Did the Boston Globe publish this just to get a rise out of the denizens of Cambridge? TAPPED, I think, pretty effectively, dismantles this soft-peddling out of the Hoover Institute. If Bush's tax cuts weren't basically pay-back, but to juice the economy, then why income taxes and not payroll taxes? Saved dollars in the latter are more likely to find their way back into the economy and are felt a lot more keenly by the middle class and the working poor. TAPPED doesn't get into Bush's foreign policy, but I think it's pretty radical to toss in the trashbin 50 years of international treaties and alliances.
And if Bush doesn't appear to be a foaming radical, it is because he has proven that he's not Tom DeLay. DeLay has once again shown that he is a thug. There's been speculation for some time as to why Karl Rove can't seem to lasso the exterminator. I don't think he wants to. Bush looks better to centrist voters when compared to the wingnuts in his party like Gingrich and DeLay.
O'Reilly can't take it. He really is amazingly shrill and sensitive for a guy who makes his living ripping people apart and looking for angles outside of his "guests" expertise in order to embarass them. The bloviator claims that FoxNews "started from nothing." I don't think so. It's a pretty fascinating portrait of Murdoch. Also in The Atlantic this month, there's a highly recommended article, "Founders Chic," to which unfortunately there's no link to on the site. But here's the blurb:
"Interest in the Founding Fathers has risen and fallen over time, but it's probably fair to say that their stock is currently at an all-time high. And this should worry us."
Basically, the author's argument is that the Constitution left -- intentionally -- a lot of business unfinished (slavery, the second amendment, etc.) for political reasons at the time. The founders had to assume that a later generation would take care of these issues over time. But the slavery issue led to a war with over 500,000 dead and the second still reverberates. Our fear of touching the Constitution, rightwing judges who claim to be "strict constructionists," and our basic lack of debate on 200+ year issues would, the article argues, sadden and disappoint Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and the rest.
And if Bush doesn't appear to be a foaming radical, it is because he has proven that he's not Tom DeLay. DeLay has once again shown that he is a thug. There's been speculation for some time as to why Karl Rove can't seem to lasso the exterminator. I don't think he wants to. Bush looks better to centrist voters when compared to the wingnuts in his party like Gingrich and DeLay.
O'Reilly can't take it. He really is amazingly shrill and sensitive for a guy who makes his living ripping people apart and looking for angles outside of his "guests" expertise in order to embarass them. The bloviator claims that FoxNews "started from nothing." I don't think so. It's a pretty fascinating portrait of Murdoch. Also in The Atlantic this month, there's a highly recommended article, "Founders Chic," to which unfortunately there's no link to on the site. But here's the blurb:
"Interest in the Founding Fathers has risen and fallen over time, but it's probably fair to say that their stock is currently at an all-time high. And this should worry us."
Basically, the author's argument is that the Constitution left -- intentionally -- a lot of business unfinished (slavery, the second amendment, etc.) for political reasons at the time. The founders had to assume that a later generation would take care of these issues over time. But the slavery issue led to a war with over 500,000 dead and the second still reverberates. Our fear of touching the Constitution, rightwing judges who claim to be "strict constructionists," and our basic lack of debate on 200+ year issues would, the article argues, sadden and disappoint Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and the rest.
posted by John at 5:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home