Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
March Madness? With even Bush Sr. now calling out his son's unilateralism (Bully for him, via Looka), Pat Buchanan (and, to be fair, Dem Congressman Jim Moran) decrying his fellow conservatives as being dupes for an Israeli conspiracy, and the Republicans renaming the french fries as "freedom fries" in the House cafeteria, it appears the Grand Old Party has been reduced to mass hysteria by the looming war in Iraq. Add these bizarre episodes to the assault on civil liberties mentioned below and the nation's growing economic woes (which the Bushies are now responding to by hiding information), and I'm now starting to think the 2004 election might just be the Dems to lose.
Bush is acting with the support of most of the existing EU, all of the pending EU members, Britain, Australia, Israel, and Jordan. Unilateral?
Also, Buchanan hasn't been a 'conservative' since about 1990 and the WaPo article you cite has nothing to do with the economy, it's about a federal budgetary report.
But, hey, other than that, you're right on the money.
1) Ok, we're not strictly unilateral, I concede. England, Spain, and several other nations have our back come hell or high water. But Dubya and his partisans have said several times of late that we can go it alone if need be, without the support of the UN or the majority of the international community. This is the sense in which I used the term, and I think most people, Bush Sr. included, would understand what I meant in context.
2) Buchanan is as "conservative" as Sharpton is "liberal." He ran for the Republican nomination in 1996, six years after his supposed defection from the "conservative" camp. And he's writing in a magazine called American Conservative. So, unless you're going to define what you mean by 'conservative" a little better, I think it's ok to use the term.
3) Nothing to do with the economy? The budgetary report is getting axed so the states have a harder time complaining about the severe cuts on the way. So the only reason it's an issue is because in this lousy economy, there's not enough money to go around, particularly once you factor in the Iraq war, the war on terror, and the Dubya tax giveaway. As the article states, "The report's demise comes amid a feud between Washington and state capitals. States are facing budget shortfalls of about $30 billion this year and $82 billion next year. States say they want about $20 billion from the federal government, but President Bush proposed no direct aid to the states in his $726 billion 11-year economic plan." Clearly, the demise of this report is intrinsically related to the flailing economy.
But, hey, other than that, thanks for dropping by.
Running for the Republican nomination does not make one conservative.
As for the report, there's "not enough money to go around" because the states have been on a imprudent spending spree for most of the 1990s and should not expect the federal government to bail them out of their irresponsible behavior. This is most certainly not Bush trying to "hide economic data" as you have stated. Anyone can get all the economic data they would like at the bea.gov web site - which would show, incidentally, that the economy has been growing for seven consecutive quarters, that interest rates are at post-WWII lows, that inflation is low, and unemployment is moderate by historical standards. Anyone who thinks this economy is "flailing" apparently didn't live through the Carter years.
Um...ok, well, I'm due back on planet earth now, so it's been nice talking to you.
When all else fails, go for the ad hominems, eh? You must be so proud of yourself.
Yeah, well, at least I sign my real name on the dotted line. It's clear you're drinking the right-wing kool aid, so frankly I've got better things to do than try to disabuse some anonymous person I don't know of their Fox News-buttressed opinions. Even the Bushies admit the economy is in lousy straits at the moment, so I don't see why you can't. Moreover, I don't really care.
As I've already stated, the data I quote comes from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, not Fox News. So, continue to smear me if you like, but just be aware that the facts are not on your side - not that that seems to matter to you. Perhaps one day you will get your head out of your ass and get a good look at reality.
Ok, buddy. Until then, keep trollin'.
Yes. It's trolling when someone disagrees with you. Whatever.
Y'know, you should really spend less time thinking of clever pseudonyms and more time reading this - http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/2002/Economy.html - Interest rates are low because Greenspan is bending over backward to save Dubya from himself. Unemployment has doubled under Dubya, and economic growth has stagnated. This is clear to everyone these days - including the Bushies, who're using the sorry state of the economy to push their dividend debacle. So, when you come here and post wild and contentious assertions (under a fake name and homepage) that everyone and their mother know to be false, it's called trolling. At any rate, I think Hannity & Colmes is on, so bugger off.