Things you have to believe to be a Democrat?

In response to the semi-famous "Things you have to believe to be a Republican" email that was circulating there were many attemnpts to respond with a "Democrat" version.  None of them really approached the meme status the way the Republican one did, but I'd like to respond to one of them anyway.  I make no claims that the following one is in any way the most popular or any kind of “official” list. It’s just the first one that came up in Google with the search tag, “things you have to believe to be a Democrat.”

(In case the Google order eventually changes, this is from:: http://www.treachery.net/~jdyson/liberal_beliefs.html)

1. Drug addiction is a disease that should be treated with compassion and understanding...unless the addict is a Conservative talk show host.

LOL – I’m sorry… Most liberals would be perfectly willing to acknowledge that Rush Limbaugh is most definitely diseased. Funny oh this tries to spin around one form the Republican list… and yet utterly fails!

2. The United States should be subservient to the United Nations. Our highest authority is not God and the U.S. Constitution, but a collective of tinpot dictators (and their appeasers) and the U.N. charter.

This one’s kind of bizarre. “Subservient to the UN.” Seems a bit exaggerated, seeing as how the UN would pretty much collapse without US support. I guess they think that endless war all the world over is preferable to having some forum to attempt diplomacy.

3. Government should relax drug laws regardless of the potential for abuse, but should pass new and unConstitutional anti-gun laws because of the potential for abuse.

Yeah, but… I can’t kill anyone else with a little marijuana. What’s more… What “new gun laws” have the Democrats proposed since the took control of congress in 2007? [*crickets*]

4. Calls for increased security after a terrorist attack are “political opportunism,” but calls for more gun control after a criminal’s spree killing is “a logical solution.”

When that “increased security” involves unconstitutional, unamerican measures like warrantless wiretapping and suspension of habeus corpus? Damned strait. When the “criminal” (I’m guessing he’s referring to Seung Hui Cho) who went on a killing spree was a former mental patient who should not have been able to buy his gun under existing laws and those “calls for more gun control” are basically just the shoring up of the current system? Again: Damned strait. (And as a graduate of Virginia Tech, I’d gladly kick anyone’s ass who tries to use Seung Hui Cho to make a bullshit political point like this one.)

5. “It Takes a Village” means everything you want it to mean...except creeping socialist government involvement in the nuclear family.

Huh? I’m not entirely sure what ANY of that means! It almost sounds more like something a conservative would believe, but even then it’s not a particularly clever parody.

6. Disarming innocent, law-abiding citizens helps protect them from evil, lawless terrorists and other thugs.

Well, I got nothing here, except what I said under (3): WHAT “new gun laws” have the Democrats proposed since they took control of congress in 2007? (*crickets*)

7. Slowly killing an unborn innocent by tearing it apart limb from limb is good. Slowly killing an innocent disabled woman by starving her to death is good. Quickly killing terrorists, convicted murderers and rapists is BAD.

Oh, you like to kill them quickly all right. Quick enough to avoid having to prove they’re actually terrorists, and quick enough that there’s no change to even consider otherwise. Forcing children on rape victims and people who don’t want them and can’t afford them IS good I guess, huh? Keeping someone alive who WISHED TO DIE is also good I guess. And where’re all those ‘limited government’ principles when it comes to recognizing a husbands right to make medical decisions for his wife? Of respecting a patients own wished?

BTW: As I’ve posted before, I’m AGAINST abortion. Like many liberals I talk to (surprise, surprise) I believe it to be an immoral act. So therefore: I WOULDN’T HAVE ONE. What I won’t do is labor under the delusion that what I THINK is wrong needs to be TAKEN AWAY from everybody else… like Conservatives do.

8. Every religion should be respected and promoted in public schools the name of diversity, so long as that religion isn’t Christianity.

Um…NO! WTF?! NO RELIGION should be “promoted in public schools!” PERIOD! Despite what you lot think, Freedom OF Religion REQUIRES Freedom FROM Religion!

9. The best way to support our troops is to criticize their every move. This will let them know they’re thought of often.

Since when is George W. Bush, “the troops?” OK, I know, I know… I guess they think the best way to win the hearts and minds of a foreign country is to bomb the shit out of their cities and kill as many civilians as possible that we don’t round up at random and torture until the sign confessions justifying their groundless incarceration.

10. Sexual harassment, groping and drug use are degenerate if you’re the governor of California, but it’s okay if you’re the President of the United States.

(Tongue in cheek) Clinton also did all that stuff when he was GOVERNOR. His only marital transgression while PRESIDENT was a consensual affair.

And this one’s almost too easy to turn around. How about: Sexual harassment, groping and drug use are degenerate in a public servant who’s a Democrat, but it’s okay if they’re a Republican. LOL.

11. Sex education should be required so that teens can make informed choices about sex, but gun education should be banned because it will turn those same teens into maniacal mass-murderers.

Um, no… hang on a second… Gun education is something that we liberals would WANT TO REQUIRE any potential gun-owner to get! It’s one of those law thingies you were calling unconstitutional just a few posts ago.

12. Minorities are blameless for the hatred of the racist; women are blameless for the hatred of the rapist; but America is entirely at fault for the hatred of Islamofascists.

Wow. This is pretty telling isn’t it? Think about this. Seriously, this is sick. What they’re saying is that Racism is justified (because I guess all those stereotypes are TRUE, huh? Who knew?) and Rape CAN, IN FACT sometime be the WOMAN’S FAULT. But the U.S. is entirely blameless, no matter what we do. We can debate the last point, but in pairing with the first two, they suggest that those would be equally debatable statements. That’s just…. sick.

13. Poverty is the cause of all terrorism...which is why the leaders of al Qaeda are typically U.S.-educated and were raised in wealth and luxury.

Again, I’m not even sure where this is coming from. As a liberal I’d be wiling to bet that poverty in the US is the cause of much of our street level CRIME. And I’d also argue that street-crime does far less damage to our society than white collar crime – Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, Bertie Ebbers, Bernie Madoff. But if poverty has any connection to TERRORISM, it obviously poverty in AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST. And it only makes people easy for these Wealthy, U.S.-educated types to RECRUIT. You think BIN LADEN is going to be a suicide bomber? Yeah right! That’s an entry level job. In that way, A-Q operates pretty much like the Republican party does: Using religion to get poor people to support an agenda that’s against their interests.

14. The Patriot Act is a horrific compromise of Constitutional rights, but anti-Second Amendment laws and Franklin Roosevelt’s Presidential Order 9066 must be regarded “reasonable precautions.”

First of all… WHAT “anti-Second Amendment laws?” (And what’s with the gun fetish of the psychopath that wrote this, huh?! About 1 in 5 of these are about GUNS!) Secondly… Most liberals would gladly condemn Order 1066 as one of the blackest periods in our nation’s history. It’s rather telling, however, how eager you “loving Chiristians” seem to be to do the same to every Muslim and Mexican! Also… putting aside that 1066 was definitely NOT justified, it was in response to WWII – the single largest and deadliest armed conflict in the history of mankind. Not a SINGLE terrorist attack, perpetrated by a handful of guys living in caves.

15. We should unquestioningly honor the wishes of our age-old allies, even when said allies no longer act like our allies and have vested economic interests in propping up our enemies.

Kind of like how you lot support free-trade agreements with China? You know: Send all of the manufacturing jobs to a Communist country just so you can break our “Socialist” unions.

16. Socialized medicine is the ideal. Nevermind all those people who spend every dime they have to get to the United States so they can get quality medical care...that their nation’s socialized health care can’t provide.

LOL. And I suppose free-market medical care is the best? Never mind the 40+ million American who are denied health coverage due to “preexisting conditions” or can’t afford it unless their employer picks up 75-80% of the tab. (And that anyone else can be dropped at any time!) And never mind that many chronic, deadly diseases have no available medicines (not to mention the shortage of snakebite anti-venom, and a dearth of new anti-biotics!) because it’s more profitable to put yet another erectile dysfunction drug on the market.

17. Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky and Natalie Maines are perfectly qualified to criticize our leadership, but Arnold Schwarzenegger, Charlton Heston, and Dennis Miller are just ignorant political hacks.

Yeah, that’s pretty much the size of it. Again: We all have freedom of speech, some of us just have more intelligent things to say.

18. John Lott’s research on how gun ownership reduces crime is junk science, but Michael Bellesiles is still an authority on why gun control is good (even though he was forced to resign from Emory due to research misconduct over his book “Arming America”).

I have no idea who either of those men are, and I have never brought up, or heard them brought up in any discussion I’ve ever been in about gun control. Personally? I don’t support restrictive gun laws, and (as I’ve mentioned several times now) there have been no proposals put forward by the Democrats to create any.

19. Bush’s toppling the Saddam regime was a “diversion,” but Clinton’s lobbing a couple of cruise missiles at Iraq in the thick of the Lewinsky sex scandal was “sending a message.”

Can anyone tell me what’s wrong with this? I’m pretty much fine with this one! LOL. (Also: Which is the bigger story: A reputed philandered having an affair, or a purported great anti-terrorism fight being unable to find the ONE GUY that he said was responsible for 9/11?) (Well… at least he said that until he couldn’t find him. Then it was magically all SADDAM’S fault.)

20. A president who lies under oath is okay, but a president who references sixteen words from an allies’ intelligence report should be dragged through the streets naked.

So… Lying about an extramarital affair, which was an immaterial question, in a civil trial involving ONE PERSON is an impeachable offense, but cherry-picking, omitting and lying about your evidence to start a war that kills thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of enemies and civilians alike and which could accomplish NOTHING in the war on terror, is OK? Glad we could clear that up.

21. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning Second Amendment rights and shopping the courts for judges sympathetic to causes that wouldn’t pass in any legislature.

Again – What’s with the gun fetish? Haven't we adequately covered this issue  yet? And what the hell is this guy talking about – there are no anti-gun laws being proposed! As for the rest? Why is that any different from a judge overturning some “anti-2nd amendment law” that had majority support? Also: “Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution” is a CONSERVATIVE talking point. And it not really one you lot really believe in either!

22. “The People” in the First Amendment means The People; “the People” in the Fourth Amendment means The People; “the People” in the Ninth Amendment means The People; “the People” in the Tenth Amendment means The People; but “the People” in the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791) means the National Guard (created by an Act of Congress in 1903).

Again with the gun-fetish. You’d think that being anti-gun and loving terrorists was the only thing the Democrats ever did wrong! Where’s the stuff about high taxes?

23. You support a woman’s “right to choose” to kill her unborn child, but don’t believe that same woman is competent enough to homeschool the children she bears.

This makes no sense at all. Chances are that home-schooler is a pro-life conservative. So it probably isn’t THE SAME woman. And based on the superstitious bullshit religious pseudoscientific nonsense conservative want to teach their kids? Yeah: DAMNED STRAIT.

24. Proven draft-dodging is irrelevant, but baseless claims of AWOL status is crucial to national security.

Proven? Baseless? I realize that, as Obi-Wan stated, “many of the truths we cling to depend greatly upon our own POV,” but, in the words of Indigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” Oh, and… I don’t think Bush being AWOL during Vietnam was ever considered a matter of National Security. Just of the Right's credibility.

25. Threatening to boycott Dr. Laura’s and Rush Limbaugh’s advertisers is exercising Freedom of Speech, but threatening to boycott CBS’s “The Reagans” and Liberal actors over their asinine anti-American remarks is censorship and McCarthyist blacklisting.

No… both are absolutely excercises of Free speech. As I mentined earlier, some of us just have more intelligent things to SAY. (Some of those liberal actors, for example.)

26. You fervently believe that rabidly referring to your political opponent as an “idiot” is a good idea...even after that “idiot” whipped your ass in the 2000 and 2004 elections.

Project much? It’s my experience that liberals debate while conservative resort to insult. (And I have no doubt that some “idiot” conservative will come by, post here, and prove my point!) Also… “whipped your ass.” Interesting way to describe 2000 – when that idiot LOST the populat vote and “won” (notice the quotes, liberals?) the 2nd closest electoral college vote in history. And 2004? That was the narrowest REelkection bid in history. The only incumbents that faired worse than Bush did in ’04 LOST. Also – while you lot insist on CALLING us idiots, we insist on PROOVING that you lot are. There’s a difference.

27. Everyone must unquestioningly support a junior senator with negligible political experience for president. ’Cause, like, if you don’t, well...dude, you’re a racist!

I thought we were supposed to be elitists or something. Huh. Who knew?

28. All cultures must be treated as equal. This is why we have to make excuses for Muslims when they riot, rape and slaughter, but vilify Christians when they organize letter writing campaigns.

When the hell did Christians “organize letter writing campaigns?” We couldn’t have POSSIBLY vilified that, because we never even HEARD about it! Probably because it was obviously COMPLETELY INEFFECTIVE. (Which must be why they instead took to killing doctors and denying poor women access to pre-natal care.)

29. America can only be great if it raises taxes, punishes the successful, rewards the lazy, creates bigger government, and funds more socialist programs. It worked for the Soviet Union, right?

Did it really take this guy 29 points before he got around to mentioning taxes? He’s obviously not a REAL conservative, just a gun-toting, muslim-hater. Anyway…

I guess America was going to be great under ever increasing DEBT due to WARS and TAX CUTS and the COLLAPSE OF A DE-REGULATED BANKING SYSTEM. At least we WERE, until Obama took office, then suddenly thirty years of accumulated debt were not only everyone’s top priority, but also entirely OBAMA’S FAULT.

30. Being against illegal immigration is racist. Nevermind that illegal isn’t a race.

Riiiight. Because, you know, there are so many Canadians coming over the border, eh? Must be for that free health care we offer or something. Why do I get the feeling that if Mexicans were lighter skinned and spoke only English Illegal Immigration wouldn’t be much of an issue? (Except with pro-labor LIBERALS who recognize what it does to working class wages!) (And other than RACE why is it that this seems to ONLY issue under the sun where Republicans are willing to do ANYTHING to support blue-collare wages?)

31. Global warming is caused by humans burning fossil fuels, which is why the Ice Age ended a mere 10,000 years before the invention of the internal combustion engine.

They have such a wonderful grasp of climate science, don’t they?

32. Everyone has the right to disagree, but only with Republicans.

This is cute. I think I’ll keep it. It makes a good bumper sticker. I’d just change “but only” to “especially.”

33. The only way to be a “real American” is to hate everything America stands for.

Like… torture, indefinite incarceration without trial, endless war, violation of international treaties, warrantless spying on our own citizens, keeping immigrants from becoming citizens… that sort of thing?

34. The only unbiased media is the European media, but only because they hate the United States of America even more than the liberal media in the U.S.

There’s a liberal media? WHERE? I want to watch!

35. Congress must create a “Fairness Doctrine” to counter the commercial success of conservative talk radio and the resounding failure of Air America. (Nevermind that we already have a government-subsidized liberal mouthpiece called National Public Radio.)

LOL. Yeah… Again, the proposal to recreate the “Fairness Doctrine” only exsist in the depraved ramblings of RW Radio. But calling one of the last remaining relatively objective media outlets a “liberal mouthpiece” and suggesting that giving someone a few inutes to refute a three-hour broadcast would somehow bring AM Talk Radio crashing down is a pretty blatant admission of what WE already know: Facts tend to have a liberal bias.

36. Any Republican who sides with Democrats should be instantly assigned the role of “leading Republican” in all media reports. This position is immediately forfeited the moment said Republican starts acting like an American again.

I’m kind of stunned at the audacity of this one. How many times was Independent Joe Lieberman identified as a Democrat while here cheer-lead for Bush’s war after 2004? How do you explain away the FACT that the only Democrats that got interviewed in the build up to the Iraq war were PRO-WAR, even thought the majority of the Party (and eventually of America) were opposed to it? You’ve got this one COMPLETLEY BACKWARDS. Again: Project much?

Also… How do square this idiots statement, that you’re only “acting like an American” if your serving as a Republicans mouthpiece, with #33 (for example)? You no what? I take that back… Actually that’s remarkably (though I’m sure unintentionally) consistent: Since Republicans pretty much hate everything America actually stands for, and only Republicans are “real Americans” I guess he’s, right – only from a conservtaive’s point of view!

37. The pseudoscience of "global warming" must be unquestioningly accepted because a consensus of scientists say it's real. Nevermind that there was also once a consensus among scientists that the Earth was flat, the Sun revolved around the Earth, and that caucasians were genetically superior to all other races.

*sigh* Global Warming is not pseudoscience. Nothing becomes a pseudoscience just because you think that a funny way to try and be dismissive of it. It’s SCIENCE. And the case has been building, without any legitimate challenge, since the 1950’s and it ain;t going away any time soon. (Reality really sucks that way.)
What’s more… The “consensus” that the earth was flat, or that the sun revolved around it, was not one of SCIENTISTS. See… Scientists were the ones DISPELLING that nonsense, even at a risk to their own life posed by that most CONSERVTAIVE of forces: the CHURCH. As for that stuff about Caucasians being genetically superior to all other races? Seems to me like THAT consensus still holds… among WHITE CONSERVATIVES anyway.

That was fun. PAINFULLY EASY. But still fun.

Another "terrific" email...

Another gem my Dad sent me, under the subject "new golf bolls."

The REALLY funny thing is that I AGREE WITH IT 100%!  I've been saying for YEARS that the biggest problem with our political system is that the Republicans have no brains and the Democrats have no balls!  So... file this under "unintentinally hilarious" at least, from his POV.

Actully... I think a more complete satirical picture of our political spectrum might look like this:

Remember what each one needed: Brains, a Heart and Balls. Plus the Tin Man was REALLY, REALLY GAY. REALLY GAY.  And nobody who actualy KNOWS they're gay is EVER THAT Gay!  So he's basically GOT to be a Republican. LOL



Couldn't resist.
























So what to do? Maybe next time...?

Rankings of the Presidents

I was over at wikipedia looking at the Historical Rankings of the Presidents.  I love these kinds of things.  And I deciced to play around a bit with the lists, and do one of my super-shallow, completely non-academic meta studies with it.  So I took each list, from the 1948 Schlesinger poll to the 2009 CSPAN poll and assigned each ranking a value, namely: (the rank)/(number of names on the list).  That way the top rank would be a aound 0.05 or less, the worst rank will be 1.0 and and average rank will be around 0.5.  I did this for each list, and then averaged the values for each president, then ranked them accordingly.  Here's how they shook out:

President; Political party, Rating 
Lincoln, Abraham; Republican, 0.03
Roosevelt, Frankin D; Democratic, 0.05
Washington, George; Federalist, 0.07
Jefferson, Thomas; Democratic, 0.12
Roosevelt, Theodore; Republican, 0.12
Wilson, Woodrow; Democratic, 0.17
Truman, Harry S; Democratic, 0.18
Jackson, Andrew; Democratic, 0.23
Eisenhower, Dwight D; Republican, 0.27
Polk, James K; Democratic, 0.29
Kennedy, John F; Democratic, 0.3
Adams, John; Federalist, 0.32
Johnson, Lyndon B; Democratic, 0.33
Madison, James; Democratic, 0.34
Reagan, Ronald W; Republican, 0.36
Monroe, James; Democratic, 0.37
Cleveland, S Grover; Democratic, 0.39
McKinley, William; Republican, 0.43
Adams, John Q; National-Republican, 0.45
Clinton, William J; Democratic, 0.48
Taft, William H; Republican, 0.52
Bush, George H W; Republican, 0.53
Van Buren, Martin; Democratic, 0.57
Hayes, Rutherford B; Republican, 0.58
Bush, George W; Republican, 0.62
Ford, Gerald R; Republican, 0.64
Carter, James E; Democratic, 0.65
Arthur, Chester A; Republican, 0.67
Hoover, Herbert; Republican, 0.69
Harrison, Benjamin; Republican, 0.71
Garfield, James A; Republican, 0.72
Nixon, Richard M; Republican, 0.73
Coolidge, J Calvin; Republican, 0.73
Taylor, Zachary; Whig, 0.77
Tyler, John; Whig, 0.83
Harrison, William Henry; Whig, 0.84
Fillmore, Millard; Whig, 0.85
Grant, Ulysses S; Republican, 0.85
Johnson, Andrew; Democratic, 0.9
Pierce, Franklin; Democratic, 0.91
Buchanan, James; Democratic, 0.96
Harding, Warren G; Republican, 0.97

Now... a couple of things strike me about this list...

First of all: Democrats generally rank higher than Republicans.  Taking both the Jeffersonian, Jacksonian and Modern Democrats together, their average score is 0.43.  Taking the Federalists, National-Republicans, Whigs and Modern Republicans together, their average score is 0.58.  Not to mention, there are six democraqts in the top 10 and 7 Republicans (and Whigs) in the bottom 10.

Second of all, and this is the real kicker: All of the BEST Republicans were progressives (Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower) and and all of the WORST Democrats (Pierce, Buchanan, Andrew Johnson) were Conservatives.  That, to me, says far more that just how the parties rank out.

I will say this too... this list ended up pretty close to the way I'd rank them.  Sure, George W. Bush would be a lot lower, while Nixon and George H. might be a little higher, but all in all, I wouldn't say there were any rankings that really suprsised me, or errors that I found particularly egregious.

WHAT sixty votes?

I’d like to thank the newly minted Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown for supporting the Democratic Senate’s Jobs Bill, breaking ranks along with two of the usual suspects, Maine’s Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and also Missouri’s Kit Bond and Ohio’s George Voinovich, two guys who, since they’re retiring, have nothing to lose and I guess figured that they may as well help actually govern the country a little instead of following the Party strategy of making sure that absolutely nothing good happens, public interest be damned. So to those five: Thank You. To our spineless leader, Harry Reid? Gee, you got four more votes than you actually needed. You think maybe you didn’t have to gut the bill to quite the extent that you did?

There is one thing I want to point out however, in DEFENSE of Reid. A lot has been made of the whole 60-votes thing. And I said awhile back that I didn’t think Brown’s election really changed anything. I’ll stand by that, and here’s why: The Democrats NEVER HAD 60 votes! And by that I don’t mean that the Blue Dogs weren’t on board, or they didn’t have enough party unity, or anything like that. I mean that at no point were there ever actually 60 Democrats in the Senate! Check it out…

Here’s the timeline: In January, 2009, the numbers in the Senate were officially 59 Democrats to 41 Republicans. That's how the 2008 election worked out, if you remember. And don’t forget: The Minnesota Governor refused to seat Al Franken. So really, they started out 58-41, with one open seat, by the official party count. Now… on April 28, 2009, Arlen Specter switched parties. This brought the tally to 59-40 in favor of the Democrats, but Franken still wasn’t seated, so no 60 votes. Finally, on July 7, 2009 Franken was seated. And the tally was 60-40… for 49 days, until Senator Kennedy died on August 25. So… they had “60 Votes” for all of seven weeks, and that’s before you take into account that the ailing Senator Kennedy hadn’t been present for a vote in the Senate since summer of 2008 – a full year before his death. By any practical measure, the numbers in the Senate were never better than 59-40, even with Franken seated and after Specter defected. At no point did the Democrats ever NOT need at least one Republican vote to reach cloture. And now, with Brown’s election? Well, the numbers are 59-41, and they need… ding-ding-ding!: ONE REPUBLICAN VOTE, just as they always have, to achieve cloture.

And they just got FIVE. So I still like our chances, moving forward.

--------------------------------------------------------------

And BTW, I sincerely hope that President Obama does to the obstructing Republicans what President Bush did to US so many times, and just makes recess appointments for every single remaining unmanned post that the Republicans continue to block nominees for. The Right are doing their best to make sure that the Democrats never have a chance to accomplish anything. Well, they had their chance, and it’s high time that Obama leads the Democrats and they show the country what GOOD Government is really capable of.

National Journal agrees with me! LOL

"Tea. Earl Grey. Hot."
                ~Jean-Luc Picard

LOL.  It seems that the National Journal Online agrees with me.  I came accross this article this morning, after having written what I did the other day regarding the self-defeating nature of the Tea Party movement.  Give it a read.  They talk about ten races where the Tea Party "could make a difference." Ten.  And do know what they DON'T describe, even once?  ANY races involving a strong but potentially vulnerable DEMOCRAT that could be unseated by a pationate and fresh face. 

What I DO see, in every example, is a Primary Challenge to the incumbant Republican; or a Primary Challenge to the Republican Party's nominated or endorsed front-runner in the case of open seats; or a potential Third Part Candidate in a Race against a vulnerable Democrat that would otherwise be an easy victory for Republicans, save for the potentially split vote of the Right.  In NONE of those cases did the Journal offer a single example where a Tea Party Candidate or a Tea-Bag Republican will actually HELP their cause.

I love it. 

One lump, or two?

Who does better with the economy?

The economy is something the right likes to harp about all the time but, just like everything else, really has no credibility on. I guess the thinking goes that since all the successful CEO’s are Republican (not true, but whatever), and they all know how to run COMPANIES (like, you know… Enron, General Motors and Citibank?) then the Republicans MUST be better at “running the economy.” Couple problems with that… First off all, the vast majority of Republican politicians, like most politicians in general, are LAWYERS, not businessmen. Second, a company is to the economy what today’s weather is to the climate – the two are related, but a thorough understanding of one or the other requires a completely different skill set. (Go figure that they aren’t on the right side of the global warming debate either!)

Now… it should be clear why these "successful" CEO’s "all" vote Republican: Republican generally don’t put as many regulations on industries and prefer the lesse-faire approach. That this approach has ALWAYS ended in disaster is apparently lost on them, but the CEO’s seem to think they’ll make more money under Republicans.

But will the economy do better?  (Will we keep our jobs? Will our investments grow?)

Let's take a look at how the economy has performed under Democrats and Republicans using two of the most common economic indicators: The Dow Jones Industrial Average and the Standard and Poores 500 Index. Here’s how the experiment will work. We’ll hypotyhetically put $1000.00 on the market when one party takes the White House, sell it when they’re voted out, and put it all back in when the regain power. We’ll then calculate what you’d have today if you’d done this over the years. The two strategies will be called “Betting on the Dem’s” and “Betting on the Pub’s.”

I was able to find DIJA data going back to 1900. We’ll do the Pub’s first. The idea is that you’ll BUY udner McKinnley, SELL with Wilson, BUY with Harding, SELL with Roosevelt, BUY with Eisenhower, SELL with Kennedy, etc… through to the present day, when you would SELL when Obama took office. And I’m going to show 6 different scenarios, depending on which President you want to start with. Also, it should be noted that I’m using the Jan-1 closing data, rather than the day they actually took office. This is because that’s the only data I have. If I can find some more precise data, date-wise, I’ll re-calculate it. Here is the data I’m using:

Date:_____DJIA: _____Incoming (Incumbant) Presdient:
2/12/2010_10,099____(Obama-D)
1/1/2009__8,000_____Obama-D
1/1/2001__10,887____Bush-R
1/1/1993__3,310_____Clinton-D
1/1/1981__947_______Reagan-R
1/1/1977__954_______Carter-D
1/1/1969__945_______Nixon-R
1/1/1961__648_______Kennedy-D
1/1/1953__290_______Eisenhower-R
1/1/1933__51________Roosevelt-D
1/1/1921__72________Harding-R
1/1/1913__88________Wilson-D
1/1/1900__68________(McKinley-R)

Using this data, and calculating the number of shares and values you’d have at each stage, if you used the “Bet on the Pub’s” strategy, starting with McKinley, your $1000 would be worth $5311. today. If you started under Harding, your $1000 would be worth $4104 today. If you started under Eisenhower, your $1000 would be worth $5794 today. If you started under Nixon, your $1000 would be worth $2593 today. If you started under Regan, your $1000 would be worth $2568 today. And for the poor saps who thought they’d bet on George W. Bush, their $1000 would be now worth only $735. Now… these returns account ONLY for the growth under Republicans. If you figure out the number of year involved (starting date through 1/1/2009) and calculate the annual rate of return [ (Final value / Initial Value) ^ (1 / number of years) -1 ] you get the following, based on which President you start with:

McKinnley: 1.5%
Harding: 1.6%
Eisenhower: 3.2%
Nixon: 2.4%
Reagan: 3.4 %
Bush: -3.8%

Here’s how “Betting on the Dem’s” performed: Starting with Wilson, your $1000 would be worth $28,089 today. Starting with Roosevelt, your $1000 would be worth $34,341 today. Starting with Kennedy, your $1000 would be worth $6038 today. Starting with Carter, your $1000 would be worth $4140 today. Starting with Clinton, your $1000 would be worth $4171 today, and starting with Obama, your $1000 would be worth $1268 today.

Figuring the yields the same way, (only going through to the TODAY, rather than ending on 1/1/09) you get this for the Dem’s:

Wilson: 3.5%
Roosevelt: 4.7%
Kennedy: 3.7%
Carter: 4.4%
Clinton: 8.7%
Obama: 23.7%

That’s right – the WORST CASE scenario under the “Betting on the Dem’s,” (Wilson, 3.5%) still gives a better return than the BEST CASE scenario under “Betting on the Pub’s,” (Reagan, 3.4%) So according to the DJIA, the economy not only does better under Democrats, it does much, MUCH better!

But who knows… MAYBE the DJIA has a liberal bias or something. So how about the S&P 500? Now, the S&P only goes back to the 1950’s. So we’ll start with Eisenhower. Here’s the raw market-close data:

Date:_____S&P:___Incoming (Incumbant) President:
2/12/2010_1078___(Obama-D)
1/1/2008__826____Obama-D
1/1/2001__1366___Bush-R
1/1/1993__439____Clinton-D
1/1/1981__130____Reagan-R
1/1/1977__102____Cater-D
1/1/1969__103____Nixon-R
1/1/1961__62_____Kennedy-D
1/1/1953__26_____Eisenhower-R

And here we go again. If you started with Eisenhower, your $1000 would be worth $4822 today. If you’d started with Nixon, your $1000 would be worth $2022 today. IF you’d started with Reagan, your $1000 would be worth $2042 today. And the poor sap who bet on George W. Bush would only have $605 left of his initial $1000 investment. Using the same formula, here are the returns, starting with:

Eisenhower: 2.8%
Nixon: 1.8%
Reagan: 2.6%
Bush: -6.1%

Back to the Dems… If you’d started with Kennedy, your $1000 would be worth $8598 today. If you’d started with Carter, your $1000 would be worth $5176 today. If you’d started with Clinton, your $1000 would be worth $4061 today, And betting only on Obama, your $1000 would be worth $1305 today. So, again, using the same formula, here are the returns, starting with:

Kennedy: 4.5%
Carter: 5.1%
Clinton: 8.5%
Obama: 27.0%

AGAIN, the worst case scenario under the “Dem’s” strategy (Kennedy, 4.5%) is STILL better than the best case scenario under the “Pub’s” strategy (Eisenhower 2.8%).

Now... Obama's market is obviously still in play, and so the final Democratic returns can vary.  But as it stands right now… if you want to be better off financially, you’d better do what you can to help the Democrats WIN!


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW… there are some flaws with this whole exercise. I’m not going to point them out yet, since I’m not particularly motivated to go help the Right bolster their case here. (Plus I'm just curious to see what any of them come up with.) However, I have been challenged with several pretty clever arguments given to me by Conservatives, pointing some of these out in an attempt to undermine this, and the conclusion still stands. Maybe some conservative who knows what’s what will eventually shoot something my way that will stump me. But I’m not holding my breath!

Also, I’d be happy to explain how I calculated any of the above returns, if anyone does their own number-crunching and comes up with a different number. I’ve tried several different methodologies and they all give the same final answer: Dem’s rock, Pub’s are the suck. This is just the one that I felt was most defensible.

WHY the Republicans will ALWAYS run up the National Debt

I'd like to think that I'm not one to buy into paranoid copnspiracy theories too easily.  I mean... I've said many times that the Skeptic's Dictionary is my bible.  I think Glenn Beck is a delusional loon in desperate need of medication.  So, yeah... I'd like to think I know crazy when I see it.  Also, I'd like to think that, at least in the long term, people tend to be rational.  (Or failing that, then at least in the short term!)  And that's what's so crazy about the insane idea I'm about to present: It's really, truly rational, from the point of view of those on the Right.

In my last post I think I clearly demonstrated that, despite their rhetoric, it's Republicans rather than Democrats that spend like drunken sailors and run up huge debts.  And at the end I said that I'd explain why this is the case, or at least has been since 1980.  And it sounds crazy, unless you're just predisposed to believe ANYTHING about Republican's, but I'm actually not one of those types.  In fact when I first read this from some poster on MMFA a year or two ago, I dismissed it as "liberal bullshit." (Which, as a liberal, I think I'm especially entitled to call out from time to time! LOL) But the more I think about the more I appreciate the genius of it.

One of the things that you always hear from the Right is that we've got to rein in (get rid of) entitlements.  It's a nice buzzword that you can throw out there if you want to sound intelligent to a conservative crowd. (Of course, sounding intelligent isn't the same as BEING intelligent, but you won't get along with these people using your fancy librul edukashun and yer fancy librul LOGIC and REASONIN'.)  ANYWAY "entitlements" is a fancy way of saying, "Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps, etc..." and if you REALLY but into it you can throw in Public Schools, and just about everything else that most reasonable, moderate people have come to expect their governement to provide.  You see... the Right HATES these things.  They HATE they idea that someone might get something they didn't "earn" and that someone else (on the Right) is losing an opportunity to profit from providing it to them.  You see, in their ideal world, you'd have two classes: Company Owners and the Shleps who work for them.  One group would have pretty much EVRERYTHING and the other would have whatever the HAVES felt they were worth.  So... yeah, pretty much nothing.  It's the kind of environment revolutions spring from, but most on the Right think that little more than a bluff these days, at least in this country.  Anyway, suffice to say that ANYTHING that HELPS PEOPLE has to go.  After all, if people stay poor, then the cost of labor goes down, and it's supply-side economic heaven.  (Which is to say, HELL, but I'll save that for another post!)

So they want to kill Social Security, Medicare, etc... But the pretty much know they can't actually RUN on that platform.  President Eisenhower knew this to be true:

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

(What happened to these kinds of Republicans?!)

So what to do? How do we get people on board with this?  Well, one way would be to run up huge deficits every year, and get to the point where financing the National Debt (that means the annual interest payments) would end up consuming so much of the Federal Budget that we would be left with NO CHOICE but to gut or cut these programs.  Now it's not like they can do this in just one year.  People might notice.  And congress, and the public will never go along with it, right?  But this has been going on for THIRTY YEARS now! Two or three generations of Americans have grown up knowing nothing but huge federal deficits, and have come of age to the constannt drum beat of how there's a crisis in Social Security and a crisis in Medicare... And by now, we almost take for granted that these programs are doomed.  That they won't be around by the time we retire.  And the media (all of whom are corporate owned, which means all ofwhom are Right leaning) have been very complicit in driving this message home, and in helping perpetuate the narrtive that it the spending levels of the Democrats that are the problem.

And think about it... At this point how DO we fix things?  Well... the right knows that only one or two thigns will happen: Either we cut spending, which will effect these programs.  That's fine with them, that's thei rultimate goal - to get rid of these programs.  Or we raise taxes.  And WHO will raise taxes?  Well, the DEMOCRATS of course!  Because they're the only one interested in sustainable long-term governance!  There only only ones interested in reversing this trend.  Tax-cuts and higher defiicits serve the Republican cause!  But the Right, and their lap-dogs in the media will hammer home the narritive that the Democrats are the "tax-and-spenders" and not showing "fiscal discipline."  They'll never really show you that the crisis was created entirely by Republicans, specifically so they can either gut these otherwise perfectly sustainable (and popular!) programs or be able top paint the Democrats as the party of "high taxes" and use this to win elections and get right back to their agenda of bankrupting the Government... in order to get rid of these otherwise sustainable (and popular!) programs.

At least when a Liberal runs a deficit, it with a Keynsian motive in mind: They want to help the economy, save jobs and maintain people's financial security.  And running deficits by NOT raising taxes and NOT cutting speding will do just that.  But the way these Republicans act, doing this even in boom-times, I can't see any rational outcome OTHER than bankrupting the governement.  So I ask again: WHO'S the party of fiscal responsibility?  The one who taxes and spends in a effort to improve the economy, and help improve people's standard of living, or the one who wants to bankrupt the government, get rid of all social programs, and eventually pay NO TAXES so that they can keep ALL the money, and no one else can have ANYTHING?

I realize that I'm channeling Glenn  Beck at this point, but I challenge you to come up with any other explanation that can reconcile Republican fiscal rhetoric with Republican fiscal POLICY.

My 2 cents (and not a penny more!) on the presidents

One of the boasts I made in my argument on MMFA  reagarding Bush beign a complete failure was that "I could easily name something I liked, and something I didn't, about every president, or what they did, since TR and probably 3/4 of the ones before him."  (That's EXCEPTING George W. Bush, of course.)  So, figuring that I'd better be able to back it up, I sat down over my lunch break that day and quickly rapped out that very thing: Something I liked and something I didn't like about every Preseident prior to Bush'43.  Just to dazzle you with amazing presidential knowledge (HA!) this was done in one go, without going to Wiki or any other site.  It's just off the top of my head.  I have cleaned up the format a little since then, just so it's legible in my blog, but I haven't changed any of the content since I first wrote it, back on Thursday's lunch break.  So here goes:

Clinton, Democrat:
Good: Fiscal Discipline resulting in budget surplus and a growing economy for eight strait years.
Bad: Telecommunications Bill and repeal of Glass-Stegal.


Bush’41, Republican:
Good: Strong foreign policy, both military and diplomatic.
Bad: Weak economic policy due to continuation of the Reaganomics he once criticized. (Deficits, taxes, etc... it's killed his presidency in the end.)

Reagan, Republican:
Good: Restored the pride in America and inspired up like no one since Kennedy. Short-term, his fiscal and monetary policy broke the stagflation of the late '70's.
Bad: Lousy long-term economic policies; brought radical Christians into the forefront of American Politics while at the same time arming radical Muslims.

Carter, Democrat:
Good: Peace between Egypt and Irsael. Arguably the most honest man, with the strongest principles and integrity of any man since Grover Cleveland, but let’s face it...
Bad: The results were disastrous!

Ford, Republican:
Good: Restored as measure of faith to the integrity of the Presidency.
Bad: His pardon of Nixon undermined a lot of this, and had lasting implications.
Ed Note: My next blog will be a bit of musing about those "lasting implications!" :)

Nixon, Republican:
Good: Strong foreign policy, both militarily and diplomatic – ENDED Vietnam War. Strong domestic policy: The EPA, FDA, OSHA, etc... But...
Bad:  better relations with China have led to US economic issues long term. Plus he WAS a crook. (Watergate, etc...)

Johnson’36, Democrat:
Good: Civil Rights Act, and related legislation.
Bad: Great Society was right-hearted by wrong-minded. Should have been carefully designed. Escalated Vietnam War.

Kennedy, Democrat:
Good: Strong foreign policy with Soviet Union, inspiring leader domestically.
Bad: Started Vietnam War and waffled on Civil Rights for most of his term.

Eisenhower, Republican:
Good: Strong leader with integrity. Visionary, who foresaw our current problems with the ‘military industrial complex.’
Bad: Um… he didn’t actually DO anything!

Truman, Democrat:
Good: A leader who took ownership of the tough issues. Ended the Second World War.
Bad: Truman Doctrine was right-hearted but wrong minded – led to Vietnam War. Korean War was the most poorly run war until the 2nd Iraq War. (Other than Vietnam.)
Ed Note: Let's leave discussing the implications and morality of dropping the A-Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki for another post. 

Roosevelt’32, Democrat:
Good: New Deal led us out of the Great Depression and he led us through World War II.
Bad: Was actually tepid about New Deal – didn’t do nearly enough and tried to end it too soon. Gave the same lousy advice to Herbert Hoover before him, actually.

Hoover, Republican:
Good: He was an engineer. (Yes, that counts for something, in my mind!) (OK, not really.)
Bad: He should have stayed [an engineer]: Economic policies allowed the ’28 crash and led directly to the great depression. Was idealistic, but ideals were misplaced.
Note: To his credit, he couldn’t have known so at the time. He did what the conventional wisdom told him to. At the time, even FDR talked him OUT of some new-deal like programs that were very similar to those he later implimented!

Coolidge, Republican:
Good: Didn’t get in the way of the runaway growth of the roaring 20’s.
Bad: Didn’t get in the way of the runaway growth of the roaring 20’s.

Harding, Republican:
Good: OK. I got nothin'.
Bad: He was a crook with corrupt friends whom he lacked the strength and leadership to reign in. One of the two or three most corrupt administrations ever.

Wilson, Democrat:
Good: Arguably the most visionary foreign policy president of all time. Conceived a new way for Nation to resolve dispute aside from War. If anyone had listened to him, WWII might not have happened.
Bad: As visionary as was his foreign policy, his domestic policy was luddite – women’s suffrage, for example.

Taft, Republican:
Good: Continued economic policies of Roosevelt and even kicked them up a notch.
Bad: Not a very inspiring leader. A bit too plodding, too academic to be our top executive. Better suited for his retirement job: Supreme Court Justice.

Roosevelt’26:
Good: Strong foreign policy, with strong diplomacy. The man himself was a force of nature. One of the most inspiring presidents ever. Strong economic policy – “trust-busting” issues that no company gets “too big to fail” or to powerful for the gov’t to regulate.
Bad: It may have been more a sign of the times, but the man was a bit of a racist, especially with regards to the Native Americans.

OK... So that's part one.  I couldn't come up with anything good for Harding, and my Hoover good was really, really weak.  And yeah, granted their both Republicans, but they're not exactly ones that the Right usually holds up as shining examples of leadership anyway.  So that's 17 president and I got 32 out of 34 good/bads right off the top of my head.  Not perfect, but I'll take the 94% as a solid "A."  I think that's good enough! LOL

Moving on... the target is now just 75%.  This was a bit tougher though...

McKinnley, Republican:
Good: Economic and foreign policies laid the groundwork for those of TR.
Bad: I got nothin'.

Cleveland, Democrat:
Good: He’s honest. He’s honest. He’s honest. (That's was an actual quote about the man.) Also a strong leader, kind of a Democratic version of TR.
Bad: I got nothin'

Harrison’22, Republican:
Good: I got nothin'
Bad: I got nothin'

Arthur, Republican:
Good/Bad: Like several other VP’s who were thrust into office (Tyler, Filmore, Ford) he really just ran the course. Luckily there wasn’t much going on!
Ed Note: Count this as 1 point out of 2.

Garfield, Republican:
N/A: Got shot too early to DO anything.
Ed Note: Garfield and Harrison'9 will not be counter in the final tally.

Hayes, Republican:
Good: I got nothin'
Bad: A do-nothing who left most of the tough issues for his successor.

Grant, Republican:
Good: Finally got country backl on track follwing Civil War and Reconstruction.
Bad: Although the man himself was not necissarily part of it, the Grant administration was one of the two or three most corrupt in hostory.

Johnson’17, Democrat:
Good: I got nothin' (Although his impeachment was bullshit.)
Bad: Screwed up the Reconstruction.

Lincoln, Republican:
Good: Did no less than SAVE this country from an existential threat. Greatest defender and crusader for civil rights until LBJ.
Bad: NOTHING, he was the best, and just for this one, I'm counting this as a point!

Buchanan, Democrat:
Good: Nothing.  He was the worst, and just for this one, I'm counting this as a point!
Bad:  Did nothing while the country tore itself apart. Supported preservation of Slavery as a ‘States Rights’ issue.

Pierce, Democrat:
Good: I got nothin'.
Bad: Did nothing while the country tore itself apart. Supported preservation of Slavery as a ‘States Rights’ issue. (Yeah, just like Buchanan.)

Filmore, Whig:
Good: I got nothin'.
Bad: Like several other VP’s who were thrust into office (Tyler, Arthur, Ford) he really just ran the course… while the country tore itself apart. (Yeah, just like Buchanan and Pierce.)

Taylor, Whig:
Good: I got nothin'.
Bad: Made little progress on slavery issue – left it for others to address.

Polk, Democrat: 
Good: Oversaw greatest land expansion of any President.
Bad: Extension of Statehood is what kicked the slavery issue into high gear.

Tyler, Whig:
Good/Bad: Like several other VP’s who were thrust into office (Filmore, Arthur, Ford) he really just ran the course. Mishandled transition though, and alienated his own party.

Harrison’9, Whig:
N/A: Died WAAAAY to early in his term to say anything at all about him.
Ed Note: Garfield and Harrison'9 will not be counter in the final tally.

Van Buren, Democrat:
Good: I got nothin'.
Bad: First truly lousy president we’ve ever had.

Jackson, Democrat:
Good: One of the strongest men ever to hold the office. Was transformative in his economic policies. In many ways, he changed the role of the chief executive, and changed what people expected of the office.
Bad: If you want to pinpoint the beginning of the "imperial presidency" it's earliest roots would be in the Jackson presidency.

Adams’6, National Republican:
Good: I got nothin'
Bad: The first president we had that wasn’t stellar. Took muckraking to a new level in his campaign against Jackson. (Though it should be mentioned that Jackson did the same!)

Washington (Federalist), Adams'2 (Federalist), Jefferson (Democratic-Republican), Madison (Democratic-Republican) & Monroe (Democratic-Republican):
Good: All founding fathers, all fantastic successes, all legendary presidents.
Bad: Nothing bad to say, and I'm talking 5/5 here, I don't care!  (OK - Adams'2 wanted to be King.  He was kind of a kook.  Still one of the greatest Americans that ever lived.)

So there you go - 32/34 on the first part, and 23/44 on th second. So only 52% on the second part, but most boast was only that I could do 75%.  So that's about 69%%of the goal, or just D+ work. Oh well, sue me. LOL 

And if you see anything here that you find to be incorrect, remember: This was just off the top of my head, with no research involved.  And yes, that includes remembering them all, in order, and which party they belong to. ("Look at the big brain on Bret!" ~Jules Winfield) So yeah, there may be one or two things I got mixed up.

In any case, I may have exagerated my boats a LITTLE bit, but I'll stand by my judgment of George W. Bush as a complete failure and somewhere between the 3rd and 5th worst president of all time: Better than Hoover or Buchanan, on par with Pierce and Harding.