This is hard to believe. Steve Benen lays it out:
“The administration has fought tooth and nail for four years to say Common Article 3 does not apply to Al Qaeda,” Martin Lederman, a former Justice Department official, said. “Having lost that fight, I’m afraid they’re now saying, ‘Never mind, we’ve been in compliance with Article 3 all along.’ ”
With these areas of ambiguity, it’d be helpful to know whether the administration was right before, or right now. The answer: Bush is right â always.
As Congress opened hearings yesterday on the treatment of terrorism detainees, the Bush administration’s view was neatly summarized by Steven Bradbury, the Justice Department lawyer serving as lead witness. “The president,” Bradbury said, “is always right.”
I think everybody can agree that government cannot work when the president’s chief legal advisors amount to little more than a band of worshipful yes-men.
norbizness
Not only that, but the President is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being he’s ever known in his life.
norbizness
Oh, and “When the president does it that means that it is not illegal.” — Richard Nixon in David Frost interview, 1977.
jg
I was gonna post the same thing.
Same people in both administrations right?
slickdpdx
I wish I knew what the question/context of the statement was. The Post reporter doesn’t say.
David
ThinkProgress has the video.
Tsulagi
For those enveloped in truthiness, the president is always rightiness.
Tim F.
Try coming up with a question for which that is not a relatively idiotic answer. For extra points limit the search to questions that would realistically be asked to a DOJ witness in a congressional hearing. For example, exclude queries like, “relative to Laura, where does the president stand in holiday pictures?”
LITBMueller
So, I guess the answer to The Question is, “Yes, we are in a dictatorship.”
LITBMueller
Here’s some context for ya. It doesn’t make the statement look any more…truthie:
slickdpdx
Thanks for the link David. Watching it, my assesment is this. Its a flippant remark made to Leahy when Leahy repeatedly won’t let him finish his answers. Not letting witnesses finish answers is rude. Inappropriately flippant, perhaps. Worshipful? It doesn’t have that flavor at all.
John S.
I think you can fully expect Darrell, MacBuckets and Stormy to vehemently disagree.
After all, why would a leader surround himself with people who might disagree with him? That isn’t any way to get things accomplished.
jg
Slick, this is the same thing Nixon said about the president. Does that change your opinion at all? The same people from Nixons White House are in Bush’s White House. Cheney says they are restoring executive power that was lost after Watergate. This isn’t a flippant remark, this is how they feel about the president, a president. It isn’t about the war on terror either, that’s just the premise they sell you. They believe in a much more powerful executive than what the constitution calls for.
David
Slick, my response would be that not answering the question as asked is also rude. I doubt anybody thought Leahy’s questions to an administration official would be friendly, and Bradbury was dancing around the question. I agree that it does not sound “worshipful.”
tBone
Tim, meet Darrell. Darrell, explain to Tim why he’s wrong.
pb
slickdpdx,
I’d hope that–as a justice dept. lawyer–he’d restrain himself a bit better than that before Congress, as that sort of questioning is not at all unusual. If it indeed was ‘a flippant remark’ made to the Senator who was questioning him, then it was a flippant remark made under oath to the legislative branch reflecting the views of a DoJ (executive branch) lawyer. Actually I guess I should check that too–did they even bother to swear this guy in?
Darrell
I agree, but the left has a narrative to push, so context be damned. Dana Milbank is a hack, no different than Paul Krugman
SeesThroughIt
As others have stated, you aren’t really in touch with current GOP wingnuttery. Go post this on blogsforbush–I give you two minutes before you get screamed at. After all suggesting that the president just might not be right about everything is tantamount to treason to them.
Andrew
Yeah, I pretty much blame Dana Milbank for Gitmo.
norbizness
I blame Dana Milbank for Cheney losing the magnificent head of hair he had during the Ford Administration.
Perry Como
I’m still waiting to see if the President is good at running /anything/ let alone *everything*.
Pb
I agree that Dana Milbank is a hack, but he’s qualitatively different from Paul Krugman, who actually deals in hard economic facts quite often, as opposed to the worse-than-useless rumors and vapors from the spin machine that actual hacks are so fond of.
Pooh
typical
Perry Como
Marty Lederman has a good post up about the administration’s Airtight Logic:
The mental gymnastics wingers go through in order to rationalize this administration’s behavior is truly monumental.
Andrew
At this point, I’m all for Bush rounding up journalists and imprisoning them in Gitmo.
Shit, they deserve that more than almost anyone else, especially some unlucky goat herder from Afghanistan.
Ancient Purple
Because answering the question “was the President right or wrong” is so, so difficult.
Leahy wouldn’t have been rude if the weasel has just answered the question.
Steve
Yeah, but this isn’t the context in which you want to make your point. These people represent the President. If the judge asks me whether my client was right or wrong, of course I’m going to say he was right. That doesn’t change the fact that in private I might have urged him not to do it. But once I’m out there in the public eye I have to make the best case for him that I can.
Where this guy went wrong is by making a flippant comment, letting the world know that he’s always going to say the President was right. But let’s not kid ourselves. Of course he was guaranteed to say the President was right, no matter what the question was.
Pb
Andrew,
That’s next, I suppose. Remember, we’ve already seen more journalists die in Iraq than we did in all of Vietnam–that’s a pretty stunning fact when you consider the totality of the length of time and the other casualties of the two conflicts at this point.
Normally I’d say that almost no one deserves it, but you do have a point there…
Pb
Steve,
I don’t buy that, entirely. He was still under oath (right?). A good follow-up question would be, “was the President right when he said XXXXX?” (where XXXXX is obviously false…)
RSA
I think the President is probably just as good at running as he is at biking.
Andrew
Pb, I’m hoping that the threat of waterboarding might light a fire under their asses.
Pb
Good call. While we’re at it, someone should start a pretzel-eating contest in his honor…
Salvo
Yes, I agree. Brilliant article Tim! You haven’t missed yet!
jg
Are we talking George Bush or Jed Bartlett?
Punchy
Substitue “the president” for “your father”, and BINGO, welcome to my childhood.
Good to see it’s not just endemic to my family.
LITBMueller
Yeah, cuz its not like our government servants are supposed to serve the People, and their job is not to uphold the law and defend the Constitution, or anything…
His job, pure and simple, and 24/7, is to make sure that the President looks good, and if that means avoiding questions while testifying under oath, or being flippant while representing the DoJ at a Congressional hearing, then so be it!
Sheez! C’mon, folks! We’re at WAR! And, in WAR, the President always has to appear to be right! Truth be damned!!!! We can’t afford the President or his representatives admitting in public that a decision was wrong because, if they do, then the terrorists win, and civilization as we know it will be destroyed!!!!!
[ leaves to change his drawers ]
mrmobi
Perry Como:
Perry, you are a great singer (but I thought you were dead). That is really some list there, eh? Wouldn’t it be great if someone made a film “dramatization” of all the “humane” techniques you listed and showed them on television every day for a month leading up the next election?
The President can’t be wrong, so let’s just see what all these words look like as practiced. Americans should be required to approve the interrogation techniques used in a time of war, don’t you think? Since these techniques are really more like “hazing” we could even allow children to see the film to help get them ready for the real world.
I have another, even better idea, that I think really fits in with our culture. Why couldn’t we televise the ACTUAL interrogations (with the faces of the victims blurred and with no sound, so we wouldn’t compromise national security). It would be the ultimate reality TV show, actual life and death (by some accounts, we’ve killed hundreds). I guarantee it would be a hit.
If we, as a country, are going to become the pariah of the world, we should at least get some entertainment value out of it, maybe a hit series, no?
We’re going need a host, Darrell. Are you available?
Perry Como
I would suggest Hinderocket. Of course you’d have to blur out his furious masturbation.
Slide
Its interesting what has been going on lately. We’ve had lot of talk of Goldwater Republican John Dean’s book about conservatives and authoritarianism. We’ve had hard conservative Andrew Sullivan going on a tear about what it means to be a conservative these days and how Bush’s toadies are nothing of the sort. We’ve had the very conservative Rep. Hoekstra lambast the President regarding secrecy, not infoming Congress, and even breaking the law. We’ve had the conservative, Republican appointed, Supreme Court telling the President that he is not King and of course we have the conservative author of this blog regretting his support of W. Methinks that the tide is turning on the boy Emperor. Oh, not by us moonbats on the left that knew he was a lying piece of shit from day one, but from the right (true conservative right that is) that are slowly coming to the realization that they’ve been had. They were used. Bush isn’t a conservative. Bush isn’t anything other than being about Rovian power. This is no longer about liberal and conservative or left or right. Its about right and wrong. And everyone, other than his cultist followers (insert MacBuckets, Darrell, Stormy et al) are realizing that this President has been wrong, very very wrong.
History is not going to be very kind to the boy emperor. We will look back upon this time as a very dark period when we let our fears of terrorism let a little man run rampart over everything that makes this country great. We will be embarrased by the Bush years like we were embarrassed about the Salem witch hunts, wiping out the Indians, inturning the Japanese-Americans and blacklisting “commies” under Joe McCarthy. But like those prior atrocities, good Americans will prevail.
slickdpdx
Whether the president turned out to be correct is different from whether he had a non-frivolous good faith argument that he was “right”.
Leahy wanted a sound bite that said Bush was “wrong”. The DOJ guy didn’t fall for that and he wanted to give a real answer to Leahy’s “question” by explaining that although Bush turned out to be wrong according to the court, he had a good faith basis for beleiving he was right.
However, the flippant remark was nearly as bad as the quote he avoided giving Leahy. (Which would also have been misrepresented by Bush haters. See above and imagine how the answer “No.” would have been interpreted by Tim and others. Everytime a lawyer or a client take a legal position that loses – it doesn’t make them liars. Once again, I know you are all not that unsophisticated. You just pretend like it when it suits you.)
Pb
Slide,
I was also very surprised to read this article by Ben Stein. (for those who haven’t been paying attention to Stein on politics, yes, he’s generally a pretty rabid winger in his personal politics, but I guess he just knows too much about economics to not see what’s actually going on now and then…)
Pb
slickdpdx,
Is that what your crystal ball tells you?
Well he should have said that, then.
Ah, the mind-reading continues, unabated!
True, but irrelevant. However, when witnesses make false statements under oath, that *does* make them liars. FYI.
Ok, I’ve had just about enough of your ridiculously condescending mind-reading and spin. You can rationalize whatever absurdities you like to yourself, but don’t try to pull the rest of us into your ludicrous bizarro world.
Slide
Pb and also there is this from very conservative Bruce Fine, Deputy Attorney General under Ronald Reagan.
.
slickdpdx
Pb obviously hasn’t watched the clip. Or is blinded by partisanship. Or doesn’t understand that one can “read minds” if that’s what you call making a reasonable inference from a person’s statements. Which is why he doesn’t take issue with the inferences, just calls me names and whines about being condescended to.
Perry Como
You just don’t get it though. All of the people that disagree with the President are raving, moonbat leftists afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Mashall Applewhite
Classic.
Just classic…
Andrew
Stein’s piece was nice, up until, “I don’t see this â except for the taxes â as a Republican thing or a Democratic thing.”
Which is obviously bullshit. What is it in the brains of these folks that they must try to spread the blame? Guilt? Fear? Stupidity?
Ben Stein, Gitmo.
NY Times for publishing this crap, Gitmo.
Round them up!
Pb
slickdpdx,
Guilty–I read the transcript.
Baseless speculation (“mind reading”) deleted. Fuck off.
Par R
Quite a perceptive comment.
Slide
bush the “conservative”:
.
Perry Como
Par R Says:
Indeed. Anytime someone criticizes this administration one of The Defenders will come along and make excuses. “selling a book”, “unhinged”, “liberal”, “the Democrats would be worse”, etc. In the minds of some, this administration can do no wrong.
Let’s try an experiment:
Since 2001, federal spending has leaped 45 percent.
Thoughts?
Perry Como
Slide, JINX!
Pb
Woo. Anyone get the feeling that Heritage isn’t that happy about this? Incidentally now that Bush is spending more than LBJ ever did, we can’t even call his spending habits ‘liberal’ anymore, really. I guess he spends like a neocon!
slickdpdx
Pb: Thanks for the honest concession. In return, I’ll try to avoid condescending in the future. Now, where is off and how do I fuck it?
Slide
too slow Perry
Slide
slick why do you want to fuck an oaf?
Slide
Herritage foundation? liberal moonbats in disguise
Pb
slickdpdx,
It’s a deal!
That sounds like a question for the gang over at Protein Wisdom…
Perry Como
I heard they are a bunch of cross dressing ACLUites. And they’re Mexican.
Darrell
Very true, and Bush has been a disaster on immigration as well. But I haven’t seen many Dems pushing for spending cuts (with Dems, it’s all about raising taxes) or more aggressive immigration law enforcement.. too bad, because if Dems really believed in those things, they would mop the floor with the Republicans.
Steve
Look. The Geneva Conventions are treaties, and there is a school of thought that says when you have an ambiguity in the scope of a treaty, it’s for the President to resolve it and not the courts. The reason being that the President has primary responsibility for conducting foreign policy, and if there’s going to be a dispute with another country over what a treaty says, he’s the one who is going to have to work it out.
This didn’t turn out to be the winning argument in the Supreme Court, but it did win over 4 of the 9 Justices, which was good enough for second place.
But let’s keep in mind, the Supreme Court is essentially making a ruling in favor of itself here. The issue is, does the President or the Supreme Court have the power to make this call, and the Court is saying “Gee, we think it’s us.” Just like Marbury v. Madison was a dispute over whether the courts had the power to order the Executive Branch around, and Chief Justice Marshall said “Yes, we do.”
In theory, the President could still say, “The Court was wrong, they don’t have the power to overrule my interpretation of a treaty just because they say they have the power, and I’m going to go with my own interpretation.” Then we’d have some kind of Constitutional crisis with no clear way to decide the outcome. Instead, Bush backed down and agreed to respect the Court’s ruling, just like Presidents throughout history have always agreed to accept the Court’s ruling when it came to this point.
I think it’s fair, though, to say that just because Bush agrees to respect the decision of the Court, he’s not obligated to agree that he was wrong and the Court was right. As Al Gore said once upon a time in a tough spot, “While I strongly disagree with the court’s decision, I accept it.” The ultimate question, of course, is whether he will in fact accept the decision by following it in practice. But I think Leahy’s point in insisting on a one-word answer was rather cheap; the President can agree to accept a ruling while still believing he was right, and why kick mud on his shoes when he’s agreed to do the right thing?
The Other Steve
Worst President Ever
Pb
Darrell,
Maybe that’s the problem. Because if you had seen them, then you might know what they’ve been saying. But no, instead you go for the ‘bridge to nowhere’ party.
Zifnab
Certainly, they’re all about rolling back the travesty of a tax cut system Bush pushed into place in 2001. But as it stands their attempts at redirecting money for the Bridge to Nowhere into hurricane ravaged NO and allocating Homeland Security dollars to such logical terror targets as Washington D.C. and New York have been largely a failure. Dems don’t really have much control in the Senate, and they have absolutely no control in the House. I don’t see them doing anything about anything until they retake one or the other.
Perry Como
The Bean Fest in Indiana was the next target if the WTC didn’t go down.
Pb
Steve,
I think this was more subtle than that–more along the lines of, did the President misconstrue what the court actually did say. From Leahy, digging for an answer:
Darrell
In all seriousness, where are these specific spending cut proposals from Dems? More often than not, they are whining that we are not spending enough.
And show us where are the calls from Dems to crack down on border control or for more vigorous enforcement and fines against employers who hire illegals? The only ones I hear talking about this are Republicans in Congress, who have been hamstrung by Bush and the Senate.
Steve
I think Leahy was being unfair and he should have let the guy answer.
Mr Furious
It will work fine once he finishes installing worshipful yes-men on the Supreme court.
Perry Como
In all seriousness I’d prefer to have a Congress in gridlock than the porkfest we currently have with this one party government. I don’t believe for a second that a Dem controlled Congress and a Dem Executive would be better, but looking at various spending charts I don’t see how it could be worse[0].
The best option at this point is to have the Dems control at least one chamber and then they’ll actually have to compromise. The spending these days is obscene.
[0] – it might be better since the Republicans could go back on the offensive about government spending, but at this point the GOP has zero credibility on the issue.
Darrell
I think this is a pretty good example of why Dems will get their clocks cleaned, even by incompetent Republicans. Your first instincts are not to save the money from the Bridge, but to “redirect” it, spending it in New Orleans as you suggest, where Federal spending is already through the roof. This, on top of raising taxes as you have already advocated. Dems aren’t making spending cut recommendations, and I don’t see them doing anything meaningful about illegal immigration either.
Darrell
you’ve got a point there.. a pretty good one too.
John S.
Being squashed by the Republican majority. From this year’s budget debate:
Source
Perhaps you could cite a source for this, other than your ass?
This may be state politics, but it still refutes another one of your bullshit assertions:
Source
Got that, Darrell? The REPUBLICAN governor refused to include a DEMOCRATIC proposal to crack down on employers who hire illegal workers.
Is anything you say based on reality you lying sack of shit?
Slide
you have to smile at Darrell. We had a Dem president recently. He inherited the largest Federal deficit from Bush Sr. In the eight years in office he not only balanced the budget he ended up with the largest Federal surplus ever which he handed over to Bush jr who managed to get it back to where Dad had it before the Dems took over the White house.
But dont’ let these little details bother you Darrell… facts after all have no place in your analysis.
Pre-emptive strike: Darrell will say 1) it was the Republican congress that balanced the budget. 2) the surplus really wasn’t a surplus 3) yada yada yada….
Pb
Darrell,
FYI. And next time, DIY.
John S.
Well, I guess that’s a fair point. Repealing tax cuts for the rich and channeling spending back into domestic programs aren’t exactly spending cuts.
jg
I think Leahy used some good old fashion lawyering to get a guy to say what he really meant rather than the safe answer.
Darrell
A republican congress really did keep spending in check.. and as we have seen, much of the economic ‘miracle’ generating those big tax revenues under clinton was an smoke and mirrors accounting combined with a technology bubble which burst the year before Bush took office. Furthermore, I thought today’s Dems had nothing but disdain for those DLC centrists like Bill Clinton and Joe Lieberman.
John S.
Here’s a proposal by progressives – albeit not any elected Democrats – to CUT spending by $688 Billion in just 5 years:
Darrell
As I thought, Dems are advocating a “humane” approach to immigration reform which means no vigorous enforcement. More Dem specifics here offering amnesty to those who skipped the line to come here illegally
On immigration, Dems are as bad as Bush.
Steve
Darrell is basically saying that the Democrats would win handily if they would be more conservative than the Republicans. Well, maybe…
The thing is that cutting spending means eliminating programs that somebody likes, so spending cuts are basically like lima beans, while tax cuts are like dessert. I believe Darrell when he says he wants more lima beans, but the truth is that if there really was this huge constituency in favor of more lima beans, someone would have given it to them by now. I truly believe that even though lower spending is a conservative slogan, there’s just not this huge bloc of voters who really, really want it. Wishful thinking, in my opinion, by those who do want it. Lower taxes, on the other hand, yummy in my tummy.
The problem with our current state of affairs is that the Republicans, like a divorced dad who has the kids for the weekend, have given us nothing but tons of dessert and now our dinner is spoiled. It’s an irresponsible way to run the country, but I really don’t think the way for mom to win the kids back over is to balance their diet with some lima beans. All that will do is make the kids eager to see dad again next weekend so they can have more dessert.
Steve
I say unfair, you say good old-fashioned lawyering. Tomato, tomahto.
My point is that the guy actually did try to give a substantive answer, but Leahy just didn’t like it. Sure, Bush didn’t appreciate the finer nuances of the decision, but it’s not a lawyer. It’s entirely plausible that his lawyers told him “this decision will determine whether we have to close Guantanamo,” and when they said that they didn’t mean the Court would rule on the issue in so many words.
Darrell
Not exactly.. I said they would win handily if they would cut spending and more vigorously enforce our immigration laws. I’m not sure that all falls under being more “conservative”.
For example, most everyone pays taxes, but few except big agriculture companies benefit from Bush’s huge agriculture subsidies. That’s an area ripe for enormous spending cuts that Dems could seize upon if they were so inclined. Problem is, they’re not inclined to cut that kind of spending.
John S.
And what a fantastic job they’ve been doing of it in the past five years that they have controlled everything!
Let me guess, it’s all because of 9/11 that the Republicans have abandoned anything resembling fiscal sanity in favor of spending like a teenage girl with daddy’s credit card, right?
Nutcutter
911 changed everything. It costs a lot to spread freedom and democracy in accordance with the Constitutional requirement to spread freedom and democracy.
Why do you love the terrorists?
Nutcutter
I like lima beans. Baby limas with butter and salt and pepper. Alongside some honey baked ham and some mashed potatoes.
Why do you hate America?
John S.
Republicans aren’t inclined to cut that kind of spending, either:
Source
So the Senate Agriculture Chairman – a Republican – is opposed to cutting farm subsidies, but it’s all the Democrats fault, right Darrell?
Nutcutter
Great link, thought I’d note it. Why does this guy hate America?
Obviously, he made this statement before studying Darrell’s work here on BJ. Darrell is the final authority on such matters.
DougJ
Still, I’d rather have a Kim Il Jong style dictatorship than let a windsurfer like Kerry run the country.
Darrell
No it’s not all the Dems fault, it’s Republicans in charge. I was just pointing out a juicy target ripe for exploitation if Dems were serious about cutting spending. I haven’t seen Dems raise any objections to this out of control agricultural subsidies. Have you?
On a related matter, why in the hell do I have to pay extra to buy Coca Cola imported from Mexico made with real sugar if I don’t want corn syrup Coke. Archer Daniels Midland has got some sort of mafia-like hold over politicians of both parties enforcing their monopoly and protections, while convincing politicians to spend on programs involving their ethanol products. It’s sleazy as hell. If Dems were really serious about cutting spending and corporate welfare, they could really do damage to Republicans. But they don’t appear to be serious.
Steve
Now come on, when Darrell comes by and accuses you of wilfully misstating his point, he might even be right this time.
He clearly used that as an example of something the Republicans have dropped the ball on, that he thinks the Democrats could fix and get credit for. He even called them “Bush’s huge agriculture subsidies.”
He might even be right on the underlying point. Subsidies to big agribusiness not only reward them for squeezing out the small farmer, but they dramatically affect our energy policy as well, because of issues like ethanol. However, some of the states most affected by these issues are the ones in play every four years, so it’s hard to make changes.
Zifnab
To bludgeon your analogy into the ground, it’s not that we don’t have a society craving a lima bean rich diet. I’m confident that if you pooled Americans, asking if they agreed with subsidies for big oil companies and agricultural firms making over $1 million a year they’d be against it. Likewise, they’d be against military projects with absymal success rates that only serve to line the pockets of big military industries. Americans, surprisingly, like lima beans. But Americans aren’t writing their own shopping lists. When Raytheon cuts Bush a $1 million dollar check
And then the US Government hands Raytheon a billion dollar weapons contract, you’ve just got government and a corporation all too happy to spoon feed each other the sweet sweet chocolate cake of corporate kickbacks and greed. And when you’ve got FOX News pitching every defense spending cut as terrorist subsidy moneys. Much easier to cut programs that aren’t feeding the corporate beast like:
while feeding the wealthy private doners to the GOP
as much sugar coated goodness as their stomachs can take.
If Joe Blow American middle-class office worker was writing the budget for our nation, it would look nothing like this. Joe likes his lima beans if only because he actually gets to eat them. Far perferable to giving his boss’s boss chez wiz straight from the can.
mrmobi
Steve:
Really good point about Gore disagreeing with, yet accepting the decision in 2000. I don’t trust Bush, but honestly, the way things have been going, I’m a little surprised at the apparent concession here by the administration. I hate to say it, but I think we have to give them credit (for the time-being at least) for not plunging the country into a real constitutional crisis over this. I’m sorry too if this is putting my moonbat status at risk.
As far as the mud-kicking, that is what Congress has been reduced to. That and getting its oversight information on classified programs from the New York Times.
Zifnab
The President doesn’t have the numbers to try for a constitutional crisis. As it stands, if the President breaks left and the Supreme Court breaks right and Congress is left to choose sides… Bush doesn’t have that type of love running for him at the moment. He’d likely just shut down the government while everyone attempts to sort out exactly what the President is or is not allowed to do, and that means less time for pre-election political stunts. Better to just nod and smile and wait till after November.
bago
Other than the previously linked plan to cut ag subsidies?
John S.
Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day, Steve.
It doesn’t mean I’m going to set my fucking watch to it.
John S.
Steve-
I absolutely agree that the Democrats are lax on a wide range of spending issues, certainly not least of all agricultural subsidies. But if you look at WHO the agricultural sector gives most of their money to in terms of “buying” influence in Washington, the picture becomes a little clearer as to which party is championing the cause of big farm subsidies:
As is often said, follow the money trail…
The Other Steve
Man, do we ever think alike.
jg
Hey didn’t Bush say something about thinking of the citizens of this country as his children? Steve may be on to something here.
Pooh
Perfect.
rachel
If that doesn’t violate at least one of the Rules for Evil Overlords, it should.
Zifnab
That’s partly true because Republicans controlled Congress since ’94. Big Agro isn’t going to donate to people if they can’t win office, and incumbants win office. Looking at just ’90
things seem at least somewhat more equitable.
John S.
Actually, they didn’t control all of Congress from 2000-2002, but I suppose that’s a minor point.
Granted, the Democrats have found themselves out of control of Congress by a 5:3 margin over the last 16 years, but that doesn’t neccessarily mean they don’t know how to win elections. And even in the years that Democrats had control of Congress (90-94), Republicans still received a 60% share of the money despite being OUT of power.
I suppose the Republicans receiving only a 57% majority (their lowest of the data given) of Big Agro money that year can be construed as more equitable. But as I mentioned before, with Democrats controlling Congress, Republicans still received an average of 60% of the money. When they have had control, it’s been more like 70%.
Overall, I’d say your argument that who controls congress = who gets Big Agro money is off the mark.
Zifnab
It’s also worth noting that big farming states like Kansas and Nebraska are solidly red.
Which also raises a certain question about how much influence Dems – particularly Dems from states like Vermont and Michigan – are expected to have on an industry that barely blips on their state.
The Communications and Electronics Industry has been decidedly more Democratic than Republican, especially in the ’00-’04 block. New York and California, both strongly blue states, tend to lead the pack in these departments.
So, I suppose if Republicans promise to clean up Big Agro (which they won’t), we can let the Dems put a foot down on the cursed liberal communications industry (which they most likely also won’t).
Nutcutter
And now for something completely different: The futility of Darrell’s War
The Other Steve
This was money from Big Ag, not the farmers. Guys like Con Agra, Archer Daniels, Cargill.
Beej
Suppose that tonight while we’re sleeping, the good government faerie sprinkles reasonable dust over all the members of the U.S. Congress. When they wake, they can’t wait to cut all the fat and pork out of the federal budget. And they do it. Every last dime. Do we then have a balanced budget? Are we then able to start paying down the national debt? I don’t know, and I’m too lazy to do the research, but my guess is that so long as Social Security, defense, and other entitlement programs remain as they are, we aren’t going to do much debt-whittling. And as Bush’s venture into privatizing Social Security show so vividly, nobody, Dem or Rep, is going to touch those entitlement programs now or in the near future, no matter how much faerie dust has been spread.
John S.
I’m sort of puzzled by your assessment here, as well.
From 1990-2006, the split in this industry gives only a slight edge to Democrats – 56% to the Republicans 44%. For the range that you cite as ‘decidedly’ in favor of Democrats, the difference is a scant 1% higher in favor of Democrats – 57% to the Republicans 43% take.
And as a point of fact, the Republican share of Communications and Electronics Industry money in 1996, 1998 and so far in 2006 are EQUAL to the share Democrats received:
Hardly a picture of Democratic domination. Therefore, your analogy:
Is an entirely false one. You are trying to compare a sector (Agribusinees) where Republicans enjoy a 15-50% greater share of the money to a sector (Communications) where Democrats have only a 0-20% greater piece of the pie. This seems hardly a valid comparison to make based solely on the actual numbers.
If you want to make a more accurate comparison and label an industry as “Democratic”, placing the responsibility of cleaning it up on the Democrats, why don’t you try the evil Lawyers & Lobbyists sector, where Democrats have a solid 40% advantage over Republicans. Or even better, the wretched Labor sector where Democrats have a stranglehold over money by a margin of 80%.
Other than that, Republicans have the clear advantage in nearly every other industry — Construction, Defense, Energy/Natural Resources, Finance/Insurance/Real Estate, Health, Transportation, and Business.
So, I suppose if Democrats promise to clean up Labor and Lawyers/Lobbyists (which they probably wonât), we can let the Republicans put a foot down on EVERYTHING ELSE (which they most assuredly wonât).
Slide.
Darrell world:
Real world:
Gallup poll in June of this year shows that 90% of Democrats approved of the job Bill Clinton did as President. Thats some disdain there Darrell.
Andrew
Well, besides pork, there are a number of reasonable steps to take: fix Medicare D and allow drug price negotiation, raise the payroll tax limit, cut absurd defense programs.
Et voila! Medicare and Social Security are good for another few decades, and we’re much closer to a balanced budget.
The problem? The defense and pharma companies who own Congress.
Perry Como
Get some more rope and trees!