Democrats & Liberals Archives

I was wrong!!!

Hollywood Model Mea maxima culpa!!! I have written several articles critical of this gorgeous Hollywood model. I am so sorry.

I have suggested that she is not qualified to be President. I have suggested both; that she has no experience, and has bad judgment. I have suggested that she has radical extremists anti-women’s rights policies. I have suggested that she has not been vetted. I have suggested that there are unresolved ethical questions. I have questioned her pregnancy and the pregnancy of her daughter. My bad.

In my article titled: Should Women Control Their Own Body? I suggested that Sarah Palin had extremist views on woman's rights. I was correct of course, but...

The specific premise of my article titled: What is up with the swollen lymph node on John McCain's face? was proven flawed by Carolina in comment: #262435 and by Kate in comment: #262482. The specific premise was that there seemed to me to be some evidence of metastatic cancer. Carolina and Kate successfully debunked that premise. However the more general premise that MCCain's questionable health means that his choice of VP is of special importance is correct... But...

In my article titled: McCain Insults Women I suggest that Sarah Palin is a rank amateur with no real experience, poor judgment, no vetting that was chosen for sexist reasons on the assumption that women would vote for her because she had a uterus. I was correct of course... BUT...

In that article, I suggested Condi Rice would have been a much stronger choice. I was correct of course... We now know that McCain wanted the DINO Lieberman but that the social conservative extremist would not allow him to, so he sold out. Good thing too... Lieberman would have been a real problem for us Dems... If MCCain had the political courage to stay true to his heart, he could have won this thing. They could have presented themselves has a highly experienced national unity ticket and pulled the rug right out from under Obama and Biden. Toss in a little anti-black racism and MCCain would be President. Because of racism it is still an uphill battle for us, but we had the political courage and integrity to listen to our hearts. Palin is a problem too, but she is peeking too soon and she is a weak poorly qualified candidate. Due to McCain's health, she is too close to the Presidency. This makes her an important VP pick and it is a very good reason for moderates and independents to vote against McCain. If you are a moderate, do you want a rankly inexperienced extremist that close Presidency. So I was correct but...

In the commentary thread of that same article, in comment: #260318 pianofan raised questions about:
Even her touted stance against the “Bridge to Nowhere” is bogus - she was for it before she was against it.
We now know that not only did she flip flop, she took the money and spent it. We were and are correct to raise those questions... But... But... But...

In the commentary thread of that same article phx8 raised questions about the troopergate investigation that she is now stonewalling and acting guilty about. See comment: #260366 He and we were and are correct to raise those questions... But... But... But...

In comment: #260425l of that same article I said:

In one important sense, she is not living her conviction, not even close. She chose as a gift freely given to provide the services of her body to maintain the life of a birth defective fetus. I honor that choice of love. She is exercising her freedom of choice and choosing love. I honor that. She is living the convictions of the women’s right to choose movement. That is not what her convictions are. Her convictions are that the government should force women to provide the services of their bodies to keep potential people alive. She thinks that the government should have forceful control over women’s reproductive organs. In order for her to fully live her convictions she should be forced by the government to have an abortion. How would she like that? Forcing her to have an abortion would be the same level of government control over her reproductive organs that she wants the government to have over the reproductive organs of women who want abortions. That would be living her convictions. She is living choice.
As I have pointed out above: Fetuses although not yet fully human, have a right to life. They are free to live that life independent of their mother. I am fully human and have a right to life. No one is obligated to provide the services of their bodies to keep me alive not even to the point of using their body blow air into my lungs for five minutes. I have a right to live and I am free to live but I do not have the right to forcefully control your body or to have my government control your body in order to keep me alive. Forceful control of women’s reproductive organs is called rape.
I was correct of course... BUT... BUT... BUT...

After phx8 raised questions about her pregnancy, in comment: #260512 of that same article I said:

Assume the best. Assume her daughter really did have Mono. Assume number 5 is hers. This leaves me questions of why this staunch pro-life woman is neglecting the baby (at 8 months, viable outside the womb, it is a baby). Leaking amniotic fluid??? She should be rushing to the nearest hospital to make sure the baby is alright. Did she want God to perform an abortion for her? Was she trying to give him a little help? “The Lord helps them that helps themselves…” Leaking amniotic fluid might not be serious but a loving mother would certainly want to immediately consult with a doctor and attempt to prolong the pregnancy for the baby’s benefit. She would not be fly on a plane and drive for forty five minutes. She would be on a phone and rust to the nearest hospital. Maybe there is an explanation? Was this speech in Angoon to 10 native Americans where the only medical care was a shaman? If so why was finishing the speech so very important. Was the plane a bush plane with pontoon floats? Was a plane ride and a 45 minute drive to Wasila the closest medical facility? If there are not good answers to these questions then this smells like Kawock… My wife thinks that it is less likely for a teenager to deliver a baby with downs syndrome because genetic damage accumulates as we age. But that leaves the serious questions about the neglect of the baby.
We were and are correct to raise those questions which still remain unanswered... BUT... BUT... BUT...
There is another aspect of this. Yes Sarah is important for the reasons cited above. Yes moderates and liberals should vote against them for the reasons and questions cited above. Yes, the questions should be asked, honestly answered, and put to bed. She is important, but not that important. The problem here is the enthusiasm gap. The lack of enthusiasm for McCain relative to Obama has been an embarrassment. But, the lack of enthusiasm for McCain relative to Palin is just pathetic. This war hero was fighting and suffering for his country literally before she could pee yellow... And everyone is excited about her... What for??? What has she done to deserve our excitement??? She a measly, lousy VP pick... I mean she is a lousy VP pick... Why the excitement??? What are people all "head up" about??? What was I all "head up" about??? He will probably live, so she would just be VP. The chance that she could be President is a good reason for moderates to vote against McCain, but it is not a very good reason for people who are enthusiastic about her, to vote for him, because she is just going to hang out around the glass ceiling that Hillary cracked and do nothing. I was wrong. She is not important. There is no reason to get all "head up" about her... Now we know that the MCCain campaign is lying about and inflating the number of people showing up to see him. PATHETIC. I may go to one of his campaign events just pay tribute to the man for his service to his country...

Posted by Ray Guest at September 16, 2008 9:50 PM
Comment #263136

Well, mea culpa too. I thought Palin would resign by now. Instead, the GOP has decided to stick by her, and prevent the Troopergate investigation from going forward. If BushCo has taught us anything, it is that once a person joins the executive branch, the rule of law no longer applies. Subpoenas can be ignored with impudence. Should investigations grow aggressive, they can be delayed with countersuits, or claims of executive privilege. So! The decision has been made to stonewall. It will probably work. Clearly the GOP has learned some valuable lessons from Bush and Cheney & Rove & Miers and Bolton on how to deal with lame investigators. They only have to stall until November, and then they can ignore the rule of law.

I saw an advertisement on tv tonight for McCain/Palin. Apparently they represent ‘change.’ Well, McCain has lied so much already, why not go for the whole enchilada?

Of course, even the media has begun to notice the despicable nature of the man, John McCain. It’s pretty damn unpleasant. What a crass person. He was behind in the polls, and in early July he changed up his campaign staff, and brought in Karl Rove’s top man. The rest is history- by mid-July the negativite advertising started, and here we are: lies, gross lies, and baldfaced ‘I dare you to call me on it,’ black is white kinds of lies. At least the “fundamentals” of the American economy are strong, and by “fundamentals,” McCain means American workers are productive. Whatever.

Oh! Well, we American citizens are now the proud owners of 80% of AIG. $85 billion. That’s quite a purchase price. Usually I believe in discussing large purchases before jumping in with both feet, but since the alternative seemed to be worldwide depression, I suppose this purchase was a good idea. I hope it’s worth it.

And a special, special thanks to Phil Gramm. We couldn’t have done it without you, Foreclosure Phil. Hope you enjoyed the $750,000 contribution from UBS, because after heading the Senate banking committee, you did a bang up job as a lobbyist, and played a major role in easing restrictions on predatory lending tactics by mortgage brokers. Live long and prosper as UBS vice-chairman, Phil. Thanks bunches. I hope you lose every ill-gotten penny, Phil.

Posted by: phx8 at September 16, 2008 10:44 PM
Comment #263137

McCain is an American hero and gets all of my respect for serving and sacrificing for all that
I am able to enjoy today.

He could have picked Lieberman but I am under the impression he may actually want to win the presidency and serve his country further. So with Palin he shores up his base and, believe it or not, she is looked up to by many women in middle America. He is raising much more cash and has revitalized his campaign once again with this pick. While Palin will probably not do a whole lot in office she will show the junior’s, like Obama, what it takes to be elected to a higher office someday.

Posted by: andy at September 16, 2008 10:44 PM
Comment #263140

The women of America need to be reminded ,what the overwhelming attitude and opinion of woman , by the majority of men in the Republican Party is, which Sarah Palins nomination has hid from veiw.

It was clearly expressed in public at the GOP Convention in 1992 by Pat Robertson. He declared out loud at the Republican GOP convention

“Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians”

Straight out of the mouth of Pat Robertson.

and then the Republican Party expects Sarah Palin to con the women of America into voting for the Republicans.

Keep dreaming Sarah and GOP.

Posted by: Gerry at September 16, 2008 11:11 PM
Comment #263142

The women here are fine. The one’s that were brainwashed by left coast “feminisism” would have voted for Obama anyway…if vote at all. I’m just talking about normal women.

Posted by: andy at September 16, 2008 11:32 PM
Comment #263145

Gems from the web:

“Instead of Wall Street getting social security, social security got Wall Street.”

‘Apparently the workers of AIG were not fundamentally sound.’

Well, it’s good to know my taxpayer dollars are helping out a trillion dollar company.

Bailing out AIG: “A Bridge Loan to Nowhere.”

Socialism you can believe in!

I wonder if this surprise collapse will be the last one. That seems highly unlikely. Several banks are on the brink, including WaMu and Wachovia. The FDIC has enough reserves to cover one big bank failure. After that, the FDIC will have to be bailed out by the Federal Reserve too.

Bernanke and Paulsen are trying hard to prevent a depression. I don’t know if they will succeed. It took a long time for conservative economic policies and the Republican Party to bring us to this point.

The really disturbing thing is that no private investor was willing to take AIG. The collapse happened fast. It must have been much worse than anyone was letting on. The Fed had to do it. Yikes.

Posted by: phx8 at September 16, 2008 11:55 PM
Comment #263147

One of the business’s I work for is AIG. They just sent out an e-mail today telling us to pass on to customers that they are fine…hmmmm. I work for around 10 employers and by farrrrr AIG is and always has been the most diffucult to work for. In a sick way I’d love to lift my middle finger to AIG to give them a good send off…I guess I just did.

Posted by: andy at September 17, 2008 12:11 AM
Comment #263148


You wrote:

Bailing out AIG: “A Bridge Loan to Nowhere.”
I don’t know what needs to be done, but the Repubs certainly are flip flopping. They say no bailouts. Then they bail Freddy and Fannie and now AIG. I think that they are desperately trying to patch things up until Nov 4. It is a sucker job. They are trying to sucker the American people into giving them a third term to screw us over. It frustrates me to know that so many people are too busy putting food on the table to make time to become well informed. I do not have nearly enough time to be as informed as I should be and I am more well informed than most. Repubs who have been in control for 8 years, who have supported the Bush regime’s policies, and who advocate continuing the Bush policies are running as change agents - as Democrats. They can’t even get the talking heads on TV to even admit they are Repubs. Toss in a little racism and it just might work.

Posted by: Ray Guest at September 17, 2008 12:47 AM
Comment #263149

The women where are fine, andy??? And who do you consider to be a “normal woman” ?
I’m a left coast woman, have all my brain intact and not waterlogged by any brainwashing, and see nothing wrong with feminism.
I have voted in every election since I was of legal age to do so, and I intend to vote in this one….for Obama!!!
Just because I am female does not bring me anywhere close to falling into this idiotic idolatry of sickening Sarah. She is actually a bane to most strong women everywhere. She is an absolute embarassment. She has gotten into the places she is now by cheating, stealing and lying, which explains why they want her so bad……she fits in with the rest (most of them,anyway) of the party.
She, and the “first dude” can stay in the tundra and keep an eye on Russia for us. Must be all the attention she has been paying there that made her so stupid about what goes on right here.
What a pair to draw to…………….

Posted by: janedoe at September 17, 2008 12:50 AM
Comment #263153

jane…I’ve had the benefit of meeting and getting to know many good women through the years. My life has been greatly influenced by women and 99.9% of that influece has been positive. I guess this is sexist but part of me thinks that this country could use the right woman in at least that high profile of a position.

Posted by: andy at September 17, 2008 1:37 AM
Comment #263154

The effort to forestall the fall will almost certainly fail. The deregulated rain in Spain falls mainly on McCain.

Anyway, the failures the financial giants are coming at a faster pace, and spreading through the system. Epic fail, indeed. The whole thing gets me terribly agitated. I don’t want to experience an economic depression. I really don’t.

And if McCain/Palin win in November, well, there’s not much I can say or do. Obama is running a good campaign and making a good argument for votes. His strategy of developing grass roots drives for voter registration is sound. It should be enough to win, and win by a lot. Yet, if the majority of Americans still want to continue down the path of the past eight years for another four years, and follow a conservative Republican philosophy of government, even after experiencing a failed war, a failed response to a natural disaster, a failed economic policy, a failed energy policy, a failure to address Global Warming, and more miserable failures besides… If that’s the case, if that’s the preference of a majority of Americans, then there’s not much left to be said.

Posted by: phx8 at September 17, 2008 1:38 AM
Comment #263155

Hey phx8 and Ray, I posted this over in the center column thread on the economy, but seeing that you’re also discussing the subject, I thought maybe I should re-post it here too:

Obama gave an excellent speech today on the state of the economy, discussing how we got into the mess of the currently unfolding crisis, and how he plans to bring average Americans the kind of changes we’ll need going forward.
If anyone missed it, here is a link to his speech:
Barack Obama: Confronting an Economic Crisis

If people are looking for a similar speech from McCain, you’re out of luck, because he didn’t give one. He did go on all the morning shows to inform American workers that we’re the fundamental he thinks is so strong about our economy. (Well gee thanks Mr. McMansions, but I’m really not sure what that’s supposed to mean when everything on Wall Street is melting down.) He also said that we need “reform” and that things need “fixing” and that he’s just the one to do all that — without giving any details or particulars whatsoever. I assume it will have to happen miraculously though, since he has repeatedly claimed he’s strongly on the side of permanent deregulation.
Oh, and I heard he also said something about how we need to create some sort of 9/11 Commission for the Economy — which sounded to me like a tacit admission that he really doesn’t know the first damn thing about economic issues at all.

PS to Jane, like you, I am also a “normal woman” voting for Obama! :^)

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 17, 2008 2:15 AM
Comment #263156

or done, phx8, but I resent the he** out of them dragging me and the rest of us with them !!!
You said the right things this time, andy,and I agree about a woman being in that position, or the Presidency.
This one, however, could not be any worse of an example !

Posted by: janedoe at September 17, 2008 2:16 AM
Comment #263157

Palin has lost 10 points in favorability/popularity in 5 days.
She is lying about something every day. The last one coming out is about a malfunctioning teleprompter…..stupid thing to pick, and why…..who knows? But would appear that the shine (lipgloss ?) is starting to wear off.
Her tanning bed she put in the Gov. mansion is to ward off depression. Great….now we have to deal with someone admitting she isn’t wrapped too tight….. :(
VV, I’m just pretty okay with me, and the way I vote! and you go girl, too!

Posted by: janedoe at September 17, 2008 2:31 AM
Comment #263159

Sarah Palin’s poll numbers are plummeting, he lack of ethics, scandals, and cronyism make W look like a competent executive. McCain shows everyday how little he understands the economic crisis and thinks we are dumb enough to believe that the self proclaimed “deregulator” will be the one to regulate the financial system. HA!

The GOP has officially jumped the shark. They are done. Obama will win this election.

Posted by: tcsned at September 17, 2008 7:55 AM
Comment #263163


Thanks for the excellent link. All we normally see are little clips. On Hardball, Chris said he was not passionate enough. If he were any more passionate they would accuse him of raving. I am reposting your link here. Everybody should watch this. Obama confronting economic crisis.

Posted by: Ray Guest at September 17, 2008 10:13 AM
Comment #263172

I heard Walter Monegan on the radio talking about troopergate. He said that while Palin and her people were careful not to directly tell him to fire Wooten, they did call him regularly to tell him what a horrible person Wooten was and that someone like Wooten should not have a job as a State Trooper. This tells me they knew what they were trying to do was illegal so they were employing a classic CYA maneuver.

Since they are now, in proud Bush tradition, evading subpoenas and clamming up about the whole affair it looks like justice will not be served in this case.

clam-up = guilty

We have had 8 years of this kind of trashy behavior from our executive branch - do we really need any more?

Posted by: tcsned at September 17, 2008 12:02 PM
Comment #263173

A friend of mine just had the opportunity to shake hands with McCain. He said McCain’s pallor was terrible, that he looked and felt like touching a dead body, and that he had a limp dead fish handshake. He described the experience as eerie. In men a dead fish hand shake is usually indicative of someone that you cannot trust - manipulative, weak willed, passive aggressive, back stabbing… In John McCain’s case, I think it is more indicative of physical handicap and physical weakness. Men communicate a lot through handshakes. Most of us have strong full handed straight up and down handshakes that indicate a person who you can trust not to try to dominate, but who will stand up for themselves. Some of us are bone crushers who are indicating their sadism and willingness to hurt you. The bone crusher is sometimes combined with trying to turn the other person’s hand down which indicates a desire to dominate. Then there is the lawyers handshake, just giving the finger tips, they don’t trust you with their hand, they want it in writing… Some older women who have been taught that they should be subservient use the the dead fish or lawyer handshake. In that case the dead fish simply indicates acceptance of their subservient gender role… The limp dead fish is the worst handshake a man can have. I think that John McCain is no dead fish. He has to shake hands all day and must be in excruciating pain. I have a strong handshake but am often in excruciating pain when I do because of work related carpal tunnel and arthritis. He gave my friend his whole hand which indicates trust and he made eye contact. None the less people form gut level opinions based on your handshake and McCain’s is a major political liability. He would be better served with the lawyer handshake. No one would blame him for not trusting people with his hand.

Posted by: Ray Guest at September 17, 2008 12:13 PM
Comment #263177

“Yet, if the majority of Americans still want to continue down the path of the past eight years for another four years, and follow a conservative Republican philosophy of government, even after experiencing a failed war, a failed response to a natural disaster, a failed economic policy, a failed energy policy, a failure to address Global Warming, and more miserable failures besides… If that’s the case, if that’s the preference of a majority of Americans, then there’s not much left to be said.”
Posted by: phx8 at September 17, 2008 01:38 AM

You’re correct, the polls don’t seem to indicate that the majority of Americans have your view of your list of failures. And, they also don’t agree who may be responsible for your list. And, they evidently don’t agree with the solutions proposed by your liberal dominated party.

I am sure it is difficult for many liberals to understand why their philosophy of ever larger and more intrusive government isn’t more popular but it’s really quite simple. Mr. Obama and the liberal dominated Democrat party, citing an endless litany of government failures, continue to advocate for more government.

Can you understand how silly this sounds to most people. Big government is failing so we need more big government! The caveat however is that, we…the liberals will make it work. Did you really expect the majority to swallow this line?

Posted by: Jim M at September 17, 2008 12:43 PM
Comment #263178

Jim M,
My ‘view’ of failures? Either you believe the following: that Iraq was successful, that the response to Katrina was successful, that the economic policy has been successful, that the energy policy has been successful, that we are successfully addressing Global Warming; or, you believe the government has not been responsible for any of the above; or that someone other than conservative Republicans were responsible; or that somehow, ‘big government’ had something to do with any of the above.

But none of that even makes sense.

I can’t make any sense of it, because the view you espouse simply denies or ignores obvious realities. Big or intrusive government? Right now, and I’m mean RIGHT NOW, this minute, ‘big government’ is the only thing saving you and me from facing a full blown economic depression, caused by a disastrous combination of greed, free markets, and deregulation. And even then, the efforts of ‘big government’ may not succeed.

Seriously, Jim M, do you understand what just happened, and why ‘big government’ intervened and bought AIG?

The last time the country experienced a Great Depression, it ended in a World War. ‘Big government’ has to do everything in its power to avoid an economic depression, because a depression will certainly result in a lot of people dying.

Posted by: phx8 at September 17, 2008 12:56 PM
Comment #263179

Jim M - actually it is an endless list of government failures perpetrated by a group of people who don’t believe in government in the first place. There is a difference between more competent government over more gross incompetence and negligence in a GOP controlled government.

We are seeing the results of deregulation of our financial institutions now as the stock market falls another 300 points today Due in part to “Deregulator” McCain’s actions. McCain is now behind in the polls for good, Palin is sinking fast, and Obama will be getting sworn in on Jan 20th next year bidding a fond farewell to incompetence, corruption, and war crimes.

Posted by: tcsned at September 17, 2008 12:58 PM
Comment #263180

Ray Guest wrote, “A friend of mine just had the opportunity to shake hands with McCain. He said McCain’s pallor was terrible…”

Isn’t it just amazing what an old, almost dead guy, running on a so-called failed philosophy can accomplish against a young, slick, healthy, good-looking, can’t loose, messiah-like, community servant who is a liberal lawyer? Maybe it’s the message that counts and not the messenger.

Posted by: Jim M at September 17, 2008 1:04 PM
Comment #263181

Jim M.

The Repubs who believe that government does not work deliberately set the government up to fail and then say see government does not work. Further they give tax breaks and then increase government spending on things like failed, unnecessary wars. The polls racist that you cite reflect racist resistance to Obama - not endorsement of your failed policies. Further, this was not a failure was not a failure of big government, this was a failure of deregulation ran rampant (small government), so do not distort the facts.

Posted by: Ray Guest at September 17, 2008 1:04 PM
Comment #263186

phx8 and tcsned, too bad you don’t see the irony. Big government if controlled by liberals is good despite all the failures we are now seeing and despite a majority of democrat congresses over the past 70 or 80 years.

When social security, medicare and medicaid all come tumbling down you’ll still be chirping about more big government intervention as the solution. Placing the blame on one party or the other won’t change a thing if an ever increasing, bloated, money sucking, corrupt big government keeps expanding and controlling. You both write as though our current financial crisis occurred with no knowledge or abetting by democrats. If you trace our current financial problems back to their original cause you will mostly find liberal philosophy and tinkering at the root.

While we see the failure of Big government all around liberals keep demanding more. When big government programs fail it’s OK if the reason for their establishment had “good intentions” and was “fair”. Adding insult to injury, liberals would enact the biggest government program of all…the GrandDaddy, national health insurance because it’s only fair. If enacted, it too will grow and bloat and bleed red ink while all the good intentions will not be achieved. And when that failed idea needs mass infusions of money you’ll also be blameless.

Take credit for your successes if you can find any, and don’t be shy about sharing in the blame.

Posted by: Jim M at September 17, 2008 1:35 PM
Comment #263187

Jim M - I do trace the current financial crisis to the GOP - it isn’t the Dems that have been pushing to deregulate all of these institutions it has been the GOP under Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, McCain, Phil “Weasel” Gramm and the rest who have done this. These bailouts didn’t happen because of big government they happened because people who believe government can’t solve problems turned our economy over to the most self centered, greedy pigs on earth and they have caused this crisis. It has nothing to do with big government. If government had been doing its job in overseeing our savings, pensions, 401ks, and the rest instead of trusting these greedy folks to do the right thing then I would not be getting my share of this bill to bail out these rotten b***ards. My children will also be paying for this garbage as well as the Iraq war garbage, oil company welfare garbage, 400 million dollar bridge to nowhere (errr road to nowhere) garbage, and the rest of the drunken sailor spending that the GOP has engaged in.

BTW - Gallup Daily Tracking Poll - Obama/Biden 47 - PALIN/mccain 45. Looks like the Palin bounce is over and done and the Palin slide into obscurity has begun.

Posted by: tcsned at September 17, 2008 2:07 PM
Comment #263201


Anyway, the failures the financial giants are coming at a faster pace, and spreading through the system. Epic fail, indeed. The whole thing gets me terribly agitated. I don’t want to experience an economic depression. I really don’t.

I have heard speculation by a few supposed financial experts that AIG even after the bailout has about a 50/50 shot at surviving. We are providing this loan by way of borrowed money against assets that are not proven to be there. I have also heard the word depression mentioned in relation to AIG going under. If these folks know what they are talking about I think it might be safe to say that by way of the survival or failure of AIG we have about a 50/50 shot at going into a depression.

Posted by: RickIL at September 17, 2008 3:35 PM
Comment #263205

I don’t know about the odds, but my sense is that it’s too far gone, and cannot be stopped. A Senator took notes from a meeting, and the people who engineered the $85 billion AIG financing were using phrases like ‘the catastrophic failure of the financial system.’

Posted by: phx8 at September 17, 2008 3:51 PM
Comment #263262

R G, you seem to have forgotten that people are willing to vote for a candidate who is actually dead, if they don’t want his opponent to win. Aaron Sorkin memorialized this in 4th season West Wing episodes. I’m rewatching Studio 60, and Sorkin is a brilliant writer. As a person, he seems to be a completely self centered idiot that you really wouldn’t want to have anything to do with, or for whom you would have any respect apart from his writing ability. Does this make someone prejudiced against the ethnicity to which he belongs?

Posted by: ohrealy at September 17, 2008 9:37 PM
Comment #263265


You wrote:

R G, you seem to have forgotten that people are willing to vote for a candidate who is actually dead, if they don’t want his opponent to win. Aaron Sorkin memorialized this in 4th season West Wing episodes.
I agree completely. The racist certainly will vote against Obama no matter what. I have said that all along. It is part of the reason that I made the mistake of supporting Edwards. There is enthusiasm for Obama but not for McCain. On the other hand among some white working class males who should be enthusiastic about Obama, there is a lack of it, due to their latent and explicit racism. Win or lose McCain represents more of the same and neo-con economics are a complete failure. There is 18 billion of pork per year in this country. Much of it is waste and should be stopped. The Repubs are at least as responsible as the Dems for it. I just seen a McCain ad about the tax and spend Dems. Eighteen billion - that is the problem according to the Repubs??? Not the one trillion dollar unnecessary war in Iraq combined with tax cuts for the rich. That is 50 years worth of pork for both parties… Tax and spend liberals equals fiscal responsibility - hence tax then spend - pay for what you buy…

Posted by: Ray Guest at September 17, 2008 10:09 PM
Comment #263293

The photo of Palin on this article continues to crack me up. I can’t help but compare her to Paris Hilton, who is world traveled, very experienced in certain limited areas, and a very effective speaker in political commercials and ads on foreign and national policy ( you caught her humorous political ad some weeks ago, right?)

I guess after GW Bush, the bar was set so low, the GOP will let anyone run for the White House as long as they can brand them GOP. Where do Republicans hide that brand, btw, in private places where the public can’t see? A little tatoo or burn scar in the shape of an elephant trunk in the middle of their pubic hair, perhaps?


Posted by: David R. Remer at September 18, 2008 4:45 AM
Comment #263308

David R

I agree with the Hilton comparison, only in the sense that the only reason she gets so much attention is because she is a somewhat exotic animal to the American Idol public. Place her in the hierarchy of the republican realm and she is as exotic as a white leopard in Maine. She is a breath of fresh air which speaks the same language as the stodgy blue hairs who so admire her, despite her obvious lack of national level ability. I have been trying to watch her with an open mind for the last few weeks and have come to the conclusion that she is little more than a campaign slogan wrapped in pretty skin, under intense training in an effort to convince the voters that she has a clue. Most everything she says is so obviously scripted that I am almost embarrassed for her. She hasn’t been allowed out on her own yet and McCain jumps in every time he senses her mouth getting a little out of line. You can see it on his face. Those little tell tale grimaces and sudden interjections are just too obvious. If I can see it, I have to believe that others can to. I think the fact that her shine is rapidly wearing off is testament to that fact.

Posted by: RickIL at September 18, 2008 10:43 AM
Comment #263399

Just a little to add to what RickIl says about the shine starting to wear off…… I was watching their appearance this morning in Iowa, and for one thing, they keep the cameras at a close angle, and I truly believe that doesn’t show how small a venue and crowd they have. They aren’t showing much beyond the immediate family members behind them…the “first dude” today and I think a McCain daughter. Palin has indeed, been hammered regarding what she says and her mannerisms. No pointing fingers..the closed fist and the grimaces. The speech was identical to all the others on this stump…with the new addition of the monetary issues. Sarah goes first…and then McCain begins reading his part. Today he stumbled and mis-spoke nearly every point. The family behind him smiled and clapped him through it. Towards the end, there was a disruption by an Obama fan….and the media later said that a large number of attendees had left right after Sarah spoke….and before McCain got too far into his speech.
If this all wasn’t so pathetic…it would be pathetic… ;)
Poll numbers are moving and what a terrible blessing the economy is proving to be.

Posted by: janedoe at September 18, 2008 4:20 PM
Comment #263412

Jim M.

You wrote:

When social security, medicare and medicaid all come tumbling down you’ll still be chirping about more big government intervention as the solution.
Social Security is failing because Reagan did a smoke and mirror job on it and deliberately set it up to fail. Reagan raised payroll on middle class workers - diverted the money into the general fund - Bush then diverted the money to tax cuts for the rich creating deficits that would leave the government bankrupt - then wasted money in Iraq… It is Repubs who set SS up to fail…

Posted by: Ray Guest at September 18, 2008 5:27 PM
Comment #263413

Why would “Repubs” want SS to fail?

Posted by: kctim at September 18, 2008 5:34 PM
Comment #263417

kctim asks, “Why would “Repubs” want SS to fail?”

Simple answer kctim, we don’t, we just recognize that it will without massive changes that will hurt everyone. Read Ray Guest immediately above and once again you will see the blame for a failing liberal social program, begun by Roosevelt, is placed on Ronald Reagan and others. Liberals are a unique breed in that they never admit mistakes and always find blame with someone else. They are capitalists when all is going well and socialists when they need help. They fail to find solutions that work and then blame others when the same old tired fixes fail.

Medicare and Medicaid, more huge liberal social programs are bloated, filled with corruption, bleeding red ink and yet, the same liberal philosophy that brought these two giant and failing programs to the American public wants to give you another program…the Granddaddy of them all…national health care which will suck up any remaining discretionary spending by government and create new huge payroll taxes.

The unfunded liability for Social Security is well known and in the ten’s of trillions of dollars. All reasonable attempts to fix it have failed as liberals couldn’t find a solution that would buy them votes. Liberals tell Americans not to worry, they have a plan. The PLAN of course, will be more money taken from the pockets of American workers. Non-workers and those who pay no taxes need not worry however, they will just get more unearned income tax refunds and more $1000 handouts from the libs and Obama to pay for their share.

kctim, have you every wondered why income tax, social security and Medicare are all collected thru deductions from your check rather than you just writing your own check to cover the cost?

The income tax deducted from payroll was designed to help fund our WWII efforts by getting money into the hands of government faster and was supposed to end when the war did. It didn’t because politicians realized that Americans wouldn’t miss it if taken from them a little at a time. The same holds true for Social Security and Medicare. Do you suppose Americans would take a closer look at these huge payroll taxes and income tax deduction if they just wrote a check once a year? Of course they would. Can you believe there are people I know who don’t even know how much they pay in income taxes because they get a refund for overpayment? They have been so lulled into this “stinking thinking” that they say stupid things like “I didn’t pay any tax, I got money back.”

We must understand of course that all the carnage that will soon erupt over these bankrupt government programs is OK because the libs intentions were honorable and fair. Strangle, kill and trample on the dead carcass of the goose laying the golden eggs and then wonder why it’s stopped laying.

My questions for libs is, with what will you buy votes when the government is broke, the wealthy have been impoverished, and the impoverished have not become wealthy? What will your vision of “fairness” and “new rights” be worth then?

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid could all have been established to pay their own way and provide benefits to those who really needed them. The problem was, such a solution would not continue to buy millions of votes for libs. Americans would have become self-sufficient and not dependent upon the largess of politicians doling out goodies confiscated from the pockets of others.

If you have a strong stomach take a look at the requirements outlined in Medicaid to qualify for long-term care. Liberals readily admit to a loathing for the wealthy and yet, maintain a program that allows the wealthy to intentionally impoverish themselves to qualify for long-term care benefits. Meanwhile, those truly in need of help for LTC languish in underfunded medicaid nursing homes, so wealthy persons can transfer assets to their heirs at our expense. In fact, they favor the wealthy with these loopholes and punish the poor for whom they claim to be advocates. Liberal hypocritical philosophy in full bloom.

Liberals can not tolerate an informed and self-sufficient public and remain in power. It is only by continuing to promote the illusion that government is the answer that they retain their power.

Posted by: Jim M at September 18, 2008 7:12 PM
Comment #263422

Jim M -

Dude - you SERIOUSLY need to open your eyes. Of the industrialized democracies of the world, America has the LEAST regulated economy (thanks to what began with the ‘Reagan revolution’). Of the industrialized democracies of the world, America is the LEAST ‘socialized’ (e.g. SS, Universal Health Care, regulation of financial markets, etc.).

So by your standards, America’s economy should be rock-solid.

But it isn’t, is it?

Two days ago, John McCain, a self-described proponent of deregulation, was against any bail-out of AIG. Now he’s FOR it. He’s got 83 lobbyists on his staff from Wall Street ALONE (and nearly a hundred others from various other industries), and the guy he listens to the most on economic matters is Phil Gramm…who sponsored the bill that removed the regulations that pulled us out of the Great Depression.

And if you’ll DO the research, you’ll find that America’s markets were barely regulated AT ALL until October 1929…and it was the regulation of the markets instituted by FDR that pulled us OUT of the Depression (which turnaround was largely done BEFORE WWII…so don’t try to claim the war pulled us out of that mess).

No, Jim M - it is YOU and the Republican ‘cognoscenti’ who are uninformed, who are unwilling to LEARN the lessons of history, to LEARN from the experiences of the other industrialized democracies of the world.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 18, 2008 8:32 PM
Comment #263439


You wrote:

Why would “Repubs” want SS to fail?
To prove that their theory of government is correct for the greater good of all.

Jim M.

Your facts are entirely wrong. I need to move on to writing other articles and will not take time to pick your argument apart since Glenn Contrarian a large enough hole in it to cause it to sink.

However… SS had and has a small demographic problem. Reagan fixed it right??? If he fix it, why is it broke now, even worse than it was to begin with??? He did not fix it did he???? HUH??? HUH??? He put the money into the general fund didn’t he, where it would be spent and do absolutely nothing for SS didn’t he??? When a fiscally responsible Democrat came to power and finally raised taxes high enough to start friggin actually paying for some of what we were buying such that the excess SS payroll taxes started to add up to a surplus that could have been used to pay down national debt and create credit liquidity to cover the coming short fall, what did your phallic sucking Repub President do??? HUH??? Did the filthy phallic sucker give tax breaks to the rich which were exactly equal to the excess payroll taxes that workers were paying for their future security, and is that money now gone into the coffers of the rich and powerful elite Repubs??? HUH??? HUH??? Did he start an unnecessary one trillion dollar war and waste more than enough money to more than cover the coming short fall??? Did he??? HUH??? Did he??? Did Reagan put an end to Jimmy Carter’s alternative energy initiatives that would have put an end to our over dependence on foriegn oil a long time ago??? Did he??? HUH??? HUH???

Medicare and VA are the most efficient health insurance. Read my articles titled: Market Principals and Healthcare. and: National Health Care Solution? or don’t comment on national health care any more in this thread.

Posted by: Ray Guest at September 18, 2008 11:29 PM
Comment #263452

Soc. Sec. as conceived by the FDR Admin., Not FDR himself, was to be an INSURANCE program. By the time wealthy fat cats got done lobbying Congress on the issue, the final legislation was no more an insurance program, but, an entitlement for all without regard for need.

It was the wealthy lobbyists in the 1930’s who insisted that if they were going to have to pay in, they were going to have to get paid back when they retire regardless of how many millions had in retirement. FDR is not to blame for the final form of Soc. Sec., that blame falls to the wealthy lobbyist special interests of their day.

In this regard, not much has changed since FDR’s time.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 19, 2008 2:59 AM
Comment #263470
who sponsored the bill that removed the regulations that pulled us out of the Great Depression.

That bill did not pull us out of the Great Depresssion, the repeal of Smoot-Hawley and end of protectionism because of our need to work together for WWII did that.

And if you’ll DO the research, you’ll find that America’s markets were barely regulated AT ALL until October 1929…and it was the regulation of the markets instituted by FDR that pulled us OUT of the Depression (which turnaround was largely done BEFORE WWII…so don’t try to claim the war pulled us out of that mess).

I think it is you that needs to do the research Glenn. The turnaround was NOT done by 1939, in fact the 1937 recession was a direct result of FDR’s policies that had to be curtailed not just by the administration but the Supreme Court as well.

No, Jim M - it is YOU and the Republican ‘cognoscenti’ who are uninformed, who are unwilling to LEARN the lessons of history, to LEARN from the experiences of the other industrialized democracies of the world.

Learning lessons from history appears to be a failure of both sides of the aisle.

Let me ask you, Glenn. In your opinion, was the stock market crash of 1929 the cause of the Depression?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 19, 2008 9:43 AM
Comment #263504

“To prove that their theory of government is correct for the greater good of all”

So, “their” theory of govt is to privatize SS? But nationalize our banking system?

Posted by: kctim at September 19, 2008 12:27 PM
Comment #263510

Thanks all for your comments. I don’t know how we got off on SS, but it is a good debate. I promised to write an article about science vs creationism but I am thinking about writing about this. This may be a more important issue in this election.

I agree with David that SS was supposed to be insurance for the poor. I don’t have a problem with more affluent people drawing. I think that part of solution will involve some means testing. Someone like me with a pension and a little money probably will wind up with benefit cuts. For myself, I could support 5 to 15 percent… For someone affluent, 25 to 50 percent… For someone rich, 100 percent…

The second thing that needs to happen is that the earning cap needs to be removed. The withholding rate needs to be slightly reduced and self employed people should not have to pay both employee and employer contributions for earnings below $50,000 per year. The double contributions should be phased back in between 50K and 100K. Of course the contributions all need to be indexed to inflation. The effect of this will be to increase total receipts and give the working class and small business a break. It will make it progressive instead of regressive.

Third: Retirement age needs to be indexed to life expectancy. For every 2 years of increasing life expectancy retirement age should increase one year. Advancing technology and concomitant increasing productivity should be adequate to take care of the rest…

This is a small problem. The Japanese and Chinese have a much more serious demographic problem than we do. Practically everybody has a more serious problem then we do. We are well positioned to deal with this. This is no biggie - well if we elect Dems and Independents anyway… If the people of this country decide to ratify neo-con extremism - neo-con extremism is what they will get. Good luck with that.

Posted by: Ray Guest at September 19, 2008 1:18 PM
Comment #263516

Nice spin Glenn, you managed to write six paragraphs without once addressing the issues I raised.

Ray wrote, “what did your phallic sucking Repub President do???”

Ray, I don’t know about anyone else reading these blogs, but the use of such language is offensive to me. Would you make your arguments without such hate-filled prose? Surely, someone with your intelligence and writing ability can do better.

As to your admonition for me to “read your articles or don’t post any more”… it only reveals your liberal philosophy…that all those who disagree should should simply disappear. Ray, it reminds me of how far the once great Democrat Party has fallen since its hijacking by the hate filled left-wing. Once the party of the “Big Tent” (to which I and millions of other conservatives once belonged and felt welcome) its become the bunker for the worst kind of “isms”.

Posted by: Jim M at September 19, 2008 2:17 PM
Comment #263521

Ray Guest writes, “I agree with David that SS was supposed to be insurance for the poor.”

Ray, good intentions often end with horrifying results. Since you offered solutions I will feel free to add mine.

Not being an economist or number cruncher I don’t know if this would work but I am certain that some of you will give it your analysis.

Let’s suppose we means test Social Security benefits when new beneficiaries apply and for those now receiving benefits. Those who don’t need it (by whatever measures we employ for that determination) receive a lump sum return of the principle they paid into the fund with no further liability on the fund. A small portion of the lump-sum distribution would be used to create an actuarially sound fund to purchase some form of private insurance (a group annuity for example) that would provide income to the lump-sum beneficiary, if and only if, they loose their wealth and become destitute.

A return of principle only would then represent a break even deal with no loss except for the interest that may or may not have been earned had the payments into the fund been used for something else during their contribution years.

If sufficient funds are not available in the fund at the time, the lump-sum payout to those who do not qualify for benefits could be made in installments, or used to offset future income tax liability.

The unfunded liability to Social Security for millions who qualify and are now receiving benefits would end immediately. Surplus money now being collected thru payroll taxes would no longer be confiscated by government for use on other programs, but rather, be used to fund the payout. The lump-sum recipients of the buy-out could spend the windfall and stimulate the economy or invest it to produce income. Comments appreciated.

Posted by: Jim M at September 19, 2008 3:02 PM
Comment #263542

Rhinehold, the Great Depression was over in 1939. This is the year accepted in general history books as the end.

Recessions are not Depressions. They have different meanings and definitions.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 19, 2008 5:19 PM
Comment #263546

Jim M, what you propose is NOT insurance. NO insurance pays you back your premiums if you don’t suffer the circumstances justifying payout.

Second, if a lump sum recipient loses everything including the lump sum, are they to be permitted to die and rot in an alley for lack of funds? Or, will they still qualify for federal poverty support, in which case your plan solves little.

I commend you for means testing benefits. The breach of contract issue aside, the idea of reimbursing premiums to be used for other purposes including lining the wallets of profit taking annuity management companies is a rip off, considering the Extremely low cost of administering the SSA today, with no one taking profits off the benefits.

The best program is to simply means test benefits and adjust premiums accordingly to bring the revenues in line with benefits paid out, and extending the age of qualification for benefits for everyone under 55.

There is a contract in place between the government and those who paid on the basis of that contract. The government has no business breaching that contract for current or close to retirement workers who upheld their end of the contract their whole lives.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 19, 2008 5:32 PM
Comment #263548

Jim M -

I didn’t address the specific issues you raised because all your issues had the same overall theme - the bloated, inefficient, corrupt nature of the national social welfare programs.

And in my reply I pointed out to you that our government is the LEAST socialized of all the industrialized democracies of the world, and that our nation is the ONLY industrialized democracy that does NOT have Universal Health Care…and they’re doing just fine, thank you, not to mention the fact that almost all of them have a national life expectancy GREATER than America’s.

I responded to the overall theme of your post…and you missed it. Howzabout you respond to the facts I posted, hm, instead of ignoring them?

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 19, 2008 5:43 PM
Comment #263555

Ray G, the ethnic aspect of the race works both ways, as explained by James David Manning, telling white people to stop feeling sorry for black people:

I agree that the Democratic demo most problematic for BHO is white males over 60, but he has a lot of support from other groups to make up for that. The economy is the only thing that can make him POTUS, and I don’t see a turn around happening in the next 45 days.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 19, 2008 6:51 PM
Comment #263556

David Remer writes, “Jim M, what you propose is NOT insurance. NO insurance pays you back your premiums if you don’t suffer the circumstances justifying payout.”

David, hung up on the word insurance. OK, let’s call it something else…it doesn’t matter. Actually there are options available with insurance called “Return of Premium”, but that’s another story.

I address the safeguard of a lump-sum beneficiary becoming destitute and allowed for that possibility with a group annuity which is based upon actuarial methods.

As for “breech of contract” being a problem, we do that right now on a regular basis by manipulating premium increases and payout ages. And, you accept means testing…is that not a breech of contract?

Since government never intended SS to be “insurance” as defined in any rational way that’s a non-starter. But, since you have a problem with a privately issued group annuity, let’s go with a government issued group annuity as long as sound and accepted actuarial methods are used.

As usual, a liberal will find a way to screw everybody. David likes means testing benefits with no return of principle, increased premiums for everyone, and reduced benefits by increasing retirement age at his arbitrarily selected age of 55.

All David’s Ponzi scheme needs to succeed is an infusion or more money and lower or confiscated benefits. He obscures his intentions with this grand sounding statement; “adjust premiums accordingly to bring the revenues in line with benefits paid out” Folks, that’s “liberalese” for increase taxes. Left-wing Democrats have finally found the backbone to call themselves liberals, when will they find the same backbone to call a tax increase a tax increase.

Obviously David believes Mr. Biden’s latest proclamation that paying more taxes is the patriotic thing to do. I am suggesting a way to solve the problem, fair to all, with no requirement of patriotism in the form of just some paying more in SS payroll taxes.

Posted by: Jim M at September 19, 2008 7:02 PM
Comment #263576

Jim M.

Ray, I don’t know about anyone else reading these blogs, but the use of such language is offensive to me. Would you make your arguments without such hate-filled prose? Surely, someone with your intelligence and writing ability can do better.
I stand appropriately chastised. I felt bad as soon as I posted that. It is an insult to all of the fine gay men who like to engage in the oral pleasure of sucking phallics. There has to have been away to creatively express my rage and utter disdain for your sleezy President without participating in hate speech against homosexuals who I actually support. See my article titled: I don’t “get it.” Is there something I am missing? - and then I engage in such derogatory speech against them and associate them with Bush. I am sorry.

Posted by: Ray Guest at September 19, 2008 11:19 PM
Comment #263578

Jim M.,

You wrote:

As to your admonition for me to “read your articles or don’t post any more”… it only reveals your liberal philosophy…that all those who disagree should should simply disappear.
Wrong Jim. I simply occasionally ask that people inform themselves about tired arguments that have already been thoroughly debunked elsewhere, so that they may avoid opening their mouths and allowing their brains to drop out, and so that they can argue their point in a more intelligent way, and so that I don’t have to do the tedious work of repeatedly debunking the same tired idiocy, and so that they will not use the thread of my article promulgate the same idiocy if I am simply to tired to debunk it for the one hundredth time… When I have written in depth articles that have produced commentary threads where issues have been well and thoroughly debated, I would think that an intelligent person would want to examine that before proceeding…

This is my article. I allow my commentary threads to range far and wide as long the debate is substantive, but if you are going to debate national health care here, I expect you to be informed about what I have already written on the subject…

Posted by: Ray Guest at September 19, 2008 11:36 PM
Comment #263621

Ray wrote:

Toss in a little anti-black racism and MCCain would be President. Because of racism it is still an uphill battle for us

Ray, that was one of the very few things you got right in your original posting. Too bad for the leftists that the racism of which you speak is coming from within.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them “lazy,” “violent,” responsible for their own troubles.

The Democratic party, at its best, is the party of inclusion and expansion…
Reverend Jesse Jackson

Looks like Jesse may want to rethink that statement.

Posted by: Kirk at September 20, 2008 12:05 PM
Comment #263676

Ray G, I have a lot of respect for you, and am aware of your issues, but please cool it on the references to the naughty bits. Besides, W may be a member of the gorup that you do not want to offend:

Posted by: ohrealy at September 20, 2008 1:47 PM
Comment #263808

That particular link was not very convincing to me. Bush does not trigger my gaydar. On the other hand, triggering my gaydar usually does not occur unless - well - I am not supposed to be naughty anymore… Bush could be gay, the more judgmental people are, the more they usually have to hide. But, other than the hypocrisy of it, it should not matter what he is or is not in the bedroom.

Posted by: Ray Guest at September 21, 2008 7:40 PM
Comment #264649


Sorry that we conservatives happen to like smart, intelligent and attractive women. I do feel sorry for Democrats, who only seem to nominate whiny, fat, bitter broads.

Rumor has it that Rosanne Barr is thinking of running in 2012. Good luck with that one. :)

Posted by: Greg at September 26, 2008 3:00 PM
Post a comment