Republican/Democrat Primary Rundown
I think that it's time to evaluate what's happening in this big cluster@#%* called a Presidential Primary.
First off, this kind of open field is nearly unprecedented. The only thing that would make it more confusing is if we had a three party system (which we should).
Secondly, the Democrats are far too positive about their choices than they should be, while Republicans have the opposite problem.
Thirdly, the top three candidates on either side are not the most qualified or the least divisive of the parties' offerings. This still confounds me.
Fourth(ly?), Hillary Clinton is a disaster waiting to happen. Democrats would be wise to dump her before she becomes a liability.
In the Fifth place, Rudy Giuliani should likewise be dumped before he splits the Republican party in two. Everything they have built for the last 30 years would be destroyed in one election cycle.
Sixthish, the writer's union strike is seriously effecting my mood. All my favorite television shows are having truncated seasons. Unless something gets resolved soon, we're going to be forced to watch all 24 hours of the 24 hour cable news outlets' programming.
Lastly, Bill Richardson for President!
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Thursday, November 29, 2007
The Worst Person in the World*
3rd Worst: Bill Clinton
After spending 5 years defending the Bush administration's WMD screw-up in Iraq, the former President is now (and apparently has always been) in ardent opposition to the war. I remember being so mad at him for calling in to Larry King in early 2003 and basically regurgitating the same bull as the Bush people. Plus, he's stumping for his wife, arguably the most pro-war Democrat running. Talk about bad.
2nd Worst: Mitt Romney
Apparently (according to an exchange about torture with John McCain last night), we can't discuss what is "acceptable" as a culture. When asked if "water boarding" was a legitimate tool in interrogating terrorists, Governor Romney said that "as a candidate for President" he couldn't discuss that. But when it comes to abortion, that "right" should be banned. It's apparently okay to discuss unacceptable behavior when it comes to the behavior of average people, but not President Mitt Romney.
THE Worst: Osama bin Laden
For still breathing.
*"The Worst Person in the World" is inspired by, but is not in affiliation with Countdown on MSNBC
3rd Worst: Bill Clinton
After spending 5 years defending the Bush administration's WMD screw-up in Iraq, the former President is now (and apparently has always been) in ardent opposition to the war. I remember being so mad at him for calling in to Larry King in early 2003 and basically regurgitating the same bull as the Bush people. Plus, he's stumping for his wife, arguably the most pro-war Democrat running. Talk about bad.
2nd Worst: Mitt Romney
Apparently (according to an exchange about torture with John McCain last night), we can't discuss what is "acceptable" as a culture. When asked if "water boarding" was a legitimate tool in interrogating terrorists, Governor Romney said that "as a candidate for President" he couldn't discuss that. But when it comes to abortion, that "right" should be banned. It's apparently okay to discuss unacceptable behavior when it comes to the behavior of average people, but not President Mitt Romney.
THE Worst: Osama bin Laden
For still breathing.
*"The Worst Person in the World" is inspired by, but is not in affiliation with Countdown on MSNBC
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Post Debate Run-Down
Senator Clinton...Senator Edwards...Senator Obama...back to you Senator Clinton...
The most frustrating thing about these debates is the ineptitude of the "moderators."
I can't stand Tim Russert anyway, but Brian Williams was just following the Russert playbook with regard to questions asked. The question to Kucinich about UFO's was utterly ridiculous. Russert was able to "get" Hillary with a question about driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. It was the first time I've ever seen her flustered when trying to express herself. Thankfully, the other candidates are no longer letting her get away with dodging questions and speaking out both sides of her mouth.
Here's the run-down of worst to best:
7. Dennis Kucinich: While I appreciate your candor and honesty, you sound more and more like a socialist everytime you speak. While I'm sure a great many of your supporters like that sort of thing, most Democrats won't buy it. Try to hold your composure when talking about ET's.
6. Barack Obama: Call it coming short of expectations. "Coming out hard against Hillary" means getting a little more energetic in your responses. You have the best speaking voice in the field. Let it get fired up!
5. Bill Richardson: I'm starting to get a little fed up with your performances. I really think you are the most qualified candidate on either side and you have the right ideas. Just start ignoring the questions that are asked like everybody else. Get some shit started. Oh, and don't defend Hillary!
4. Hillary Clinton: For the first time, I can honestly say you lost a debate. This one was all about you. Howard Dean had a similar moment in 2003. And guess who took him down...
3. John Edwards: By far the best anti-Hillary of the night. You didn't handle the trial lawyer contributions rebuttal by Sen. Dodd very well. You always seem a little too privileged to be the champion of the lower and middle classes. Maybe that's unfair, but it's a common perception.
2. Chris Dodd: I think you had the fewest minutes of the night, but they were all quality minutes. You were the first person to give the "right" answer on DL's for IA's without sounding like you were hedging your bets. Maybe Connecticut's illegal population is insignificant enough for you to feel no fear. Either way, you took Sen. Clinton down a peg or two.
1. Joe Biden: I thought you had the best debate performance, even though I think John Edwards technically won. It all came down to the minutes you were given. I have the feeling that the next debate will give you more time to deliver those gems for which you are famous. "Gaffe machine" or not, kudos to you. "Rudy Giuliani...a noun, a verb, and 9/11..." Priceless!
Senator Clinton...Senator Edwards...Senator Obama...back to you Senator Clinton...
The most frustrating thing about these debates is the ineptitude of the "moderators."
I can't stand Tim Russert anyway, but Brian Williams was just following the Russert playbook with regard to questions asked. The question to Kucinich about UFO's was utterly ridiculous. Russert was able to "get" Hillary with a question about driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. It was the first time I've ever seen her flustered when trying to express herself. Thankfully, the other candidates are no longer letting her get away with dodging questions and speaking out both sides of her mouth.
Here's the run-down of worst to best:
7. Dennis Kucinich: While I appreciate your candor and honesty, you sound more and more like a socialist everytime you speak. While I'm sure a great many of your supporters like that sort of thing, most Democrats won't buy it. Try to hold your composure when talking about ET's.
6. Barack Obama: Call it coming short of expectations. "Coming out hard against Hillary" means getting a little more energetic in your responses. You have the best speaking voice in the field. Let it get fired up!
5. Bill Richardson: I'm starting to get a little fed up with your performances. I really think you are the most qualified candidate on either side and you have the right ideas. Just start ignoring the questions that are asked like everybody else. Get some shit started. Oh, and don't defend Hillary!
4. Hillary Clinton: For the first time, I can honestly say you lost a debate. This one was all about you. Howard Dean had a similar moment in 2003. And guess who took him down...
3. John Edwards: By far the best anti-Hillary of the night. You didn't handle the trial lawyer contributions rebuttal by Sen. Dodd very well. You always seem a little too privileged to be the champion of the lower and middle classes. Maybe that's unfair, but it's a common perception.
2. Chris Dodd: I think you had the fewest minutes of the night, but they were all quality minutes. You were the first person to give the "right" answer on DL's for IA's without sounding like you were hedging your bets. Maybe Connecticut's illegal population is insignificant enough for you to feel no fear. Either way, you took Sen. Clinton down a peg or two.
1. Joe Biden: I thought you had the best debate performance, even though I think John Edwards technically won. It all came down to the minutes you were given. I have the feeling that the next debate will give you more time to deliver those gems for which you are famous. "Gaffe machine" or not, kudos to you. "Rudy Giuliani...a noun, a verb, and 9/11..." Priceless!
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Kill a Child, Save a Nation
I'm really tired of being told I can't have or do something because of some other dumbass that has or does something dangerous. The latest culprit is over-the-counter pediatric medicine. ApPARENTly, a few dozen kids a year have died as a result of either overdosing by PARENTS or intolerances to medications that are congenital or genetic in nature (inherited from PARENTS). Yet the hundreds of thousands of young children and infants who benefit from these medications with no serious complications are at risk of losing helpful products because of a few dumbass PARENTS (who, by the way, tend to have dumbass kids) and some unfortunate children with rare disorders that will likely incapacitate or kill them later in life anyway.
I'm sorry if I sound a little ticked off, but this isn't the first time this kind of crap has been presented as reasonable thinking by so-called "child advocacy" groups. Many states have made mandatory child restraint laws, products with extremely low potential for harm are constantly being recalled, and PARENTS' hands are tied quite effectively when it comes to forms of discipline. Enough is enough people!
No matter how many protections you put in place, people die. I know it's sad, and we should do what is reasonable to protect everyone we can, but you can't save everybody. Accidents happen. Mistakes in judgement take place. You can't legislate or regulate common sense and caution. It never works.
I'm not opposed to labelling for product dangers. I'm not opposed to safety standards and purity standards (we should have to worry about how much lead our water supply has or whether our child restraint will fall apart at 40 miles-an-hour). But there is a big difference between providing good products and good information as opposed to trying to stop people from doing stupid things. I've never known anyone whose child had died as a result of correct dosage of an over-the-counter drug. Only children with particularly rare disorders (i.e., the inability to process dextromethorphane) are at any real risk otherwise.
Non-prescription drugs have saved me alot of urgent care and emergency room visits over the years with my children. It's amazing how fast a "little sniffle" can turn into a full-blown chest cold without prevention. Tying PARENTS' and doctors' hands from doing what's right for your child's health is no job of the federal government. Just make sure the medicine is free from lead, mercury, or other poisons that aren't listed on the label. Hell, let 'em put out a pure lead supplement, I don't care. If people are dumb enough to give it to their kids, they're probably doing us a favor anyway.
I'm really tired of being told I can't have or do something because of some other dumbass that has or does something dangerous. The latest culprit is over-the-counter pediatric medicine. ApPARENTly, a few dozen kids a year have died as a result of either overdosing by PARENTS or intolerances to medications that are congenital or genetic in nature (inherited from PARENTS). Yet the hundreds of thousands of young children and infants who benefit from these medications with no serious complications are at risk of losing helpful products because of a few dumbass PARENTS (who, by the way, tend to have dumbass kids) and some unfortunate children with rare disorders that will likely incapacitate or kill them later in life anyway.
I'm sorry if I sound a little ticked off, but this isn't the first time this kind of crap has been presented as reasonable thinking by so-called "child advocacy" groups. Many states have made mandatory child restraint laws, products with extremely low potential for harm are constantly being recalled, and PARENTS' hands are tied quite effectively when it comes to forms of discipline. Enough is enough people!
No matter how many protections you put in place, people die. I know it's sad, and we should do what is reasonable to protect everyone we can, but you can't save everybody. Accidents happen. Mistakes in judgement take place. You can't legislate or regulate common sense and caution. It never works.
I'm not opposed to labelling for product dangers. I'm not opposed to safety standards and purity standards (we should have to worry about how much lead our water supply has or whether our child restraint will fall apart at 40 miles-an-hour). But there is a big difference between providing good products and good information as opposed to trying to stop people from doing stupid things. I've never known anyone whose child had died as a result of correct dosage of an over-the-counter drug. Only children with particularly rare disorders (i.e., the inability to process dextromethorphane) are at any real risk otherwise.
Non-prescription drugs have saved me alot of urgent care and emergency room visits over the years with my children. It's amazing how fast a "little sniffle" can turn into a full-blown chest cold without prevention. Tying PARENTS' and doctors' hands from doing what's right for your child's health is no job of the federal government. Just make sure the medicine is free from lead, mercury, or other poisons that aren't listed on the label. Hell, let 'em put out a pure lead supplement, I don't care. If people are dumb enough to give it to their kids, they're probably doing us a favor anyway.
Friday, September 07, 2007
Progressive, Fair Taxation
Here are some thoughts on tax reform...
I've been reading alot about the so-called "Fair Tax" that is being thrown around by conservatives and even some of my fellows in the Radical Center. First of all, the tax is at best simple. At worst it is nearly regressive (I say "nearly" because I have run tax models with lower tax burdens for lower income people. Without considerable spending by wealthy people, however, the tax can become practically regressive. Therefore, I submit that a progressive income tax should remain. I would insist on some pretty major changes (an overhaul if you will), but the spirit of our current tax system should remain.
There should be built into the tax code deductions for necessary expenses, investment, and state-mandated fees. The personal exemption should be increased to about $10,000 per person ($15,000 for military). I would rid the tax code of complicated tax credits. There would no longer be limits or exceptions with regard to deductions. And if a negative tax liability is realized, a portion (probably 10%) should be credited to the household up to 100% of payroll taxes paid.
In essence, a family of four would not pay any taxes, and would probably see a credit for income less than $40,000 (+$5,000 for every active military individual). Tax rates would have to be raised across the board, but wouldn't likely affect individuals negatively until reaching the upper 5% of incomes. An effective "maximum wage" would be enacted as well. Taxable income over $5 million would be taxed at 100%. Of course, this is more an incentive to invest in stocks, funds, or ones own business than a condemnation of wealth.
Here's a partial list of changes I would suggest:
1. Increase personal exemption to $10,000 per individual in household.
2. Eliminate all caps and income exceptions for currently available deductions.
3. Make state sales tax deductible regardless of other considerations.
4. Make Payroll taxes deductible and eliminate payroll tax income caps,
5. Make all involuntary fees and taxes deductible. (i.e., auto liability insurance).
6. Eliminate all tax credits.
7. Raise the percentage of, and increase the number of tax rates.
8. Make all investments in real business* tax deductible.
Hopefully, that is as clear as mud. Tell me what you think, and feel free to ask questions.
*real business--A business that deals in goods or services. Guaranteed investment such as a interest bearing checking account or savings account would not be deductible. Bank-related stocks would be deductible.
Here are some thoughts on tax reform...
I've been reading alot about the so-called "Fair Tax" that is being thrown around by conservatives and even some of my fellows in the Radical Center. First of all, the tax is at best simple. At worst it is nearly regressive (I say "nearly" because I have run tax models with lower tax burdens for lower income people. Without considerable spending by wealthy people, however, the tax can become practically regressive. Therefore, I submit that a progressive income tax should remain. I would insist on some pretty major changes (an overhaul if you will), but the spirit of our current tax system should remain.
There should be built into the tax code deductions for necessary expenses, investment, and state-mandated fees. The personal exemption should be increased to about $10,000 per person ($15,000 for military). I would rid the tax code of complicated tax credits. There would no longer be limits or exceptions with regard to deductions. And if a negative tax liability is realized, a portion (probably 10%) should be credited to the household up to 100% of payroll taxes paid.
In essence, a family of four would not pay any taxes, and would probably see a credit for income less than $40,000 (+$5,000 for every active military individual). Tax rates would have to be raised across the board, but wouldn't likely affect individuals negatively until reaching the upper 5% of incomes. An effective "maximum wage" would be enacted as well. Taxable income over $5 million would be taxed at 100%. Of course, this is more an incentive to invest in stocks, funds, or ones own business than a condemnation of wealth.
Here's a partial list of changes I would suggest:
1. Increase personal exemption to $10,000 per individual in household.
2. Eliminate all caps and income exceptions for currently available deductions.
3. Make state sales tax deductible regardless of other considerations.
4. Make Payroll taxes deductible and eliminate payroll tax income caps,
5. Make all involuntary fees and taxes deductible. (i.e., auto liability insurance).
6. Eliminate all tax credits.
7. Raise the percentage of, and increase the number of tax rates.
8. Make all investments in real business* tax deductible.
Hopefully, that is as clear as mud. Tell me what you think, and feel free to ask questions.
*real business--A business that deals in goods or services. Guaranteed investment such as a interest bearing checking account or savings account would not be deductible. Bank-related stocks would be deductible.
Friday, July 20, 2007
One Month in a Coma
I like to take a month or two off every two or three months to have a nice, reasonably long coma. Seeing as how not much has happened in the world of religion and politics since I feel asleep, I should be able to sum it all up in a few quips...
...Ann Coulter likes Bush, hates Johns...
...Muslim doctors want to destroy Great Britain...
...Al Qaeda is gaining strength, but we're winning the "war on terror?"...
...Michael Moore wants to live in Cuba...
...Border agents can't shoot drug smugglers...
...Bill Richardson is kickin' ass in Iowa and New Hampshire, but nobody cares...
...Bush commutes "Scooter's" sentence...
...John McCain is losing ground, but again, nobody cares...
and in local news, Ernie Fletcher and Steve Beshear will go head-to-head in two debates in October. I'm sure it will be riveting television.
That about covers it. Maybe something interesting will happen before September.
I like to take a month or two off every two or three months to have a nice, reasonably long coma. Seeing as how not much has happened in the world of religion and politics since I feel asleep, I should be able to sum it all up in a few quips...
...Ann Coulter likes Bush, hates Johns...
...Muslim doctors want to destroy Great Britain...
...Al Qaeda is gaining strength, but we're winning the "war on terror?"...
...Michael Moore wants to live in Cuba...
...Border agents can't shoot drug smugglers...
...Bill Richardson is kickin' ass in Iowa and New Hampshire, but nobody cares...
...Bush commutes "Scooter's" sentence...
...John McCain is losing ground, but again, nobody cares...
and in local news, Ernie Fletcher and Steve Beshear will go head-to-head in two debates in October. I'm sure it will be riveting television.
That about covers it. Maybe something interesting will happen before September.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
DemoLiberal is 4-Years-Old Today
I started my little Deaniac blog on this day in 2003.
Reading some of my old posts reminds me how far we've come, but yet how far we have to go.
I started my little Deaniac blog on this day in 2003.
Reading some of my old posts reminds me how far we've come, but yet how far we have to go.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Richardson is Finally Stepping Up
As you may know from this blog, I was once a supporter of Howard Dean for President. And while they are very different, I sensed some of the same qualities in Bill Richardson. Enough so to make me support his campaign.
Around May of 2003, Howard Dean changed. Up to that point, he had been a reserved, yet consistent critic of the Bush administration and his "enablers" in the Democratic Party. At a rally during the spring of '03, Dean became visibly aggressive. The "angry liberal" the press loved and conservatives despised, emerged that day. His campaign skyrocketed. It was a critical moment in U.S. political history. Today, Bill Richardson had what could be his moment.
At the "Take Back America" conference, Bill Richardson "laid in" to his Democratic opponents for their political calculation and pandering. He made a zero residual troops pledge for Iraq, something he's been saying for months, but which noone seemed to hear. The only other "serious" candidate saying similar things has been John Edwards (he's my second choice). Gov. Richardson even called Edwards to the carpet over his support of the "legislation" congress passed last month.
I had hairs standing up on the back of my neck after hearing the Governor's empassioned statements. For the first time in four years, I felt like I had picked the right guy. Only time will tell if I'm right.
As you may know from this blog, I was once a supporter of Howard Dean for President. And while they are very different, I sensed some of the same qualities in Bill Richardson. Enough so to make me support his campaign.
Around May of 2003, Howard Dean changed. Up to that point, he had been a reserved, yet consistent critic of the Bush administration and his "enablers" in the Democratic Party. At a rally during the spring of '03, Dean became visibly aggressive. The "angry liberal" the press loved and conservatives despised, emerged that day. His campaign skyrocketed. It was a critical moment in U.S. political history. Today, Bill Richardson had what could be his moment.
At the "Take Back America" conference, Bill Richardson "laid in" to his Democratic opponents for their political calculation and pandering. He made a zero residual troops pledge for Iraq, something he's been saying for months, but which noone seemed to hear. The only other "serious" candidate saying similar things has been John Edwards (he's my second choice). Gov. Richardson even called Edwards to the carpet over his support of the "legislation" congress passed last month.
I had hairs standing up on the back of my neck after hearing the Governor's empassioned statements. For the first time in four years, I felt like I had picked the right guy. Only time will tell if I'm right.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Republicans, Please!
Do everybody a favor and nominate Ron Paul for President. I may not subscribe to the same level of economic libertarianism as Mr. Paul, but I have to admire a man with such a fervor for freedom.
Do I think he has a chance? No. The religious right of the Republican party exerts an amazing amount of influence. Mr. Paul is also a civil libertarian. Oops. Somebody forgot to tell him that's not allowed. Apart from gun rights and the right to indoctrinate (implied), modern "conservatives" have no place for such a thing as civil liberty.
If the Democrats were to nominate a Clinton or Obama, Republicans could offer a Ron Paul to America as a welcome alternative. I would vote for him.
Just do it, don't make me beg.
Do everybody a favor and nominate Ron Paul for President. I may not subscribe to the same level of economic libertarianism as Mr. Paul, but I have to admire a man with such a fervor for freedom.
Do I think he has a chance? No. The religious right of the Republican party exerts an amazing amount of influence. Mr. Paul is also a civil libertarian. Oops. Somebody forgot to tell him that's not allowed. Apart from gun rights and the right to indoctrinate (implied), modern "conservatives" have no place for such a thing as civil liberty.
If the Democrats were to nominate a Clinton or Obama, Republicans could offer a Ron Paul to America as a welcome alternative. I would vote for him.
Just do it, don't make me beg.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)