Arkansas Blog

We do things that are controversial.

It's only controversial because the Republicans oppose the "things" we support. Of course they oppose these things. That's why they're in the party of the dark side.

We do things that try to inflame their base.

No, we don't "try" to inflame them. The very fact that we're alive and disagreeing with them keeps them inflamed. We don't have to do anything special to inflame them.

If they spout their hate and we say nothing in reply, I don't think we'll be any better off. They'll just be free to bend people's minds with no opposition.

If they spout their hate and we agree with them just to placate them, then we've sold our soul and are no more likely to win elections.

We can't win by seeing our voters stay home on election day. Our party is a coalition of various groups. Just as the Republicans are in deep trouble if they don' t turn out the Christian fundamentalists and NASCAR bunch, so the Democrats are in trouble if they lose the greens, the liberals, the gays, and all the other parts that make up the whole. It's a difficult tightrope we must walk, and I don't see Mrs. Clinton's recent advice as being particularly wise or useful.

What we've got to do is take the outrageous stuff the Republicans say and do use it to invigorate our own party faithful.

The Republicans have been in total control for years now, so we're in the enviable position of being able to point out things Republicans have done to our freedoms, to the environment, to federal lands and national parks, to our place in the world community, to our once-proud army, to our national debt and so many other things.

I agree spirit. I'm tired of Democrats allowing the Republicans to define what's outrageous. Allowing Rove et al to set the parameters of what's 'acceptable' for political conversation is what's gotten us conservative politicians who run head on into their Nazi (I know, I know) positions and liberal politicians who are always trying to tip toe around the 'liberal' view. It's gotten us a public discourse about a based-on-lies, immoral war that consists of 'true patriots' who love their country 'cause they support monkeyboy unconditionally and the rest of us 'commies' who hate Amurica and the troops.

I do agree with Hillary that it's counter-productive to spend too much time defending some of the red-meat crap the Republicans throw out. But is there any doubt that Kerry would've been much better served if spent some time calling out Rove's Swift-Boat liars?

What I want to know is, why don't Democrats start saying things like, "This is what we're going to do and this is why we're doing it." There is a lot of criticism that the Democrats are the party of no ideas. Often times I have to agree with that. Are we too busy trying to avoid the Howard Dean "woo-hoo" moments? Are we worried we'll turn off moderates?

There is a lot of criticism that the Democrats are the party of no ideas. Often times I have to agree with that.
Posted by: Liberal and Proud

I'll keep trotting this out every month and hope the Democrats eventually pick up on it as a starting place.

From
Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D-Illinois)

Expand support for higher education. "Make college as universal in the 21st century as high school was in the 20th"; three out of four jobs in the new, high-tech economy require two years or more of higher education.

Create a National Institute of Science and Engineering, like the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Funding for the NIH has quadrupled since the 1980s, from $7 billion to $28 billion. "That's why we lead in pharmaceuticals and medical technology." Funding for science has been stagnant?about $5 billion?during that period. "I'd quadruple it and concentrate on nanotechnology, broadband and energy."

Promote energy independence. Reduce foreign oil by 50% in 10 years. Create a hybrid economy. Use government contracts and tax incentives to boost solar and wind power.

"You got a job, you got health care." Give the uninsured vouchers?"I'm not afraid of vouchers"?for use in the insurance system that covers federal employees. Basic coverage, nothing fancy.

Organize a bipartisan summit on the budget. Balance it.

Everything on the table?loopholes, pork, Bush tax cuts. "And then you gotta have a reform piece," Emanuel hydrofoiled. "Actually, that should come first. Clean up the relationship between lobbyists and legislators, same way we did donors and candidates. This place is a cesspool?gotta address the gifts, free trips, the revolving-door lobbying jobs for staff members."

I would prefer to hear from Mrs. Clinton, rather than a New York Times writer, what "things [we do] that try to inflame their base." What other issues might she have been referring to?
But I strongly agree with Spirit that our (generally Democrat) politicians must "point out things Republicans have done to our freedoms, to the environment, to federal lands and national parks, to our place in the world community, to our once-proud army, to our national debt and so many other things."
If we can get the woefully ill-informed American public to consider the United States as a whole and as a part of the world we all share perhaps not all is lost.
Am I confident we can do this? I wish I were.

Rahm Emanuel's proposal, ("You got a job, you got health care."), needs a little refining. I can think of one situation in which one might reasonably chose not to take a job, yet need health care coverage. Before someone starts screaming "deadbeats don't deserve . . .," consider those who choose to care for a family member whose health is poor rather than placing him or her in a nursing home. I'm sure there a many similar situations in which getting a job is not a panacea. Universal health care (yes, "[b]asic coverage, nothing fancy," although I'm not sure who would decide the definition of "fancy") makes more sense than empoyment based insurance.

C'Mon Warwick - why not post the article about the estate tax that basically talks about how people like your boss are ignorant about the the way things really work.

I always enjoy listening to people talk about things they think they know something about when clearly they do not. Max Brantley on the estate tax is one of them.

The last two families in Arkansas who will ever pay the estate tax are the Waltons and the Stephens - they have lawyers that have that handled for them. All it takes is a nice insurance contract, or a charity and some forsight.

p.s. why do you think the insurance lobby is bankrolling the whole "estate taxes are good!" campaign?

I can think of one situation in which one might reasonably chose not to take a job, yet need health care coverage.
Posted by: Doigotta

The reason the Clintons' plan went down in flames years ago was that they tried to do it all from the beginning, tried to be all things to all people.

I'd advocate starting with what we can get, and make improvements as time goes on and we learn how to manage such a system.

If we try to cover all the bases from day one, I say it will never get off the ground.

I saw it will never get off the ground anyway, as long as the insurance and pharmaceutical industries are free to pay actors and make TV commercials.

why not post the article about the estate tax that basically talks about how people like your boss are ignorant about the the way things really work.
Posted by: sweetie

Spirit sniffs the air and smells bait.

Instead, why don't we talk about dead soldiers in Iraq and the largest national debt and budget shortfall in history.

our health care system is a mess. we need to have a mid or lower level of treatment for low income people so they will stop using emergency rooms for their primary care system. as it is they cannot turn anyone down so they go there for everything from colds to broken legs. without some form of universal health care the most expensive care in the country will continue to be the most basic care for the lowest income people. this clogs up the system and makes everything more expensive.

Lt. Governor Win Rockefeller died at 10:37 a.m.
My thoughts and prayers for his family and friends.

HOLD THE PHONE. THIS STORY IS INACCURATE.

Warwick, if you are the webmaster today, you must have become aware that this NYT story by Ann Kornblut has been completely discredited by the actual transcript of the speech.

Readers and Warwick, please go to atrios.blogspot.com and start from there. This discrepancy is being debated and transcripts of the speech are being printed in many places on the net as we speak.

Clinton's full text makes it VERY OBVIOUS that she was not "chastising Democrats," she was referring to the detrimental actions of the Republican-controlled Senate. Please take time to read the facts and repost more on this damaging, inaccurate NYT headline and story.

Wow...Mag is 100% right! The New York Times writer Anne Kornblut has flat taken Hillary's words out of context and wrote a big ass lie!

All a simpleton would have to do is read what Hillary actually said and then read the Time's article to know that Kornblut is another Judith Miller. I've already sent email to the Time's editor throwing a wall-eyed fit. If I owned the Times I too would want to present both sides, but I would never tolerate either side writing bald faced lies in MY newspaper. I would be ashamed of the AT for doing it too.

Maybe the Democrat's message hasn't been so weak after all. With people like Kornblut lying in print in what is supposed to be the newspaper of the liberal elite....What we gonna do? This trick just doubled my chances of voting for Hillary in 2008.

Click on my name to read what Hillary actually said.....damn it!

I don't see Mrs. Clinton's recent advice as being particularly wise or useful.
Posted by: Spirit

Well if the words were taken out of context, that sure helps explain it. Sounds like her advice was particularly wise and useful after all.

Man, can you imagine how much stuff we read is false or misleading and just goes on being passed around as truth because nobody has the time/inclination to check out the details on every one of them.

Glad it was caught this time.

Anyone who thinks that our democracy has not been stolen by the elite is living in a never never land.

Thanks to blogs like this that we might have a chance see these:

"What I found provided a personal epiphany. Authoritarian conservatives are, as a researcher told me, ``enemies of freedom, antidemocratic, antiequality, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian and amoral." And that's not just his view." John Dean

I was privileged to hear Hillary this morning at LR's First United Methodist Church. While she did not speak of politics, she spoke in abundance of peace and social responsibility to one another. Despite what her detractors have said (and will say ever more vehemently as time passes), Hillary Clinton is a class act who is truly concerned about her fellow humankind.

Yes....authoritarian conservatives equal the American Taliban. Their brains are wired just like Osama's. In the 30s their kind of thinking paved the way for Hitler. It's very troubling. I don't know what the cure might be, but I know understanding the way their minds work is the first step.

I'm thankful John Dean, who is not Howard Dean, or Jimmy Dean or James Dean or Dean Rusk, took the time to write a book on the subject of authoritarian conservatives. Thanks for posting this, Phaedrus.

I saw some of Hillary's Rogers speech in a local TV film clip and they used the line about trying to inflame the base, and at the time I thought it seemed reasonably clear she was referring to congressional Republicans. So when I read the NYT article I wondered if the TV station here had gotten the context fouled up. So it turns out NWA TV was right and the NYT was wrong.

Not the first time, and far from the last.

"So it turns out NWA TV was right and the NYT was wrong."

Sorry -- but I repeat -- not the first time and far from the last.

Having had the experience of hearing what I thought was said rather than what actually was said, I've read and reread the NY Times piece and the transcript at Atrios. A mistake rather than a hatchet job is possible but if so, the reporter either couldn't hear very well or zoned out at the wrong time.
While something seemed to be "off" with the story when I read it originally, my initial concern was the reporter's interjection of "[w]ithout mentioning specific subjects like gay marriage. . ." It was here I felt the reporter crossed a line.
Obviously the problem was far worse. So the question I would now like to see answered (with appropriate supporting arguments) is: mistake or hatchet job?
Me? For what little it's worth, I'm leaning toward mistake, but my mind could be changed easily by examples of slanting by the reporter.
If hatchet job, why did the reporter think she could pull it off given that the story was based on a public speech? Are we still considered so truly a backwater that she thought nothing but her story would reach the Big Apple?
Surely not.

I was there for the Rogers speech. She was clearly speaking of the senate. She said the other democrat senators have compiled a list of ten things that they would like to see addressed by congress. They were printed out in bullet form and she waved this around as she read these words:

So we pulled all our best ideas together. Wouldn't this be a good agenda for America: safeguard America's pensions; good jobs for Americans; make college affordable for all; protect America and our military families; prepare for future disasters; make America energy independent; make small business and healthcare affordable, invest in life saving science; and protect our air, land, and water. You know, Blanche Lincoln has a bill to make healthcare affordable for small business, I have a bill I was talking to you about with respect to energy independence, we have legislation sitting in the Senate to address these problems.

She also to my surprise stayed around after the lunch to sign autographs and be photographed with the attendees. I know she had a very tight schedule this weekend and was most grateful for the extra time she spent with us.

My brilliant wife says she is familiar with Anne Kornblut and she is of the Judith Miller camp, always supportive of the Bush administration. So I think we can rule out mistake.

I appreciate the effort New York Times makes to present all sides. They employee both right-wingers and left-wingers. It is one thing to slant the news in the direction of your agenda, but it is never alright to write lies or take words out of context to change the entire meaning of a news story, in this instant taking what Hillary said and twisting it around to mean the opposite.

Lord god..if this is happening at the New York Times, what can we expect from Fox News? Hillary's point was as Rome burns to the ground, the Republican controlled Senate spends days debating flag burning, crafting wordy declarations of support for our troops....anything that will fire up THEIR base, not the Democratic base. Doesn't anyone think in times like these the Senate should be wasting one minute of time?

How many American troops died during the wasted days the Senate debated flag burning, walls down Mexico way and that nice show of absolutely worthless support for our troops...support from a governmental body who 3 years later have still not armed our troops properly. Support from people who have never seen war, will never see war, whose kids are kept out of war. How sick can you get?

Think! Read! Watch out for tricks by people in high places. Use your gut to tell right from wrong. And those of you that pray, get after it.

Why was she here anyway? Arkansans for New York?
If one believes half of what one hears and half of what one sees then one might be half way to the truth on a good day with clear skies and no wind.
The above statment is apolitical. It was approved by me with monetary support from nobody

I'm just wondering what follow-up the NY Times might have on this error. The stakes clould be high.

You can figure that Hillary's press office noticed this blunder and probably got on the phone to Kornblut or the NY editors seeking a correction/clarification. If one is not forthcoming, here's what we could expect:

Hillary is already under fire from party liberals for various reasons we've all read about. When they see the Sunday Times article, they'll go higher into orbit and say things like, "See? Now she's attacking her own party!"

Meanwhile, Bill O'Reilly will go big on the Hillary-hates-liberal-Demos story line and his comrades will pick it up and say it's all an insincere sop.

In short, this situation will need the Times to go on record in its page 2A correction box that they botched it. Not that O'Reilly would factor it in, but Hillary's team can't let this one slide. We'll see how the post-Howell Raines era handles this one.

The New York Times was dead wrong about Whitewater and they have never forgiven the Clintons for not being what the NYT said they were. We shouldn't be surprised by what they do in retaliation. I'm sure Bill and Hillary aren't.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/07/14/cnusa14.xml
US 'could be going bankrupt'
By Edmund Conway, Economics Editor 
(Filed: 14/07/2006)

The United States is heading for bankruptcy, according to an extraordinary paper published by one of the key members of the country's central bank.

A ballooning budget deficit and a pensions and welfare timebomb could send the economic superpower into insolvency, according to research by Professor Laurence Kotlikoff for the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis, a leading constituent of the US Federal Reserve.

Prof Kotlikoff said that, by some measures, the US is already bankrupt. "To paraphrase the Oxford English Dictionary, is the United States at the end of its resources, exhausted, stripped bare, destitute, bereft, wanting in property, or wrecked in consequence of failure to pay its creditors," he asked.

According to his central analysis, "the US government is, indeed, bankrupt, insofar as it will be unable to pay its creditors, who, in this context, are current and future generations to whom it has explicitly or implicitly promised future net payments of various kinds''.

The budget deficit in the US is not massive. The Bush administration this week cut its forecasts for the fiscal shortfall this year by almost a third, saying it will come in at 2.3pc of gross domestic product. This is smaller than most European countries - including the UK - which have deficits north of 3pc of GDP.

Prof Kotlikoff, who teaches at Boston University, says: "The proper way to consider a country's solvency is to examine the lifetime fiscal burdens facing current and future generations. If these burdens exceed the resources of those generations, get close to doing so, or simply get so high as to preclude their full collection, the country's policy will be unsustainable and can constitute or lead to national bankruptcy.

"Does the United States fit this bill? No one knows for sure, but there are strong reasons to believe the United States may be going broke."

Experts have calculated that the country's long-term "fiscal gap" between all future government spending and all future receipts will widen immensely as the Baby Boomer generation retires, and as the amount the state will have to spend on healthcare and pensions soars. The total fiscal gap could be an almost incomprehensible $65.9 trillion, according to a study by Professors Gokhale and Smetters.

The figure is massive because President George W Bush has made major tax cuts in recent years, and because the bill for Medicare, which provides health insurance for the elderly, and Medicaid, which does likewise for the poor, will increase greatly due to demographics.

Prof Kotlikoff said: "This figure is more than five times US GDP and almost twice the size of national wealth. One way to wrap one's head around $65.9trillion is to ask what fiscal adjustments are needed to eliminate this red hole. The answers are terrifying. One solution is an immediate and permanent doubling of personal and corporate income taxes. Another is an immediate and permanent two-thirds cut in Social Security and Medicare benefits. A third alternative, were it feasible, would be to immediately and permanently cut all federal discretionary spending by 143pc."

The scenario has serious implications for the dollar. If investors lose confidence in the US's future, and suspect the country may at some point allow inflation to erode away its debts, they may reduce their holdings of US Treasury bonds.

Prof Kotlikoff said: "The United States has experienced high rates of inflation in the past and appears to be running the same type of fiscal policies that engendered hyperinflations in 20 countries over the past century."

Paul Ashworth, of Capital Economics, was more sanguine about the coming retirement of the Baby Boomer generation. "For a start, the expected deterioration in the Federal budget owes more to rising per capita spending on health care than to changing demographics," he said.

"This can be contained if the political will is there. Similarly, the expected increase in social security spending can be controlled by reducing the growth rate of benefits. Expecting a fix now is probably asking too much of short-sighted politicians who have no incentives to do so. But a fix, or at least a succession of patches, will come when the problem becomes more pressing."

Alas, but I did miss her majesty's visit to our fair city last weekend. I so longingly anticipated her words of encouragement to those of us here on the farm from one who has experienced so much enlightenment.

For a moment I thought that I would catch her at Kakhi Hockeypuck's reception but the crowd of wanabees were just too much. As I approached I could hear the melodius strains of 'How you gonna keep them down on the farm when they've seen Pairee' penetrate the thick humid air. I could almost make out the echoes of her comforting words as I approached---"has that nogood husband of mine been sneeking back here to sample some of the home stuff?"

I am comforted by her words of wisdom encouraging us to stay the course until 2008. Then I am assured that all will be made well by her triumphant victory over the forces of darkness and the conservative way. Once again, we will be liberated by her all encompassing trick bag of solutions for all that ails us. Hip, Hip, Horray for the queen. Darkness shall turn to Hillary and we shall be set free. Unfortunately, Bill will not be included in that liberation package. The boy has got to do his time.