Let me get this out of the way:
- this diary is not a defense or rationalization of obama's huge blunder. he fumbled, and he's still paying for it.
- i am not in the obama camp (though i really like him). last week i wrote diary on john edwards awesomeness, this week i am leaning richardson, but really i am yearning for the goreacle.
ok, now the real issue, david sirota, among others, is cherry picking obama's past language about iraq in order to reinforce a triangulation on iraq meme.
In the "breaking blue" section of mydd sirota writes:
Barack and Forth On Iraq (David Sirota)
Radar Mag has the latest on the seemingly triangulating senator from Illinois.
Posted at 04/03/2007 02:40:36 PM EST - #
Radar mag has the latest breaking news? Let's look at what they have below the fold...
John Edwards today called for increasing future awesomeness.
In a policy speech in my Awesome hometown, he released 1000 awesome pages of details of his plan to increase awesomeness in general, while phasing out lameness.
"Awesomeness is not just an issue for the future, we have the chance to create an awesome country today. If we're going to have that happen, we have to be willing to stop being lame. We need to be totally radical about how awesome we really are, so we can leave our children and grandchildren and awesome planet."
Until hearing today's totally awesome speech, I had not decided if Edwards was the most awesome candidate, or if he was kind of lame like (but note quite as sucky as) the Others. After having heard the speech I became totally convinced that Edwards is the only truly awesome candidate.
I thought I'd throw together a little timeline that outlined the events on the whole Paul Hackett/Sherrod Brown Senate race dispute, just to provide an objective framework for further discussion of kos' claim that "Brown announced his candidacy before Hackett did". It is by no means complete, so feel free to add to it in the comments, I just wanted to throw something together to get this out there.
let me be clear here, and make it known that I consider current republican anti-"Big Government" rhetoric to be hogwash. besides the fact that current republicans have hypocritically presided over the largest overall increase in federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson
, i never bought their small government philosophy. Republicans calling for "more liberty" have always struck me as wanting just enough government to protect their property, and screw everyone else. (though i do believe there are some "real libertarians
"), who take a principled stance on this issue.
ok, now that (you know i'm not some troll), i was reading today's excellent diary DKos and Bigotry in which benthos states "I'm pro-tax, pro-big government".
A little Tom Waits to pay tribute...
Well I wish I was in New Orleans
I can see it in my dreams
Arm in arm down Burgundy
A bottle and my friends and me
Hoist up a few tall cool ones
Play some pool and listen to that
Tenor saxaphone calling me home
And I can hear the band begin
When The Saints Go Marching In
By the whiskers on my chin
New Orleans I'll be there
I was gonna write a "pie" diary but everyone's doing that. Then I was going to ignore the site until "pie"gate settles down a bit, but that's lame; why let the "pie"heads have their pie and eat it too? Then I found a really interesting map.
We've all seen those endless red/blue maps that map the counties in the US by voting percentage favoring Bush or Kerry. Those were very interesting of course, and what we learned is that there is an archipelago of blue islands amongst a sea of red. The map below is different, what it shows is the change in support, by county, for respective Democratic and Republican candidates in the Presidential election. Red counties mark a gain by Kerry, the darker the more pronounced the shift, for Bush the gains are in blue.
In Howard Dean's speech at the Take Back America 2005 conference he mentions pension portability, and that Democrats have a "positive plan of portability and independent control of pensions".
Here's an excerpt:
"we need to have pension portability, so that as we move from job to job pensions follow us along. Pension plans ought not be controlled by companies, they should be controlled [by the people who own them]."
More below the fold...
A few weeks ago drewthaler
wrote a wonderful diary (Democrats, Mac OS X, Dean, and the iPod
) comparing Apple computers and its CEO Steve Jobs to the Democratic Party and Howard Dean. I don't have anything quite so eloquent but I am going to quickly connect Apple to the Democratic party again via the iPod, Moveon.org
, and a man named George Masters.
A Fair and Simple Tax System for our Future: A Progressive Approach to Tax Reform
Are you interested in what a comprehensive Democratic tax reform plan might look like? Here is a summary and explanation of just such a plan devised by the Center for American Progress
, a center-left think-tank headed by former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta.
This is a prettly long diary, but my detailed comments don't need to be read to understand the plan. In fact, unless your truly interested in tax-policy wonkiness, I would recommend reading just what's in the colored boxes, and perhaps any other sentences that are in bold, checking my detailed comments as desired. If you wanna skim, just the bold titles and sentences should suffice.
Republicans love to lash out at Social Security as being emblematic of
"Big Government", when in fact, for as much as it costs, SS actually requires
very little bureaucracy and is administered quite efficiently. The more we
hear from the Bush administration about their "policy" proposal for SS reform,
the more ridicculous the whole idea seems. But did anyone ever imagine that
their "privatization" scheme would actually create a whole mess of new, messy
bureaucracy? Read on...
Bush didn't run his most recent campaign on the idea of pushing major "tax-reform", but we all knew it was coming, and since November 3rd he has been letting us all know that he is going to spend his political "capital" on getting is through.
While many in the right-wing and corporate press have been comparing this to Reagan, and the congressional Democrats, 1986 real tax-reform effort, Jonathan Chait of the New Republic exposes Bush's fake "tax reform" plan
Bush's goal is different from--and, in many ways, the opposite of--tax reform. The fact that Reagan's tax reform
entailed a death struggle against tax lobbyists, and that Bush's "tax reform" strategy was literally devised by a tax
lobbyist, is merely one clue.
The 1986 tax reform eliminated tons of loopholes for special (ie:moneyed) interests, there was no increase in revenue
however, because tax rates were then cut across the board, but the general structure remained progressive, with the
wealthy being bearing a greater burden than the middle class and poor.
So what is Bush up to?
How often do you hear people claiming to be "Socially Liberal but Fiscally Conservative"? I hear it freakin, all the time!. Usually the context is a conversation with some sort of self-professed "apolitical", "moderate", or "centrist" person talking about how neither party speaks for them because they have these magical, tragically under-represented views of the "Socially Liberal but Fiscally Conservative" thinker. Ok, enough snark, let's be fair; these are well meaning people using the wrong terminology. When someone says this to me I never let it stand, I always follow up with a laundry list of specific questions, such as: