Got to agree with the Rossi analysis. The guy is simply instinctively one with his bike.

A similar close finish applies in Formula 1 with Schumacher almost certainly not winning his final season but nothing being certain

Oh and the pox on both houses attitude certainly applies to practically every group of politicians fighting it out in Europe. If you wondered why "fascist" "Right wing" "extremist" etc. politicians and parties are getting more popular this would be why: basically they aren't perceived as corrupt mealy mouthed incompetant scumbags determined to preserve the failing status quo.

I don't know anything about motorcycle racing and could care less, but you're spot on about the parties. And you're right; they've both sold out their base for the money.

I don't know why it is so hard for you to process this simple fact:

Democrats suck less than Republicans.

That is more than enough reason for me to support them this election cycle. Yes, I wish the choices were better and I am still not used to the negative effect that Washinton, DC has on even well-intentioned people once they take up residence there, but never the less something's got to change.

And to lump all Dems in together is unfair. There are a lot of new Democratic faces to choose from this year, including a large number of "Fighting Dems". If sent to Washinton, at the very least they will not feel compelled to toe the line behind our Machiavellian President, as any and all elected Republicans do. We need a counterbalance to this failed leadership, and the best chance of achieving this is to elect Dems like John Tester or the Fighting Dems (click on link, it's an impressively large list).

You're generic condemnation of "Democrats" suggests you're paying more attention ot racing than politics. You might want to inform yourself a little better before spouting off about the party who better represents, by far, the principles you say you hold.

Andy, I'm paying a lot of attention to Democrats, both to the D leadership and to the new faces, including "the fighting Dems", which latter I started a post about that I ought to finish.

They do suck slightly less than the R's on social policy - not much, to be frank. They're just as corrupt at the top. And, as I've said for a long time, they don't yet have a clue on what to do about terrorism. That's not just me, some random disaffected citizen saying this - I'm on the mailing lists for a number of D political operatives, and inside the walls they say the same thing.

So it is very much a push for me. In the natural cycle of politics, it's time for the D's to do well, and on one hand that's fine with me. But I'm concerned that we'll use the tides to win without having really learned what we're winning for - and that we'll pay the bill for that in a big way in 2008.

A.L.

"They're just as corrupt at the top."

I disagree. I'm not aware of any Democratic party operatives who set up and ran a money-for-influence machine to the scale that Jack Abramoff did; are you?

I also think you're falling into the trap of thinking that short term solutions or goals should be ignored, or subverted even, in the absence of "long-term" strategies. This kind of folly is what put us in the current situation with NK and Iraq. We can and should have it both ways. I'd rather have a short-term "stop-gap" solution that preserves human rights and lives and allow longer term solutions to develop organically, as situations warrant.

Short term goals (like stopping the Republicans from trashing the constitution and undermining personal freedom and liberty of American citizens) seem a very worthy goal to me, which I am confdent that, over time, will have clear and easily-defined long-term benefits.

To assert that one is trying to shape history over the long term is to somehow hold onto the arrogant (and paradoxically shortsighted, I would add) view that the future can be predicted and controlled. Ridiculous. If you haven't already learned about how wrong this view can be through your continual (I take it) support of the war in Iraq, then I realize that my point will fall on deaf ears.

As far as your views on the "GWOT" and who is better equipped to fight it, I would simply say that, first, I have read enough of your posts here to appreciate that your views are becoming marginalized with respect to the public at large. Secondly, to win any war requires a unification of people behind a cause. Since the Republican strategy is to misuse the spectre of this "war" to politically divide Americans to maintain their control on power in Washington, I am quite certain their strategy is more than a failing one, it is also one that threatens to undermine the freedoms and liberties that make America great to begin with.

So to ask which "party" is better equipped to fight the GWOT seems to miss the mark by a longshot. You seem to view the issue as a choice of two binary alternatives, when anyone who has paid even a minute's worth of attention to politics knows that this is never the case. If you think this conflict is as serious as you seem to, then you should be lobbying for unification, not balkanization, of the American electorate. I don't see you doing that.

Andy L.

Democrats are just better at hiding their nefarious acts. They also lie thru their teeth (or should I say tooth) then amend their reports to the ethics panel.

Hi,

Do we have any Mike Totten-like reporting coming out of Afghanistan?

It would be great to see some non-Eastern perspectives from the Western media embeds there, if any, such as this one.

http://ia.rediff.com/news/2006/oct/16inter.htm?q=sp&file=.htm
Its just a link I found browsing, so please don't flame me for it.

"Democrats suck less than Republicans."

I cant agree with that. Democrats have some non-negotiable stances that are pretty much a requirement to be taken seriously in the party: pro-choice, anti-school choice, green. The gun control issue has been loosened up (or at least silenced) since they started getting creamed on it.

Which is fine, but personally i know i have some non-negotiable issues that simply would never fly in the current Democratic party: pro-voucher, anti-tax increase, anti-gun control, anti-Kioto, pro-nuclear power, pro-guest worker & pro-border fence, anti-single payer healthcare... not to mention the war. From my point of view i may be sickened by the spendthrift ways of the Republicans and their inability to enact a (small l) libertarian agenda, but i would rather see government spending on Ag or roads explode than have to deal with a universal healthcare nightmare or see anti-2nd amendment justices added to the SOCUS.

I guess im only tepidly against most of what the Republicans are quietly doing, while I am rabidly against what the Democrats loudly intend to do.

Mark, you hit the nail on the head. The Democrats, IMHO, will sell out this country. They seem perfectly content to let the UN call the shots on our foreign policy. While the Republican spending habits have been horrific, the Democrats' main complaint seems to be that the spending is not horrific enough as well as that any of it is on the military. The Democrats also seem to be rabidly against letting people keep what money they earn, since anyone who's successful without government assistance must be an exploiter of the proletariat.

Who sucks less?

Now we have the terms of a realistic debate.

David Brooks, gave a lecture here last night, where he said that the Repubicans lacked an agenda other than to claim that Democrats will raise your taxes and withdraw from the war on terror.

He's right- but that is quite possibly all the Republicans need to win.

Andy L

Please spare me that democrats are not corrupt, they are politicians, by definition they are corrupt. we had a mayoral election in Philadelphia a couple of years back, corruption all over the place, gets leaked to the press and all the dems cominng flying in about Ashcroft America trying to tip election to republicans. I believe we had Hillary, we definately had Bob Brady, Rendell. So pleae spare me. Since the democrats seemed to advocate surrender in Iraq, I have but one choice as much as I'd like a better political choice, its republican

Andy --

Harry Reid and his Vegas deals? Clintons and their payoffs from Saudi sheiks? Not corrupt? Dems make Reps look like pikers (particularly Pelosi, Reid, Clintons, and of course Sharpton, Jackson et al).

When given a choice between old-school heretics like Lieberman (cast out of the Party) and Lamont, voters choose Lieberman.

What do Dems have to offer about a billion seething Muslims wanting to cut your head off? Nuclear proliferation to the point of 35 nuclear powers? Stopping the nuking of an American city?

Nothing.

we face a serious enemy that needs to be fought

This is a false statement. That's the crux of the issue. Radical Muslims do need to be fought, but they are not a serious enemy. They are, in fact, one of the most pathetic disorganized incompetent groups to ever threaten the US. The USSR was a serious enemy. China may someday become a serious enemy. Serious enemies have industry, scientists, technology and competent leadership. Radical Islam has none of that. Even Iran is a joke - read this month's cover story in the American Conservative - http://amconmag.com/2006/2006_10_23/cover.html

When I ran for student council at my university (successfully, I became a VP and so did one of my slate-mates), our electoral group was called the Apathy slate.

We had one poster of Darth Vader, with our logo and a simple inscription:

"When you're tried of always choosing the lesser evil, vote..."

We had better ones, but in political terms that one will always be timeless.

Joe, it's supposed to be Cthulu...

Why vote for the lesser of two evils? Cthulu in '06!!

A.L.

It's running!?

Ia! Ia! Cthulhu Ftaghn!
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Chtulhu R'lyeh wgah-nagl ftaghn!

Worried about Armageddon? Don't worry, we guarantee it!

You know Carl Rove does look a bit like a deep one........Dun dun dunnnnn!!!

I've been trying to find a Cthulu for president t-shirt...."why choose the lesser of two evils?" is the best quote ever!!!

Since 9/11 I have become totally preoccupied with politics, and not totally disinterested. What does my interest get me? I don't own any lobbists, don't control any interest groups, and can't buy my way into power. Both parties have dumbed down the debate, and used rhetoric to cover their own collective a$$es.

This country needs real debate and not holier-than-thou declarations. Unfortunately, until politics get so out of hand that it threatens the american way of life, politicians get away with it. (All hope lies with the proles!)

I hope I'm wrong, but I think Pedrosa pulled a Schumackeresque move that will rob Moto GP fans of a truly fantastic finish. Rossi is flat out faster than Nicky at this point. So, Nicky needed to have a little cushion to make the last race an epoch. Now, Rossi simply has to follow Nicky.

As a Republican, I'm disappointed, but I'm not demoralized. I'm thankful for the tax cuts, an aggressive posture on terror and two excellent Supreme's. If SS reform with private accounts had passed, I would be ecstatic at our progress.

Politicians will always disappoint. Its the corruptive nature of the job and the personalities it attracts.

Politics is a tug-o-war. The flag will oscillate, but if it trends in your direction then you are winning. Coup de grace's like the New Deal are not to be expected. They are anomalies.

Bush has done well with a 50/50 country.

#15 vanya -

Absolutely not. Average technology and science has advanced so far in the last 50 years that concerns about non-super powers gaining weapons capable of killing hundreds of thousands if not millions are quite real and valid. Is it upon us now? Well, North Korea, a starving, corrupt, bankrupt and hollow regime is capable of producing low yield nuclear weapons (this was recently confirmed).

This is not an opinion.

Also, it is important to consider the world that we live in and how it differs from previous war-torn eras. Media and communications have brought the 24-hour news cycle into everyone's home. Transportation and collaboration have reached levels not truly comprehendable to our society not many generations ago. Business, trade and investments, world markets, the economy of the world is much more intertwined at a micro level than it used to be.

The people of the first world are closely knit and living in their own world without relatively high levels of disease, poverty, strife and conflict.

Drop a nuclear bomb in New York or Tokyo, a biological weapon in London or Seattle, and watch the economy and personal freedoms of the world collapse like a house of cards. Militaries will begin tightening reigns and the problems people think we have today will seem like so much nonsense.

The point has come where the top-end of humanity is too vulnerable and the low-end of humanity is capable of procuring weapons far more potent than we can defend against. Place that into the hands of a few islamic radicals who are "not much of a threat" and you take away the return address on the nuclear weapon tested in your backyard.

If the conflict escalates to world-clampdown, who do you think will benefit?

Armed Liberal: is the one race, by chance, the Secretary of State race?

I have to say it: Bruce McPherson is one of my favorite members of the California Republican Party, but he's dead wrong on the issue of computerized voting, and so i'm voting against him this fall.

Jim-

You're kidding about the GOP being better about proliferation, right? Were you paying attention last week? How about the advancing Iranian programs which we can't realistically curtail anytime soon? Counterproliferation is one of the many areas where the GOP has failed to accelerate our efforts and left such efforts limping along in the former USSR.

#24 Chris P -

At the risk of bringing back an older (and horrible) thread, the Democrat solution to North Korea and Iran involves giving them reactors and trading nuclear secrets, respectively, with the expectation that the technology will be used peacefully.

I don't think many people here will claim any kind of resounding success for the GOP in this area, certainly not me, but to use the word "better" like you did -- well that's just silly. Not Alice-in-Wonderland, howling moonbat crazy like giving Mr. Ronery and the Mullahs nuclear technology, but silly nonetheless.

Well, open mouth insert foot. I had recalled that Democratic party leaders were opining that we should give Iran nuclear technology. I haven't been able to back that up doing some looking -- someone post a link if you've got it -- but I did find plenty of material talking about an offer for Iran which included nuclear technology. The European solution, particularly with France and Germany, has been to give Iran light-water nuclear reactors for energy uses. The US was, at least regarding the technology (but not the components) portion tentatively going along.

My gut tells me that Democratic leaders have been using this as a talking point on "what the administration should do but is failing to" and that may be what etched in my memory, but regardless the fact that the GOP is willing to buy into this typical European solution leaves me much in agreement about the situation we find our to main parties in.

Cheers

aphrael - you've nailed it. I'm mildly panicked about the cyclical deterioration of American politics, and the main thing in my mind that's holding it together is the conviction that the umps are fair.

McPherson is a good guy, absolutely. But if Bowen is elected, the tide on voting issues will turn, and that's critical to our political future.

A.L.

Wow. Now I know why the Republicans are in such trouble. Just taking a look over the posters writing in defense of the Repubs, all they have to offer are the same old recycled slogans about how the Repubs have "cut taxes" (what an accomplishment!) and the same tired lies and strawmen to demonize the Democrats ("Democrats are just better at hiding their nefarious acts", "The Democrats also seem to be rabidly against letting people keep what money they earn", "The Democrats, IMHO, will sell out this country. They seem perfectly content to let the UN call the shots on our foreign policy.", "Since the democrats seemed to advocate surrender in Iraq...").

Very unserious and uninformed, unless you're functioning in a purely political advocacy role. I guess if this is what Republicans have to offer, it's no wonder we have no policy on Iraq, no policy on North Korea, no plan for homeland defense or the Healthcare crisis, etc. and so forth, and American's now realize this and want a change, cuz it ain't working any more, folks.

I guess I'm just echoing what PD Shaw wrote about conservative David Brook's views.

(BTW, just want to point out that, once again, AL cuts and runs from a simple sharp question in the hopes that no one notices the flaw in his thinking...is it any wonder no one listens to him?)

Andy, please go look up the history of the original "K Street project" and then we can have a chat about political history. Didn't mean to cut and run, just couldn't believe you were so ignorant of modern political history.

A.L.

Checks and balances are what has kept our country alive through many follies over the past couple of centuries. Independent of everything else, one reason to vote Democratic this year is to get genuine checks and balances in place, rather than having the Rove/Bush administration running the country with no checks at all.

It used to be that Republicans claimed to be the party of fiscal responsibility, rather than the party of cutting taxes. Cutting taxes requires cutting spending, which the Republicans have failed to so, so the only way to pay for it is to run up both the Deficit and the National Debt to undreamed-of levels, endangering the future and the independence of our country.

Yes, I'm ignorant of modern political history.

So educate me, if you can. Explain it to me like I'm a 3 year old.

Go Google "Tony Coelho," read a bit and come back to us.

A.L.

A.L.: OK, I've read about Tony Coelho. He's a crook. So?

Incidentally, one of the articles returned on the first page by the Google search you recommended, savages Coelho in detail, but by the by, describes the Governor of Texas, one George Bush, helping out one of Coelho's causes and later lying under oath about it. This article was written in November 1999.

Beard, "mote" and "beam" as they say...for you to cavalierly dismiss Coelho - former Dem whip, founder of the original K Street Project, etc. etc as "a crook" and then suggest that Abramoff's criminality was in fact central to the Republican Party would be embarassing to someone with a sense of shame.

Why does it matter that the Democrats are corrupt? Because that means they would rather be corrupt than use charges of corruption to really force the GOP to clean up it's act. Neither party can afford sunlight, so each one screams "they're dirty" and then clutches the drapes shut when we mere citizens come looking. Where is Pelosi's campaign on the "culture of corruption" in Washington? You know damn well where it is ... in the checkbooks of the DCCC.

I've blogged about this since I was back on my own site; this isn't some "October Surprise" to me.

A.L.

A.L.: The critiques in my only previous post on this thread [#30] have nothing to do with corruption, and would apply even if the Republicans were pure as the driven snow.

They aren't, of course, and neither are the Democrats. Like you, I am also unhappy about the scarcity of Democratic candidates I can get really excited about, though I am perhaps more passionately opposed to the current Republicans.

I'm not about to give the Democrats a pass either, but I don't think they need to be snow-white before they are allowed to criticize the Republicans. Ronnie Earle, here in Texas, was often accused of playing politics in prosecuting Tom DeLay. His answer was excellent: "I prosecute abuses of power. When the Democrats held all the power, I prosecuted Democrats. Now that the Republicans hold the power, they are ones who have the opportunity to abuse it, so they are the ones I prosecute." (approximate quote only)

Look back at my point in #30. Corruption makes a better campaign issue, but even if there weren't any, the need for effective checks and balances and the failures of fiscal responsibility alone, are sufficient reasons to vote Democratic next month.

Have been reading Mr. Totten for a while. It is no surprise to me that he is voting Democrat...that is exactly what he is! I do get a kick out of how many people on his site claim to be center right, adore the extreme left democrats and their positions, shake their heads and say they will have to, regretfully, vote democat. What a bunch of hypocrits. From the state of Massachusetts, we certainly know how to recognize democrats and "psuedo" democrats.
Also, reflecting on the way our congress behaved (under democrat control) on Vietnam and de-funding it (cut and run) and their consistent position of raising taxes, one can't help but be concerned that old dogs don't do new tricks.

I think this site needs some posts on what it would take to refresh and reform the Republican Party, preferably by a Republican, which means an American.

... or about what it would take to refresh and reform the Democratic Party, preferably by a Democrat, which means an American.

We already have Armed Liberal talking regularly about improving the Democratic Party. He thinks this kind of scrutiny can only do it good. I agree with him.

Concur. If the Democratic party was like Armed Liberal, I'd vote Democratic over Republican.

AL;

OK, as you suggested, I read all about Tony Coelho.

I agree with Beard (in #33 and #35) that he's not the kind of politician I admire or want to represent me. I am unhappy about the system wrt money and influence as well.

I do note, however, that Coelho was never accused of any illegal activity (correct me if I'm wrong), while, as we all know, Abramoff is under investigation, which is already revealing a level of coordination and influence peddling within the Republical party that reaches the highest levels.

So once again I am only for the moment faced with a choice between the lesser of two evils, and once again in this case the choice is clear...Dems are not as bad. Typical reply to this here is that "they were better at not getting caught" or "would have done what Abramoff did if they stayed in power". Perhaps this is true, but it did not happen, and I don't consider speculation about the future as evidence of anything, of course.

And the negative influence of money on politics is but one issue where the Republicans are a worse choice than Dems. I could go on but if you can't list the policies and laws enacted by the recent government that are offensive or against what you stand for, you're simply not a Liberal or a Democrat (as the rest of us define it, anyway). For example, I have failed to note any comments or opposition to the recent Torture Bill.

Elect some new dems (from a very nice pool of new people, as I noted above...and you seem to ignore when lumping all "Democrats" together monolithically) and then we can worry about reform and change.

AL

In light of your comments above, I'm curious about how you reconcile your apparent support for Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont in Conn? This seems directly at odds with your principles.

"Now Mr. Lieberman has long been known to cultivate the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, which provide jobs in his home state and contributions to his campaign fund. But he has literally been sleeping with one of their Washington representatives ever since his wife Hadassah joined Hill & Knowlton last year. The legendary lobbying and P.R. firm hired her as a senior counselor in its health and pharmaceuticals practice.

"When a Senators wife works for one of the capitals largest lobby shops and others have appearances tend to matter. In this case, something happened immediately that didnt look very good.

Mrs. Lieberman signed up with Hill & Knowlton in March 2005. The firms clients included GlaxoSmithKline, the British pharmaceutical giant that manufactures flu vaccines along with many other drugs. In April 2005, Mr. Lieberman introduced a bill that would award an array of new government incentives to companies like GSK to produce more vaccinesnotably patent extensions on other products, at a cost of billions to governments and consumers.

That legislation provoked irritated comment by his hometown newspaper, the New Haven Register. In an editorial headlined Lieberman Crafts Drug Company Perk, the Register noted that his bill was even more generous to the pharmaceutical industry than a similar proposal by the Senate Republican leadership. The government can offer incentives and guarantees for needed public health measures, said the editorial. But it should not write a blank check, as these bills do, to the pharmaceutical industry that has such a large cost to the public with what may be an uncertain or dubious return.

Andy, I'll simply suggest you go over and read my Examiner piece on Lieberman...

You can also search for "Lieberman" on this site.

A.L.

Some of y'all might have missed the tight race in western North Carolina between Taylor® and Shuler(D). Shuler has some points that are playing well in wNC and are very different than some of those of the 'monolithic' Democrat party. Yet the party is fine with him running and has put a lot of effort into his campaign.

My conviction about the Presidential race in 2000 was that neither candidate deserved to win, so I voted for someone else (Nader). After 9/11 (well, really, on 9/11) I came to the conclusion that a tide of Islamofascism was rising in Islam, and that we'd therefore have to raise a tide of anti-fascism to cancel the threat. That was only five years ago, and I'm prepared to wait a bit longer before judging the effort a failure.

Someone mentioned that they felt it wasn't accurate to say that we're in a war with someone we need to fight. That attitude has pretty much permeated the outlook of Democrats. But it has also infected some Republicans recently. It's really hard to believe that conditions are such that a painful price now is required to prevent paying a fatal price later, when we know that these civilizations threatening are not anywhere near our equal.

But, the means for doing great harm is becoming cheaper with every passing day. The fact that rogues now realistically can assume that they're invulnerable to suppression of their will to obtain weapons of mass destruction suggests to me that no one is very focused.

So it's not a matter of which one sucks less, because neither is up to the task of preventing Hume's Horror: where someone with an itch to kill millions can fulfill that itch almost as an afterthought. How far are we from that scenario? Both parties seem to think we're several generations removed.

I think it just peeked at us from around that next corner.

I think the enemy is nearly on top of us. And we have no leaders who seem even aware of it. None. In the past, times like these have demanded charismatic leadership, because bureaucracy and conventional wisdom simply aren't up to the task. We can't expect the competition between elites to produce adequate leadership.

Looking around, however, I have to say that the above reality seems to bother Republicans more than Democrats..., because the latter are (against all common sense) simply inclined to ascribe all evil to Bush & Co. If there's any hope at all it therefore lies with Republicans. They're slightly more embarrassed by and concerned about their own corruption. That's not enough to make me feel very good about anything, but it might be enough to produce charismatic leadership once we get around to noticing that there's a real threat.

The Republicans know one thing.

High taxes reduce government revenue and strangle economies.

They know something else. Islamic Fascists are a dangerous enemy, and thus we must keep them from capturing Iraq.

Beyond that they are as corrupt as the Ds.

BTW you ought to get with Pareto and the 80/20 rule. Using government to abrogate that natural rule strangles economies. Strangled economies help no one.

If the rich got 50 times wealthier and the poor got two times wealthier because the rich are doing better that would be fine with me.

The redistributionists idea runs to the wealthy doing 1.1 times better while the poor do 1.01 times better. I don't see the advantage of it. Other than creating more "equality".

Higher paying jobs require more capital investment. Not a government specialty.

I say let 'er rip. We will all be better off.

Invested capital helps us all. Capital squandered by the government helps no one.

M.Simon [#46]: "Higher paying jobs require more capital investment. Not a government specialty."

Ever heard of the Interstate Highway System, or the Internet, or the National Science Foundation, or the National Institutes of Health?

All of those are government investments, excellent ones, that could not and would not have been done by private industry, and which have paid off enormously for our society.

Once upon a time, Republicans knew some valuable things about fiscal responsibility, and the nature of investment by the public and private sphere. There are still a few Republicans around who know those things, I hope, but most Party members just parrot silly slogans like, "Cut taxes!", "Less government is always better!", and "Starve the beast!"

Re: #47 from Beard,

Government capital spending should be limited to exactly the things you mentioned. Such spending was contemplated by the founders. Which is why we have emminent domain in the Constitution. If the government takes too much out of the economy capital spending is reduced. This depresses economic activity. It also reduces government revenues.

I will repeat. Lower taxes have increased government revenue and increased economic activity.

I will also repeat - economists are coming to the conclusion that tax rates over 20% lead to tax avoidance which stifles expected increases in revenues. Laffer was right.

So I ask my lefty friends again. If lower taxes lead to a more robust economy and higher government revenues why are the lefties against such a move?

Would it be better to have a "fairer" income distribution if it meant an unemployment rate of 8%? Or would it be better to live with more inequality if it drove unemployment below 5%?

A booming economy will do more for the poor than any tax and spend program invented by the government. In my opinion. So far actual results seem to confirm my opiniion.

M.Simon [#48]: "So I ask my lefty friends again. If lower taxes lead to a more robust economy and higher government revenues why are the lefties against such a move?"

Lowering taxes by borrowing money instead of raising it is fiscally dishonest. Sure, you can party for a while, but you are basically putting it on plastic, which you have to pay back, with interest.

Clinton tightened the budget and eliminated the deficit, making a tiny bit of progress toward paying down the national debt. Following that approach, we could lower taxes the way honest people should: by owing less money and having lower interest expenses. Bush and the Republicans are throwing money around like drunken sailors. It's great while it lasts, but it is unsustainable.

For all the Republican talk about cutting taxes, it is clear that they, as a party, are incapable of controlling spending. Clinton was capable of that. He made enemies on the Left, as well as on the Right, but he did the responsible job we want the President to do. The Republicans are clearly not capable of that. (That's one reason they had to find an excuse to lynch him.)

Republicans are fond of calling Democrats the party of "tax and spend". Maybe so, but taxation is how governments raise the money the money they spend. The Republicans weren't always this way, but they have become the party of "Borrow and Spend", which is totally irresponsible.