Giuliani said it’s no feat to make changes for the sake of change.
“Change is either good or bad. So I think people have to focus a little bit more carefully on, what is it that we’re promising, and what are we trying to do. Now, if the change is in the direction of lower taxes, less spending, giving parents choice over education, energy independence, these are things that are going to make a brighter future and a better America. But just the word ‘change’ doesn’t connote good or bad. You’ve got to get one step beyond that and start looking at the changes,” he said.
When the Democrats say they want “change”, it is very much like the “new direction” they campaigned on in 2006 – sounds nice, but it doesn’t actually mean anything. For someone like Giuliani, the Democrats talking about “change” has to sound a bit ridiculous – none of the top three Democratic contenders has ever had to make a decision to change anything – Giuliani has, and knows its not a magic incantation which just makes everything all right.
Take, for instance, one of the major changes the Democrats all say they want – universal health care. Fine and dandy – lets have it; but lets also have the details. And lets not tax them too highly – certainly not as highly as they plan on taxing us. We’ll start small: Hillary, John, Barack – under your universal health care plan, if there are ten people who need a colonoscopy today, and only 5 colonscopies can be done today, who decides who goes first, and who has to wait for later? If they can’t answer a simple question like that – and they can’t – then all their talk of “change” is just so much poll-tested fluff designed to sucker the credulous (ie, liberals) into voting for them.
I still haven’t settled on a candiate for 2008 (though with the caucuses just 9 days away, crunch time is coming), but in Giuliani, Thompson, Romney, McCain and Huckabee, we have candidates who have far more experience in the practical difficulties of “change” than the three leading Democrats. In simple terms of knowledge and experience, the Republican field far outclasses the Democratic field – and I think that as November approaches, this will become decisive in voters’ minds.
Blogs For Victory 
What ever happened to “blogs for bush”?
Oh, you flip flopped because you are too ashamed to align yourself with such a buffoned idiot who couldn’t run a lemonade stand in the middle of a dessert let alone run a country.
Merrill Lynch is writing of 15b thanks to Bush’s economic policy. In addition, Countrywide Financial, the nation’s largest home loan lender, reported yesterday that foreclosures and late payments on mortgages in December soared to their highest levels in five years.
The large number of the bad loans alarmed mortgage analysts who follow the company. Several said the Countrywide report showed that housing market conditions were unraveling at an unexpectedly rapid pace.
We need regulations to force corporations to act in an ethical manner. While you guys complain about immigrants coming over the boarder, foreign interests are buying up American companies hurt by the sub prime mortgage debacle.
We need change and not corporate loving Republican can bring it.
2. oo | January 11th, 2008 at 6:14 am
What ever happened to “blogs for bush”?
Oh, you flip flopped because you are too ashamed to align yourself with such a buffoned idiot who couldn’t run a lemonade stand in the middle of a dessert let alone run a country.
If you bothered to click on the “about” button and read the explanation for this sites existance you would know why Mark, et al., changed to Blogs For Victory.
Are lobotomies a mandatory part of becoming a liberal or a progressive?
Furthermore, Morons do not fly supersonic fighters (F-102) armed with nuclear missiles nor do they receive MBA’s from Harvard. If anything, someone who believes that a fighter pilot with an MBA is an idiot is truly someone who qualifies for the title of moron.
Seriously, I think it has to take a lot of hard work for someone to be dumber than a Democrat.
I intended to leave a comment about the magical use of the word “Change”.
“Change” is a magic word that the material and spiritual parasites use to make themselves feel good about their desire to exercise control over the productive members of society.
The fact of reality is that those of us who are by choice or by default in the Conservative faction generally prefer to deal with other people on the basis of consent. We generally do not object to a change in the material or social aspect of our lives as long as it is done by consent.
But the Left, who presently style themselves as progressives, know that most of us will not consent to being leeched off by willful parasites. Therefore they seek to “change” our society back to the barbaric structure of a lord/serf structure, with themselves holding the whip over the rest of us.
Leslie, to expand a bit on your comment, we’re getting dangerously close to a tipping point where the consent you describe will just go out the window. Right now about 51% of the population is pulling the wagon while 49% is either riding in the wagon or at least hitching a ride in the wagon from time to time. Politicians (particularly Democrats) appeal to the people either riding in the wagon or people who would like to ride in the wagon. Once the percentage of people riding in the wagon exceeds 50%, then “consent” is dead. Once the majority can simply vote itself free guv’mint cheese, then this will no longer be a desirable place to live.
“Merrill Lynch is writing of 15b thanks to Bush’s economic policy.” – CW
Wow – Now we’re blaming Bush for the poor management decisions a financial company makes? Your BDS is glowing bright as ever.
DM, “Christian” knows that the financial conditions she mentioned are the markets adjusting to the prospects of “change”. The prospect or Hussein or Billary as POTUS. The new era of Jimmy Carter finances. In fact I expect the markets to tremble more as the MSM annoints the election to Hussein or Billary.
Christian Wright, first Bush did appoint “helicopter” Bernarke and he is doing quite a lot. The fed lowers the interest rates by buying governemnt assets with “checkbook” or “ink” money, and the dollars are flooding the system. Not to mention all the short term asset purchases and all the other stuff.
The whole point of the financial sector is to arbitrage capital from less to more productive markets(to get the capital to those that will get the highest return from it). The service they provide relies entirely on how well they act as “observers” to the market.
So when a financial company fails and someone says the solution is more buerocratic mandates dictating the rules of voluntary free trade(democratic solution), or when someone suggest keep the inflation accelerator down full blast and basically create big subsidies for the financial sector payed for by general inflation(republican solution), just compare that to any other industy in the market.
If a hamburger place makes really bad decisions and is threatened with closing, is the solution a big government subsidy and some buerocratic regulation for the whole hamburger industry on how they must now cook the hamburgers?
Same for a car manufacturer, if the manufacturer makes cars that don’t work, is the solution subsidies and regulation?
I’d also like to mention that almost every national economic crisis is preceeded by artificially low interest rates follow by higher rates. Of course when you subsidize credit, buisnesses that rely on credit will expand. People will move into the subsidized areas, people will be chasing subsidy money rather than consumer satisfaction, so when you stop the inflation of course the markets all misallocated around it and someones gonna get hurt. And the fact that inflation tends to take purchasing power from the working class, those on fixed incomes and savers and transfers it to big buisness and the financial sector. Transfer payments from the poor to the rich really seems wrong to me.
anarchist,
Thank you for the pessimistic, marxist look at our economy, much of which doesn’t even make sense.
[[so when you stop the inflation of course the markets all misallocated around it and someones gonna get hurt. – anarchist]]
What?
If you haven’t noticed, credit is currently hard to come by. The hard money markets have tightened up considerably. The past easy access to credit was in part attributed to Congressional directives to loosen up lending requirements therefore making mortgages more accessible to lower income families (that American dream thing). Well, we’ve all learned now that many of those loans, which wouldn’t have been made previously, actually shouldn’t have been made. Still, the sub-prime crisis effects only 4% of mortgage holders, hardly a “crisis” that can’t be overcome.
Hey Mark,
If I’m not still banned from Club Noonan, he’s something I wrote for ya!
I realize now that I’ve been wrong about Mitt Romney all along. I have been mystified by the ability of Republicans to support George W. Bush when they know he is lying to them, but that somehow Republicans did not extend Mitt the same support given his repeated problems with the truth. But now I think I understand it.
George Bush is a straight ahead liar, he can lie repeatedly with a straight face to his adoring Republican adherents, people know he’s lying, but since they like him they are OK with it. They believe (like most sentient beings on the planet) that Bush is an amiable dunce, but they just plain like the guy so they’ll accept what he says, even if they know that he’s not being truthful with them.
Mitt, on the other hand, is not a straight ahead liar; at least he’s not perceived in that way. He is viewed (by most sentient beings on the planet) as a panderer, one who will change any position, wiggle out of any past opinion, slither away from any previous statement, all with a pasted-on smile. Bush’s lying is straightforward, bold, readily apparent, free from nuance. Mitt is all about nuance; it’s actually entertaining to watch him try and explain his past support of gays, of abortion, seeing his father march with MLK. His slick rationalizations, professionally packaged, rehearsed and delivered with a faux-conviction that makes his new position seem somehow heroic, its marketing genius. Except that people aren’t buying it. Clearly they will accept lying from people they like, but they can’t accept pandering insincerity from somebody they don’t like.
Of course Mitt is well-schooled in the insincerity business. He’s the guy who told you (and expected you to believe it) that when Bain Capital bought your company and you were one of the 25% of employees to be laid off, this was actually a good thing for you. He was the person who, when Bain bought the factory where you worked and shut it down to move the operation to China, that this was progress. He was the guy who, when he bought the business where you worked and cut your benefits, told you that it was for you and for good of the company.
What Mitt knew then, and knows still today, is that those things actually were good. But they weren’t good for you, your co-workers, your friends, they were good for him, and the small group of managers who would buy a company, gut it, break it up and re-sell it at an enormous profit. Mitt and his partners were left with millions. You were left without a job, and with Mitt’s voice ringing in your ears telling you how great the whole thing was. The thing is, Mitt wasn’t exactly lying to them, he was simply, painfully, obviously, insincere. Bottom line: people will accept lying from a known liar as long as they like him. People will not accept insincerity from one well known for it, even if they do like him. Of course, with Mitt, they don’t seem to like him, either.
It’s clear that, with Mitt and his handlers, the belief is that it’s all about marketing. If they package the product in a certain way hopefully enough people will look past their misgivings about the brilliant panderer and vote for him anyway. But over the long haul, people will inevitably see through the packaging and get an unadulterated view of the product, and when they see the real Mitt they don’t like what they see. Would that all Americans are able to get a similar, unvarnished view of the man. If they do, then the Mittanic, which has struck dual icebergs in Iowa and New Hampshire, will slip quietly beneath the surface of the political landscape in our beloved country. Here’s hoping!
Have a nice day,
Phil
My complaint about the Mortgage companies is that under the guise protecting their interests they add all these hidden costs like PMI’s which are legal, but technically unfair. It is definately not Bush’s fault that they can’t properly manage their affairs and I agree that we shouldn’t as government help them out. Countywide and Merril Lynch are at fault with their financial woes, but to assist in trying to save themselves they have adding multiples costs to home loans hence the high foreclosure and late payment problems.
George Bush is a straight ahead liar, he can lie repeatedly with a straight face to his adoring Republican adherents, people know he’s lying, but since they like him they are OK with it. They believe (like most sentient beings on the planet) that Bush is an amiable dunce, but they just plain like the guy so they’ll accept what he says, even if they know that he’s not being truthful with them.
Phil, I’ve seen you make similar assertions in the past. Could you give some examples of the “straightforward, bold, readily apparent, free from nuance” lies that President Bush has told. Some sort of credible proof would also be nice.
BTW, even friends of the Clintons have publicly commented on what accomplished liars they are and how disturbing it is that they lie with such ease. How do you feel about them (WRT to lying, that is).
Hi Spooky,
Bush lies, why that’s a pretty rich vein. Lets start with this one, I think it’s probably one of your personal favorites, and oft-repeated: “The people who are attacking our forces in Iraq today are the same people who attacked us on 9-11!”
With respect to the Clintons, why don’t you post those comments from their “friends.” Those don’t sound like “friends” to me. But regardless, I have no intention of supporting either Clinton for the presidency ths year unless nominatted, in which case I will happily and enthusiastically support her over any of the misfits and/or douchebags (sorry, Mark) posing as Republican candidates this year.
Thanks for the feedback, by the way
I support not-for-profit health care coupled w tort reform & malpractice award caps.
Phillip,
You’ll have to try again. The forces attacking us in Iraq that Bush referred to was AQI. If you remember, AQ was responsible for 9/11.
That was a really weak example. Got any more?
Here’s one little snippet of Clintons convenient memory:
Scheuer, who wrote the book “Imperial Hubris,” said he met every 10 days with top members of Clinton’s anti-terror team and plans for an invasion were never presented or discussed…
Fran Townsend, a former top intelligence adviser in Clinton’s Justice Department and now Bush’s anti-terror czar, rolled her eyes when asked about Clinton’s invasion plan.
“There were lots of things that seemed new” in Clinton’s recollections on Fox, Townsend said…
Oops, neocon beat me to the punch. “Really weak example” is the understatement of the year.
With respect to the Clintons, why don’t you post those comments from their “friends.” Those don’t sound like “friends” to me.
This is one that immediately comes to mind because it was fairly recent.
Perhaps I should have said “friends and other Democrats” because, If you haven’t heard other prominent Democrats like Bob Kerry, for example, say what accomplished liars the Clintons are, then you just haven’t been paying attention.
Phillip,
Please engage us in the debate and respond to my posts. I hope to get to the bottom of your BDS derangement, which may help you extract your head from the dark recesses in currently occupies.
Phil,
In-context quote:
Now, since the actual men who attacked us on 9/11 are dead on 9/11 you can, if you’re an idiot, say that the President is lying here – if, however, you’re not an idiot, then its clear he’s referring to the sort of people…the same sort of people who attacked us on 9/11 are attacking us in Iraq, and if we don’t defeat them in Iraq, then we’ll pay a high price for it. I’m hoping that since you’ve now seen the in-context quote that your lack of idiocy will cause you to admit that you’re wrong about the President lying.
Also, however, while researching this, I did come across this from Obama:
That is from a press release from Obama – and that, in a nutshell, is the entirety of the opposition to the liberation – ignorant people who stand slack-jawed in front of the idiot box and think that the pictures tell the whole story…
Rudy is the best…has the most meat in all his policies. If you want to know what Rudy is going to do, ready his writings and you will know. The others answer symbolically.
Rudy should be the next President!
neocon, I can’t really tell if your just economically ignorant, or your intentionally trolling to get a rise out of me or someone else. But you’re completely backwards.
The idea that this sort of cylical market activity in endogenic to the free market is a Marxian concept.(Yes I realize credit expansion is endogenic, I’m talking about the massive realization of clusters of errors occuring at once like the current housing market).
The idea that we need a central bank and fiat money origanted from Marx believing that legal tender laws based on hard money combined with banks owning most of the hard money created an expliotive system that garaunteed the banks could charge ursury. So a central bank and fiat money is originally a Marxian concept.
Of course if we stop subsidizing the financial markets through inflationary credit expansion it is possible it would cause a recession. The idea that this would be bad in the long term is based off the fundamental Marxian fallacy that an economy organized by government fiat rather than consumer prefrence can somehow be better for consumers. The idea that subsidies make everyone better off is really based off of the Marxian confusion between price and value that flawed all his economic conclusions.
Credit is hard to come by because the diffrence between the financial market’s obligations and income is shrinking. The question is why would the whole financial industry, who’s whole speciality is watching markets, misjudge itself so badly? Maybe because the fed keeps dicking with the interest rates? When the fed made them like 1% all these guys that profit from low interest expanded, and when rates go back up some of the buisnesses don’t pan out. Why do you think cyclical market activity always seems to affect big higher order markets dependant on credit?
So there are 3 major solutions I’ve heard, the democrat solution, massive regulation, the republican solution, constant geometric inflation and the really radical solution, the one I’m trying to advocate, the free market.
Of course you have to realize that the government cannot create hundreds of billions of dollars of flow through debt without the fed propping up that system and creating a little artificial market for that debt. So as long as we have big deficits, we’ll have slightly artificially lowered interest rates.
Retired Spook,
Presto! The Presidential lie, in fact, the gratuitous Presidential lie, in which he not only lied to you and Mark and everybody about our intelligence gathering activities but goes out of his way to remind any would-be terrorists that we engage in such activities, that everyone at Blogs For Victo(r)y studiously ignores. All you had to do was ask:
Mayor Giuliani knows a thing or two about “change” right now: