Kirk,
re: promote the general welfare....
Nice try, buy Mr Madison, himself, was unable to find that provision in the Constitution that permits the the government to perform acts of chgarity.
Acts of charity are to be comended. EVERY individual should share his wealth with the poor, or unfortunate. But it is not the role of governemnt. I don't think it is possible to roll back the level of government aid, but I don't see how it can be increased. Do you really think the generation entering the work force now will give up half or more of their income to support me when I retire? Social Security is simply a Ponzi scheme, and its going to collapse.

Probably true, but if it finds a way to survive the next 30 years, it should be fine for a long time to come. It might be fine now if it weren't for the baby boomers...

The whole purpose of flooding this country with illegals is so the government can payoff the boomer retirement. That should be obviuos to everyone by now. You didn't think thet were actually going to cut spending or do means testing did you?

MS Fowler, the argument on the general welfare clause is the core argument that created the political parties we now have today. The FFs had as many political disagreements as any group. For every quote you can find from Madison, I can find one from Hamilton, who says the opposite, although Hamilton was crafty enough to keep his mouth shut until after the Constitution was ratified.

Madison, Washington, Mason, Burr and later Jefferson wanted it narrowly interpreted - they were the conservative Southrons of their day. Hamilton, Hancock, the Adams brothers, Thomas Paine, were, curiously, the Massachusets and New York liberals of the day, and felt the welfare clause meant whatever Congress says it means. It is an argument that has never ended in this country, and led to the founding of the Federalist and Democratic-Republican Party, the forerunners of our modern two parties.

In general the courts have sided with Hamilton's view, and surprisingly they often cite Madison's writings in the Federalist papers as justification - not a direct justification of welfare, but in Madison's statements that the Constitution has been left ambiguous in many areas so that Congress or the States can fill in the blanks. And fill they have.

Anyone who tries to predict this election is a fool. It is an utter tossup. You can let these talking head idiots prattle on, at this point there really is nothing left to be said that will persuade anyone, and the polls, despite that groups of idiot's own prattle, have been tied within the margin of error for months and the numbers are only moving a point or two either way with in that range, and as such are mathmatically meaningless. Events over the the next ten weeks will determine the outcome. In other words, this election is as unpredictable as the future.

The fall of the house of Nixon
The conservative Republican Party that Richard Nixon created in the '60s is now coming apart at the seams under George W. Bush. Could that spell the end of his presidency?

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Sidney Blumenthal
The New Yorker


Aug. 12, 2004 | The drama of Richard Nixon's resignation from the presidency 30 years ago this month has long overshadowed his political achievement. Nixon's criminal White House seemed an aberrant episode rooted only in his pathologies. But Nixon was the founding father of the modern Republican Party. It was Nixon who created a brand-new coalition of Southern conservatism in reaction to the civil rights movement, absorbing the Dixiecrat followers of George C. Wallace. The coalition consisted of urban-ethnic Catholics and white-collar suburbanites fearful of racial turmoil and the breakdown of law and order. They were resentful of student protests, assertive women and the loosening of social mores, and the shift in the Republican Party's locus of power from the Northeast and Middle West to California, the Southwest and Florida. Nixon's natural cynicism allowed him to juggle the volatile elements that jelled for Ronald Reagan.

By the time of Nixon's election in 1968, the Democratic coalition had cracked up under the duress of race and Vietnam. Now the Republican Party that came to power in 1968 is itself exhausted. It has lost its political impetus, playing by its old rules as the Democrats were in 1968. Its instability, contradictions and anachronisms have been apparent for more than a decade, since Clinton's victory in 1992. And the ferocious Republican effort to overthrow Clinton accelerated his political gains.


George W. Bush did not make a new coalition or offer a refreshed Republicanism, despite the trope of "compassionate conservatism." He came to power only as a result of a flawed Democratic strategy in 2000 and even then he lost the popular majority and had to rely upon a skewed Supreme Court to install him in office in an unprecedented decision. After only nine months, his presidency was already winding down, and he lost the Senate with the defection of a Republican who crossed the aisle. After 9/11, the war on terrorism substituted as the political equivalent of old Republican Party anti-communism, the ultimate glue holding disparate elements together. Still, the party is coming unstuck, disintegrating in its historic base.

California, the home state of Nixon and Reagan, has disappeared from the Republican national coalition. Its demographic transformations, especially the ever expansive rise of the Hispanic electorate (2-to-1 Democratic), postindustrial economy and concomitant social liberalism make it a forerunner of the future. (Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is politically possible only as a social liberal and honorary Kennedy, through marriage.) Bush is so far behind in California that there is no campaign there whatsoever.

To win the general election, Bush must raise his percentage of Hispanic votes from 35 percent in 2000 to close to 40 percent. But according to a recent July Democracy Corps poll, he is 5 points below his 2000 level and 7 points down in the Southwest and Florida.

In Illinois, Land of Lincoln -- former presidential bellwether and bastion of congressional GOP leadership since time immemorial -- the Republican Party has fallen off the map. In 1960, in his famous victory, John F. Kennedy won the state with 65 percent in Chicago. Nixon actually carried Chicago in 1972. But Gore won the racially calmed, postindustrial city by 80 percent. The Chicago suburbs, 2-to-1 Republican as recently as 1988, have now begun to tilt Democratic, just as have the suburbs of Los Angeles. Meanwhile, the state Republican Party has imploded, unable to find a credible U.S. Senate candidate against the star of the Democratic Convention, Barack Obama. In fact, it has finally scraped the bottom of the barrel with its own African-American, Alan Keyes. A screeching religious right fanatic, Keyes, who has worn a lapel pin featuring the feet of a fetus, is Jerry Falwell as played by Little Richard. Obama is beating him 67 to 28 percent, and that undoubtedly represents Keyes' peak. Keyes opened his campaign by saying Obama's stance in favor of legal choice for women on abortion is "the slaveholder's position." Their debates, to be broadcast throughout the Middle West, may turn votes against the Republicans in every state bordering Illinois.

The turn in Michigan is, if anything, even more distressing for Republicans. West Michigan, home to Nixon's successor Gerald Ford, and even today unrepresented by any Democrats in Congress, favors John Kerry by 12 points above Bush in a poll taken by a local TV station. This collapse is largely a consequence of the desertion of moderate Republicans repulsed by Bush's reckless economic mismanagement and neoconservative foreign policy. These moderates are overwhelmingly mainline Protestants, also offended by Bush's evangelical culture war and faith-based efforts to break down the wall of separation between church and state.

The party that Nixon built is crumbling. Bush is the candidate of canned talking points and a party whose instincts have become rote and often counterproductive. The "war president" wraps himself in the flag but the latest Code Orange terrorist alert aroused no one to rally-'round-the-flag; instead, it raised questions about Bush's timing and handling. Rather than campaign on his record, he has challenged Kerry to justify his vote for the Iraq war resolution, and when Kerry explained his reasoning, Bush accused him of "nuance." How can Bush change the subject? With independent voters bleeding away from him, he has taken to stumping with the Republican maverick Sen. John McCain, his mortal enemy. Can Bush dump Cheney without being seen as desperate and repudiating his entire term? Bush's father owed his political career to Nixon's patronage; now the son is in danger of inheriting the wind.

AMEN!

The Swift Boat veteren's account overwhelmingly contridict that of John Kerry.

I heard the doctor who treated Kerry for his wound that gave him his purple heart. John had a 1/2 inch "sliver" of metal in his arm. It could have been pulled out with your fingers and covered with a band-aid. Kerry (or his comrades around him during the doctor visit) said that he was the "next JFK from Massachussets", and was "going to be president". The doctor believed that Kerry was just there to enhance his resume for president. Kerry also stated that the wound was from enemy fire in a fire fight. His comrades stated to the doctor that there was no fire fight and that Kerry wounded himself with a mortar round that he himself launched. The doctor stated that the wound was indeed not consistant with John's story.

__________________
Michael LaFleur

'05 E320 CDI - 86,000 miles
'86 300SDL - 360,000 miles
'85 300SD - 150,000 miles (sold)
'89 190D - 120,000 miles (sold)
'85 300SD - 317,000 miles (sold)
'98 ML320 - 270,000 miles (sold)
'75 300D - 170,000 miles (sold)
'83 Harley Davidson FLTC (Broken again) :-(
'61 Plymouth Valiant - 60k mikes
2004 Papillon (Oliver)
2005 Tzitzu (Griffon)
2009 Welsh Corgi (Buba)

mplafleur, your statement reflects the lies and distortions promoted by this Republican hatchet squad. Why don't you get the real facts? The doctor has been exposed as a liar who never treated Kerry. The "comrades" you mentioned did not serve with him. It is a trumped up smear and you people are no better than the people who spit on these guys when they came back from Nam.



Shame on the Swift Boat
Veterans for Bush

By JIM RASSMANN
August 10, 2004; Page A10

Wall Street Journal

I came to know Lt. John Kerry during the spring of 1969. He and his swift boat crew assisted in inserting our Special Forces team and our Chinese Nung soldiers into operational sites in the Cau Mau Peninsula of South Vietnam. I worked with him on many operations and saw firsthand his leadership, courage and decision-making ability under fire.

On March 13, 1969, John Kerry's courage and leadership saved my life.

While returning from a SEA LORDS operation along the Bay Hap River, a mine detonated under another swift boat. Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river, and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.

When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.

For his actions that day, I recommended John for the Silver Star, our country's third highest award for bravery under fire. I learned only this past January that the Navy awarded John the Bronze Star with Combat V for his valor. The citation for this award, signed by the Commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam, Vice Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, read, "Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry's calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service." To this day I am grateful to John Kerry for saving my life. And to this day I still believe that he deserved the Silver Star for his courage.

It has been many years since I served in Vietnam. I returned home, got married, and spent many years as a deputy sheriff for Los Angeles County. I retired in 1989 as a lieutenant. It has been a long time since I left Vietnam, but I think often of the men who did not come home with us.

I am neither a politician nor an organizer. I am a retired police officer with a passion for orchids. Until January of this year, the only public presentations I made were about my orchid hobby. But in this presidential election, I had to speak out; I had to tell the American people about John Kerry, about his wisdom and courage, about his vision and leadership. I would trust John Kerry with my life, and I would entrust John Kerry with the well-being of our country.

Nobody asked me to join John's campaign. Why would they? I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans. I volunteered for his campaign because I have seen John Kerry in the worst of conditions. I know his character. I've witnessed his bravery and leadership under fire. And I truly know he will be a great commander in chief.

Now, 35 years after the fact, some Republican-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Bush are suddenly lying about John Kerry's service in Vietnam; they are calling him a traitor because he spoke out against the Nixon administration's failed policies in Vietnam. Some of these Republican-sponsored veterans are the same ones who spoke out against John at the behest of the Nixon administration in 1971. But this time their attacks are more vicious, their lies cut deep and are directed not just at John Kerry, but at me and each of his crewmates as well. This hate-filled ad asserts that I was not under fire; it questions my words and Navy records. This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency, people who don't understand the bond of those who serve in combat.

As John McCain noted, the television ad aired by these veterans is "dishonest and dishonorable." Sen. McCain called on President Bush to condemn the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush ad. Regrettably, the president has ignored Sen. McCain's advice.

Does this strategy of attacking combat Vietnam veterans sound familiar? In 2000, a similar Republican smear campaign was launched against Sen. McCain. In fact, the very same communications group, Spaeth Communications, that placed ads against John McCain in 2000 is involved in these vicious attacks against John Kerry. Texas Republican donors with close ties to George W. Bush and Karl Rove crafted this "dishonest and dishonorable" ad. Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam. They insult and defame all of us who served in Vietnam.

But when the noise and fog of their distortions and lies have cleared, a man who volunteered to serve his country, a man who showed up for duty when his country called, a man to whom the United States Navy awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, will stand tall and proud. Ultimately, the American people will judge these Swift Boat Veterans for Bush and their accusations. Americans are tired of smear campaigns against those who volunteered to wear the uniform. Swift Boat Veterans for Bush should hang their heads in shame.

Mr. Rassmann, a retired lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, served with the U.S. Army 5th Special Forces Group in Vietnam 1968-69.

Also: Non-partisan Annenburg report:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

I think this is the third time this JR article's been posted. Must the the only arrow in the quiver. I would suggest over use may dull its point.

And let's see. JR and the "band of brothers" are touring this great country, playing to adoring audiences, eating, sleeping and partying on campaign funds with a potential president. Given that option I'd probably say, "yes sir, whatever you'd like me to say, do, write, sir, I will sir."

All the vilification of the SwiftVets doesn't really address the questions raised nor does it explain the curious inconsistency of "Christmas 1968 in Cambodia".

At some point the Major 3 TV networks and the mainstream media are going to have look at the facts. At that point it should get interesting.

It's already passed interesting. Now it's just disgusting. Of course, more lies can be fabricated to counter the known truth - I just hope it backfires in the liars' faces.

__________________
'83 240D with 617.952 and 2.88
'01 VW Beetle TDI
'05 Jeep Liberty CRD
'89 Toyota 4x4, needs 2L-T
'78 280Z with L28ET - 12.86@110
Oil Burner Kartel #35

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b1...oD/bioclip.jpg

and what do you think of the major contributor to SBV getting a 90 million dollar contract from Bush?

Koop,
I need more information? Are you opposed to the use of money in politics? Or just republican money?
Or are you surprised that money and politics are lelated?
In any event, your charge is simply a red gerring; It does nothing to further the finding of the truth of the matter. Simply another ad hominum attack---weak at best.

A 90 million contract ad hominem attack? Sounds like who ever is financing this smear campaign has a vested interest in keeping Bush in office, an interest that would influence what the true purpose of these ads actually is.
Sounds like it goes right to the point.

How much are all these people getting paid to do this?

Koop is objecting to the abuse of the public trust that is suggested here. And while that is politics, it is nonetheless objectionable -- regardless of whether the quid pro quo is "republican money" or "democrat money."

Texas isn't the only place this has gone on in recent history, but it HAS been deliberate, and it HAS been linked both to the GOP political machine's efforts to solidify its base in the legislature, as well as get W. elected back in 2000. And now, we are seeing the same cast of characters pop up again. Big surprise.

And it is also a fact that the GOP has been particularly ruthless recently not just in telling corporations that they need to "pay to play" in the legislative process, but in threatening those that give to the Democrats ... or even the "wrong" Republicans (like, contributing to John McCain's campaign during the 2000 election). Trust me -- this stuff isn't just left-wing propaganda. It exists. I used to be a Beltway Bandit (i.e., an attorney and lobbyist in D.C.), and I have seen it in action. And the current system has gone WAY beyond hardball politics into a different realm completely -- one that smells an awful lot like a mob shakedown, and acts an awful lot like gangsterism.

Now, talking of ad hominem attacks: if your post wasn't an ad hominem attack on Koop's objectivity, I don't know what it is.

Cheers!

-- Bokonon

Kirk,
This attack, like many of yours, is based on an assumption on your part that something is wrong. If you have evidence of illegal stuff, bring it on--take it to the DNC, or call for a special proscecutor to investigate.