Our politicians can simply call themselves conservative liberals. That ought to fix them. (Although I realize of course it will also rustle feathers of liberal liberal voters.)

But a conservative liberal could be defined in many ways. One way might be as fiscally conservative - meaning no deficits, like the neocons have brought us.

I know I'm talking kindergarden level politics here but I think sometimes it is worth stating the obvious.

Posted at September 19, 2007 3:05 PM in response to Conservative Failures Will Defeat Conservatism

It sounds like monday morning quarterbacking to me Howard. (The conspiracy theory that the concentration camps were intentionally not bombed.)

"U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum historian Peter Black's response to McGovern's argument was that had the rail lines been destroyed, the Nazis might have shot the Jews instead. He also said the government couldn't pinpoint where the gas chambers were and would have had to carpet-bomb the camp."

There were many camps as well, and resources in the war were limited. Strategic targets I'm sure were the priority in terms of winning the war which was the overall objective.

I just don't buy into the notion that the allied commanders were as evil as Hitler and the SS, which is basically what this conspiracy theory is implying.

Posted at September 18, 2007 10:25 PM in response to Wesley Clark Warns Against War with Iran

We waited way too long - years - to help out in that conflict as it was, so I think we got to the point where if the Europeans weren't going to do something about the ethnic cleansing we had no choice but to be the cop.

That war didn't cost us anywhere near the Iraq War, and we were admired for that war I think.

At the time I had befriended a guy who was on a temporary work / travel visa to the US who was from that Country, and he was absolutely devastated by the news in the paper every day, and he could not understand why the mighty US was not sending it's calvary to the rescue.

Posted at September 18, 2007 10:07 PM in response to Wesley Clark Warns Against War with Iran

Can we give the guy a break?

Controlling the Straight of Hormuz - I am sure he isn't so senile that he forgot Iraq isn't on the Straight. Saddam attempted to annex Kuwait. The obvious implication between the lines is controlling the Straight *one annexation at a time.* And let's not forget who was most likely giving fatherly advice to George Junior on foreign affairs.

This is all of course horseradish, as against international rule or not, we could have merely sent in some drones or missiles targeted on saddam, rather than invade the entire country. And the invasion was technically against international rule as well if I'm not mistaken.

Oil I'm sure was one of the biggest factors of the Dubya Administration's "strategy". I think another factor is to just run up a war tab so large that Democrats can't execute any effective domestic programs when they come into power due to a lack of funds. This allows for Democrats to be viewed as ineffective. Which of course helps keep Republicans in power.

I think the Dubya Administration wanted to execute an expensive chess match of any sort, benefiting their corporate sponsors, and the best idea they could come up with was to invade Iraq, then use Iraq as a military platform from which to allow their successor neocon administration the expensive chess match of invading Iran.

Of course the irony is we have met the enemy and he is us. The US has turned out to be more of a boogey man than Al Queda, Iran, and North Korea combined if the neocons continue to be in control.

Posted at September 17, 2007 9:25 PM in response to Dr. Greenspan's Mysterious Media Tour

Good analysis. I can tell you are well studied in the entire history of American politics, unlike myself.

However, it is my opinion that we might be better off funding the top priority big time, rather than underfunding a dozen priorities.

That is why I advocate 100 billion per year increased education budget, once the deficit is paid off of course. As I believe education is the best investment out of all those good things you have mentioned. It is the surefire way to trickle up children of poverty.

Once they have trickled up, the economy should be improved enough to fund other priorities.

Just my uneducated opinion. But I hope others will consider the logic.

Posted at September 12, 2007 5:46 PM in response to Crank Politics

Well I'm substitute teaching poor children, not a lot of blacks but a lot of hispanics and whites.

As I can tell that if the federal government were to become indebted by paying for more teachers instead of more soldiers (or wars,) the poor would trickle up into society a lot more than they are now.

20 students in a classroom compared to 30 or 40 or more, would make a huge difference, and would actually be something that allows the perpetual improvements in 3R test scores.

Private schools probably have 20 students in their classrooms. I suppose that is no coincidence.

Perhaps one reason why neocons (Paul's calling them something else in his post but I'm not learned enough to know the difference and I don't have time to find out) like wars is the alternative might be to pay for more teachers, which would indeed level the playing field.

I suppose that is what folks in the wealthy class want to avoid is the level playing field.

The voucher idea is Robinhood in Reverse as well. Because then the wealthy class not only can afford to send their children to 20 student classrooms, they get a tax break on doing so as well, which of course makes it less probable that the lower class (or minorities if you prefer) will get an improved teacher to student ratio, thereby the upper class retains their *monopoly* on quality education.

How many teachers could we hire for 100 billion? 100 billion is the annual cost of the Iraq War roughly. I estimate one million teachers employed full time funded by the federal government, including their benefits. How's that for an Iraq War opportunity cost? If there are 50 million public k-12 students in the Country (my shoot from the hip estimate,) 1 million additional public school teachers would make a huge difference. If I'm not mistaken, there's probably only 1.5 - 2 million teachers now (shooting from the hip again.)

If Democrats ever do payoff the deficit this time, like Clinton did, I think we should beat the "movement conservatives" at their own game and run up our own deficit of 100 billion on teachers. That way if they ever do gain power again (doubtful IMO, I think G. Dubya Einstein has really dug a grave large enough to drop-kick his entire movement into at this point,) they won't be able to afford another war.

And when we re-establish Robinhood tax rates, we should be able to perpetually fund the 100 billion yearly budget in teacher funds.

The difference between spending it on teachers and spending it on wars and soldiers is spending it on teachers is an investment. Once the investment pays off and the economy improves due to a better educated citizenry, theoretically the new education budget funds itself in increased tax revenues.

Posted at September 11, 2007 10:11 PM in response to Crank Politics

Perhaps it was an intentional stunt, "leaked" to The Military Times, to get Iran to piss their pants (and give up their Nuke program.)

I wouldn't bet on it, but I thought I'd mention the possibility. (Because I don't think Iran gives a crud.)

Another possibility would be if there is actionable intelligence that another al queda leader's meeting is about to take place, and they don't want to miss this time.

Posted at September 5, 2007 10:43 PM in response to Staging Nuke for Iran?

I'd say it's a 5 percent chance that we'd go to war with Iran, not 50.

The neocons have no political capital left. Our budget is in dire straights. And our economic outlook is shaky.

Although I would agree that there is a 50% chance that the *original* Iraq War strategy was to setup a staging ground / military base for getting Iran to piss their pants and back off of their nuclear program. If that was the original strategy, that strategy is now AWOL.

Posted at September 4, 2007 7:49 PM in response to What Do We Do if Bush Goes To War With Iran?

Gore showed leadership by putting his principles before anything else.

If Bush II has put his principles before anything else, his principles are out of touch with reality. What is this author writing about Dubya?

Posted at September 4, 2007 7:38 PM in response to Going After Gore?

Playing devil's advocate, I'd say Larry that the increase in casualties may be a result of the increased numbers of troops.

But I'm not saying I think Iraq is in better shape. AP: "Civilian deaths rose in August to their second-highest monthly level this year, according to figures compiled Saturday by The Associated Press. That raises questions about whether U.S. strategy is working days before Congress receives landmark reports that will decide the course of the war. "

Regarding low income schools - I am a substitute teacher in addition to having my own business, and I have worked in low income schools, and there would be a huge different I can tell if we were able to reduce the number of students in the low income classrooms. When you get quite a bit higher than 20, it becomes harder to maintain order. The less order, the less learning. Of course subs have it worse off than full time teachers in terms of maintaining order, but still I think even the full time teachers would have something to say about the 20 students per classroom ideal.

Posted at September 1, 2007 8:05 PM in response to The Price of Progress