T. B. - "The bad economy is all the Democrats have going for them right now."

In a consumer economy, is there anything else of overriding importance? Aside from a war which threatens a State?

T. B. - "All their other issues are massive spending programs which don't sound all that good when we are looking at deficits, tax increases or no tax increases."

You ain't seen "massive spending" yet. And the proposed spending on a one-nation arms race hasn't started, either. And it's worse - it's spending money which the gov't doesn't have.

T. B. - "When Greenspan stood up and said "don't increase taxes, cut spending," the Democrats could have killed him with their bare hands."

I know you don't see it this way, and many people do. Bob Woodward wasn't a Clinton lover, and in his book "The Agenda" he documented the first year of the Clinton Administration, especially the economic policy. He says it was Greenspan and Clinton who spearheaded cutting the national debt in the earlier '90s, which drove down the long-term interest rates and increased investment. Gingrich climbed aboard the idea much as Clinton usurped some of the Republican agenda later, and Congress got so interested in the process that it didn't leave Clinton as much money as he wanted to spend on infrastructure, including education, which were identified as the US' competitive edge.

T. B. - "The ghastly truth--at least from a politician's perspective--is that Washington actually has very little to do with the health of the economy, except maybe negatively."

The Feds can borrow so much money that the cost to private enterprise becomes prohibitive. Then the economy tanks. GWB's tax cuts, increased spending, and then borrowing are guaranteed to have disastrous consequences in the longer run. While he's spending it can prop up things for a while, much like you could look affluent while maxing out your credit cards.

If the Democrats are guilty of "tax and spend", at least that's spending money that's there. GWB's policy of "spend and borrow" is certainly less responsible.

WJC's saying "I did not have sex with that woman" right into the camera was as much a lie as can be told. I also watched GHWB look into a camera and say, "This is not about oil, this is about restoring democracy to Kuwait". So help me, he did it.

A third lie, as big, is GWB's about marauding through Iraq for the purpose of installing democracy in that country. Not true. He's not interested in democracy, he likes oil. Witness his administrations attempt to overthrow a democracy in Venezuela in favor of a military dictatorship. (No, we don't get to overthrow an elected gov't just because we don't like their policies.)

And in the meantime things at home are crumbling. No matter how you cut it, a 26% loss in the stock market in a free enterprise economy is a lot. Even though, in my opinion, the market was overpriced, normally one might want the market to stay a bit more stable while the economy caught up, not take a dive like this, with no end of the erosion in sight.

GWB's strong issue in the last election, besides the public's overwhelming heartsickness over the tawdriness of Clinton, was education. Haven't heard anything about that lately.

We'll see. The Democrats problem is not having anyone credible to speak for them. There's a lot to say.

I don't understand the "it's not about money it's about power" distinction. In a capitalist society they are identical. In a military dictatorship, having a command is power, and money. Seems artificial to me.

"When the laws can be used to plunder, the plunderers will make the laws" sort of says it all. Money and power in capitalism are the same.

Arf