Apparently, Al Gore is causing some in the weather word to seriously lose their mind, consider a statement such as this:
"Gore believed in global warming almost as much as Hitler believed there was something wrong with the Jews."
Based on the fact that Al Gore wrote a book on the environment and has invested his time and money into global warming awareness it's safe to say he believes in global warming, more than most.
Global warming is a reality, how much energy and money we should put towards its elimination is another matter altogether.
Oh, and the lunatic who compared Gore to Hitler his name is meteorologist Bill Gray. (tip: lefty think tank Think Progress)
Sunday, May 28, 2006
the final word on Al Gore
For the past few weeks, the punditry has been abuz about the possibility of a Gore candidacy in 2008; SNL, his movie, etc all proof he is poised to make a run.
My gut tells me he won't only he fears the beast that is Hillary Clinton. It's too bad, because Gore, unlike Bush is a stickler for details. America wants a president who is a stickler for details and policy. Despite his populist campaign in 2000, Gore at his heart is a southern moderate. He was the tiebreaking vote in 1993 that allowed the Clinton budget to go through without a single vote. Although progressive, the package seriously tackled the budget deficits we were facing, thus allowing the government to employ the "pay as you go" rules. Our current policy is pay some other time.
The Clinton/Gore team were deficit hawks and ultimately reduced the size of government. Welfare reform happened during the Clinton/Gore years. Now, there is no guarantee we would see the kind of Gore we saw in the 90's if assumed the presidency in 2009 but it's possible once in the White House he would make a swift move to the center. Based upon the Clinton/Gingrich blueprint, this is a good thing.
And no, I haven't seen his movie.
My gut tells me he won't only he fears the beast that is Hillary Clinton. It's too bad, because Gore, unlike Bush is a stickler for details. America wants a president who is a stickler for details and policy. Despite his populist campaign in 2000, Gore at his heart is a southern moderate. He was the tiebreaking vote in 1993 that allowed the Clinton budget to go through without a single vote. Although progressive, the package seriously tackled the budget deficits we were facing, thus allowing the government to employ the "pay as you go" rules. Our current policy is pay some other time.
The Clinton/Gore team were deficit hawks and ultimately reduced the size of government. Welfare reform happened during the Clinton/Gore years. Now, there is no guarantee we would see the kind of Gore we saw in the 90's if assumed the presidency in 2009 but it's possible once in the White House he would make a swift move to the center. Based upon the Clinton/Gingrich blueprint, this is a good thing.
And no, I haven't seen his movie.
Government - your brother's keeper
Over at the Cato Insitute, Radley Balko has a sharp piece on the recent trend toward nanny statism, forstered lovingly by the Bush GOP.
It is truly scary the kind of power our current government wishes to assume for the american people. Because of our endless "War on Terror," we are sacrificing basic liberties when it comes to personal freedom. How again are we winning this fight?
It is truly scary the kind of power our current government wishes to assume for the american people. Because of our endless "War on Terror," we are sacrificing basic liberties when it comes to personal freedom. How again are we winning this fight?
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
A different view
I have been reading Andrew Sullivan's blog since 04, never have I been so captivated by his new idea called "The View from Your Window," recently introducted on his now legendary blog. Go and see it for yourself.
Monday, May 22, 2006
how much longer?
“We’ve got a good strategy,” the president said. “Whether or not it would work to perfection — you hope you never have to find out.” (George W. Bush)
Bush responding this morning to a question about the government's ability to be ready for a biological attack or a pandemic.
Bush responding this morning to a question about the government's ability to be ready for a biological attack or a pandemic.
Saturday, May 20, 2006
an opportunity
Paleocon Patrick Buchanan (missed him on the CSPAN broadcast of the Book expo) mulls the state of the Grand Old Party here.
TR worshipper Marshall Whitman believes "super serial" Al Gore will run for president, thus enabling Hillary Clinton to walk away with the nomination. Read his ruminations here.
On the topic of Al Gore, my only problem with someone who is obviously commited to something (the terror of global warming) is that he had his shot and he blew it. He let the campaign be dictated by the Bush agenda and let us own discomfort sink him, with a centrist, moderate agenda as a platform. If he runs, he will run as a populist and we do not need a populist (despite my blog's name).
TR worshipper Marshall Whitman believes "super serial" Al Gore will run for president, thus enabling Hillary Clinton to walk away with the nomination. Read his ruminations here.
On the topic of Al Gore, my only problem with someone who is obviously commited to something (the terror of global warming) is that he had his shot and he blew it. He let the campaign be dictated by the Bush agenda and let us own discomfort sink him, with a centrist, moderate agenda as a platform. If he runs, he will run as a populist and we do not need a populist (despite my blog's name).
Friday, May 19, 2006
no change
I'm not changing the name of this blog to suit my newfound ideology. You would think I should, but I won't just to throw people off.
By the way, all the progressives with their fingers crossed hoping for a sweeping Democratic victory in November ask yourselves this question:
"What will we do when we're in?
By the way, all the progressives with their fingers crossed hoping for a sweeping Democratic victory in November ask yourselves this question:
"What will we do when we're in?
the numbers
Over at Cato@Liberty, the Cato Institute's blog, John Samples breaks down the future for Libertarians as a electoral force.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
creeping
towards libertarianism.......
The past six years of the Bush era has resulted in a hardening of my initial progressive beliefs (more government good, less government bad). I approached the Bush administration with a mixture of contempt and snobbery. Let's just say the contempt has carried through.
George Bush has failed every major test put before him. He has failed to rally the nation against an external foe (terrorists) and has failed in basic governance (responding to major crisis). Some believe Bush should have asked of America what FDR asked of America during WWII, proposing national service against jihadism. Instead, Bush has asked nothing of this country other than to ponder life without him.
The liberal American Prospect magazine featured on their cover a striding Bush with the caption "The most dangerous President." Bush is dangerous not to the world, but his own citizens. He wishes to strip every liberty away in his failed pursuit of Al-Qaeda. Identity cards, secret wiretaps, secret military tribunals, and yes everyone's favorite: torture. This is the vision of lunatics who just need to control everything.
In short, the presidency of Bush has surgically removed me from liberalism and its tired cliches. Liberty matters now and as it should. We should be free from roving government at all costs. Instead of hardening my convictions of a progressive America, I only wish for freedom from incompetent and snooping government.
Goodbye Galbraith, hello Freidman.
The past six years of the Bush era has resulted in a hardening of my initial progressive beliefs (more government good, less government bad). I approached the Bush administration with a mixture of contempt and snobbery. Let's just say the contempt has carried through.
George Bush has failed every major test put before him. He has failed to rally the nation against an external foe (terrorists) and has failed in basic governance (responding to major crisis). Some believe Bush should have asked of America what FDR asked of America during WWII, proposing national service against jihadism. Instead, Bush has asked nothing of this country other than to ponder life without him.
The liberal American Prospect magazine featured on their cover a striding Bush with the caption "The most dangerous President." Bush is dangerous not to the world, but his own citizens. He wishes to strip every liberty away in his failed pursuit of Al-Qaeda. Identity cards, secret wiretaps, secret military tribunals, and yes everyone's favorite: torture. This is the vision of lunatics who just need to control everything.
In short, the presidency of Bush has surgically removed me from liberalism and its tired cliches. Liberty matters now and as it should. We should be free from roving government at all costs. Instead of hardening my convictions of a progressive America, I only wish for freedom from incompetent and snooping government.
Goodbye Galbraith, hello Freidman.
Friday, May 12, 2006
no friend of liberty
"In times of war, there is always a delicate balance between security and liberty. And we must be vigilant that certain lines are not crossed. Keep in mind, however, that great Democratic Presidents such as FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ approved and implemented far more intrusive intelligence programs in the interest of national security."
- Marshall Whitman, on his blog bull moose.
No one wants Al Qaeda wiped from the earth as much as yours truly. But can't we reevaluate how we can get to this point? Do we have to point to Democratic presidents as a litmus test for what is liberty infringing? Try this on for size: maybe they were wrong. FDR was wrong for interning Japanese Americans during WWII. Truman was wrong for declaring himself above the law during the steel workers strike. JFK and LBJ wrong for putting the nation of Vietnam before the interests of America.
They were wrong. Bush is wrong for stooping to this level. Period.
- Marshall Whitman, on his blog bull moose.
No one wants Al Qaeda wiped from the earth as much as yours truly. But can't we reevaluate how we can get to this point? Do we have to point to Democratic presidents as a litmus test for what is liberty infringing? Try this on for size: maybe they were wrong. FDR was wrong for interning Japanese Americans during WWII. Truman was wrong for declaring himself above the law during the steel workers strike. JFK and LBJ wrong for putting the nation of Vietnam before the interests of America.
They were wrong. Bush is wrong for stooping to this level. Period.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
he's a loudmouth punk
He being the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Excellent piece about the radical history of this man in the past issue of The New Republic. He is a child of the rebellion, a reminder of the extreme ways of the Shah.
What he is not is a threat to the United States. He is playing a game, and we are willing participants. The Bush/Rove machine (well, Bush if Rove gets indicted) will use Iran as a bludgeoning tool on the Democratic Party, and it will work once again.
Iran does not have nor will it have a nuclear weapon in the near future. War with Iran is suicide and will result in the deaths of thousands of Iraqis and American troops in the region. A true leader would speak to the Iranian president face to face. JFK met with Khrushchev. Reagan met with a much friendlier Gorbachev. Great presidents, even good presidents act presidential in these moments.
Bush would rather respond through subordinates.
What he is not is a threat to the United States. He is playing a game, and we are willing participants. The Bush/Rove machine (well, Bush if Rove gets indicted) will use Iran as a bludgeoning tool on the Democratic Party, and it will work once again.
Iran does not have nor will it have a nuclear weapon in the near future. War with Iran is suicide and will result in the deaths of thousands of Iraqis and American troops in the region. A true leader would speak to the Iranian president face to face. JFK met with Khrushchev. Reagan met with a much friendlier Gorbachev. Great presidents, even good presidents act presidential in these moments.
Bush would rather respond through subordinates.
68%
......this is the percentage of Americans who believe this country is worse off today than it was before Bush became president. Story here.
No pity. I have none to offer the portion of the electorate who refused to honestly look at the record of George W. Bush before giving him a passing grade in November of 2004. In 2004 we still had no plan to leave Iraq or for that matter to stabilize it. We still don't. Much is unchanged about the state of the nation as it was in late 2004.
The question is, if a sitting president is this unpopular, what can be done to replace him. It seems extremely unfair that a majority of the country must continue to live under the presidency of George W. Bush.
No pity. I have none to offer the portion of the electorate who refused to honestly look at the record of George W. Bush before giving him a passing grade in November of 2004. In 2004 we still had no plan to leave Iraq or for that matter to stabilize it. We still don't. Much is unchanged about the state of the nation as it was in late 2004.
The question is, if a sitting president is this unpopular, what can be done to replace him. It seems extremely unfair that a majority of the country must continue to live under the presidency of George W. Bush.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Carter vs Bush
I'll take Carter, sweater and all.
Bush's poll numbers are causing many a commentator to compare the heir to a political dynasty to a peanut farmer.
Jimmy Carter was a political victim of forces beyond his control. In the eyes of a majority of americans he was not fit to handle the numerous crisis during his term, most damaging being the hostage crisis where Carter took an overtly cautious approach in the vein of JFK during the Cuban missle crisis, difference was the results. There has never been a more decent human being to occupy the White House as most historians have written. The presidency is sometimes best reserved for ruthless men.
Bush is ruthless. Bush grants himself powers never dreamed of by the framers of the Constitution. Bush ignores international law as well as domestic. Bush has made fashionable the radical Wilsonesque doctrine of preemptive war.
Bush's numbers are in the toilet because his failures are all encompassing.
Bush's poll numbers are causing many a commentator to compare the heir to a political dynasty to a peanut farmer.
Jimmy Carter was a political victim of forces beyond his control. In the eyes of a majority of americans he was not fit to handle the numerous crisis during his term, most damaging being the hostage crisis where Carter took an overtly cautious approach in the vein of JFK during the Cuban missle crisis, difference was the results. There has never been a more decent human being to occupy the White House as most historians have written. The presidency is sometimes best reserved for ruthless men.
Bush is ruthless. Bush grants himself powers never dreamed of by the framers of the Constitution. Bush ignores international law as well as domestic. Bush has made fashionable the radical Wilsonesque doctrine of preemptive war.
Bush's numbers are in the toilet because his failures are all encompassing.
"a damp"
The term used to describe then presidential candidate Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932 due to Roosevelt's indecision on the Prohibition issue. Jonathan Alter of Newsweek magazine has a new book entitled "The Defining Moment: FDR's Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope," in which FDR's rise from unknown to legendary president is chronicled and the aforementioned fact is noted.
What a giant of a man. As most historians are starting to understand, FDR's New Deal was not a quick fix to the Great Depression and many of its programs were in their infancy under Herbert Hoover, however no president did more to lift the general welfare of the common man than FDR. Alter's book on the top of my reading list this summer. I can't wait.