Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

FixCam: Week in Preview

Note: Please upgrade your Flash plug-in to view our enhanced content.


It's due day for federal candidates. From the presidential contest down to individual House races, candidates have to formally file their reports with the Federal Election Commission detailing contributions and expenditures between July 1 and Sept. 30.

We already know how much the candidates for president raised and spent but tomorrow we'll get a look inside the campaigns; who they're raising money from and -- more interestingly -- where they're spending it. For Senate and House candidates, it's an early test of strength for vulnerable incumbents and touted challengers.

On Tuesday voters in Massachusetts 5th district choose between Niki Tsongas (D), the wife of the late Sen. Paul Tsongas, and retired Lt. Col. Jim Ogonowski (R). Tsongas was expected to cruise to victory in the special election to replace Marty Meehan, who left Congress to become chancellor of University of Massachusetts at Lowell. But Ogonowski's outsider message and compelling personal story -- his brother was a pilot on one of the flights that hit the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001 -- has made the contest worth watching.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.) and former Sen. Fred Thompson (Tenn.) all address the Club For Growth's fall conference in Washington on Wednesday. With Romney and Giuliani still sparring over their fiscal conservative credentials, the speeches to the Club could be crucial in advancing the narrative.

By Chris Cillizza  |  October 15, 2007; 11:05 AM ET
Categories:  FixCam  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: FixCam: Why House Republicans Are Frowning
Next: McCain vs Romney: Round Two

Comments

dave writes, in response to me
"Sounds like a nice gift to me. It seems like somebody's money should go where THEY want it to go, not Congress."

I suppose this is a dead thread now, but will respond anyway.

Dave, I tend to agree - I was being somewhat snarky to the other poster. Personally, I'd love to leave an inheritance to my kids, but I'd be happier to know they can take care of themselves, rather than living off of the results of someone else's labor. I don't think the estate tax is inherently good or evil; or maybe a necessary evil. It would be nice - fantastic - if it didn't cost money to run the gov't. The problem is that some kind of funding is mandatory. To the extent that every tax is going to influence behavior, what is so wrong about a tax that encourages the rich to give their kids the skills to provide for themselves, rather than just passing on piles of money in perpetuity? The most productive in our society tend to be the self-made, not the 2nd and subsequent generations. What's wrong with a tax policy that discourages large inheritances?

Posted by: bsimon | October 16, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

I don't see the difference. Whatever you do with your money, it gets taxed again. If you buy something with it, it's subject to sales tax and maybe additional taxes. If you invest it, it's subject to capital gains taxes. And whatever's left when you die is subject to estate taxes. Estate taxes are no different from other taxes; most taxes are on money which has already been taxed.

Posted by: Blarg | October 16, 2007 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Blarg,
The taxes other than payroll that you list are different in that they are voluntary. If I voluntarily choose to buy something, I pay the tax. Payroll/income and Estate are mandatory (at least to the extent that you can't loophole your way out).

Posted by: dave | October 16, 2007 11:43 AM | Report abuse

JasonL_in_MD,
I took Williams class around 88-89. I would say that I went from being an economic agnostic (econ was almost bunk science to me and I cared little about it) to appreciating how various econ theories applied to me. Williams is great at talking about how things apply to and affect the individual. He is of a libertarian/conservative bent and considering the time of the class (Reagan years), I developed an appreciation of all econ theories including but not limited to supply side. He made econ personal, and thus meaningful, to me. He really was an exceptional prof.

Posted by: dave | October 16, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

I'm not sure where the idea that the government only taxes money once comes from. Opponents of estate taxes keep saying that the money has been taxed before, and this is a double tax. So? When you get your paycheck, several taxes are taken out of it. When you use some of that money to buy something, there's sales tax. If the thing you buy was imported, there might be a duty on it in additional to normal sales tax. So you might pay 3 taxes right there. How is the estate tax any different?

Posted by: Blarg | October 16, 2007 8:43 AM | Report abuse

bsimon,
"Sounds like welfare." Sounds like a nice gift to me. It seems like somebody's money should go where THEY want it to go, not Congress. If they want it to go to their kids, OK. To charity, OK. To the Government, OK. Kudos if they spend it before they die. I'd be ok even if they decided to burn it. But it should be up to that individual and not the government to determine where it goes. It is/was their money afterall and the government has already taxed it at least once.

Posted by: dave | October 15, 2007 10:03 PM | Report abuse

You love the Bay and you're a professor. Any chance you'd tell us what school and/or what subject? I'm mostly interested in the subject. While I'm asking questions, what the hell is a "zouk?"

Here's my philosophy on taxation and spending. Never spend more than you have. Spend whatever you must to maintain quality of life for ours and future generations. Spend what is reasonably possible to help others in their "pursuit of happiness." That basically means that I require fire and police departments. I require a military to defend my country. I require that the environment is protected so that my children and further decedents have an Earth as beautiful (or more) that this one. I want the poor to have food and other basic necessities. I want other nations to enjoy the freedoms we have. However, We must be able to do this in a manner that takes care of us first. Hence my desire that we spend what we have and no more.

As to your enjoyment of speedboats and SUV's. First off sailing the Bay is nicer that rushing through it. Secondly, I'm much more worried about our energy security than the carbon emissions. We have to be more efficient to be secure against an OPEC embargo or natural disaster. Plus gas will cost less.

Posted by: JasonL_in_MD | October 15, 2007 5:46 PM | Report abuse

"how about all the guys who already think this is a dire emergency lead the way"

koz - They already are...they're buyying "carbon offsets" BWAAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAHAAA!

There truly is a sucker born every minute.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | October 15, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Colin - I did not say I demanded 100% confidence. In fact most scientific studies publish the exact level of confidence - usually somewhere in the 90% range (99.9% in drug studies). Strangely missing from climate exercises is the level of confidence. If they published the true number, and it was say 50%, they would be laughed at.

So when you show me that the confidence level in your predictions is something like 75% or higher, and that you also have a means by which to repair the damage and you can also predict the cost relatively accurately, I will be more than happy to consider the other things I may have to give up to reach green nirvana.

until then, my SUV holds my stuff nicely and it is really fun to go fast on the boat. And AC in DC during August is mandatory. not that I am an anti-environment nut, I love the Bay and hope that my grandkids can enjoy it as I do. but I am not going to be the first one to change. how about all the guys who already think this is a dire emergency lead the way.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 15, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - your premise is simply flawed. there is a human notion that you can leave something to your children and offer them a better life. If you sacrifice, they do better. Surely you have heard of this or even might believe it. It also rewards thrift and savings, something that is generally a policy of the US government for reasons that have to do with banking and economics as well as morality.

As a typical Lib, you wish to consume everything you make, leave nothing to your heirs and punish (twice) anyone with the audacity to consume less than they produce.

My stance (wide and strong as it is) would claim that all taxes must be justified by a call to the common good, for example the national military, the local police, certain research projects, etc. Most Libs have this upside down and state that since we are already spending X, we need to find a way to collect at least that much and preferably more.

there is a real threat to our democracy by the masses voting in pols who promise to pay for all sorts of things on the backs of the "Rich". Eventually the goose will be killed. you are simply not entitled to milk at less than 2 bucks a gallon or big screen tvs all around. you must work for them and establish your own value in the market place.

Welfare is defined as taking money from productive individuals and passing it through the government to persons who do not earn it, usually to avoid having them turn to crime. you can give your own money to anyone you want. that is charity and has a long pedigree in Christian thought. most of the super rich establish foundations and cheat the tax man anyway.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 15, 2007 5:01 PM | Report abuse

KOZ -- Glad to hear you have time for a teaching gig, despite posting all day here every day at EXACTLY the same hours. It almost seems like THIS is your job...

As far as your last set of "points" go, not sure how any of that changes a thing. Essentially, you're arguing that we can't know with 100% certainty that Gore's predictions, which are supported by the vast majority of the scientific community, are correct. I suppose that's literally true, but it's a rather meaningless statement. We COULD be wrong about anything by that standard, yet we will nonetheless make strategic decisions on a daily basis based upon the information available. Happily, I feel quite confident right now that whoever we elect in '08 will choose to credit the information currently available. But keep fighting the good fight. After all, tilting at wind mills is fun if not productive.

In the mean time, I actually have to get back to work unlike some people...

Posted by: _Colin | October 15, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

The Club for Growth? Dave, it sounds more like the "bring back the 1890s'" club.
The truth is we've tried the system the "Club for Growth" promulgates and we ended up with deadly consumer products, child labor mills, food riots, a weak and ineffective federal government. Everybody sat around waiting for Adam Smiths famous "hand of Providence" to begin guiding the captains of industry towards the betterment of all (a basic tenet of Smiths treatise, which turned out to be nothing but wishful thinking) but instead the haves just kept stuffing the money in their pockets and hired private armies to protect themselves and their property from the have-nots.
Try to remember a little of our own history before you set off on a quest to repeat it. The "laissez-fare" approach to the social compact eventually led to an insurrection by the veterans of World War I that was brutally put down by Gen. Douglas MacArthur on the streets of Washington DC.
Who in the world wants more of that, except the "Captains of Industry" ie. the "Club for Growth".

Posted by: dijetlo | October 15, 2007 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Hiccup_Colin - you seem to be trained in law and not science. Let me straighten you out since I am actually classically trained in modeling of scientific processes and I actually teach this at the University. the following is fairly textbook stuff.

1. there is an assumption that the IPCC is absolutely correct in this finding. Actually, that is also up for debate. the judge was careful to plainly state that he was interested only in illuminating the political propoganda. that would be the part where he said "It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions"

2. Science is not based on consensus and in fact is harmed by consensus in the absence of objective fact. Models in particular are especially difficult to apply formal hypothesis testing to. Most scientists get famous by bucking consensus. Remember the consensus on leaches, labotomies, Earth centric, etc.

3. that data required for the climate models is very suspect. both in its collection and its accuracy.

4. the trend forecasts of any system are highly dependent on the most recent data points. this is true for any mathematical forecast. If your final two points are themselves anomolies, it distorts the prediction immensely. there must also be confusion on exactly what sort of function to fit to the data. the stock market went a lot up last week. What will happen next week?

5. the possibility of missing , lurking or confounded variables is very real. A system this complicared is simply almost impossible to model with any sort of reliable sensitivity, not even including validity and verification.

for just these reasons, I find it very plausible that the models are inaccurate and should be subject to a very high level of skepticism. It is not appropriate to then make expensive policy based on this. no one has predicted what changes will cost and what they will do when enacted. It is because the models are not sophisticated enough to help with this task.

If you still want to believe, I won't stop you, but keep your paws off my money until you come up with something more solid. I happen to think crazy Muslims are still my biggest problem. and I have some good evidence for that claim.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 15, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

"Are there any taxes which are just plain wrong? for example the death tax - a second shot at your money by the government?"

An interesting question. Once I die, I won't have much use for my money, if there's any left.

Wouldn't high death taxes incent people to spend while they're alive - and thus boost the economy by spending rather than hoarding? Don't high death taxes serve to incent young blue-bloods to actually learn something in school & work hard to achieve, as adults, the lifestyles they enjoy as children? Seems like low death taxes could incent people into lazy lives that don't add much to the economy. Sounds like welfare.

Posted by: bsimon | October 15, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm, interesting response KOZ. Of course, your badly formatted quotes don't actually paint a realistic picture of the Judge's opinion. Which, I'd add, you are strangely relyin on. Who knew conservatives loves English Judges so much.

At any rate, the first half of the opinion decides whether the film is "political" in the sense that it is more than a pure science film. Clearly it is, although I have no idea why that's of any importance here.

The second half of the opinion does deal with the accuracy of the film and lead off by noting: "It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme."

[Wow, harsh criticism so far...'

Next, there comes this stinging rebuke:

"I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.'"

Finally, the Opinion moves on to a discussion of the "errors" in the film, which incidentally, are defined as departures from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. You know, the report that global warming deniers disagree with but which the Judge accepts.

"Error #1" -- The crux of this point is that, although accurate, Gore's presentation regarding sea level changes if Antartica or Greenland melt perhaps IMPLIES that such changes would happen more quickly than the scientific consensus anticipates. Again, VERY damaging findings.

'Error' 3: Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs.

-- Terrible error here. There is consensus of a connection, but the graphs shown don't establish it. NOOOO!!!!

Some of the other errors listed do purport to show minor inaccuracies, none of which undermine the central themes of the movie. And again, the opinion accepts that "It [the film] is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact..."

Posted by: _Colin | October 15, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

"and FYI, I am undecided on global warming"

Oh, really? Then why are you on here every day posting links to studies "debunking" global warming, blog posts about the "global warming myth", and columns whining about Al Gore? You spout all the denier talking points and then have the nerve to say you're undecided? I call BS. (Unless, of course, you're only denying global warming because it's your job. Which is a distinct possibility.)

"And a second test of what to do, why, and how much is still waiting to be discussed."

And I call BS on that too. Do you know why we can't have a discussion about how to deal with global warming? It's because of the deniers! (In other words, because of people like you.) Every time we try to discuss global warming, Exxon-funded scienticians and lobbyists butt in to say the science isn't in and we shouldn't do anything yet. If you want to have a discussion of what to do about global warming, then accept the science and shut up about Al Gore. And tell your Exxon backers to do the same.

Posted by: Blarg | October 15, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Claudia - there are many other exagerrations made by gore over the years, that is how he got the Rep. He was the Love story guy, he fought in foxholes in vietnam, Worked on the farm, etc. all based in fact, like one of those TV movies. but I am perfectly happy to have Al gore ride off into the sunset and remain irrelevant. Take Peanut with you.

JasonL - my observation of your premise is that you don't have any solid foundation of philosopyhy for your beliefs. Are there any taxes which are just plain wrong? for example the death tax - a second shot at your money by the government? How and why is this justified and paying for things people want is not the answer. I also find that you ignore the market pricing instrument. you Dems are always trying to fix prices of things and not pay what they are worth because you don't want to. Why "should" teaching be high paid? We are already over supplying the colleges with buyers. why not oil drilling - an actual service which is valuable to everyone. how much do you personally think we "should" pay for energy? how do you know?

I also had williams at GMU during my grad school ed in economics. He was an entertaining lecturer but came up way short in the math dept. a very interesting libertarian perspective on things. good for econ students who don't think very creativly most of the time. He is better on the radio than in the classroom.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 15, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Koz, you identified the three unsubstantiated claims out of nine that the judge talked about and the thousands in the film.

The other six claims had ample correlation between the data and the conclusions but not causation (yet).

There are also problems with this: "This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus."

The scientific consensus is not built on complete evidence. In fact, the melting of Greenland may be much quicker than we believe. There is some interesting evidence that shows that the increased temperatures attributed to global climate change my be increasing the number and strength of hurricanes in the Atlantic. For those of us that aren't meteorologists, the effect of a hurricane is to cool the Caribbean. That heat goes northward warming the North Atlantic. The overall effect of this may be to exponentially increase the rate that the north Atlantic warms.

Posted by: JasonL_in_MD | October 15, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

In response to this controversy, Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn wrote a 2000-09-29 article (originally sent via email) which described Gore's contributions to the Internet since the 1970s, including his work on the Gore Bill:[14]

" [A]s the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time. Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role.

He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.

As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept.

Posted by: drindl | October 15, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

One more thing about your religion: I have no objection to you holding your view about your new green religion, just like a catholic, a Jew or a Muslim or a wiccan has certain views I may not support but want them to be able to hold without interference.

Just don't ask me to pay for it and don't try to make it official government policy. I understand that humans prefer to pray to a diety when confronted with uncertainty about the future. I just prefer to pray to someone other than al gore.

If you can provide sufficient evidence to advance your beliefs to the realm of science, I will take another look at them then. I am not denying that global warming exists, but I am also not agreeing that it does. I think the jury is still out.

And a second test of what to do, why, and how much is still waiting to be discussed. that debate does not necessarily have to wait for the first one to be decided, but the weak-kneed Dems don't seem interested in actually doing anything anyways and are clearly afraid to reveal the cost and limited benefit of such measures.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 15, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

I'd be interested in the actual story of your changed economic thinking. I'm a fiscally conservative democrat for the most part and open minded for the rest. I might not dislike your thinking as much as you think.

As to the Club for Growth:
- Making the Bush tax cuts permanent
Only if they can balance the budget despite the cuts. The cuts, by the way, either disproved the idea of supply side economics or showed that we were already on the left side of the Laffer curve.
- Death tax repeal
I hate that they call it the Death tax now. Again, Tax cuts are fine as long as they correspond to a 1-1 decrease in spending.
- Cutting and limiting government spending
Fine with me. I just wouldn't want to see our evironment, economy, way of life, or security fall to sh*t because of it.
- Social Security reform with personal retirement accounts
I think they could be an optional choice. However, it seems likely that the majority of Americans would not be able to effectively manage their own accounts. Unless we added a lot of financial advisor's to the Government.
- Expanding free trade
Big fan.
- Legal reform to end abusive lawsuits
Big fan. We're an extremely litigious society and it increases the cost of health care and a variety of other products and services. However, I feel that we should also increase the damages to a company when they are sued legitimately to correspond with this regulation.
- Replacing the current tax code
Depends on the details of the reform. It is certainly very confusing. However, I would oppose any attempts to make the tax code less progressive.
- School choice
Frankly, I'd rather spend our time, money and efforts towards improving our existing school structure. An excellent education is paramount in a service based economy. Teachers should have PhD's and teaching should be among the highest paid jobs in America.
- Regulatory reform and deregulation
I've never seen anything good come from deregulation. Perhaps you could show me some good examples but California, as I recall, had some issues with deregulation in the energy market. Likewise, Maryland's energy prices have skyrocketed following deregulation.

Posted by: JasonL_in_MD | October 15, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

'but when you deal with Al Gore. the inventor of the Internet, you should expect wild exaggerations.'

'FYI-- People eager to lie about him continue to portray Gore as a liar. First lie, that he claims to have "invented" the Internet. '

Gore never claimed that he "invented" the Internet, which implies that he engineered the technology. The invention occurred in the seventies and allowed scientists in the Defense Department to communicate with each other. In a March 1999 interview with Wolf Blitzer, Gore said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet as we know it today."

Taken in context, the sentence, despite some initial ambiguity, means that as a congressman Gore promoted the system we enjoy today, not that he could patent the science, though that's how the quotation has been manipulated. Hence the disingenuous substitution of "inventing" for the actual language.

According to Vincent Cerf, a senior vice president with MCI Worldcom who's been called the Father of the Internet, "The Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator."

The inventor of the Mosaic Browser, Marc Andreesen, credits Gore with making his work possible. He received a federal grant through Gore's High Performance Computing Act. The University of Pennsylvania's Dave Ferber says that without Gore the Internet "would not be where it is today."

http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/internet.htm

Posted by: drindl | October 15, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

hiccup_colin - are you purposfully a flat-earth denier now?

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html

that is the ruling from the English court. the first statement after the names states the suit is:
relating to "political indoctrination" and to the "duty to secure balanced treatment of political issues" in schools,

they then enter into a discussion of whether the film is partisan and balanced. they say there is much consensus on the fact behind the film but:

"There are errors and omissions in the film, to which I shall refer, and respects in which the film, while purporting to set out the mainstream view (and to belittle opposing views), does in fact itself depart from that mainstream, in the sense of the "consensus" expressed in the IPCC reports."

AND

"It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the 'errors' in question, set out in the context of a political film, "

and the specific errors were not simply exaggerations, they were lies. for example: 2. 'Error' 12: Low lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming.

In scene 20, Mr Gore states "that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand". There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.

1. 'Error' 11: Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future but the truth is

This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.

More lies to come:

'Error' 15: Death of polar bears.

In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through the water looking for ice, Mr Gore says: "A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before." The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.


So in summary - Yes it was found to be a political film. Yes it was one-sided and biased. Yes it had substantial departures from fact, even though that was not the goal of the analysis.

but when you deal with Al Gore. the inventor of the Internet, you should expect wild exaggerations.

and FYI, I am undecided on global warming, much like religion. I am not yet convinced of either based on a high level of skepticism about faith based reasoning.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 15, 2007 3:55 PM | Report abuse

The Club for Greed is more like it.

Posted by: drindl | October 15, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin,
Unfortunately, I don't think regular people care about sources of money. I think it makes for good negative advertising. But otherwise, I think most people assume that pols get money from where ever they can - a dollar is a dollar.

Posted by: dave | October 15, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

JasonL_in_MD,
And just to set the record straight, the Club for Growth believes (among other things) in reducing spending and tax cutting. Club for Growth Policy Goals:

- Making the Bush tax cuts permanent
- Death tax repeal
- Cutting and limiting government spending
- Social Security reform with personal retirement accounts
- Expanding free trade
- Legal reform to end abusive lawsuits
- Replacing the current tax code
- School choice
- Regulatory reform and deregulation

Posted by: dave | October 15, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Those pesky quotes from the Judges ruling sure are inconvenient, aren't they? Best not to deal with them at all. MUCH easier to cut-and-past from conservative web-sites.

Out of curiosity, are you actually a global warming denier yourself or does your partisanship simply trump critical thinking? Also, didn't realize the GOP placed such a high premium on (1) foreign legal sources; and (2) the pronouncements of unelected Judges.

Anyway, feel free to try and get around the fact that the Judge who you purport to rely upon found that the movie is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact." Or that the so-called "criticism" of nine specific facts was simply a statement that "Scientific consensus" does not exist on those points, not that they are in error. If you prefer, however, just go ahead and rage against "libs" and Harry reid some more. That's certainly easier than actually forming a coherent argument.

Posted by: _Colin | October 15, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

JasonL_in_MD,
"Anybody out there change their economic political stance because of a class they took?" Not in high school but I took an econ class at George Mason with Walter Williams and it did change my thinking (but probably not to your liking!).

Posted by: dave | October 15, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

The Nobel Peace Prize was debased a long time ago. They gave it to Le Duc Tho. They gave it to Arafat. They gave it to Joseph Rotblat, a classic fellow-traveler. They gave it to a lady who plants trees and believes that the U.S. government invented AIDS in order to decimate black people.

The Nobel peace committee is not so much a peace committee as a standard left-wing pressure group -- sending these Mickey Mouse "messages."

They're like the board of the MacArthur Foundation, or the English department of Brown University or something -- there is no connection between what they do and quality. It's just straight politics, or, more accurately, ideology.

In '73, the Nobel peace people gave the award jointly to Le Duc Tho and Henry Kissinger. And our Left objected -- to the inclusion of Kissinger.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDUwZjczYTA2Yjk2ODM0Nzg4MTlhYTNjNzBlZGQwNmE=

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | October 15, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

I'm amazed really, by the energy some people can put into denying reality--the more facts that are presented to them, the harder they work at denying they exist.

Maybe we could call it Reality Derangement Syndrome.

Posted by: drindl | October 15, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

The ecochondriacs, by contrast, seem happiest when they're most unmoored from reality.

That's where Gore comes in. No matter how you raise the stakes ("It might take another 30 Kyotos", says Jerry Mahlman of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research), Saint Al of the Ecopalypse can raise them higher. Climate change, he says, is the most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced. Ever. And not just humankind, but alienkind, too. "We are," warns Gore, "altering the balance of energy between our planet and the rest of the universe".

Wow. It's not just the Maldive Islands, but the balance of energy between Earth and the rest of the universe. You wouldn't happen to have the stats on that, would you? Universal "balance of energy" graphs for 1940 and 1873? Gore is the logical reductio of what the popular Australian blogger Tim Blair calls global warm-mongering: Worst-case scenario, with all the zeroes you want on the end, and then a few more for holes in the ozone layer as yet undreamt of. Anyone can, as the environmentalists advise, think globally and act locally, but only Gore thinks cosmically and acts not at all.


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22584694-7583,00.html

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 15, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

'Is it too much to ask of our Congressmen and Senators that they actually produce meaningful legislation that moves the country forward or fixes problems??'

from a republican -- after how many years of lazy, useless, do-nothing R congresses?

Posted by: drindl | October 15, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Proud, beats passing approps bills on time. actually if Nancy gets her way and really does piss off Turkey, our operations in Iraq could be in serious jeopardy. Our NATO airbase in Incerlik has long been the main supply depot in the area. Is that unclear? an Armenian resolution has no meaning in the US but the Turks are watching. the President can't veto it as all the other surrender ideas have gone.

the Dems may yet find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. and how many fools would actually trust them with foreign policy all on their own?

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 15, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

that is not fact checking Hiccup_colin. It is pure distortion. the entire law suit was intended to determine if the movie constituted a partisan propoganda piece. that is all. It did. and the way they measured it I already laid out according to the official court documents. In addition, it was also found that there were at least 9 glaring and abject lies. Not a single thing was said about how many other untruths there were.

the finding of the court was that it was indeed a one-sided political piece of propoganda as opposed to an objective scientific piece which would require no warning from teachers.

It wasn't a question of a few exaggerations it was a few outright falsehoods and the rest was ALL exagerations. the rest was all:

i)A superficial treatment of the subject matter typified by portraying factual or philosophical premises as being self-evident or trite with insufficient explanation or justification and without any indication that they may be the subject of legitimate controversy; the misleading use of scientific data; misrepresentations and half-truths; and one-sidedness.
(ii) The deployment of material in such a way as to prevent pupils meaningfully testing the veracity of the material and forming an independent understanding as to how reliable it is.
(iii) The exaltation of protagonists and their motives coupled with the demonisation of opponents and their motives.
(iv) The derivation of a moral expedient from assumed consequences requiring the viewer to adopt a particular view and course of action in order to do "right" as opposed to "wrong."

AL gore = misleading scientific data, misrepresentations and half-truths. Just as you are attempting to do now. and always.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 15, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Is it too much to ask of our Congressmen and Senators that they actually produce meaningful legislation that moves the country forward or fixes problems?? Now we have the newest example of how to waste taxpayer dollars: the Armenian Genocide resolution. Unclear, though, is why congressional Democrats felt the urgent need to condemn the Ottoman Empire, an entity that hasn't existed for 85 years.

It's amateur hour in Congress.

Additionally, the efforts of Sen. Biden to divide Iraq on ethnic and religious grounds threaten to spark civil war just as U.S. servicemen make inroads in preventing it.

"Biden's motivation may be to garner media attention. He has succeeded. The problem, though, his statements get more airtime in Iran and Iraq, where revolutionary mullahs use his pronouncements to convince Iraqis that U.S. forces seek to destroy Iraq rather than rebuild it."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTMzZjVkNTFjMzg1ZjIwNWFjZTlmMWM2MmQzNDZlMTU=

Is this what passes for work on Capital Hill these days?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | October 15, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

KOZ - It isn't about some ancient history of Turkey practicing ethnic cleansing again their Armenian minority, it's about their present embarking on that path against the Kurdish people. Now, I don't suppose you could have missed the pictures on the news lately of Turkish artilliary indescriminately bombarding Kurdish towns and villages. There are also plenty of photo's on the internet of Turkish armored vehicles mowing down women and children in Kurdish villages in Turkey. There are even reports of Turkey using poison gas! For all of that, Turkey is no ally of this country. They cut us off from access just prior to our invasion of Iraq and have done likewise whenever it suited them. Right now, it is becoming apparent that we will be leaving IRaq in the near future. Only the most insane will ignore that we have critical interests in the Middle East and we will need a stable observation post, perhaps even foreard deployed bases. The only ally we have that has remained consistant are the Kurd's. Side with Turkey in the upcoming mess and you can kiss any chance of the Kurd's continued devotion "good-bye". Then, we get stuck with dancing to whatever tune Turkey wishes....and Turkey coompletes their grab for the oil fields in North Iraq, their intention all along. This IS NOT a good trade and it ISN'T in our national interest. What is in our national interest is to find for and declare an independent state of Kurdistan, build one or more foreward bases and pull back into them. This will mean twarting Turkish ambitions, one way or the other. Tough.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | October 15, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Blarg -- thanks for factchecking KOZ. He will now likely wait an hour before cut-and-pasting his same distortions about global warming. You know, since it's made up by "libs" who fail to understand that the only crisis facing the world is Harry Reid, who KOZ appears to have a man crush on.

Posted by: _Colin | October 15, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - they may have to walk home if Pelosi succeeds in pissing off Turkey. Instead of passing past due approps bills, they work on an armenian massacre from the early 1900s.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 15, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse

"Al-Qaeda In Iraq Reported Crippled The U.S. military believes it has dealt devastating and perhaps irreversible blows to al-Qaeda in Iraq in recent months, leading some generals to advocate a declaration of victory over the group"


That is good news. I suggest we celebrate by bringing home all reservists and guardsmen.

Posted by: bsimon | October 15, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Al-Qaeda In Iraq Reported Crippled The U.S. military believes it has dealt devastating and perhaps irreversible blows to al-Qaeda in Iraq in recent months, leading some generals to advocate a declaration of victory over the group

good job Nancy - now you can retire

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 15, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

The judge made two findings on the movie. You're confusing them, either because of your usual intellectual dishonesty or an inability to understand the facts.

First, he found that 9 facts within the movie were exaggerated. That's 9 among thousands. In doing so, he also said that the movie is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact", and affirmed the scientific truth of the rest of the facts.

Secondly, he found that the movie was politically biased. Probably because it advocated specific actions to be taken against global warming, and those actions are a matter of political debate. This has nothing do with the factual correctness of the movie. The movie may still be shown in British schools, if accompanied by teacher materials to prevent Gore's political (non-scientific) views from being presented to the students.

So there's your big victory. An unelected judge in a foreign country found that a movie about global warming had a few exaggerations and advocated a political position. That's certainly something to be proud of.

Posted by: Blarg | October 15, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

In fact, the main finding of the English judge was that the movie was a one-sided propoganda piece according to the following analysis, that is, it met the following conditions:

i)A superficial treatment of the subject matter typified by portraying factual or philosophical premises as being self-evident or trite with insufficient explanation or justification and without any indication that they may be the subject of legitimate controversy; the misleading use of scientific data; misrepresentations and half-truths; and one-sidedness.
(ii) The deployment of material in such a way as to prevent pupils meaningfully testing the veracity of the material and forming an independent understanding as to how reliable it is.
(iii) The exaltation of protagonists and their motives coupled with the demonisation of opponents and their motives.
(iv) The derivation of a moral expedient from assumed consequences requiring the viewer to adopt a particular view and course of action in order to do "right" as opposed to "wrong."

Upon review, I exclaimed that the Dems actually use these methods in all their programs. I was very amused to see tucker Carlson handily dismiss that poltroon Krugman on Maher. He challenged him on 4 above. Let's call all Rs evil and end the conversation. all they want is money (3) and false claims about confusing facts. (1 and 2) Observe as they use these approaches the rest of the day on this blog and the rest of the campaign.

Krugman - if tucker can cause you to stammer and stutter, and all the other TV appearances are as lukewarm, perhaps you should stay where you belong, concocting lies in print where you never have to respond to your own falsehoods when revealed.

BTW, the judge also revealed 9 blatant lies in gore's movie that had to be called out. they left the rest of the lies at rest.

Meanwhile:

ONE of the world's leading meteorologists has described the theory that helped Al Gore win a share of the Nobel prize "ridiculous".

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22579081-5003419,00.html

Can you jump a shark with all that weight Al?

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 15, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Actually, a judge in England found that 9 facts presented in "An Inconvenient Truth" do not reflect the scientific consensus. The rest of the facts do reflect the scientific consensus, which is that increased CO2 levels due to human activity are causing global climate change.

But feel free to claim that as a victory for global-warming deniers. You get so few chances to celebrate.

Posted by: Blarg | October 15, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

"pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts," as indicated by these manifestations:'

that sounds like a description of yourself, 'king.'

Posted by: drindl | October 15, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

there does appear to be some sort of Karma in the Universe. the day that the liberal elitists award Al gorebot the Peace prize, a judge in england finds his film is in fact a biased, one sided piece of political propoganda with many obvious errors of fact. It can't be shown to schoolchildren with a tobacco-like warning first.

Nevertheless - congratulations to almost President gore on his heaping admiration and consolation prizes awarded by the leftists in Sweden and Hollywood - the centers of the socialist universes. now can you go away and take that silly Peanut with you?

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 15, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps I can offer a medical explanation for what makes Al Gore tick. On the basis of his actions and writings over many years my guess is that Gore suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. The criteria for this diagnosis, as described in the psychiatrist's bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, include a "pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts," as indicated by these manifestations:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=101507D

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 15, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Reid's favorable rating was 32 percent, compared with 51 percent unfavorable and 15 percent neutral. Gibbons was viewed favorably by 30 percent, Bush by 34 percent.

The Review-Journal last asked Nevadans their opinion of Reid in early May. At that time, he was seen favorably by 46 percent and unfavorably by 42 percent.

Even that was seen as alarming for Reid because his favorability did not top 50 percent and because the difference between the two numbers was only 4 percentage points. It continued a slide for Reid that coincides with his taking the Democratic leadership after his re-election in 2004, with 61 percent of the vote.

The new poll marks the first time the Review-Journal has measured Reid's unfavorable rating higher than his favorable number.

Heckuva job - worthless speck of spineless dust.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 15, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

'Mark, money sources only matter when it's something blatantly illegal (like Hsu) or unbelievably unseemly (like Mark Rich's wife paying the invoice for her husband's pardon).'

In other words, when it's a Democrat.

Posted by: drindl | October 15, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Mark, I don't expect anyone to switch their vote because Hillary moved money from her Senate account. I brought it up to make a point about media coverage. The media kept talking about how much money Hillary raised, when in reality she raised quite a bit less. I think the revelations of where Hillary really gets her money may put a dent in her much-touted aura of inevitability, which may in turn lose her some support.

Posted by: Blarg | October 15, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Ohio is turning out to be the battleground for House 2008 races, as yet another Ohio Republican retired yesterday in OH-07! This makes 6 very competitive races in the state next year. Full analysis:
http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/10/yet-another-ohio-republican-announces.html

Posted by: campaigndiaries | October 15, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27.... I didn't mention Hillary because it wasn't her biggest source of a single company's contribution like Dodd and Edwards. Of course she is receiving money from hedge funds, in fact, Chelsey works for a hedge fund.

Please, don't jump to conclusions because I use examples.... the big three on both sides have plenty of money-raising sins. I'm very curious to see what, if anything, are made of them.

Probably Mark in Austin is probably right.... although it really depends on how it's handled by the MSM so perhaps some voters will be enlightened.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | October 15, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Mark, money sources only matter when it's something blatantly illegal (like Hsu) or unbelievably unseemly (like Mark Rich's wife paying the invoice for her husband's pardon).

Posted by: JD | October 15, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Ah, "Truth Punter", hedge funds providing money for Edwards and Dodd. You need to include Ms. Clinton in that group...but, of course, you wont. For Hillary, you also need to include donors from India, corporate owners there and in the U.S. that provide replacement "guest workers" for Amercian's, outsourcing services for American firms, etc. I'd love to bet you that Clinton received a lot more money from hedge funds than Edwards and Dodd combined, but the track for you Clinton sorts is that you welsh on pretty much everything (didn't Hillary criticise Obama for saying that he would talk with Iran? And, I seem to recall you're being critical, then, too. Now it's month later and, of course, she is all for talking with them.)

Posted by: mibrooks27 | October 15, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Mark,
I would say it isn't so much about who is paying attention now but who will pay attention when the negative ads point out that ten percent of Hillary's donations are from lobbyists or whatever. But all in all I don't think it is that big of a deal to anyone except junkies like us.

Posted by: AndyR3 | October 15, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Club for Growth will suffer at least one massive beatdown next year if Jim Gilmore gets the GOP nomination for senate in VA and Mark Warner abuses him like a rented mule.

Posted by: Spectator2 | October 15, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Y'all, do enough voters pay attention to who raises the money to make any difference whatsoever?

I am for full disclosure, of course; I just wonder if knowing about hedge fund or trial lawyer contribs, or Senate fund transfers is a vote switcher.

Examples abound: Rs did not care about GWB's money sources, did they? Clinton and Dole took illegal foreign money and all that happened was the Parties had to give it back after the election.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 15, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Is this the week that Hillary wins the nomination?

http://political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl | October 15, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

So, tomorrow everyone will learn that the biggest corporate employee contributions from a single company for each Dodd and Edwards are from hedge funds.

Eyebrow raising since Dodd is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee resisting regulation of the hedgers, and Edwards likes to spout off about the two Americas... one for the rich and one for everyone else.

I'm sure there will be plenty of other nuggets. What voters should be looking for are the leaders who are struggling because their interest is in formulating what is right for the country, who aren't focused solely on the big $$$ from big lobbying entities, and are thus lagging in the obscene money chase.

It'll be interesting see how the MSM plays this....

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | October 15, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Who's in charge of tracking retirements from the House? I just saw yesterday's news of another GOP retirement, this one from Ohio.

Posted by: bsimon | October 15, 2007 11:46 AM | Report abuse

The Club for Growth is such a joke. They ought to just call it the Club for Lining the Pockets of Rich Men. I guess that's kind of long, though.

Seriously though, how long do you think it will take before enough Americans learn that supply side economics doesn't work that Republicans can't push the line that tax cuts pay for tax cuts? Should kids be learning economics in high school? Do some high schools out there teach econ? Mine didn't. Anybody out there change their economic political stance because of a class they took?

Posted by: JasonL_in_MD | October 15, 2007 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Recent polling for the MA 5th shows that Tsongas is up by around 8-10% with her votes over 50%. Not to mention that only 18% of registered voters in the fifth are republicans. Taken with the fact that Paul Tsongas was well liked in the whole state I think his widow will take this seat.

Posted by: AndyR3 | October 15, 2007 11:34 AM | Report abuse

I'm very interested to see where Hillary Clinton's money came from. In previous quarters, she's padded her fundraising numbers with money from her Senate account, a fact which has escaped the media's notice. There were plenty of stories about how she outraised Obama; let's see how many stories there are about the details of the candidates' fundraising.

Posted by: Blarg | October 15, 2007 11:31 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company