• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

They are not red states to be hated; they are voter suppression states to be fixed.

At some point, the ability to learn is a factor of character, not IQ.

They love authoritarianism, but only when they get to be the authoritarians.

People are complicated. Love is not.

Just because you believe it, that does not make it true.

When we show up, we win.

The party of Reagan has become the party of Putin.

The Giant Orange Man Baby is having a bad day.

I desperately hope that, yet again, i am wrong.

Petty moves from a petty man.

Compromise? There is no middle ground between a firefighter and an arsonist.

The line between political reporting and fan fiction continues to blur.

Give the craziest people you know everything they want and hope they don’t ask for more? Great plan.

Text STOP to opt out of updates on war plans.

I’d like to think you all would remain faithful to me if i ever tried to have some of you killed.

Jack be nimble, jack be quick, hurry up and indict this prick.

Republican also-rans: four mules fighting over a turnip.

Technically true, but collectively nonsense

If rights aren’t universal, they are privilege, not rights.

Oppose, oppose, oppose. do not congratulate. this is not business as usual.

Wow, I can’t imagine what it was like to comment in morse code.

We still have time to mess this up!

Someone should tell Republicans that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, or possibly the first.

People are weird.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / The GOP as Fred Garvin

The GOP as Fred Garvin

by John Cole|  October 6, 200612:53 pm| 264 Comments

This post is in: Politics, Republican Stupidity

FacebookTweetEmail

I was thinking about who the current GOP reminds me of, and one image kept popping in my head: Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute.


This image was lifted from site listed in the photo

The Republicans advertised themselves as the party that would come in, clean up Washington, and do all those things that we wanted them to do- strengthen the national defense, instill fiscal responsibility, get government out of our lives, reduce the power of the federal government, curtail spending, and so on. I tried to google the list of campaign promises from Bush in 2000 to make sure I wasn’t missing anything, and this is what came back:

It is funny that the above is what was returned, but it isn’t so funny when I think back to Bush’s and the Republican’s promises before we took over all the branches of government, and realize that little good has been accomplished. What have we accomplished in these past few years? What have they done with all our hard-earned money and hours spent advocating for Republican control?

Well- the stock market is at record levels, I guess. Which is great, if you put aside the fact that the market is now just a little bit higher than what it was over half a decade ago. I would suggest private investors might be looking for another broker with this kind of performance.

Taxes are lower, but the deficit has been blown wide open, and we are now expected to graciously celebrate it when the annual deficit is not quite as bad as we predicted it would be. Think about that- imagine you have a kid who was an A or B student, and in a year or two he comes back to you and tells you he thinks he is flunking all of his courses. Then, in a surprise, he manages to get D’s in all his classes. Quite the cause for celebration, isn’t it?

We are more secure, though, aren’t we? In order to keep the security moms voting GOP, we have made terrorism our centerpiece. Now, those same security moms can sleep tight knowing that folks like John Ashcroft can, without their knowledge, examine their email, their phone records, and pry into their private lives without their knowledge, without any oversight. No worries, though. Should we find someting troubling, we can just whisk the secruity mom away for some ‘questioning,’ and if need be, we can waterboard her if she doesn’t give us the answers we like. It isn’t like it is torture or anything.

And the list goes on and on and on and on. Like Fred Garvin, the GOP and Bush have sat on the edge of the bed telling us how good it is going to be, all the while begging us to not pay attention to the ugly prosthetics and hoping we won’t notice the poor performance. And when that fails to keep us distracted, they point to national defense.

So how is our national defense? Afghanistan is slipping into chaos, the military is broken and beaten and worn down and will need years to recover, and our pet project, Iraq, is an unmitigated disaster. In what was ostensibly an attempt to boost the morale of the troops and the country, the Secretary of State made a surprise visit to Iraq.

A surprise, unannounced visit. In a flak jacket.

Because otherwise she would have been killed.

You are doing a heckuva job, Rumsfeld.

But hey- we have a new fence going up- our borders are secure! No more terrorists and illegals flooding over our borders:

No sooner did Congress authorize construction of a 700-mile fence on the U.S.-Mexico border last week than lawmakers rushed to approve separate legislation that ensures it will never be built, at least not as advertised, according to Republican lawmakers and immigration experts.

GOP leaders have singled out the fence as one of the primary accomplishments of the recently completed session. Many lawmakers plan to highlight their $1.2 billion down payment on its construction as they campaign in the weeks before the midterm elections.

But shortly before recessing late Friday, the House and Senate gave the Bush administration leeway to distribute the money to a combination of projects — not just the physical barrier along the southern border. The funds may also be spent on roads, technology and “tactical infrastructure” to support the Department of Homeland Security’s preferred option of a “virtual fence.”

If this surprises you at all, please do the rest of your fellow citizens a favor this election day, and don’t vote. Go watch a movie. Really, the health of this nation requires that you not vote and the rest of us have a chance to undo our past mistakes and vote some people into office that have a clue about leadership, responsibility, honesty, and accountability.

So where does this leave us- well, with Mark Foley and the tattered remains of a disgraced and humiliated House Leadership. The reason the Foley scandal hurts the GOP so much isn’t because Foley himself was a predator and a pervert. Those are a dime a dozen- open a paper anywhere and you can read about some other sick bastard preying on kids. What makes this so special is that it shows how base, how corrupt, how sick, and how dysfunctional the modern GOP is.

The warning signs were there- leadership was told about Foley for years. And they did nothing. They did worse than nothing- they made sure they didn’t even tell the only Democrat on the page board, because this was believed to be a political issue. To these guys, the real damage was not what could happen to the kids Foley was messing with- the real damage would be to their goal of unlimited and unchecked power.

How did these guys who came into Washington with such lofty goals become so corrupt, so incompetent, so evil? A good sign this was happening might have been their crass behavior during the Schiavo affair, when they determined that party politics required them to villainize a private citizen from the floor of the House. An even better sign might have been Tom DeLay’s attempted rigging of the Ethics Committee to make sure that if charged with a crime, he would not have to step aside as majority leader. Maybe it happened when the powers that be decided that the big tent party wasn’t big enough for folks like Andrew Sullivan, but folks like Randall Terry and James Dobson should be calling the shots. Maybe we should have paid attention when we lost Bob Barr, Dick Armey, and Joe Scarborough. The signs were there- some of us chose not to pay attention to them.

Despite how hopelessly incompetent and corrupt and worthless and, let’s face it, dangerous, this administration and this congress are, there are still supporters out there who think the Democrats are worse. For fun, look at the idiotic reactions to the Foley disgrace by the Bush dead-enders:

“The media set us up!”

“What did the Democrats know!”

“Gerry Studds was worse!”

“It was just a prank!”

Blame the media and the evil commie liberals- it’s the same old song and dance, and they will be singing it loudly until the November election. The only problem for this tone deaf lot of party loyalists and hacks is that they don’t recognize that the tune now sounds like a funeral dirge to the rest of us.

In 2000, at the RNC, Bush said the following about Al Gore:

He now leads — he now leads the party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but the only thing he has to offer is fear itself.

In a few years, we have codified torture, ruined the military, blown the budget, injected religion into science whenever possible, vilified half the country, legitimized gay-bashing, authorized unprecedented executive powers that will be hard to take back, ruined our international standing, ignored the Geneva conventions, and are well on our way to losing two wars.

Al Gore, as wrong as I think he is on a number of issues, was right that I should be afraid.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Wiretapping
Next Post: The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight »

Reader Interactions

264Comments

  1. 1.

    jaime

    October 6, 2006 at 1:08 pm

    But Clinton got a BJ from a minor.

    Does that innoculate this thread from the Rush Limbaugh gambit now?

  2. 2.

    Lee

    October 6, 2006 at 1:12 pm

    When can we say the wheels are coming off this administration?

  3. 3.

    Bombadil

    October 6, 2006 at 1:12 pm

    Two (minor) quibbles:

    Well- the stock market is at record levels, I guess. Which is great, if you put aside the fact that the market is now just a little bit higher than what it was over half a decade ago.

    Take inflation into account, and that’s not even true. And even if you’re just going by straight numbers, only the Dow is up — Nasdaq and S&P 500 are still down.

    If this surprises you at all, please do the rest of your fellow citizens a favor this election day, and don’t vote. Go watch a movie. Really, the health of this nation requires that you not vote and the rest of us have a chance to undo our past mistakes and vote some people into office that have a clue about leadership, responsibility, honesty, and accountability

    Wrong! Better response: “Please do your fellow citizens a favor and join them/us in undoing this clusterfuck!”

    Otherwise — wow, John. Good post.

  4. 4.

    Bombadil

    October 6, 2006 at 1:13 pm

    But Clinton got a BJ from a minor.

    Even worse — a 22-year-old minor.

  5. 5.

    Andrei

    October 6, 2006 at 1:16 pm

    How did these guys who came into Washington with such lofty goals become so corrupt, so incompetent, so evil? A good sign this was happening might have been their crass behavior during the Schiavo affair, when they determined that party politics required them to villainize a private citizen from the floor of the House.

    It wasn’t the Schiavo monstrosity that was the warning. It was their behavior during the Clinton impeachment that was the first sign. The way the relished and enjoyed slinging the mud and sleaze and nastiness during that entire period was the real warning. IMHO.

  6. 6.

    Dreggas

    October 6, 2006 at 1:19 pm

    Limbaugh goes with a fist full of viagra in one hand and condoms in the other to countries known for child prostitution…pot – kettle

  7. 7.

    ThymeZone

    October 6, 2006 at 1:21 pm

    Prayer in school was the warning. Flag burning was the warning. The idea that these people would pander to the lamest and worst ideas in order to get votes was the warning.

    Prayer in school is all about divide-and-conquer, it has nothing to do with appropriate government or respect for the traditions of the American republic. It’s about demagoguery.

    Politicians who will trumpet a demagogic message to an eager mob in order to gain office are not people you can trust. Politicians who deliberately shit on process, on separation of powers, on separation of church and state … not people you can trust.

    What you have today was entirely predictable … and predicted.

  8. 8.

    Mike S

    October 6, 2006 at 1:22 pm

    You missed something. They want to make dissent illegal.

    Attorney David Lane said that on June 16, Steve Howards was walking his 7-year-old son to a piano practice, when he saw Cheney surrounded by a group of people in an outdoor mall area, shaking hands and posing for pictures with several people.

    According to the lawsuit filed at U.S. District Court in Denver, Howards and his son walked to about two-to-three feet from where Cheney was standing, and said to the vice president, “I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible,” or words to that effect, then walked on.

    Ten minutes later, according to Howards’ lawsuit, he and his son were walking back through the same area, when they were approached by Secret Service agent Virgil D. “Gus” Reichle Jr., who asked Howards if he had “assaulted” the vice president. Howards denied doing so, but was nonetheless placed in handcuffs and taken to the Eagle County Jail.

    link

  9. 9.

    Tsulagi

    October 6, 2006 at 1:24 pm

    In a few years, we have codified torture, ruined the military, blown the budget, injected religion into science whenever possible, vilified half the country, legitimized gay-bashing, authorized unprecedented executive powers that will be hard to take back, ruined our international standing, ignored the Geneva conventions, and are well on our way to losing two wars.

    Yep.

    For me, Foley truly symbolizes the modern GOP “leadership” in the executive and legislative branches. Not the gay part, however they do have some weird ones.

    While the spin machine constantly cranks out the image they’re the Party of GI Joe/Jack Bauer for the parrots to chirp, the leadership reality is a stupid asshole focused on playing with his little dick while all the above is happening. Welcome to the modern GOP. A tent of brain dead little dicks.

  10. 10.

    Andrew

    October 6, 2006 at 1:25 pm

    Take inflation into account, and that’s not even true. And even if you’re just going by straight numbers, only the Dow is up—Nasdaq and S&P 500 are still down.

    Yeah, this has really, really been bugging me recently.

    The DJIA is NOWHERE near as high as it was in 2000. It would have to be over 14,000 right now to come close in value.

    That fact that “economics reporters” are spouting off about the “record level,” as if it’s good news, is further evidence that they are (1) idiots, (2) dishonest, (3) Republican shills, or most likely, (4) all of the above.

  11. 11.

    Mike S

    October 6, 2006 at 1:29 pm

    That fact that “economics reporters” are spouting off about the “record level,” as if it’s good news, is further evidence that they are (1) idiots, (2) dishonest, (3) Republican shills, or most likely, (4) all of the above.

    Dishonest and greedy. Don’t forget that even when they knew the market was over valued and on the verge of a major correction they still advised clients to buy. As much as I like to bash Republicans I don’t think #3 is a factor because greedy bastards can be found in either party.

  12. 12.

    Punchy

    October 6, 2006 at 1:30 pm

    Wow. I had to TRIPLE check this post to make sure it was Mr. Cole who penned it. Every third paragraph I found myself thinking, “this CANNOT be JC’s work…”

    I declare the conversion is complete. Welcome aboard, Sir.

  13. 13.

    Mr Furious

    October 6, 2006 at 1:32 pm

    Andrew and bombadil hit my only quibble.

    You are doing some good work here these days, john. It’s a pleasure to have the John Cole I was hooked on a year and a half ago back.

    I’m sorry for you that he comes out only when your royally pissed and/or filled with despair.

    Seriously. good stuff.

  14. 14.

    Bombadil

    October 6, 2006 at 1:35 pm

    I declare the conversion is complete. Welcome aboard, Sir.

    Not yet, Punchy. He still has to vilify Malkin and denounce Pajamas Media before he gets the dragon and tiger marks on his forearms.

    But the Grasshopper is close to achieving enlightenment.

  15. 15.

    Andrew

    October 6, 2006 at 1:41 pm

    As much as I like to bash Republicans I don’t think #3 is a factor because greedy bastards can be found in either party.

    I figure the Democrat greedy bastards are waiting for a Dem adminstration to start their shilling.

    But statistical and numerical misuse really get my goat.

  16. 16.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 1:48 pm

    And even if you’re just going by straight numbers, only the Dow is up—Nasdaq and S&P 500 are still down.

    In point of fact, the S&P and the Dow both are up from when Bush took office. The bubble economy driven by hidden Enron/Worldcom scandals which drove the market to such unrealistic highs, had already started to come back down to earth before Bush took office. Also, it was months after taking office before Bush could begin to implement economic policy and then there was 9/11.

    The Dow was at 10,587 and falling when Bush took office. No surprise dishonest political opponents compare the stock market performance to the bubble peak April 2000 rather than January 2001 when Bush actually took office.

  17. 17.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 1:50 pm

    Andrew,

    And heaven forfend they express it as a percentage of GDP–you know, like Bush does with the deficit numbers… Here are some historical figures to consider:

    Real GDP growth in 1929-2002 is 3.331%. (If one were to use this to estimate stock growth, dilution must be subtracted; it is typically within 1% to 3% range.)
    Real return from DJIA 1913-2002 is 2.738%.
    Real return from DJIA 1913-1991 is 1.269% (notably, population growth is 1.257%).
    Real return from HPI 1975-2002 is 0.635%.
    Real guaranteed return from TIPS (locked in recently for 9 to 30 years): 2.260% to 3.480%.

  18. 18.

    Mike S

    October 6, 2006 at 1:52 pm

    No surprise dishonest political opponents compare the stock market performance to the bubble peak April 2000 rather than January 2001 when Bush actually took office.

    Nor is it a surprise when GOP cultists rush to defend their leaders.

  19. 19.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 1:52 pm

    No surprise dishonest political opponents compare the stock market performance to the bubble peak April 2000 rather than January 2001 when Bush actually took office.

    Perhaps the market correctly factored in the possibility of his Presidency after April. :)

  20. 20.

    Bombadil

    October 6, 2006 at 1:54 pm

    The Dow was at 10,587 and falling when Bush took office. No surprise dishonest political opponents compare the stock market performance to the bubble peak April 2000 rather than January 2001 when Bush actually took office.

    And here it is, only six years later, and it’s finally back to where it started (not including inflation).

  21. 21.

    Ned Raggett

    October 6, 2006 at 1:56 pm

    Darrell, if that’s all you can say in response to John’s post, then…well, I’m not surprised.

  22. 22.

    Rusty Shackleford

    October 6, 2006 at 1:58 pm

    Punchy Says:

    Wow. I had to TRIPLE check this post to make sure it was Mr. Cole who penned it. Every third paragraph I found myself thinking, “this CANNOT be JC’s work…”

    I declare the conversion is complete. Welcome aboard, Sir.

    October 6th, 2006 at 1:30 pm

    Punchy,

    For me, it has got so bad that I no longer hope that folks like Mr. Cole will “convert” to being Democrats. I’d be happy if they just went back to being REAL Republicans again. Fiscally responsible, foreign entanglement fearing, mind-your-own-damn-business Republicans. Remember them?

  23. 23.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 1:58 pm

    And here it is, only six years later, and it’s finally back to where it started (not including inflation).

    The Dow “started” at 10,587 under Bush, which it hit almost 2 years ago, despite inheriting a scandal plagued collapsed bubble economy, and after suffering 9/11.

  24. 24.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 1:58 pm

    10,587 ~six years ago… 11,850 right now… That’s almost 2% compounded yearly–only slightly less than inflation–what a deal!

  25. 25.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 2:00 pm

    a scandal plagued collapsed bubble economy

    Check. Oh wait, you were talking about Clinton?

  26. 26.

    Bombadil

    October 6, 2006 at 2:00 pm

    And the S&P 500 has gone up a whopping 9.7 points in 6 years. Let the irrational exuberance begin!

  27. 27.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 2:01 pm

    Ned Raggett Says:

    Darrell, if that’s all you can say in response to John’s post, then…well, I’m not surprised.

    Ned, that’s not “all” I can say about John’s post. I was simply pointing out the errors in the dates of those comparing stock market numbers. But if you want to read a ‘greater meaning’ into my comments other than what I actually wrote, then, well, whatever floats your boat.

  28. 28.

    John D.

    October 6, 2006 at 2:02 pm

    The Dow was at 10,587 and falling when Bush took office. No surprise dishonest political opponents compare the stock market performance to the bubble peak April 2000 rather than January 2001 when Bush actually took office.

    As per usual, Darrell is full of shit.

    DJIA (^DJI) historical data:

    31-Jan-01 10,882.25 11,072.28 10,705.23 10,887.36 1,295,300,000 10,887.36
    30-Jan-01 10,702.19 10,950.38 10,609.77 10,881.20 1,149,800,000 10,881.20
    29-Jan-01 10,657.13 10,832.56 10,515.99 10,702.19 1,053,100,000 10,702.19
    26-Jan-01 10,727.08 10,874.28 10,506.26 10,659.98 1,098,000,000 10,659.98
    25-Jan-01 10,644.53 10,882.42 10,520.90 10,729.52 1,258,000,000 10,729.52
    24-Jan-01 10,651.85 10,795.80 10,483.49 10,646.97 1,309,000,000 10,646.97
    23-Jan-01 10,575.80 10,773.94 10,459.91 10,649.81 1,232,600,000 10,649.81
    22-Jan-01 10,581.90 10,749.44 10,371.66 10,578.24 1,164,000,000 10,578.24
    19-Jan-01 10,686.00 10,792.14 10,448.93 10,587.59 1,407,800,000 10,587.59
    18-Jan-01 10,584.57 10,834.43 10,466.01 10,678.28 1,445,000,000 10,678.28
    17-Jan-01 10,660.95 10,817.35 10,442.83 10,584.34 1,349,100,000 10,584.34
    16-Jan-01 10,525.78 10,751.48 10,362.72 10,652.66 1,205,700,000 10,652.66

    May-01 10,734.05 11,436.42 10,638.48 10,911.94 1,170,568,174 10,911.94
    Apr-01 9,877.16 10,973.15 9,303.48 10,734.97 1,327,224,496 10,734.97
    Mar-01 10,493.25 10,940.45 9,047.56 9,878.78 1,322,155,002 9,878.78
    Feb-01 10,884.82 11,140.09 10,225.14 10,495.28 1,203,668,416 10,495.28
    Jan-01 10,790.92 11,224.41 10,325.71 10,887.36 1,215,162,377 10,887.36

    Isn’t that odd? The stock market continued climbing all the way through May of 2001! Guess it had to traverse the length of the Clenis(tm) before it was able to fall downward.

  29. 29.

    Andrew

    October 6, 2006 at 2:03 pm

    The Dow “started” at 10,587 under Bush, which it hit almost 2 years ago, despite inheriting a scandal plagued collapsed bubble economy, and after suffering 9/11.

    Do you know what inflation is?

  30. 30.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 2:03 pm

    And as for Bush’s promises and Gore’s warnings… I prefer to simply look at the debates, and evaluate them on the merits, in hindsight. Back in 2000, I was on the fence, I wasn’t thrilled with either one of them, really, and I didn’t vote. But in hindsight, Gore was absolutely right about Bush–and Bush was absolutely wrong about Bush! See for yourself, it’s all there in black and white.

  31. 31.

    John D.

    October 6, 2006 at 2:04 pm

    Damn. Never trust preview. All those numbers were separated in that. :(

    Link goes to Yahoo finance, so you can decipher them there.

  32. 32.

    Bombadil

    October 6, 2006 at 2:04 pm

    BTW, Senator, one of the major reasons the Dow is going up is that the economy is so far into the shitter, analysts think the Fed will be lowering interest rates.

    New jobs projected for September — 120K.
    New jobs created for September — 51K.

    Not exactly roaring along, are we?

  33. 33.

    ThymeZone

    October 6, 2006 at 2:08 pm

    In point of fact, the S&P and the Dow both are up from when Bush took office.

    In point of fact, the stock market was flat for five years of Bush, which means it lost value due to inflation.

    In point of fact, its rise now is probably due to a shift in return away from labor, away from workers, and toward corporations … which represents a net loss to the working man. See Krugman for more on this. But in any event, it’s not up because the American middle class is doing well. It isn’t. Basically, the middle class is fucked. If you calculate the cost of medical care into the equation, we are royally and truly fucked big time.

  34. 34.

    Mary

    October 6, 2006 at 2:11 pm

    I love you, John Cole. And it’s not just because I started drinking early to celebrate Thanksgiving.*

    *Canadian Thanksgiving. I’m not that big a lush just yet.

  35. 35.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 2:11 pm

    Isn’t that odd? The stock market continued climbing all the way through May of 2001!

    The stock market had fallen sharply the 9 months prior to Bush taking office.

  36. 36.

    ThymeZone

    October 6, 2006 at 2:13 pm

    BTW, great post, John. Seriously.

  37. 37.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 2:14 pm

    John D.,

    Or, graphically, the 18 day moving average tells the story quite well.

  38. 38.

    John D.

    October 6, 2006 at 2:16 pm

    The stock market had fallen sharply the 9 months prior to Bush taking office.

    So? I responded to *you*, specifically to this statement:

    The Dow was at 10,587 and falling when Bush took office. No surprise dishonest political opponents compare the stock market performance to the bubble peak April 2000 rather than January 2001 when Bush actually took office.

    The DJIA was *not* at 10587 and falling when Bush took office. The DJIA had fallen in the previous months, yes. It, however, was rising again, falling just short of its previous high by May of 2001.

    So, if you now want to say that it had fallen sharply in the 9 months prior to Bush taking office, fine. THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID. Say what you mean, rather than flailing about mindlessly like you usually do, and I won’t say that you are full of shit.

    Or, y’know, we can keep doing the same dance over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

    Up to you.

  39. 39.

    Area Man

    October 6, 2006 at 2:16 pm

    My my. Within the space of a week, Ken Mehlman’s bread and butter has turned into a shit sandwich. Gonna take huge vats of Kool-Aid to wash that down.

    I recommend the new Sour Grape mix.

  40. 40.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 2:17 pm

    New jobs projected for September—120K.
    New jobs created for September—51K.

    Not exactly roaring along, are we?

    No, I wouldn’t call it “roaring”, but the economy has recovered pretty nicely since end of 2002. My gripe is the time frame Bush’s critics use to dishonestly criticize stock market performance under his presidency… and how they conveniently ignore the state of the economy that Bush inherited, and of course, these same critics never acknowledge the devasting impact of 9/11 on the stock market (except for some who blame Bush for that too).

  41. 41.

    Dave

    October 6, 2006 at 2:23 pm

    For me, it has got so bad that I no longer hope that folks like Mr. Cole will “convert” to being Democrats. I’d be happy if they just went back to being REAL Republicans again. Fiscally responsible, foreign entanglement fearing, mind-your-own-damn-business Republicans. Remember them?

    Yeah I do, and even as a liberal, I used to find myself agreeing with some of their points. Glad to see one or two are still around, now hopefully they can take their party back

  42. 42.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 2:25 pm

    The DJIA was not at 10587 and falling when Bush took office

    In the 9 months prior to Bush taking office, the Dow had fallen sharply from 11,770 to 10,587. Bush most definitely inherited a “falling” stock market.

    Another fact which Bush’s stock market performance critics NEVER acknowledge in their criticism, is to factor in the dividend payouts over the time period when Bush was in office, which contributes to the total return

    If you factor in reinvested dividends, the Dow actually hit a new high — with no headlines or trumpets blaring — in November 2004

  43. 43.

    VidaLoca

    October 6, 2006 at 2:28 pm

    Not yet, Punchy. He still has to … denounce Pajamas Media before he gets the dragon and tiger marks on his forearms.

    Much more of this kind of stuff and Pajamas will vote him off the island.

    I’m with Furious, TZ, and several others, John: good post.

  44. 44.

    Davebo

    October 6, 2006 at 2:31 pm

    Limbaugh goes with a fist full of viagra in one hand and condoms in the other to countries known for child prostitution…pot – kettle

    Look on the bright side. Rush insisted it was a “boys only” weekend.

    I really think he was referring to his travel mates. I think.

  45. 45.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 2:35 pm

    Yeesh. Of course if Darrell says that something is ‘clear’, it’s “clear as mud”. I dare anyone to honestly look at the data and tell me it’s clear with a straight face–you can’t do it, because it isn’t clear at all, nor does it support Darrell’s claims, as usual. However, it does raise the question–what won’t he lie about? Is there anything too petty, too obviously false? How low can he go?

  46. 46.

    John D.

    October 6, 2006 at 2:38 pm

    In the 9 months prior to Bush taking office, the Dow had fallen sharply from 11,770 to 10,587. Bush most definitely inherited a “falling” stock market.

    Bullshit.

    The DJIA fell “sharply” in January-March 2000, from a high of 11908.50 to 9611.75 (highest and lowest trading ranges). It came back. Are you so dense that you do not understand this?

    It got above 11000 again later in March, fell as low as 9571.40 in October, and climbed steadily all the way through May of 2001. Every forecaster was still calling that market a bull market at that time — as they should, since it gained about 2000 points from October 2000 to May 2001.

    If you factor in reinvested dividends, the Dow actually hit a new high—with no headlines or trumpets blaring—in November 2004

    Now factor in inflation, dumbass, which dominates any reinvested dividends.

  47. 47.

    John S.

    October 6, 2006 at 2:40 pm

    Another fact which Bush’s stock market performance critics

    There is only one valid criticsm of Bush’s “stock market performance”…

    The president doen’t control the fucking stock market. Certainly not directly, and at best only indirectly.

    But I guess with you it’s always heads you win tails I lose. Republican presidents aren’t responsible for downturns in the market – they just inherit that from Democrats. But not enough people give Republican presidents credit for improving the stock market!

    John D. already nailed your lying ass to the wall, but I had just couldn’t resist chiming in on your usual brand of buffoonery.

  48. 48.

    ThymeZone

    October 6, 2006 at 2:42 pm

    what won’t he lie about?

    Nothing.

    Is there anything too petty, too obviously false?

    I’ve only been here 18 months, but so far, no.

    How low can he go?

    He’s the Unitary BS Artist. He can go as low as he wants.

  49. 49.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 2:43 pm

    Another fact which Bush’s stock market performance critics NEVER acknowledge in their criticism

    Oh look, time to change the subject!

    is to factor in

    Inflation? GDP growth? When Greenspan slashed interest rates?

    the dividend payouts

    Oh yeah. And here I thought we were talking about fundamentals and the Dow. However…

    With dividends, the Dow has returned 15.8 percent, or roughly 2.2 percent per year, according to Ned Davis Research.

    While that’s better than zero, you could have done even better in super-safe Treasury bills.

    Heh. Yeah, I think I noticed that already. D’oh!

  50. 50.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 2:43 pm

    Pb Says:

    Yeesh. Of course if Darrell says that something is ‘clear’, it’s “clear as mud”.

    Except that I never used the word “clear” in this thread, did I? And who’s claiming that the stock market went straight down every day since April 2000 when the stock bubble popped, to when Bush was sworn in office? Markets, whether they be rising or falling, don’t follow a straight line. Bush inherited a falling stock market.

  51. 51.

    The Other Steve

    October 6, 2006 at 2:45 pm

    It wasn’t the Schiavo monstrosity that was the warning. It was their behavior during the Clinton impeachment that was the first sign. The way the relished and enjoyed slinging the mud and sleaze and nastiness during that entire period was the real warning. IMHO.

    Newt Gingrich blaming Susan Smith drowning her children in a lake on the Democrats was well before that, and I think was the pinnacle of the movement.

    When Susan Smith confessed to drowning her two children in a South Carolina lake, Gingrich was quick to blame the Democrats. “I think that the mother killing the two children in South Carolina vividly reminds every American how sick the society is getting and how much we need to change things. . . . The only way to change is to vote Republican.”

  52. 52.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 2:46 pm

    John D. already nailed your lying ass to the wall

    Yeah whackjob, anyone reading this thread can see how he “nailed” my “lies”.

  53. 53.

    Andrew

    October 6, 2006 at 2:47 pm

    Another fact which Bush’s stock market performance critics NEVER acknowledge in their criticism, is to factor in the dividend payouts over the time period when Bush was in office, which contributes to the total return

    If you include dividends, your DJIA return on investment over the past 6 years has been about 15%, as opposed to ZERO, which is the case in non-adjusted dollars without dividends.

    However, if you had invested in ultra safe treasury bonds at a (very conservative) 4%, you’d have a 30% ROI over that same time period.

    Furthermore, inflation is about 20% over that period.

    So, Darrell thinks Bush’s economy is awesome because the stock market has returned about 15% less than ultra safe bonds, and 5% less than inflation. This probably makes Darrell qualified to be an undersecretary of the Treasury Department in the Bush Administration.

  54. 54.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 2:51 pm

    Now factor in inflation, dumbass, which dominates any reinvested dividends.

    The Bush stock market performance critics want to selectively choose exact dates for comparisons while ignoring dividend payouts.. then they demand that inflation be factored in. Can’t have it both ways, no matter how much you dishonestly try.

  55. 55.

    The Other Steve

    October 6, 2006 at 2:51 pm

    I really miss Clinton.

  56. 56.

    John S.

    October 6, 2006 at 2:51 pm

    Yeah whackjob, anyone reading this thread can see how he “nailed” my “lies”.

    Well, anyone except that you. But that’s a given.

    Except that I never used the word “clear” in this thread, did I?

    No Captain Semantic, you just boldly said “in point of fact” before immediately began to rifle off a string of non-facts. But the gist of Pb’s comment still stands.

  57. 57.

    Proud Liberal

    October 6, 2006 at 2:53 pm

    I have to take back every bad thing I said about Cole in the past.

    Oh, btw, those Foley IM’s always seem to have him asking questions about penis size. Couldn’t get that out of my mind when I saw this photo of Foley and Bush. You don’t think… do you?

  58. 58.

    Steve

    October 6, 2006 at 2:53 pm

    Nice to see Darrell back with yet another “black is white” argument. Does he think no one here knows how to read a stock chart?

    You could make a lot of good observations about the economy Bush inherited in January 2001 – but “Bush inherited a falling stock market” is just flatly untrue.

  59. 59.

    John D.

    October 6, 2006 at 2:53 pm

    Darrell,

    Go look up retracement and how it relates to overvaluation. Go look up support and resistance lines. Go look up technical analysis. Go look up Elliott wave theory.

    Then apply those concepts to the chart of ^DJI from 1999 to 2001. Up until September 2001 (with its consequent external event), the market was acting almost precisely as a predicted bull market.

  60. 60.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 2:54 pm

    So, Darrell thinks Bush’s economy is awesome

    As usual, you dishonest jerks put words in my mouth. Here is what I actually wrote:

    Not exactly roaring along, are we?

    No, I wouldn’t call it “roaring”, but the economy has recovered pretty nicely since end of 2002.

    How do you live with yourselves? Most of you leftists posting here are dishonest to the core

  61. 61.

    Bombadil

    October 6, 2006 at 2:54 pm

    Well, Old Darrell is back and queering threads with his own brand of deception, misdirection and outright bullshit.

    Time to turn the filter back on.

  62. 62.

    jaime

    October 6, 2006 at 2:54 pm

    I thought Presidents don’t have a great effect on the economy…except when it’s doing well, and a Republican is President or when it’s doing well with a Democrat preceding a Republican presidency.

  63. 63.

    Andrew

    October 6, 2006 at 2:55 pm

    The president doen’t control the fucking stock market. Certainly not directly, and at best only indirectly.

    There is an important indirect policy effect here (that makes Darrell’s arguments look even more stupid) that Bush got enacted: dividend tax rates were significantly lowered in 2003. The DJIA is largely made up of dividending blue chips and this tax policy drove their values up.

    So, the (sub-mediocre) performance of the DJIA is in large part due to the fact that our government is going further into debt. Taxpayers are subsidizing the stock market performance of these corporations.

  64. 64.

    Barry

    October 6, 2006 at 2:56 pm

    Darrell Says:

    “The Dow “started” at 10,587 under Bush, which it hit almost 2 years ago, despite inheriting a scandal plagued collapsed bubble economy, and after suffering 9/11.”

    Typical Republian accounting – this uses 9/11 as an excuse for Bush, rather than as a failure. It doesn’t point out that many corporate scandals were GOP-connected.

    And on top of that, it ignores the fact that the Dow index rebounded from 9/11 rather quickly, in a few months. So exonerating Bush for the low Dow isn’t just dishonest once, it’s compounded dishonesty.

  65. 65.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 2:57 pm

    Yes, Darrell, we may not have exactly quoted your rhetoric, whereas you may not have exactly said anything factual whatsoever. Therefore, we’re obviously the dishonest ones here, who need lots of ice for that spanking you just gave us, so go have some victory pie.

  66. 66.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 2:57 pm

    You could make a lot of good observations about the economy Bush inherited in January 2001 – but “Bush inherited a falling stock market” is just flatly untrue.

    Oh my Steve, “flatly” untrue? Check the total performance of the Dow, S&P, and Nasdaq between April 2000 and January 20, 2001 when Bush was sworn into office and get back to us with what you learn.

  67. 67.

    Andrew

    October 6, 2006 at 2:58 pm

    How do you live with yourselves? Most of you leftists posting here are dishonest to the core

    I will admit to dishonesty if you say that the economy under Clinton was totally freaking awesome.

    Otherwise, fuck off.

  68. 68.

    John D.

    October 6, 2006 at 2:58 pm

    The Bush stock market performance critics want to selectively choose exact dates for comparisons while ignoring dividend payouts.. then they demand that inflation be factored in. Can’t have it both ways, no matter how much you dishonestly try.

    To pull one of *your* favorite tactics, I said nothing about dividends. I only brought up inflation after *you* brought up dividends.

    You can either compare market performance including both or ignoring both. Either way, the market is worse off now than it was then.

    I’m not some hypothetical “performace critic”. I simply jumped in when you made a flatly untrue claim (“falling market”), and we’ve gone from there. You’re simply wrong, or lying — I don’t know what you honestly believe, but the result is the same. You are making claims that are not correct.

  69. 69.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 2:58 pm

    Typical Republian accounting – this uses 9/11 as an excuse for Bush

    Yes of course, because 9/11 was merely an “excuse” for why the stock market fell.. and as you point out, 9/11 was Bush’s fault anyway.

  70. 70.

    Area Man

    October 6, 2006 at 2:59 pm

    “Look over here at the shiny Stock Market thingy”.

    No doubt Thomas will soon drop in to further demonstrate his Kung-Fu grip on reality. He seems to have lots of free time lately.

    Oh yeah, cool post JC.

  71. 71.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 2:59 pm

    Barry,

    Also, the Fed was already compensating for this since before 9/11 (but not before 2001 mind you) by slashing interest rates. However, 9/11 wasn’t necessarily all bad for the economy–or for the US–oil prices went down, and our standing in the world went way up. But then…

  72. 72.

    John S.

    October 6, 2006 at 3:02 pm

    Anyone else notice how John’s excellent and complex post has been entirely derailed by this obsession over a few months of the stock market five years ago and ONE factually-impaired commenter’s interpretation of it?

    Fascinating.

  73. 73.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 3:03 pm

    John D. Says:

    Darrell,

    Go look up retracement and how it relates to overvaluation. Go look up support and resistance lines. Go look up technical analysis. Go look up Elliott wave theory.

    I love it, a Starbucks employee lecturing me on technical stock trading terms, as if you have any kind of point whatseover.

  74. 74.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 3:04 pm

    Darrell likes pie!

    …now where were we?

  75. 75.

    Bombadil

    October 6, 2006 at 3:04 pm

    Anyone else notice how John’s excellent and complex post has been entirely derailed by this obsession over a few months of the stock market five years ago and ONE factually-impaired commenter’s interpretation of it?

    Fascinating.

    But he likes pie.

  76. 76.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 3:05 pm

    To pull one of your favorite tactics, I said nothing about dividends. I only brought up inflation after you brought up dividends.

    Others in this echo chamber thread brought up the inflation aspect up earlier, along with their dishonest dates of comparison. That’s why I chimed in.

  77. 77.

    John Cole

    October 6, 2006 at 3:06 pm

    Let’s lay off the personal attacks on Darrell- you may think he is wrong, but he is arguing in good faith.

  78. 78.

    Bombadil

    October 6, 2006 at 3:08 pm

    Let’s lay off the personal attacks on Darrell- you may think he is wrong, but he is arguing in good faith.

    Is that a euphemism for making stuff up out of whole cloth and lying through his ass?

  79. 79.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 3:08 pm

    You can either compare market performance including both or ignoring both. Either way, the market is worse off now than it was then.

    No it’s not. Factoring in both inflation and dividend payouts, the Dow is up since Bush took office, despite inheriting a falling collapsed bubble scandal plagued stock market and then going through 9/11.

  80. 80.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 3:08 pm

    John Cole Says:

    Let’s lay off the personal attacks on Darrell- you may think he is wrong, but he is arguing in good faith.

    You must be shitting me. Is this a spoof? I don’t *think* he’s wrong–he’s *verifiably* wrong. I know, I verified it. Feel free to check. And after I verified it? He switches topics, and then switches to the personal attacks. So don’t tell *me* to lay off–tell it to him for once! My god, man, just *once*!

  81. 81.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 3:09 pm

    Is that a euphemism for making stuff up out of whole cloth and lying through his ass?

    Tell us specifically what I made up “out of whole cloth”?

  82. 82.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 3:10 pm

    I don’t think he’s wrong—he’s verifiably wrong

    Name one thing I’ve posted today which is “verifiably” wrong.

  83. 83.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 3:11 pm

    Tell us specifically what I made up “out of whole cloth”?

    See above.

  84. 84.

    The Other Steve

    October 6, 2006 at 3:11 pm

    Let’s lay off the personal attacks on Darrell- you may think he is wrong, but he is arguing in good faith.

    Is he?

  85. 85.

    Andrew

    October 6, 2006 at 3:12 pm

    You can either compare market performance including both or ignoring both. Either way, the market is worse off now than it was then.

    An important point is that it is always fundamentally dishonest to ignore inflation, but only a bit dishonest to ignore dividends.

    The DJIA is an index of blue chips, and you should consider dividends when you consider performance. The broader markets, with many non-dividending companies, have done much worse.

    And again, tax payers are subsidizing those dividending companies.

  86. 86.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 3:13 pm

    Name one thing I’ve posted today which is “verifiably” wrong.

    Ok:

    In the 9 months prior to Bush taking office, the Dow had fallen sharply from 11,770 to 10,587. Bush most definitely inherited a “falling” stock market.

    False. See my posts and others above, debunking it.

  87. 87.

    Bombadil

    October 6, 2006 at 3:13 pm

    Monty Darrell’s Flying Circus:

    “I’m having pie, pie, pie, pie, pie, pie, pie, pie pie, eggs, sausage and pie. I love it!”

  88. 88.

    The Other Steve

    October 6, 2006 at 3:13 pm

    Quit arguing with Darrell people. I know it’s hard, but he is a troll. He posts because he wants to get a rise out of you guys. That’s why he says so many ridiculous unsupported things.

    Ignore him. It’ll save your sanity, and it’ll protect the rest of us from having to read his tripe.

  89. 89.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 3:14 pm

    a Starbucks employee

    You want to back this claim up, Darrell? How about you, John? Was that in good faith?

  90. 90.

    Andrei

    October 6, 2006 at 3:15 pm

    Let’s lay off the personal attacks on Darrell- you may think he is wrong, but he is arguing in good faith.

    Darrell’s first post stated:

    The Dow was at 10,587 and falling when Bush took office. No surprise dishonest political opponents compare the stock market performance to the bubble peak April 2000 rather than January 2001 when Bush actually took office.

    As is typical, he tried to frame his argument out of the gate by tossing a shot over the bow with “dishonest political opponents” as a “point in fact”. In other words, he was calling Bomba, Andrew, Furious, etc as “dishonest” people.

    That’s not arguing in good faith, Cole. No way. No how. The reason Darrell gets a lot of our derision is because most of us are sick of that kind of passive aggressive framing crap.

  91. 91.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 3:16 pm

    Most of you leftists posting here are dishonest to the core

    True? Good faith?

  92. 92.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 3:17 pm

    In the 9 months prior to Bush taking office, the Dow had fallen sharply from 11,770 to 10,587. Bush most definitely inherited a “falling” stock market.

    False. See my posts and others above, debunking it.

    There is nothing to “debunk”. The market really was at 11,770 in April 2000 and at 10,587 when Bush took office. Markets don’t go straight up or straight down.. You would be hard pressed to find one wall street trader who wouldn’t agree that Bush inherited a falling stock market. It’s hard to believe you are actually trying to dispute that. And worse, posturing that you have “debunked” it

  93. 93.

    Bombadil

    October 6, 2006 at 3:17 pm

    That’s not arguing in good faith, Cole. No way. No how. The reason Darrell gets a lot of our derision is because most of us are sick of that kind of passive aggressive framing crap.

    Exactly. We are merely treating His Royal Heinie with all due respect.

  94. 94.

    John D.

    October 6, 2006 at 3:18 pm

    I love it, a Starbucks employee lecturing me on technical stock trading terms, as if you have any kind of point whatseover.

    Excuse me?

    John, I’ll follow your advice here…

    Let’s lay off the personal attacks on Darrell- you may think he is wrong, but he is arguing in good faith.

    …as soon as you explain how in the hell that’s a good faith argument.

    Darrell, once you have any sort of a point, feel free to respond to my earlier comment. Until then, fuck off.

    And go do the research I told you to do, you may just learn something.

  95. 95.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 3:18 pm

    As is typical, he tried to frame his argument out of the gate by tossing a shot over the bow with “dishonest political opponents” as a “point in fact”.

    The “point of fact” part was followed by actual historical closing prices of the Dow on the dates being referenced. Just so you know.

  96. 96.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 3:18 pm

    as you point out, 9/11 was Bush’s fault anyway

    How about that? Want to substantiate that, Darrell? Is that in good faith, John?

  97. 97.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 3:20 pm

    True? Good faith?

    After repeatedly putting words in my mouth which I never wrote, I think that response was entirely reasonable.

  98. 98.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 3:21 pm

    Darrell, once you have any sort of a point, feel free to respond to my earlier comment. Until then, fuck off.

    You throw out technical trading terms as if that “proves” anything. Nothing of substance in that post to respond to. Seriously.

  99. 99.

    John D.

    October 6, 2006 at 3:22 pm

    There is nothing to “debunk”. The market really was at 11,770 in April 2000 and at 10,587 when Bush took office. Markets don’t go straight up or straight down.. You would be hard pressed to find one wall street trader who wouldn’t agree that Bush inherited a falling stock market. It’s hard to believe you are actually trying to dispute that. And worse, posturing that you have “debunked” it

    Darrell,

    By that logic, the market was at 9571 in October 2000 and at 10587 when Bush took office, so it was a rising market.

    Cherry-picking your endpoints is a sin in economics.

  100. 100.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 3:24 pm

    Darrell,

    See here and here, both already linked above. You’re full of it.

    And specifically:

    Date Open High Low Close Avg Vol Adj Close* […]
    20-Apr-00 10,668.19 10,941.47 10,582.51 10,844.05 896,200,000 10,844.05

  101. 101.

    jaime

    October 6, 2006 at 3:24 pm

    This just in…Former Rove aide, Susan Ralston, resigns in wake of Abramoff report.

  102. 102.

    Bombadil

    October 6, 2006 at 3:24 pm

    You throw out technical trading terms as if that “proves” anything. Nothing of substance in that post to respond to. Seriously.

    Translation: “No fair! You used big words!”

  103. 103.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 3:26 pm

    Darrell,

    By that logic, the market was at 9571 in October 2000 and at 10587 when Bush took office, so it was a rising market.

    I stand by my statement that you’d be hard pressed to find even one wall street trader who didn’t agree that Bush inherited a falling stock market. Markets don’t go straight up or straight down.. but no one on wall street that I’ve seen or read, especially with benefit of hindsight, disagrees that Bush inherited a falling stock market. It’s kind of incredible that so many of you are actually disputing that.

  104. 104.

    John D.

    October 6, 2006 at 3:26 pm

    You throw out technical trading terms as if that “proves” anything.

    They were INSTRUCTIONS, you moron. Go. Learn. Something.

    I’m telling you to go look up THOSE SPECIFIC SUBJECTS and apply them to the DJIA chart. It’s fairly obvious you won’t do it, unfortunately, but I keep hoping you’ll learn something.

  105. 105.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 3:26 pm

    After repeatedly putting words in my mouth which I never wrote

    The *word* (singular) was ‘clear’, and for the record, I apologize for accidentally capturing the spirit rather than the exact letter of your comments.

  106. 106.

    Andrei

    October 6, 2006 at 3:28 pm

    The “point of fact” part was followed by actual historical closing prices of the Dow on the dates being referenced. Just so you know.

    Whatever. You started your first comment in this thread with a “point in fact” then proceed to make claims, then followed up all this with your typical claim that your political opponents are “dishonest” that was snuck in there for no good reason other than to get people to fire back at you.

    And guess what? The thread went south from there. Why? Because of us? Sorry… I’ve seen all of these commentors act entirely reasonable when treated reasonably. But when you call them dishonest right out of the gate, all you do is fuck up the entire thread.

    Sorry bud. You reap what you sow. If John Cole doesn’t want us to call you names, then he should consider asking you to stop posting like an idiot or he’s going to have to ban the entire lot of us.

  107. 107.

    Teak111

    October 6, 2006 at 3:29 pm

    There is something to be said for absolute power coorupts absolutely. As citizens watching from afar, we all should heed the lessons of this Admin/congress and vote to balance government between the two parties. Its the extremism of the right (nad on the left if it had all branches of govt) that causes this disfunction. Three equal, but seperate branches of govt really is an important idea.

  108. 108.

    Tsulagi

    October 6, 2006 at 3:33 pm

    …and our pet project, Iraq, is an unmitigated disaster.

    Hey, are you auditioning for the role of Hanoi Jane or what? (just kidding)

    Too bad Condi during her quick victory lap in Baghdad (I bet more than her lips were puckered) didn’t get a chance to visit a hospital to see Sadr’s Ministry of Health’s novel approach to containing health care costs. Shoot the patients. That’ll keep them from making unnecessary emergency room visits.

    Can’t wait for the $20 million party bash to celebrate what they’ve accomplished while twiddling their dicks hitting on pages.

  109. 109.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 3:33 pm

    They were INSTRUCTIONS, you moron. Go. Learn. Something.

    I’m telling you to go look up THOSE SPECIFIC SUBJECTS and apply them to the DJIA chart

    You are obviously too ignorant to know that Elliot waves, Fibonacci analysis, and other market technical indicators and pattern recognition theories have a very spotty track record in predicting actual market performance. Like I said, you have no point. That’s why you threw out those terms without backing it up with any kind of logical argument.

  110. 110.

    Bombadil

    October 6, 2006 at 3:34 pm

    Sorry bud. You reap what you sow. If John Cole doesn’t want us to call you names, then he should consider asking you to stop posting like an idiot or he’s going to have to ban the entire lot of us.

    Hmmm. If Darrell posts a message and there’s no one there to hear it, does it still queer the thread?

  111. 111.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 3:36 pm

    The word (singular) was ‘clear’, and for the record, I apologize for accidentally capturing the spirit rather than the exact letter of your comments.

    Thank you Pb, but your putting the word ‘clear’ in my mouth wasn’t a big deal. I was more referring to those on this thread falsely claiming I had said Bush’s economy was “awesome”

  112. 112.

    Proud Liberal

    October 6, 2006 at 3:38 pm

    The Charts dont’ lie

    You know sometimes you have to see things visually to get a true perspective. Please, Darrell, look at these charts and then tell me what a great job Bush has done. They are eye openers.

  113. 113.

    ThymeZone

    October 6, 2006 at 3:39 pm

    That’s why you threw out those terms without backing it up with any kind of logical argument.

    Here’s my question. How is it that a person who throws out facts without support, and terms he doesn’t understand, all the time, and basically runs away when challenged and has nothing to back it all up …. can be said to be “arguing in good faith” when he says something like this, quoted above.

    Sorry, no matter how hard I try, I can’t wrap my brain around that. By what stretch of the imagination can it be argued that this person is “arguing in good faith?”

    Singing spuds, not against the law. Arguing in bad faith, not against the law. If that’s what he wants to do, fine. But why pretend that it is something it isn’t?

    “Good faith” argument means at the very least a common and mutual respect for the facts. The floor is open to anyone who can convince me that Darrell has ever shown and common and mutual respect for the facts, in any context, on any topic, ever.

    I’ve already got a refrigerator full of crow leftovers this week, so if I’m wrong, I can pop a crow pot pie in the microwave in no time. Just show me.

  114. 114.

    John D.

    October 6, 2006 at 3:40 pm

    You are obviously too ignorant to know that Elliot waves, Fibonacci analysis, and other market technical indicators and pattern recognition theories have a very spotty track record in predicting actual market performance. Like I said, you have no point. That’s why you threw out those terms without backing it up with any kind of logical argument.

    Wow.

    So, all the technical analysis I do for day- and short-term trading is useless. Damn. Guess I better return all this money, huh?

    Guess John Henry should return all of *his* money and the Boston Red Sox as well.

    One of us is ignorant, Darrell. I’ll let people decide on their own which of us that is.

  115. 115.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 3:42 pm

    The market really was at 11,770 in April 2000 and at 10,587 when Bush took office.

    *False*. The market was *never* at 11,770 in April 2000. It was also never at 11,770 9 months before Bush took office. You made both claims, and they were both verifiably false. The record high at the time was set on 1/14/2000, and it was 11,723.

  116. 116.

    Bombadil

    October 6, 2006 at 3:45 pm

    So, all the technical analysis I do for day- and short-term trading is useless. Damn. Guess I better return all this money, huh?

    Guess John Henry should return all of his money and the Boston Red Sox as well.

    Wow — John Henry works for Starbucks, too? Who knew?!

  117. 117.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 3:46 pm

    John Henry works for Starbucks, too? Who knew?!

    Man… I need to get a job at Starbucks pronto, to do some *networking*!

  118. 118.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 3:47 pm

    then followed up all this with your typical claim that your political opponents are “dishonest” that was snuck in there for no good reason other than to get people to fire back at you.

    No, I used the term ‘dishonest’ because, as I have repeatedly explained on this thread, because I think it’s dishonest to use comparative stock market numbers based on April 2000 versus when Bush was actually sworn into office.. to make things look worse than they really are.

  119. 119.

    dagon

    October 6, 2006 at 3:49 pm

    bravo john on a great post. but see, this is what i still have a problem with

    Al Gore, as wrong as I think he is on a number of issues, was right that I should be afraid.

    what exactly was al gore wrong about on the issues? he argued for maintaining the surplus, investing in broadband technologies and beefing up our infrastructure to prepare the nation for the digital age (which would have created and kept jobs here imo), making health-care and education affordable, preserving social-security, getting serious about fuel-dependency and the environment and many other things that seemed imminently sensible then and even moreso now with the benefit of hindsight.

    is it really all just about a preference for authoritarian posturing with republicans or were gore’s ideas coming so far out of left-field and i simiply missed it?

    peace

  120. 120.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 3:56 pm

    So, all the technical analysis I do for day- and short-term trading is useless

    Another prime example of putting words in my mouth to bolster a pathetically weak argument. I never stated that technical indicators are “useless”. I said they have a spotty record in predicting market performance, which is why so many daytraders using pure technical indicators got their clocks cleaned in 2000 – 2002.

    Again, technical indicators don’t prove anything. What was your point in bring them up?

  121. 121.

    JoeTx

    October 6, 2006 at 3:56 pm

    You have to give darrell credit for getting everybody COMPLETELY off topic on what was a hell of a post.

  122. 122.

    Tsulagi

    October 6, 2006 at 3:57 pm

    Umm…you do know what all this attention does for Darrell. Think Foley. You’re making him a little horny.

  123. 123.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 3:59 pm

    The market was never at 11,770 in April 2000. It was also never at 11,770 9 months before Bush took office. You made both claims, and they were both verifiably false. The record high at the time was set on 1/14/2000, and it was 11,723.

    I stand corrected, although that’s a pretty fine hair your splitting… especially coming from someone who has claimed to “debunk” the idea that Bush inherited a falling stock market.. a view held by virtually every investment professional.

  124. 124.

    RSA

    October 6, 2006 at 4:00 pm

    He now leads—he now leads the party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but the only thing he has to offer is fear itself.

    This is a great catch, John. Most of the hot button issues for the Republican base seem to be about fear: of terrorists, of immigrants, of gay marriage, of going to hell (maybe). That’s not all of them, but they do make a great big pile of hypocrisy.

  125. 125.

    jg

    October 6, 2006 at 4:00 pm

    The DOW hit a record in the 90’s and all the people were affected by it. It regains that same level (not accounting for inflation) 6 years later but this time few people are affected by it.

  126. 126.

    Proud Liberal

    October 6, 2006 at 4:03 pm

    what exactly was al gore wrong about on the issues?

    Gore was consistantly warning of us of the dangers of the Bush presidency long before John Coles light bulb went off above his head. The speeches he has given over the last couple of years have been brilliant and right on the mark. But of course the right wing media portrayed him as hysterical and over the top.

    This from Gore’s speech in August of 2003:

    The direction in which our nation is being led is deeply troubling to me — not only in Iraq but also here at home on economic policy, social policy and environmental policy.

    Millions of Americans now share a feeling that something pretty basic has gone wrong in our country and that some important American values are being placed at risk. And they want to set it right.

    The way we went to war in Iraq illustrates this larger problem. Normally, we Americans lay the facts on the table, talk through the choices before us and make a decision. But that didn’t really happen with this war — not the way it should have. And as a result, too many of our soldiers are paying the highest price, for the strategic miscalculations, serious misjudgments, and historic mistakes that have put them and our nation in harm’s way.

    I’m convinced that one of the reasons that we didn’t have a better public debate before the Iraq War started is because so many of the impressions that the majority of the country had back then turn out to have been completely wrong. Leaving aside for the moment the question of how these false impressions got into the public’s mind, it might be healthy to take a hard look at the ones we now know were wrong and clear the air so that we can better see exactly where we are now and what changes might need to be made.

    Robust debate in a democracy will almost always involve occasional rhetorical excesses and leaps of faith, and we’re all used to that. I’ve even been guilty of it myself on occasion. But there is a big difference between that and a systematic effort to manipulate facts in service to a totalistic ideology that is felt to be more important than the mandates of basic honesty.

    Unfortunately, I think it is no longer possible to avoid the conclusion that what the country is dealing with in the Bush Presidency is the latter. That is really the nub of the problem — the common source for most of the false impressions that have been frustrating the normal and healthy workings of our democracy.

    Americans have always believed that we the people have a right to know the truth and that the truth will set us free. The very idea of self-government depends upon honest and open debate as the preferred method for pursuing the truth — and a shared respect for the Rule of Reason as the best way to establish the truth.

    The Bush Administration routinely shows disrespect for that whole basic process, and I think it’s partly because they feel as if they already know the truth and aren’t very curious to learn about any facts that might contradict it. They and the members of groups that belong to their ideological coalition are true believers in each other’s agendas.

    I am proud that my party has candidates for president committed to those values. I admire the effort and skill they are putting into their campaigns. I am not going to join them, but later in the political cycle I will endorse one of them, because I believe that we must stand for a future in which the United States will again be feared only by its enemies; in which our country will again lead the effort to create an international order based on the rule of law; a nation which upholds fundamental rights even for those it believes to be its captured enemies; a nation whose financial house is in order; a nation where the market place is kept healthy by effective government scrutiny; a country which does what is necessary to provide for the health, education, and welfare of our people; a society in which citizens of all faiths enjoy equal standing; a republic once again comfortable that its chief executive knows the limits as well as the powers of the presidency; a nation that places the highest value on facts, not ideology, as the basis for all its great debates and decisions.

    Read the whole sppech. And remember, this was back in 2003 when the Cole snan the Andrew Sullivans were still singing the Presidents praises. Some see when the Johnb Coles adn the Andre Sullivans were still singing the President’s praises.

  127. 127.

    Proud Liberal

    October 6, 2006 at 4:05 pm

    sorry about that last paragraph, my computer is truly acting funky, but I think you get my jist.

  128. 128.

    John D.

    October 6, 2006 at 4:07 pm

    I said they have a spotty record in predicting market performance

    The Fund shows you to be incorrect. I’m in their Financials and Metals portfolio, have been for quite some time.

    24.93% annualized return since inception, it is managed SOLELY through technical indicator trading of futures. It’s why I’m in trading now myself. So again, how is it spotty?

    All traders make poor picks at some times. Technical indicators do — on average — about as well as fundamental analysts. Some swear by them, some swear at them. I’m in the former category, and been very successful using them.

    You continue to make claims that are not reflective of reality.

  129. 129.

    John D.

    October 6, 2006 at 4:11 pm

    I’d like to apologize for the continual Darrell interaction detracting from a great post by John.

    John, seriously, kudos on this post. I’m glad you can see things for what they are and form your own opinions, even when I disagree with you. I look forward to the day you’re a Republican again, since that means that the GOP has left the hinterlands of insanity.

    I miss the days when we could say “You have a point, but…” to people on another side.

  130. 130.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 4:14 pm

    The Fund shows you to be incorrect. I’m in their Financials and Metals portfolio, have been for quite some time

    Let’s see one fund, invested in two of the hottest performing sectors over the past 5 yrs, shows me to be incorrect. Got it. Airtight argument you got there JohnD.

  131. 131.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 4:15 pm

    You continue to make claims that are not reflective of reality.

    Specifically, what “claim” did I make not reflective of reality. And no fair putting ‘claims’ in my mouth which I never wrote, as you did upthread.

  132. 132.

    Proud Liberal

    October 6, 2006 at 4:17 pm

    Can we all agreee to just ignore Darrell….? kinda like when you have a rash that won’t go away. You know its there but try to take your mind off it? Scratching it never helps.

  133. 133.

    Andrei

    October 6, 2006 at 4:17 pm

    No, I used the term ‘dishonest’ because, as I have repeatedly explained on this thread, because I think it’s dishonest to use comparative stock market numbers based on April 2000 versus when Bush was actually sworn into office.. to make things look worse than they really are.

    I’m always amazed how openly you admit to being obtuse and tone deaf in the comments section of this blog. You said:

    No surprise dishonest political opponents compare…

    How hard is it to understand that describing someone as dishonest in this manner is a personal attack? I mean… really. And why again is Cole asking us to lay off of you when you very clearly entered the discussion by basically claiming Bombadli, Andrew and Mr. Furious were “dishonest.”

    Tell you what Darrell… you apologize to those three and we’ll all drop it. Deal?

  134. 134.

    Proud Liberal

    October 6, 2006 at 4:18 pm

    ahhhh.. I think I hit on something. Is it possible John to have an IGNORE button installed on your comments section?

  135. 135.

    Punchy

    October 6, 2006 at 4:20 pm

    Let’s lay off the personal attacks on Darrell- you may think he is wrong, but he is arguing in good faith.

    Sorry, Dad. Are we there yet?

    How about now?

    There yet….Dad? Are we?

  136. 136.

    John D.

    October 6, 2006 at 4:21 pm

    Last post from me to Darrell.

    I brought up The Fund because it is unique in that it is traded SOLELY on technical indicators and I’m an actual investor in it. I know of no other fund that uses only technical indicators (I’m sure they exist, I just don’t know which ones). I got into currency and metal futures not because they are “hot markets” (they’re not) but because they are strongly trending markets, which makes them ideal for technical analysis.

    Gold is down $160 or so from May, Darrell. Explain how that is a hot performance. Please.

    (I know how *I* made a lot of money on that, but that’s not what one refers to as a “hot performance”).

  137. 137.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 4:23 pm

    How hard is it to understand that describing someone as dishonest in this manner is a personal attack?

    But they were being dishonest. Do you refrain from calling Republicans “dishonest” so as not to personally attack them.

    And how rich is that, being lectured on personal attacks from someone who was banned for calling a girl a “c*nt”. That was you, wasn’t it Andrei?

  138. 138.

    jg

    October 6, 2006 at 4:28 pm

    Let’s lay off the personal attacks on Darrell- you may think he is wrong, but he is arguing in good faith.

    You can’t be serious. Good faith? He’s a Monty Python sit. He doesn’t argue he contradicts. And he does it to crap on one of your best posts. A post about the right using misdirection to hide the truth of the situation in this country. Classic.

  139. 139.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 4:28 pm

    I brought up The Fund because it is unique in that it is traded SOLELY on technical indicators and I’m an actual investor in it.

    Surely you must realize that virtually every fund specializing in metals and financials, has done very well over the past several years.. Doesn’t tell us a thing about how effective technical indicators are.

    Just as all those daytraders in the late 90’s and early 2000 told us that that technical indicators, rather than a rising market, were the reasons for their success. You’re trying to claim cause and effect here.

    Again, what was your point in bringing up technical indicators in the first place? You were trying to assert they ‘proved’ something when they don’t. Now you’re backpeddling and putting words in my mouth I never wrote.

  140. 140.

    Proud Liberal

    October 6, 2006 at 4:29 pm

    ok.. I’m outa here. Once again a thread that has turned into Darrell Land by Darrell, for Darrell, about Darrell, arguing against Darrell.

    I hate people that crave attention so much that they find it necessary to engage in the most repulsive behavior in order to get their needed fix of attention. Don’t know the psychological reason but I imagine it has somethign to do with not being loved as a child.

    Adios Darrell, enjoy yourself. Are you a little horny now?

  141. 141.

    Andrei

    October 6, 2006 at 4:29 pm

    FWIW, John’s post seems only to speak to the choir. Those of us that already knew this stuff going in are already on this track. This post is nice to see if all we care about is guys like Cole coming around, but in the end, the post is not for us. It’s supposed to be for people like Sista Toldjah, Darrell, Blogs for Bush, Red State, etc.

    It’s the crap that Darrell posts that Cole should be worried about. The fact that guys like Darrell still post some of the most inane talking points one can find on a daily basis just points to where Cole’s message falls completely on deaf ears.

    When I force myself to listen to Limbaugh, Hannity or Coulter, I can barely take it, in the same way I can barely handle reading Darrell’s tripe.

    And when guys like Cole ask us to lay off guys like Darrell, I mean really… Why should we? They won’t give one inch to us, so fuck them, right? That may be the wrong approach, but you know what? That’s what the choice feels like.

    What choice do we have when guys like Darrell act like they do? What choice do we have when confronted with the likes of Limbaugh and crew?

    We either ignore them and pray they stay at home on Election Day or we attack back because they obviously have no desire to not give one inch to how much they have utterly fucked up this country. Ignoring them is what has had the Dems lose the past three election cycles. If there’s a better choice in between there, I’m all ears.

    Darrell wouldn’t be so bad if he wasn’t a direct reflection of what you get on Limbaugh, Hannity, Malkin, Coulter or O’Reilly’s shows. Because he’s basically a copycat of those asshats is why he gets such a strong response from so many of us who a tired of it.

  142. 142.

    hadenoughofthisyet

    October 6, 2006 at 4:34 pm

    Wow. What a post.

    Reading things like this gives me hope that there are still intellectually honest people out there.

    It’s been a hellish few years, hasn’t it?

  143. 143.

    jg

    October 6, 2006 at 4:34 pm

    We either ignore them and pray they stay at home on Election Day

    I don’t know where you’re located but in my state there’s an initiative on the ballot to ensure they will always go to the polls, where they will invariably vote a straight GOP ticket regardless of a candidates stance on an issue. The initiative is to turn a vote into a sweepstakes lottery ticket. That’s right. Vote and maybe you can become a millionaire.

  144. 144.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 4:34 pm

    Gold is down $160 or so from May, Darrell. Explain how that is a hot performance. Please.

    Silly me, when you referred to that 24.93% annualized return since inception, I naively believed you were referring to multi-year performance. A multi year performance in which gold went from the $200’s oz. in 2002 to spiking over $700 oz. this year.

    “But it dropped $160 from it’s $700+ peak after a 3000% runup!” Great point JohnD!

  145. 145.

    Andrei

    October 6, 2006 at 4:36 pm

    And how rich is that, being lectured on personal attacks from someone who was banned for calling a girl a “c*nt”. That was you, wasn’t it Andrei?

    The difference between you and me is that I apparently can comprehend that when I call someone a moron that I’m attacking them personally. As for the Stormy incident, remember that back then I never apologized, even though a lot of people asked me to. I knew exactly what I was doing. Stormy made fun of some guys for lobbying softballs at her in the name calling department, so I threw her a hardball. That was the context, and that context is important to the point of what happened.

    The point being is that you are dancing around the point that you attacked Bombadli, Andrew and Furious by calling them dishonest. If you don’t want to apologize, then don’t. (I never apologized to Stormy.) But don’t even pretend to think you didn’t attack because you did.

    As some would say, man up already and own your words, especially if they are figting words.

    I’m done with this topic. Have a good weekend all.

  146. 146.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 4:36 pm

    I hate people that crave attention so much that they find it necessary to engage in the most repulsive behavior in order to get their needed fix of attention.

    What have I posted which justifies your characterization of “repulsive”? Repulsive = anything a liberal disagrees with.

  147. 147.

    Zifnab

    October 6, 2006 at 4:38 pm

    Shorter Darrell – “I’m a Republican no matter what and you can’t change my mind ever ever ever forever.”

    Stop responding to it and you’ll feel like better people.

  148. 148.

    ThymeZone

    October 6, 2006 at 4:39 pm

    A multi year performance in which gold went from the $200’s oz. in 2002 to spiking over $700 oz. this year.

    In case anyone just tuned in …. performance in precious metals does not generally go along with stock market, or economic, performance. Gold tends to be a contrarian investment. A hedge. High gold prices indicate demand from people looking for safety from a shitty stock market or economic bad news. People looking for safety buy gold.

  149. 149.

    Steve

    October 6, 2006 at 4:42 pm

    Does Darrell have a show on CNBC or something? It’s amazing to watch him purporting to speak for every broker on Wall Street, making assertions that are just flat-out untrue.

    I’ve spent virtually every day for the last three years litigating cases brought by people who lost their money in the market during the 2000-01 period. It’s to the point where I could probably rattle off a list of daily closes without even looking at a chart. But oh no, Darrell is right, and the rest of us are just Starbucks employees.

    His unshakeable faith is truly something to behold.

  150. 150.

    jg

    October 6, 2006 at 4:43 pm

    and we are now expected to graciously celebrate it when the annual deficit is not quite as bad as we predicted it would be.

    Orwell strikes again.

  151. 151.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 4:44 pm

    Gold tends to be a contrarian investment. A hedge. High gold prices indicate demand from people looking for safety from a shitty stock market or economic bad news

    You’re right as a general rule. But since 2002, the rise of gold coincided with a rise in the stock market and a growing economy.

    Perhaps the recent emergence of the economies in China and India has something to do with it, as their demand for metals and oil has grown significantly. No doubt 9/11 fueled a lot of worry as well

  152. 152.

    jobiuspublius

    October 6, 2006 at 4:48 pm

    If this surprises you at all, please do the rest of your fellow citizens a favor this election day, and don’t vote.

    That is sooooooo Republican. God forbid that people should be helped to see and correct the error of their ways.

  153. 153.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 4:48 pm

    It’s amazing to watch him purporting to speak for every broker on Wall Street, making assertions that are just flat-out untrue.

    Steve, you have asserted that I am “flat” wrong that Bush inherited a falling stock market. Please look up the total performance of the Dow, of the Nasdaq, and the S&P in the 9 months preceding Bush’s being sworn into office and tell us what you learn.

    I find it incredible that so many on the left are disputing a point which virtually everyone on Wall St. agrees with – that Bush did inherit a falling stock market after the bubble popped in 2000.

  154. 154.

    John S.

    October 6, 2006 at 4:49 pm

    People looking for safety buy gold.

    They also tend to invest in blue chips, which is why many economists feel this spike in the DJIA is a harbinger of a POOR economy – investors are running for cover.

  155. 155.

    ThymeZone

    October 6, 2006 at 4:52 pm

    You’re right as a general rule

    { faints }

    { thud }

    { birds chirping }

    Where am I?

  156. 156.

    jg

    October 6, 2006 at 4:53 pm

    Blame the media and the evil commie liberals- it’s the same old song and dance

    Because it works. You’re a pretty smart guy but even you are susceptible to the linberal media bogeyman. Its only recently that you’re eyes have opened all the way and you are finally seeing through the bullshit. For so many hearing its the medias fault is the security blanket they are reaching for when curled up in the fetal position on their beds. Its been implanted over a period of years and its successfully used over and over again. It took years for me to be able to hear any bad press about the right. I think you took longer because the military instilled a little authoritarianism in you. Just enough for you to instinctively side with the party the military identifies with.

  157. 157.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 4:55 pm

    I’ve spent virtually every day for the last three years litigating cases brought by people who lost their money in the market during the 2000-01 period

    Steve, why do you suppose there were so many people who lost money during the 2000 – 2001 period? Do you see a wee bit of relationship between a ‘falling’ stock market and lots of people losing money in the stock market during that time period?

  158. 158.

    jg

    October 6, 2006 at 4:55 pm

    BTW, I only took two econimics classes in my college years so I’m not an expert like Darrell but one of the first things they taught us about the stock market was that the DOW is not an indicator of a healthy economy, just a healthy DOW.

  159. 159.

    Richard 23

    October 6, 2006 at 4:58 pm

    Great post, John! Keep up the great work. You’ve been on fire lately.

  160. 160.

    John S.

    October 6, 2006 at 4:59 pm

    What Darrell doesn’t want to hear:

    Still, presidents like to think – or at least claim – that they influence economic activity. So a finding that the party occupying the White House has an impact on stock market performance should mean something.

    With respect to the questions asked above, Professors Santa-Clara and Valkanov can give a firm answer only to the first: Stock market excess returns have definitely been higher under Democrats than under Republicans.

    Source

  161. 161.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 5:00 pm

    They also tend to invest in blue chips, which is why many economists feel this spike in the DJIA is a harbinger of a POOR economy – investors are running for cover.

    Put your money to work then – buy those puts, short those stocks and put the rest in Rydex bear funds.

    “The sky is falling!”

  162. 162.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 5:03 pm

    From the first 2000 Bush-Gore debate:

    MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?

    BUSH: Well, if it’s in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are — our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don’t think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we’ve got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today’s military is too low. We’re having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we’re overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It’s to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place.

  163. 163.

    jg

    October 6, 2006 at 5:05 pm

    “The sky is falling!”

    Putting you opponent on extreme positions they aren’t advancing is arguing in good faith?

  164. 164.

    ThymeZone

    October 6, 2006 at 5:06 pm

    I don’t think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we’ve got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today’s military is too low. We’re having trouble meeting recruiting goals.

    Good christ.

  165. 165.

    John S.

    October 6, 2006 at 5:07 pm

    “The sky is falling!”

    Good faith my ass.

    Am I a fucking economist you shithead? No. But that doesn’t stop you from attributing a statement I clearly assigned to others to ME.

    God, what an asshole you are.

  166. 166.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 5:08 pm

    Putting you opponent on extreme positions they aren’t advancing is arguing in good faith?

    What the hell are you talking about jg? JohnS said the economy was “POOR” (using all caps for emphasis), and he said investors were “running for cover”. I’d say those opinions are entirely consistent with the characterization “the sky is falling!”, wouldn’t you agree?

  167. 167.

    Steve

    October 6, 2006 at 5:11 pm

    Steve, you have asserted that I am “flat” wrong that Bush inherited a falling stock market. Please look up the total performance of the Dow, of the Nasdaq, and the S&P in the 9 months preceding Bush’s being sworn into office and tell us what you learn.

    The market was generally in decline through October 2000… then it rebounded through May 2001… then it crashed again. None of this is news to me, or to anyone else who can read a stock chart. Bush took office during the upswing.

    I really find it amazing that you still think you’re proving something by cherry-picking a start date and saying “compare these two dates, that’s the definitive way to determine if the market was rising or falling!” Well, maybe amazing is the wrong word, since for you this is a saddeningly typical sort of argument.

    The really funny part is, there’s plenty of things you could say about the economy Bush inherited that would back up your overall point… but since your argumentation style is basically 1) cut 2) paste 3) defend it to the death, you’re simply not informed enough to make those arguments.

  168. 168.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 5:11 pm

    Good christ.

    Now we know that it was all lies and projection.

  169. 169.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 5:14 pm

    but since your argumentation style is basically 1) cut 2) paste 3) defend it to the death

    Which typically went awry this time, as there is no intervening ‘fact checking’ step.

  170. 170.

    ThymeZone

    October 6, 2006 at 5:16 pm

    Now we know that it was all lies and projection.

    What I’d like to know is, when did he abandon the more or less sensible position he took during the campaign?

    When 911 truly changed his thinking …. or when he realized that he had been given a political pass to do whatever he wanted because of the attacks? When he calculated that war and nation building would be worth years of political power for himself and his party?

    It’s an even more interesting question when you factor in that Powell apparently did not fall victim to the delusional thinking after 911 … and cautioned against it. Which means, the deluded president and his deluded people had to look PAST Powell’s counsel and ended up “firing” him for his advice (per Woodward).

    A fascinating story of how a great country can be just completely fucked in the ass by a few crazy, stupid people.

  171. 171.

    Tony J

    October 6, 2006 at 5:16 pm

    Good initial post, John. Nice to see that the rational wing of the Republican Party is starting to peel away from the hardcore lunatic tendency.

    OTOH, it’s harder than ever to see how a smart guy suchazyerself could ever have voted for El Residente in the first place, never mind twice. Really, I just can’t grasp how that could have happened. Even if you don’t want to go all the way back to the 90s in locating that first shimmer of power-at-all-costs scumbaggery in the GOP, all you have to do is look at how they used Sept 11 to declare total-war on the Democratic Party to see that these people were far-and-away the most dangerous menagerie of psycho-nutbags in the history of your country.

    Oh, and asking posters to cut that super-spoofy troll a break on the grounds that he/she/it/they mean well has got to be a joke. Really, it has to be. Can you perhaps direct me to a thread where I could read evidence of it’s good intentions? I recall you mentioning archives. Without them to go on I can only rely upon my own experience, and that shows D the Obscure to be a lying little gnome that does it’s best to choke off discussion of the points you yourself raise. Unless it really is you in spoof-mufti, I don’t get why you’d ask posters to refrain from calling a spade a spade, especially when that spade opened it’s first post by calling people liars.

    Anyhoo, bafflement certainly does make me thirsty. I’m cracking another one and enjoying the show.

  172. 172.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 5:18 pm

    I really find it amazing that you still think you’re proving something by cherry-picking a start date and saying “compare these two dates, that’s the definitive way to determine if the market was rising or falling!”

    Steve, you said I was “flatly” wrong to assert Bush inherited a ‘falling’ stock market. “Flatly” leaves no room for interpretation.

    Especially now with benefit of hindsight, there is virtual unanimity among investment professionals, and also among most anyone else who doesn’t have an ideological axe to grind, that the market was decidedly in a downtrend when Bush was sworn into office. Bush was sworn into office in what most everyone now calls a “bear” market which began about 9 months before he took office

    I’m not sure what you and other lefties here hope to gain by disputing that point, but you’re certainly not gaining credibility.

  173. 173.

    jg

    October 6, 2006 at 5:21 pm

    I’d say those opinions are entirely consistent with the characterization “the sky is falling!”, wouldn’t you agree?

    No.

  174. 174.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 5:23 pm

    The really funny part is, there’s plenty of things you could say about the economy Bush inherited that would back up your overall point… but since your argumentation style is basically 1) cut 2) paste 3) defend it to the death, you’re simply not informed enough to make those arguments.

    Steve, one doesn’t have to be a financial expert to know that Bush inherited a falling stock market. It’s really quite incredible that you would dispute that position as being “flatly” wrong (your words). It reflects how well “informed” you are on this subject.

  175. 175.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 5:28 pm

    What I’d like to know is, when did he abandon the more or less sensible position he took during the campaign?

    I’m thinking, before it ever started–he was just itching for the chance, as Cheney surely was as well. (and really, why else pick Cheney? He’s basically the go-to guy for invading Iraq under false pretenses and without Congressional authority…)

    Perhaps most consequential: Herskowitz said that Bush had Iraq on his “to do” list as early as 1999. “[Bush] said, ‘If I have a chance to invade…if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it,’ ” Baker writes, adding later that the ellipses were for a pause and not words omitted.

  176. 176.

    jg

    October 6, 2006 at 5:33 pm

    What I’d like to know is, when did he abandon the more or less sensible position he took during the campaign?

    Abandonded? He just said what people wanted to hear. The dems can’t do this, can’t do that. As president I’ll fix (insert heartland pet peeve here) and put an end to (insert standard complaint about dem rule here). They only thing he abandonded is the people he lied to to get the job.

  177. 177.

    Steve

    October 6, 2006 at 5:34 pm

    Especially now with benefit of hindsight, there is virtual unanimity among investment professionals, and also among most anyone else who doesn’t have an ideological axe to grind, that the market was decidedly in a downtrend when Bush was sworn into office.

    Hey, you figured it out! /golfclap

    In January 2001, not a soul would have said Bush was inheriting a falling stock market, because he wasn’t.

    With the benefit of hindsight, we now know that the market fell a few months after he took office. But you can’t inherit something that hasn’t happened yet. At the time he took office, the market had been on the rebound for several months.

    You have so many good arguments available to you but you’re determined to go to the mat defending this bad one.

  178. 178.

    Steve

    October 6, 2006 at 5:41 pm

    What I’d like to know is, when did he abandon the more or less sensible position he took during the campaign?

    I don’t think they thought Iraq would be nation-building. Remember how Rumsfeld threatened to fire anyone who dared to present him with a contingency plan for a long occupation? Heck, even today you’ll find dead-enders insisting that we’re not “nation-building” in Iraq, because their little hearts will break if it turns out Bush was ever inconsistent about anything.

    And actually, our postwar performance in Iraq was glorious compared to Afghanistan, where we certainly should have known a nation-building process would be involved, yet we blew it off to race everyone over to Iraq. I wonder where we’d be today if we had simply focused on getting Afghanistan right.

  179. 179.

    cd6

    October 6, 2006 at 5:41 pm

    Even if Bush inherited a falling stock market, how does that change the fact that it still took 6 years to reach where the Dow had been?

    And ordinary people don’t care what the Dow is. The Dow could hit 20,000 tomorrow, but since nobody is getting a pay raise (and most Americans don’t have signifigant chunks of stock in IBM) they wouldn’t really benefit from it.

    Ask random Joe on the street how the economy is, and he doesn’t give two shits about the Dow. It’s “how much do things cost” and “how much money do I have?”

    Since gas now costs way more than it did when Bush took office, and average pay has increased SLOWER than inflation (net result, people generally have less money) then people are thrilled about the economy.

  180. 180.

    cd6

    October 6, 2006 at 5:43 pm

    Oops I meant the total opposite of what I actually typed in my last sentence

    People AREN’T thrilled about the economy

  181. 181.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 5:44 pm

    With the benefit of hindsight, we now know that the market fell a few months after he took office. But you can’t inherit something that hasn’t happened yet

    The hell you can’t. A President can inherit many things, (consequences of foreign policy decisions, markets, employees, etc) and only later realize what he actually inherited. What kind of dumbass nonsense is that?

    Bush inherited a falling stock market. He entered office in a bear market. When I asserted that exact point earlier, you said I was “flatly” wrong. Now you appear to be backpeddling on that position somewhat, but without admitting that it was you who was wrong about Bush inheriting a falling stock market.

  182. 182.

    Richard 23

    October 6, 2006 at 5:46 pm

    I think Darrell wins again, as he always does. Just concede that he is “right” and see if threads continue to be derailed.

    Just a friendly suggestion.

  183. 183.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 5:47 pm

    The Dow could hit 20,000 tomorrow, but since nobody is getting a pay raise (and most Americans don’t have signifigant chunks of stock in IBM) they wouldn’t really benefit from it.

    Actually a lot of jobs have been created over the past 3 1/2 years, and wages are rising.

    And ordinary people don’t care what the Dow is

    Most ‘ordinary’ people own stocks, either directly, and/or as part of their retirement portfolio.

  184. 184.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 5:52 pm

    You have so many good arguments available to you but you’re determined to go to the mat defending this bad one.

    This is rich on many levels. I am defending the “bad” and oooohhh so ‘controversial’ argument that Bush * hold on * inherited a falling stock market.. that he was sworn into office after a bear market was already in full swing. What a bad, bad argument for me to make. Bad

  185. 185.

    Steve

    October 6, 2006 at 5:56 pm

    Bush inherited a falling stock market. He entered office in a bear market. When I asserted that exact point earlier, you said I was “flatly” wrong. Now you appear to be backpeddling on that position somewhat, but without admitting that it was you who was wrong about Bush inheriting a falling stock market.

    Uh, no. You were, in fact, flatly wrong, and still are.

    Your argument is really a subset of the larger conservative argument that everything bad which happened on Bush’s watch, 9/11 included, was the inevitable consequence of stuff that had happened while Clinton was president. Good stuff, of course, is to Bush’s eternal credit.

    If you had asked ANYONE in January 2001 whether the market was rising or falling, they would have said it was rising. So yeah, rock on with the hindsight, but from here on out you’ll be rocking solo.

  186. 186.

    craigie

    October 6, 2006 at 6:00 pm

    If I were running for office at any level, I’d be saying that, no matter how nice a guy my opponent may be, he’s still a Republican, and a vote for him is a vote to enable more of this crap from a party that is clearly tired and needs to return to the bench to sit and think a spell about how nothing – nothing – they have touched has been improved.

    Unless you like living with 9th century legal rights, I guess.

    These guys are done. They need to sit and ponder their complete and total failure. They can come back in a few years and let us know if they have learned anything.

  187. 187.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 6:01 pm

    a lot of jobs have been created over the past 3 1/2 years

    Heh. What about the past *six* years… cherry picking again!

  188. 188.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 6:03 pm

    What this thread demonstrates, to any who are open to rational argument, is that the left, although they have many legit issues they could hit Bush with (economic and other issues), they cannot bring themselves to concede ANYTHING which might possibly reflect positively on Bush.. in this case, they can’t admit the obvious truth that Bush inherited a falling stock market.. he inherited a bear market. This is basic folks, but most leftist posters will not admit it.

    What’s more, the stock market rise over the past few years may or may not be a result of actions which Bush took. It could be mainly cyclical. But that doesn’t matter, as the left cannot admit to anything which might possibly help Bush, no matter how obvious that point may be… in this case, that Bush really did inherit a popped bubble scandal plagued economy. He inherited a bear market.

  189. 189.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 6:11 pm

    If you had asked ANYONE in January 2001 whether the market was rising or falling, they would have said it was rising

    Actually, that’s not true. Many well known investment professionals (Bob Brinker, Jim Cramer come to mind) were warning investors back in 2000. But that wasn’t my argument. I NEVER suggested that in 2001, the market could be predicted. That’s a Steve-special strawman there. What I did assert, and what you called “flatly” wrong, was that Bush inherited a falling stock market. He did inherit a falling stock market and you are wrong to claim otherwise. This is not a controversial assertion on my part.

    A bear market began in 2000;

  190. 190.

    jg

    October 6, 2006 at 6:14 pm

    He inherited a bear market.

    I thought he inherited a falling market? Since it was shown to be rising after he took office are you changing your stroy? Now its a bear market that just hadn’t established its beary self?

    How is stating he inherited a bear market not a way to shift blame from him to the previous guy? How long did the bear market last? Why has it taken 6 years to reach its previous height under the last administration (which means jackshit without inflation factored in anyway)?

  191. 191.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 6:27 pm

    Based on the previous year, Bush inherited a volatile but relatively stagnant market. Similarly, the market Clinton inherited from Bush’s father wasn’t much different–perhaps a bit less volatile, but about as stagnant. The difference is, Clinton managed to make something of it, and Bush didn’t.

  192. 192.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 6:28 pm

    I thought he inherited a falling market?

    A bear market is a market in which stock prices fall. They don’t fall straight down in a bear market, but stocks do head in a downward direction. Is this really so confusing to you?

    How is stating he inherited a bear market not a way to shift blame from him to the previous guy?

    If you re-read this thread, you’ll see that it began with Bush critics complaining about the stock market’s performance under Bush, using peak 2000 stock market numbers, rather than the significantly lower downtrending number when Bush was sworn into office… in order to make things looks worse under Bush than they were in reality. Otherwise why cherry pick peak-high bubble numbers rather than the actual stock market numbers when Bush entered office?

    I further explained that Bush inherited a popped bubble declining stock market, a bear market, and then was hit with 9/11. None of the other posters had acknowledged these obvious points in their criticisms.

    The bear market began in 2000 under Clinton, not under Bush. I’m not “blaming” Clinton for it any more than I am crediting Bush for the rise over the past 3 1/2 years.. but rather explaining why the overall stock market performance hasn’t been better under Bush.

    But the lefties on this site wouldn’t hear of it.. because it might, just might, put a positive light on Bush. So the lefites here closed ranks on me, trying to deny the obvious. Pathetic really. But if this November election doesn’t go well for you guys, this leftist tendency is a big reason why.

  193. 193.

    Steve

    October 6, 2006 at 6:29 pm

    This argument still seems to be Darrell vs. a stock chart, and this may surprise people, but the stock chart is still winning.

    The market was rising throughout 4Q2000 and early 2001, when Bush took office. There’s no need for continual bickering on this point, and I won’t waste my time with it. Just click over to Yahoo and see for yourself.

    Now, of course you can argue that this rise in the market was actually just part of a larger bear trend that started back in April 2000. Gosh, in fact, I guess it was! But that argument is 100% hindsight, or else everyone would have been a bear in January 2001.

    What I really want to know is, at what point did the market stop being something inexorable that was inherited from Clinton, and actually start becoming Bush’s baby? Somehow the answer to this question is always “right around the time it started going up again.”

    That’s why you continue to see hacks making arguments like “Look at all the jobs created since August 2003!” The 22 straight months of job losses that came before that – not Bush’s problem, apparently. He gets 100% credit for the recovery, but everything bad is Clinton’s fault.

  194. 194.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 6:29 pm

    The Dow Jones Industrial Average, an average of 30 large companies on the New York Stock Exchange, peaked on January 14, 2000. Its intraday peak was at 11,750.28 but closed at 11,722.98. A year later, it was largely unchanged with another peak of 11,337.92 (intra-day peak 11,350.05) on May 21, 2001.

    Heh. If only Darrell had learned about Wikipedia before!

  195. 195.

    Jess

    October 6, 2006 at 6:30 pm

    John,
    What a great post–I’m glad you got all that out of your system! I hope you and your fellow travelers can get your party back on track.

    As for the rest of you…it will be such a frabjous day when you all stop responding to Darrell’s silly provocations. He cannot derail a thread by himself–he needs collaborators. I keep wanting to yell “Hey kids no fighting in the house! Go outside and let the grown-ups converse in peace!” But I guess responding to Darrell is like picking a scab–something you know won’t yield any positive results, but irresistable anyway. Oh well–at least we had a couple of weeks of Darrell-free discussions.

    John & Tim–would you consider moving Darrelled discussions to a separate thread in the future?

  196. 196.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 6:32 pm

    Similarly, the market Clinton inherited from Bush’s father wasn’t much different—

    Despite his rhetoric to the contrary, Clinton inherited a rebounding rising economy. He inherited an economy on the upswing. GWB inherited a bear market economy on the downswing. These are not controversial assertions on my part.

  197. 197.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 6:34 pm

    Darrell,

    You’ve gone from looking at the chart to predicting the past from the future. I’m still looking at the chart, thanks.

  198. 198.

    ThymeZone

    October 6, 2006 at 6:35 pm

    wages are rising

    Facts, please. Wages, adjusted for inflation, rising.

    In Australia.

    But what about the US? Links. Show me the links.

  199. 199.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 6:36 pm

    Steve Says:

    This argument still seems to be Darrell vs. a stock chart, and this may surprise people, but the stock chart is still winning.

    Bush inherited a bear market.. stocks were in a downtrend. This is not a controversial observation. Earlier, you said my assertion that Bush inherited a stock market was “flatly” wrong. You were full of shit then.. you are full of shit now.

  200. 200.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 6:38 pm

    My previous post should have said:

    Earlier, you said my assertion that Bush inherited a falling stock market was “flatly” wrong.

  201. 201.

    ThymeZone

    October 6, 2006 at 6:41 pm

    So the lefites here closed ranks on me, trying to deny the obvious.

    I have a great idea, Darrell. How about we just focus on what the facts are, and lose the lefty-righty bullshit?

    The facts aren’t Republican or Democrat, are they?

  202. 202.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 6:42 pm

    As for the rest of you…it will be such a frabjous day when you all stop responding to Darrell’s silly provocations

    As John Cole pointed out upthread, I am arguing in good faith. I really am. You’ll notice that I back up my arguments, and they’re good ones, especially today, because I am arguing a well established position againt partisan hacks who won’t budge an inch in acknowledging the most basic truths, if it means there is a possibility that it may put Bush in a positive light.

  203. 203.

    Steve

    October 6, 2006 at 6:44 pm

    Bush inherited a bear market.. stocks were in a downtrend. This is not a controversial observation. Earlier, you said my assertion that Bush inherited a stock market was “flatly” wrong. You were full of shit then.. you are full of shit now.

    Notice how I continue offering new facts and arguments… and Darrell just keeps coming back in the same old monotone, saying “I’m right and you’re wrong.” That just proves people were correct to say I shouldn’t have wasted my time in the first place.

  204. 204.

    John D.

    October 6, 2006 at 6:46 pm

    Notice how I continue offering new facts and arguments… and Darrell just keeps coming back in the same old monotone, saying “I’m right and you’re wrong.” That just proves people were correct to say I shouldn’t have wasted my time in the first place.

    That’s why I quit responding, and apologized for wasting time. I’m just always afraid that someone with no knowledge will walk in here and believe him. It’s like an itch I have to scratch.

  205. 205.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 6:49 pm

    Notice how I continue offering new facts and arguments… and Darrell just keeps coming back in the same old monotone, saying “I’m right and you’re wrong.”

    Give Darrell some credit–sure, his responses haven’t changed, but his argument has shifted!

  206. 206.

    PeterJ

    October 6, 2006 at 6:51 pm

    First, this was a great post :) But you forgot Diebold who’ll win the election for the GOP this time too. Then King George III of the United States might get his own American Revolution…

    Secondly, all this is obviously part of a big conspiracy. Someone in the shadows has allowed the Christian Right fundamentalists to take over the Republican party, this has lead to people on both sides talking dreamingly about the old true conservative republicans. Then after Bush and his enablers have been purged from the GOP, people on both sides will welcome back the old republicans who then will rule the US for the next 200 years.

    Thirdly, Mr Senator, you truly are the world’s greatest pie eater!

  207. 207.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 6:54 pm

    In January 2001, not a soul would have said Bush was inheriting a falling stock market, because he wasn’t.

    This is a stunningly ignorant statement made by Steve. It reveals a level of ignorance I have not seem from him before. To the point where I now believe he may be a fraud in claiming to be a New York lawyer dealing in lawsuits involving stock market losses.

    Anyone even remotely following the stock market investment community at the time, or even casual watchers of CNBC, knew there was definitely a full-on raging Bear vs. Bull debate on Wall St. during the runup to Bush’s swearing into office. To claim “not a soul” would have said in January 2001 that Bush was inheriting a falling stockmarket is breathtaking in its ignorance… even more so from someone who claims to be a New York lawyer involved with Wall Street lawsuits.

  208. 208.

    Lex

    October 6, 2006 at 6:56 pm

    He still has to vilify Malkin and denounce Pajamas Media before he gets the dragon and tiger marks on his forearms.

    And that’ll be tough: Malkin actually had a piece earlier this week, denouncing the outing of one of the House pages pursued by Mark Foley, that I think most rational people (and, yes, I realize this statement signals the onset of the Apocalypse) would actually agree with.

    Bravo, John.

  209. 209.

    ThymeZone

    October 6, 2006 at 6:56 pm

    To claim “not a soul” would have said in January 2001 that Bush was inheriting a falling stockmarket

    Hmm. Do we have some references from early 2001 to the effect that Bush was inheriting a “falling stock market?”

  210. 210.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 6:56 pm

    Notice how I continue offering new facts and arguments

    Without acknowledging how wrong you were in your earlier assertions. And not just on some outlying peripheral issue, but at the core of what we were discussing. You stated that I was “flatly” wrong to assert Bush inherited a falling stock market, when it’s well established that the bear market started in 2000.

  211. 211.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 7:16 pm

    I feel like I’m in competing in the Special Olympics here, so I’m going to try to wrap up this stock market debate idiocy, at least for me. My argument is in pictoral form, and it consists only of raw data. Feel free to try to refute it in kind, or at the least with facts.

  212. 212.

    ThymeZone

    October 6, 2006 at 7:22 pm

    You stated that I was “flatly” wrong to assert Bush inherited a falling stock market

    If you are wrong, can we call you “Flat Darrell” from now on?

  213. 213.

    HyperIon

    October 6, 2006 at 7:35 pm

    Because otherwise she would have been killed.

    Funny. Juan Cole, commenting on Rice’s visit, said today:

    otherwise she would be killed

    Great minds, right?

  214. 214.

    Steve

    October 6, 2006 at 7:38 pm

    This is a stunningly ignorant statement made by Steve. It reveals a level of ignorance I have not seem from him before. To the point where I now believe he may be a fraud in claiming to be a New York lawyer dealing in lawsuits involving stock market losses.

    That’s probably the case. It couldn’t possibly be that you’re wrong about anything, cause of course, that never happens. I must just be making up a sexy background to get all the chicks.

  215. 215.

    dirk

    October 6, 2006 at 7:43 pm

    Why does anyone speak to this wanker? You know the result.

    John Cole writes his best post since the shame of his second Bush vote caused him to start to phoning it in, and an entire thread ends up ‘discussing’ one drone’s warped excuses for this:

    Well- the stock market is at record levels, I guess. Which is great, if you put aside the fact that the market is now just a little bit higher than what it was over half a decade ago. I would suggest private investors might be looking for another broker with this kind of performance.

    You must enjoy it, and therefore deserve the blame.

  216. 216.

    John S.

    October 6, 2006 at 7:44 pm

    JohnS said the economy was “POOR” (using all caps for emphasis), and he said investors were “running for cover”. I’d say those opinions are entirely consistent with the characterization “the sky is falling!”, wouldn’t you agree?

    Shit, Darrell you can’t even keep your ‘facts’ straight when they are located on the same page as the bullshit you peddle. What I said was (in reference to a comment about safe investing in gold):

    They also tend to invest in blue chips, which is why many economists feel this spike in the DJIA is a harbinger of a POOR economy – investors are running for cover.

    I am not an economist. I don’t pretend to be. Many ECONOMISTS have said this week that the strength of the DJIA along with the continued weakness of the NASDAQ and other indices means that people are turning to safe investments. When people start making safe investments – like blue chips. That indicates they think we are heading for a downturn. I emphasized POOR because twits like you seem to think that this same rise in the DJIA is some mystical indicator of economic nirvana. But none of this means the sky is falling.

    Now fuck off.

  217. 217.

    Tsulagi

    October 6, 2006 at 7:56 pm

    I feel like I’m in competing in the Special Olympics here

    Then don’t compete. Because you know, in the Special Olympics even if you win, you’re still retarded.

    Ooo…that is so un-PC. Sorry, mom.

  218. 218.

    CaseyL

    October 6, 2006 at 8:08 pm

    Hey, anybody see Pelosi’s plan for the First 100 Hours of a Democratic majority in the House? Pretty impressive, I say.

    I particularly liked her metaphor: Drain the Swamp.

    (Me, I’d call it something a bit meaner, like “Lance the festering pustule,” but that’s why I’m not out there making googobs of money as a campaign consultant.)

  219. 219.

    ThymeZone

    October 6, 2006 at 8:45 pm

    So let me see if I understand the thrust here.

    Bush inherited such a bad economy and market that despite his heroic efforts, he couldn’t turn it around for five frigging years.

    Does that about sum it up?

  220. 220.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 9:00 pm

    Many ECONOMISTS have said this week that the strength of the DJIA along with the continued weakness of the NASDAQ and other indices means that people are turning to safe investments

    First, who are these “many” economists you refer to who say that the strength of the Dow is evidence we are in a POOR (your all-cap evidence) economy? Second, it’s demonstrably false to characterize the Nasdaq’s performance as “continued weakness”.. Complete bullshit.. The Nasdaq has increased in value from its lows a considerable percentage higher than the Dow. The Nasdaq has been, on average, a far better investment than the Dow in this year upswing in the market, which has been going on for almost 4 years now. In fact, the Naz has more than doubled off it’s Oct. 2002 lows, whereas the Dow, in contrast, is up approx. 40% from its lows.

    Is this what you meant by the “many” economists clamoring over the Nasdaq’s “continued” weakness? Pathetic argument JohnS.. seriously.

  221. 221.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 9:03 pm

    Bush inherited such a bad economy and market that despite his heroic efforts, he couldn’t turn it around for five frigging years.

    No, Bush inherited a bad economy, and in less than 9 months in office, we got hit with 9/11. Between the two, the economy and stock market were rocked, but in 13 – 15 months after 9/11, the stock market and economy started a rebound which continues to this day.

  222. 222.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 9:12 pm

    CaseyL Says:

    Hey, anybody see Pelosi’s plan for the First 100 Hours of a Democratic majority in the House?

    Instapundit has a valid observation:

    WITH DEMOCRATS REACHING OUT TO LIBERTARIANS, Arnold Kling offers a suggestion:

    What I propose is that Democrats promise to support one major libertarian experiment. In exchange for Democrats agreeing to support this experiment, libertarians would agree to vote for Democrats.

    The experiment that I have in mind is school choice. If Democrats would instead prefer an experiment with voluntary investment accounts substituting for Social Security, that is an acceptable alternative. But for now, let us work with school choice.

    I think we know how Dems would react to that offer

  223. 223.

    ThymeZone

    October 6, 2006 at 9:34 pm

    Voluntary investment accounts won’t work. You can’t draw up a funding model that works.

    School choice? I’m not opposed to it as long as there is no funding hit to public schools. If taxpayers want to pay for quality public schools and choice too, fine.

    You cannot have an egalitarian system with a funding model that costs more when you support alternatives. Why should taxpayers have to pay for the excesses of people who want “more” at the expense of people who can’t afford “more?”

    Let the people who want “more” pay for more, and leave the egalitarian systems alone. In other words, let them pay for their private schools, as they do now, if they can afford it. But they have a responsibility to the larger community, just as the rest of the taxpayers do.

  224. 224.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 9:37 pm

    I rather like Arnold Kling’s actual idea here–experimentalism–although I think it could be taken one or steps farther, perhaps to the Congressional district or county level. However, in either case, it would be nice to secure the consent of, say, several state and local legislatures and House Reps first.

  225. 225.

    Area Man

    October 6, 2006 at 9:44 pm

    Darrell: Puff with a ball of yarn.

    See Puff play. Play Puff play!

  226. 226.

    ThymeZone

    October 6, 2006 at 9:56 pm

    the stock market and economy started a rebound

    The stock market started a rebound?

    Over five years Jan 01 to Jan 06 the market had a net gain of NOTHING.

    Adjusted for inflation, a rather large loss of value represented by the DJIA.

    Five years, like I said way, way upthread. Everything you have said on this topic since, crap. Moot. Irrelevant.

    The market had lost value in five years of Bush administration. Spin it any way you want, inherited this, 911 that. Five years, net loss.

    Period.

    On base 1982 dollars, what cost $175 in 2001 cost $195 in 2006.

    The net effect of the Bush administration has been (a) job creation in the health industry, while the cost of healthcare rises and the number of people who can get it declines, (b) a decrease in real wages to the middle class, (c) a shift in corporate returns away from workers and toward ownership, (d) large tax breaks to the rich, and (e) token, negligible tax decreases to the middle class.

    This general decline in the well being of the middle class is accompanied by runaway government spending in the face of tax cuts resulting in huge increases in debt. Meanwhile the economy has been propped up with cheap credit and until recently, cheap gasoline, along with a housing bubble that provided equity-backed borrowing and more consumer spending.

    At the same time, the value of the dollar declines and American debt is propped up by Asian and other foreign capital. American military power is sapped in a useless war.

    All in all, maybe the worst five years in post-Civil-War American history, all thanks to the shitty policies and foolishness and greed of this awful administration.

    An administration that has been represented in largest part here, on these pages by ….. you.

    Nice job. Thanks for everything.

  227. 227.

    tzs

    October 6, 2006 at 10:15 pm

    John, can you please ban Darrell from particular threads? He and his responders have a history of turning the signal to noise ratio in any thread about zero. They may have fun playing “gotcha!” but for the rest of us, it’s very aggravating.

    I thought you had a great entry and would have enjoyed reading a good discussion about it.

  228. 228.

    Face

    October 6, 2006 at 10:19 pm

    Post – Darrell = ~50 responses
    Post + Darrell = ~250 responses

    Incredible. A one-man troll band. JC’s favorite pot-stirrer. Bra and Panties Media go-to guy.

    He’s the Mariano Rivera of posts. Need something saved? Bring in the Darrell.

  229. 229.

    Sam Hutcheson

    October 6, 2006 at 10:45 pm

    Welcome to the Dark Side, John. We used to call it “the center.” Seriously, great post.

  230. 230.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 11:10 pm

    tzs Says:

    John, can you please ban Darrell from particular threads?

    Translation: “I don’t have anything meaningful to contribute, but I want you to ban points of view which conflict with my own narrow views, as I feel so comfortable in my ignorant leftist cocoon”

  231. 231.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 11:29 pm

    I must just be making up a sexy background to get all the chicks.

    “Steve”, if that’s even your name, ANYONE following the market at that time, even occassional listeners to CNBC or Louis Ruykheiser (sp?), knew full well that there was a huge debate at that time (in the months and weeks preceding Bush’s swearing in) as to whether or not we were in a bear market. That you claim “not a soul” believed Bush inherited a falling stock market, reveals a serious disconnect from reality, or that you are a compulsive liar. You can’t credibly claim you were involved in Wall St. lawsuits in that time frame while claiming there was no hot and heavy debate over whether we were in a bear market during 2000 and January 2001. That’s why I doubt you are who you claim to be, as no one at that time who remotely followed the market would claim such a thing as you have done.

  232. 232.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 11:38 pm

    More pie, please!

  233. 233.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 11:38 pm

    The net effect of the Bush administration has been (a) job creation in the health industry, while the cost of healthcare rises and the number of people who can get it declines, (b) a decrease in real wages to the middle class

    I’m sure all those newly employed nurses and other hospital employes agree with your warped views. Wages have increased markedly over the past few years, even accounting for inflation. But please feel free to repeat your ignorant leftist talking points to those who don’t know better.

  234. 234.

    Steve

    October 6, 2006 at 11:48 pm

    “Steve”, if that’s even your name, ANYONE following the market at that time, even occassional listeners to CNBC or Louis Ruykheiser (sp?), knew full well that there was a huge debate at that time (in the months and weeks preceding Bush’s swearing in) as to whether or not we were in a bear market.

    Of course there was such a debate.

    That you claim “not a soul” believed Bush inherited a falling stock market, reveals a serious disconnect from reality, or that you are a compulsive liar.

    It’s just that you’re talking about two completely different things. Your statement is based on nothing but hindsight, I’ve wasted far too much of this thread saying so, and I’m not going to say it again.

    The market was going up in January 2001. This is a simple, simple, simple fact that can be established by looking at any stock chart.

  235. 235.

    Pb

    October 6, 2006 at 11:56 pm

    Steve,

    Of course, I provided several stock charts, as have others. Incidentally, what was your opinion on the Dow in the last year of Bush I’s term vs. the Dow in the last year of Clinton’s term? (that was also one of the charts I provided–in fact, I made that one myself…)

  236. 236.

    ThymeZone

    October 7, 2006 at 12:12 am

    Wages have increased markedly over the past few years, even accounting for inflation.

    Why they let you post here, I have no idea whatever.

    Real wages are DOWN.

    That situation is adding to fears among Republicans that the economy will hurt vulnerable incumbents in this year’s midterm elections even though overall growth has been healthy for much of the last five years.

    The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in inflation. The drop has been especially notable, economists say, because productivity — the amount that an average worker produces in an hour and the basic wellspring of a nation’s living standards — has risen steadily over the same period.

    As a result, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960’s. UBS, the investment bank, recently described the current period as “the golden era of profitability.”

    Family incomes fall

    Average family incomes fell in the USA from 2001 to 2004, pulled down by a sluggish recovery from the downturn and the sharp stock market drop, the Federal Reserve said Thursday. The decline — the first since 1989-92 — was accompanied by the smallest increase in net worth in that period.

    In its comprehensive Survey of Consumer Finances, released every three years, the Fed said the median net worth of the bottom 40% of families declined, while those at the top saw gains. The percentage of families investing in stocks fell 3.3 percentage points to 48.6% from 2001 to 2004, a level last reached some time between the 1995 and 1998 surveys.

    Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Economy.com, says job growth and incomes have been picking up since the survey period. But the report provides more troubling evidence of a rising gap in wealth in the USA.

    “The household balance sheet is in good shape, better shape today … but it’s not improved for everybody. It’s improved for the people in the top distribution of income and wealth,” he says.

    From 2001 to 2004, average family income fell 2.3%, to an inflation-adjusted $70,700 from $72,400 in the 1998-2001 period. By contrast, from 1998 to 2001, average income jumped 17.3%. Median income — the midpoint of the income range — rose 1.6% to $43,200.

    Fed economists said the figures were “strongly influenced” by a more-than-6% drop in median real wages during the period.

    Give it up, Darrell.

  237. 237.

    Beej

    October 7, 2006 at 12:58 am

    Didja ever notice that in threads where Darrell is ignored there is often some interesting and stimulating comment and consideration of ideas, but in threads where Darrell manages to suck someone into a totally pointless discussion it all gets f***ked pretty quickly? Oh well, nite all.

  238. 238.

    Andrew

    October 7, 2006 at 1:05 am

    But all of Darrell’s friends have jobs.

  239. 239.

    Pb

    October 7, 2006 at 1:08 am

    But all of Darrell’s friends have jobs.

    …and everyone else works at Starbucks–so the economy is *great*!

  240. 240.

    Jess

    October 7, 2006 at 1:40 am

    Incredible. A one-man troll band. JC’s favorite pot-stirrer. Bra and Panties Media go-to guy.

    He’s the Mariano Rivera of posts. Need something saved? Bring in the Darrell

    Darrell is as responsible for the queered thread as those naughty prank-playing pages were for Foley getting all hot’n’bothered; it’s the people RESPONDING to him that cause the problem. Obviously, they have every right to do so, but then they should just admit that they are the major part of the dynamic, and stop calling for Darrell to be banned or slapped down because they just can’t help themselves from gettting into it with him. He’s just that sexy.

    And Darrell, this is the one and only time I am going to break my own rules and respond to you: regarding your insistence that you’re arguing in good faith, if this is so, then may I suggest that you quit accusing your opponents of bad faith–they disagree with you because they think the evidence supports their position, not because they are evil or dishonest. The reason people bash on you is because you go into this like it’s an epic struggle between good and evil, or truth and lies, or some such BS. It’s not; it’s a discussion. We are all right about some things and hopelessly ignorant about others. Even you. Deal with it.

  241. 241.

    Pb

    October 7, 2006 at 1:57 am

    Oh yeah, that must be it, Jess. You know, as you can see above, I was perfectly willing to talk about other things and ignore / ridicule Darrell until he started outright lying about even the numerical facts. Still, even that wore off after a while, and I was just getting back into ignoring / ridiculing him again when…

    John Cole of all people popped up to claim that Darrell was lying and slandering us all in good faith, and therefore we should play nice-nice with him and just bend over and take it. Well fuck that, I say. First, how the hell could John Cole know this? Did he see inside Darrell’s soul, or is he posting as Darrell?

    Well, I don’t buy it at all. Darrell, he’s a scourge on this blog, he’s proven time and again to be a dishonest lying flame-baiting useless waste of electrons. He’s never been acting in good faith here, although he might always have been acting. That’s it, John. Darrell has been pissing on these threads for far too long, and who do you blame? The rest of us who might actually be able to have a goddamned productive discussion without him around.

    Well I’ll tell you what, John. If you think he’s acting in good faith, then you fucking talk to him instead. Mark my words, if you continue to sit idly by and let him have his way here, the only thing left will be you and the Darrell fan club. And by that point, you might as well just join up with the rest of the nutty far-right fever swamp side of the blogosphere.

  242. 242.

    rachel

    October 7, 2006 at 2:01 am

    John Cole: Writes a substantive post listing how the Republicans have fallen short in every promise they made.

    Posters: discuss.

    Darrell: disagrees with one of the points of information given by a poster (in which he may actually have a point).

    Other posters: Disagree with Darrell; some politely and others not.

    Nearly everybody: fap fap fap fap fap fap fappity-fap fap FAP!!!1!!eleventy-one!!

    Me: wonders if some kind of filter that would let me avoid all that wanking by and about Darrell.

    Back to John Cole’s original post: Al Gore may be wrong on a number of issues, but he strikes me as someone who’s capable of changing his mind once he knows the facts–rather like our OP, here. How can that possibly be worse than the blockheads we’ve got in office now?

  243. 243.

    Steve

    October 7, 2006 at 2:13 am

    John was a Kool-Aid drinker in 2000 and 2004, during which the troops were brainwashed into hating Gore and Kerry like they were the worst enemies of humanity to ever live.

    John may have realized the truth about the clowns he voted for, but he’s never going to overcome that visceral reaction to the guys he voted against. The propaganda machine is too strong.

  244. 244.

    Pb

    October 7, 2006 at 2:28 am

    rachel,

    Early on, where I linked to the first 2000 Bush-Gore debate. I wasn’t a Gore fan back then, but now–with the benefit of hindsight–I know that Gore was right. At least Gore was telling me the truth about Bush, and what he’d really do to the country back then. Bush didn’t tell me the truth about anything. Of course, at the time I figured that neither one of them could mess things up too badly, really. Oh how wrong I was.

    Another excerpt, this time of Gore:

    The governor used the phrase phony numbers, but if you look at the plan and add the numbers up, these numbers are correct. He spends more money for tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% than all of his new spending proposals for health care, prescription drug, education and national defense all combined. I agree that the surplus is the American people’s money, it’s your money. That’s why I don’t think we should give nearly half of it to the wealthiest 1%, because the other 99% have had an awful lot to do with building the surplus in our prosperity.
    […]
    95% of all seniors would get no help whatsoever under my opponent’s plan for the first four or five years. Now, one thing I don’t understand, Jim, is why is it that the wealthiest 1% get their tax cuts the first year, but 95% of seniors have to wait four to five years before they get a single penny?

    Bush couldn’t tell the truth about Bush or Gore, but Gore told the truth about Bush, despite Bush’s denials at the time. Unfortunately it took us years and years to find out how much Bush was lying about what he really planned to do in office.

  245. 245.

    Jess

    October 7, 2006 at 3:27 am

    we should play nice-nice with him and just bend over and take it.

    Take WHAT? People say all kinds of silly shit–you don’t have respond to each and every one of them. There are 6 billion of them and only one of you–who do you think is going to get worn down first? Save yourself for the battles that might actually be productive.

    I guess this may be something that women learn sooner than men, because they have to put up with all kinds of crass comments on the street–after a while you realize that it really doesn’t have anything to do with you, so you get your ego out of the equation and get on with your life. As a teacher I’m having to confront the lesson all over again with students who pay tons of money for their education and then refuse to learn. Darrell is the same way–he gets his gratification from refusing to change his mind when people try to clue him into the limitations (to put it kindly) of his position; it gives him a childish sense of power, like holding his breath until his face turns blue. Why play along? If you really want to be cruel then just ignore him.

  246. 246.

    Pb

    October 7, 2006 at 3:34 am

    Jess,

    I do not suffer fools, or liars, kindly–and I doubt that gender would change that personality trait much if at all in my case, but who knows. After a certain point it does become rather pointless, however. But John Cole’s enormous blind spot here is somewhat inexplicable and aggravating. If I spent all my time calling *him* dishonest, I don’t think he’d believe that I was acting in good faith. But apparently when Darrell calls *everyone else* dishonest, he’s a fucking saint? Tell me another one.

  247. 247.

    tzs

    October 7, 2006 at 10:34 am

    Considering Darrell’s response to my request to John, yup, he’s a troll. Particularly effective, I would say, considering the constant derailing of the threads we have seen.

    John, I will not be commenting at (or visiting) Balloon Juice until you clean up the environment.

  248. 248.

    ThymeZone

    October 7, 2006 at 12:06 pm

    John, I will not be commenting at (or visiting) Balloon Juice until you clean up the environment.

    tzs, if you do that, the Darrellists win.

    Seriously, don’t let Darrell run you off.

  249. 249.

    The Other Steve

    October 7, 2006 at 12:44 pm

    The problem with Darrell is that he discredits the right. Respectful conservative commentators cannot post here because they will get caught up in the Darrell troll fest to the point where everybody assumes that they are just like Darrell. As such, they become disgusted and leave.

    While I am happy to see the right portrayed by whackadoodles, it does lesson the quality of the debate here.

  250. 250.

    ThymeZone

    October 7, 2006 at 1:44 pm

    John may have realized the truth about the clowns he voted for, but he’s never going to overcome that visceral reaction to the guys he voted against. The propaganda machine is too strong.

    I dunno, Steve-O. Mostly John is a stand-up guy, and I think he has been betrayed by these idiots to the extent that the old librul-hatin’ feelings are being replaced with Lyin’ GOP hatin’. If quality conservatism comes back, maybe he’ll go back, but quality conservatism has been beaten to within an inch of its life in the last ten years. First Gingrich, and now these clowns.

  251. 251.

    tBone

    October 7, 2006 at 1:52 pm

    John, fantastic post. You’ve been doing great work here over the past couple of weeks; good to have you back.

    That being said, I really think you should read this thread carefully and revisit your idea of “arguing in good faith.”

  252. 252.

    Sam Hutcheson

    October 7, 2006 at 4:45 pm

    John may have realized the truth about the clowns he voted for, but he’s never going to overcome that visceral reaction to the guys he voted against. The propaganda machine is too strong.

    Jesus, Steve. What sort of ideological purity do you demand? John has been fighting publicly with his political consciousness for the last three years. Yes, he voted Republican in 2000 and 2004. Guess what? He’s a fucking conservative, you git. Many conservatives voted for the nominally conservative party. Sure, some of us warned of authoritarian overtones and culsterfuckery regarding foreign policy, but none of us knew completely the extent to which the Republicans would devolve. Anyone who claims to have seen everything coming with perfect clarity is lying to both the world and themselves. Sure, I think John and center-right conservatives should have jumped ship in 04, but I don’t place as much political weight on being a good soldier in times of war as most people, like John, who are center right. That’s why I’m center left.

    Regardless, John has _clearly_ seen the errors of his ways now. If I’m reading this post right he’s saying he will vote for the opposition and hopes other fed up conservatives who can’t bring themselves to vote D will at least do the world the favor of staying home. What the fuck more do you want? Lay off the man for Christ’s sake. Browbeating him after he’s already changed his vote, for the sake of nothing but your own pathetic sense of self-righteousness, accomplishes nothing. If anything, it will verfiy in his mind the “propaganda” points he’s apparently been brainwashed with regarding the locktrap comformity the “left” demands of people.

    Seriously, what the hell else do you want from Cole son?

    Fuck.

    s/

  253. 253.

    Pb

    October 7, 2006 at 6:11 pm

    Sam Hutcheson,

    I’ll let Steve defend himself, but I didn’t think he was demanding anything from John, but rather making an observation about him.

    Also, I’ll dispute your assertion that Republicans have been “the nominally conservative party”, because they haven’t been.

  254. 254.

    Gus

    October 7, 2006 at 10:56 pm

    You’re obviously overlooking the fact that Michael Moore is fat.

  255. 255.

    Sam Hutcheson

    October 7, 2006 at 11:48 pm

    I’ll let Steve defend himself, but I didn’t think he was demanding anything from John, but rather making an observation about him.

    If I have misread Steve’s point I welcome his clarification on the matter. Still, there seems to be a clear trope amoung some commenters to the affect that no matter what John says or does, he’ll always be Evil because, he voted Republican the last two elections. I just get fed up with people fighting last year’s battles in order to prove their own self-righteousness. The only thing that makes a damned bit of difference now is how center-right folks like John are going to vote now and in the future, and brow beating people who actually come over to the side of reality because they didn’t do it fast enough or with enough self-loathing for their past heretical ways is bloody fucking idiotic as far as I’m concerned.

    Also, I’ll dispute your assertion that Republicans have been “the nominally conservative party”, because they haven’t been.

    Look up “nominal” some time.

    s/

  256. 256.

    Sam Hutcheson

    October 7, 2006 at 11:48 pm

    I’ll let Steve defend himself, but I didn’t think he was demanding anything from John, but rather making an observation about him.

    If I have misread Steve’s point I welcome his clarification on the matter. Still, there seems to be a clear trope amoung some commenters to the affect that no matter what John says or does, he’ll always be Evil because, he voted Republican the last two elections. I just get fed up with people fighting last year’s battles in order to prove their own self-righteousness. The only thing that makes a damned bit of difference now is how center-right folks like John are going to vote now and in the future, and brow beating people who actually come over to the side of reality because they didn’t do it fast enough or with enough self-loathing for their past heretical ways is bloody fucking idiotic as far as I’m concerned.

    Also, I’ll dispute your assertion that Republicans have been “the nominally conservative party”, because they haven’t been.

    Look up “nominal” some time.

    s/

  257. 257.

    Pb

    October 8, 2006 at 12:02 am

    Sam Hutcheson,

    there seems to be a clear trope amoung some commenters to the affect that no matter what John says or does, he’ll always be Evil because, he voted Republican the last two elections.

    I agree, that’s bullshit, to the extent that anyone actually believes it. I didn’t vote in 2000, and if I could have voted for Nader, I would have. I’m sure there are still some idiots out there who would crucify me for that–screw them.

    Look up “nominal” some time.

    I know what the word means, asshole.

  258. 258.

    Sam Hutcheson

    October 8, 2006 at 12:23 am

    I know what the word means, asshole.

    Then why did you call out my usage of it? The Republicans have been the nominal conservative party. That is, they have been the “conservative” party _in name only._

    s/

  259. 259.

    Pb

    October 8, 2006 at 1:05 am

    The Republicans have been the nominal conservative party. That is, they have been the “conservative” party in name only.

    My apologies, I incorrectly assumed that you were using the word in another sense–as in “barely conservative”. Indeed, the only thing left of their previous record is their ‘brand name’, as it were.

  260. 260.

    ThymeZone

    October 8, 2006 at 9:36 am

    Still, there seems to be a clear trope amoung some commenters to the affect that no matter what John says or does, he’ll always be Evil because, he voted Republican the last two elections.

    Really? Can you name the commenters who qualify for that comment, and point out the comment(s) that meet that standard?

  261. 261.

    ThymeZone

    October 8, 2006 at 12:42 pm

    Look, a scary jackalope!

  262. 262.

    Psyberian

    October 10, 2006 at 6:40 pm

    Great post John. The pervert behind the curtain finally makes an appearance – and he ain’t pretty! The signs were there all along the way… The Right Wing is the Tin Man, but with a bad attitude and proud of it.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. Sam Wilkinson is… Smash! Sam Smash! » John Cole Goes Bananas says:
    October 6, 2006 at 7:53 pm

    […] What a post. I can’t write it any better than him, so I won’t even bother trying. His link is now permanently available. […]

  2. Converts at Faux Real Tho! says:
    October 6, 2006 at 9:56 pm

    […] GOP as Fred Garvin […]

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - lashonharangue - Along the Zambezi River [2 of 2] 8
Image by lashonharangue (7/8/25)

World Central Kitchen

Donate

Recent Comments

  • Ruckus on Sharing Is Caring Open Thread: Calls to Action (Jul 9, 2025 @ 1:54am)
  • Sister Inspired Revolver of Freedom on War for Ukraine Day 1,230: Another Early Morning Under Ukraine Wide Air Raid Alerts (Jul 9, 2025 @ 1:47am)
  • prostratedragon on Wisconsin Is A Reminder of Why We Should Never Give up (Jul 9, 2025 @ 1:45am)
  • prostratedragon on Wisconsin Is A Reminder of Why We Should Never Give up (Jul 9, 2025 @ 1:33am)
  • Msb on We Should All Be So Lucky (Jul 9, 2025 @ 1:31am)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
No Kings Protests June 14 2025

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Feeling Defeated?  If We Give Up, It's Game Over

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!