There's a great LTE (letter to the editor) in today's Fredericksburg Free-Lance Star. Entitled, "Allenites gear up for a nasty Senate campaign," it's by "a lifelong Republican" named Judith Murray, responding to an op-ed by Dennis Lister, vice chairman of the Fredericksburg Republican Committee, on why he - SHOCKER! - does not support Jim Webb for US Senate. According to Ms. Murray (bolding added for emphasis):
If you love President Bush, you love his clone, George Allen, a good ol' boy who reiterates Bush's words and adopts his manner down to the cowboy boots.Republican "morals" during this administration have been manifested in Congress' actions--legislating to benefit its donors, not our country.
Every bill passed has been loaded with pork. The only budget cuts have been at the expense of the poor and those with no influence.
When confronted with blatant corruption, Congress didn't manage to pass reform legislation. It was too busy raising hysteria about homosexuals and flag-burners, both evidently major threats to our country and Constitution.
For many years, Republicans stood for fiscal responsibility and personal rights--keeping government out of our lives and homes.
To me, this current congressional stance and that of Sen. Allen, along with the debacle of Iraq, is immoral and dishonest. It threatens the future of our children.
Mr. Lister has every right to disagree with Mr. Webb, but questioning the morals of a man who voices his opinions honestly and thoughtfully gives us a preview of the trite-slogan-riddled, fear-mongering campaign Sen. Allen will pursue.
Why not try discussing real issues--the record of the Congress and of Sen. Allen?
Wow, that sounds like stuff we say over here at Raising Kaine every day. Hey, Ms. Lister, if you have nothing better to do, we're always looking for good writers! :)
Why won't candidate Webb answer Allen's question -- which specific votes of Allen's does Webb disagree with?
Pretty simply question, ain't it?
Tax policy: Income tax cuts for guys like Bubby who don't need them while we wage war on borrowed dollars.
War spending: Continuing to sweep the real cost of the Iraq/Ghany war under the carpet by passing stop-gap funding instead of adding the cost to Bush's Budget.
Energy policy: Allen voted to drill the Alaska Wilderness rather than advance a viable plan to address the real issue - dependence on petroleum.
Flag burning Amendment: Allen voted to add an Amendment to the United States Constitution making it illegal to burn our flag. Do-nothing-pandering-politician.
There you go Publius, a compendium of incompetence. And mind your manners -don't continue to troll-rate comments you disagree with. Unless you want to lose your seat.
Whether you like it, or not, all Americans deserve the opportunity to become wealthy like Bubby. Bubby was a hardworker in his day and should enjoy the fruits of his labor.
In addition, it is a recognized axiom that as marginal tax rates decrease, revenues will increase over time. To see this in action, look at those socialist nations which have 90% tax rates -- revenue production decreases as marginal tax rates increase.
2. Flag Amendment -- I just love how RK has neglected any mention of this from Bob Gibson's article:
"At the close of Allen's remarks, Legion officers singled him out for a special ovation for supporting a constitutional ban on burning the American flag. Allen voted for the amendment, which the Senate rejected two weeks ago. Webb, who opposes the amendment on free-speech grounds, did not mention the flag amendment and received no comparable recognition, even though he is a legionnaire."
If I had only read RK on this subject, I would have gained a sense that Allen was ridden out of town on a rail. Funny how there are always two-sides to every story.
Typical.
"At the close of Allen's remarks, Legion officers singled him out for a special ovation for supporting a constitutional ban on burning the American flag. Allen voted for the amendment, which the Senate rejected two weeks ago. Webb, who opposes the amendment on free-speech grounds, did not mention the flag amendment and received no comparable recognition, even though he is a legionnaire."
I was there, and that is a gross misstatement by Gibson.
Answer these questions and I'll take your word for it:
1. Did Allen receive applause regarding the constitutional ban? Yes or no.
2. Did officers single him out in any fashion for his vote regarding the Constitutional Amendment? Yes or no.
3. Did Senator John Warner receive applause, ovation, or thanks regarding the proposed constitutional amendment vote?
4. Describe any and all response that Allen did receive regarding the ovation?
5. State the basis for your assertion that Bob Gibson's article is incorrect.
6. Do you believe that Bob Gibson lied in his article? Yes or no.
7. State the basis upon which you believe that Bob Gibson lied in his article.
Tax cuts have had a stimulative effect on the economy?? Wrong. Put down the kool-aid and review these items:
Investment spending? Non-residential investment spending (non-morgage) has been lower under Bush (10.45%) than under Clinton (11.18%). Bush tax cuts have not stimulated economic investment.
Wage Growth? Corporate profits have increased-- 8.54%in 2001 to 13.88% in the first quarter of 2006. The average hourly wage of production workers was $14.70 in November 2001 and $16.61 in April 2006 for an increase of 13%. Over the same period, the overall inflation index increased from 177.4 to 201.5 for an increase of 13.58%. This makes the inflation-adjusted wages for production workers -.5% for this expansion.
Jobs Growth? There were 130,883,000 jobs in the US in November 2001 and 135,106,000 in May 2006 for a total gain of 4,223,000. That's a compound annual growth rate of .70% Not much to brag about there.
GDP growth? The US median GrossDomesticProduct growth for the 1990s was 3.7%. For this expansion, the median GDP growth is 3.1% for 2002-2005 and 3.5% for 2003-2005. Bush's supply-side, trickle down ecomomics don't stimulate the ecomomy any more than Clinton's (and Clinton balanced the budget and created a surplus).
So Roger, the facts speak for themselves regarding Republican tax policies - they are a pandering bid to voters offering lower marginal rates, paid for with a stagnant economy, crappy jobs, lower wages, and a mountain of national debt.
But hey, you got more jack in YOUR pocket so I understand why you want to tow the party line.
If you are so confident in your position, I submit that you should propose a 15% increase. If can cannot agree with the premise that tax cuts have a stimulative effect on the economy, then the converse would be true. So, go ahead, propose rate increases.
If you have some of that extra limosine liberal jack, send it my way. I'll gladly take it.
Q: Roger,who was the last President that delivered your country a budget surplus?
A: Bill Clinton, the same guy that delivered this real economic improvement;
From 1995 to 1998, the proportion of families with incomes of $50,000 or more rose from 20% to 33.8%, while the proportion with incomes below $10,000 fell about 17% to 12.6%.
THAT is the kind of economic stimulation America needs.
Again ZZZZzzzzzzzz..... . . .
What a flameout for Repubs, from Contract With America to shutting down the US Government in 12 months. Followed by Gingrich's ethics problems - greed, lying, and standard Republican corruption we have come to expect.
By the 1998 the party was over. America was sick of Gingrich, Republican Politics and the Repubs lost seats in the House. Glorious years.
Oh wait a minute ... that was the first thing the Webb campaign proposed since winning the primary and Dick Wadham's is waffling that one ... avoiding the issues debate in favor of image re-building of a Bush / Cheney Republican. Let's face it ... that in itself is a huge task.
When your team gets the gonads to show up ... let us know! Till then go troll somewhere else.
But nice try anyway.
I suppose Webb was supposed to respond to what Felix was going to say (that actually is plausible since Felix has no original thoughts).
Here's a start:
1. The 1981 Kemp Roth Tax Act;
2. SDI;
3. the firing of PATCO employees;
4. appointment of conservative judges;
5. support for the Contras;
6. deregulation;
7. revamping Western lands policies;
8. nomination of Justice Scalia;
9. invasion of Grenada;
10. massive increase in defense spending.
Since he has cited his past involvement with Ronald Reagan...and he has now become a "Reagan Democrat"...I think it is a fair question to ask where he differs with the programs promoted by his former boss.