TPS

You obviously don't get the point since you're stuck in the lemming mode: cronysim goes on all the time in "politically appointed" positions, and yes on both sides. However, for civil service hires, especially in the area of WMD, don't you want the most highly qualified person? Don't you want someone who is not afraid to have a counter argument to the Neocons? Sorry GoB, but I think this is more than a "change of policy." It's making sure that everyone is on board with one policy. That is NOT good at the STate department. Ideas are not generated by ass-kissing.

"The 2007 Budget builds on this success in reining in spending. Like last year, the 2007 Budget holds overall discretionary spending growth below the rate of inflation and again proposes a cut in non-security discretionary spending. The 2007 Budget also proposes major savings in or eliminations of 141 Federal programs, saving nearly $15 billion. " From our main propaganda unit: The White House

Great idea... "Thomas Lehrman, a political appointee who heads the new office of Weapons of Mass Destruction Terrorism, advertised outside the State Department to fill jobs in his office. In an e-mail to universities and research centers, a copy of which was obtained by Knight Ridder, he listed loyalty to Bush and Rice's priorities as a qualification. " Just what we need at State, and especially the office of WMDT, YES-men. But Bush Good.

Republicans are so fiscally responsible. Ok, I'm gonna cut non-defense, non-homeland security expenditures, but I'm going to increase defense and homeland security expenditures, and exclude the cost of Iraq and AFghanistan from my budget numbers, and cut more taxes, but my budget is fiscally sound. I guess they know the lemmings won't vote against them.... At least they were smart enough to leave out the long term budget projections, because the numbers aren't pretty. Sheesh!

Lauvale Sape There's a good reason Samoans still practice their "War Dance" ....

It's not hearings about a hurricane, it's about the response. And people ought to be concerned when the head of FEMA, in the midst of the crisis, was more concerned about his dinner reservation than the flooding of the city.

Getting out of control So if Bush declares that there's a perpetual "War on Terror" he can assert executive privilege about FEMA's response to Katrina? Where does it stop? Is this what conservatives want in the executive branch?

Here's another perspective: democrats? Like many arguments here, it depends on what you mean by the word "is".... I do find it interesting, after a quick perusal of the subjects on the first two pages here, that the first post about Abramoff is the tried and true--and most common argument here, "the dems did it too" or "the dems are worse." Abramoff is closely tied to the republican leadership and the White House. This is truly a republican scandal. That said, I don't trust either party. I think the dems play the money game too; it's just that the republicans have taken it up quite a few notches. K Street

Defends Chavez from what?

Wanted to get an idea of the drafts the Bears' had under Jauron. Difficult to make overall judgements, but focusing on his top 3 picks in each year (1999-2003): 2 QBs (McNown and Grossman) 4 OL 2 WR 1 RB 2 DL 3 DB 1 LB I didn't take the time to find out what happened to a lot of these guys (injuries, etc), but I'd say his drafts look above average (top 1/3?). First two years look like good foundation building, then the 3rd year he went for some Prime time players (Terrell and Thomas). He's had a couple of good late round picks (4-7), but not a lot--Colvin, Azumah, and Brown. Maybe someone with more time can do a more in depth analysis. Bears' draft history

I'd don't care who is in power; I'm against more power to the executive--I prefer not to live in a police state. The problem has NOT been intelligence agencies "lack the tools" to fight AQ; the problem has been the ineptness of the bureaucratic intelligence structure. And what did Bush do? He created the largest bureaucratic structure of all--Homeland Security. In five separate cases before 911, FBI agents investigating AQ had their hands tied from above (DC). The Patriot Act can't prevent that.

Isn't AQ (and OBL) always on the run? Somehow it doesn't seem to prevent him from overcoming the most sophisticated secruity network in the world though. Hmmm....maybe we should just hire AQ? They're obviously more intelligent than our intelligence... And, no, this doesn't make we want to hand over to the executive the power to wire tap under any and all circumstances. Might as well live under Stalinist Russia.

I saw him briefly on the NFL network this morning (although it was probably yesterday's show) giving some kind of press conference related to their game, and he came off very confident and articulate. He makes a good first impression.

Ngata has declared for the draft. I saw a little bit of him in their bowl game. He was double-teamed on just about every play. He looks like a Ted Washington-type player.

Along that same line, I think Wade deserves another shot as well.

Ron Paul

Sheesh. There's a pot calling a kettle black...

Green eggs and ham? Really?

for rejecting the extension of the Patriot Act. Who will prevent unauthorized signs now?!? No signs!

If it's published by a conservative/libertarian think tank, it has to be true, right? CATO for pay.

Yes, it really disappoints me that he can't catch passes ten yards over his head or the ones that bounce first. What a bust.

Hmmm...so that's why my intern can't work late next Wednesday....

Of course it was...

Housing Bubble Let's see, I beleive the right says it was the Tech bubble that fueled the 1990s, not Clinton's policies; so would you say the same about the housing bubble? Or is the housing bubble, and "half the growth since 2001", a consequence of Bush's supply-side policies? "The slump in the bonds is one of the first signs the housing boom is ending after the Federal Reserve's 12 interest- rate increases. Real estate has accounted for about half the economy's growth since 2001, according to Merrill Lynch & Co. "

I don't think we were supporting parties, rather we were discussing the predicited outcomes of personal tax cuts on the federal budget. I was explaining the impact that a keynesian would predict, and GG was predicting the impact from the supply-side perspective. Keynesians: personal tax cuts stimulate the economy by increasing household consumption and increased deficits. I argued (and provided evidence) the actual deficits were a function of the decrease in TOTAL revenues and increased spending. Supply-side (interpreting the arguments made here): while personal tax cuts increase spending, they have spillover effects on many different areas (markets, profits, etc), thus increasing total tax revenues, and (eventually?) lowering deficits. No evidence was given. As for your contention that politicians use economic theories to their own benefit, I couldn't agree more. Hooray for your team!!!!