, none of whom has anything like an even remotely progressive, let alone realistic or rational, political platform to offer the people of Iraq-- only slaughter and chaos. To paraphrase the totalitarian O'Brien in "1984", for these fascists and gangsters the purpose of killing is killing.

    There's no greater evidence of the vast disconnect between our party and working Americans than in the contempt for the military expressed by so many of our activists. Until respect and insight replace that contempt, there is no chance of our party ever attaining majority status.

    Posted by thibaud at 10/12/2005 @ 03:26am

80. In response to the first posts....

    All of this discussion against the "New Democrats" is moot. One of them IS going to be the 2008 nominee (mostly like HRC) and that's that.

    Why? Simple. In 40 years, no "liberal" has won. Period. These politicians are pragmatic and from Hillary to Biden to Richardson to Edwards, they all know that it STILL doesn't "pay off" to be a McGovern or Mondale or Dukakis....but it does...to be a "Bill".

    My guess is if the 2006 midterms go anything less than "spectacular", Dean and the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" get the "blame" and a push "emerges" to replace him with a Harold Ickes or other former Clintonite....as a prelude to a run by Hillary.

    As far as "The Nation's'" support goes...they'll fall in lock-step, just as the "National Review" or "The Weekly Standard" would if the GOP nominates someone "less than pure" on the ideology.

    Posted by Mask at 10/12/2005 @ 06:51am

81. There is nothing wrong with social ideas, as there is nothing wrong with conservative ideas, the problem is when both engage into a partisan centered activity and not into a citizen centered activity. It is very clear that only a solid and dynamic conservative-like (but socially friendly) economy can create the wealth necessary to engage in (economic friendly) community solidarity. It is a matter of balance, and not of extremes, so far we are more inclined to the extremist (and simplistic) arguments of lefty or neo-con dreams or spin, than to the more complex personal homework of understanding diversity and managing complexities. The way it is now, not the Dems nor the Reps are providing added value to our Nation.

    Posted by areyouok at 10/12/2005 @ 07:18am

82. MASK,

    Clearly you don't read The Nation in election years. Either that or you don't read very well. There was no lockstep support of Kerry or Gore. If there had been, most of us subscribers would have ended our subscriptions.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/12/2005 @ 07:51am

83. Seattle

    The Johns Hopkins study you often cite, has been discredited by its methodology. You should stop using it to support the erroneaus casualty numbers for Iraqis. They took a survey of a nieghborhood that was bombed, before then after the war. They used that to project casualty rates for the whole. Completely inaccurate.

    THIBAUD

    I hear you brother, you seem to be a mainstream Dem, but you are rather new to these threads. Brother you make some good points, but it will fall on deaf ears here. Many here are on the fringe with unsympathetic sentiments for those in the military, unless it serves their purpose. Many here do not care about those in the military for the reasons you stated. We are the problem or the pawn of the oppressor and down deep many here hate us or pity us in condecending way. They see us as people who cannot adjust or "make it" in the real world, and join the military to satisfy some sadists desire. Or merely those unable to think, whatever their reason, while there are a few here who are sympathetic. They do not understand military culture nor do they want to, so I appreciate your comments, and suggest you try to spread that message, some DEMS, will agree. But make no mistake, the BASE of the DEM party is fastly becoming this fringe.

    Posted by CPT at 10/12/2005 @ 07:57am

84. ARONSCOTT,

    I understood what you meant. If you believe that such an opportunity exists now, then we simply disagree.

    THIBAUD,

    Thank you for the numbers related to Hispanics and the Marines. I could have looked it up and saved you the trouble--I was surprised.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/12/2005 @ 08:01am

85. CPT,

    Buck up! The Republicans are in charge! Therefore we can expect a rise in VA spending. And well-equipped soldiers, a lot of them, going into hostile areas--so many well-equipped, well-trained soldiers that victory is assured and complete. And we won't allow private security forces making obscene amounts of money to go in there and rub the soldiers' faces in their poorly paid, dangerous situations. And we won't keep the soldiers in harm's way any longer than we tell you when you go.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/12/2005 @ 08:29am

86. TJB

    Been in 13 years, I recieved 2 pay raises with Clinton, 4 with Bush and another coming.

    VA spending? It is more complicated than that, though I can see why you say that, they close a VA hopsital in one area, and everyone screams, "They do not care about vets!?!" but no one tells you that that hospital serviced a small number of vets, when there was a military base about 25 miles away, which happens alot, but you guys mislead and scream, "See they dont care about vets"

    Private security guards?? almost all are ex-military, getting paid more? Hey bud you do not join the military to get rich, EVERYONE in, understands that. If you money is all you want, you get out.

    Well equipped?? We are actually, how long are going to beat that drum, anyone in the army more than a day knows about the supply system, talk to the logisticans. But no, blame the REPS for a system that has been in place for decades.

    Posted by CPT at 10/12/2005 @ 08:48am

87. we can expect a rise in VA spending. And well-equipped soldiers, a lot of them, going into hostile areas--so many well-equipped, well-trained soldiers that victory is assured and complete

    Agree with all of the above. Why don't the Dems make these crucial planks of the party's platform? Will the Nation support them?

    Folks, working class culture in the US overlaps mightily with the pro-military culture of the red states. That's a good thing: values of loyalty, duty, camaraderie, racial comity, advancement on merit, and social solidarity are all found to a far greater degree in the US military today than in any other social institution in our country.

    Truly understand and support the soldiers and their families, and we will start winning national elections again.

    Posted by thibaud at 10/12/2005 @ 08:52am

88. The discussion concerning supporting our soldiers or not is a waste of time. Nobody, as far as I know would not support our soldiers, the point is that some people do not support this war and want to get the soldiers out of it. These people feel that the "war" agaisnt terrorism has not been able to deliver the criminals behind 9/11 (smoke' em out - GWB), we now are involved in a war which has been created with lies and economic interests, and worse, with a very high economic and human cost. The human cost cannot be recovered, and as far as the funds are concerned it remains unclear. Only imagine that with that same amount of lost billions we could have implemented Medicare, or upgraded all our infrastructures, and so on. Time wasted, money wasted. As you see, it has nothing to do with supporting the soldiers.

    Posted by areyouok at 10/12/2005 @ 09:15am

89. Today's new ideas:

    ON IRAQ: Map out withdrawal based on training goals. Set time references for the time those training goals would be complete under your administration.

    ON FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY: Be a leader about admitting that we need to match spending with tax revenue.

    ON HOMELAND SECURITY/ DOMESTIC & INTERNATIONAL DISASTER RELIEF: Create a non-military equivalent of the 82nd airborne. About 1,000 - 2,000 highly trained and highly equipped men and women ready to be deployed anywhere with cargo planes helicopter / medical and food relief within 24 hours. Can you imagine how much easier our decades of struggle against terrorism and the breeding thereof that is going on constantly would be if we really had a significant and helpful presence in Pakistan right now? Would it have helped in New Orleans?

    ON TAX BURDEN DISTRIBUTION: Federal taxes have to come from somewhere. What more progressive place to raise taxes than a fifty cent per gallon federal tax on gasoline accompanied by a "gas tax rebate" of $500 for an indivual filer making less than $50K and $1000 for a couple making less than $80K. Total taxation would not increase but more wasteful citizens would pay more and less wasteful citizens would pay less.

    Posted by colmes at 10/12/2005 @ 11:11am

90. As long as the "boobeosie" of the non mega-wealthy groups of the country are bombarded by subtle, filtered, neo-con propaganda (otherwise known as the mainstream media news) and simultaneously metaphorically lobotomized by pop cultural triviality and its cult of stupidity, as long as the democratic party continues to operate and behave as if it is the shadow wing of the rebublican party, rebublicans will win over middle class voters.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/12/2005 @ 11:51am

91. Zero,

    I am probably as bitter as you are about the lies and hipocrisy and the constantly changing reason that we got there or are staying there. On the other hand I'm only 36 and I have that helicopter image leaving the roof of the US embassy in Saigon seared into my head. Every politician in this country knows if they are the President and we have that image repeated they will not be the President for very long.

    The reason du jour for us not exiting is "waiting for Iraqi troops to be trained". Very well. Then lets pin that down and stop the reason changing right here. Once they are trained I don't want this slippery group of lying snakes to move the goalposts again and I don't think it should take more than six months to complete that objective if we were really serious.

    Granted, you and I both feel that Iraq will slip into civil war within the next three years, but that will happen whether we are there or not. Reason for civil war is not this crap about Sunni / Shiite / Kurd as a religious thing the reason is that the oil is in the North and the South. The middle (the Sunni area) has no access to oil and they are landlocked....but they do control the water (rivers) that the South depends on. Water V oil that is what the war is going to be about.

    Posted by colmes at 10/12/2005 @ 11:59am

92. I mostly read but occasionally post a remark. I only occasionally write since I do consider myself working class and not of particular great intellect.(I earn about $60,000, have a B.A. degree and work for the government.) I work in various assistance/employment programs and have been doing this for nearly 20 years. I am "maxed out" and only receive yearly COLA'S. I have children(2), a wife who immigrated to the U.S. from El Salvador about 7 years ago, and child support to pay. My wife works but does not earn much (office worker in El Salvador but working in food services here in the States.) She works about 50 hours per week and takes home maybe $20,000 per year. How could I not be anything other than "working class." My point is that many of us struggle to get by. Old views of education/skill levels are not as definable as in years past. What makes me a dissatisfied Democrat? Total dissolutionment in the old arguments. Social program dependency versus free market success stories. To the "working class" it has all become meaningless. Many have simply dropped out and focus just on themselves and their families. In this sense the Republican marketing machine has won. For me the only solution left is to offer all out dissent against the beast. The only issue that is left to focus on is full-throttle over throw of the militaristic mind-set feeding this beast. The beast is the military/industrial complex. It's battle cry is 911. Real investigations are needed. The obviousness of the new "terrorist bogeyman" as a replacement for the cold war is maddening. Some of you moderate Dems can rah rah your military all you want. Your only afraid to look at and confront the truth of what the dynamics of a country feeding on this militarism is all about.

    Posted by wjfalcone at 10/12/2005 @ 12:16pm

93. Colmes' recommendation for a means tested gas tax (or perhaps fossil fuel consumption tax) strikes me as a good one. But I'm a little skeptical as to whether this will raise revenues on the order of magnitude which will be necessary to, among other things, repair the catastrophically eroding domestic infrastrucure (which NOLA gave us a hint of), prepare us for the transition away from fossil fuel energy sources the continuation of which will insure still more catastrophic and probably irreparable environmental damage, repair the dangerously eroded public health system which may very well make our population vulnerable to an epidemic resulting in casualties in the millions etc.

    The solution? A wealth tax-n.b. not an income tax, a wealth tax- on those having accumulated liquid and real assets of more than $50 million.

    I haven't seen studies as to how much this might raise, but it seems likely to approach the high eleven figure range.

    That would be a good start, and it is likely that no one on this board, with the possible exception of KvdH would feel its pinch.

    In any case, tax policy should be central to any progressive party. The Democrats failure to make this a central issue in their campaigns and their complete inability to think outside of the box dictated by Reagan supply side tax cuts (which they signed off on, incidentally) is one of the main reasons why they will continue to lose elections.

    Posted by john.halle at 10/12/2005 @ 12:26pm

94. Zero,

    The Iraqi troops could easily be trained if that was our true objective. I will admit, that it apparently is not our true objective because it would mean the end of the bonanza for KBR / Halliburton. But if we really wanted to train a bunch of Iraqi's how to shoot a gun, run over an obstacle course, read a map and say to their sargeant "I got nowhere else to go" outside soaking wet in a rainstorm with tear in their eyes (ala Richard Gere in "An officer and a Gentlemen") then by golly we COULD do it.

    The reality is we fiddle fuck around at the behest of Halliburton and the cost of the lives and limbs of our men and women in uniform....people should be frog marched to jail for this unpatriotic waste of resources.

    Posted by colmes at 10/12/2005 @ 12:33pm

95. Some facts and figures from Europe:

    On wealth tax: it did not work because the rich sent their capital to tax heavens, it took lots of time to get the money back and invested.

    On oil tax: high tax on oil, with excemptions for house warming, industry and some transport sectors.

    On fuel quality: today 5 percent of the oil sold is biofuel (plant alcohol), in 2020 it will be 35 percent.

    Corporate tax reductions and consumers bonuses for engines consuming little and polluting near to zero.

    Conclusion, there is always a way to increase performance, so I am sure the USA can do better and faster

    Posted by areyouok at 10/12/2005 @ 12:42pm

96. TWO MORE (BUT LESS ORIGINAL) IDEAS

    ON HEALTHCARE: Healthcare SHOULD be a government thing. And before the bleeding hear CONSERVATIVES whine on about how expensive and wasteful it would be....consider this, idiots. Boeing pays for healthcare directly and Airbus doesn't. If you're pro corporate welfare then you should be pro centralized healthcare.....for the sake of our companies! I'm sure we can devise a system how the rich can throw in a few more bucks and get better than basic so don't get all whacky about how long everyone has to wait in Canada.

    ON CRIME: Stop incarcerating people that are not a danger to society. The USA spends over $40B/year on incarcerating people and we incarcerate a higher percentage of our population than any other industrialized nation. If you're caught smoking pot then pick up garbage, clean the mayors car be forced to marry Liza Minelli, but don't spend my tax dollars lounging around in jail! Also, do we really think that most people that do jail time come out and contribute to society? That's too much for me to really waste.

    Posted by colmes at 10/12/2005 @ 12:54pm

97. You're not, you're not, not suggesting, something like, like a a a meritocracy, are you? What would happen to Paris Hilton?! And I hope you don't mean you're going to step in and take my mother's Oldsmobile Alero should she pass on before the car does?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/12/2005 @ 12:59pm

98. As long as we're discussing the intersection of economics, politics, and war ... does anyone know what percentage of our GNP is dedicated to military hardware, personnel, and infrastructure? Not the military budget. The whole economic impact. Because I suspect that the reason we don't bring the troops home is, ironically, because we can't afford to.

    We can't simply de-mobilize. We need to de-militarize. This is where the whole support-the-troops-but-not-the-war thing hits a brick wall. All these guns, soldiers, and bases create an enormous potential energy. And even in the absence of any real enemies, sooner or later politicians will find an outlet for it.

    The problem is, scaling back would look like unilateral disarmament. Which is not going to fly unless a large majority of the public supports it. Perhaps because of the Iraq debacle, this majority exists now.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 10/12/2005 @ 1:00pm

99. Zero,

    I'm with you on the inheritance tax, but I don't think that a gas tax is as unfair to the poor as you do. Much of America's poor are urban poor and rarely if ever drive (New Orleans). The rest of the poor generally don't drive as far to work as higher paid people (no need to go 40 miles for a crappy job when Walmart is around the corner). Both of these sets would generally do better with a $500 rebate and $0.50/gallon taxes than they do now.

    The beauty of the gas tax is that it encourages reurbanization of population rather than our current system (of cheap gas) which encourages more wasteful suburbanization of population.

    Posted by colmes at 10/12/2005 @ 1:14pm

100. I have to say that I'm impressed with the docile nature of our resident conservatives / Kool Aid addicts. I could have sworn that posting a liberal agenda that would undoubtedly help the vast majority of our country at the expense of the monied elite would generate enormously wordy rebuttals from the likes of Rio Bravo, Love Liberty, USAPRIDE, Len Moose, John Maasch et al!

     C'mon guys are you telling us that this would be OK in your America?

     Posted by colmes at 10/12/2005 @ 1:20pm

101. Colmes's last observation brings us back to the beginning of this thread, namely Tom Frank's book, one of the major points of which is that the modern conservative movement should be seen as a kind of opportunistic infection whose presence is mainly accounted for by the repudiation of the Democratic Party of those bread and butter issues which have historically defined it.

     For example, as we have been discussing, a tax system which operates to insure the lifestyles of the Paris Hiltons of the world and their decendents in perpetuity is simply morally indefensible. The various right wing cranks on this board know that they can only defend it by more extravagantly absurd arguments than even they are willing to make. Hence their silence whenever we raise this and the other issues which should be defining progressive politics.

     But the Democrats having chosen to define themselves, in Frank's words, as the party of hip billionaires, signing off, for example, on the Reagan tax cuts in 1986, NAFTA, telecom deregulation, etc. have made it impossible for them to do exactly what we have done here: make them shut up.

     Hence their pattern of defeat which is likely, alas, to continue until, let us hope, they go the way of the Whigs.

     Posted by john.halle at 10/12/2005 @ 2:25pm

102. Why focus only on Kansas? Whether one believes Bartel's Princeton U. study or not we can speculate all day as to how much personal "moral values" shifted the 2004 election to Bush.

     The schism, red versus blue states, was created by the media after the election and has been used by pundits and scholars alike in deciding voters' leanings. The study concluded with "Are religious voters distracted from economic issues? No. The partisan attachments and presidential votes of frequent church-goers and people who say religion provides "a great deal" of guidance in their lives are much more strongly related to their views about economic issues than to their views about social issues. For church-goers as for non-church-goers, partisanship and voting behavior are primarily shaped by economic issues, not cultural issues."

     Well, I have read just the opposite, mainly that the more people who claim to have deep religious faith the more they are most likely to vote Republican, and thus, for G. W. Bush. That includes all the Bible Belt South and most of the Midwest states like Kansas, the Dakotas, Nebraska and Indiana. Other farm belt states also fall into that category. But as far as population, California has almost 37 million people, a diverse cross section of America, which gave John Kerry over one million more votes than Bush. Their "librul" U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, beat out her out-of-step Republican counterpart by over two million votes. In this case, "moral values" played a far less role than economic values and jobs.

     Yet, fifteen states, including most of those in the Bible Belt South excluding Florida and Texas, have a combined total of 36 million people who have thirty U.S. Senators to California's two. According to mainstream media accounts which I include the Washington Post, Newsweek, Time Magazine and the New York Times "moral values" tipped the election to Bush. Kansas, which has lost most of their farming and aircraft industry jobs, clearly is in the "moral values" camp and their religious beliefs like Intelligent Design and Creation Science with their hostility to the teaching of evolution, all dovetail with the dogma of the Religious Right.

     There's nothing wrong with Kansas or the rest of the Bible Belt, tolerance-for-none states. They totally represent the overall Republican Party's enmity toward the individual liberties contained in the U.S. Constitution. That's part of the entire debate surrounding the nomination of Harriet Miers and exactly why James Dobson's Focus on the Family received assurances from Karl Rove that Miers WILL vote to overturn Roe v Wade.

     Maybe Kansas Republican Senator Brownback, a possible presidential candidate in 2008, should come right out and admit that's what he wants too -- a theocracy which tolerates no other beliefs except strict Bible literalists.

     Of course, that means repealing the First Amendment, the Religous Right's biggest obstacle and an impediment that will be removed once Miers joins Roberts and the rest of the Bush Star Chamber of judges who are pledged to bend to their demands.

     Posted by richard38 at 10/12/2005 @ 3:02pm

103. Thibaud,

     To blame the UNited States for the slaughter of the innocents occurring now in Iraq is an act of moral blindness that one expects from 1968er European leftists, not from the American party of the working man.

     Uh, I was also referring to the tens of thousands of our troops over there in a lie-based war. And, yes, the U.S. is responsible for the killing of thousands of innocent Iraqis -- again, due to a lie-based war. And where was all this "liberating the Iraqi people" altruism from Republicans before Bush & Co. unleashed the illegal, unnecessary war? It wasn't there; it's only there -- and unconvincingly, at that -- because that's the position Bushies are forced to take to defend their little boy king.

     And, yes, I have been to both Nocona and Thackerville. And you missed my point: that there are low-income people in these places and others who vote for Bush who are hypocrites in that they decry welfare yet collect it themselves, and that they refuse to accept that Bush doesn't have their best economic interests at heart. (Of course, this hypocrisy is also evident in other Bushies who decry Democrats for not being fiscally responsible when under Bush the U.S. has record deficits and non-defense federal spending has increased 36% and hasn't vetoed a single spending bill.)

     Thanks for tryin', though.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 10/12/2005 @ 3:24pm

104. MyParadigm-

     If you want to consider the "whole military impact" you might start with the medium that's enabling you and me to communicate here, the basis for which was created by DARPA. Most of this nation's advanced information technology has roots in military research of one kind or another. Ditto for civilian aviation technology.

     As to the tinfoil posters' left equivalent of the rightwingers' "black helicopter" paranoia (like, hALLiBurTOn, dUde!!!), please try to educate yourself. Go read the soldiers' own blogs: there are hundreds of them, and many are far better written and more insightful than what you'll read or hear in any mainstream media outlet. In general you'll get a vastly richer, more accurate and more positive picture than the snapshot of a caricature of a tiny percentage of the theatre that is the journalists' coverage of the struggle.

     It may be true that a majority of Americans now opposes our engagement in Iraq, thanks in no small measure to the distorted and slanted, not to mention in many cases false, picture of reality provided by the war's journalistic opponents. So what? Do you think anyone aside from David Duke and Buchanan and their lumpen will rally to your tinfoil conspiracy banner? As with abortion, secularism and the rest of the progressive agenda, doesn't it make more sense to stick with what is right-- in this case, opposing fascism with every weapon in our arsenal-- and educate the people rather than pandering to them and repeating the horssesh*t that passes for mainstream news reporting?

     Posted by thibaud at 10/12/2005 @ 3:34pm

105. If one were to believe Thibaud you would wonder how we all got such a false picture of Iraq's ongoing violence and instability. Start with May 2003 when Bush landed on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln and declared major hostilities had ended in Iraq under the banner "Mission Accomplished." Then, Bush was riding high in the polls and the only bad guys left, according to Donald Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith and Cheney, were the "Saddam dead-enders." Now, of course, Saddam Hussein has been in jail for almost two years getting better health care and other basic needs than 39 million Americans who are living in poverty, 11 million of them children. Added to these Pollyanna "good things" we're doing in Iraq over the last two years since the "end of major hostilities" are the thousands of Iraqis who have died and an additional 1,700 U.S. military who have come home in body bags and the 15,000 American soldiers wounded, about half with permanent disabilities.

     While the Bush War Forever cheerleaders keep "catapulting the propaganda" they are dismayed that any would question or criticize Bush's nation-building of a country which he now owns and which the taxpayers are shelling out $5.6 billion per month to pay for. More "good things" were just reported by that nasty old "librul" general Casey who testified in front of congress last week that instead of three battalions of Iraqis ready to defend themselves, it is in reality only one. Gosh, all this "good news" surely must mean Bush's poll numbers should be much higher. Wonder why they're not? Must be those naysaying liberals making Bush look bad. Poor Bush!

     Posted by richard38 at 10/12/2005 @ 4:17pm

106. Rio Bravo,

     As usual, you write nothing but crap:

     Many here do not care about those in the military for the reasons you stated

     Hmmm, well let's see who cares more about our soliders: the ones who are outraged over their lives having unnecessarily put in harm's way due to Bush & Co.'s lies-based war which has turned Iraq into both a breeding ground and haven for terrorists when it wasn't before; or the ones who stick their heads in the sand and blindly ignore those lies with deficit-contributing tax cuts and bigoted policy agendas clouding their consciences? Pretty clear-cut, no? Of course, Rio Bravo has to ignore the chickenhawks in the Bush administration who got out of going to Vietnam; people like him berated Clinton for it yet hypocritically turn a willing blind eye to the Bushies doing it.

     Toe-the-line Bushies can't defend the illegal, unnecessary war going on in Iraq, so they try to throw this those-who-protest-the-war-don't-support-our-soldiers crapola when it's those protesting who want the administration helkd accountable for those who've been killed and maimed and want our troops back home so no more or killed and maimed, while they -- with those tax cuts and gay-marriage-amendment proposals floating in their heads -- choose to ignore the administration's malfesance while sticking a Support the Troops ribbon on their vehicle in the lame-o hope that this equates into "support" -- and they're fooling nobody.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 10/12/2005 @ 4:54pm

107. TJBEHRENS....late response, sorry.

     By "lock-step" for "The Nation" in 2008....I mean their usual "Well, **** isn't that great, but what choice do we have....but once they're in office, we'll hold his/her feet to the fire" response.

     AND, with Ginsburg's and Stevens' seats possibly going up for grabs after 2008....it'll be a LOT more concillatory to any D.L.C. nominee!

     Posted by Mask at 10/12/2005 @ 5:01pm

108. Thank you Thibaud for reminding us of what the Left used to be. This post-New Left crowd is infected with pacifism and fascism; not the Left of Woody Guthrie, Ernest Hemingway, or even the Che whose image they love to wear on their T-shirts. Woody Guthrie's sign on his guitar "THIS MACHINE KILLS FASCISTS" is a long way from Bruce and the Dixie Chicks. For some more sensible progressive ideas (which you won't see from the millionaire writers at "The Nation") please see Sasha Abramsky's article "Our Al Qaeda Problem" at progressive.org.

     Posted by RonS at 10/12/2005 @ 5:02pm

109. I'm honestly thinking we should consider splitting up the country, the blue states joining canada, the red states left to pursue their arrogant, theocratic, ayn rand, nihilism, which is especially galling and hypocritical considering the fact that the red states, who are most likely to complain about "welfare" when applied to their own peeps, are the recipients of massive large scale wealth redistribution from the wealthier (and more "liberal") blue states. "Liberals" in redland can move north and far westward and conservatives can pack up and go south. Dont worry about the cold, since global warming will make the climate better up north anyway.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/12/2005 @ 5:18pm

110. "facing a world in which the rich no longer had an idea that, across a few generations, their accreted wealth was permanent."

     I think yuou will be surprised at the low number of millionares who inherited their waelth compared to who has made it each generation..

     Also, gas tax? 1/3 of price is tax as it is. Want to help the "poor" on energy? DROP ALL ENERGY TAXES. I guarentee HUGE losses at the polls if you come out for any gas tax.

     Posted by john maasch at 10/12/2005 @ 5:19pm

111. Before adding the current crop of rightist loons to the ignore file, it is worth pointing out a crucial similarity which they share with dred-locked campus activists who they claim as their betes noir. Both are obsessed with "solidarity" with "the people" of some foreign country, for the right wing cranks, it is "the people of Iraq" for some annoying sociology student it is "the people of El Salvador" or "the Palestinian people."

     Neither is worth one more bullet, let alone the one trillion dollars which will likely be thrown down the Halliburton rat hole before we get our asses whipped in land of two rivers.

     Posted by john.halle at 10/12/2005 @ 5:19pm

112. What on earth happened to our party to give us so many sneering haters who side with fascists abroad and rally against mythic images of red-state white working men and women as racist crackers?

     Posted by THIBAUD 10/12/2005 @ 02:51am

     Uh, whatever happened to not misrepresenting what is being said? I have never once heard anyone on the Left, Democrat or otherwise, side with fascists abroad. Why do people keep saying it? And why do people like CPT continue to say "good point" when someone says it?

     Is it the fault of the schools? In other words, are people not learning reading comprehension? Are people not learning logic? Is TV to blame? I'm being serious! I want an explanation.

     As for the "racist crackers" part of your post, I grew up in a red state (as far as presidential elections go) and I can assure you there were many many many racist redneck crackers. I knew lots of them personally, sad to say... They all had jobs. No myth about it - it was real life, every day. That's not to say that everyone was a hardworking racist in my home state, but they were a significant portion of the population, and I'd bet things haven't changed since last I was there.

     It has nothing to do with me being a "sneering hater." I'm not. But I'm not blind to the world around me, either.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/12/2005 @ 5:20pm

113. Also, gas tax? 1/3 of price is tax as it is. Want to help the "poor" on energy? DROP ALL ENERGY TAXES. I guarentee HUGE losses at the polls if you come out for any gas tax.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/12/2005 @ 5:19pm

     I think that number might be a little high... Federal gasoline tax is 18.4 cents/gal. The average state tax is 42 cents/gal.

     The total works out to about 1/5 the price, or a little less, depending on hurricanes.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/12/2005 @ 5:25pm

114. Blue staes to Canada? What do you do with "red" provinces that would become part of the US(Western Canada is conservative and that is where the wealth is)and take their $ with them?

     Remember, in the last election it is more of a blue county than state. LA,SF,CHICAGO,NY ,DC...look at the county color map and it looks bleak from liberal point of view. Quebec is liberal and a few eastern provinces, but the rest of Canada would probably join the red states here.

     Posted by john maasch at 10/12/2005 @ 5:25pm

115. JOHN, Do you really think so? I don't think those Canadians want to pay for W's war in Iraq. They are very much opposed to it.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/12/2005 @ 5:31pm

116. RichardB laments "Iraq's ongoing violence and instability." There's that funny little Kissinger word again. Why is "stability" suddenly worshiped by the left? What next, left arguments for balance of power? benign imperialism? Or maybe... a lumpen, ass-backward slide into America First isolationism???

     John.Halle hisses at the concept of " 'solidarity' with 'the people' of some foreign country. Neither is worth one more bullet..."

     Aside from the banal fatuousness of the above, note the eerie, (perhaps subconscious?) paraphrasing of two famous expressions from, first, the uber-appeaser Chamberlain and, second, the uber-realpolitiker Bismarck. Chamberlain tut-tutted those who objected to the last century's fascist devouring of Czechoslovakia, "a faraway country and people about whom we know nothing." Bismarck sneered that the Balkans were not "worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier."

     When progressives start aping Chamberlain and Bismarck in one post, you know our party's activists have lost their bearings. Father Coughlin would be proud. As would Pat Buchanan, the latest poster child for the formerly-progressive, neo-reactionary left.

     Posted by thibaud at 10/12/2005 @ 5:33pm

117. JOHN:

     Adjust your color map for population - not quite as bleak for the Left.

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/12/2005 @ 5:35pm

118. Leftists siding with fascists abroad -- George Galloway is one of them, cheered on by a Left wing crowd at his recent debate with Christopher Hitchens; Micheal Moore is another.

     Posted by RonS at 10/12/2005 @ 5:43pm

119. RONS, just because you say so doesn't make it so. Give me a source, with a debate transcript or a quote. I expect to see that you are misrepresenting what is being said. My experience is that 100% of the time, when the Right claims this, it turns out that they are misrepresenting what the Lefty said.

     Now I am not saying it couldn't happen, but I have yet to see it, and I do lots of reading on this topic.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/12/2005 @ 5:51pm

120. I understand but we do not elect by population per vote. Electoral votes. Maybe the left can breed their way to power in urban and left coast centers, buit it might be a hollow victory. If you kill off the entrepenural spirit or class, you will end up with nothing more than more and more people sinking into poverty, waiting for government help that is not coming.

     Is that not what Jesse Jacksons message is to the black voters? Vote left for generations and end up with same complaint.

     Anyway, even those numbers may not look so good for liberlas. Even worse for "progressive". I think that while you are well meaning patriots, your agendas and ideas are a election killer for the left.

     Posted by john maasch at 10/12/2005 @ 5:51pm

121. For a supposedly scientific rebuttal to an anecdotal, journalistic argument, you'd think Bartels would show better methodology. But anyone familiar with factor analysis knows Bartels' job here stinks. His cultural/economic measures don't load cleanly. As a respected researcher, he knows better.

     And frankly, The Nation should steer clear of so called methodological research, especially before it has undergone a more thorough peer review.

     Posted by Macfrugal at 10/12/2005 @ 5:58pm

122. your agendas and ideas are a election killer for the left.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/12/2005 @ 5:51pm

     John, didn't you listen to Kerry speak? It's not "ideas," it's "idears" that are election killers! ;-)

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/12/2005 @ 6:04pm

123. BTW, John, I like your idea of breeding my way to power. Now if I could just get more ladies to go along with it....

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/12/2005 @ 6:06pm

124. ILP: Unbelievable

     http://www.seixon.com/blog/archives/2005/09/galloway_vs_hit.html

     Although the transcript doesn't allow you the experience of seeing and hearing the audience on CSPAN. Micheal Moore's infamous comparison of the terrorists in Iraq to the Minutemen. And you can always read Chomsky.

     Posted by RonS at 10/12/2005 @ 6:06pm

125. A main problem is that Dems are constantly trying to be like the GOP, and quite often act as if they are cheerleading for them. On many TV debates, they sit there and agree with them, or saying "we Democrats need to examine that. That's a good point.". When Dems use the word bipartisan, it's just code for "we don't stand for anything, so let's do what the GOP says.". It really started with Bill Clinton. Clinton went on a field day screwing over every liberal constituencey group he could, in order to impress the GOP. He screwed workers with NAFTA and GATT, screwed the poor with "welfare reform", screwed the environmentalists with NAFTA and GATT, and screwed the gay community with the Defense of Marriage Act. And the Dems wonder why their core constituencies don't vote for them....

     Posted by assbaby at 10/12/2005 @ 6:09pm

126. ILP: Here is a nice summary of Galloway's gems

     http://hitchensweb.com/GallowayLeafletFINAL.pdf

     Posted by RonS at 10/12/2005 @ 6:11pm

127. John - progressive ideas do not have to be election killers. Candidates who follow them just have to be more confident and be more adept at the message. Kerry's problem in 2004 was hardly that he was too progressive. Which progressive ideas are killers in your mind? Universal health coverage? Check the polls, a majority of the electorate favor it, even if it means raising taxes. Raising the minimum wage? Ditto. Many red states have even raised this on their own. Fairer labor laws? Stricter environmental standards? True campaign finance reform? Are these the killers you speak about?

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/12/2005 @ 6:13pm

128. LOL physics!! Physics,

     Yes I did listen to Kerry, as did many millions and then we gave our votes to Bush, that was and is Kerrys, Gore, hillary,ect.,...problem.

     I just as I figured that out about the ladies,.. I realized I had a vascetomy!!!!!!

     Posted by john maasch at 10/12/2005 @ 6:18pm

129. Hman, Be careful with polls and confusing them with actions, after all I could poll any group with the correctly worded questions and have them agree to have me placed before a firing squad. Might be an acurate "sentence" buit surely not correct!

     Posted by john maasch at 10/12/2005 @ 6:26pm

130. Hnam,

     Raising min wages raise prices..doesn't help,most business of any kind will tell you that.,universal coverage, sure if somebody else pays for it...you hear it all the time,.."the government should pay for...".. HELL that is me.

     Many areas want to ease enviromeental regs...

     Posted by john maasch at 10/12/2005 @ 6:35pm

131. Although the transcript doesn't allow you the experience of seeing and hearing the audience on CSPAN. Micheal Moore's infamous comparison of the terrorists in Iraq to the Minutemen. And you can always read Chomsky.

     Posted by RONS 10/12/2005 @ 6:06pm

     I knew it! I knew someone would bring up Chomsky. You are wrong, wrong, wrong to say he "supports fascists abroad". I read lots of Chomsky. He doesn't support fascists abroad, he condemns them!!! He just doesn't waste much time doing it because he doesn't see any point in it.

     Speaking of points, basically you are proving mine. Wild misrepresentations that collapse upon close inspection. Thanks, even though I don't need any help with that, I still appreciate it.

     As for the insurgents in Iraq, THEY ARE NOT FASCISTS!

     However, I will check out your links anyway, even though I am expecting more of the same...

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/12/2005 @ 6:43pm

132. Thibaud, your getting in a hissy fit over the word "instability" has got to be totally funny. You say, "Why is "stability" suddenly worshiped by the left? What next, left arguments for balance of power? benign imperialism? Or maybe... a lumpen, ass-backward slide into America First isolationism???"

     Huh? Here's a gem for you to mull over: "We are removing a source of violence and instability and laying the foundation of peace for our children and our grandchildren." -George W. Bush excerpt from a speech defending his Iraq War.

     Using your own comments, is Bush siding with the left in their "worship of stability?" How silly can you get!!

     Posted by richard38 at 10/12/2005 @ 6:48pm

133. John,

     You discount polls simply because they cut against your argument. Polls or not, you cannot fairly say these issues are on the fringe. You didn't even provide me with your dreaded list of progressive election killers. I am still curious.

     Your point seems to be that only the votes matter, but you should not confuse the election results of 2000 and 2004 (hardly a landslide) as some sort of conservative revolution that makes progressive ideas irrelevant.

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/12/2005 @ 6:50pm

134. Physics,

     Are you a physics prof or something?

     I understood physics in college, until the equation regarding work, where,

     Work(w)=force(f) X distance(d), especially when going back and forth up an alternating stair case. I know I worked by the sweat and gasping, but after measuring in formula, w=0

     Posted by john maasch at 10/12/2005 @ 6:50pm

135. John, businesses say raising the minimum wage will not help? What a shock. LOL

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/12/2005 @ 6:53pm

136. hman,

     Land slide, absolutly not.. but it is a continual drift right since Reagan. (Even Bill ran to the right).

     Progressive election killers..give me a list oif progressive ideals and I will point out the killers in a general election

     One on your last post is universal health coveral, which is fine, but universal health care is a killer. Remember Hillarys secret plan..DOA with Dems ,too.

     Posted by john maasch at 10/12/2005 @ 6:54pm

137. JOHN, Not yet! Still working on the Ph.D., but maybe one day...

     Sorry we're so stingy about recognizing your efforts as "work." That's just the nature of science, we must have very specific meaning for our terms or everything goes to crap.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/12/2005 @ 7:00pm

138. Many small business men(and women) can not afford minimum wages limits..if $ 8.00 is minimum why not $ 25? and who determines the number ot be fair? Beaurocrats? Teddy Kennedy? GOD!!!

     Where is limit? The job I offer is worth "X" and is an entry level position. If you artificaly raise level until I can not hire more or I have to cut someone in order to protect my competive price.

     Clinton's assine statement a few years ago" Just raise the price of a big Mac 50 cents, whats the big deal?"...that is an increase of 25% on a $ 2.00 burger...economy wide increases like that are economy killers. So are statements like that.

     as a example.

     Posted by john maasch at 10/12/2005 @ 7:03pm

139. LOL, PHYSICS!!!!!!!!!

     Posted by john maasch at 10/12/2005 @ 7:03pm

140. Just read Excerpts of Gores spech in Sweden..,y God we were saved we he lost.

     "We would not have taken money from the working families and given it to the most wealthy families", now there is a statement. Yup, we go to the poor guys house next door, take his money, and give it to the rich guy across the street. Elementry school level understanding knows govern,ment TAKES AWYS EVERYBODYS MONEY. Idiots like him are important to conservative cause. Wonder how his "Investment company" is doing.

     Keep it up Al, we conservatives need your speeches more than you know. Makes up for Bush screw ups.

     Posted by john maasch at 10/12/2005 @ 7:16pm

141. John,

     You were the one who said it. You come up with the killers.

     As for health care, much has changed since Hillary in 1992. Given the rise in uninsured and rising costs over the last decade, the issue may not be as DOA as you think. As for who is paying, you do not think you are paying higher costs now as a result of medical care to the uninsured? Uninsureds often forego preventive care or care when a health issues first surface. Only when the problem worsens, and becomes more expnsive to treat do they get medical help. Given that these services are often not paid for, health care providers raise their costs. Insurance providers raise the premiums you pay to cover the increased costs.

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/12/2005 @ 7:16pm

142. On mimimum wage, and protecting competetive price, why not start with CEO pay for starters. In 2004, the ratio of average CEO pay to the average pay of a production worker was 431-to-1. We are not asking for raising the minimum wage by 400% here. I am sure all those MBA's could figure out a way to keep profits.

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/12/2005 @ 7:20pm

143. John - Wait a minute, Bush screwed something up? I almost fainted. Be careful John, some of the other right-wingers may attack you. Haven't you read Rule #1 of their handbook, admit no faults?

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/12/2005 @ 7:24pm

144. John - I'm not familiar with Gore's speech in Sweden that you apparently are quoting from. However, his speeches in 2003 and 2004 were spot on - well-written, well-structured and impassioned. Progressives here are likely quick to dismiss him as a blowhard, Democratic centrist with no "street cred". You obviously dismiss him also. However, in these speeches, he demonstrated a unique ability to get to the heart of key issues and to speak from the heart. I'm going to guess that you have not read the entire text of the speech and are basing your assessment (including the notion that he's an idiot) on a set of out-of-context quotes. Please correct me if you've done an in depth analysis of the speech. I am off to Google for it.

     Posted by Fishbite at 10/12/2005 @ 7:31pm

145. Gore has played the populist card before, and he's only playing it now because he smells ticket in 2008. He senses that there's going to be a shift to the left in potential democratic party supporters, and he's telling them what he wants to hear. I've been watching Al Gore since 1988, and a bigger DLC phony would be harder to find, discounting the Clintons. He won the election in 2000, and he chose not to defend his win, because to do so would have meant a militant defense of the rights of Black voters in Florida who were disenfranchised by Katherine Harris and other elements within the Bush political dynasty.

     Now, I don't want to burst anyone's bubble, but it's about time liberals in this country woke up and smelled the shit. Al Gore is a fucking phony. The working class rejects democrats because they don't stand and fight for anything, and Al Gore proved that in a big way in the year 2000, which was nothing more than a replay of the election of 1876.

     I don't care what Gore says. He played the same card in 1988 as the primaries wound to a close, and he thought he had a chance of picking off some of J. Jackson's supporters. As soon as it became clear he hadn't, he became the biggest apologist for Dukakis and the other phonies in the leadership of the "democratic" party. He is not a friend, he is not an ally. Stop creating castles in the sky.

     Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/12/2005 @ 8:27pm

146. As I said, the progressives are quick to pounce on Gore. I suggest you actually read the text of his speeches. Whatever the motivation, and every politician is motivated by a lust for power, he's saying (mostly) the right things. Believe or not whether it comes from a deep well of conviction. Give me one name of someone with the remotest chance of making a difference nationally - someone not already tainted in some way. One name.

     Posted by Fishbite at 10/12/2005 @ 8:35pm

147. The Johns Hopkins study you often cite, has been discredited by its methodology. You should stop using it to support the erroneaus casualty numbers for Iraqis. They took a survey of a nieghborhood that was bombed, before then after the war. They used that to project casualty rates for the whole. Completely inaccurate Posted by CPT 10/12/2005 @ 07:57am | ignore this person

     Discredited? Do you have a cite other than your opinion? I know of no credible work that has discredited this report. The study methodology was approved by the JH Bloomberg School of Public Health Committee on Human Research. (http://image.thelancet.com/extras/04art10342web.pdf). Also see http://www.jhsph.edu/. The results were published 10/29/04 in the British medical journal The Lancet.

     You wrote: "They took a survey of a nieghborhood that was bombed, before then after the war." [I'll let the logic of that statement sink in for a minute.] In fact, the survey was done over 4 weeks in September '04 and covered 33 neighborhoods across Iraq. The survey parties included seven Iraqi team members – at least five were MDs – "who endured danger, police interrogations, and the risk of being associated with foreign investigators."

     The results were sobering. Making what it called "conservative" estimates, the report concluded that about 100,000 civilian deaths (not counting results from the Battle for Fallujah) are attributable to coalition activity, primarily air strikes. Most of the casualties were women and children.

     In light of the heavy civilian casualties, it is understandable that you would want to whitewash this report. However, in fairness, it states that the "data do not show evidence of widespread wrongdoing on the part of individual soldiers on the ground." (P.7).

     Perhaps this information falls into the same debate category of releasing the additional pictures taken at Abu Ghraib prison: It may not be pleasant, but neither is war.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 10/12/2005 @ 8:52pm

148. JohnM

     Maybe the left can breed their way to power

     Isn't that what the right did in the ghettos and trailer parks of the south and midwest?

     Posted by leftofcenter at 10/12/2005 @ 9:00pm

149. CPT – Of all the right wing posters on this site -- including the shills for the Republican neocons, -- you are the one person I am glad to see fully supporting this war. An Army recruiter should be committed to the cause. For the sake of your sanity, I hope you never awake from the vapors.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 10/12/2005 @ 9:01pm

150. HMAN23

     I can certainly sympathize and understand why supporters of a minimum wage increase are adamant. But consider this, if you raise the minimum wage to a livable wage which many liberals want to do as stated by Teddy, then what motivation or incentive would a person have to improve him/herself? Though I would not mind seeing an increase in the minimum wage to say $7.50 an hr. When I made minimum wage, I knew that I did not want to stay at that wage for long, many people are the same way, they strive to improve their earning potential by schooling of some type. I dont think you want people to be too comfortable at minimum wage, certainly you should not depend on a minimum wage job for your main income. Now of course this is not the only reason, but its a big one.

     Posted by CPT at 10/12/2005 @ 9:07pm

151. SEATTLE

     Thanks, and yes I get veiled cut down. It is easy to do once you lived it for a while.

     Posted by CPT at 10/12/2005 @ 9:16pm

152. SEATTLE

     The photos wont be released, they will appeal and the USSC will uphold. As they should. The nieghborhoods they surveyed were ones that were in the vicinity of target buildings. And as you say, they did not conclude that US Soldiers were to blame.

     Posted by CPT at 10/12/2005 @ 9:20pm

153. SEATTLE

     I gather you are from there, are you part of the same crowd that tore up our posters and screamed at our recruiters up there about a 6-8 months ago at a community college? Just wondering? They had an impact, we had to develop rules to deal with those types, hell the Chief of Staff of the Army even went up there to give a speech.

     Posted by CPT at 10/12/2005 @ 9:28pm

154. Fishbite, I'm quick to pounce on Gore because he's not a progressive, and as I said before, I've been watching the cat for 17 years. But you go on and believe what you want to believe. Clearly the fact that he could not stand up for the basic rights of Black voters-even when he was the likely beneficiary of that vote- makes no difference to you. Gore spoke then of a "potential constitutional crisis", as if that's not what was happening to begin with.

     And I'm not going to name you another "man on a horse", because that's the problem we're dealing with from the right wing. There's been enough of that. We need to continue to reconceptualize what the group process of "progressive" leadership look like, and stop looking for personalities to lead us.

     Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/12/2005 @ 9:33pm

155. Hman,

     A great number of us right wingers think Bush has screwed up. We are not mono lithic but we are conservative and Bush is not.

     Besides I am not a lemming.

     Although, I have been known to follow a pretty woman right off a cliff!!

     Posted by john maasch at 10/12/2005 @ 9:39pm

156. Left of Center,

     If trailer parks and midwest ghettos weren't there for the reps, they certainly are now.

     Posted by john maasch at 10/12/2005 @ 9:42pm

157. ILP: "He doesn't support fascists abroad, he condemns them!!! He just doesn't waste much time doing it because he doesn't see any point in it." The Left has come along way from the Lincoln Brigade, hasn't it?

     "As for the insurgents in Iraq, THEY ARE NOT FASCISTS!" To believe that one would have to be extremely ignorant, crazy, or a fascist. I'll assume you are ignorant. And it is attitudes such as these that account for why Kansas and other hard working people are fed up with the Left and the Democratic Party.

     Posted by RonS at 10/12/2005 @ 9:42pm

158. Fishbite,

     You are correct on my not rerading Gore speech (Sweden)entirely, however, I have read many of his speeches and ,to me, they are all the same rant. I find him painful. I am sure you have some Republican speech makers make you feel the same?

     Posted by john maasch at 10/12/2005 @ 9:46pm

159. I have to say that I'm impressed with the docile nature of our resident conservatives / Kool Aid addicts. I could have sworn that posting a liberal agenda that would undoubtedly help the vast majority of our country at the expense of the monied elite would generate enormously wordy rebuttals from the likes of Rio Bravo, Love Liberty, USAPRIDE, Len Moose, John Maasch et al!

     C'mon guys are you telling us that this would be OK in your America?

     Posted by COLMES 10/12/2005 @ 1:20pm

     Never get in the way of liberals when they are self-destructing! But just to keep things going:

     1. Zero and KC et al on the so-called disaster in Iraq; today, Bush and those of us supporting him got a huge win with the Sunni leadership changing their mind and now supporting the new constitution. After this weekend's approval, new elections will be set up for December. There is no way Bush will not start bring home troops in '06. This alone will be enough to seriously damage any Dem hopes of Congressional inroads.

     http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9659209/ [url]

     2. Despite recent terrible poll numbers, the Bush people have a strategy that will piggyback on my first point. The current oil price problem is the driving force on American dissatisfaction. You can bank on several things happening between now and next summer that will help Bush in this area. A) the Saudis will step up production, B) Refining capacity will be back at 95-100% by December, C) The auto industry is ramping up the release of more hybrid vehicles, and D)The US and the petroleum industry will annnounce significant new production resources.

     3. Home ownership will continue to increase at record levels; this will keep new construction jobs growing (In California, we still have massive new construction development and worker shortages with many of my clients). California, Nevada, and Florida, just to name 3 have no pause in sight for the housing market.

     4. GDP continues at an annual rate of 3.3% which is considered near ideal growth. GNP which measures output by domestic labor and property was also at a pace for a 3.5% annual rate.

     5. Despite all the corporate bashing and tax cut bashing, corporate income taxes are up.

     Taxes on corporate income increased $9.9 billion in the second quarter, compared with an increase of $69.6 billion in the first.

     6. Manufacturing continues to climb:

     New orders for manufactured goods in August increased $9.7 billion or 2.5 percent to $395.2 billion, the U.S. Census Bureau reported today. This followed a 2.5 percent decrease in July. Shipments, up for the fourth consecutive month, increased $6.6 billion or 1.7 percent to $393.5 billion. This was at the highest level since the series was first stated on a NAICS basis in 1992 and followed a 0.1 percent increase in July. Unfilled orders, up for the fourth consecutive month, increased $9.2 billion or 1.6 percent to $590.0 billion. This was at the highest level since the series began and followed a 1.0 percent July increase. Inventories, down following two consecutive monthly increases, decreased $0.6 billion or 0.1 percent to $463.7 billion. This followed a 0.6 percent July increase.

     I'm betting my analysis will be more reflective of what carries the day for conservatives in '06 than all the hand wringing efforts of the left and the media.

     As noted in an article in the Canada Free Press, media polls are manipulative tools for the press and not worthy of respect.

     When a business or a political party commissions a private poll, they want it to be as accurate as possible so that they can properly gauge the subject matter that the respondents are being questioned upon. Only accurate results can govern what future conduct these organizations engage in. This is not the case however when it comes to media polls. The media has a vested interest in wanting the poll to come out in such a way that the results are the most newsworthy. And there is no shortage of ways to manipulate the taking of a poll to achieve the desired result. The way the question is worded and exactly what information is provided to the poll's respondents are just two of the ways that a desired end result can be achieved.

     http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/media061705.htm

     Posted by love liberty at 10/12/2005 @ 10:05pm

160. LL,

     You forgot to mention that we will be building more nuke plants and more refineries as well as new ports for Natural Gas deliveries away from Gulf coast weather problems. Energy prices should fall to about $50 a barrel after first of year as high prices now are due to refinery shut downs and not supply, as well as speculators.

     All this will bode well for GOP in 06.

     Posted by john maasch at 10/12/2005 @ 10:11pm

161. John and LL - Gosh, why aren't Bush and his cronies sharing this good news with the rest of the country? The poor approval ratings (damn those manipulative polls) will vanish away in the pure light of the ever brighter future you guys describe. Low energy prices, here we come, and by Jan 1 too! Manufacturing boom - take that, you pesky Chinese! Tract homes rising proud on former wetlands and forest - with Republicans in every one. Slumber on, dear neocons, and don't let anything wake you from your sweet dreams.

     Posted by Fishbite at 10/12/2005 @ 10:39pm

162. John - Wait a minute, Bush screwed something up? I almost fainted. Be careful John, some of the other right-wingers may attack you. Haven't you read Rule #1 of their handbook, admit no faults?

     Posted by HMAN23 10/12/2005 @ 7:24pm

     HMAN, didn't you know that is one of John's "faults"? He is a bit too objective for the Sean Hannity crowd...

     Everyone, take a look at the living wage initiatives in New Mexico. I can't recall which city it was, maybe Santa Fe ?, passed a living wage a year ago, and their economy has taken off. Outperformed the rest of the state, unemployment is down more than the state average (by a wide margin), and their hospitality industry has created thousands of jobs since the living wage passed.

     An arrow through the hearts of right-wing reactionaries...

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/12/2005 @ 10:39pm

163. But consider this, if you raise the minimum wage to a livable wage which many liberals want to do as stated by Teddy, then what motivation or incentive would a person have to improve him/herself?

     Posted by CPT 10/12/2005 @ 9:07pm

     CPT, Don't you know people who want to improve themselves not because it pays better, but because they want to be better? That is the only driving force I have for self-improvement...

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/12/2005 @ 10:45pm

164. "As for the insurgents in Iraq, THEY ARE NOT FASCISTS!" To believe that one would have to be extremely ignorant, crazy, or a fascist. I'll assume you are ignorant. And it is attitudes such as these that account for why Kansas and other hard working people are fed up with the Left and the Democratic Party.

     Posted by RONS 10/12/2005 @ 9:42pm

     Wrong again, RONS. To believe that, one would simply have to know what a fascist is. Evidently, you do not. I will not apologize for the ignorance of others.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/12/2005 @ 10:48pm

165. Physics,

     Santa Fe? Have you been there? It is a tourist trap for high income earners. People sleep under pyramids and search the atmosphere for "vibes". It is beautiful but probably out of reach economically for people who work there. Alot like Aspen.

     Posted by john maasch at 10/12/2005 @ 10:49pm

166. LL, to quote my friend Katie, "God love ya". I do enjoy your posts and cannot help but like you... :-)

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/12/2005 @ 10:53pm

167. CPT - No, I wasn't part of that crowd. Tearing things down is not me – prefer building-up. Actually, I don't have a problem with recruiters visiting campuses. Years ago when I was in college, some Marine Corps recruiters came for a visit. A friend and I were working extra jobs to pay for flying lessons and college. The recruiters were Naval Aviators and flew-in on a prop fixed wing trainer…long story short, one of them took me up for a spin and let me have the stick and rudder for a while. It's a good thing the guy didn't slip a contract back to me while I was doing sharp banks and half-rolls as I might have signed on the dotted line. YIKES…does that mean I'd be on your side of the war debate then? !@#@$%

     Posted by seattlescribe at 10/12/2005 @ 10:57pm

168. Santa Fe? Have you been there? It is a tourist trap for high income earners....It is beautiful but probably out of reach economically for people who work there.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/12/2005 @ 10:49pm

     Not so much out of reach anymore, but then the living wage is not needed in places that are "in reach."

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/12/2005 @ 10:59pm

169. ILP:

     I doubt that there is any hope for any of you.

     http://slate.msn.com/id/2118820/

     Posted by RonS at 10/12/2005 @ 11:00pm

170. CPT, FYI count me among those on the left that have no problem with military recruiting. Recruiters represent one of the many diverse points of view in a free society, and I say "go ahead, do all you can."

     After all, even if Bush's war is completely wrong, as I am convinced that it is, our nation will still need a military after he is gone and that won't change in the foreseeable future. Just be a "straight shooter" with the recruits, it is only fair.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/12/2005 @ 11:05pm

171. JAYARJUNYA, I am with you when it comes to Gore's reaction to the 2000 election. I am still in disbelief that the man could sacrifice his own victory to avoid standing tall for disenfranchised african-americans. The best way to describe it is "apalling".

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/12/2005 @ 11:06pm

172. ILP:

     I doubt that there is any hope for any of you.

     http://slate.msn.com/id/2118820/

     Posted by RONS 10/12/2005 @ 11:00pm

     LOL, my poor misguided conservative. I waded through pages and pages of the CH vs. GG debate. Your claim that GG "supported fascists abroad" is laughable. Come on, man, read what the man says, not what you imagine he says. There is a huge difference!

     And you say I'm hopeless? Point your finger at me, and there are three fingers pointing back at you... Try reading it again, this time with an objective POV, please.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/12/2005 @ 11:11pm

173. ... GDP growth, manufactured goods, etc. - these are fine indicators to a point but the spectrum of the labor market growth is about as telling as it gets: America is not producing middle class prosperity jobs.

     Posted by ZERO 10/12/2005 @ 11:05pm

     Preach it, my man!!! Sorry to say, but it seems like a Ph.D. in the hard sciences is becoming a person's best shot to an upper middle class income... It is not a dominant requirement, yet, but it soon could be.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/12/2005 @ 11:15pm

174. What is middle class now? Anyone know?

     Posted by john maasch at 10/12/2005 @ 11:19pm

175. RONS, by the way, thanks for the link to the CH-GG debate, in your 6:06 PM post. In addition to the educational value, it was fairly entertaining.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/12/2005 @ 11:19pm

176. Can you image the scene if GWB had to face Congress the way Tony Blair faces the House of Commons during PM questioning? I would truly pay money to watch that performance.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 10/12/2005 @ 11:22pm

177. What is middle class income, I mean.

     Posted by john maasch at 10/12/2005 @ 11:23pm

178. John, good question. I don't know the "official" definition, but it is kind of like obscenity. I know it when I see it! :-)

     ZERO, There is still room in Silicon Valley for Ph.D.'s in physics, chemistry, chemical engineering, electrical engineering, etc. And soon there may be growth in CA in the job market for biologists, microbiologist, geneticists, etc. w/ Ph.D's. The issue with China is too complicated for a blog. Let's sit down with some Chenin Blanc or Belgian-style ales for that discussion.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/12/2005 @ 11:24pm

179. $ 80,000 a year?

     Posted by john maasch at 10/12/2005 @ 11:29pm

180. Actually, the eastside. Any you?

     Posted by seattlescribe at 10/12/2005 @ 11:29pm

181. meant "and you." It's been a long day.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 10/12/2005 @ 11:30pm

182. ARe any of you ever in the neighborhood of Pittsburgh, by chance? I am in serious need of a face to face conversation. Ugh... the grind is eating me alive.

     Posted by jorcheim at 10/12/2005 @ 11:36pm

183. ZERO, IMO no use talking 20 to 30 year careers nowadays. Keep your horizon under 10. As for Silicon Valley, I know a feeder school or 2 without the name recognition, but the network is not vast...

     You can choose the wine!

     JORCHEIM, I'd love to meet with you in the hometown of Gorge Romero!

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/12/2005 @ 11:41pm

184. ILOVEPHYSICS:

     You are welcome anytime! I know tons of little out of the way places in this town that are PERFECT for conversational interaction. Hell, I even have room at my place.

     Posted by jorcheim at 10/12/2005 @ 11:43pm

185. JORCHEIM, "Out of the way" beats "chain" any day of the week, IMO. E-mail me at tippingpoint2050@yahoo.com. I might be able to swing by PA in December....

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/12/2005 @ 11:45pm

186. Party at ZERO's place, then...

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/12/2005 @ 11:49pm

187. CPT (your 9:07 post):

     If minimum wage were raised to a living wage, your point on people not wanting to improve themselves is ridiculous. Seems like you are advocating that any minimum wage should be a shitty wage, as some kind of motivating factor. I am sure many who currently work for minimum wage would love to "improve" themselves and make more money. Maybe you chose to improve your standard of living, and had the flexibility or desire to do so, but for many, a minimum wage job is all there is. Tell a single parent working two minimum wage jobs to get a degree, I guess, huh? I take it you mean "improving" generally to mean obtaining a higher paying job. Well, those are limited. Even if every mimimum wage employee "improved" themselves, there would not be enough jobs for them. And, your premise implies that mimimum wage jobs do not serve any useful purpose. They are necessary to the system - do you think these jobs are created out of charity? Based on this, even if someone WERE content with a living wage, what is the harm? They earn enough to live, and are working a job that has some benefit to the economic system.

     Pick another argument - your psychology grab does not cut it.

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/12/2005 @ 11:51pm

188. Zero - your grocery store sounds like Larry's Market.

     ILP - my favorite place in SF is Tadich Grill.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 10/13/2005 @ 12:06am

189. LL, to quote my friend Katie, "God love ya". I do enjoy your posts and cannot help but like you... :-)

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 10/12/2005 @ 10:53pm

     likewise ILP

     Posted by love liberty at 10/13/2005 @ 12:28am

190. The arguments here all come back to the old glass is half full/half empty view.

     I like most conservatives am an optimist. No setback, no loss (except my life) is insurmountable. And it is not due to race. My 3 black step-sons are all successful because I drilled the same philosophy into them. Like most young people, they started somewhat liberal (even the 2 who were in the Marines), but as they have built careers, they have become more conservative.

     Zero, who is obviously a bright person, but is so sceptical of a bright future, always seeing the worst outcome. So many on the left seem to bear that imprint.

     And Zero my friend, Bush has not adopted a "progressive/liberal" slant on Iraq or hybrids. He has stated from the beginning that we would only stay as long as necessary. It is just that the left has always said we wanted to stay there. As for hybrids, all conservatives are in favor of technical progress, we just don't want government mandating or running it. The market will respond to demand, it always does.

     Finally, you all seem to want to enjoy the "good life", good wines, good food, nice atmosphere. Why, you almost sound like conservatives! I've won!!!! LOL

     Posted by love liberty at 10/13/2005 @ 12:37am

191. Zero,

     Then minimum wage makes no sense, since $ 7.50 an hour in Seattle would be starving and in Kansas it would be liveable..except a Big Mac costs the same in each, so.we need a beaucratic comittee to figure out what we should pay?

     What if I make $250,000 a year in Nebraska, where would I be considered a working man? I work everyday, tho.

     Just a thought.. tryimng to get to living wage..

     Posted by john maasch at 10/13/2005 @ 12:38am

192. Zero,

     Where is this store? I will be in Seattle in 3 weeks.

     Posted by john maasch at 10/13/2005 @ 12:39am

193. I agree with love liberty

     Posted by john maasch at 10/13/2005 @ 12:41am

194. http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4317498.stm >

     So, imagine your the POTUS and having to deny God told you to do it.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 10/13/2005 @ 12:43am

195. San Francisco has certainly got some good spots ... I haven't spent time down there in years. What part of Silly Valley are you in? Palo Alto?

     Posted by ZERO 10/12/2005 @ 11:51pm

     Well, I am "from" Kentucky, but currently reside in San Jose, the downtown area and not the sprawling suburbs.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/13/2005 @ 12:49am

196. Z,

     I like the Roosevelt Hotel. Is this near your market? I have family I can hook up with when there if I choose.

     Posted by john maasch at 10/13/2005 @ 12:51am

197. ZERO, oops, must be the CB, but I just realized you didn't ask me where I am "from"...

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/13/2005 @ 12:51am

198. If one makes that kind of money I would agree.

     Posted by john maasch at 10/13/2005 @ 12:52am

199. ZERO, LOVE LIBETY, & JOHN MAASCH, If we all get together, I am not singing Kumbaya!

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/13/2005 @ 12:53am

200. I have white boy disease...can't jump, sing, or dance, unless provoke by liquid guts...fine wines, et al.

     Posted by john maasch at 10/13/2005 @ 12:59am

201. ZERO, LOVE LIBETY, & JOHN MAASCH, If we all get together, I am not singing Kumbaya!

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 10/13/2005 @ 12:53am

     thank God for small favors!

     Posted by love liberty at 10/13/2005 @ 12:59am

202. In our society I beleive most high income earners are just that, high earners but build no wealth. We as a nation have no reserve or savings. I find it difficult almost no matter what the income.

     Posted by john maasch at 10/13/2005 @ 01:01am

203. In our society I beleive most high income earners are just that, high earners but build no wealth. We as a nation have no reserve or savings. I find it difficult almost no matter what the income.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/13/2005 @ 01:01am

     JOHN, when you first started posting here, I didn't reply to you for a week or 2, because I didn't know if you'd be around to read what I said.

     Glad you keep coming back.

     As for your post, why do you think that is? I have some thoughts, but I'd like to hear what you say. After all, I learn more by listening than by talking.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/13/2005 @ 01:11am

204. I read almost everything..for a while until it repeats or becomes dull. I also realize that I too, can be dull and repeatative. I hate reading long copies of others works or long sermons. Always had the same trouble in church as a kid.

     Why don't we save? Never taught to do so by our parents. Grand parents saved every dime including bread crusts because these people new REAL hardships.

     They did not believe in government tit of any kind and they were too proud to "go on the dole". Saftey nets were not their so they made it work on their own. Made them stronger in my opinion. Today safety net has become a hammock.

     Posted by john maasch at 10/13/2005 @ 01:22am

205. Hey Zero,

     Regarding your supposed shrinking middle class, I think you have lost it on this one. The middle class is developing quite nicely thank you. Although most would probably not say they are doing great, the percentages may surprise you.

     The IRS data for 2003 tax returns shows that:

     33% of returns were filed on those with a taxable income between 100,000 and 500,000. Add in the 75-100k returns and it goes up to 47%.

     So much for a shrinking and suffering middle class.

     In my business, I get to meet so many people and have clients and friends who just turn your stereotypes upside down.

     Friend A: Female age 43, permnanent resident visa from Tijuana Mexico; owns her own business as a Mortgage broker; annual income=$200,000

     Friend B: Female age 45, permnanent resident visa from Mexico City; owns her own Real Estate business; annual income=$150,000

     Friend C: African American male age 58; fleet manager at a multi-type car center; annual income $125,000

     Friend D: African American female age 45; self-employed insurance agent; annual income $100,000

     Friend E: Salvadoran/Chinese mix female age 30; US citizenship in 2001; Radiologist; annual income $110,000

     Son: African American Male age 26; firefighter in city of Oakland; annual income $80,000 plus rental properties

     You get the picture

     Posted by love liberty at 10/13/2005 @ 01:24am

206. LL, More people vested in stock market also, so stero type of working man is broken. Paradigms must be changed as working man definition has changed.

     I think people are much better off than some seem to think...After all a poor guy is someone who makes less than you and a rich guy is someone who makes more...

     Posted by john maasch at 10/13/2005 @ 01:29am

207. JOHN, I think you hit one of the nails on the head. There are a few more, IMO.

     One is a generational reaction. To put it simply, some people think "The old man and mama saved too much, they should have learned to live a little, like I do..."

     Another reason is the evolution of marketing. Few people understand neuro-linguistic programming, and the devastating impact it can have on on the subconscience. It is rampant in today's advertising, and if you aren't watching out for it, you can wind up wondering what you spent all your hard-earned money on.

     Damn, we have a profligate spending problem in this nation. People are all the time buying crap they don't need, or even don't want. I find myself torn on this issue. Sure, it helps the retail economy, but it sure does put families at risk, too.

     When I was a hard-core right-wing conservative, I advocated turning the TV off. Now that I am a leftist.... I advocate turning the TV off. LOL!

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/13/2005 @ 01:50am

208. You get the picture Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 10/13/2005 @ 01:24am | ignore this person

     Yea, you like people who can help you find, finance, and insure real estate and the people who will be there incase the properties catch fire. As for the radiologist, oh well, maybe a true friend.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 10/13/2005 @ 01:51am

209. Of course Seattle you conveniently overlook the fact that according to liberals, all the people I cited can't succeed without government seizing other people's income. Yet, all these succeed because of themselves!

     Posted by love liberty at 10/13/2005 @ 02:15am

210. I got your point, LL. You were pursuing typical right wing sterotype incorrectly perceived notions of liberal philosophy and I was attempting to parry with humor. Thank you for not reminding us of Nixon appointing Ramona Banuelos as the first Mexican-American Treasurer of the United States. Another interesting story.

     Incidentally, I appreciate your son being a fire fighter in Oakland as I have family there.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 10/13/2005 @ 02:40am

211. ZERO: I disagree with you about Hitch, but I suggest you check out Sasha Abramsky's article "Our Al Qaeda Problem" in the Progressive, at progressive.org. ILP: You are welcome. I recommend that article to you, as well.

     Posted by RonS at 10/13/2005 @ 07:36am

212. ILOVE

     I do not doubt that you would motivate yourself because of desire to do so. But I was commenting on the many more who would not, and that applies to alot of people who actually need that incentive while I acknowledge its not the only reason, but again it is a big one.

     HMAN23

     I allow for those exceptions that you mentioned, but there are many who your example does not apply to. I do not agree entirely with your statement that many do not have the flexibility to improve themselves, meaning any kind of schooling/trade/technical/academic. In this country, I firmly believe that EVERYONE has the opprotunity in this country to improve their lot in life. Though its hard, no doubt, but my experiences to date confirm that, and lately in the assigment I am in now, having to know the programs of colleges/trade/techinal/academic and industry as our main competition also reaffirm that. But again I understand those exceptions to the rule.

     Seattle

     Gotcha you, I was just curious, got to watch out if we start agreeing on too much, then one of us is converting without knowing it. yikes

     Posted by CPT at 10/13/2005 @ 07:47am

213. CPT:

     You did not address one of my points. If a living wage was the standard what would be so wrong with people not striving to achieve a higher paying job, if they chose? Those jobs are important too.

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/13/2005 @ 10:09am

214. John, in response to your earlier post, I question whether people are much better off than some seem to think. This is not true for the increasing numbers of poeple who are falling below the poverty line. I believe adjusted wages have stagnated or even dipped. It is harder for families to get by on a single income than it used to be. I think you need to factor in more than just what people are earning, you have to take into account how much more they have to work to earn.

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/13/2005 @ 10:14am

215. Hey you Seattle mofos talking about getting together at the QFC or whatever what about me, what am I chopped liver? The QFC out here in Westwood Village doesn't have the range the one on Broadway does, but I got a bunch of Marcela Hazan's cookbooks and I can burn, man. Jeez. Don't I get an invite to the party? I promise not to vomit on the rug.

     Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/13/2005 @ 10:41am

216. ZERO;

     You should check out G. Galloway's little book. I'm in the middle of it now. Good, tough minded and creative Leninist politics with a Brit stamp. I'm not sure I'd give Hussein all the props he does, but I think he lends some balance to the discussion about Middle East politics which is badly needed, particularly in regards to the question of secular government. Galloway at least looks at the history of Iraq with something other than either/or perspective, which is really refreshing. I particularly enjoy his joyful asskicking of Blair and "new" labor, which is thankfully going down the tubes even as we speak.

     Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/13/2005 @ 10:47am

217. This administration doesn't even care about the top 1%. They only care about the Forbes 400.

     There have been graphs circulating that indicate that the top 1% that support Bush policies are the SUCKER CLASS. The Forbes 400 are the only people who have had increasing wealth in the last 25 years. Everyone else EVERYONE has been flat, at best.

     Posted by Cat's Pajamas at 10/13/2005 @ 11:42am

218. There have been graphs circulating that indicate that the top 1% that support Bush policies are the SUCKER CLASS. The Forbes 400 are the only people who have had increasing wealth in the last 25 years. Everyone else EVERYONE has been flat, at best.

     Posted by CAT'S PAJAMAS 10/13/2005 @ 11:42am

     Cat,

     What are you sniffing? Everyone else has been flat? Not this middle incomer. Financially, I suffered terribly under Clinton, going from solid 6 figures to about 40-50K. Under Bush I am back over 6 figures. Likewise, I see many people achieving success because of the taxcuts. You folks just will never believe it if it doesn't happen to you personally. Maybe you should think about changing what you are doing? I did when my career path ended in the 90's. I set up a new career that was entirely different and took control of my own future. Millions of other Americans are doing the same and succeeding. The number of millionares in this country is rising, not falling.

     Posted by love liberty at 10/13/2005 @ 12:13pm

219. LL:

     Sounds like your income increase had more to do with your personal decision to change career paths than any economic policies of Clinton or Bush. Following your reasoning, if an investment banker during the Clinton years decided to instead teach 2nd grade during Bush, the drop-off in income would reflect better economic policies under Clinton, right?

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/13/2005 @ 12:35pm

220. LL:

     I am sure there are more millionaires today than in 1880 too. Income is relative to the times. Ever hear of inflation or the rising cost-of-living? $1,000,000 does not get as far as it did even 10 years ago; the same goes for $20,000 a year.

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/13/2005 @ 12:38pm

221. If that investment banker was teaching 2nd grade in a city like Chicago, he/she would be pulling in about $100,000. If their spouse also taught in the public schools, their combined income would be around $200,000. And most likely their politics would cooincide with "The Nation."

     Posted by RonS at 10/13/2005 @ 12:41pm

222. LL:

     While millions may be succeeding, millions of others are not, or are struggling to get by. The numbers living under the poverty line have increased every year under Bush. And it is not for lack of effort or initiative. Your analysis is skewed by only looking at a percentage of people whose economic lives are imporving, while ignoring what is happening to the rest. That some percentage of people are gaining wealth is besides the point - the disparity between the wealthy and poor is increasing under Bush. Conservatives like you could give a hoot.

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/13/2005 @ 12:44pm

223. RONS:

     I give you points for a cute response (although you ignore my point), but you are way off:

     Starting Salary (Bachelor's) $36,956

     Starting Salary (Master's)CPS $39,516

     Maximum Salary $67,706

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/13/2005 @ 12:49pm

224. Cat,

     What are you sniffing? Everyone else has been flat? Not this middle incomer. Financially, I suffered terribly under Clinton, going from solid 6 figures to about 40-50K. Under Bush I am back over 6 figures. Likewise, I see many people achieving success because of the taxcuts. You folks just will never believe it if it doesn't happen to you personally. Maybe you should think about changing what you are doing? I did when my career path ended in the 90's. I set up a new career that was entirely different and took control of my own future. Millions of other Americans are doing the same and succeeding. The number of millionares in this country is rising, not falling

     LL: My income has steadily risen since the beginning of my career in the IT field since 1985. However, I live and work in the Detroit Area where everything, and I mean EVERYTHING is on the verge of a collapse, but I cannot attribute that increase to either Clinton or Bush, but rather my specialization in my field. I have many breathern in the IT field who are now working for temp services, working on loading docks, etc. because their chosen profession has been outsourced/offshored/etc.

     If we really wanted to stimulate the economy, why wouldn't we put more money in the hands of "working class" folks rather than that of the ultra-wealthy? It seems to me that an immediate raise in the minimum wage would do nothing but get dumped right back into the economy and stir up all kinds of economic activity.

     The wealthy will protect and offshore their wealth. By the way Mr. Six figures, unless your net worth is over $100,000,000.00 you shouldn't be voting Republican.

     Posted by Cat's Pajamas at 10/13/2005 @ 1:18pm

225. Hman,

     ." I believe adjusted wages have stagnated or even dipped. It is harder for families to get by on a single income than it used to be. I think you need to factor in more than just what people are earning, you have to take into account how much more they have to work to earn."

     I agree and to prove your point if taxes did not take away some much money(FICA,MEDICAID,STATE,AD NAUESEUM)perhaps it would help.

     Many cases if the woman works, her ENTIRE income covers the tax bills. Most people have to work harder because 1/2 of what they earn is taken out of their check before they even see it. Then add some more good ideas like raising gas taxes again to curb demand..we are lucky anybody wants to work.

     Why do we work and "celebrate" free day in June, when the money we have worked for is now ours?

     Posted by john maasch at 10/13/2005 @ 1:19pm

226. John,

     Maybe I am too literal, but 1/2 is not taken out of MOST people's checks. Even top end tax rates have trended down since WWII. So, given that tax rates were higher two generations ago, why is it more people could get by on a single income? Your tax explanation does not tell the story. If taxes are the issue, why didn't Bush's tax cuts make a dent for most working Americans?

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/13/2005 @ 1:31pm

227. Cat's PJs--

     I live and work in the Detroit Area where everything, and I mean EVERYTHING is on the verge of a collapse... If we really wanted to stimulate the economy, why wouldn't we put more money in the hands of "working class" folks rather than that of the ultra-wealthy?

     Well, isn't that what the UAW has achieved over the last half century? Ie, sought and won an enormous shift of retained income toward their workers? Clearly the average UAW member enjoys a very comfortable lifestyle, to the point where it's silly to even call them "working class," and just as clearly the enormous sums the Big 3, er Big 2, er soon to be Big None, throw every year at their unionized employees is one of-- not the most important, clearly, but one of the reasons that we will likely see GM or Ford or both be in Chapter 11 within the next ten years.

     I'm not trying to be snarky-- I work in the same field you do, and grew up near Detroit-- but I'm merely pointing out the kind of labor aristocracy that the UAW achieved, and that dominates the industrial model of Germany, France, and Italy, leads inexorably to a huge rise in unemployment for everyone not privileged enough to belong the labor aristocracy. As well as for the labor swells themselves, in due course.

     If your family situation permits I'd strongly recommend that you leave the sinking ship that is Detroit and head for any of the boomtowns in the southwestern and mountain states. You'd be surprised how many liberals there are in places like Austin, Dallas, Denver, Phoenix, even Provo/Ogden. Plenty of opportunity for anyone with a dream and a willingness to work hard. Plus incredibly cheap and very high-quality housing.

     best of luck, t

     Posted by thibaud at 10/13/2005 @ 1:38pm

228. That seems to me and many others is to be the problem..1/2 is gone.Our government spends $2.6 trillion a year while various groups scream about cuts, yet every year more is spent..GOVERNMENT gets the money from all of us and it still spends more than it takes in. Let the workers you are worried about keep theri money and maybe we will all live better. What was governments take 2 genaerations ago and what was covered by the individual and what was "covered" by government?

     Posted by john maasch at 10/13/2005 @ 1:47pm

229. JOHN

     A lot of that 2.7 Trillion is "locked in" now with Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and a defense budget that has NOW become the "third rail" (post 9/11).

     Although, I'll tell you how the first "real progressive" might win the Presidency. If he (or she) ran on "I'm going to provide universal health care...AFTER I cut 50 Billion out of the Government starting with MY (i.e. Democratic Party) own interest groups.....PBS, NPR, the National Endowments all gone...REALLY eliminating stupid grants and out-dated agencies....and then, I'm going after farm subsidies to agri-corporations (not the "family farmer"). And if I don't get those eliminations and real cuts...I'm not pushing another entitlement program, even if really vital and needed."

     If a liberal could do that....convincingly....you COULD have a liberal President.

     Posted by Mask at 10/13/2005 @ 1:53pm

230. John Maasch,

     You're absolutely right. We have to stop our government's drunken sailor spending habbits. Let's vote out the bums in office. I'll do my part, will you do yours?

     Posted by colmes at 10/13/2005 @ 1:56pm

231. THIBAUD:

     Moving to the Southwest is a scary prospect in the face of Peak Oil. I don't blame the UAW for the death of the Automobile Companies, but rather their management. Look at GM, they are pinning their hopes on SUVs?!?!? How is that a result of a Unionized Workforce???

     I think the complete death of Detroit will be the shot that will be heard at least around the country. It will inaugurate the beginning of a financial crisis that will make the Great Depression look like a square dance.

     But thanks for the well wishes just the same.

     Cat

     Posted by Cat's Pajamas at 10/13/2005 @ 2:05pm

232. COLMES, Not only would I vote them out , I would give them a ride out of town...on a rail.

     First change..to any new rep or sen coming to town. THIS IS NOT YOUR PERMANENT JOB. YOU HAVE A JOB AT HOME IN YOUR DISTRICT AND YOU WILL NOT MAKE THIS YOUR JOB(PROBABLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL).

     I would love to elect people who said "I am going there to stop spending. I am going to eleiminate lobby groups spending 1 dime(probably unconstitutional)on ANY candidate, no more 527s, and everybody who comes here as a representative or senator will now get %20,000 a year and live in a government dorm and eat government food. If you want to examine the conditions in Africa or what ever, submit a budget for trip annd go with an approved plan. Fly coach. Pay taxes on income.

     ANY spending increase or tax increase would need 3/4 vote in both houses with recorded votes, and president signed on.

     Congress would probably meet only 2 months a year and actually work. The other 10 months you would go back to your real job, be baker, candel stick maker or whatever.

     If we have to fight a war, we then fight it like mother fuckers on fire and finish it. Our enemies would think more than twice about jacking with us. Now we can all get along.

     You make the money you keep it. This is just a start but this is how I see it...

     Posted by john maasch at 10/13/2005 @ 2:10pm

233. GM is already dying and it is the fault of management and workers demanding and getting work rules and money that makes no sense. Most of cost of car is health care benifits, not steel.

     Posted by john maasch at 10/13/2005 @ 2:12pm

234. Cat,

     I think the complete death of Detroit will be the shot that will be heard at least around the country

     Disagree. Autos are now commodities. This is a declining business that's best left to niche producers and to super-efficient or super-cheap asians.

     An advanced information economy no more needs overstaffed, over-capacity auto producers than it needs flat-rolled steelmakers or TV set manufacturers.

     Moving to the Southwest is a scary prospect in the face of Peak Oil.

     Well, it's scary for everyone, everywhere, unless perhaps you love on a yurt in southern Oregon with plenty of nuts and berries handy. Plenty of evidence to suggest that the Saudis are vastly overestimating their reserves, which means oil may well get into triple digits, with no tech breakthroughs on the horizon to send the price back down to what are, in reality, very cheap levels.

     All of which means that Colorado's oil shale may finally be profitable and more than just a wildcatter's fantasy, which means that Denver or elsewhere along the Front Range could be a nice spot to be. As it is pretty much year round for anyone who loves the outdoors and the mountains.

     Posted by thibaud at 10/13/2005 @ 2:20pm

235. I wrote a piece with the exact title as Bartel's months ago which can be accessed at:

     http://www.voicesofreason.info/2005_05_29_archive.html

     I take a differnt angle but too find Franks' analysis wanting.

     J.S.

     Posted by J.S. at 10/13/2005 @ 2:20pm

236. JOHN MASSCH:

     That's true, but is the cost of health care the fault of the UAW or that of Hospital Corporations, HMOs etc.?

     And steel IS rising is cost. I know, my own company has been surcharing for steel for over a year now.

     Cat

     Posted by Cat's Pajamas at 10/13/2005 @ 2:21pm

237. HMAN23: Thanks, but the salaries for each Chicago teacher and administrator (by name) are published, and salaries between $70,000 and $120,000 are not uncommon. I will admit that you probably cannot quit your current job and expect to make that kind of moolah, but based on your degrees and length of service, you can.

     Posted by RonS at 10/13/2005 @ 2:21pm

238. John, I agree to some extent with you and Mask's points re: trimming the ridiculous waste. I think we can all agree on that. Now if conservatives would agree to tackle the bloated defense budget, I will agree to look at NEA and the like.

     One way to get lobby groups out of federal pockets would be to ban all political contributions from corporations and interest groups.

     P.S. The tax rate in 1955 ranged from the lowest at 20% to the highest of 91% for any income over 400,000. So, rates have gone way down over the years.

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/13/2005 @ 2:24pm

239. RONS:

     I got my published figures from CPS's website: http://www.cps-humanresources.org/Careers/salary.htm.

     Where do you get yours?

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/13/2005 @ 2:26pm

240. RONS: Do we have a problem with someone in the education field making a good living? As a society we seem to have no problem with millionaire sports and entertainment figures.

     Just a thought.

     John, sorry I misspelled your name in the previous post.

     Cat

     Posted by Cat's Pajamas at 10/13/2005 @ 2:35pm

241. HMAN23: From http://www.thechampion.org/teacher/cgi-bin/teacher.pl?ssd=start. I will also extend my statement to include suburban Chicago as well. CAT'S PAJAMAS: I do not have a problem with anyone receiving a salary that is earned; I supplied this information only in response to HMAN23's post.

     Posted by RonS at 10/13/2005 @ 2:47pm

242. Look at all the millionairre and billionairre celebrities and investment bankers and trust fund babies who go around popularizing Leftist causes (including raising taxes). We seem to have no problem accepting that they go against their economic interest as a matter of principle (and principles that they were capable of thinking through); yet when a working guy decides that a free market is in his/her interest, the assumption is that they are duped, that there "must be something wrong with Kansas".

     Posted by RonS at 10/13/2005 @ 2:53pm

243. THIBAUD:

     Well, cars are commodites that's true, but these Asians (and other third world types) are not very good consumers, I call it the "pissing in your drinking water" syndrome. The big corporations are forcing us to a race to the bottom, soon, we won't even be able to afford the cheap junk sold at Wal-Mart. Then we'll have our financial crisis as described.

     As for Peak Oil, I'm sort of in the Jim Kunstler camp. I believe that is what the war in Iraq is really about. Sorry, oil and natural gas is going to continue to go up in price. It may abate for a while giving you the illusion of lower prices, but in the absence of conservation or a big technological breakthrough, we're in for a rough ride.

     Peace,

     Cat

     Posted by Cat's Pajamas at 10/13/2005 @ 2:57pm

244. RONS:

     Extend your statement or alter it? You were the one who said Chicago. Anyway you are so far afield from my point to LL. If you like it better, I will be more specific: take an investment banker making $500,000 and a teacher making $120,000 (or any job that pays less). My point to LL still stands up.

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/13/2005 @ 3:00pm

245. RONS: I think these people you refer to are smart enough to realize they are in a tiny minority compared to most people. They also realize their fortunes depend upon mass audiences going to the movies sporting events and so forth. It's good for business to have people ABLE to consume their goods and services. In that regard they are much smarter than the corporations that want to beat down their workers such they cannot buy what they make.

     Posted by Cat's Pajamas at 10/13/2005 @ 3:01pm

246. HMAN23: Extend my statement to include suburban Chicago teacher salaries as well as Chicago. I see your point to LL. CATS PAJAMAS: I know you think the rich Lefties are smart. My point was more to the working people who have thought thinks through and believe that free markets, lower taxes, etc. are in their interest.

     Posted by RonS at 10/13/2005 @ 3:46pm

247. RONS

     You hit upon a KEY problem the Left has. The basic premise of "What's the Matter with Kansas" is....the people who vote "against their economic interests" are stupid.

     Why? Because "obviously" what's in their economic interest is what "we" decide is "best for them". "We" being the liberals.

     An honest assessment of the situation SHOULD have been called "What's the Matter with Us...That We Can't Win Kansas", but that would have involved self-criticism and a critical look at the un-popular stances on the issues by the Left ("un-popular" either from a "marketing" standpoint...or actual flawed policies).

     In other words, them admitting "Hey, maybe we are wrong".

     Posted by Mask at 10/13/2005 @ 4:11pm

248. maasch, now who's being naive. I appreciate the sentiment but it doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell. and certainly don't look for cutting wasteful spending from your beloved pres or your beloved republican congress, they are liars where spending is concerned, as the unprecedented deficit has shown

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/13/2005 @ 4:36pm

249. hman, the evaporation of money in a ten year span has been estimated as 30% at least.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/13/2005 @ 4:39pm

250. Maasch, the fact that Detroit can't make a profit on building cars, in part because their healthcare and pension obligations, doesn't that point to adopting the model of government sponsored health insurance and health care the rest of the civilised world has adopted?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/13/2005 @ 4:41pm

251. Come to Minnesota and count the number of patients in our doctor offices from Canada. The system works for flu shots and baby well visits but collapses when something big is needed.

     I don't accept premise of adopting someone elses program just be cause it might work. Most people I have talked to do npt like their programs over "there". Most countries would like to rid themselves of these cumbersome programs.

     You know me, get the government out of my life as much as possible.

     I don't want to go to post office for health care. That is what Canada has done.

     Posted by john maasch at 10/13/2005 @ 4:57pm

252. Since Rothberg started a new thread, I am cutting and pasting my response to Todd from the previous Rothberg thread, to ensure Todd sees it:

     I care about what happens to America and Americans. I don't care particularly about Iraqi's, the French or the Germans.

     Todd

     Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 10/12/2005 @ 8:12pm

     Then you aren't a very good Christian, or, more accurately, you aren't excelling at being a Christian. You are stumbling along. If being a Christian were a career, you would be at risk of being fired for poor job performance.

     When I was a Christian, I cared passionately about all people, and nationality didn't factor into it one single iota.

     You need to "raise your game," so to speak...

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 10/13/2005 @ 5:08pm

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/13/2005 @ 5:18pm

253. ZERO: If you want to convince the Right to end the inheritence tax, then the poster child is millionairess van den Heuvel.

     Posted by RonS at 10/13/2005 @ 9:22pm

254. Re: Death of autos and Peak Oil

     The recent energy bill has lots of loop and hoops designed to prop up the auto-centric economy. We are beginning to gear up towards liquid fuels from coal. It was done in the past (WWII germany) and we are starting to look into higher-efficiency ways to do this.

     This is a FACT...Clean Coal Inititiative Center and "Center of Excellence" for Coal Fuels Science is being put together on my campus. We are already beginning to prototype the first hi-efficiency coal liquefaction reactor. (Better go see what those guys in my drive-way in the black suits want......)

     Posted by leftofcenter at 10/13/2005 @ 10:32pm

255. Maasch, go to any inner city neighborhood hospital and see people who have NO acccess to health care. those anecdotes about canadians have been discredited long ago.

     besides they don't explain what happens in France , germany, scandinavia etc do they all come to the US?

     again you lead a very isolated life, you should really get out more, maybe with people who do not have the material comforts you take for granted. your point doesn't cut it with me.

     the post office does a great job, better than Fed ex and ups, I use them all the time in my business. here in NYC the mail gets there the next day. you bring up these points that you have heard somewhere, think for your self, or no books will help.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/13/2005 @ 11:07pm

256. Brucie, there are no natural market forces, that is a myth the right propagates, to hide that they have their snouts in the public trough big time.

     raising the minimum wage is just and does not cause unemployment. when your boss doesn't give you a raise for five years, he is stealing from you, theft pure and simple. not raising the minimum wage is stealing from the poorest segment of society.

     is that something you are defending? you are correct in that illegal workers depress wages.but instaed of closing the borders all that is required is to go after the employers of said illegals. if there are no jobs for illegals in el norte the flow will dry up.

     the jobs that get exported are not the minimum wage ones, that wouldn't pay, it is the middle class union jobs that have gone bye bye. capitalism at work, check Karl Marz, he predicted all this 150 years ago.

     in this country we are not talking about government medicine but rather government health insurance, single payer, you still can see any doctor you wish, but the profit has been taken out of the insuring or more accurately non insuring

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/13/2005 @ 11:16pm

257. someone figured out how ;ong it would take to ship out 20 Million, at least, illegal aliens, 200 000 busses, you can do the math. evaccuating New Orleans would be child's play compared to that.

     you need to think before you post, and also take care not to simply repeat what you have heard somewhere

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/13/2005 @ 11:19pm

258. by the way, we've had a minimum wage in this country for a very long time. how about weekends, you like weekends? well the bosses said against weekends that they would cause unemployment also. americans have been getting the short end of the stick for so long they don't even remember that things were and could be different.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/13/2005 @ 11:22pm

259. look at it this way, I am an employer, I need someone to sweep the floor, I pay minimum wage. suppose minimum wage goes up a buck, I still need someone to sweep the floor, you think I'm not going to hire anyone to sweep that floor. no I will pay the increase, and the guy keeps sweeping

     same example with tax cuts. my business supports 200 workers, I get a big tax break, what do I do hire more workers to do the same job, remember my business supports 200 workers, no I sock away the money. now if the demand for my widgets increases, I will hire more workers to do the increased work, tax cuts or not

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/13/2005 @ 11:28pm

260. Maasch, can we agree that the system we have now doesn't work? we spend more, get less, and are way down in the heakth indicators, such as infant mortality etc. if the canadian thing wasn't working they'd change it. and the european countries are NOT attempting to change their health care, you made that up

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/13/2005 @ 11:32pm

261. PLAIN BRUCE:

     This is what you hear consistently from those who oppose increasing the minimum wage - rising unemployment and illegal immigation. Unless you to show some statistics, it is little more than a scare tactic.

     Here is some information I found:

     The 1999 Economic Report of the President, issued after increases in the federal minimum wage in 1996 and 1997, concluded that "the weight of the evidence suggests that modest increases in the minimum wage have had very little or no effect on employment."

     States with higher minimum wages have higher employment rates. Total employment in states with a minimum wage above the federal level grew by 6.2 percent from 1998 to 2004, compared with just 4.1 percent in states where the lower, federal minimum prevailed, according to the Fiscal Policy Institute.

     For example, in Michigan, the minimum wage increases of the 1990s had positive effects on unemployment. The increases in 1990 and 1991 occurred during one of Michigan's worst unemployment rates. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, at the time the April 1991 increase occurred, Michigan's unemployment rate was 9.9 percent - the low point of that recession and the worst rate since 1982. The 1990 and 1991 wage increase, along with increases in 1996 and 1997, occurred during a period when unemployment was falling. Following each increase in the minimum wage, unemployment continued to plummet to a low of 3.1 percent in March of 2000.

     According to a study conducted by Business Week, wholesale giant Costco pays its workers an average hourly wage of $4 more than the average wage of a similar Wal-Mart worker, plus additional benefits. Yet, because of lower turnover at Costco, its labor and overhead are only 10 percent, compared with Wal-Mart's 17 percent. Additionally, Wal-Mart's profits per employee, a measure of productivity, are nearly 20 percent lower than Costco's.

     In fact, Costco boasts a very healthy bottom line: The company recently posted a 25 percent profit gain, beating Wall Street's expectations, while Wal-Mart's profit grew by only 10.4 percent in its most recent quarter.

     In addition rasing wages will give workers more money to spend, increasing consumption and demand for production. It is cyclical and can have benefits to the economy as a whole.

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/13/2005 @ 11:39pm

262. nice work hman, you are 100 in my book, not 23

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/13/2005 @ 11:42pm

263. Thanks JR. I saw your posts after writing mine - you are right on the money as usual.

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/13/2005 @ 11:54pm

264. PLAIN BRUCE, you'll just have to trust me on global warming...

     Are you convinced now?

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/14/2005 @ 01:04am

265. I hope the Democratic party figures out a way to win elections without continuing to try to win over conservatives. There are plenty of people who don't bother to vote because they see little difference between the two parties. Until Democrats come out with an agenda that helps solve some of the real problems real people have they will continue to lose elections. Until the Democrats actually articulate a platform that makes voting for Republicans seem like an economic blunder can you actually acuse anyone of voting against their own economic interests?

     Posted by Bluesknight at 10/14/2005 @ 02:24am

266. hey Brucie, by raising the the minimum wage to keep up with inflation, you have heard of inflation haven't you, we are not arbitrarily raising it, there's nothing arbitrary about it, it's to keep it from being lowered.

     if what you say is true, that unemployment rising while the minimum wage also rises, that does not in itself prove causality. just because two events occur simultaneously, doesn't mean one causes the other.

     you just don't seem to get inflation's effects on workers. when the boss pays you, for the same work, in money worth a lot less, he's stealing from you. it has nothing to do with wether you deserve a raise or not. you are being obtuse here. would you like to be paid less and less every year for the same effort? I didn't think so.

     that prices go down is no proof of a "free" market. there are many forces that manipulate economic activity, such as government subsidies, tax breaks for businesses, exports credits etc.

     your post on health care is mere semantics. there is a big difference between socialised medicine and single payer health insurance

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/14/2005 @ 08:57am

267. and no I don't have to trust you on assertions not backed up, and I don't. you are seriously out of touch with conditions of working people.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/14/2005 @ 08:59am

268. America spends $6,000/person per year on healthcare. The next highest country in the world is Sweeden where they spend $3,000/person per year.

     Let's be fair.

     There are many factors for why Ameirca spends more such as:

     1. In some citizen's cases...a higher standard of healthcare. 2. We are not a very healthy nation given our relative pollution and food intake patterns. 3. Defensive medical practices. 4. very high administrative cost burdens included in the US system (private US healthcare companies spend 13% of their income on administrative costs whereas medicaid is under 1%). 5. Healthcare in USA is a for profit enterprise.

     Obviously the USA needs to compete with other countries in the global arena and with such an enormous amount of money going to healthcare versus our competition in other countries we're way behind.

     We could centralize healthcare and lower the overall burden of this cost to our country and make us more competitive on a global scale.

     Posted by colmes at 10/14/2005 @ 09:31am

269. PLAIN BRUCE:

     You seem to want it both ways. Initially you said, "Am I the only one to see that artificially raising minimum wage/living wage results in INCREASED unemployment . . ." After I give you some statistics supporting the opposite, you offer a link to an article that discusses how it is difficult to use statistics to judge correlations between minimum wage increases and employment. Which is it?

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/14/2005 @ 10:13am

270. Plain Bruce

     I would posit to you...what's wrong with socialized medicine / universal healthcare as a concept? (versus 8-10% of the populace having NO healthcare)

     ...and please no "Canada" quotes. Just cause their's doesn't work well in some measure, doesn't mean we'd do the same thing!

     Posted by leftofcenter at 10/14/2005 @ 10:25am

271. Bartel misses the big picture. So does Doug Henwood. The most powerful argument Frank makes is not that white workers have abandoned progressive economic goals for conservative, moralistic ones, but that the state and national Democratic parties have abandoned them and their class needs. If the choice is between a religious rightest who claims to share your belief systems and a corporate liberal cum Hollywood sybarite who does not, then why not vote for the devil you know. That's a powerful argument, one the Left had better understand, and certainly explains why the Republicans win close races they should lose.

     Posted by mmhirsch at 10/14/2005 @ 10:55am

272. Exactickly, MMHirsch. The issue is not that the workers have abandoned the democratic process, but that a sizeable portion of the heirarchy in this country, among its numbers the so-called intelligentsia, have done so. They hand us a nickel plated phony ice queen like Hillary Clinton, and say, there now, anybody but (fill in the blank). Better a round of spectaclized nothingness then a real discussion of how both parties have gone out of their way to decimate and co-opt the public sector and independent working class organization for a hundred years now. Or, to paraphrase the poet Milton, they pluck out the eyes of the people, and then curse them for their blindness. But at the end of the day, if the country is backwards, it is the fault of the educated and professional classes, for not having the courage to call out a bunch of medicine show phonys (Reagan, Clinton(s), Gore, Bush for what they are. Melville's confidence man lives, and he is underwritten by those who have had the opportunity to learn better, but have chosen not to. No point in talking about the "abandonment" of the working class of the democratic party. The "democrats" in all truth, sold the working class up the river decades ago.

     Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/14/2005 @ 11:42am

273. PLAIN BRUCE says, "National health care is essentially the same thing as Socialized medicine."

     Okay, so what exactly is "Socialized medicine" and what's wrong with it?

     Somehow, anyone with a rightward slant believes that simply writing or saying "socialized" or "socialism" obviously makes the subject of the discussion bad. Don't you yet realize that ISMs are essentially meaningless in discussing actual implementations? Calling national health care "Socialized medicine" is just bandying labels.

     Until you define Socialized medicine, prove that it's bad, and demonstrate that that's what we would, in reality, get with any possible form of national health care, you should just shut up.

     Posted by adr at 10/14/2005 @ 11:46am

274. adr, go get 'em tiger, you are of course correct. they are always blurring distinctions, which is a form of lying, also usually short of factual backup

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/14/2005 @ 11:52am

275. I'm going to inflict on all of you willing to read it, a rant on ISMs -- hopefully brief enough to be readable.

     Capitalism, socialism, communism, libertarianism, fascism, etc. -- they're all just convenient labels that mean exactly what the speaker of them intends them to mean (or, in some cases not to mean).

     All ISMs refer to some philosophical view that is imprecise. Thus, anyone can use these labels to mean almost anything. For example, socialism has been used to mean undemocratic -- patently untrue. Capitalism has been used to mean entrepreneurship -- also incorrect.

     People with a more "rightward" slant of view (meaning here people who prefer individuals to sink or swim on their own) tend to equate capitalism with all sorts of goodness and socialism with all sorts of badness. Of course, the reverse can be said of some of those leaning in the opposite direction.

     Rather than take up the merits of each side, my purpose here is to request, as strongly as possible, that people stop using these labels as labels. Calling something socialist neither praises nor condemns it. The same is true for capitalist.

     By simply eliminating all ISMs from your vocabulary (except in some historical discussions), you will be forced actually to think. For many people who are used to repeating stuff they hear that sounds and feels good, this exercise may create some pain. Trust me, it will be good pain as in a great physical workout.

     Now, my bias is toward progressive ideals, but that doesn't mean that I swallow every opinion from liberal and progressive sources, nor does it mean that I ignore all conservative ideas. I try, as well as my mind and my store of knowledge and experience will allow me, to analyze this data as it comes to me and to extract the good parts and discard opinionated and unsubstantiated stuff.

     I am imperfect and have to reverse my views more often than I'd like to admit. I began life in a conservative household and required many years of experience and thought to move to a mostly progressive viewpoint. It was hard work. I recommend to everyone that they not blot out the other side's views as long as they are represented rationally and without labels substituting for ideas.

     I see labels as the verbal equivalent mud balls being slung at the other side. Let's end the mud slinging and get ISMs out of our collective vocabulary.

     Posted by adr at 10/14/2005 @ 12:43pm

276. isms,scisms, that's from a song I think, anyone remember from where?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/14/2005 @ 12:55pm

277. ILP: http://hitchensweb.com/GallowayLeafletFINAL.pdf

     This is very clear. Of course, if you don't regard Saddam Hussein or the terrorists in Iraq as fascists, then that's another issue. "Syria is lucky to have Bashar al-Assad as her President." He felt the same away about Stalin and the USSR. and Saddam and Iraq. ""I salute your (Saddam Hussein's) courage, your strength, your indefatigability. And I want you to know that we are with you until victory, until victory until Jersualem!"

     Posted by RonS at 10/14/2005 @ 2:32pm

278. cousin Brucie, you've got to stop saying trust me,if you want people to take you seriously. it makes you sound like Bush

     Posted by johannesrolf at 10/14/2005 @ 6:04pm