Cynical Nation

“They're (NRO and social Conservatives)probably every bit as dispirited and demoralized as I was in 2000. It's their turn now, not mine. I just hoped they'd wear it a little better. Instead, my former mentors have stooped to the maturity level of... well, me.” (bnj)


OK, I’m glad you added that last line Barry, because within the past month, YOU yourself have said;

“If the Republicans are shortsighted enough to vote for Romney, I'll vote for Hillary in the general election. Yeah, I know, that's not much of a threat, because I'm just one guy. My dozens of readers aren't a match for Limbaugh's millions of listeners...” (bnj)


The BEST argument for McCain is that “Romney’s no Reaganite either.”

They BOTH have baggage, McCain has his name on a few embarrassingly bad Bills (McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy to name but two), while Romney has “Romney-care,” (pretty much the same plan as Hillary & Obama want to bring national) that has failed (400,000 still uninsured in MA) in the Bay State.

There are almost always hysterics on all sides. I was livid when Bush Sr., won over Pat Buchanan (an American prophet) back in 1988. I DID support an independent run by PJB.

But that’s bad politics.

Look at BW, as immature as he may be on the issues, he seems willing to shift to “the most Liberal candidate with a chance to win.” He dumped Dean for Kerry double-quick back in 2004 and recently tossed Edwards over the side for Obama (a wise move, since Edwards wouldn’t even carry his home state)...in a PRIMARY!

While I understand all the current negativity (both fields are slim-pickins for real Conservatives and genuine Liberals), from the Conservative POV, the fact that the two most Left-of-Center candidates on BOTH sides (Edwards & Giuliani) are DONE, should be GOOD NEWS all around.

McCain was considering to leave the GOP about 5 years ago and become a democrat. That is a well-known and established fact. Now, he pretends to be "conservative". We have no idea what he will do tomorrow.

I can understand why conservatives can not stand him. But I find remarkable the desparation of the GOP leadership. They are promoting the candidacy of a non-loyal "republican" like McCain, because they believe he is electable. And that is totally laughable, because McCain is totally unelectable. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I prefer him over Romney as the GOP nominee. Romney could have campaigned with a focus on the economy. But how is McCain going to campaign? Will he campaign on "staying 100 years" in Iraq? or on his flip-flopping on tax cuts? McCain will lose by a landslide.

“McCain was considering to leave the GOP about 5 years ago and become a democrat. That is a well-known and established fact.” (BW)


I hate to be such a stickler about documentation, I guess it’s just my nature, but maybe you can help me out here BW...See, all I’ve found are denials by McCain and speculation that McCain might (“We hope, we HOPE” – by the MSM) launch a Third Party bid for the 2004 election.

CBS reported that the speculation was idle, so did The Hill and, of course, the AP.

Here are some of the pieces I found, could you be a “pal” and maybe find some documentation that would prove that McCain was actually considering “becoming a Democrat?”

That would be great.

It seems as though McCain was asked by Kerry to be his running mate, but rebuffed Kerry outright.

There seemed to speculation in 2001 that McCain MIGHT run a Third Party challenge against Bush in 2004, but that seems like MSM wishful thinking, doesn’t it?

Maybe you can find some other sources, but here’s the sampling of what I found:

McCain Staying Put

Maverick Senator Insists He's Not Switching Parties

CBS News
WASHINGTON, June 4, 2001
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/06/02/politics/main294513.shtml

In the aftermath of the Jeffords Thunderbolt -- which turned the Senate over to the Democrats -- the McCain-Daschle Summit had enough of a feel of another shoe dropping that the Washington Post saw it as the start to a McCain third-party movement to challenge President Bush in 2004.

McCain attempted to cool switch-of-party speculation with a statement that said: "I have no intention of running for president, nor do I have any intention of or cause to leave the Republican Party."




McCain denies he was close to quitting GOP

By Bob Cusack
03/30/07
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/mccain-no-truth-in-claims-he-was-close-to-bolt-from-the-gop-2007-03-30.html

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Thursday that there is “not a shred” of truth to claims that he was close to leaving the Republican Party in 2001. On Sean Hannity’s radio show, McCain said Democrats approached him about leaving the GOP, but denied any suggestion that he engaged in serious discussions to become an Independent.

Asked by the conservative pundit whether there is any truth to the assertions made in the article by Daschle and former Rep. Tom Downey (D-N.Y.), McCain responded, “Not a shred. Not a shred.”
“Look,” McCain said on the radio show, “I was approached by Democrats, sure. I was approached by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to run as his running mate in 2004 and I rejected it out of hand.”
Laughing, McCain added, “It was the smartest thing I ever did.”




McCain: I Won't Leave GOP SCOTT THOMSEN Associated Press Writer

The Associated Press
Saturday, June 2, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010602/aponline162941_000.htm

SEDONA, Ariz. –– Before a closely watched weekend get-together with the Senate Democratic leader, GOP Sen. John McCain declared Saturday he has no intention of bolting the Republican Party or running for president in 2004.

The meeting with South Dakota's Tom Daschle at McCain's 13-acre ranch in Arizona's scenic red rock country comes amid speculation McCain might be considering a third-party challenge to President Bush. Only late last month, McCain chastised GOP leaders for being too rigid and immature.

"I have not instructed nor encouraged any of my advisers to begin planning for a presidential run in 2004. I have not discussed running for president with anyone," McCain said in a statement.

"As I have said repeatedly, I have no intention of running for president, nor do I have any intention of or cause to leave the Republican Party. I hope this will put an end to further speculation on this subject."

The Washington Post, quoting unidentified sources close to McCain, reported Saturday that the senator is talking with advisers about leaving the Republican Party and mounting a third-party challenge to Bush.

The Polls currently show that McCain would best both Hillary and Obama "IF the election were held today."

I don't put much stock in such polls because the election is STILL ten months off and it's far more likely than not, that the events that will MOST impact that election have not occurred yet.

Amazing as it seems, I agree with Blue Wind. Mcpain will get his ass kicked anyway, so it doesn't matter who we vote for.
I have a liberal neighbor who argues politics with me over dinner every Sunday. He has been saying all along that he would vote Republican for Mcpain over Hillary. But as with many libs, my neighbor will get his marching orders via the MSM the day after Mcpain sews up the nomination, and experience a miraculous conversion into a Mcpain hater.
I have a bet with the Mrs. on this.

Paul, what's the big deal about McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy?

They were admittedly bad Bills, but one has been trimmed by the courts and probably will be pared more and the second was defeated by the PEOPLE who stopped the Bill dead in Congress!

We have a sitting President who has consistently supported exactly what McCain-Kennedy sought, on immigration and fought WITH Pelosi and Reid to get it passed.

Bush also seemed to have little problem with McCain-Feingold, as the Parties found their ways around the restrictions.

I know the likes of BW and DBK and others don't get this, but I figured YOU must, there's the POLITICAL CLASS and then there's "the People."

There NO/ZERO career politicians who care a damn about the people's best interests, not even their voter's best interests. They care about their own best interests first, and after that, they care about their major donors best interests.

Look at the things Conservatives care about - crime control, a strong national defense, an end to "group rights" (race/gender preferences), a less intrusive, smaller and cost-effective government....all of those ARE the "best interests" of the vast majority of Americans, and yet, those are the things whether we have "so-called Conservatives in power or not, that get "compromised."

Consider the fact that we had a Republican Congress with a Republican President from January 2001 to January 2007.and not once did they re-introduce their 1999 Bill to eliminate the AMT.

Now they're poised to use it as a hammer on the Democrats, and yes, I support that, even though I don't like the fact that the GOP screwed the pooch on that issue, as well.

Neither Party cares about those who vote for them, they care about their own political careers and the best interests of thier major DONORS - the people who paid for the party!

McCain is the only non-Corporatist Repug candidate, so they have to run him. Chimp/Rove bascially decimated the Repug party and "supply side" bullshit.

Tax cuts stimulate the economy! Yeah right. We face recession but the rich who used to own 4% of the GNP now own almost 15%.

Bush wrecked the economy enriching the rich, which is why supply side is bullshit and doesn't work.

The "Reagan Era" is over. Even the Repugs won't run another Reagan union-busting Corporatist.

I'm laughing my ass off.

The wealthy, in America, are over-taxed.

The top 10% of income earners pay over 70% of the income taxes, a higher percentage then they did in 2000.

As a result, the Dems aren't talking about "payroll tax cuts for the working poor," but for eliminating the AMT, a tax that effects ONLY those singles earning over $120,000/yr and Married couples earning above $200,000/yr.

Now THAT'S a tax cut for "the rich" (higher income earners), but, without question, a well warranted one. If the AMT had been indexed to inflation, today it would impact those starting at $1.2 Million/year.

Of course, only a very few Americans (less than 5%, I'd guess) confuse high income earners with "the rich."

The "rich" are those who DO NOT rely on income for wealth. High income earners (even those earning in the seven figures) are working people, who rely on a given set of skills (generally rare, hard-to-master, etc) that are perishable.

The high income earners in America are indeed OVER-TAXED.

The truly rich (the Kennedy slime, the Trumps and Bloombergs, etc) do not pay anything close to a "fair share." Teresa Heinz-Kerry gushed over paying 5% of her annual income in taxes!

But the ONLY way to get a relatively "fair share" from such folks, happens to be the ONLY way to get those freeloaders in the "Underground"/black-market/off-the-books economy to pay anything, and that's with the Fair Tax.

Moreover, there aren't any "Union-busters" in either major Party.

In 1981 Ronald Reagan agreed with the then Democratic Congress that PATCO had to be reined in. Reagan took it upon himself to be "the point-man" in breaking the rogue Union PATCO (not a single other Union stood up for PATCO at the time) and when PATCO ultimately caved, it signalled the end of an ere when rogue Unions destroyed American jobs. In 1981 the U.S. government stood up FOR American workers!

As one example, New York's Newspaper industry Unions put over a dozen smaller newspapers out of business in the 1960s, laughingly destroying many thousands of good paying jobs.

Some of those rogue Unionists laughingly referred to that as "Freeing those workers from wage slavery."

I KNOW this country and its people and I one thing I know for sure is that Americans LOVE to work. Most Americans have broad shoulders, big backs and small foreheads - they're BUILT to work!

I'd bet my house that BW, DBK and Barely Hanging are all precisely that kind of good American I speak of, guys who LOVE to work and revile those rogues who'd dare call a hard day's work, "wage slavery." Am I right, or am I RIGHT?

Believe me, I counted on such people when I set up crews to build decks. Sometimes a customer would remark, "I think you work these guys too hard," (my crews did put in twelve hour days), but I'd always defend those workers, saying, "Look at those boys, they just LOVE to work. They don't mind hard work one bit, they're young and they're built to do that kind of work." And they were!

I've always hated those jerks who saw employers as "exloiters." I NEVER exploited anyone, in fact, I cared a great deal about everyone who worked for me. I gave the guys in my crews an opportunity to work...to do what they were naturally built and inclined to do." I enhanced their lives - they learned new skills, the value of hard work, etc.

I'm convinced that those who see an adversarial relation between employers and workers are fundamentally evil people.

Reagan was a tax cutter.

JFK was a tax cutter.

John McCain (who promises to make the Bush tax cuts permanent and eliminate the AMT) is a tax cutter.

THEY'RE all good guys.

Carter, Nixon and LBJ were all Keynesians, who believed that government spending was GOOD for the economy and giving money to people who didn't work, stimulated the economy via increased spending.

That's been proven wrong! When we incentivize people NOT to work (via government handouts) the result is declining productivity and declining revenues. That ultimately leads to rising unemployment, higher inflation and higher interest rates.

Supply Side policies incentivize more people to WORK....and that, in a nutshell, is why they work.

You're a liar.

Reagan, like Bush, enriched the mega wealthy by busting unions and convincing Americans to let their jobs go overseas.

Your other secret hero, Bill Clinton, did the same thing.

Workers have lost so much real income that what one breadwinner easily afforded before Reagan cannot be bought with two incomes, even with much, much higher productivity.

Everyone has fallen behind except the very rich. Don't try to be retarded by saying their taxes are too high. Don't be a child. We all know that the mega wealthy often such taxes OUT of the system.

Bush transfers middle class wealth to the mega rich (think Halliburton) through no bid contracts and by (think Big Oil) making sure the price of gasoline stays sky high.

That's right, SUPPLY SIDE CORPORATISTS TRANSFER WEALTH FROM THE LOWER AND MIDDLE CLASSES TO THE MEGA RICH.

That is the one and only truth.

"Reagan, like Bush, enriched the mega wealthy by busting unions and convincing Americans to let their jobs go overseas." (Barely)

Barely, you're woefully misinformed on Free Trade.....just as you are on H1-B Visas, RICO, the Carter economy, etc. etc.

NAFTA, the expanded GATT and our other global trade treaties have resulted in millions MORE jobs created IN America, than were lost overseas.

Here are the actual facts about free trade;

“International trade is the framework upon which American prosperity rests. Free trade policies have created a level of competition in today's open market that engenders continual innovation and leads to better products, better-paying jobs, new markets, and increased savings and investment.

“The positive effects of an open market are clearly evident in the stellar growth of the U.S. economy over the past decade. Since 1990, the U.S. economy has grown by more than 23 percent, adding more than $2.1 trillion to the nation's gross domestic product (GDP) and raising the wealth of the average American consumer by more than $5,500.

“Since 1990, imports of real goods and services have increased 115 percent.

The number of full-time jobs has increased by 13.4 percent since 1991. The share of the labor force that works part-time because of an inability to find a full-time job is less than 3 percent.

“The nature of employment in the United States is indeed evolving away from manufacturing and toward more service-oriented and high-technology jobs. However, the record shows that trading freely with America's NAFTA partners, Canada and Mexico, has not resulted in an aggregate loss of manufacturing jobs. Instead, since 1994:

14 million new American jobs have been reported;

“The unemployment rate in America has fallen from 6 percent to 3.9 percent (as of April 2000).

“The number of manufacturing jobs in America has remained steady, employing 18.3 million people in 1994 and 18.4 million in 1999, which represents 14 percent of the total American workforce.

“On balance, not only has NAFTA not resulted in a loss of factory jobs in the United States, but it has not led to a loss in real wages for manufacturing workers. The average real wage in the manufacturing sector rose from $8.03 per hour in 1994 to $8.26 per hour in 1999.”


Americans have a much better quality of life today than they ever did "before Reagan." Back then single income families, considered "the good life," a three BR, one bath ranch house, with one car!

Today's double income families live in comparatively lavish houses, have two or more cars.

Working people in America in the 1970s had a better quality of life than those in the 1950s, just as those in the 1990s had better quality of life than those in the 1970s.

And as I've noted many times, there are are NO/ZERO high income earners (not even those earning seven figure incomes) among the "truly rich" (as I put it), or "the mega rich" (as you put it...as the "truly rich"/"mega rich" DO NOT rely on mere INCOME (the least reliable wealth generator) for their wealth.




"Bush transfers middle class wealth to the mega rich through no bid contracts and by making sure the price of gasoline stays sky high." (Barely)


Actually I've personally done a lot more to INCREASE the price of oil than this administration ever has!

Every February for the past decade or so, I've bought a few unleaded gasoline futures, betting that the price will rise, in order to sell those futures contracts by May. It's speculation, such as that, that really drives up the global price of oil!

The reason that "bet" is so reliable is that March 1st is when the Summer blends come in and gasoline prices rise forty to fifty cents per gallon, as a result.

Dumb government policy directly helps speculators/investors and harms consumers. How about THAT?!

Now Republicans (INCLUDING this very administration) have long urged an end to these Summer blends, but Dems in Congress (God bless'em) reliably thwart that each and every year.

The current administration like Republicans of years past have also tried mightily to get drilling for oil in the oil rich ANWAR region (and other areas around the U.S.) through Congress, to no avail.

All those dopes out in the street (who want to "save ANWAR") and all those dupes in Congress (mostly Liberals and mostly Democrats) are the ones responsible for raising the price of oil?

HOW???

Because limiting SUPPLY (as barring oil drilling on U.S. public lands DOES) amidst increasing DEMAND (India and China developping) ALWAYS results in higher prices for a given commodity.

See? Once again, you have it all wrong!

What you THINK (emotionally, in your case) turns out (once again) NOT to be so.

You are a deranged moron peddling feeble lies.

Squawk in novels all you like, but the Repugs were in charge of everything, and it was a disaster.

Buh bye!

"the Repugs were in charge of everything, and it was a disaster" (Barely Hanging)


Who told you that?

It hasn't been a disaster for me!

Yes, we'd ignored Sharia-based Islam's war against he West for nearly a decade, but finally, though belatedly engaged it after 9/11.

We strengthened domestic anti-terror sanctions without impacting the civil liberties of American citizens (terror sympathizers, like Lynn Stewart and others, and those who gave to cahritable "front groups, don't count).

The first inherited economic disaster (the Tech Bubble) that burst in the Spring of 2000 created only a short-lived recession, thanks, in large part, to the tax cuts this administration delivered.

The 2nd economic disaster, created by Liberal social policy (anti-redlining policies that undercut the tradional lending standards) is yet to be worked out.

And the ONE thing that the U.S. government COULD DO to bring down the global price of oil (drilling in ANWAR, and along the U.S. Coast lines and the Gulf of Mexico) has been blocked by Liberal Dems.

yes, wee desperately NEED a return to those traditional lending standards, which DID indeed disproportionately impact some communities, that disproportionate impact has wrongly been called "redlining." When loan standards are loosened and credit-unworthy people are given credit on par with those who are credit-WORTHY (those who've paid their bills and done the right thing all their lives), THAT discriminates AGAINST those who are credit-worthy!

We also need to drill for oil and natural gas on U.S. public lands, off our shores and in ANWAR, to increase the global supply and thus decreasing the global price of oil.

Everything post 2006 (the price of oil and all the other things you blame on the "government") are Democratic failures, as they've controlled the purse strings (Congress) since 2006.

That's another bone-headed view of yours.

There are certainly GOOD Democrats (Conservative "Blue Dog" Dems, now over 20% of the Dems in Congress) and BAD Republicans (socially Liberal "Moderate"/Country Club Republicans.

You are still protected by your UNION, JMK. You know, your UNION, which Reagan would have busted had he gotten around to it.

You are doing OK because of FDR and the New Deal. That is why you are such an entertaining moron. You are like a black man who can't stop hating on "niggers".

Unions are nothing more than antiquated babysitters and hand-holders for seemingly intelligent people who should be able to look after their own interests. Ya know, the whole SELF-RELIANCE thing.

WoW! I get to disagree with the moronic Barely and the pretty intelligent Fred both at the same time!

Unions aren't "babysitters" at all Fred. In fact, they ideally exist, as associations of workers to forge a working alliance between workers/labor and business owners/management.

Since Barely's always been very limited, when it comes to reading comprehension, making arguments, basic logic, etc., he somehow seems to believe that I'm somewhat anti-Union.

I never have been.

What I HAVE done is tell the truth about Unions.

They serve a good and necessary function, but they've also, on many occassions, overstepped their bounds and in the process harmed workers.

I explained how "Pattern Bargaining," (which does not occur any more) had been used by newspaper Unions to kill off (deliberately or not, it doesn't matter) many of the smaller newspapers in cities like NY, putting thousands of newspaper workers out of work.

Rogue Unions, like PATCO that sought to "break the bank" and illicitly control who and how many people could enter a given field (the fields and those jobs DO NOT belong to the Unions OR the workers....they BELONG to those who provided them - the EMPLOYERS) were rightly brought into line about a quarter century ago. Reagan carried on the traditional Democratic policy, the same policy that RFK & JFK, who fought BOTH "Communist and Organized Crime influence" in labor unions, supported and advanced.

In a similar vane, Rudy Giuliani was a tough fiscal manager in NYC, which is what NYC needed and the vast majority of New Yorkers appreciated.

He "Zeroed Out" New York's Municipal Labor Unions on successive contracts (that is, he front loaded those contracts, that had expired years before, with 0% raises, so that NO backpay was owed the workers).

Yes, it was painful medicine and New York's Cops, Firefighters and Teachers fell significantly behind many of the smaller neighboring communities in terms of both pay and benefits.

A freind of mine was reviled by some misguided souls in the UFA for sending around a letter that said, in effect, "It's NOT THAT bad!"

I agreed with those sentiments. Rudy was initially faced with the need for drastic budget cuts due to the ineptitude of the previous Liberal administeration, run by the imcompetent Liberal (isn't that an oxymoron?) David Dinkins). Rudy told the Unions, flat out, it's either THIS or layoffs and we all took the deal on the table....and it saved jobs.

Giuliani was a GREAT Mayor, with a lot of personality flaws.

Personal flaws aside, it's undeniable that he resuscitated a city that the Liberal policies of David Dinkins nearly ran into the ground.

No one's gonna deny that.

Moreover, we ALL do what Rudy did as Mayor on a daily basis in our own lives. We try to get the goods and services we buy at the cheapest prices we can.

We shop around, we dicker with landscapers and handymen. I pay ONLY $25 a cut and $250 for a Fall or Spring Clean-up! Other local landscapers charge $60 or more for a cut around here and I got quotes as high as $1100 for a Fall clean-up!!!

When we, as consumers do that (and we ALWAYS do) that puts pressure on the businessman to get his labor as cheaply as he can.

THAT'S NOT my problem and it's not yours either!

As I said Barely, I support Free trade because it's crearted something like 16 MILLION more jobs than have left the country, just as I support drilling for oil in ANWAR and off our shores because it would obviously INCREASE the world supply of oil and thus drive down the world market price for that commodity (oil).

The fact that you don't understand those things Barely, as you don't understand RICO, H-1B Visas, the Carter Stagflation, etc., shows you to be the ignoramous you present yourself as.

And I AM indeed very much like that large majority of blacks who revile that small number of "black separatists," "black Muslims," and other assorted bigots within that group, as I am the kind of white who reviles white skinheads, separatists, neonazis and white Muslims.

The DECENT in EVERY group tend to revile the INDECENT in those groups.

The fact that you imply that the vast majority of blacks who do despise the bigots of their own race says a lot about where you're coming from.

You consistently side with the INDECENT over the DECENT, so I'm not at all surprised.

Typo, JMK. You surely meant to type "...the pretty AND intelligent Fred...", right?!

Well Fred, I thought better of it, since I didn't want to appear to fawn...it's also why I added the qualifier...that and that I didn't want you to get a swelled head or anything.

I feared you might develop the same annoying lack of humility that too often afflicts myself.

Seriously, I HATE that about myself....and I'm working on it.

I'd like to say I'm also working on my aesthetics, but sadly no, I was born decidely UN-pretty and am resigned to acceping that fate and staying that way.