411 Poltics Fact or Fiction: Week 59
Posted by Brandon Crow on 09.10.2007
Does America want to forget Bush? Will Bush be able to keep hiding behind the "housing boom" now that it's burst? Is polygamy more accepted by the conservatives than gay marriage? And finally, what does Larry Craig have to say about all this?
It's week 59 of Fact or Fiction and for this "special occasion," I have two very special participants lined up. Hey look, it's the Ray Show… yes, fine readers, the two Ray's from the Politics Zone go to war this week. Please help me welcome arch-liberal Ray Church and arch-conservative Ray Robison!!
Is the political universe (no copyright there…) big enough to contain these two giants of opposite extremes? Let's find out. This battle should be epic, so let's not waste time with chatty intros…
Ding, Ding!
1. It's barely September of 2007, and already we've seen a plethora of presidential debates. The main reason for this rush to find "The Next American President"—more than a year out from the general election—is because people strongly desire to move beyond the Bush presidency.
Ray Robison: FICTION. A real nice discussion of the topic can be found here:
The debates are driven by the early primary cycle. The early primary cycle on the Democrat side is driven by the desire by several states to increase their relevance to the national cycle. Reasons also include some claims within the party that New Hampshire is not representative of the national demographics because of a high white population and thus slants the picks to white candidates. President Bush is not mentioned in any serious discussion of the accelerated election cycle.
Ray Church: FACT. Every fact that "Imposter Ray" has used is correct, but he misses the key question: Why now? Yes, the media has highlighted the idea of "key states" who want to keep themselves in the limelight, but the term Battleground State has been around for a while now. The reality is that these states want to be the State that determines THIS election, and that is important both because of a desperate call for change and the critical role played by Iowa and Florida in the past two elections.
0 for 1. These two just can't agree…which is good for me and my ultimate 0 for 4 goal!
2. The boom in the housing market of the past six years has helped bolster Bush's claim that his tax cuts are working, and keeping the nation's economy strong. Now that the housing bubble is bursting all across the nation, Bush will no longer have the boom as cover, and the true, negative results of his "hoard up, trickle down" economic policy will start to show.
Ray Robison: FICTION. It just doesn't matter how many great economic indicators there are, liberals will pick one that looks weak and cry "the sky is falling". Great unemployment rates, a rocking stock market, world leading productivity – none of it matters because one indicator is weak. Look, the economy can not sustain the same growth rate all the time. It will go up for a while and then down. Liberals will cry fowl because the projected growth is .01% less than expected. It is essentially because libs hate and don't understand capitalism. Move on libs, you're boring me.
Ray Church: FACT. Move on Ray, you bore me. Maybe the reason liberals hate capitalism, as its invoked by the radical right, is that they do understand it. Unemployment rates only mean something if it is connected with an overall standard of living increase across the line, where as these unemployment rates are fueled by lower paying jobs and people who have been moved off the unemployment rolls. A rocking stock market is great for people who have money in the stock market... which accounts for what percentage of the population exactly? Very small. World-leading productivity? Really? I thought China was the world's workshop? I thought there was a massive trade deficit in the United States because people over my side of the world are selling more and buying less from people over your side of the world.
So yes, the projected growth was lower than expected by a miniscule amount, but what Ray Robinson seems to forget is that Capitalism, at least as it is enacted in the US, favors the rich at the expense of the poor, and when the poor and middle class get hammered, that's when you know the system is in for a shock wave.
0 for 2. Ok, this won't come as a surprise to anybody, least of all Ray Robison, but I'm in agreement here with Ray Church. I have a BIG issue with Robison's (mis)characterization of the "rocking" stock market. I wonder whose stock market that is… It couldn't possibly be the US' unless by "rocking" Robison means up-and-down, rickety and unstable. It's been that way almost on a daily basis for the past six months.
Perhaps Robison wouldn't be so bored if he actually researched his "rocking" stock market claim some more instead of pass on what he hears from right-wing radio/TV. Jim Stack from Forbes Magazine (itself a conservative publication) had this to say over the weekend: "today's economy is on a collision course with a recession. And the most probable starting point is the fourth quarter of 2007. Because the stock market typically leads the economy by several months, you can guess what that means for Wall Street from here on out.
"For the most part, we're in uncharted waters when it comes to the housing sector, and the boom-to-bust unwinding has been underway for over 18 months. Then there's the unpredictable Dow Industrials. The DJIA plummeted over 1,000 points from its peak in July through early August and declining stocks overwhelmed advancing stocks more than 2:1. That type of negative breadth divergence has occurred only 15 times in 75 years – the majority of which were in bear markets."
As for "unemployment," it has been completely redefined under the Bush years. We've lost a ton of professional jobs with benefits and nowadays, ANY job counts as being employed. So if I work for 15 hours a week at McDonald's, I'm "employed." And if I have to hold eight jobs just to cover rent, well, shoot, I guess statistically, the employment rate in the US is also "rocking!" Lastly, I think Robison must've missed (or ignored) the latest news reports on Countrywide shedding 12,000 jobs as well the economy coming in at a negative 4,000 jobs when it was projected to create 110,000 new jobs. Oh, and by the way, when people lose jobs, they lose homes too… And when mortgages default and homes foreclose, that drives down the economy as well as depletes property taxes, which further down-spirals the economy. Just look around at what's happening. "Rocking?" Really? Come on, Ray Robison! For someone who so readily and happily demeans liberals and tells them to do research instead of swallowing the "news" from the liberal media, you needed to do a lot better than this.
Switch-A-Roo!
3. Idaho Senator Larry Craig got exactly what he deserved.
Ray Church: FICTION. No, I didn't just say that to shock Crow. On a personal level Craig needs help, not abuse. I mentioned it my column last week that this may well be cognitive dissonance; his behavior is acting out in rebellion to his professed persona.
Nobody deserves to be dragged through the media mud ranch. Craig needs help, not scorn.
Ray Robison: FACT. There is no place for hypocrites in either party, or maybe I am just tilting at windmills…in Cape Cod. (I'm looking at you, Ted Kennedy)
0 for 3. Ahem, that's 0 for 3, people… By the way, WOW, I certainly didn't see that role reversal coming for the two Rays…It was like Rock going heel and Hogan going face at Wrestlemania 18!
4. Polygamy, though officially illegal in the United States, but still practiced (and more commonly than believed) has not gotten much government attention thus far, especially from the Bush White House. However, homosexual marriage has gotten plenty of overt deliberation. The real reason conservatives harshly rebuke gay marriage and pointedly overlook polygamy is because, secretly, they revolt at the idea of two men, but delight in the idea of two women.
Ray Church: FICTION. The real reason is polygamy is low profile... and maybe that the old testament is filled with polygamy and God didn't say anything about it back then. The real question is why don't they go after divorce, which is absolutely decried in the New Testament...
Oh, right. Newt and Rudy and half of Congress. It's a bit harder to hide that sin. But that brings up another question: Why do Republicans stand against any form of homosexual equality? If it wasn't a law the homosexual's wouldn't get busted and they could go on scoring points from the social conservatives without fear of being discovered.
Ray Robison: FICTION. What does polygamy have to do with gay marriage or the White House? Anyway…the reason polygamy is little talked about is because it is already illegal and few people want to change that. It is a little bit childish to set that up as a secret endorsement of polygamy. But if you have to talk about Bush and the gay marriage issue, let's look at what the president has really said:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6338458/
President Bush said:
"I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so," Bush said in an interview aired Tuesday on ABC. Bush acknowledged that his position put him at odds with the Republican platform, which opposes civil unions.
"I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights," said Bush, who has pressed for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. "States ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others."
And although most of the media conveniently forgets what he said, you can find gay advocacy sites that praise the president and make the point that his position was actually more liberal on gay unions than Bill Clinton voiced as President.
Crow's Note: Um...who's the guy that keeps bringing up the "Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage every two years?
It's amazing what you can find when you stop listening to people suffering from Bush-hatred Derangement Syndrome.
Crow's Note: You gotta love how disagreement or questioning is always dismissed as either "unpatriotic and troop-hating" or "those with BDS..." Where was all the talk about CDS? Oh that's right, Clinton was just straight up an evil and incompetent president...I forgot, how silly of me...
1 for 4. Oh…so close!! I almost had a historic run here at 411… I don't think anyone has done a 4 for 4 one week, followed by an 0 for 4 the next week… so close!
Week 59 is officially in the can. Big props to both Rays for stepping up and jumping in. You two polar opposites can drop by again any time!
Well, I have two interested readers lined up for next week. Are there any others out there who'd like to see their names in lights? Ok, just in bold… but still.
STAY CURRENT