Is that this interview prepares him for the debates, where he'll be met with the same tired fraudulent Republican boilerplate. I certainly hope he does better there (although, frankly, it's not exactly possible to shine against Bill O'Reilly. When you're contradicting him, i.e. making sense, he just shouts louder).

There is more to the facts than what you've reported there Alex which truly expose the Bush tax cuts for the giveaways to the rich that they were (though no one in their right mind ever though cutting the estate tax would promote economic growth under any circumstances).

The whole notion of cutting corporate income taxes, marginal income taxes and capital gains is to incentivize savings and investment (and to a far lesser extent, greater labor force participation). However, household savings and corporate investment during the Bush years were at unprecedented lows. It is not remotely possible for anyone to get empirical backing from that data for supply sider's theory (eerily so actually- almost like the whole profession is lost...).

As for the stuff O'Reilly talked about, it's not sufficiently sophisticated to be worthy of Leonard Courtney's famous quote. It is simply convenient ignoramus of the type that has crackpot conservatives the world over, with qualifications such as undergraduate degrees in architecture and the humanities attempting to rewrite thermodynamics textbooks in their quest to 'debunk' anthropogenic global warming.

Under George W Bush, job growth was more anemic than under any other administration since WWII, including Jimmy Carter. The second worst was the elder Bush. The absolute size of economic growth during the Bush administration was likewise miniscule by comparison with Clinton, whose administration oversaw robust economic growth. Finally, 5% real growth in federal tax revenues does not cover the increase in the population in that period, which was greater. So per capita, it was a real decline.

Anyway there are a million ways to trash O'Reilly's argument which in no way distinguishes it from any other argument that happens out of his pie hole. Shame that Obama decided to sit down with him...

Actually, both aggressively expansionist monetary policy and Bush fiscal policy contributed to inflation over the seven year period (most of which was under a Republican Congress as well as Administration). The best way to capture that is a cursory glimpse at the US current account deficit, which exploded under the Bush administration to around $800bn at its peak. This put the dollar under heavy pressure, and was highly inflationary across the globe where the dollar is the international reserve currency (or has been to date. There is an outside chance it won't survive the Bush Presidency with that moniker.).

All of this is tangent to the point, which is that the Bush economy has been the most anemic of any we've had since the second world war. And yet the Republicans continue to run as if its Democrats that are economically illiterate. Words fail me.

It's nice to see you ignorance extends to economic issues. In point of fact, the investment bubble you've called internet was significantly smaller than the housing bubble which has systematically inflated Bush era federal revenues, but which is presently popping directly. Or did you think the demise of the housing industry, bail outs of Freddie, Fannie and Bear and the explosion of federal budget deficits were coincidence?

Oh yea, and the for profit fradulent invasion of Iraq was not an unavoidable expenditure. Those of us who understand that point of fact finally have their opportunity to vote for someone who also did...

Actually Ramble, Obama is up in Ohio and at a level of statistical significance to boot according to the latest poll. In any case, you might want to reconsider whether the grievance your clinging to like a kid with an ice cream cone is more important to you than your reproductive rights, the enivronment, education for our children, equal pay for women, etc. etc. etc.

The thing about life that continues to make me think there is a God, and one who doesn't like us, is our remarkable propensity to hang ourselves by our own rope.

I'd be willing to bet this isn't a function of the Paglia/Drudge synergistic relationship. Reason being is that as you pop around the web these days, you find that most popular message boards are inundated with Republican slime balls. That's not a coincidence, or a function of excitement. That's an organized response that's a function of monetary incentive. We have to start asking these people where we can get a slice of the action...

Obama would be able to make this point. In this one he get maximum one message per news cycle, usually absorbed with gaffes, scrapes and the latest false Republican character attack. In the little time he has, he has to repeat one or two messages and at the moment, the economy massively outranks foreign policy (despite the fact that Presidents control the latter and mostly observe the former).

As regards Palin, both the New York Times and the Post have written extensive and forceful justifications for her astounding ignorance. This is to say nothing of cable news and The National Review. So, as usual, we are overruled. It doesn't matter afterall...