Originally Posted by The Wonk

Hummm.... Interesting. We now...zzzzzz... return you...zzzzzz... to you regularly scheduled... zzzzzzz... nothing. :wink:
I wonder what is going on with the blog at http://lifecourse.biz/generations/ ? Have they abandoned it or were they waiting for election results?

Actually, you should be blaming me for that. There was a problem for which I found the fix late last week, but I have been working on a Congressional campaign and thus haven't had the chance to implement it yet.

Between gulps of caffeine, and figuring out what is happening at my day job, I will get that fix implemented and get that blog running again.

My best,

-- Craig

Hey, Craig! If ya get the chance, let Messers Strauss and Howe know that it's ok if they'd like to post at their own website, too.

Really! www.fourthturning.com :wink:

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by The Wonk

What do all the people who complained about Wellstone's memorial service being turned into a political rally think about the current "Campaigner in Chief" putting ole Clinton to shame with his intense recent political campaigning? On our tax dollars?

He hasn't even come close to matching Clinton, Jenny.

I should clarify, I'm talking about more than just the number of stops he's made for a given election cycle, or the like. Bush did indeed outdo Clinton's numbers in that way.

I have to know - just what criteria are you using? I'd say that Bush has set new standards in politicizing the office - all out of proportion to anything done in the past. In this day and age, he managed to run a successful Presidntial campaign without relying on matching funds. Why? Because he could!

Can you point to any other candidate so endowed? ... or cynical?

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Hey, Craig! If ya get the chance, let Messers Strauss and Howe know that it's ok if they'd like to post at their own website, too.

Really! www.fourthturning.com :wink:

I second this.

[/quote]

I have to know - just what criteria are you using? I'd say that Bush has set new standards in politicizing the office - all out of proportion to anything done in the past. In this day and age, he managed to run a successful Presidntial campaign without relying on matching funds. Why? Because he could!

Can you point to any other candidate so endowed? ... or cynical?[/quote]

Just like Lincoln cynically got every photographer he could to take his picture. Like TR barnstormed around the country giving speeches when politicians were supposed to be gentlemen and stay in DC. Like FDR cynically used that new radio thing to go over the heads of the newspapers. Like JFK cynically kept holding televised press conferences. Like Clinton cynically went on MTV and Imus to reach the voters. W reached the voters...he politicized the office just like these other presidents.

This election was most unsatisfactory (even ignoring the results). I had wanted so much to vote against the GOP candidate running for state senator because I did not like his commercials. Then last Sunday he took out a full page ad in the paper where he accused his Democratic opponent of running an ad that was beyond the pale. I hadn't seen it but it was troubling. My wife had seen it on Friday and it was on tape so I saw the tape. We played it twice. It was beyond the pale so neither of us voted for either candiate for state senate.

It then occurred to me that if I am voting purely based on how annoying a candidates ads are, what does this say about the process? I did vote on the referenda and thus feel like I did express my views there. But voting for/against the actual candidates left an empty feeling.

The national elections were going to be more interesting. I actually gave a small amount of money to several senator campaigns. They all lost. The Democrats should have done well (and in 2000). I'll bet that when the dust settles it will turn out that the national democrats sabotaged their chances with that Wellstone rally just as that state senator lost my wife's and my votes by his over-the-top ad.

But when I think about it, none of the Democrats articulate any of my views on issues. In fact they don't articulate any positions at all. The GOP actually does a better job of communicating its vision, which I find vaguely immoral. So usually I vote against them. As far as I can tell the only thing the Democrats stand for is getting elected, and as last night shows, they can't even do that. So why should I vote for them?

At least I know what I'll get with the GOP. And since they won lets go over what it will mean.

There is a substantial risk that more accounting at top companies is bad. A thorough investigation by a hostile SEC would reveal this with very likely delterious effects on the major stock indices. A less thorough investigation would likely give corporate books a clean bill of health. The second scenario is far more bullish. I believe it is far more likely with a GOP-controlled government than without.

Score this a positive.

The GOP plans to eliminate double taxation of dividends. However the way they want to do it is at the corporate level rather than the individual level. This means investors still pay taxes on dividend income, while corporations get another tax break allowing them to arrange to give more compensation to insiders. Primary effect, a slightly bigger deficit and slightly richer corporate insiders. A secondary effect comes from the method that will be used (stock options) which will require a rising market to employ. This is good for me.

Score this a positive, although I would prefer the tax deduction myself.

The GOP has talked about raising the $3000 limit of capital losses to a larger figure. If they raise it to 10K I will vote for the GOP. If they raise it to >25 I will donate money to them.

It is very unlikely they will do this. If they did it would be very, very good for me.

The US will likely invade Iraq and occupy the country. If it goes well it could mean $10 oil and I can buy drillers.

This might be good for me if it goes well. It is probably bad for me if it goes poorly.

Estate tax will be done away with permanently.

This is such an unwise policy, sigh, but it will make estate planning easier for my wife and I. So I'll give it a neutral.

What else might the GOP do? I can't think of anything else right now.

Overall its neutral to good as far as my self interest goes. Now let's see if they can deliver!

Originally Posted by monoghan

Originally Posted by David '47

I have to know - just what criteria are you using? I'd say that Bush has set new standards in politicizing the office - all out of proportion to anything done in the past. In this day and age, he managed to run a successful Presidntial campaign without relying on matching funds. Why? Because he could!

Can you point to any other candidate so endowed? ... or cynical?

Just like Lincoln cynically got every photographer he could to take his picture. Like TR barnstormed around the country giving speeches when politicians were supposed to be gentlemen and stay in DC. Like FDR cynically used that new radio thing to go over the heads of the newspapers. Like JFK cynically kept holding televised press conferences. Like Clinton cynically went on MTV and Imus to reach the voters. W reached the voters...he politicized the office just like these other presidents.

Agreed. Which still brings me to the issue - why is it Republican dogma that Clinton is the AntiChrist because he acted so political, yet Bush gets a handwave. Republicans even take umbrage at the press for criticizing Bush in any way.

I don't care for Clinton, and I dislike Bush immensely. I find them both repugnant. This isn't a defense of Clinton, just a reasonable question of standards. Scum are scum, if that's what you consider crass politicians to be. If you're being fair, you don't get to exempt one while bashing the other.

David,

From my perspective, Clinton is the Candidate from Robert Redford's movie of the same name. He wasted 8 years of his life and the country's. Clinton's policies were all about him. Clinton has destroyed everyone that has gotten close to him (not the Arkancide list, but how do andrew cuomo and McCall feel today). Clinton sought poll ratings for its own value and not for the ends which political capital could have achieved.

I do not regard Bush as having these defects. Bush will expend political capital for something he believes in (Iraq, daily campaigning) even though there is risk for him. Clinton always avoided the risk.

That's me. Lots of people hate Clinton because he was such a damned fine ruthless politician. He would say anything to win the crowd or win the point, and was reckless about consequences since he felt he could get out of any jam. I think that lots of folks hated that. But I respected his Imus show appearances and MTV. That was in the tradition of effective presidential communicators.

If not for a pesky constitutional amendment, Clinton would be president today. Think of 9-11. Then think of all the warning signs he swept under the rug and what the next one would be like if the bin ladens of the world thought that we were a house of cards.

I think that we dodged a big one.

Originally Posted by monoghan

David,

From my perspective, Clinton is the Candidate from Robert Redford's movie of the same name. He wasted 8 years of his life and the country's. Clinton's policies were all about him. Clinton has destroyed everyone that has gotten close to him (not the Arkancide list, but how do andrew cuomo and McCall feel today). Clinton sought poll ratings for its own value and not for the ends which political capital could have achieved.

I do not regard Bush as having these defects. Bush will expend political capital for something he believes in (Iraq, daily campaigning) even though there is risk for him. Clinton always avoided the risk.

That's me. Lots of people hate Clinton because he was such a damned fine ruthless politician. He would say anything to win the crowd or win the point, and was reckless about consequences since he felt he could get out of any jam. I think that lots of folks hated that. But I respected his Imus show appearances and MTV. That was in the tradition of effective presidential communicators.

If not for a pesky constitutional amendment, Clinton would be president today. Think of 9-11. Then think of all the warning signs he swept under the rug and what the next one would be like if the bin ladens of the world thought that we were a house of cards.

I think that we dodged a big one.

Maybe. Then again, perhaps not. I'm inclined to believe that Clinton would have pursued the invasion of Afghanistan far more ruthlessly than GWB has. Who knows-- he might have even delivered Osama Bin Laden's head on a silver platter, rather than having to resort to getting Saddam as a cheap substitute.

Why do I believe this? First, Clinton always wanted to be a Fourth Turning President; scandals not withstanding, he was supremely concerned with securing his place in history. Daisy-cuttering (or even nuking) the entire Afghan nation right off the friggin' globe -- a week, rather than a month after 911 -- would have assured him that place, if nothing else. Secondly, Clinton would have had to respond to 911 in as quickly and ruthlessly a manner as possible to secure that legacy. For with the slightest delay on his part, the Republicans, true-to-form, would have declared him "soft on terrorism". And the gullible American people would, of course, have believed them.

monoghan,

I never argued that Clinton and Bush were the same, just equally but differently flawed.

Clinton's primary flaw was and is a sincere belief that EVERYTHING is fungible. If you maintain your stock of favors and good will, you can buy-down scandals or buy-off renigades. This is not at all surprising, since Clinton had enemies from his earliest days in Arkansas. He learned to survive - no matter what. Smarmy and sleezy - no doubt about it!

Now Bush is another matter altogether. Here is the prodigal son of a powerful family. No action by GWB impacted him in a negative way. His future was always bright; always guaranteed. With that attitude, there's no risk in taking chances - at least none for GWB. After all, someone will clean-up if things go bad. That flaw isn't smarmy, it's DANGEROUS.

Of the two, I'll have to take Mr. Saxaphone over Mr. Silver-Spoon. It's safer ... for ME ... for MINE.

Originally Posted by David '47

Now Bush is another matter altogether. Here is the prodigal son of a powerful family. No action by GWB impacted him in a negative way. His future was always bright; always guaranteed. With that attitude, there's no risk in taking chances - at least none for GWB. After all, someone will clean-up if things go bad. That flaw isn't smarmy, it's DANGEROUS.

Of the two, I'll have to take Mr. Saxaphone over Mr. Silver-Spoon. It's safer ... for ME ... for MINE.

And I say that this is exactly what is getting the left in a lot of trouble. Bush 41 did not "bail out" Jr. during his DUI ordeal, just as Jeb did not bail out his own daughter in her drug conviction. The Bush family is a tough-love family, from generation to generation.

But the left cannot understand this at all. They just aren't capable of it. A guy like Clinton they'll excuse and excuse till the sun sets on the final pathetic act, but folks like the Bush family will always scare the crap out of them.

Meanwhile, riding on the wave of fear-soothing insults of "moron", dumb", and the like, they wake up one day to find that Dumbo has left them eating the dust of their own stupidity. Kinda like a self-fullfilling prophecy.

Better get over it, though, or you're soon gonna be completely outta the game. And while you're at it, "you might want to put something on that lip, it's lookin' kinda bad." :wink:

What was it that Senator Mc Cain quoted Attorney General Ashcroft as saying? Something to the effect that "this country won't be safe until all citizens are fearful of going to jail?"

Mr. lamb:
Could you help me find that quote? Or the article that was posted? I would appreciate your help.

The quote?
No problem, just go here.

Call it, an excersise in "tough-love". 8)

Dear Mr. Lamb, was your career as a political rent-boy successful? Did your Democrat client make it through the night? Do advise.

Nah, Mike Shoemaker got caught in the massive GOP tide that finally ripped into this heavily Democrat county, last night. He was on the major hit list, and he got hit early and often to the tune of about one million. Not a bad sum to spend for a state senator job, huh? After twenty years of moonlighting in politics, Mike will now just concentrate on hitting metal nails on the head. :wink:

I did a lot of work for a county commissioner challenger, too. He lost to a female incumbent (one of the few Dems to win) who promised to "celebrate our diversity" if elected.

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

Like others here, I kept looking for third party candidates on my ballot too. Problem is that I couldn't find many. So I ended up voting for some Republicans and some Democrats.


XoE

We had independents in the Virginia Senatorial contest. The Republican incumbent was Senator John Warner, who is generally considered moderate. There was no Democratic opponent. There was a Libertarian candidate and a LaRouche candidate.

This scenario has happened before. I abstained from that particular race, and completed the rest of the ballot. If there had been a Green candidate, I could have voted for someone for Senator. Sigh.

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

And I'm very, very pleased that Jim Doyle will be the new governor of the state of Wisconsin.

Here's how skewed politics are up near River Falls: More people this morning at school were asking who won the Minnesota races. No one really cares who wins the governor's race, except of course for some of the teachers. It's strange, some of the teachers purposely try to not get political at all (usually math teachers, and non-biology science teachers), while it is very obvious how others are (Social Science teachers, biology teachers). They don't even try to hide their politics.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Zogby claims this is strictly a "values" election, and that the values Americans care most about are expressed by Clinton and the Democrats.

Former President Clinton laughs with former Vice President Walter Mondale
and his wife Joan Mondale as they enter a public memorial service
Tuesday, Oct. 29 2002 in Minneapolis for Sen. Paul Wellstone, his wife
and the three staff members who died Oct. 25, in a plane crash in Eveleth, Minn.





?I?ve been in this job for a long time,
but this is the worst night I have had.?
--Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle




Quite the contrast, huh? When I posted the first photo, I opined, "Seems the American people have really wierd "values" these days..."

Perhaps not. Perhaps, if these people would have chosen to then mourn, instead of laughing and cheering, they would now be laughing and cheering instead of now mourning. :wink:

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

Maybe the national Democratic party should ask the Illinois dems for some lessons in campaigning. We elected a Democratic Gov, Attorney General, and State Senate by fairly wide margins, after years of being dominated by Republicans.

XoE

Keep in mind that the most important single factor in the Democrats' success in Illinois was their secret weapon, Governor George Ryan. Without him, odds are the GOP would have done OK in llinois.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Zogby claims this is strictly a "values" election, and that the values Americans care most about are expressed by Clinton and the Democrats.

Former President Clinton laughs with former Vice President Walter Mondale
and his wife Joan Mondale as they enter a public memorial service
Tuesday, Oct. 29 2002 in Minneapolis for Sen. Paul Wellstone, his wife
and the three staff members who died Oct. 25, in a plane crash in Eveleth, Minn.





?I?ve been in this job for a long time,
but this is the worst night I have had.?
--Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle




Quite the contrast, huh? When I posted the first photo, I opined, "Seems the American people have really wierd "values" these days..."

Perhaps not. Perhaps, if these people would have chosen to then mourn, instead of laughing and cheering, they would now be laughing and cheering instead of now mourning. :wink:

In fairness to Daschle, I read part of the transcript of the interview that went with the picture. If the man had been as reasonable and up-front with the situation before the election as he was in the interview, he might still have been the Majority Leader in the next term.

I am in no mood to gloat, I suspect Daschle is telling the unvarnished truth (for once) when he says he's just had the worst night of his life. He probably feels as if he was run through a wringer, and if I know the libs, the worst is yet to come for him.

A former president I shall refrain from naming is going to be looking for a scapegoat to dump the blame away from himself, after all...

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

“I’ve been in this job for a long time,
but this is the worst night I have had.”
--Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle

Former? Outgoing, sure. But former?


Anyway, has anyone bothered to figure out that 3T/4T scoring chart posted a couple of pages back? I started, but I didn't want to look up the generations of all of the people involved. Anyway, it seemed sort of 4T to me, but I don't know. If the GOP does well in '04, including the presidency, than we could have Republican leadership into the 4T, as opposed to the Democrats last time around. I think the difference is in the nature of the individual crisis. Last time it was the economy, triggered from within (mostly), and Hoover's lack of any attempt to combat it. This time, it is terrorism, triggered from outside (mostly), and Bush's historically high approval ratings, currently at 63%. 1930 was a strong election for the Dems since the GOP had no real vision for fixing the economy, at least nothing significant, and the GOP was focusing on the wrong issues. 2002 is a strong election for the GOP since the Dems have no real vision for combating terrorism, at least nothing significant, and the Dems are focusing on the Economy instead (which is not the main issue this time around). However, the dems did better in 1930 than the GOP did this year.

Originally Posted by David '47

monoghan,

Now Bush is another matter altogether. Here is the prodigal son of a powerful family. No action by GWB impacted him in a negative way. His future was always bright; always guaranteed. With that attitude, there's no risk in taking chances - at least none for GWB. After all, someone will clean-up if things go bad. That flaw isn't smarmy, it's DANGEROUS.

If S&H are correct in their basic theory, you just described a particularly extreme case of the basic Idealist/Prophet Generational archetype.

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

And I'm very, very pleased that Jim Doyle will be the new governor of the state of Wisconsin.

Here's how skewed politics are up near River Falls: More people this morning at school were asking who won the Minnesota races. No one really cares who wins the governor's race, except of course for some of the teachers. It's strange, some of the teachers purposely try to not get political at all (usually math teachers, and non-biology science teachers), while it is very obvious how others are (Social Science teachers, biology teachers). They don't even try to hide their politics.

That's not unique to high schools or local schools. Compare the hard science faculty to the 'soft' science faculty at a university, and see what you get.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

I did a lot of work for a county commissioner challenger, too. He lost to a female incumbent (one of the few Dems to win) who promised to "celebrate our diversity" if elected.

Well, there's the 3T for you.

Along the same vein, I saw on the news today that Berkeley, in its own unique 3T way, also voted this election to make it illegal to serve non-organic kinds of coffee. So they now have this complicated law on what coffees you can and can't serve. I'd worry about my favorite Starbuckses being safe from severe alteration if I lived there!

Originally Posted by monoghan

Here's a few observations.

1. The Clintonistas lost BIG! Jeb was targeted. He won big. All the former Clinton aides except Richardson lost. McCall lost big. BJ campaigned for Townsend in Md and lost big. And Katherine Harris won. Not the end of the Clinton era, that will come in 2004 when Hillary loses 47 states.

You can't count on that.

2. Long knives come out for the Dems. As I noted on the vote on the Iraq resolution, the party is split down the middle. The left will have its revenge on the center for this debacle and the party will move to the left. (For you Kucinich fans, he appears to be abandoning his pro-life stance...must be the siren call of the national Dems.)

Even now, as Gephardt announces that he won't be running for the minority leadership in the House next term, the betting is on Nancy Pelosi to take his place. She's more liberal than he is, in fact, she's one of the more liberal members of the Democratic caucus. It's quite possible that the Dems may be coming to the conclusion that they'd have won if they'd only been more liberal.

That's what they thought in 1980, 1984, and 1988, too.

4. Did anyone listen to the Republican acceptance speeches last night? There was no gloating. Even that Foghorn Leghorn new governor in Georgia thanked his opponent and asked for unity to solve the problems, and told the voters to hold him accountable if he did not. This is not the Republican party that the Democrats have been used to running against.

That's true. Bush the Younger has learned from his father's tactical errors (at least some of them), and studied Bill Clinton's techniques as well. The GOP didn't fall into the various traps the Dems set for them this time, they way they did in previous years. I have come to suspect that the Dems themselves fell into a BIG trap Bush laid for them, regarding the labor rights of the Homeland Security agency, though.

7. How long is the line at the White House this morning for retiring Justices from the Supreme Court?

Bush had better pray that NOBODY on the SCOTUS retires or dies anytime soon. It takes a majority in the Senate to confirm a new SCOTUS justice, and the GOP can't swing that if even one defects, unless some Dems also defect. It's very likely that some liberal Republicans would defect in such an instance, though Bush might pull in a few conservative-leaning Democrats, especially if it looks as if his popularity with the public is holding. But all the major pressure groups and factions would be calling in markers at warp speed.

Foe ex, if a SCOTUS seat becomes vacant in the near future, Bush is going to be caught squarely between the pro-lifers, who will be expecting him to appoint a firmly pro-life candidate, and the Dems, who are going to be equally absolutist that no pro-lifer need apply. Ditto half a dozen other such contentious issues.

Whatever fragile peace might exist between the parties would likely be utterly shredded if SCOTUS seat comes open anytime soon.