1
   

Call them the Religious Left - Let Justice Roll/Minimum Wage

 
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Oct, 2006 06:41 am
okie wrote:


Thanks. And doesn't it bother you that Democrats are not running on issues now, but instead it is simply the Republicans are all wrong and they will fix it, but fix it how nobody knows, apparently including them? Cyclops, this is how I would summarize the Democrats:

Foreign policy, no solutions, and in fact it was previous Democratic bungling that has given us many of the problems facing us now. Energy, no positive solutions, and by the way lets not drill for oil anywhere.

According to Democrats, business and free enterprise is terrible and evil, the economy is lousy, and higher taxes and government can fix every problem, including energy, but how - they offer nothing.

Social problems - simply enact anything and everything that is more permissive. If robbing banks becomes too popular, simply make it legal and the problem goes away according to Democrats. If people are irresponsible, simply reward them with more money and the problem goes away.

Last but not least, the Republicans are the party of corruption, but when Democrats are corrupt, nobody should care, it is not an issue.



Okie, did anyone ever tell you that you don't know your head from the other end? My own comment is most appropriate here:

"Whenever a Republican/conservative attempts to describe a Democrat/Liberal he always............ALWAYS describes himself"

You have a bad case of Limbaugh/Foxitis!

How in the hell is any Democrat or anyone else supposed to know how and what to fix since this administration has made everything they do a secret?

I could give them a few suggestions:

First and foremost, get rid of all "Made for Fraud" touch screen voting machines & replace them with old fashioned paper ballots to be counted in public in local princincts, with results posted publicly, & transmitted to multiple tabulating centers... local, state and national for totals & verification. Release to media each step of the way for public verification.

Second... Get corporations out of government business by prohibiting all bribes (donations) to anyone running for public office. All donations would go to a central fund for distribution equally to political parties. Public funding for elections with strict rules on funds spent, equal time on TV, radio, etc. No funding for vile attack ads or ads intended to terrorize the country.

Third.... Outlaw the lobbying or at least place severe restrictions on this industry. All Lobbyists & citizens must produce their requests in writing and made available to the public.
Ha! No more secret meetings with Tricky Dick#2 or members of congress. Matter of fact it might be helpful to have those lobbying congress to present their causes on public broadcast.

But first these things need to be taken care of so that the village idiot's wings can be severely clipped immediately.

1. Vote to restore everything that bu$h signed away by executive order or his idiotic signing statements.

2. Release JFK papers and others that junior has hidden with one of his damn executive orders.

3. Severaly limit what the village idiot can do with executive orders.

4. Make signing statements that over ride a law passed by Congress illegal.

5. Rescind any order that junior can twist to claim that it authorizes him to start war against any country he pleases.

6. Get rid of that damn Patriot Act and the most recent Military Tribunal bullschitt.

Most important:

Impeach & remove from office bu$h, cheney, Rice, Frist, Hastert, Rumsfeld, & other high place criminals in congress or this administration.

Prosecute and convict bu$h, cheney, Rich, Rumsfeld, Powell & others for war crimes, crimes against the Constitution, crimes against humanity.
Seize all their assets to offset some of the damage they have done, give them all a life sentence in prison without parole.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Oct, 2006 01:02 pm
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Cyclops is tough but he seems to absorb points a tiny bit sometimes.


Thanks. I would categorize you the same way.

I would like to see more of the forward thinking on solving problems that we played around with on the Global Warming thread.... even after this election is over, the problems just aren't going to go away. It will take the input of people from all points on the political spectrum to come up with comprehensive solutions to our problems, and I feel that practicing this is neccessary for preaching this.

I will start a 'solving America's problems, one by one' thread after the election, and maybe we can get to work on some issues.

Cheers

Cycloptichorn


Thanks. And doesn't it bother you that Democrats are not running on issues now, but instead it is simply the Republicans are all wrong and they will fix it, but fix it how nobody knows, apparently including them? Cyclops, this is how I would summarize the Democrats:


Naturally, it bugs me that you present such a cariciature of the Dems. I would like to respond point-by-point if that's cool with you.

Quote:
Foreign policy, no solutions, and in fact it was previous Democratic bungling that has given us many of the problems facing us now.


I think there is plenty of blame on both sides of the fence for the problems we have today. The US has been screwing about in the ME region for quite some time now - Remember that there has only been a Dem president for 8 of the last 26 years now.

To say that the Dems have 'no solutions' on foreign policy is ridiculous. We do have solutions - disengage from Iraq before we are forcibly disengaged from it. Relocate soldiers to Afghanistan and other places close by. Start using actual diplomacy with both our enemies and our friends. Mostly, start removing ourselves from the Teat of Foreign Oil, something that the Republicans refuse to even consider.

Quote:
Energy, no positive solutions, and by the way lets not drill for oil anywhere.


Also ridiculous. The Dems have been hollering about alternative energy for a long time now. The solution to our current oil problems is to reduce our usage, over time, not to find more. That way is a dead end.

We are only seeing the beginning stages of Oil competition around the globe. Once China really gets up and running with automobiles, the market share they take is going to explode. It doesn't matter how much oil we find, the price is going to go up sooner rather than later. The intelligent thing to do is to start looking at other solutions.

NO other solutions are even being considered by the Republicans. And who can blame them? They get incredible amounts of contributions from the Oil industry each year, and have to bring something home to show for it.

It really is the height of hypocrisy to accuse Dems of not having any ideas about Energy.

Quote:
According to Democrats, business and free enterprise is terrible


You forgot the word 'unregulated.' Unregulated businesses are terrible. Properly regulated ones are just fine.

Quote:
and evil


Some businesses ARE evil. The ones that pollute our air and water every second of every day, with no care about what happens. The ones who exploit slave and Illegal Immigrant labor to save costs. The businesses who are more interested in keeping their clients hooked to their food and drugs than in their clients' health. Those who screw their investors out of billions of dollars, and then say they are innocent. There isn't any reason to feel any differently about those who believe that profits should come at any cost.

Quote:
the economy is lousy


The economy is lousy. The numbers given by Republicans to show how good it is doing are laughable compared to any other period of expansion. Laughable. The vast majority of Americans are no better off, or worse off, then they were 6 years ago; and, our debt has gone up by half and there are no signs of it stopping soon.

How the hell could you say the economy is good?

Quote:
and higher taxes and government can fix every problem, including energy, but how - they offer nothing.


Higher taxes don't fix every problem, but they will help our problems of sagging federal revenues and huge deficits. I don't buy the 'trickle-down' argument for a second. Not a second. Everyone talks about the 'jobs' all the money at the top will create, well, where the hell are they? We are still in the hole in manufacturing, IT, hell, every industry is down except for construction and healthcare; and neither of those are sterling examples of what we want driving our economy.

Government has swollen tremendously under Republican rule, so how you can say the Dems think every problem can be solved by gov't is beyond me.

Quote:
Social problems - simply enact anything and everything that is more permissive. If robbing banks becomes too popular, simply make it legal and the problem goes away according to Democrats. If people are irresponsible, simply reward them with more money and the problem goes away.


As opposed to the common cariciature of the 'nanny state' who tells people what to do and how to act?

The Dems have a simple formula for legality of an act: if you can show the harm that is done to someone other than the person committing the act, it should probably be illegal. If you can't, it probably shouldn't. It's quite simple actually.

Quote:
Last but not least, the Republicans are the party of corruption, but when Democrats are corrupt, nobody should care, it is not an issue.


Of course it is an issue. You don't seem to care too much about Republican corruption, btw, while at the same time bemoaning the fact that Dems don't care about Dem corruption. Sort of hollow on this issue okie.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Madison32
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Oct, 2006 02:54 pm
Okie- Here is the truth about Nimh's DLC:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DLC
About the DLC



DLC | Bio | July 25, 2006
DLC: Leader Profiles

Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack is Chairman of the DLC. Vilsack is the nation's senior Democratic governor and is recognized as an innovator on children's, economic, and healthcare policy and making government more efficient and accessible. Vilsack has a long history with the DLC and was a signer of the Hyde Park Declaration in 2000. Governor Vilsack is the immediate past chair of the Democratic Governors' Association and a member of the National Governors' Association Executive Committee.

For a more complete biography, please visit Gov. Vilsack's website.
U.S. Senator Tom Carper (Delaware) is Vice-Chairman of the DLC. Carper has served in public office for almost 30 years, completing a rare trifecta in Delaware politics, serving as Congressman (1982-1992), Governor (1992-2000) and now Senator (elected in 2000). In 2004, he was named a Deputy Whip for Senate Democrats. Carper also serves as co-chair of the Senate New Democrat Coalition and for the past three years, he has served as the DLC Chair for Best Practices.

For a more complete biography, please visit Sen. Carper's website.
U.S. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (New York) heads the DLC's American Dream Initiative. During her first term in the Senate, Clinton has become a leading Democratic voice in Washington and she chairs the Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee, responsible for communicating with the public about key issues before Congress.

For a more complete biography, please visit Sen. Clinton's website.
U.S. Representative Artur Davis (Alabama), co-chair of the House New Democrat Coalition, has made quite an impact in his 2 1/2 years in Congress. Davis has been recognized by Roll Call and The National Journal as one of the future leaders to watch in Washington, and he has earned a reputation as a legislator with an appreciation for bipartisanship. Davis has also made an impact with New Democats. He was a keynote speaker at the DLC's "God, Guns, and Guts" conference in 2003. Davis has also written for Blueprint magazine on the vital center and reclaiming values issues for Democrats.

For a more complete biography, please visit Rep. Davis' website.




Blog by David Serota
The Democrats 2008 Choice: Sell Out & Lose, Or Stand Up & Win (89 comments )
READ MORE: 2008, George W. Bush, Iraq
The 2008 Democratic presidential candidates this week are busy genuflecting at Corporate America's altar -- otherwise known as the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). Now, it's true -- the DLC is really just a group of Beltway-insulated corporate-funded hacks who have spent the better part of the last decade trying to undermine the Democratic Party's traditional working class base -- a base that had kept Democrats in power for 40 years and now, thanks to the DLC, has been forfeited to the Republicans.

Even so, the fact that these presidential candidates feel the need to bow down to the DLC is a troubling sign about whether the Democratic Party is really serious about regaining power in America.

Let's just look at the cold, hard facts about the DLC and its record. The DLC has pushed, among other things, the war in Iraq and "free" trade policies, using bags of corporate money to buy enough Democratic votes to help Republicans make those policies a reality. They have chastised anyone who has opposed those policies as either unpatriotic or anti-business -- even as a majority of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq, oppose the DLC's business-written trade deals, and are sick of watching America's economy sold out to the highest corporate bidder. Additionally, in brazenly Orwellian fashion, the DLC has also called its extremist agenda "centrist," even though polls show the American public opposes most of their agenda, and supports much of the progressive agenda.

Now, you could make a credible argument that the DLC's corporatization/Republicanization of the Democratic Party was justified, had it led to electoral success for Democrats. Few would argue that today's split-the-difference Democratic Party hasn't followed the DLC's policy direction over the last 10 years. That means the last 10 years of elections really have been a referendum on whether the DLC's model -- regardless of any moral judgements about it -- actually wins at the polls.

And that's when we get to the real problem with the DLC -- its policies are BOTH morally bankrupt, and politically disastrous. The rise of the DLC within the Democratic Party has coincided almost perfectly with the decline of the Democratic Party's power in American politics -- a decline that took Democrats from seemingly permanent majority status to permanent minority status. In this last election, just think of Democrats' troubles in Ohio as a perfect example of this. Here was a state ravaged by massive job loss due to corporate-written "free" trade deals -- yet Democrats were unable to capitalize on that issue and thus couldn't win the state because the DLC had long ago made sure the party helped pass the very trade policies (NAFTA, China PNTR) that sold out those jobs.

To counter, the DLC holds up Bill Clinton's 1992 win as proof that its policies win elections, but that is so dishonest it's laughable. First and foremost, almost everyone would agree Clinton ran a very un-DLC-like populist campaign for President in 1992, and won far more on the strength of his charisma/personality than any policy platform from a bunch of pencil-pushing geeks at the DLC in Washington, D.C. Secondly, since that 1992 victory -- with the exception of Clinton's 1996 victory over one of the weakest GOP challengers in modern history -- Democrats have been roundly destroyed in national election after national election.

Thus, we are brought back to the bottom line: with the DLC, Democrats get all of the bad policies, and none of the good electoral outcomes -- it is the worst of both worlds.

Why is this the case? Because, above any one issue, Americans don't think Democrats stand for anything. They hear Democrats say they stand up for America's middle class, but then watch as the DLC loudly supports the opposite. For instance, the DLC was one of the pioneers in pushing Social Security privatization - a policy the DLC's Wall Street backers love (and if you don't believe the DLC advocated this, see their position paper trumpeting "personal accounts"). The DLC has pushed "free" trade that sells out American jobs, which the DLC's corporate backers love. And the DLC has pushed wars that send middle class kids off to die for lies, which the DLC's neocon ideologues love.

The DLC attracts undue attention to itself and these awful policies by claiming to speak for Democrats, attacking the Democratic Party, echoing the Republican Party's agenda, and reinforcing dishonest right-wing lies about progressives -- a surefire way to get press attention. What's left is a widespread impression that the Democratic Party deliberately misleads voters about its priorities, cares only about their political advancement, and possesses absolutely no core convictions.

Thankfully, the rise of a new populism within the Democratic Party is challenging the tired, hackneyed suits at the DLC, as is alternate fundraising sources that allows candidates to ignore the fat cats who fund the DLC.

But make no mistake about it -- the Democratic Party is in the throes of a battle for its soul -- a battle that will decide whether Democrats will ever be a majority party again.

On one side, you have the DLC which seeks to remold the Democratic Party into a wholly-owned subsidiary of Corporate America, controlled by a tiny cadre of conservative-leaning elitists in the nation's capital who are desperate to hang onto their power over the Democratic Party apparatus in Washington, D.C. These are the people who are so desperate and conniving, they viciously attacked Howard Dean in 2004 and ruthlessly attack grassroots groups like Moveon.org who, unlike the DLC, actually goes out and does the hard work of trying to WIN election. They are also the same people who are now working overtime to undermine Democrats' opposition to President Bush's extremist economic agenda.

On the other side are progressives who want to see the party go back to what made it successful for decades: a willingness to stand up for America's middle class.

The 2008 presidential candidates would rather there not be this choice, and that's why they are trying to have it both ways, speaking at the DLC conferences, while reassuring progressives they are real Democrats. But ultimately, that won't be possible. Each of them will have to make a choice -- kiss the elitists' ring, sell out to the highest corporate bidder, and be ridiculed on the national stage for standing for nothing other than fat cats and political expediency. Or, actually follow the lead of conviction politicians, ignore the D.C. cocktail party circuit, create a principled McCain-like image, and stand up for the millions of Americans who the DLC and the Beltway crowd have arrogantly alienated for so long.

We've tried the former for many years now, and it has meant loss after loss after loss after loss (the repetition of this disastrous formula kind of makes you wonder whether the current crop of Democrats actually enjoys losing). Personally, I don't like losing and I don't like selling out, so I'm hoping the Democrats reject the DLC model and change course. While it might be a fine life to be a comfortable-in-the-minority elitist in the cushy confines of Washington, D.C. where the consequences of selling out are muted, out here in the real world, the results of Democrats' permanent minority status in national politics have very real and very harsh effects -- and it's time for a change.
0 Replies
 
gozmo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Oct, 2006 12:23 am
What is so leftist in the concept of a living wage ?
0 Replies
 
Madison32
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Oct, 2006 01:16 pm
Testimony on H.B. 4160
Preemption of Local "Living Wage" Ordinances
Presented to the House Committee
on Employment Relations, Training, and Safety
February 19, 2003

Thank you for inviting me to speak to the House Committee on Employment Relations, Training, and Safety on the preemption of local living wage laws. I am pleased to see that there is vigorous debate on a matter of such importance to the people of Michigan. This Committee has primary responsibility among the members of the legislature for assuring that Michigan law treats workers fairly, but at the same time should always bear in mind that those same workers are also taxpayers. There is considerable evidence that living wage laws only increase the difficulties faced by unskilled, low-wage workers. Given the financial responsibilities of the state of Michigan to municipalities, and the state's current budgetary difficulties, preemption of local living wage laws is entirely appropriate.

A living wage is nothing other than a super-minimum wage imposed by municipal government, as opposed to state or federal government. It applies only to firms doing business with the local government. State and federal minimum wage statutes preempt local wage ordinances that would apply to all other private firms. Failure of the state to preempt living wage laws defeats the statewide wage laws established by this legislature and invites municipalities to invade other areas of state employment law, such as the state's collective bargaining law or occupational safety and health standards.

The Alleged Need for Living Wage Laws

The stated objective of living wage law supporters is to reduce poverty by increasing the incomes of low-wage workers. The leading nationwide advocate of living wage laws, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, argues that living wage ordinances are needed because, and I quote, "Our limited public dollars should not be subsidizing poverty-wage work . . . Public dollars should be leveraged for the public good - reserved for those private sector employers who demonstrate a commitment to providing decent, family-supporting jobs in our local communities."1 Hence the standard that is typically used to calculate a "living wage" is based on the poverty line for a family of four. Living wage laws in Michigan tend to be a bit more generous, however, calling for a living wage of around $10 an hour, or allowing a lower wage of around $8.50 an hour if the employer provides health benefits.2

But while it is entirely natural to have sympathy toward the poor, including the working poor, if there is one group among the poor for whom there are grounds for optimism, who are least likely to need further assistance in the form of governmental mandates in order to find their way out of poverty, it is those poor who have nonetheless found work - even if it is minimum wage work.

Poverty is not a permanent state of affairs, especially for the working poor. In a free-flowing labor market even low-wage workers learn skills or at least gain a reputation for reliability that they can use to gain raises or new, higher paying employment. All the evidence indicates that is precisely what is happening out there. Low income workers are not stuck in low-wage work as long as they can remain employed long enough. The evidence shows that it may take as little as a year for a low-wage worker to advance to a better-paying job.

Research by the Employment Policy Institute shows that full-time minimum wage workers receive an average raise of 14 percent in their first year.3 Another EPI report shows that 47 percent of families living below the poverty line in 1997 managed to make it over the poverty line in 1998. The authors of that study concluded that "earnings from minimum wage work and the Earned Income Tax Credit both significantly reduced the number of working poor in the 1990s."4

In short, the "dead-end job", in which individuals are unable to find better employment, leaving them trapped in "poverty wages", is largely a myth, especially in a growing economy. The "working poor" are perfectly capable of working themselves out of poverty without any further government intervention. The living wage may speed up the process a bit for some, but relatively few of the beneficiaries of the living wage are likely to be poor individuals supporting families.

The Economic Impact of Living Wage Laws

It is not at all clear that the wage increases mandated by these statutes actually go to the working poor. Census data indicate that in Michigan the bulk of workers earning $6.65 per hour or less (the current minimum wage is $5.15 per hour) are not the sole support for a family with children. Around 19 percent are single or married without children. Another 18 percent are from dual-earner households that may or may not include children. More than half, 53 percent, live with a parent or relative. Of minimum wage and near minimum-wage workers, only 10 percent were the sole earners in families with children. The average family income for workers earning $6.65 an hour or less is over $50,000 - well above the poverty level.5

Among the other 90 percent there are, no doubt, many who bear their own hardships: a disabled spouse or parent, for instance. And even without dependents, living on a minimum wage job is not glamorous. But it is clear from these figures that the living wage is likely to benefit many who have no particularly pressing need for financial assistance.

We've looked at who benefits, now consider who loses: those unable to find work because potential employers cannot afford the increased wages mandated by living wage laws.

Labor economists refer to the "elasticity" of demand for labor, to describe the ratio of jobs gained or lost when wages change. Estimates of this "elasticity" vary, but the average estimate by labor economists is that for a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, employment among those affected drops by 2 percent. Since the typical living wage law in Michigan calls for roughly a doubling in wages, this leads to an estimate that 20 percent of workers covered by the living wage law will lose their jobs as a result.6 Professor David Neumark of Michigan State University argues that this elasticity may understate the effects of living wage laws on employment, and that the job losses may be higher.7

Those same labor economists will also tell you that the "elasticity" of demand for teenage workers is less severe than that of low-wage workers overall, in other words, proportionally fewer teenagers will lose their jobs as a result of a wage increase. Consequently the job losses will fall more heavily on older workers - who, it stands to reason, are more likely to have dependents.

The Cost of Living Wage Laws

Having presented evidence that living wage laws are unnecessary or even counterproductive as a means of alleviating poverty, I would like to conclude by addressing the question of why the legislature should intervene in this area. After all, these living wage laws are enacted by local governments, which ordinarily should be allowed some latitude to make their own policies.

But the burdens created by living wage laws do not fall entirely on the municipalities that enact them. When workers are laid off, they draw unemployment funds that are paid for by employers that frequently have locations across the state. Families with dependent children eventually draw on state welfare programs if the "breadwinner" is unable to find work soon enough.

Living wage laws are likely to increase the cost of local government more directly. Firms may be hesitant to bid on local government contracts if a living wage law will disturb their own pay scales. Depending on how the ordinance is drafted, a company with one city contract could find itself forced to give substantial company-wide pay increases.

Even if the application of living wage is limited to those working directly on a municipal contract, the disruption of having separate wage schedules could lead companies to pass up municipal contracts, lessening competition and driving the cost of government even higher.

It should be remembered that all these communities rely on state-generated revenues for a large portion of their expenditures. In the upcoming fiscal year, the city of Detroit expects revenue sharing with the state to generate more than 14 percent of its budget - over $500 million - most of which will go into that city's general fund.8 And except for sheer size Detroit is not at all unusual; for the city of Ann Arbor state revenue sharing accounted for $13 million, over 15 percent of the city's budget, last year.9

The state is certainly within its rights to insist that this money be spent in the most cost-effective manner possible. That means local contracts should go to the lowest qualified bidder, with a minimum of strings and conditions added by local government. It is also quite proper for the state to preempt laws that increase the burdens of public assistance programs, which the living wage law is likely to do.

Conclusion - Good Intentions, Poor Economics

The living wage movement is well intentioned. But by failing to account for the economics and demographics of low-wage workers, it has produced ordinances that backfire more often than they work. Few of the benefits of living wage ordinances go to poor families. The state will ultimately be forced to pick up a significant portion of the bill. That will include greater demand for revenue sharing from municipalities that have passed living wage laws. The state will also be forced to adjust for an increased need for social services to the families of those who are unable to find work. In light of the likely costs to both poor families and taxpayers across the state, preemption of local living wage laws by the Michigan Legislature is an appropriate response.


# # #

Paul Kersey, J.D., is labor research associate at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research and educational institute. More information is available on HB 4160 at www.michiganvotes.org.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Nov, 2006 05:14 pm
Renatus5 wrote:
If you have libraries in Hungary, check out the work of Dr. Thomas Sowell


On Thomas Sowell...

Quote:
John Kerry, "media darling"?

Breaking news from another planet: A headline at the National Review Online describes John Kerry as a "media darling" and complains that the press has "circled the wagons around the junior senator from Massachusetts."

That bit of handiwork tops a column by Thomas Sowell that's chock full of stuff you might charitably call "truthiness." Sowell quotes Kerry saying that he would "apologize to no one" for what he said about Iraq, but he neglects to mention that Kerry subsequently apologized to anyone who was offended. [..] Sowell says that Kerry "to this day ... has never signed the simple form" required to release his military records. In fact, as the Boston Globe reported at the time, Kerry signed Standard Form 180, which "waived privacy restrictions and authorized the release of his full military and medical records," in May 2005.

What about this notion that the media has "circled the wagons" around Kerry? Maybe we missed all the wagon circling amid the 24/7 coverage of Kerry's blunder. Every time we turned on CNN or MSNBC Wednesday, we saw somebody beating up Kerry for his comments; at one point Wednesday, Fox's John Gibson went so far as to refer to Kerry's words as "off-color remarks."

What did Sowell see this week that we didn't? He focuses almost entirely on a San Francisco Chronicle headline that said, "Bush, GOP seize on Kerry's gibe to turn focus from war in Iraq." Sowell asks: "Has any Democrat ever been accused by the mainstream media of 'seizing on' some statement by a Republican, much less have bad motives imputed?"

Well, let's see. From the New York Times, June 24, 2005: "Democrats seized on Mr. Rove's comments, clearly hoping to put Republicans on the defensive." From the Washington Post, July 12, 2005: "Democrats seized on" Bush's vow to fire anyone involved in leaking Valerie Plame's identity [..]. From the Associated Press, Aug. 12, 2004: "Kerry seized on Bush's comments" about a national sale tax in an effort to "reverse partisan stereotypes by portraying the Republican president as the tax raiser and himself as a tax cutter." From Knight Ridder. Oct. 27, 2006: "[..] some Democrats seized on Cheney's comments" about "dunking" detainees in water [..].

Sowell should try "the Google" sometime. There's no telling what you can find out there.

To be fair, Sowell isn't the only one who seems to have trouble with these newfangled research tools: The White House is struggling with this thing called a "calendar."

On Air Force One today, deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said that John Kerry's apology for his remarks came "maybe four days late." Kerry said what he said Monday, and he'd apologized -- twice -- by Wednesday afternoon. That's two days, max, where we live, but time has always moved a little slowly in the Bush administration: In February 2003 -- that's three and a half years ago in reality-based time -- Donald Rumsfeld said the war in Iraq would last "six days, six weeks -- I doubt six months."

Click the headline to find the version that has all the links.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/23/2021 at 06:51:07