Questions liberals will not answer

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Desert Dawg

unread,
Dec 11, 2003, 6:47:35 PM12/11/03
to
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20031211.shtml
"A few questions for the Democratic candidates"
George Will, December 11, 2003

WASHINGTON -- President William McKinley, said a fellow Republican,
had an ear so close to the ground it was filled with grasshoppers.
Democratic presidential candidates, with Iowa and New Hampshire
insects swarming in their ears, have honed answers to questions from
Democratic primary voters. Now for some different questions:

-- Democrats denounced George W. Bush's ``unilateralism'' long before
the Iraq War, partly because of his refusal to seek Senate
ratification of the Kyoto Treaty on global warming. The Clinton
administration, which negotiated the protocol for two years and signed
it in 1998, refused to send it to the Senate, which had voted 95-0
against ratifying anything resembling it. The European Union's
environmental commissioner says 13 of the 15 EU members will not meet
this year's emissions targets stipulated by the Protocol. Only Britain
and Sweden will comply; France, which lectures America about
multilateral responsibilities, will not. Europe is failing to limit
emissions even though its economy is stagnant, which makes compliance
easier. Canada, another of America's moral auditors, is having second
thoughts about a climate treaty that does not regulate such developing
nations as China and India (more than one-third of the human race in
those two nations) because the treaty is an impediment to economic
growth. An adviser to President Putin says Russia will not sign the
Protocol. Doing so would sap Russia's economic vigor, ending Putin's
dreamy goal of doubling Russia's GDP by 2010. So what exactly is
distinctively unilateral with Bush's policy regarding Kyoto?

-- Exhibit B for the prosecution of the president's ``unilateralism''
is his wariness of the International Criminal Court, lest it target
U.S. military personnel. How does Bush's policy differ from President
Clinton's?

-- Exhibit C in the ``unilateralism'' indictment is that Bush withdrew
from the 1972 ABM treaty, an agreement with a deceased entity, the
Soviet Union, to inhibit development of defenses against things now
proliferating -- ballistic missiles. Bush's withdrawal was in complete
compliance with the treaty provision for either party to unilaterally
conclude that the treaty no longer serves its national interest. Given
that since 1972 the world has been transformed, technologically as
well as politically, should the treaty have been immortal? And why
were Democrats more disturbed than Putin by the withdrawal?

-- The Bush administration's really lawless unilateralism was its 21
months of steel tariffs. The imposition of them, for purely political
reasons, was reprehensible. The manner of lifting them, after two
adverse rulings by the World Trade Organization and the credible
threat of politically costly retaliations, was disgraceful. In a
perverse tribute to the centennial of the birth of George Orwell, who
said insincerity is the enemy of clear language, the administration,
showing contempt for the public's intelligence, insisted on lifting
the tariffs without using the word ``tariffs,'' preferring the
Orwellean locution ``temporary steel safeguard measures.'' And the
administration, which is struggling to have its words about Iraq taken
seriously, insisted that the sudden lifting of the tariffs, 15 months
early, had nothing to do with the WTO and everything to do with
``changed economic circumstances,'' and the alleged fact that the
tariffs ``have now achieved their purpose.'' If Democrats strenuously
oppose unilateralism, why has the president's belated conformity to
international norms been denounced by the two leading Democratic
candidates, Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt?

-- For the July-September quarter, economic growth was 8.2 percent,
the fastest since 1984, productivity growth was 9.4 percent, the
fastest since 1983, and manufacturing reached its highest level since
1983. Is it pure coincidence that in 1983-84, as today, the nation was
deep into the first term of a tax-cutting Republican administration?

-- Although unemployment declined in November for the fourth
consecutive month, Democrats say job creation is alarming because it
is slow relative to the economy's growth. But Fortune magazine reports
that although manufacturing jobs have declined 16 percent since the
summer of 2000, ``factories are producing more than they ever have.''
Over the past two decades steel production has increased from 75
million tons in 1982 to 102 million tons in 2002 -- but whereas
289,000 workers were required to produce the 75 million tons, just
74,000 workers produced the 102 million. Do Democrats believe this
increased productivity is an economic misfortune?

-- In the last nine presidential elections (1968-2000), the 11 states
of the Confederacy, plus Kentucky and Oklahoma, have awarded 1,385
electoral votes. Democratic candidates have won just 270 (20 percent)
of them. Which Deanisms -- the war is bad, same-sex civil unions are
good, Americans are undertaxed -- will be most helpful to Democrats
down there?

Just wondering.


The Frog

unread,
Dec 11, 2003, 6:59:19 PM12/11/03
to

Good post and something to think about......thanks!!


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity'
is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."

--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity,"
American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.

MHirtes

unread,
Dec 11, 2003, 7:27:12 PM12/11/03
to
In article <bravmn$e...@dispatch.concentric.net>,
"Desert Dawg" <tr...@hurts.com> wrote:

> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20031211.shtml

Aw gee. Another "fair and balanced" article from Clownhall.com. Whooda
thunk?

Bush is gonna lose in 2004. Get used to it.

DemsLackGravitas

unread,
Dec 11, 2003, 7:47:03 PM12/11/03
to

"MHirtes" <ht...@jawholenewaddy.com> wrote in message
news:htes-F853E5.1...@news.central.cox.net...

> Bush is gonna lose in 2004. Get used to it.


An interesting variation on the Democrats' earlier prophetic impulses, "We
Democrats are going to win back the House in 1996!".

Here we are - America, 2003 - and the Democrats STILL haven't fulfilled THAT
mindless prophesy of theirs!

But hey, we should let the Demmies have their dreams......


The Frog

unread,
Dec 12, 2003, 8:11:55 AM12/12/03
to
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:27:12 -0600, MHirtes <ht...@jawholenewaddy.com>
wrote:

Wishful thinking. You can 'jawbone' all you wish, but the sad fact is
that all of the oddsmakers in the world disagree with you.

You should be angry at Clinton. If he had kept his pants on and not
lied to anyone with ears, is there any doubt that Gore would be
president today?

Server 13

unread,
Dec 12, 2003, 10:46:27 AM12/12/03
to

I'm not really very liberal, I just don't like being lied to. But here goes:

Desert Dawg wrote:

> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20031211.shtml
> "A few questions for the Democratic candidates"
> George Will, December 11, 2003
>
> WASHINGTON -- President William McKinley, said a fellow Republican,
> had an ear so close to the ground it was filled with grasshoppers.
> Democratic presidential candidates, with Iowa and New Hampshire
> insects swarming in their ears,

Yes, George Will's conception of the American people is well known...

have honed answers to questions from
> Democratic primary voters. Now for some different questions:
>
> -- Democrats denounced George W. Bush's ``unilateralism'' long before
> the Iraq War, partly because of his refusal to seek Senate
> ratification of the Kyoto Treaty on global warming. The Clinton
> administration, which negotiated the protocol for two years and signed
> it in 1998, refused to send it to the Senate, which had voted 95-0
> against ratifying anything resembling it. The European Union's
> environmental commissioner says 13 of the 15 EU members will not meet
> this year's emissions targets stipulated by the Protocol. Only Britain
> and Sweden will comply; France, which lectures America about
> multilateral responsibilities, will not. Europe is failing to limit
> emissions even though its economy is stagnant, which makes compliance
> easier. Canada, another of America's moral auditors, is having second
> thoughts about a climate treaty that does not regulate such developing
> nations as China and India (more than one-third of the human race in
> those two nations) because the treaty is an impediment to economic
> growth. An adviser to President Putin says Russia will not sign the
> Protocol. Doing so would sap Russia's economic vigor, ending Putin's
> dreamy goal of doubling Russia's GDP by 2010. So what exactly is
> distinctively unilateral with Bush's policy regarding Kyoto?

Nothing. But it's not his policy, it's his policy statements - and behavior
- around the issue, including stacking governmental science panels with whackos
and editing EPA reports, that are doing him in.

Dems probably don't answer this quetion because it's an irrelevant matter.
Bush's other acivities on the issue are what do him in.


>
> -- Exhibit B for the prosecution of the president's ``unilateralism''
> is his wariness of the International Criminal Court, lest it target
> U.S. military personnel. How does Bush's policy differ from President
> Clinton's?

Don't know. But it's interesting to note that Bush has no problems asking
other countries for troops while holding them harmless under the laws those
countries respect - and thus has a mere handful of them to draw on, which leads
to still more deaths of US servicemen.

Dems probably don't answer this quetion because it's an irrelevant matter.
Bush's other acivities on the issue are what do him in.


>
> -- Exhibit C in the ``unilateralism'' indictment is that Bush withdrew
> from the 1972 ABM treaty, an agreement with a deceased entity, the
> Soviet Union, to inhibit development

I think that's deployment, not development.

of defenses against things now
> proliferating -- ballistic missiles. Bush's withdrawal was in complete
> compliance with the treaty provision for either party to unilaterally
> conclude that the treaty no longer serves its national interest. Given
> that since 1972 the world has been transformed, technologically as
> well as politically, should the treaty have been immortal? And why
> were Democrats more disturbed than Putin by the withdrawal?

Because Bush is doing it not to secure the security of the US, but to foist a
system on us by 2004 - one which has skipped many tests and appears to be
fundamentally short on the necessary abilities to get the job done in the first
place.

Dems probably don't answer this quetion because it's an irrelevant matter.
Bush's other acivities on the issue are what do him in.


>
> -- The Bush administration's really lawless unilateralism was its 21
> months of steel tariffs. The imposition of them, for purely political
> reasons, was reprehensible. The manner of lifting them, after two
> adverse rulings by the World Trade Organization and the credible
> threat of politically costly retaliations, was disgraceful. In a
> perverse tribute to the centennial of the birth of George Orwell, who
> said insincerity is the enemy of clear language, the administration,
> showing contempt for the public's intelligence, insisted on lifting
> the tariffs without using the word ``tariffs,'' preferring the
> Orwellean locution ``temporary steel safeguard measures.'' And the
> administration, which is struggling to have its words about Iraq taken
> seriously, insisted that the sudden lifting of the tariffs, 15 months
> early, had nothing to do with the WTO and everything to do with
> ``changed economic circumstances,'' and the alleged fact that the
> tariffs ``have now achieved their purpose.'' If Democrats strenuously
> oppose unilateralism, why has the president's belated conformity to
> international norms been denounced by the two leading Democratic
> candidates, Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt?

Because the "international norms" Will refers to have been converted into a
system that destroys US jobs by the hundreds of thousands and pressures wages
here down toward third world norms, and was put in place by the republicans
recently enough that the Dems are still hoping to keep the country out of the
toilet.

Dems probably don't answer this quetion because it's an irrelevant matter.
Bush's other acivities on the issue are what do him in.

>
> -- For the July-September quarter, economic growth was 8.2 percent,
> the fastest since 1984, productivity growth was 9.4 percent, the
> fastest since 1983, and manufacturing reached its highest level since
> 1983. Is it pure coincidence that in 1983-84, as today, the nation was
> deep into the first term of a tax-cutting Republican administration?

Nope. Anyone can be popular if they pass around enough bad checks. The
amount of taxpayer dollars directly transmitted to the corporate sector accounts
for most of this, and Bush's attack on the worker the rest.

Dems probably don't answer this question because it's an irrelevant matter.
Bush's other acivities on the issue are what do him in.

>
> -- Although unemployment declined in November for the fourth
> consecutive month, Democrats say job creation is alarming

I'd like to see a cite for that! lol

because it
> is slow relative to the economy's growth. But Fortune magazine reports
> that although manufacturing jobs have declined 16 percent since the
> summer of 2000, ``factories are producing more than they ever have.''
> Over the past two decades steel production has increased from 75
> million tons in 1982 to 102 million tons in 2002 -- but whereas
> 289,000 workers were required to produce the 75 million tons, just
> 74,000 workers produced the 102 million. Do Democrats believe this
> increased productivity is an economic misfortune?

Nope. Until, of course, the 215,000 displaced workers find out the jobs
they'd normally train for or move laterally into are now overseas.

Dems probably don't answer this question because it's an irrelevant matter.
Bush's other acivities on the issue are what do him in.


>
> -- In the last nine presidential elections (1968-2000), the 11 states
> of the Confederacy, plus Kentucky and Oklahoma, have awarded 1,385
> electoral votes. Democratic candidates have won just 270 (20 percent)
> of them. Which Deanisms -- the war is bad, same-sex civil unions are
> good, Americans are undertaxed -- will be most helpful to Democrats
> down there?

Probably "The war is bad", since the other two are pathetic straw men made up
by George Will.

Leave it to a republican to insist that a politician has to hoover his voter
base just as hard as he can instead of have a real platform. ;)

General Jack D. Ripper

unread,
Dec 12, 2003, 12:51:06 PM12/12/03
to
Desert Dawg wrote:

> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20031211.shtml
> "A few questions for the Democratic candidates"
> George Will, December 11, 2003
>
> WASHINGTON -- President William McKinley, said a fellow Republican,
> had an ear so close to the ground it was filled with grasshoppers.
> Democratic presidential candidates, with Iowa and New Hampshire
> insects swarming in their ears, have honed answers to questions from
> Democratic primary voters. Now for some different questions:
>
> -- Democrats denounced George W. Bush's ``unilateralism'' long before
> the Iraq War, partly because of his refusal to seek Senate
> ratification of the Kyoto Treaty on global warming.

Pretty stoopit assumption!

--
I can no longer sit back and allow terrorist infiltration, terrorist
indoctrination, terrorist subversion, and the international terrorist
conspiracy to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.

johnny

unread,
Dec 12, 2003, 4:08:14 PM12/12/03
to
> >Bush is gonna lose in 2004. Get used to it.
>
> Wishful thinking. You can 'jawbone' all you wish, but the sad fact is
> that all of the oddsmakers in the world disagree with you.

The "odds" on a national election tend to change a lot - especially
when your still nearly a year away. Let's see what happens after a Dem
nominee is named and forces Bush to defend his sorry-ass record to the
electorate.

Granted it's always somewhat of a longshot to unseat an incumbent
president - but bush's daddy knows as well as anyone that it's far
from impossible.

It's hard to think of another president in all of U.S. history who
could have been more vulnerable than the current one is - esp. to an
"unelectable" challenger like Dean.



> You should be angry at Clinton. If he had kept his pants on and not
> lied to anyone with ears, is there any doubt that Gore would be
> president today?

Well then, if liars lose elections - bush is a sure bet to lose.

Gore has never blamed Clinton. You right-wing apologists OTOH just
can't find enough things to blame clinton for (either one of them).

Desert Dawg

unread,
Dec 16, 2003, 8:02:54 PM12/16/03
to
"MHirtes" <ht...@jawholenewaddy.com> wrote in message
news:htes-F853E5.1...@news.central.cox.net...

Whooda thunk? Ida thunk!

As predicted... MHirtes didn't even bother trying to answer any of the
questions.


Desert Dawg

unread,
Dec 16, 2003, 8:17:22 PM12/16/03
to
"General Jack D. Ripper" <pat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eenCb.510667$HS4.3979147@attbi_s01...

> Desert Dawg wrote:
>
> > http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20031211.shtml
> > "A few questions for the Democratic candidates"
> > George Will, December 11, 2003
> >
> > WASHINGTON -- President William McKinley, said a fellow
Republican,
> > had an ear so close to the ground it was filled with grasshoppers.
> > Democratic presidential candidates, with Iowa and New Hampshire
> > insects swarming in their ears, have honed answers to questions
from
> > Democratic primary voters. Now for some different questions:
> >
> > -- Democrats denounced George W. Bush's ``unilateralism'' long
before
> > the Iraq War, partly because of his refusal to seek Senate
> > ratification of the Kyoto Treaty on global warming.
>
> Pretty stoopit assumption!

Which assumption? Will's or the Democrats?


Desert Dawg

unread,
Dec 16, 2003, 8:18:36 PM12/16/03
to
"Thomas Jefferson" <califo...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:17588-3FD...@storefull-2316.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> Unemployment figures have fallen because people quit looking for
work.

Let's see the evidence for that.

Unemployment has fallen because... "economic growth was 8.2 percent,


the fastest since 1984, productivity growth was 9.4 percent, the
fastest since 1983, and manufacturing reached its highest level since

1983." All thanks to the tax cuts.

Unemployment is always a lagging indicator in the economy (as you
know), and the number of job losses was never as high as the 9 dwarves
have claimed (which I bet you also know).

> Higher productivity by itself is a good thing. It sure is an
economic
> misfortune, though, to displaced workers, when all the economy can
offer
> is Mcjobs and no jobs.

I'll have to give you partial credit, you at least "responded" to an
actual question (Do Democrats believe this increased productivity is
an economic misfortune?... apparently yes).

However, as predicted, you didn't really answer any of the questions.
(Silly baseless assertions do not qualify as a serious response).

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages