Republicans uniformly revere Reagan, but Dems trash or ignore their own.

[Captain Hilts]

Democrats are first to criticize their own. Many here have completely bought into the Republican meme on the Clinton Administration. I do not understand any of this.

And they don't give Clinton credit where it is due. This is from Krugman's column this morning about Mr. Obama's speech on economics in Petersburg, Fla:

"Worse yet, he seemed to go out of his way to avoid scoring political points. “Back in the 1990s,” he declared, “your incomes grew by $6,000, and over the last several years, they’ve actually fallen by nearly $1,000.” Um, not quite: real median household income didn’t rise $6,000 during “the 1990s,” it did so during the CLINTON YEARS, after falling under the first BUSH administration. Income hasn’t fallen $1,000 in “recent years,” it’s fallen under GEORGE BUSH, with all of the decline taking place before 2005."

We don't give credit to our own. Even people here have no clue how the Clinton admin. turned around regressive tax policies.

If we are so reluctant to give Democratic congresses and presidents their due, how can we expect Independents to do so?

Come on folks! DEMOCRATS are better than Repubicans!

Jump on the bus!

[billyoc]

1. Republican meme my ass, NAFTA and media monopolies are Clinton's enduring legacy.

[jobycom]

7. NAFTA is a boogeyman, and proof of what the OP said.

The economy sucks because of a regressive tax structure that favors corporations. NAFTA doesn't send jobs to India.

[Captain Hilts]

12. NAFTA doesn't send jobs to China either. nt

[billyoc]

47. No, it sends them to Mexico.

[Captain Hilts]

54. What in your house is made in Mexico? Start with your computer and electronics...

then go over to your clothes closet. I don't have anything made in Mexico. And I desperately try and avoid buying things made in China.

Check out Radio Shack. EVERYTHING's made in China. Go to Wal-Mart. EVERYTHING's made in China.

I WISH we were losing our manufacturing base to Mexico instead of China.

[billyoc]

55. Examples of Maquiladoras

# Electrónica del Noroeste S.A (Tecate) - The first maquiladora
# Toyota (Tijuana)
# Kenworth (Mexicali)
# Panasonic (Tijuana)
# MI Technologies, Inc. (Tijuana)
# Fender Guitars (Ensenada)
# Electrolux Home Products (Juarez)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maquila

[Captain Hilts]

56. Had to look it up? What is in YOUR house, not Wikipedia. nt

[billyoc]

58. Well, I DON'T have to look it up, but it seems that you could use a link.

[jobycom]

71. You should have read the whole link, which proves you wrong.

"During the later half of the sixties, maquiladora industries rapidly expanded both geographically and economically and by 1985, had become Mexico’s second largest source of income from foreign exports, behind oil.<2>. Since 1973, maquiladoras have also accounted for nearly half of Mexico’s export assembly.<2> Between 1995 and 2000, exports of assembled products in Mexico tripled, and the rate of the industry’s growth amounted to about one new factory per day.

"Since globalization has contributed to the competition and advent of low-cost offshore assembly in places like Taiwan, China, and countries in Central America, maquiladoras in Mexico have been on the decline since 2000: According to federal sources, approximately 529 maquiladoras shut down and investment in assembly plants decreased by 8.2 percent in 2002."

--------

In other words, maquiladora industries began to flourish long before NAFTA (during the Johnson era). They boomed in the late 90s, when NAFTA was passed, during the time of greatest economic growth, highest wages, and low and falling poverty rates in America. If NAFTA was causing jobs to disappear, why were we creating more jobs than ever before just at the peak of NAFTA's effect on our economy? Maquiladoras began to decline under Bush, at the same time that jobs in America began to decline.

If you are looking for an evidence-based argument about the effect of NAFTA on the American economy, you won't find it where you are looking. The evidence you cite argues for the opposite effect.

Kennedy's famous comment that a rising tide lifts all boats was based in part on the idea that a thriving world economy helps our economy, especially in the case of Mexico. When their economy is strong, ours is stronger. If we are assembling goods in Mexico that are being made with parts produced in America, we are making more parts in America, and the economy is doing better. Likewise, an increase in maquiladoras in Mexico generally means that the economy in America is improving, since that is largely their market.

America isn't Mayberry anymore. The economy isn't simple. It never was--the hatred of NAFTA is based on a mercantilist theory of economics that argues that there is a limited amount of wealth in the world, and when one nation gets richer, others get poorer. This was the driving mentality in the Middle Ages and into the era of pirates and "exploration" just after the Middle Ages. The theory is bunk. A rising tide does lift all boats.

NAFTA has some problems, to be sure, and needs some cleaning up, but the job decline in the last eight years is because of Bush's regressive economic and taxation policies and his lack of regulation or enforcement of the few regulations we do have. The proof is simple--look at the numbers. Poverty was lower under Clinton, high under both Bushes. Wages were higher under Clinton. Growth was solid under Clinton. Everything was smooth under Clinton, even with NAFTA, and everything went to Hell under Bush. Both Bushes.

As the OP said, we run from our own success. Some Democrats are more fundamentalist than Republicans when it comes to clinging stubbornly to ideas in the face of full factual refutation.

[eridani]

87. You forgot about all the farmers disposessed by subsidized US agribusiness

Plenty came here in desperation, forcing down the wages of all low income people here.

[jobycom]

98. Wages overall, and at the lowest levels, went up under Clinton.

NAFTA has nothing to do with the falling wages now, that's all about Bush's screwed-up economic plan. Wages, even at the lowest levels, under Clinton went up, even after NAFTA was passed and enacted. They began falling under Bush. The problem wasn't, and isn't, NAFTA, it is Bush and a regressive tax structure which drives wages down while strangling the middle class and small business. You take away NAFTA but leave Bush, things will still get worse. You leave NAFTA and take away Bush, things get better.

[eridani]

111. But the income gap greatly increased, and the increased income STILL

--came nowhere close the the high point of 1973. Get real. All of the "free" trade agreements are about a race to the bottom for everyone except the very wealthy.

[Two Americas]

110. workers don't force down wages

Bosses do.

The immigrants are forcing American bosses to pay higher wages to them here than they would be there.

Capital (wealthy people) cross borders and do as they please for their own advantage. We need to stand in solidarity with Labor when it responds by doing the same.

If wealthy people can freely move across borders for the purpose of making yet another $billion or so, surely we can support poor people doing the same to feed their families.

[provis99]

92. NAFTA is terrible

I notice you slyly didn't touch on wealth distribution. The world getting richer doesn't mean squat if it means 1% is getting more, while 99% is getting less. The problem with NAFTA is that it has resulted in wealth redistribution away from the working and middle classes, and towards the rich. But continue to believe in your neo-classical economic fantasies, if it consoles you.

[jobycom]

97. I most certainly did touch on that, you just didn't like the facts.

Wages under Clinton went up, and poverty went down. If NAFTA is supposed to be driving down wages yadayadayada, how is that explained?

[eridani]

113. Income inequality, homelessness, and food insecurity dramatically increased

Some things that increased in the 90s, which still look good in retrospect because of how shitty it's gotten since then. But still--

1. Homelessness
http://www.nhlp.org/html/hlb/299/299conference.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/9691/homelessnesshowmany.html

2. Food insecurity and use of food banks

http://www.seedsofchange.org/hunger_malnutrition.htm

Is the situation in the U.S. getting better or worse? "The U.S. Government just recently began gathering data on hunger and food insecurity. But the dramatic growth of private charitable feeding efforts since the late 1970s suggests growing hunger. . . . There were few in 1980, but an estimated 150 thousand private feeding agencies are . . . passing out food to hungry Americans ." (Beckman & Simon., p. 27) ". . . Catholic Charities, Lutheran Services of America, the Salvation Army and other assistance networks all reported sharp increases in requests for emergency food in the late 1990s . Catholic Charities reported a 26 percent increase between June 1997 and April 1998. The U.S. Conference of Mayors reported a 14 percent increase in requests for emergency assistance in 1998, and said that 21 percent of all requests went unmet." (Id., p. 29)

4. Income disparity

http://pnews.org/ArT/YuR/DiS.shtml

During the years of the Clinton administration, the rich became richer at much faster rate than during Reagan's regime. In Clinton's first term, from 1993 to 1996, the average income of the richest five percent of households rose from $173,784 to $201,220. 46 Even during the Reagan years, the plunderers had not seen their income rise as fast. And in 1997 - the first year of Clinton's second term - it leapt to $215,436. All the statistics reveal that since Clinton has resided in the White House, the rich have experienced a financial bonanza unprecedented in modern times.


As economist Paul Krugman noted, "These widening disparities are often attributed to the increasing importance of education. But while it's true that, on average, workers with college education have done better than those without, the bulk of the divergence has been among those with similar levels of education. High-school teachers have not done as badly as janitors but they have fallen dramatically behind corporate CEOs, even though they have about the same amount of education." Insofar as corporate chief executives pay themselves and thus are able to collectively drive up the level of their own wages, thereby establishing the appearance of a "market-driven" norm, that should hardly be surprising.

[Bettie]

103. Whirlpool has assembly plants in Mexico

They still say made in America though because they are in a NAFTA Free Trade Zone.

Plus, the manufacturing there is largely sub-assemblies of products. It is cheaper to ship large numbers of parts (wiring harnesses, motors, etc.) from Mexico (or wherever) than it is to ship finished product. As long as the parts are put together at an assembly plant here, they can say whatever they want about where the product was "made" (e.g. in the "US").

Before that, it was Maytag, but Whirlpool bought Maytag (which owned Amana).

So, even if your product doesn't say made in Mexico, it still may be.

[Captain Hilts]

127. Yes, I remember reading about their move. nt

[roguevalley]

73. they overlook the nazi shit in their guys for the need of a 'daddy' to

tell them what to do and think. We don't overlook the shit in our own. I don't overlook shit in anyone. I may still like and support them, there's hardly any other choice, but I don't overlook it and never will. that makes me a discriminating american. the other. its republicanism squared.

[JoFerret]

85. Looks like the OP

hit the proverbial nail dead on.

[Naturyl]

140. Don't forget Welfare DEform

Which re-instituted slave labor in this country. Biggest Republican win in a generation and Clinton was all too thrilled to sign it in exchange for some cheap crossover support.

[wndycty]

2. No fan of Reagan, but. . .

. . .after his time as president Reagan didn't undermine future Republican nominees. Think about it. Whether its Gore, Kerry or Obama, the Clinton's have bad blood with all of them.

I know Reagan may have had his issues with Bush but he didn't let them get in the way of moving the GOP agenda forward.

[Captain Hilts]

5. Think Gore and Kerry might be a little bit jealous?

When he left office, Clinton's approval ratings were higher than Reagans.

[blm]

Think Clinton would've won in 1992 if Kerry hadn't stayed on Bush1's ass reIranContra and BCCI?

And then what did Bill do after he got into office? Deep-six all the many SERIOUS outstanding matters in BCCI for his benefactor Jackson Stephens and GHWBush and their cronies so BushInc could regroup and come back more powerful.

Clinton DIDN'T want Kerry in office any more than Bush did, because everyone knew kerry would have the access to documents that they needed secret, so Bill used his 3 week book tour in summer2004 to make sure every American understood clearly that he supported Bush's decisions on terrorism and Iraq war.

That's some reciprocation. Bill wouldn't have become president in 1992 without Kerry's efforts to hold Reagan and Bush1 accountable. Kerry was stuck with a Clinton siding with Bush for a solid 3 week high-profile book tour.

[Captain Hilts]

17. If you think Joe and Mary Shit voted based on Iran-Contra or BCCI...

think again.

They voted the economy and wanted an out-of-touch president out. Robert Morgenthau and Kerry were fighting a bi-partisan tide on BCCI and I give them dap for doing so. But it was always off voters' radar screens.

[blm]

22. It wasn't off Bush1's radar and he ran the worst campaign in history knowing he'd be impeached after

the release of the BCCI report in Dec 1992 if he stayed in office.

And guess what? many of the revelations in IranContra and BCCI that kept hitting the headlines throughout 1991-1992 DID help break Bush's trust with the American people. But, hey, you seem to think it was all Clinton. Read the BCCI report, Mookie, and see how many of Clinton's buddies and benefactors were protected throughout the 90s when he deep-sixed all its matters.

Keep standing with that fascist enabling profiteer. Yeah, profiteer. He is making tens of millions since leaving office from the very same Bush cronies who were protected on BCCI.

[Bucky]

34. Do you really refer to the average American voter as "Joe and Mary Shit"?

Just who is it that you're directing all this scorn against?

[Captain Hilts]

50. Sorry! That's the military version of John and Jane Doe. No derision intended.

Yes, it does sound bad. I apologize.

[Bucky]

59. Well, now I learned something new.

And I'm glad I took about 1/3 of the sanctimonious snark out of my post.

Once you put it that way, Joe and Mary Shit sound like nice neighbors.

[Captain Hilts]

60. Indeed they are!

Keep up the good fight!

[JoFerret]

119. Yes. They would have won

You undismisunderestimate what matters.

[blm]

129. Baloney. BFEE needed Clinton to win because BCCI report would be out in Dec 1992.

Jackson Stephens had Clinton ready to go. GHWBUsh then ran the worst campaign in history. You really think BushInc would've let Gennifer Flowers tapes slip by with no follow up if they had WANTED to win?

You misunderestimate what matters to the BFEE. You think they went down in 1993? They became STRONGER without the scrutiny.

[JoFerret]

132. You forgot the story

about the secret love child hidden away in the Caribbean.

[blm]

136. You equate Jackson Stephen's BCCI dealings with rumors of a lovechild? That's the Republican way.

Typical tactic for the Clinton crowd.

[JoFerret]

143. Absolutely typical

BCCI actually stands for Benighted Caribbean Child of Incumbent.

Bet you did not know that.

[beachmom]

24. No.

[MBS]

27. I vote no, too. n/t

[jobycom]

8. So when he let it be known that he voted for Clinton over Bush....

And Clinton campaigned hard for Gore and Kerry. Obviously Senator Clinton wasn't going to campaign for Obama while she was campaigning against him.

You are proving what the OP said. You buy the media spin, and miss the facts.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. After his time Reagan was an invalid dying of Alzheimer's

Not sure the comparison is fair. Reagan's silence wasn't a political choice.

And since Reagan was instrumental in keeping Gerald Ford from being elected in 1976 his real party unity credentials are sound-byte thin.

[Captain Hilts]

20. It's Republican attitudes toward Reagan that are unified, not his. They don't trash their own...

no matter how deserving.

[Captain Hilts]

14. Gore wasn't tight with Clinton or with Kerry. FDR not tight with Truman. Truman not tight with ...

Stevenson.

LBJ not tight with JFK.

How did the Clinton years "undermine" future nominees?

[blm]

28. Did FDR use a 3wk book tour to support Truman's GOP opponent on the most serious issue of the day?

Like Bill did during his summer2004 book tour?

[Chulanowa]

32. FDR was kind of, ah, dead

So no, I don't think he did.

[blm]

36. That wasn't the point of the question, was it?

.

[Captain Hilts]

19. Please explain how Clinton "undermined" future candidates.

His approval ratings on leaving office was among the highest of the modern era.

[blm]

26. he used his celebrity to support Bush 's decisions on terrorism and Iraq war throughout his 2004

book tour even boasting of defending Bush from the 'criticisms of the left' being led at the time by the Dem nominee. He never said ONE WORD in hisbook or on his book tour about Kerry being the top lawmaker in DC on the issue of terrorism and the tracking of global terror networks. Gee - how could Clinton have forgotten that? Gore talked about in HIS speech at the convention, but, poor Bill must have had a serious case of forgetfulness, eh?

Clinton also DID undermine EVERY Democrat, every future Democratic candidate, and democracy, itself, when he deep-sixed all the serious matters outstanding in IranContra and BCCI, siding instead with GHWBush and his cronies as he protectexd their secrecy and privilege over the right of the American citizen to open government accountable to the people.

There should never have BEEN a Bush2 possible, or a 9-11, or this Iraq war.

[liberal N proud]

3. I has said this before,,, Republicons have to be told what to think

Democrats refuse to be told what to think or who to support. We think for ourselves and evaluate each and every situation individually.

The fact that we can even get a candidate elected is amazing considering our diverse ideologies.

[Epiphany4z]

4. some people

are more into hero worship than others. I think its because republicans are more likely to view things in black and white..good and evil...no gray..there guy is pure good ..ours is pure evil..

[Captain Hilts]

6. I think that's true.

I think, also, that Democrats are more perfectionists. They want to be purists. Hence all the Nader voters on this board, who were unable to bite the bullet and vote for Gore.

[TheKentuckian]

10. You can leave the world in a firestorm

as long as you don't raise taxes and give lip service to "conservative" issues (ie abortion, gay marriage, etc)

It also proves Republicans are idiots who care nothing about the people. RayGun was crap.

[eridani]

89. Most of whom lived in states that were not contested

--so they could afford a protest vote.

[jobycom]

11. True enough, but I believe that Democrats are into iconoclasm the way Republicans

are into hero worship. Democrats hate "Titanic" and Tom Cruise because they are popular (despite the people who will now post "I hate them because they are talentless drivel" or whatever). They hate Clinton because he was successful. If Obama wins, they will turn on him. Hell, they already have--the very progressives who voted for him are now bashing him.

Republicans keep making the same old mistakes, Democrats keep looking for entirely original mistakes to make.

[Captain Hilts]

21. Good one! nt

[blm]

41. I loathe Clinton because he WASN'T successful at siding with us. Instead he sided with GHWBush and

his cronies, protecting their secrcey and privilege throughout the 90s.

How did Bill's deep-sixing of outstanding matters in IranContra, BCCI and Poppy's CIA drugrunning operations work out for the party in the long run? For the country? For the 9-11 families? For the world?

[jobycom]

68. You are dead wrong.

The Iran-Contra scandal was deep-sixed when Bush pardoned everyone who could be forced to testify against him and Reagan. Some weird fantasy started up that Clinton had a ton of evidence and refused to use it, but it was bullshit. If that evidence had existed, it would have already been used by Walsh.

I've heard that fantasy before, and that was part of what I was referring to. Democrats want to bash their own, and they are willing to believe the most ridiculous nonsense to do it.

[blm]

69. Baloney - BCCI report came out in Dec 1992, and CIA drugrunning came out in 1996. YOU are dead wrong

and unfortunately, there are MANY truly dead who shouldn't be because BCCI matters left outstanding led directly to BushInc's return, 9-11 and this Iraq war.

Plus, you have absolutely no explanation for how named BCCI figures ended up lining Bill's bank accounts by the millions in recent years.

[jobycom]

79. More bullshit.

BCCI closed in 91, and the final report in 1992--while Bush was in office--did not uncover any links to Bush or recommend any further investigations into any connections with Bush aside from the Iran-Contra connections. As I said, the IC investigation was derailed. So, no idea what you think Clinton should have done, but he did what the report recommended.

The Gary Webb CIA stories in 96 rehashed evidence on record since the 80s, much of which had been discussed by Kerry's investigation. Again, the best criminal link in the whole scandal was to the Iran-Contra affair, which was dead-ended.

As for your last comment, I don't even understand what you said. BCCI has not existed since 1991, so what figures are you talking about? If you are talking about people involved with BCCI at some point, then that's silly. BCCI was one of the richest international players of the 80s, so I'm sure that people involved with BCCI have put money in many accounts. Probably some of your respected heroes. Rich donors tend to move in similar circles.

Smoke and mirrors and misplaced iconoclasm, mixed with a destructive appetite for combining random facts into conspiracy theories.

[blm]

86. BCCI bank closed in 91 - final report was issued in Dec 92, WITH a list of outstanding matters

that evidently you think it is OK to ignore. Outstanding matters that required documents that had been STONEWALLED by Bush1 in the years before.

So...why ARE you insisting that BCCI had no outstanding matters, anyway? Isn't it standard operating procedures for GOP activists to pretend that those matters were fully vetted and nothing was found? Why do you side with them? There is NO WAY anyone can claim with any credibility that BCCI matters were fully examined. Show me where the president after GHWBush cooperated with access to documents that Bush had stonewalled.

BTW....Here's YOUR idea of nothing there from the Dec 1992 BCCI report, jobycom:


APPENDICES


Matters For Further Investigation


There have been a number of matters which the Subcommittee has received some information on, but has not been able to investigate adequately, due such factors as lack of resources, lack of time, documents being withheld by foreign governments, and limited evidentiary sources or witnesses. Some of the main areas which deserve further investigation include:

1. The extent of BCCI's involvement in Pakistan's nuclear program. As set forth in the chapter on BCCI in foreign countries, there is good reason to conclude that BCCI did finance Pakistan's nuclear program through the BCCI Foundation in Pakistan, as well as through BCCI-Canada in the Parvez case. However, details on BCCI's involvement remain unavailable. Further investigation is needed to understand the extent to which BCCI and Pakistan were able to evade U.S. and international nuclear non-proliferation regimes to acquire nuclear technologies.

2. BCCI's manipulation of commodities and securities markets in Europe and Canada. The Subcommittee has received information that remains not fully substantiated that BCCI defrauded investors, as well as some major U.S. and European financial firms, through manipulating commodities and securities markets, especially in Canada, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. This alleged fraud requires further investigation in those countries.

3. BCCI's activities in India, including its relationship with the business empire of the Hinduja family. The Subcommittee has not had access to BCCI records regarding India. The substantial lending by BCCI to the Indian industrialist family, the Hindujas, reported in press accounts, deserves further scrutiny, as do the press reports concerning alleged kick-backs and bribes to Indian officials.

4. BCCI's relationships with convicted Iraqi arms dealer Sarkis Soghanalian, Syrian drug trafficker, terrorist, and arms trafficker Monzer Al-Kassar, and other major arms dealers. Sarkenalian was a principal seller of arms to Iraq. Monzer Al-Kassar has been implicated in terrorist bombings in connection with terrorist organizations such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Other arms dealers, including some who provided machine guns and trained Medellin cartel death squads, also used BCCI. Tracing their assets through the bank would likely lead to important information concerning international terrorist and arms trafficker networks.

5. The use of BCCI by central figures in arms sales to Iran during the 1980's. The late Cyrus Hashemi, a key figure in allegations concerning an alleged deal involving the return of U.S. hostages from Iran in 1980, banked at BCCI London. His records have been withheld from disclosure to the Subcommittee by a British judge. Their release might aid in reaching judgments concerning Hashemi's activities in 1980, with the CIA under President Carter and allegedly with William Casey.

6. BCCI's activities with the Central Bank of Syria and with the Foreign Trade Mission of the Soviet Union in London. BCCI was used by both the Syrian and Soviet governments in the period in which each was involved in supporting activities hostile to the United States. Obtaining the records of those financial transactions would be critical to understanding what the Soviet Union under Brezhnev, Chernenko, and Andropov was doing in the West; and might document the nature and extent of Syria's support for international terrorism.

7. BCCI's involvement with foreign intelligence agencies. A British source has told the Bank of England and British investigators that BCCI was used by numerous foreign intelligence agencies in the United Kingdom. The British intelligence service, the MI-5, has sealed documents from BCCI's records in the UK which could shed light on this allegation.

8. The financial dealings of BCCI directors with Charles Keating and several Keating affiliates and front-companies, including the possibility that BCCI related entities may have laundered funds for Keating to move them outside the United States. The Subcommittee found numerous connections among Keating and BCCI-related persons and entities, such as BCCI director Alfred Hartman; CenTrust chief David Paul and CenTrust itself; Capcom front-man Lawrence Romrell; BCCI shipping affiliate, the Gokal group and the Gokal family; and possibly Ghaith Pharaon. The ties between BCCI and Keating's financial empire require further investigation.

9. BCCI's financing of commodities and other business dealings of international criminal financier Marc Rich. Marc Rich remains the most important figure in the international commodities markets, and remains a fugitive from the United States following his indictment on securities fraud. BCCI lending to Rich in the 1980's amounted to tens of millions of dollars. Moreover, Rich's commodities firms were used by BCCI in connection with BCCI's involving in U.S. guarantee programs through the Department of Agriculture. The nature and extent of Rich's relationship with BCCI requires further investigation.

10. The nature, extent and meaning of the ownership of shares of other U.S. financial institutions by Middle Eastern political figures. Political figures and members of the ruling family of various Middle Eastern countries have very substantial investments in the United States, in some cases, owning substantial shares of major U.S. banks. Given BCCI's routine use of nominees from the Middle East, and the pervasive practice of using nominees within the Middle East, further investigation may be warranted of Middle Eastern ownership of domestic U.S. financial institutions.

11. The nature, extent, and meaning of real estate and financial investments in the United States by major shareholders of BCCI. BCCI's shareholders and front-men have made substantial investments in real estate throughout the United States, owning major office buildings in such key cities as New York and Washington, D.C. Given BCCI's pervasiveness criminality, and the role of these shareholders and front-men in the BCCI affair, a complete review of their holdings in the United States is warranted.

12. BCCI's collusion in Savings & Loan fraud in the U.S. The Subcommittee found ties between BCCI and two failed Savings and Loan institutions, CenTrust, which BCCI came to have a controlling interest in, and Caprock Savings and Loan in Texas, and as noted above, the involvement of BCCI figures with Charles Keating and his business empire. In each case, BCCI's involvement cost the U. S. taxpayers money. A comprehensive review of BCCI's account holders in the U.S. and globally might well reveal additional such cases. In addition, the issue of whether David Paul and CenTrust's political relationships were used by Paul on behalf of BCCI merits further investigation.

13. The sale of BCCI affiliate Banque de Commerce et de Placements (BCP) in Geneva, to the Cukorova Group of Turkey, which owned an entity involved in the BNL Iraqi arms sales, among others. Given BNL's links to BCCI, and Cukorova Groups' involvement through its subsidiary, Entrade, with BNL in the sales to Iraq, the swift sale of BCP to Cukorova just weeks after BCCI's closure -- prior to due diligence being conducted -- raises questions as to whether a prior relationship existed between BCCI and Cukorova, and Cukorova's intentions in making the purchase. Within the past year, Cukorova also applied to purchase a New York bank. Cukorova's actions pertaining to BCP require further investigation in Switzerland by Swiss authorities, and by the Federal Reserve New York.

14. BCCI's role in China. As noted in the chapter on BCCI's activities in foreign countries, BCCI had extensive activity in China, and the Chinese government allegedly lost $500 million when BCCI closed, mostly from government accounts. While there have been allegations that bribes and pay-offs were involved, these allegations require further investigation and detail to determine what actually happened, and who was involved.

15. The relationship between Capcom and BCCI, between Capcom and the intelligence community, and between Capcom's shareholders and U.S. telecommunications industry figures. The Subcommittee was able to interview people and review documents concerning Capcom that no other investigators had to date interviewed or reviewed. Much more needs to be done to understand what Capcom was doing in the United States, the United Kingdom, Egypt, Oman, and the Middle East, including whether the firm was, as has been alleged but not proven, used by the intelligence community to move funds for intelligence operations; and whether any person involved with Capcom was seeking secretly to acquire interests in the U.S. telecommunications industry.

16. The relationship of important BCCI figures and important intelligence figures to the collapse of the Hong Kong Deposit and Guaranty Bank and Tetra Finance (HK) in 1983. The circumstances surrounding the collpase of these two Hong Kong banks; the Hong Kong banks' practices of using nominees, front-companies, and back-to-back financial transactions; the Hong Banks' directors having included several important BCCI figures, including Ghanim Al Mazrui, and a close associate of then CIA director William Casey; all raise the question of whether there was a relationship between these two institutions and BCCI-Hong Kong, and whether the two Hong Kong institutions were used for domestic or foreign intelligence operations.

17. BCCI's activities in Atlanta and its acquisition of the National Bank of Georgia through First American. Although the Justice Department indictments of Clark Clifford and Robert Altman cover portions of how BCCI acquired National Bank of Georgia, other important allegations regarding the possible involvement of political figures in Georgia in BCCI's activities there remain outside the indictment. These allegations, as well as the underlying facts regarding BCCI's activities in Georgia, require further investigation.

18. The relationship between BCCI and the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro. BCCI and the Atlanta Branch of BNL had an extensive relationship in the United States, with the Atlanta Branch of BNL having a substantial number of accounts in BCCI's Miami offices. BNL was, according to federal indictments, a significant financial conduit for weapons to Iraq. BCCI also made loans to Iraq, although of a substantially smaller nature. Given the criminality of both institutions, and their interlocking activities, further investigation of the relationship could produce further understanding of Saddam Hussein's international network for acquiring weapons, and how Iraq evaded governmental restrictions on such weapons acquisitions.

19. The alleged relationship between the late CIA director William Casey and BCCI. As set forth in the chapter on intelligence, numerous trails lead from BCCI to Casey, and from Casey to BCCI, and the investigation has been unable to follow any of them to the end to determine whether there was indeed a relationship, and if there was, its nature and extent. If any such relationship existed, it could have a significant impact on the findings and conclusions concerning the CIA and BCCI's role in U.S. foreign policy and intelligence operations during the Casey era. The investigation's work detailing the ties of BCCI to the intelligence community generally also remains far from complete, and much about these ties remains obscure and in need of further investigation.

20. Money laundering by other major international banks. Numerous BCCI officials told the Subcommittee that BCCI's money laundering was no different from activities they observed at other international banks, and provided the names of a number of prominent U.S. and European banks which they alleged engaged in money laundering. There is no question that BCCI's laundering of drug money, while pervading the institution, constituted a small component of the total money laundering taking place in international banking. Further investigation to determine which international banks are soliciting and handling drug money should be undertaken.

[jobycom]

99. Yes, exactly as I said.

Read your list, and you will find a series of recommendations that have little to do with Bush, aside from the Iran Contra connection that was killed when Bush pardoned those who could have been forced to testify against him, causing Walsh to drop the investigation and prosecution of Iran Contra.

Everything else is about the banking industry here, the banking industry internationally, and failings in the American system that allowed BCCI to control American banks, but American Congresscritters, and commit fraud everywhere. Your report doesn't link Bush to anything, yet Clinton was the one who covered it up?

Bull shit.

[blm]

104. Baloney - and Clinton pardoned another IranContra/BCCI figure FOR Poppy - Marc Rich.

But he didn't respect YOU or any other American enough to mention that aspect of who Marc Rich was and how he operated in both scandals, eh?

Clinton doesn't even MENTION BCCI in his entire book - yet AQ Khan is now one of the given reasons for why we may end up in war with Iran. Clinton doesn't mention AQ Khan in his book, either, even though his book was written after 9-11 and the global funding of terrorism was an essential aspect of BCCI. Clinton also doesn't mind lining his pockets with the tens of millions he received from the very Dubai royals who staked the large share of BCCI - gee, nothing wrong with that.

You've become an expert at blinding yourself re Clintons.

FYI: Sibel Edmonds is on record here at DU and kos relating the connections between BCCI figures and 9-11. You are free to carry on with your watercarrying for fascist Dems.

[JoFerret]

121. The poster has a view

and logic, reason and facts will not shift it.

[blm]

130. And some of you believe it was just coincidence that Jackson Stephens backed Clinton

after being a longtime backer of GHWBush, and coincidence that Stephens was the man who brought BCCI into this country, and coincidence that Clinton was as disinterested in revealing documents on BCCI as GHWBush.

Yep - and GHWBush ran the worst campaign in history because he wanted to retire.

[JoFerret]

131. I think it was blackmail

over Jennifer Fitzgerald.(!)

That and the fact that the economy was tanking, the GOP ran a vile hate-filled convention and Clinton-Gore ran a great campaign.

[Joe Chi Minh]

13. I was never sure if the critics of John Edwards' private life on here were

'bona' fide Democrats or Neocon operatives, but Beltway Democrats are Democrats in name only, imo, anyway.

However, it strikes me that that John's critics were re-writing Christ's parable of the Lost Sheep, upside down and back to front. Almost a devil's version of it.

Where the Good Shepherd left the body of the sheep grazing on the mountainside, and went off looking for the lost one, they saw nothing out of kilter in touting John's adultery as the absolute pits, and his lying about it, absolutely disqualifying him from any political office in the future (as if he'd acted like McCain or Gingrich), as they concentrated all their endeavours on luxuriating in his adulterous carry-on.

Depriving countless Vietnamese, South Americans, Phillipinos and indeed their own fellow-Americans of life and limb, not to speak of changing the course of Vietnamese, South American and US history, on the very basest of motivations and their supporting lies, apparently, did not strike them as being of an all together greater order of magnitude of wickedness, disqualifying them from breathing the same air as the rest of mankind.

Oh no. It was the one lost sheep, they were after, to carry home on their shoulder. Of course theirs were the sanctimonious ululations of Big Brother, not the rejoicing of the Good Shepherd at finding the sheep that had strayed, in good health again.

[Captain Hilts]

15. The party isn't as progressive as I'd like either... in my world Barney Frank is prez...

but I understand that a president has to work with a conservative Congress and electorate.

That's why Clinton had to agree to "don't ask, don't tell" after trying to permit open gays to serve, but was undermined by DEMOCRATS in Congress - i.e. Sam Nunn, Obama adviser.

I understand Obama's turn to the right after securing the nomination. I don't like it, but I see where he's coming from.

[Joe Chi Minh]

23. "I understand that a president has to work with a conservative Congress and electorate."

That strikes me as "faux" realism. If the Democrats got a grip on electoral fraud, there would be precious few Republicans in government or the country to have to take into account.

[Captain Hilts]

25. Was it "faux" realism that we had Republican majority congreses through the 90s and 00s??

No. It's a fact.

People are stupid and think getting a $300 check from the govt. while wealthy get a FAR larger check back is fair. They don't understand that income taxes aren't their problem, it's payroll taxes. They don't know basic facts. R's have a more simple message and are able to sell it better.

But the Republican majority congresses in the 90s and 00s are a fact, like it or not.

[Joe Chi Minh]

84. Well, neither "faux" realism nor realism were in evidence were they?

If they had been, the election charade would have been fixed once and for all, and you would have had a Democratic President. Nor do discount the idea of electoral fraud letting in the Republicans in the 90s, either. I think you've heard the Republican noise-machine for so long, you're propaganda punch-drunk.

[blm]

29. He wouldn't have HAD to agree to anything the right wanted, but since he deep-sixed BCCI matters

for Poppy Bush, Jackson Stephens and their fascist cronies, he weakened the entire party. Some believe he did so deliberately so BushInc could regroup under the mask of a Democratic administration.

[Captain Hilts]

31. Dems in Congress were also wrapped up in BCCI. You seem to think it was only R's...

Congress deep-sixed it.

I was following that one closely and desperately wish it had been persued. That it wasn't, wasn't Clinton's fault.

[blm]

37. Baloney - you think it was just 'coincidence' that Jackson Stephens paved Clinton's primary campaign

with gold? That he just happened to be the man who brought BCCI into this country for Poppy Bush and that he just happened to have set up dealings in BCCI that arranged the financial and industrial partnerships between Walmart and China and that Poppy Bush just happened to be running his IranContra and BCCI narco operations out of Arkansas throughout the 80s?

You really believe Clinton didn't understand any of that? And Clinton had access to documents that Bush1 had kept from BCCI investigators, are you of the MISTAKEN belief that Clinton cooperated and allowed access to those documents? Who the eff are you trying to snow here?

[wyldwolf]

18. there's that silly "DINO" meme again

[karynnj]

128. No one is equating Edwards transgressions with the neo -cons

Edwards is in trouble because the centerpiece of his attraction was the perceived love story between him and Elizabeth. An affair doesn't mean it was not real, but it does shatter that element of Edwards.

The lying is worse. You had to take Edwards on faith because his words did not match his Senate career.There were also things that I called re-writing history. The exposure of the lies makes far fewer people willing to believe.

[wyldwolf]

16. It goes much further than this

As late as YESTERDAY there were DUers talking about Cigars and Monica and claiming Ross Perot cost GHW Bush the '92 election. One of them told me I needed a lesson on political history because I called him on his bullshit Perot claim.

[Chulanowa]

30. I'd rather we shoot at ourselves, than behave like those idiots do over Reagan

Reagan did lots and lots of bad, stupid things, and not one single good thing. Notrhing, yet they still revere him. I'd rather avoid that sort of shit with my party.

[Cosmocat]

67. Excuse me ... He SINGLE HANDIDLY

defeated the Soviet Union ...

To support the OP ...

[Chulanowa]

94. After he SINGLE-HANDEDLY freed the embassy hostages!

...So what the hell was he doing with the other hand the whole damn time?

[Captain Hilts]

138. VERY good!

Hearing that makes me sick...

[Bucky]

33. In other words, Democrats always look for ways to improve while Republicans meekly fall in line.

I won't apologize for honestly critiquing when I see flaws, even if I see them in the Big Dog or Obamahimself.

[monomach]

35. Defense of Marriage Act, NAFTA, Don't ask Don't tell, THE ENRON LOOPHOLE

I capitalize the enron loophole because it's probably done more to hurt this country than the fucking Iraq war.

The list by no means stops there. Bill Clinton had a hell of a bad side, too, you know.

[Captain Hilts]

52. I was not a big fan of his, actually. How do you blame him for DADT? nt

[QC]

65. DADT is the work of Sam Nunn, one of the 3 wisest people in America.

You know, the Obama advisor and VP possibility? He's the one who took reporters on tours of ships and subs to dramatize how our red-blooded American boys would have to sleep right next to those dirty queers.

Some of us are actually old enough to remember these things.

[ieoeja]

70. Sam Nunn may have led the anti-gay campaign.

But the President ultimately determined the anti-gay military regulations. The latest was drafted early in Clinton's administration. Apparently the current President decided it was anti-gay enough, and decided to leave it unchanged.

[QC]

75. I remember Clinton getting shivved by Nunn and Powell and backing down.

He seemed pretty stunned by the viciousness of the reaction, as most thinking people were.

As I said, I am going by my own first hand memories of the time, not anti-Clinton revisionism.

[ieoeja]

76. With 75% to 80% of the American public behind him ... he backed down. n/t

[QC]

90. Do you have a source for that number?

I remember a shitstorm of major proportions, complete with congressional hearings. Hate radio was in overdrive and even the so-called "responsible" media went all tabloid at the thought of our brave fighting men at risk of having gay men see their dinguses. It really was amazing--as though the whole country was suddenly in seventh grade.

I could be wrong, of course, but I even recall Nunn & Co. threatening to write the gay ban into federal law if Clinton did not back down.

It's a pity that the Republican line on the 90s has become conventional wisdom, even on a nominally Democratic site like this one.

[QC]

101. OK, found the real numbers. Only 13% of armed services personnel supported

gay service members serving opening.

Among the general public, the number was only 44%.

Sources (http://www.pageoneq.com/news/mili121906.html, http://sendtofriend.abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/story?id=5387980&page=1)

These figures are a far cry from 75-80% support.

[Captain Hilts]

118. DING DING DING...And this round goes to...QC! nt

[ieoeja]

133. For the record, I said "American public".

From my source:

"A national poll conducted in May 2005 by the Boston Globe showed 79% of participants having nothing against openly gay people from serving in the military. A 2008 Washington Post-ABC News poll showed 75% of Americans said openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military, including 80% of Democrats, 75% of Independents, and 66% of conservatives. However, the military remains largely opposed. An Army Times poll of military members only found 25% in favor of allowing homosexuals to serve openly."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DADT


However ... from your second source:

"In 1993 fewer than half -- 44 percent -- believed they should be allowed to serve, rising to 62 percent in 2001 and today's 75 percent."

I did not have any information for the time. So you are correct. Clinton was not a coward with a vast majority backing him. He was a coward who also lacked much support.

[Metric System]

78. And Nunn launched his assault on gays on the day the spotlight was supposed to be on Hillary and

the new health care task force. From page 261-262 of Carl Bernstein's A Woman in Charge:

"Nunn purposefully made his announcement in Norfolk, Virginia, aboard a submarine, to demonstrate the close quarters of military life in which gay sailors would be forced to cohabitate...The timing of Nunn's declaration was itself a declaration of war: it eclipsed Clinton's announcement the same day, January 25, that Hillary would be formally appointed head of his task force on health care."

Gee, thanks Sam "Wise Man" Nunn!

[QC]

88. Yep. I tell ya, that Nunn is so wise! n/t

[Captain Hilts]

116. You know, submariners care less about gays because...

they're more concerned you're smart and you shower and pee all by yourself. No collective nudity on a sub.

My dad was a sub skipper.

[QC]

124. My very conservative brother in law spent twenty years on subs.

He said everybody knew who was gay and hardly anyone cared. This is back in the 80s, by the way.

[Captain Hilts]

126. Pride Runs Deep was the sub force's slogan. Gay pride runs deep too. nt

[Captain Hilts]

82. And a conservative Congress. I wish he'd fought harder too, but...

you have to pick your fights and a strong majority of US voters also opposed the measure.

But, to this day, Bill Clinton - and Hillary Clinton - have strong gay support. Bill Clinton took a hit for the team.

So, yes, Obama advisers Sam Nunn, Jim Cooper and, Colin Powell stomped that sucker flat.

[Spazito]

38. Hmmm, acting like sheep ala the repubs is usually an anathema ....

yet, when expedient to do so, it is okay?

I would fully support your point were it to deal with Democratic criticism of the party nominee, Obama but your complaint isn't about that, it is about the need to be lockstep with regard to someone who ISN'T on the ticket. Interesting, to say the least.

[Orsino]

39. Critical thinking is what makes us better.

We are less willing to live the lie.

[Captain Hilts]

51. I certainly agree with that. I don't like a herd mentality either. nt

[Chloroplast]

40. So, what do you want us to do? Deify the Clintons?

Sorry, I don't do idolatry. YOU can bow and scrape and I (and others) will hold them liable for any mistakes and questionable remarks they make. And before you whip yourself into a lather, I do this for every and any politician and not just the Clintons. To even suggest that Gore and Kerry could be jealous of Clinton shows just where your thought process is. Bill Clinton threw Kerry under the bus just because he knew he could; I don't know what's sadder: the fact that he happily did it or the fact that his worshipers think what he did wasn't an issue.

[Faygo Kid]

44. Excellent.

It's all about them, for them and their die-hard supporters. I am actually dreading the convention, except for Barack's speech.

Sick and tired of these worshipful posts.

[Forkboy]

42. Because we think maybe?

Reagan doesn't deserve it at all, but the Repubs are blind cheerleaders. You're right, we are better than them.

[randr]

43. Republic are obsessed with myth and image

while democrats deal with the real world.
Explains how they could not see through McCain this weekend and not connect with Obama's answers.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[highplainsdem]

46. K & R

[merh]

48. Oh, so the republicans are made fun of here for revering

the likes of Reagan despite his wrongs and abuses, for their idol worship of Reagan, but you support this article that says we dems should do the same for Clinton? Not in this life time, not this dem any way.

Let me ask you, was the economy better under Reagan than it is under GWB?

If things were better under Reagan than they are under GWB, does that mean I am to forgive Reagan's failings and abuses/mistakes/crimes?

Are we supposed to close our eyes to Reagan's failings because some things weren't as bad as they are now?

They why should we do it for Clinton - why are we not allowed to see that hs policies and failings lead the way to what we have now - but for and all of that?

[H2O Man]

49. I agree and disagree.

Most importantly, I suppose, is that the Democratic National Convention will help move our party past some of the rough ground from the primary season. I believe that there are some surprises in store, and that they will be positive and unifying.

[Captain Hilts]

53. I'm excited about the convention too. I think it will be fun to watch. nt

[MrScorpio]

57. Democrats DEMAND accountability

Republicans demand fealty

[Captain Hilts]

61. Yes. But liberals - look at Bob Herbert - he's STILL quoting the "vandalism of the WH" story ...

the Bush Administration MADE UP. The FBI and GAO said there was NOTHING to it, but this summer, Herbert was STILL mentioning it as true. And he's supposed to be a liberal. And he also trashed Gore in 2000.

That kind of thing.

[MrScorpio]

62. Oh, I agree

No use making up shit just to criticize it.

[Captain Hilts]

80. MrScorpio...

Keep up the Good Fight!

I want us to win BIG in November.

[blm]

95. Why didn't Clintons fight back on trashed WH story? You all claim they always fight back

but they didn't do much here, nor did Bill fight back when EIGHT FUCKING BOOKS came out after 9-11 blaming him and Democrats for being weak on terror. Did he fight back on that? No. Because fighting back against those lies would be helpful to OTHER Dems running for office in 2002 and 2004, and Clintons WANTED Bush to stay in office as they had their sights set on Hillary2008.

[Joe the Revelator]

63. What does this have to do with the current Presidential campaign

Wrong forum and simply not productive.

[specterderrida]

74. If you do not know you have not paid attention.

[AtomicKitten]

64. Reagan also advocated no trash-talking of your own party.

Bill Clinton: "One could argue no one is ready to be president."

Hillary Clinton: "I have a lifetime of experience, Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience, Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

[Occam Bandage]

66. We revere Kennedy and FDR, because they were great Democrats.

The Republicans revere Reagan, because he was the model Republican President (for better and mostly worse).

Few ideologues really revere Clinton, because while he was a good pragmatist and manager, and while his triangulation and compromises led to some solid successes, those same triangulations and compromises make it hard to hold him up as an example of the best our party's ideology can produce.

[Captain Hilts]

83. Yes, I think that's true...he was a politician...

I see the exact same traits in Obama, actually. He reminds me a lot of Bill Clinton circa 1992. That's why I hope he gets a more liberal congress to work with than the one that tied Bill Clinton's hands. I want us to win BIG.

[Occam Bandage]

105. I agree wholeheartedly. They're similar men with similar talents. nt

[Naturyl]

141. Exactly. I revere FDR and JFK because...

They fought hard and gave us Democratic policies. Clinton, on the other hand, made it his job to figure out which of the policies they gave us he could safely throw under the bus for crossover support.

[ieoeja]

72. Republicans turn on their own all the time.

The first President Bush was a glaring example. A large percentage despise John McCain and anticipate swinging their party even further into whack-a-doodle land after John "Moderate" McCain gets his ass handed to him this November. They figure this coupled with the second Bush's success will prove that the GOP only wins when they plumett off the deep end.

Conservatives frequently run primary challenges against Republic incumbents not Rightist enough. Liberals do so against Democratic incumbents much less often.

[dionysus]

77. Bill Clinton is the Little Baby Jesus(tm)

:eyes:

[Captain Hilts]

81. Sarcasm doesn't contribute much to this conversation, or most others here.

Why don't you practice by playing the home version of the game and come back when you're ready to contribute.

[QC]

91. Ouch!

It really is funny how many people around here think that sophomoric mockery is the same thing as argument.

[dionysus]

93. whats really funny is how many people think Bill Clinton (who BTW isn't running) was the best thing

since FDR.

He was above average, at best... not "Great". A consummate politician, who presided over a good economic stretch (tech\housing bubble).

He was no liberal, and in fact acted like an old school moderate republican.

Why not focus on the current candidate who's running a race rather than crowing about the good ol days of Bubba and how everyone is so mean to him?

I really hope you guys made a killing in stocks during the 90's, because if not, it would be your blind devotion to a guy who has been out of office for 8 years that is sophomoric, rather than the fact that i am annoyed that some people still want to make everything about the clintons...

[QC]

96. What a lovely straw man you have there!

I haven't seen anyone claim that Clinton is FDR, or even LBJ, for that matter. Anyone who remembers those years (which seems not to include some of the loudest and most vehement posters on DU, I'm afraid) well remembers how often Clinton disappointed us, how he seemed more interested in making his enemies love him than rewarding his allies.

It is the purest foolishness, though, for a party to spend so much time trashing one of its former presidents, especially one most people believe did a decent job. What does it say to voters when we present the last Democratic administration as a hellish nightmare from which America will never recover?

The obsession with the Clintons here has relatively little to do with his admirers here and much to do with those who are desperately trying to re-ignite the primary wars. They spend 90% of their time on DU trashing Democrats like the looniest of the 1998-era Freepers, and then, when people get tired of it, they scream, "You people need to get over Bubba! He stuck a cigar in that girl's pootie!"

Sorry, but if you and others like you were not so desperate to refight the primary, we wouldn't be hearing anywhere near as much about Bill Clinton.

[Captain Hilts]

117. Well, Clinton DID serve as prez for a few weeks in a wheelchair! nt

[Captain Hilts]

114. I agree with a lot that you've said, actually. nt

[Phx_Dem]

100. Republicans are like the borg.

They all walk in lock step and anyone who dares to speak out is smeared, labeled a traitor or fired if they're in the Bush administration. Democrats are still the party of democracy where free speech and free thought is allowed.

[Captain Hilts]

137. Good one! nt

[Terranist]

102. I think being independent and thoughtful is a GOOD THING; plus everyone hates McCain

Most GOP aren't in love with McCain because he doesn't completely hate immigrants and did take on lobbyists a few times.

[McCamy Taylor]

107. Not true. Lots of people without strong political beliefs like McCain in a superficial way.

They are the ones who will not pay much attention to politics, and who will be swayed by a few sound bites and the words of a few pundits and by a spectacle like the one Warren put on Saturday.

[Terranist]

108. I was at a flea market in south carolina

You know, REDDEST place you can be, and most people hated McCain. They knew next to nothing about politics but thought McCain was a douchebag.

[Captain Hilts]

125. Very very true. McCain gets the shallow benefit of the doubt.

Hillary Clinton certainly didn't and the MSM certainly isn't giving it to Obama now.

[McCamy Taylor]

106. I think Obama was saying the same thing. When he said "90s" he meant "Clinton"

A Democratic audience would equate the two. But the author is correct. Obama needs not to assume that his audience is on the same wavelength that he is. A better way to say it would be

"Ever since Reagan took over, hard working middle income Americans have seen their wages drop. The only time their salaries have risen was during the Bill Clinton administration. That is why we need another Democrat in the White House...."

Start getting people to equate "Democratic president" with "better wages for middle class Americans". Stop acting ashamed to be a Democrat.

[Captain Hilts]

122. There you go! Well said! Let's give our team credit when it deserves it.

We can't wait for the "liberal press" to do it.

[iamthebandfanman]

109. and whats wrong with it ?

i mean honestly, whats wrong with not giving someone God status just because they were in the same political party as you just because they did some things right?

why should we feel bad about holding people accoutable and wanting/expecting more and better from people?

you really cant give clinton ALL the credit for the 90s economic boom... alot of it goes to the rise of the internet coupled with clintons economics which in turn allowed more people to buy PC's. the 90s were a tech driven economy.

[polichick]

112. Republicans are lemmings - Dems are free thinkers...

That said, I would really love for more Dems to stand by their convictions.

[TheDonkey]

115. I don't remember Regean attacking and trying to bring down his own party

like the Clintons did in 2008.

[Captain Hilts]

120. You must be new to political campaigns. nt

[NashVegas]

123. Conservatives Want To Destroy - Not Defeat -DESTROY - Liberals & the Democratic Party & Dems Help

Everytime a Democrat or Liberal runs away from a Republican argument against a Dem ("I hated him - NAFTA!") they're assisting Republicans in dismantling the accomplishments of - not only Democratic presidents of the 20th century, but most all 20th century presidents who helped usher in liberal programs.



The most cherished dream of conservative Washington is that liberalism can somehow be defeated, finally and irreversibly, in the way that armies are beaten and pests are exterminated. Electoral victories by Republicans are just part of the story. The larger vision is of a future in which liberalism is physically barred from the control room -- of an "end of history" in which taxes and onerous regulation will never be allowed to threaten the fortunes private individuals make for themselves. This is the longing behind the former White House aide Karl Rove's talk of "permanent majority" and, 20 years previously, disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's declaration to the Republican convention that it's "the job of all revolutions to make permanent their gains."

When I first moved to contemplate this peculiar utopian vision, I was struck by its apparent futility. What I did not understand was that beating liberal ideas was not the goal. The Washington conservatives aim to make liberalism irrelevant not by debating, but by erasing it. Building a majority coalition has always been a part of the program, and conservatives have enjoyed remarkable success at it for more than 30 years. But winning elections was not a bid for permanence by itself. It was only a means.

The end was capturing the state, and using it to destroy liberalism as a practical alternative. The pattern was set by Margaret Thatcher, who used state power of the heaviest-handed sort to implant permanently the anti-state ideology.

"Economics are the method; the object is to change the soul," she said, echoing Stalin. In the 34 years before she became prime minister, Britain rode a see-saw of nationalization, privatization and renationalization; Thatcher set out to end the game for good. Her plan for privatising council housing was designed not only to enthrone the market, but to encourage an ownership mentality and "change the soul" of an entire class of voters. When she sold off nationally owned industries, she took steps to ensure that workers received shares at below-market rates, leading hopefully to the same soul transformation. Her brutal suppression of the miners' strike in 1984 showed what now awaited those who resisted the new order. As a Business Week reporter summarized it in 1987: "She sees her mission as nothing less than eradicating Labour Party socialism as a political alternative."

In their own pursuit of the free-market utopia, America's right-wingers did not have as far to travel as their British cousins, and they have never needed to use their state power so ruthlessly. But the pattern is the same: scatter the left's constituencies, hack open the liberal state and reward friendly businesses with the loot.

http://www.alternet.org/democracy/95372/the_plot_against_liberal_america/

[greguganus]

134. And some democratic leaders praise McCain. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

135. Exactly right. Get on the damn bus. n/t

[Naturyl]

139. Bill Clinton is not "my own."

He stopped being one of "my own" when he signed Welfare DEform and threw the poor under the bus to score some cheap political points with the knuckle-draggers and mouth-breathers.

Clinton was a good president in many ways, but I'm never going to forgive that back-stabbing act.

[depakid]

142. Democrats who act like Democrats don't get trashed

except by the far right.