I'm not really attempting to defend Clinton, but it is possible to bail out the megabanks if you have generated billions in surplus dollars for the government, as Clinton did.

That may be an immoral deal -- screw the poor now so you can bail out the rich later. But at least it is not evil AND stupid, like we have now. When conservatives decided to drown the government in national debt, they apparently forgot that it isn't just welfare moms that need to be bailed out sometimes.

Nah, the Bush administration will find ways to bail out Citibank even with current levels of deficit spending. There's always money for THAT.

hey Jonathon! This makes me want to ask you some deep questions on which I've yet to hear any answer from you.
I enjoy hearing your deconstructions of Ron Paul, the Republican Lie Machine, and Our Traitorous Democrats. A healthy democracy is one that always challenges itself. I'm curious, though....who are you backing right now for prez? Why?
You seem to recognize that there is something terribly wrong with our current, 2 party system, yet I've never seen any hint of a possible answer to another, deeper question: What's YOUR solution? Do you have any ideas?
to be honest, I both like and dislike Ron Paul.
Anyone who scares the sheeit out of Rethugs like he does, and makes lefties scramble to find racist dirt on him--is someone worth a second look.
I think his views on absolute laissez-faire capitalism are asinine at best--WHY would you trust infrastructure to private, unaccountable corporate interests? However,I think if he got elected, he'd be about as effective at turning over all government agencies to privatization as Bill Clinton was at making Universal Health Care a reality in America....that would be because Dr Paul might actually RESPECT the checks and balances provided in the Constitution, and bow to the will of Congress, as our Presidents should.

I think I support him because I have such a deep-seated hatred for the cast of idiot assholes we have today, on both sides. (which, if you look even a little bit beneath the surface, is really the same side)
However, my support for him is irrelevant to my question to you(reiterated): Do you think our 2 party system is broken, and what, if anything, would you do to fix it so we actually have representatives again? not just corporate operatives...

Oh, I'm not arguing that they won't bail them out.

Hence the "stupid" part. Clinton had a sense of how far or how quickly he could stress ordinary Americans before they'd start to catch on, or of how he had to compensate in other ways. Not these morons.

To use the overused cliche about the frog and the pot: Clinton (and Reagan, and Bush I, and Carter...) was savvy enough to turn up the heat on the frog slowly; Bush II et al switch the dial straight to high, and then set the lab on fire, hoping they can continue to distract the frog.

gadfly:

Do you think our 2 party system is broken, and what, if anything, would you do to fix it so we actually have representatives again? not just corporate operatives...

These are fair questions. I'll write something about it sometime. Feel free to harass me if I haven't gotten to it.

Whistler Blue:

Bush II et al switch the dial straight to high, and then set the lab on fire, hoping they can continue to distract the frog.

I hereby declare that you are funny.

In fact, this makes me want to write a scene where this actually occurs.

re: Ron Paul

I don't think he is in favor of turning infrastructure to private corporate interests so much as he is interested in following the constitution. The US constitution does not provide for things like public educational systems or interstate highways - Paul's position is that this type of activity should be stopped or the US Constitution amended.

As for myself, I didn't really get concerned for the US Constitution until the Patriot Act came along.

And while I don't like Paul much, we certainly could do worse - and currently are doing much worse.

STILL waiting on the Cavalry? THE SOLUTION IS YOU. (take charge, 1-202-225-0100 DEMAND IMPEACHMENT, it still is YOUR country)

so many meta-questions about that post there.

what's with the explosion of Geddy Lee-esque views on that Nation post?

do that many Randroids/Libertarians(see comment on collectivism) read the Nation? why?

and this: I didn't really get concerned for the US Constitution until the Patriot Act came along.

that's a little like not getting concerned for your horse while the glue factory wagon was sitting outside your stable.

Clinton had a sense of how far or how quickly he could stress ordinary Americans before they'd start to catch on, or of how he had to compensate in other ways.

Not just Americans.

One of the masterful things about Clinton was the way that he did the exact same things Reagan and Bush were doing - both in the US and internationally - and yet made everyone feel so damn good about it that they didn't notice that he was just continuing the policy track that the US had been following for decades.

He was a smooth operator - as I've said, probably the best Republican president we've had since Eisenhower. And that's what the bully boys in office now don't understand. They wanted to be the opposite of Clinton, so where he was smooth they're pushy. Where he was accomodating with his words while still sticking you with the shiv they insult you to your face as they knife you in the gut. They don't understand that old maxim about catching more flies with honey than with vinegar - they'd rather nuke the flies and let god sort it out.

In some ways I'm kind of glad that the bully boys have finally ripped the cover off of American policy and shown the world what a lie we've been living. Nasty stuff was going on under Reagan, under Bush I, and under Clinton all the time. Yet those guys were smooth enough and savvy enough to keep the illusion of the US in place. Bush the Lesser has ripped that illusion to shreds. I just hope the rest of the world doesn't buy it when the next illusionist gets into the White House and starts trying to work the trick again.

Ron Paul? For following the Constitution?

Of what, teh Confederate States of America?

Ron Paul? For following the Constitution?

Of what, teh Confederate States of America?

kelley b:
no, no, no. the one that says that Congress alone has the power to take the country to war, shouldn't stick its nose in foreign countries, especially the ones that don't want us there, the one that demands that the police *tell you why you're being arrested*---THAT constitution.
I know, it can be confusing, because our corporate operatives in Congress have gone so far away from it-especially in the last 7 years, but give it a read, you might be surprised!