kerry

Dim Future?

This entry was posted in bush Economics Election 2004 kerry on by

Sadly, No! hammers David Frum and then Brad Delong piles on and regarding Frum’s discussion of Canadian economic growth asks:

Why does Frum think–as he appears to–that increases in the government have consumed 2/3 of economic growth–45 as a share of 67–rather than 1/8 of economic growth–60 as a share of 490? As a Harvard man, I cannot shrink from the necessary and inevitable conclusion: Yale must be in some way responsible.
That Yale processed both Frum and bush does not bode well for the next 4 years be it a bush or kerry administration.

Campaign Finance

This entry was posted in bush Election 2004 kerry on by

James Joyner in commenting on this request that Kerry resign his senate seat says:

Candidates running for higher office while still holding their current one always face this problem, although Kerry does seem to be carrying the absentee bit further than most. His Senate salary, while modest in the context of the Heinz fortune, amounts to an undeclared taxpayer donation to his campaign since he has essentially been paid to run for president. My preference would be for all candidates seeking election to an office other than the one they currently hold to do so as private citizens.
This “undeclared taxpayer donation” is a true pittance compared to the much more egregious undeclared taxpayer donation to the bush campaign. I suspect that a single Air Force One campaign trip would pay kerry’s salary many time over.
Fairness suggests that both candidates should clearly account for time at work and at campaign and repay the taxpayer out of their campaign funds. This should be the practice for all office holders running for a higher office.
If the president is mixing state business (real or alleged) and campaig activities on the same trip he should not get to charge it all to the taxpayers.
Update (6/17): Sorry, I left off the link to James’ post.

bush’s nader

This entry was posted in bush Constitution Election 2004 kerry Libertarianism US History on by

On Friday Michael Medved spent part of his radio program bashing libertarians or, in his words, loosertarians. I say part because I listened to only 15-20 minutes. He may well have spent the entire show on this subject. Does anyone know if other talk jocks have taken up libertarian bashing now that there has been so much discussion about bush possibly loosing the libertarian vote?
Medved’s attack, at least while I was listening, was primarily ad hominem and without substance.
I found it particularly interesting that Medved, a lawyer, found it important to put down one of the Libertarian candidates because this candidate was teaching an 8 hour class on the U.S. constitution in conjunction with the Libertarian convention. This suggested to me that Medved perhaps does not consider the consitution important or important for the president to understand.
g w bush has sworn to uphold the constitution but can you imagine him teaching a class on the constitution? Even one as short as 8 hours?
Just to be fair and balanced: while kerry’s presentation may be smoother then w’s it is not at all clear that either Yale grad could teach this short course.

The Lakers and the Candidates

This entry was posted in bush Democrats Election 2004 kerry Republicans on by

Professor Bainbridge doesn’t like the Lakers:

The Lakers personify our People/ET celebrity culture in which superficiality reigns supreme. They aren’t a team – they’re the sports world equivalent of VH1 Divas – four prima donnas plus entourages.

Which leads the Libertarian Jackass to wonder whether the Professor’s future action will be consistent with his words:

I hope the good professor votes against Bush and Kerry for similar reasons.

But I don’t think that the Professor puts bushco in this category:

As far as the elites are concerned, Middle America and the Republican Party are synonmous.
….
Here we see the modern Democratic party – secular elites at the top using the levers of government to effect wealth transfers from Middle America to reliable Democrat constituencies and special interests.

Now I do not disagree with his evaluation of what a Democratic government will do. The wealth transfer, using the power of government, is the whole game.
A simple variation of Bainbridge’s last sentence describes the current state of affairs: Here we see the modern Republican party – religious elites at the top using the levers of government to effect wealth transfers from Middle America to reliable Republican constituencies and special interests.

Update: Kevin Drum and Steve Verdon have related posts.