The Clintons' Reagan Problem

As part of an extended attempt to disingenuously link Barack Obama to Ronald Reagan and the conservative movement, veterans of the Clinton Administration held a conference call to proclaim the 1990s the era of bold new ideas.

"One would think we would all agree that it's the Democrats and not the Republicans who are the party of ideas in the last 10 or 15 years," Clinton strategist Mark Penn said. The only problem with this claim is that many of Clinton's most trumpeted "ideas" were actually Republican ones. His strategy of triangulation, coined by Penn and Dick Morris, at its core adopted ideas from the other side of the aisle, putting a soft Democratic face on harsh Republican policies. These supposedly big ideas, like NAFTA, welfare reform and a balanced budget, would've fit in just fine in a Reagan Administration. When Clinton declared in 1996 that "the era of big government is over," one could imagine the words coming out of Reagan's mouth.

My colleague William Greider captured Clinton's legacy in an indispensable 2000 article, "Unfinished Business: Clinton's Lost Presidency."

Clinton, as President, consigned the malfunctioning global economy to the reform energies of the Business Roundtable and Wall Street. His Administration led cheers for multinational commerce, opened fragile economies to the manic surges of global capital and created the World Trade Organization to judge whether new social standards are, in fact, barriers to trade and therefore forbidden.

When Bill Clinton recites the big challenges, he reminds us of all he danced away from as President. The spirited reformer is the young man we met back in 1992, brimming with big ideas, but he is utterly unconvincing now. One feels sadness for the lost promise of this extraordinarily skillful politician. One also suspects that Clinton is trying to revise the public memory of his presidency, polishing his reformer image so that when future Presidents actually do take up these big ideas and confront the challenges, he will be able to claim parentage.

That's exactly what's happening now. The Clintons are slamming Obama for admiring Reagan's political skills when it was Clinton who distanced himself from the progressive traditions of the Democratic Party and built a bridge to Reagan's legacy.

Helpfully EJ Dionne reminds us that back in 1991, Clinton praised Reagan. More recently, Hillary Clinton told Tom Brokaw that Reagan "played the balance and the music beautifully." As Dionne writes, "with both Clintons on record saying nice things about Reagan, why go after Obama on this point?"

The Clintons will certainly take umbrage at the Reagan comparison on matters of economic policy, pointing to his long-standing battles with the GOP. Greider suggest George Herbert Walker Bush may be a better fit.

Clinton did essentially govern like a moderate Republican. His accomplishments, when the sentimental gestures are set aside, are indistinguishable from George Bush's. Like Bush, Clinton increased the top income tax rate a bit, raised the minimum wage modestly and expanded tax credits for the working poor. He reduced military spending somewhat but, like Bush, failed to restructure the military for post-cold war realities. He got tough on crime, especially drug offenders, and built many more prisons. He championed educational reform. He completed the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was mainly negotiated by the Bush Administration. On these and other matters, one can fairly say that Clinton completed Bush's agenda.

In her bid for the White House, Hillary Clinton is singing a different tune, railing against corporate America and allying with the downtrodden, promising to fight for working people and the middle-class. But remember, Bill Clinton said the same thing in 1992. It's reasonable to ask which Hillary will be in the White House, when Bill is in the East Wing and the Clintonites of old come back.

Comments (55)

1. The fact that FRANKG blatently LIED about what "Obama said"....proves he'd be worse than Yogi or Norm.

   Posted by Mask at 01/25/2008 @ 4:04pm

2. Yeah, so many folks forget that Clinton's success was a Repub-Lite model...which is why Repubs who don't hate the Clintons (me), can easily tolerate another Clinton presidency....NOT that we want to!

   Posted by Happy at 01/25/2008 @ 4:19pm

3. In her bid for the White House, Hillary Clinton is singing a different tune, railing against corporate America and allying with the downtrodden, promising to fight for working people and the middle-class. But remember, Bill Clinton said the same thing in 1992. It's reasonable to ask which Hillary will be in the White House, when Bill is in the East Wing and the Clintonites of old come back.

   Great article, Ari!

   Hillary and Bill are DLC Republican-lite politicians. They are proof of the "success" of Ronald Reagan, in which Democrats thought the only way to compete against the Republicans was to be like them.

   Now that Barack, Feingold and others have challenged this notion and have said we can be like Democrats by recasting progressive ideals in fair-minded language that even some Republicans can support, Hillary AND Edwards try to do an instant conversion to the progressive cause.

   These phony progressives should be outed for what they are, because the moment they are in power, they will revert to their old DLC ways. They really didn't believe in the progressive cause, and have absolutely no clue as to what it takes to build broad sustainable progressive majorities that can govern for decades.

   Barack has been building these kinds of broad-based progressive coalitions his entire life, and it is time for the Democratic Party to give him credit for this talent rather than allowing Hillary and Edwards usurp the progressive movement just so they can get the nomination.

   Posted by Metteyya at 01/25/2008 @ 4:49pm

4. Posted by JOMAMMA 01/25/2008 @ 4:29pm

   If they hold it UNDER a TRILLION dollars for a failed policy, MAASCH....

   How can Republicans complain?

   Posted by Mask at 01/25/2008 @ 5:12pm

5. clinton and rubin are in a big part responsible for the sub-prime mess. the new banking rules of the 30's were repealed by them in order to pave the way for greed and more greed.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/25/2008 @ 5:32pm

6. I can hardly wait for Frankgrit's attempt to spin this one. If he shows up, it will be something worthy of Yogi Berra or Norm Crosby.

   Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/25/2008 @ 3:24pm | i

   Or the Mangler Himself, your President-

   "And so, in my State of the -- my State of the Union -- or state -- my speech to the -- nation, whatever you wanna call it, speech to the nation -- I asked Americans to give 4,000 years -- 4,000 hours over the next -- of the rest of your life -- of service to America. That's what I asked. I said 2 -- 4,000 hours."

   "On principle, there ought to be a limit to how much the federal government can take of anybody's hardworking hard work"

   Posted by crabwalk at 01/25/2008 @ 5:40pm

7. "The price of doing nothing [in Iraq] exceeds the price of taking action, if we have to. We'll do everything we can to minimize the loss of life. The price of the attacks on America, the cost of the attacks on America on September the 11th were enormous. They were significant."

   But Iraq isn't responsible for the 9/11 attacks, so we're talking about apples and oranges here, Dubya. Prime time press conference, White House, Mar. 6, 2003

   Posted by crabwalk at 01/25/2008 @ 5:43pm

8. "The United States and the U.S. stand together in support of the Iraqi people and the new Iraqi government, which will soon come into action."

   Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005

   "On one front is the home front."

   Rockville, Maryland, Oct. 30, 2001

   "The best place for the facts to be done is by somebody who's spending time investigating it."

   Suggesting that the facts in the CIA identity leak investigation should be "done" by the investigators, White House, Jul. 18, 2005

   Posted by crabwalk at 01/25/2008 @ 5:50pm

9. Just can't quit you Dubya

   "And so one of the areas where I think the average Russian will realize that the stereotypes of America have changed is that it's a spirit of cooperation, not one-upmanship. That we now understand one plus one can equal three, as opposed to us and Russia we hope to be zero."

   Crawford High School, Crawford, Texas, Nov. 15, 2001

   The finest education money can buy. Well second best. chimpy could not get into his HS of choice, even his daddies money could not overcome his test scores.

   Posted by crabwalk at 01/25/2008 @ 6:04pm

10. Posted by JOMAMMA 01/25/2008 @ 6:07pm

    whattsa matter John, can't cope with the fact that you voted for this clown twice?

    He is still the president, he is fair game. His policies will be draining money from your grandchildren.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/25/2008 @ 6:11pm

11. And, just because I love pointing out your myriad assumptions done wrong;

    while mocking your Dear Leader, I am also designing a railing, towel holders, mailbox and chandelier for my wealthy librool clients.

    It doesn't take much time to mock Chimpy. I just have to find his exact words.

    ""Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." -The administration requested the ability to conduct warrantless searches as part of the September 11th resolution, but Congress rejected this.

    ""There are many dangers in the world; the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. "

    But, like you say, Bush never lied.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/25/2008 @ 6:32pm

12. And how about this gem from Peter BAker at the Washigton Post:

    The Clintons recognize the skill Rove has brought to politics and admire his craft, if not his ideology. Just days after the November 2004 election, Bill Clinton pulled Rove aside at the dedication of the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Arkansas. "Hey, you did a marvelous job, it was just marvelous what you did," Clinton told Rove, according to the book "The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008," by John F. Harris and Mark Halperin. "I want to get you down to the library. I want to talk politics with you. You just did an incredible job, and I'd like to really get together with you and I think we could have a great conversation."

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/25/2008 @ 7:10pm

13. Posted by JOMAMMA 01/25/2008 @ 4:29pm

    Who spent ~1.5 trillion on a war of aggression again? Who increased spending and provided tax cuts so future generations could pay for his war of adventure?

    What did the Republican Congress spend my money on? Things like miles upon miles of border fence that everyone know wouldn't work?

    I'm so sick of you people complaining about taxes when you support these don't tax and spend Republicans that spend money on brain dead projects. Then, when they get voted out of office for their incompetence, you complain about spending. How about walking the talk?

    You know why you don't? Because Republican "conservatives" is just another name for corporate socialism. Use my money to fund the army to attack new markets and open them up to exploitation to funnel more dollars into your pocket. Meanwhile, you complain about socialism - and you make the socialists look like freaking free market capitalists. It's disgusting.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/25/2008 @ 7:15pm

14. Posted by CRABWALK 01/25/2008 @ 6:32pm

    the perfect one for this thread (one of billions)

    "It is not Reaganesque to support a tax plan that is Clinton in nature." --Los Angeles, California, Feb. 23, 2000

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/25/2008 @ 7:21pm

15. and, on top of allowing banks to transform into behemoths like citigroup, clinton brought us one more component of the sub-prime mess:

    WTO.

    how many people have recently lost their homes because of job losses directly related to the chinafication of the economy?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/25/2008 @ 7:26pm

16. "OBAMA PORTRAIT MUSIC VIDEO" on Youtube - Don't Miss It!

    For those of you who still have not heard:

    There is a WONDERFUL and INSPIRING music video on Youtube.com entitled "Obama Portrait Music Video by Bjarne O." You can use the free downloaded high-quality stereo version from the composer's website in DVD form to show at house parties and fundraisers. Even people who knew nothing at all about Obama have been moved: either a thrilling introduction, or further inspiration for those of us who already know and fight for Obama. The music soundtrack, which incorporates excerpts from the famous 2004 speech, can also be downloaded separately in high-quality.

    So please, SPREAD THE WORD!

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=mCPwbozpIzM

    YES WE CAN

    Anne

    Posted by annevilla at 01/25/2008 @ 7:27pm

17. "The price of doing nothing [in Iraq] exceeds the price of taking action, if we have to. We'll do everything we can to minimize the loss of life. The price of the attacks on America, the cost of the attacks on America on September the 11th were enormous. They were significant."

    But Iraq isn't responsible for the 9/11 attacks, so we're talking about apples and oranges here, Dubya. Prime time press conference, White House, Mar. 6, 2003

    Posted by CRABWALK 01/25/2008 @ 5:43pm

    on of the most disturbing parts (besides the loss of life and environmental chaos) is that people still believe it!

    Given 9/11, the evidence was and remains overwhelmingly strong for the war. It was legal under both our constitution and international law. It was sound given both Saddam's history and the fact that 9/11 showed that America can never be so weak as to assume someone is just bluffing.

    Thank God that America had a strong and decisive leader like George Bush as president during this time. If those who share the left's views were in charge, I shudder to think how strongly people like Saddam and the Islamic jihadists would be pushing their evil destructions.

    There is only one way to deal with the Saddam Hussein's of the world and George Bush made that correct decision.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/25/2008 @ 5:40pm

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/25/2008 @ 7:36pm

18. "BILL CLINTON PORTRAIT VIDEO" on Pornotube - Don't Miss It!

    For those of you who still have not heard:

    There is a WONDERFUL and INSPIRING video on Pornotube.com entitled "Bill Clinton Portrait Video with Tera Patrick and Briana Banks." You can use the free downloaded high-quality stereo version from the pornographer's website in DVD form to show at house parties and fundraisers. Even people who knew nothing at all about Clinton have been moved: either a thrilling introduction, or further inspiration for those of us who already know and mimic "Mr. Arkansas". The soundtrack, which incorporates excerpts from secret FBI recordings, can also be downloaded separately in high-quality.

    So please, SPREAD THE WORD!

    http://pornotube.com/watch?v=mCOwboyzpIzN

    YES HE CAN

    Seymour

    Posted by SEYMOURBUTTS 01/25/2008 @ 7:27pm | ignore this person

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/25/2008 @ 7:49pm

19. couldn't resist.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/25/2008 @ 7:49pm

20. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/25/2008 @ 7:49pm

    I'd really have given ANNAVILLA a shot at NOT being in "RESE Ignore Land" if she'd TALK every now and then.

    But I'm almost thinking she's some "program", built to bypass "The Nation" log-in process and there's nobody really there.

    Posted by Mask at 01/25/2008 @ 7:54pm

21. Posted by MASK 01/25/2008 @ 7:54pm\

    That's what a lot of companies do on boards. That's why when you register for these sites they generally have the weird type this box that you can barely read. It's to stop programs from joining and spamming.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/25/2008 @ 8:09pm

22. Posted by SRJENKINS 01/25/2008 @ 7:15pm

    I am going to have to go ahead and agree. Not all conservatives do it but why is it, it's ok to funnel trillions to a globe trotting war but not to education, healthcare, affordable housing? Because wars make people money. So Republicans are ok with spending other peoples money as long as the spending eventually leads back to them.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/25/2008 @ 8:12pm

23. Use my money to fund the army to attack new markets and open them up to exploitation to funnel more dollars into your pocket....

    Posted by SRJENKINS 01/25/2008 @ 7:15pm

    Give you a tip on how I stay HAPPY with "my money" that goes to Uncle Sam. "My money" is funding basic research at universities, explorations of space/deep sea, GWOT, Nat'l Health Institute, advanced weapons research, FEMA, the Academies, veterans programs, and the part of entitlement to those truly deserving. The rest of Uncle Sam's `operation', is funded by YOUR money.

    There, I knew I can make you feel better :~)

    Posted by Happy at 01/25/2008 @ 8:22pm

24. Damn Zero, I had to grab a couple Advil upon reading your last post.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/25/2008 @ 8:57pm

25. Posted by ZERO 01/25/2008 @ 8:50pm

    A feminist once tried to test ZERO. He ate her liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti.

    Posted by Mask at 01/25/2008 @ 9:03pm

26. Posted by MASK 01/25/2008 @ 9:03pm

    hmm,

    seems you've got meat on the mind ;+]

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/25/2008 @ 9:14pm

27. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/25/2008 @ 9:14pm

    Hadnt thought about it that way....of course, Hitler was a veggie!

    (just kidding)

    Posted by Mask at 01/25/2008 @ 9:58pm

28. Posted by MASK 01/25/2008 @ 9:58pm

    mask, well that takes the cake. YOU'VE finally become a victim of Godwin's law.

    heheh.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/25/2008 @ 11:02pm

29. "The nation has been deeply wounded under Bush, and is now on track to multiple disasters, and the Clintons have insulted the democratic process that was intended to see to it important changes can take place, and they have disgraced themselves and their party in so doing." Posted by ZERO 01/25/2008 @ 8:40pm

    That's OK, as long as they get what they want, that's all that matters. In that, they are little different from the other dynasty. The Pardon Sellers Billary know very well there's little they can (or want to) do about reversing the huge accomplishments of W&Co: 1) historic shift in wealth to the top, 2) permanent large imperial military presence in MidEast, 3) protection for many (if not the most grievous) corporate malfeasors, 4) major rollback of constitutional protections. Just a few of some rather large accomplishments, especially in view of fact that the W&Co dynasty got a Dem Congress to go along ... And they got away with stealing 2 elections, now there's something Billary understand & admire: winning at any price. So W&Co look & smell bad, weeping all the way back to their estates & mansions & yachts & private Lear jets -- ditto Billary, they don't mind the stench if that's what it takes to get back in the WH. Winning is everything, there is nothing else.

    Watch what happens as the disappointments with the Dems mount up in & after '09. So many more weapons for dealing with dissent now in place & rest assured Billary will avail themselves of the entire panoply.

    Posted by sloper at 01/25/2008 @ 11:08pm

30. Posted by HAPPY 01/25/2008 @ 8:22pm

    too bad your boy Chimpy has cut finding to most of those programs. Now he wants to hand out more borrowed money to the masses in a stupid plan to boost the economy

    I'm convinced that obama was being truthful when he said that the republicans had all the good ideas over the last fifteen years.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/25/2008 @ 10:58pm

    Too bad he never said that.

    Are you going to claim he is actually a Muslim now? And was raised by a radical Muslim father?

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/26/2008 @ 12:01am

31. Thanks Dave Letterman

    #1 Title for George Bush Movie

    "Raging Bullshit"

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/26/2008 @ 12:02am

32. Posted by ZERO 01/25/2008 @ 8:40pm | ignore this person

    Posted by ZERO 01/25/2008 @ 8:50pm | ignore this person

    ZERO, excellent posts. Thanks!

    Posted by FritztheCat at 01/26/2008 @ 08:01am

33. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO STILL HAVE NOT HEARD:

    No, of course I am a 'real person', don't be silly. But I have an intent and a message to impart that I feel is worth spreading - and I have done so with great success. DVD's of OBAMA PORTRAIT MUSIC VIDEO have been shown all across the country by grassroots people who are happy to have found out about it. Until I stop getting responses from Obama supporters who are happy to have this as an additional way to introduce Obama to others - I absolutely intend to keep on SPREADING THE WORD. And that's the last thing I intend to say on this subject, thanks, make of it what you will. Oh, one more thing I'd like to add:

    FROM 'HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT WEBSITE' - PRESS RELEASE 12/12/07

    "...She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We're confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks..."

    http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674

    GO OBAMA!

    YES WE CAN

    Anne

    Posted by annevilla at 01/26/2008 @ 08:23am

34. OULD BILL Iraq for the elimination of Saddam and for helping them come to the world again...hopefully in a better postion..it will take time....

    Posted by JOMAMMA 01/25/2008 @ 5:43pm | ignore this person

    your ignorance is staggering. Iraq has huge foreign debts. these countries pledged to forgive the debts, though none of them have actually done so. Iraq is broke. they will never be able to pay back anything. oil production is far lower than during the Saddam years, wars will do that.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/26/2008 @ 10:19am

35. Posted by HAPPY 01/25/2008 @ 8:22pm

    "My money" is funding basic research at universities, explorations of space/deep sea, GWOT, Nat'l Health Institute, advanced weapons research, FEMA, the Academies, veterans programs, and the part of entitlement to those truly deserving."

    In other words, corporate socialism. Basic research at universities now is turned over to corporations to fund them. Space/deep sea exploration is market exploration masquerading as science. When there is money to be made and most of the expenses have been paid by the public, corporations will step in - just like with every other technical advance from railroads on down the line. Global War of Terror might as well be called ABME or Advertisement for Buying our Military Equipment. Advanced weapons research is to keep new product in the pipeline. Academies are for producing demonstration salesman and wielding the big stick - particularly when out civilian commander-in-chief couldn't command himself out of a wet paper bag. Veteran's benefits are simply the last leg in the chain of militarism.

    And FEMA? FEMA is an example of everything wrong about government. While the NHI is probably one of the best examples illustrating how government has a role in providing something industry cannot.

    On the whole, if this is what you think your money is going for, then I agree, you'd do less harm if you just kept it.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/26/2008 @ 10:22am

36. Posted by JOMAMMA 01/26/2008 @ 11:03

    Thanks for illustrating my comment: "You know why you don't? Because Republican "conservatives" is just another name for corporate socialism. Use my money to fund the army to attack new markets and open them up to exploitation to funnel more dollars into your pocket," with this one:

    Iraq has assets that are long term...and paying back is something they could easily afford to do,...it would be cheaper than Irans nuke investments...

    And you and I both know these payments aren't going to the U.S. Treasury, but more like the Carlyle Group. Corporate socialism, the only kind Jomamma likes.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/26/2008 @ 11:14am

37. AN ARTICLE THAT EVERYONE NEEDS TO READ!

    NEW YORK - Saddam Hussein allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction to deter rival Iran and did not think the United States would stage a major invasion, according to an FBI interrogator who questioned the Iraqi leader after his capture. Saddam expected only a limited aerial attack by the United States and thought he could remain in control, the FBI special agent, George Piro, told CBS 60 Minutes program in an interview to be broadcast Sunday. He told me he initially miscalculated ... President Bush's intentions, said Piro. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 ... a four-day aerial attack. He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack, Piro said. In 2003, a close aide of Saddam's told The Associated Press that Saddam did not expect a U.S. invasion and deliberately kept the world guessing about his weapons program, although he already had gotten rid of it. Keeping up the illusion of weapons program Saddam publicly denied having unconventional weapons before the U.S. invasion, but prevented U.N. inspectors from working in the country from 1998 until 2002 and when they finally returned in November 2002, they often complained that Iraq wasn't fully cooperating. Piro, a Lebanese-American who speaks Arabic, debriefed Saddam after he was found in an underground hideout near his home city north of Baghdad in December 2003, nine months after the U.S. invasion. Piro said Saddam also said that he wanted to keep up the illusion that he had the program in part because he thought it would deter a likely Iranian invasion. For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that (faking having the weapons) would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq,Piro told Scott Pelley of 60 Minutes. Piro added that Saddam had the intention of restarting an Iraqi weapons program at the time, and had engineers available for chemical,biological and nuclear weapons.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 01/26/2008 @ 12:20pm

38. LenMosse-saddam and Iran were keeping each other in check until you people decided to create more unrest in the middle east.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/26/2008 @ 12:27pm

39. ZERO: the prospect of Billary reoccupying the WH makes me much more than queasy. The 2-headed monster, as Mo Dowd described them, will bring chaos down on the US & too much of the rest of the world. But I fear that's precisely what they've bullied their way to, framing Obama as the BLACK Man who wants to live in the WHITE House.

    Posted by sloper at 01/26/2008 @ 12:45pm

40. Posted by LEN MOSSE 01/26/2008 @ 12:20pm

    Exercise a little critical thinking. Why, do you think, we suddenly are hearing about Saddam's strategy, now?

    Let's look at this blog post:

    "1. The US recorded all the interrogations of Saddam. I have a hard time believing if there were sections that would make Bush look good, we wouldn't have seen them.

    2. There's no evidence for any of this. Despite what CBS says, of course, Saddam "admitted" over and over and over again that Iraq had no WMD. Iraq said it in dozens of UN declarations, and Saddam personally said it on Iraqi national TV and in an interview with Dan Rather. And there's no indication he took any specific action to bluff the US or Iran in some way; on the contrary...

    ...3. It's also possible Piro is overstating something real. Saddam might have acted in some minor way at different times to obstruct inspections, with the idea this would make Iran believe Iraq still had something, while trying to come clean at other times.

    I thought this quote was most interesting:

    "Sadly, though, the reality behind it--whatever it is--won't matter. Given the way the America works, the Piro interview will establish for all time that Saddam was bluffing, was itching to get nukes, etc." Len proves the point.

    Saddam's intentionality is not relevant. We have an intelligence community with people like Scott Ritter who did inspections and knew exactly what Iraq's capabilities were - virtually nil. The level of willful ignorance can only be described as astonishing.

    http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/6987_saddams_interr o.html

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/26/2008 @ 1:26pm

41. ....you'd do less harm if you just kept it.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 01/26/2008 @ 10:22am

    I'd have no problem withdrawing "my money" from all those `causes' if your money is withdrawn from all those `other' causes......Libertarianism forever!

    Let the very limited Gov't be funded by some modest level of (non-essential) consumption and broad-based carbon tax, END OF STORY!

    I HAVE A DREAM.......FREE AT LAST!

    Posted by Happy at 01/26/2008 @ 2:24pm

42. we need a businesman/woman who know how to balance books..and know the differnce between investments and taxing and spending.

    Posted by JOMAMMA 01/26/2008 @ 11:00am

    JM,

    Businessmen are the ones who got us into this mess. W and Cheney represent the business world to the nth degree.

    What we need to do is have our government invest into it's own people before throwing thousands upon billions of dollars at wars in Iraq, Afhanistan, outer space etc.

    I brought this up earlier but no one seemed to notice it. If the U.S. built a federal transit system (contracted out by private companies) like a high speed rail system that the Euorpeans have to augment our overburdened highway system, we would put a lot of Americans back to work in the design and engineering of said system, decrese our dependence upon foreign oil and be able to tell Saudi Arabia and Opec to Eff themselves.

    We could go one further by retrofitting eveyrone's existing vehicles to hybrids, hydrogen / electric, or ethanol via tax incentives. Once again, this would really stimulate the economy, help the saging car industry, provide engineering and technical jobs for the retrofitting and once again lessen our dependency on foreign oil.

    Our idiot businessmen running this country need to start thinking outside the god damned box instead of being told what to do by the current industries making profits while the rest of the nation bleeds to death.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/26/2008 @ 3:15pm

43. actualy, I am covering my grandchildren,...(Hillary will never get at it.)

    JM,

    Have money hidden in offshore accounts by chance?

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/26/2008 @ 3:17pm

44. Posted by HAPPY 01/26/2008 @ 2:24pm

    Let the very limited Gov't be funded by some modest level of (non-essential) consumption and broad-based carbon tax, ... and replaced with corporations charging per use fees for water, seeds for agriculture, replaced public roads with corporate owned toll roads, and on and on...where every man is "free" to work 20 hours a day, buy all his goods from the corporate store and work off the debt (indentured servitude) when his wife got ill...END OF STORY!...FREE AT LAST!

    Fixed that for you.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/26/2008 @ 3:55pm

45. Posted by WOLFGANG1 01/26/2008 @ 3:17pm

    Probably in living trusts, where he can leave a few million in each trust for each child without having to pay estate taxes on it and he can set it up to minimalize other taxes as well.

    You don't need off-shore trusts unless you have much more money that JOMAMMA has at his disposal to pay the legal and management fees associated with them. There's a reason why the Pritzker's have them and practically everyone else doesn't.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/26/2008 @ 4:03pm

46. Posted by LEN MOSSE 01/26/2008 @ 12:20pm

    So.....Saddam fooled Bush?

    Posted by Mask at 01/26/2008 @ 4:38pm

47. This is hardly a Democratic-Republication point of difference but rather a Luddite reaction to the reality that globalisation and international free trade are here to stay.

    The Left is desperately trying to make this a poor versus rich beneficiaries issue. However one just needs to look at Asia to see that it is the "poor" who benefit more from this regime than an archaic system that hides behind trade barriers and feeds its prejudices on a philosophy of trade isolationism. It is the Left, with its anti globalisation policies that represents the greatest threat to co-operation between nations in this most vital area and hence peace.

    Of course there is a process of equalisation in play where some American jobs are being lost to other countries and that is happening in most other advanced economies as well so the new globalisation is not our baby alone but is enthusiastically supported particularly in Europe and Asia despite some of the transitional negatives.

    Reagan, Bill Clinton and GW Bush merely reflect the realities of a new and different world against a sort of horse and buggy, village-America mentality.

    If the free trade policies in America originated in the Republican Party then Obama was probably more on the ball than he realised and just shows that the Left has probably never come up with one viable political idea. Guess that condemns it to continuing irrelevancy, Kucinich style.

    Looks like the French and some Canadians can't get enough of it:

    Canwest News Service | Friday, January 18, 2008

    Canada-Europe free trade touted by Charest

    Peter O'Neil - Europe Correspondent

    PARIS -- A Canada-Europe free trade agreement is a win-win proposition, Quebec Premier Jean Charest said Friday while dismissing a former senior Canadian trade negotiator's assertion that a transatlantic accord is "silly" and potentially destructive.

    Charest, after a meeting with French Prime Minister Francois Fillon, said he wants to get the Canada-Europe free trade ball rolling by striking a Quebec-France labour mobility agreement.

    Posted by harvey 79 at 01/26/2008 @ 5:06pm

48. Given the choices at the time I do not regret my vote for Bush..

    Posted by JOMAMMA 01/26/2008 @ 5:44pm

    WE DO!

    Posted by PLANET!!!!! 01/26/2008 @ 12:27pm | ignore this person

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/26/2008 @ 5:44pm

49. Why, do you think, we suddenly are hearing about Saddam's strategy, now?

    Posted by SRJENKINS 01/26/2008 @ 1:26pm

    hmmmm........

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/26/2008 @ 5:47pm

50. Businessmen are the ones who got us into this mess. W and Cheney represent the business world to the nth degree.

    Posted by WOLFGANG1 01/26/2008 @ 3:15pm

    don't forget b. clinton.

    and g. w. bush

    and reagan

    and carter

    and ford

    and nixon

    and and and and and and and and and and and and and

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/26/2008 @ 5:49pm

51. Posted by LEN MOSSE 01/26/2008 @ 12:20pm

    So.....Saddam fooled Bush?

    Posted by MASK 01/26/2008 @ 4:38pm

    and LEN MOSSE, too.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/26/2008 @ 5:51pm

52. Looks like the French and some Canadians can't get enough of it:

    Canwest News Service | Friday, January 18, 2008

    Canada-Europe free trade touted by Charest

    Posted by HARVEY 79 01/26/2008 @ 5:06pm

    fuck that!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/26/2008 @ 5:53pm

53. Posted by JOMAMMA 01/26/2008 @ 11:00am

    Some of us who voted for Bush (twice) have done some soul searching but on balance I have come to the conclusion that even if I could have seen into the future I, like you, would still have done the same. It is sometimes forgotten that he faced a challenge no other president has faced and in that respect he got pretty radical on job training and for a "low IQ er" has done surprisingly well

    For those of us who like government surpluses I suppose we should have got the message that a "compassionate conservative" would be more into welfare spending than a conservative purist.

    My thinking is that as more Americans become aware of the welfare perks that citizens of other nations receive there is a certain inevitability that more will be spent on welfare here at the national level. It's hard to see any prospective president from either side changing that course.

    The problem it seems is that we are not much good at running efficient welfare enterprises as I noticed some stat that claimed the administration costs of our health system were twice as high as the more efficient European health care administration costs. Sort of more money for bureaucrats and less for the recipients of medical services.

    Posted by harvey 79 at 01/26/2008 @ 6:43pm

54. Posted by HARVEY 79 01/26/2008 @ 6:43pm

    Some of us who voted for Bush (twice)

    it takes a brave man to admit something like that

    I, like you, would still have done the same.

    and an even braver man to admit admit THAT

    It is sometimes forgotten that he faced a challenge no other president has faced

    you mean, being #2 in the white house?

    and in that respect he got pretty radical on job training

    THAT'S what all those vacations were for!

    and for a "low IQ er" has done surprisingly well

    homer simpson '08

    For those of us who like government surpluses I suppose we should have

    asked clinton to stick around

    "compassionate conservative"

    yep, compassionately cutting taxes to the golden class

    would be more into welfare spending

    for EXXON, ADM, BOEING.........

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/26/2008 @ 7:27pm

55. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/26/2008 @ 7:27pm

    Can you use a calculator? Work out how much extra those not in the golden class would have got in tax cuts if the same total excluded the GC.

    You may find it is a good head kicking point but of little real monetary significance to those not in the GC.

    Posted by harvey 79 at 01/26/2008 @ 8:43pm