michael,
You have confused the Ashcroft vote with the
Norton vote. Only 8 Dems voted for Ashcroft while
all the Repugs did. Dems split 25-25 on Norton, again
with all the Repugs supporting her. Of course she was
more the true Bushite than Ashcroft, altering her message
before Congress to sound all pro-conservation, and then
appointing a hard right coal lobbyist to No. 2 position in the
Interior Dept. Of course, I suppose we should be grateful
that she did not cancel Clinton's last minute announcement
of National Monuments. Such moderation....
At some point those Senate Dems are going to have
to get some backbone. The upcoming judicial appointments
look like where things are going to get very serious.
As for 2004 (time to forget about 2000), watch for Bush
to pull a round of smiley moderation before the election to
pull the wool over what he will have done by then. But, maybe
things will really blow up and we will really be able to nail him.
Or maybe it will only be in 2002....
Barkley Rosser
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 10:54 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:9499] Re: Muddled Thought
>
> Brad, what you call muddled, I would call refusal to buy into the lesser
of two
> evils trap.
>
> Brad DeLong wrote:
>
> > >Brad, that 3 percent of the vote was enough to sink the Gore campaign
is a
> > >sad commentary on what the Democrats had to offer.
> >
> > Muddled thought. I think--I have always thought--that Gore was a poor
> > candidate who ran a lousy campaign. That Gore was a poor candidate
> > who ran a lousy campaign means that Nader's actions were much more
> > *stupid*, not less. When there is a serious danger that your
> > demonstration will elect the Greater Evil, you wait for a better
> > moment.
> >
> > >With regard to the dimes worth of difference, a lot of posts have
already
> > >mentioned the dreary instances in which Clinton and Gore governed like
> > >Republicans.
> >
> > Even more muddled thought. Is there a difference or isn't there? The
> > fact that Clinton and Gore govern like Republicans sometime doesn't
> > mean that they govern like Republicans all the time. I maintain that
> > even by now--two months into the new administration--the difference
> > is large.
>
> For the most part, there has been quite a bit of agreement between the two
> parties. Almost half of the Democrats voted for Ashcroft -- I don't
remember the
> exact numbers and my memory is not always trustworthy. In terms of
welfare
> reform, sanctions on Iraq, and a host of other policies there is
agreement. The
> question is how much weight to put on ergonomics, bankruptcy "reform", and
the
> other terrible actions of the Bush administration. For example, Brad
mentioned
> the foreign policy with respect to three countries. You can probably
throw in a
> couple more, but for the most part the foreign policy is unchanged --
except for
> the gag rule.
>
> >
> > Count your change. By now it is much more than a dime's worth.
> >
> > >I am appalled by what Bush is doing, but probably I would be
> > >equally angered by the way the Democrats governed, because I would
think that
> > >I had the right to expect more from them.
> >
> > Unbelievably muddled thought. If you really would be "equally
> > angered" by a Gore administration at this point--a Gore
> > administration that was not seeking confrontation with China, Russia,
> > and North Korea; maintained ergonomics rules; had proposed a
> > *progressive* tax cut; was seeking to appoint some reasonable federal
> > judges, et cetera...
> >
>
> My only point here was that I would feel like I had the right to expect
more from
> the Gore administration.
>
> >
> > If you really would be "equally angered" by a Gore administration,
> > then you need to remind yourself that it is *results* count. The
> > point of the exercise, after all, is not to make the gap between
> > results and your expectations small. It is to make the results as
> > good as possible.
>
> But then again, I am hopelessly, unbelievably muddled.
>
> --
>
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
