Democrats & Liberals Archives

Change of Subject

There’s one big issue that I agree with the McCain Campaign on: There isn’t much positive about McCain’s bid for the White House The word is, the McCain campaign, already showing nothing but negative commercials, is going to start going after Obama with even more slime. So continues the modern Republican politician’s fixation on their race to the bottom.

People don't go for hope in Obama's rhetoric and marketing simply because it's a nice thing. It's a necessary thing. The hardcore supporters of Bush might not think it, but for many people, the politics of the Bush administration have been difficult to endure, angering in their divisiveness.

I found it frustrating, in those early years, that Bush and the GOP seemed to believe that bipartisanship simply meant doing things their way on each and ever issue. They might call that unity, but it's not really unity unless you get people to agree to it first. If I found that frustrating, I found the revival of red-baiting accusations of supporting the terrorist infuriating, even a betrayal of the country's best interests. Having grown up in the latter part of the Cold War, I was fairly familiar with the typical "commie" arguments, the character attacks employed.

I know some Republicans are going to come right back and make some "you, too" arguments. Trick is, there's no equivalency here. The Republicans accused Democrats of being commie sympathizers far more than vice versa, and the situation's little different with the terrorists. The basic Republican strategy hasn't changed: equate the other side with an enemy. Don't just do the usual partisan antagonism, don't just make "distinctions", try and whip people up into treating their fellow Americans as traitors. Worse than incompetent, worse than wrong, an active evil. And then make the Presidency and other offices a privilege of the oh-so-obviously righteous GOP.

Define righteous. Define good. The American people are expected to use the candidate's words to discern this, but in reality, they're examining much more than that. They've got the actions of the previous eight years of the incumbent party to compare the words with. They've made a judgment on the Republican Party's policies, and it isn't favorable.

Is McCain much different? No, he's going with the policies that satisfy the Republican's central coalition of religious, economic, and foreign policy interests. That, in no coincidence, is the same coalition of interests that power the Bush Administration.

Unfortunately for McCain, that lack of distinction constitutes a deadweight on his poll numbers. The more people realize there's not much daylight between them, the more the Maverick looks like a Sidekick. And of course that's not going to get him elected.

What's going to get him elected, if he is, is the destruction of his opponent in the public sphere. Theoretically, Obama could self-destruct, but those hoping for self-destruction have been, shall we say, bitterly disappointed. So, McCain and the Republicans are going to take the sewage pump and direct the hose Obama's way.

It's a bad sign, though, when they're recycling a charge the Clinton administration made. These people have professional opposition researchers on the case, and this is the best they can do.

We got to ask ourselves a question here: Can you get through life without associating with people who are a bit on the radical side? Obama got his start in the Chicago area, which means a potent stew of Republicans, Democrats and independents. People act as if Obama was just palling around with Ayers every chance he could get. But the committees and foundations he worked on had all those other boring Democrats, Republicans, and socialites on them as well. Didn't these people know they were associating with a terrorist? Correction, did they know they were associating with a former terrorist?

The Republicans should know something with dealing with this. Take McCain's friend, G. Gordon Liddy. You know, the unrepentant Watergate Burglar who fantasized about killing John Dean with a pencil, who said that you should aim for ATF agent's head if they bust into your home.

The Republicans have had it easy dealing with radical among themselves. A man who sells arms to an enemy nation is hailed as a hero because he has the proper politics. Their preachers regularly blame
America's trials and tribulations on America. Their candidates flirt with movements that have secessionist sympathies and even intents. I mean, it's interesting to see the party of Lincoln backing flags featuring confederate imagery, and to feature a vice presidential candidate whose husband was part of a separatist party in the far north. I can remember the Republicans putting forward sympathies with the militia movements before the Oklahoma Bombing made that politically toxic. When somebody talked about federal law enforcement agents as jack-booted thugs, it wasn't a Democrat doing it.

One could make the argument with all the Anti-American sentiment, with all the violence, threatened and real, with all the politics, radical and zealous, that the Republican party as a whole has no business beating up Obama over a casual relationship with a has-been sixties radical.

Additionally, the more we see of Republicans pushing policies despite their failure, the more we have to ask whether the Republicans themselves have become the dangerous radicals. They seem to have sympathies for the most hawkish and inflexible of elements, where the Democrats, in accordance with what polls say most Americans want, favor a flexible, prudent withdrawal. The Republicans, even at this late date, with most Americans feeling the government isn't doing enough to rein in Wall Street, push deregulation as the solution to all economic ills. The Republicans, even though they are running hundreds of billions of dollars of deficit spending, still remain absolutely inflexible about the Bush Tax Cuts, both in who gets him and how they are gotten.

The radicalism you have to watch out is not the radicalism of associates. With a world as small as ours, nobody is too far from a person who advocates strident views, nor folks who might engage in criminal behavior to further those views. The radicalism you have to look for is the radicalism of policy. In it's relentless expansion of executive powers, it's hardline insistence on a variety of issues, and it's insistence on locking other parties and even factions within their own party out of the decision-making process, the Republican party as it is today is dangerously radical, and dangerously out of touch.

This is not merely who McCain has been around, this is what McCain has promised to do as president: continue the Bush policies, continue the Republican's dominance of our executive branch. He knows he can't sell his party's policies on the merits. He can only fearmonger about how much more radical the Democrats would be if you gave them the chance to run things. It's an fear that it's harder and harder to find credible these days, as the consequences of years of Republican leadership give Americans something real to be afraid of.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at October 4, 2008 10:41 PM
Comments
Comment #265903

Stephen

I’d expect the worst in the next two weeks, if I were you.

Barry is going to be the subject of much conversation very soon I am told.

The old 527s are just about ready to launch much ” very revealing” information about your candidate, old friend.

As well they should.

Your party is about to have elected a completely unknown candidate.

He was in a drug induced haze for over four years while in college.

He was the lackey for Emil Jones.

He partied wit Bill Ayers.

He was in the church bathroom while Jeremiah vomited his hate.

He mowed the lawn in the yard that Resko gave to him for a song.

Yup….Barry had better have his helmet on as the varsity is now suiting up.

Don’t count the chickens just yet.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 5, 2008 11:30 AM
Comment #265904

SE-
I don’t want to hear this “complete unknown” stuff coming from the party that put Palin on their ticket.

I’m not counting my chickens just yet, but ponder this: if coming across as angry and condescending didn’t help McCain in the last debate, what good is heightening that sense of caustic negativity going to do him?

I think there will be a point where your average American’s going to look at the McCain campaign’s almost completely negative message and decide that this, too, is part of what they want to move on from.

Obama’s campaign knows its history, and they know the mood of the country. I don’t think you’ll be able to defame your way to the White House this time without a fight.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 5, 2008 11:48 AM
Comment #265905

I thought McCain was stuck like a record stuck on being the maverick and putting a freeze on spending, I sensed cricket’s from the audience, then a nudge and he came back on track with foreign policy , Obama I must say was not the obama I’ve seen before he did well but i also didn’t care for him Laughing while McCain spoke, I’m looking forward to the next debate.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at October 5, 2008 12:14 PM
Comment #265909
He was in a drug induced haze for over four years while in college.

I wish he would have shared it…..then we’d all be as smart as he is.

Posted by: janedoe at October 5, 2008 12:43 PM
Comment #265910

Seems to me that McCain should be careful-don’t be going through Barack’s closet when your own is full of trash. If Barack’s campaign chooses to and I hope they do there is plenty MORE mud to throw back at McCain that is legitimate not like the lies and manufactured crap they are trying to throw at Barack.

Posted by: Carolina at October 5, 2008 12:47 PM
Comment #265913

The sound you hear is McCain’s campaign flushing down the drain.
This may be more hope than anything, but I think (and hope) the rest of America (other than the hard-core, unrepentant right-wing base) is as tired as I am of this BS.
I am hopeful that this old tired tactic by McCain just sends the independents running the other way.
Even those who were already for McCain.
He is showing himself to be the most despicable candidate since Nixon.

I just experienced something new that should be taken as a warning by you right-wingers who seem so self-rightous about these attacks.


A well-intentioned, but not well-read friend forwarded an e-mail about this BS about the prophecy in Revelations describing Obama to a tee as the “Anti-Christ” — most often that sort of thing goes right into the trash can by most people who see it for what it is.
However THIS time — because I think alot of her, I wrote back saying that I hoped she wouldn’t buy into these arguements by people promoting hate — and how that is not a very spiritual thing to do.
She wrote back that she received ALOT of e-mails correcting her on this and admonishing her.
She wrote:
I’ve been talking with my Grandpa about this email that was sent. He’s been giving me some references to read and think about. He’s good with redirecting me and getting me out of my freaky thoughts. He’s a good Grandpa. I probably shouldn’t have sent this email on to people. You know, I’ve actually had a lot of people email me back about this issue. Some have not been that pleasant. I should have checked my resources first.

There you go
When people are this driven to respond to a “forwarded junk e-mail” I am hoping that it signals a time when they are just not going to take it anymore.
And beware the candidate that insists on using this mud and slime
“I can’t give you a good reason to vote for me, so I have to make sure that you look at me as the lesser of two evils” — Wow, what a strategy!

Posted by: Russ at October 5, 2008 1:16 PM
Comment #265915
I think there will be a point where your average American’s going to look at the McCain campaign’s almost completely negative message and decide that this, too, is part of what they want to move on from.

From June 3 through Sept. 7, according to The Nielsen Co., the campaign of Republican John McCain ran 76,238 negative ads against Democrat Barack Obama in the presidential contest, and the Obama campaign ran 75,246 negative ads against McCain.

Pot meet kettle.


Posted by: Kirk at October 5, 2008 1:26 PM
Comment #265916

>He was in a drug induced haze for over four years while in college.

He was the lackey for Emil Jones.

He partied wit Bill Ayers.

He was in the church bathroom while Jeremiah vomited his hate.

He mowed the lawn in the yard that Resko gave to him for a song.

Yup….Barry had better have his helmet on as the varsity is now suiting up.

Don’t count the chickens just yet.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 5, 2008 11:30 AM

se,

Is this the much vaunted ‘October Surprise’ we’ve been hearing about for the past three or four months?

Now, you’ve got me shaking…by the way, which of these have not been trotted out and trashed, for the trash they are, before? Maybe we should have called them the May Surprise? June Surprise? July Surprise?

We may need that helmet though…’cause poop in the eyes causes myopia……

Posted by: Marysdude at October 5, 2008 1:36 PM
Comment #265917

All of these sleazy attacks have become white noise. They have already overdone it to where no one is listening other than the right wing and these people are already voting for McCain. As has been said, independent voters don’t like that garbage - granted it’s all they have left to run on since it’s either that or run on the policies of a president with approval levels that would have made Nixon cringe.

I find Stooper Sarah’s attack that Obama is friendly with “terrorists” humorous. First, I believe she is referring to William Ayers. The last time I checked he was only one person, not the plural “terrorists” she referred to. Or are they getting out Photoshop and putting pictures of Obama with Bin Ladan or Ahmandinijad? Second, does anyone actually believe that Palin knew who Ayers is, or what the Weather Underground was, or what the anti-Vietnam war movement was about? Someone fed her that line and she is aping it.

Carolina, I agree that McCain closet has more skeletons in it than a haunted house. Neither Obama or Biden took bribes from a guy who was at the epicenter of the last monster financial system bailout. But Obama is pulling away from McCain in the midst of these attacks so there’s no reason for him to wallow in the filth with them.

Posted by: tcsned at October 5, 2008 1:38 PM
Comment #265918

kirk, There are levels to negative-some negative ads are worse and more slimey than others. IMO the heights to which McCain has gone and will go far excede anything the Obama camp has done or will do.

Posted by: Carolina at October 5, 2008 1:38 PM
Comment #265919

>Pot meet kettle.

Posted by: Kirk at October 5, 2008 01:26 PM

Kirk,

Most of us think a negative ad that points out a flaw in political reasoning to be proper for campaign use.

There is a huge difference between the sewage negativity of McCain’s ads and for the most part political negativity of Obama’s ads…but if you can’t see the difference…vote for McCain…That’s one of the reasons there are options on election ballots…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 5, 2008 1:41 PM
Comment #265920

S.E. - “the varsity is suiting up” - he fought and beat the varsity team in the primary.

PALIN/mccain are Bush league in comparison.

Posted by: tcsned at October 5, 2008 1:42 PM
Comment #265922

Carolina,

Sorry…I didn’t want to step on your line. I was typing when yours hit…my bad!

Posted by: Marysdude at October 5, 2008 1:44 PM
Comment #265923

Bob Schieffer, of Face the Nation, said it best, in describing Sarah Palin and John McCain’s campaign strategy:
“John McCain has found a new attack dog.”

Posted by: Sreve Johnson at October 5, 2008 1:45 PM
Comment #265926

Schiefer’s a Republican…he was bragging.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 5, 2008 2:06 PM
Comment #265927

At this point of the campaign, I don’t think going negative will really work. For most people, the candidates have already been defined. The slime listed by SE is the same slime everyone has seen before. Another factor which makes 2008 different from other elections is the financial situation. This time, Obama has enough funds to call ‘foul’ with air time. I don’t think Obama’s campaign will go negative, at least not in the same sense as McCain, by launching character attacks or bringing up accuations which cannot proven or disproven. Obama’s ‘negative’ advertising attacks McCain’s politics, not his character.

McCain will have to take the same stage as Obama in debates, and if the character smears warrant a reply, Obama will reprimand McCain. It will be interesting to see if McCain completely loses it in the next debate. Obama will bring up McCain’s disastrous failure to lead during the bailout process, and his own success, and McCain is just going to have to stand there and take it.

Posted by: phx8 at October 5, 2008 2:09 PM
Comment #265929

Kirk-
The main difference is that those commercials constitute less than half of Obama’s advertising, and nearly all of McCain’s. Obama’s got negative commercials out, but he’s not relying exclusively on them, nor relying on them to distract people from his policies.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 5, 2008 2:23 PM
Comment #265933

first of all to Carolina — your comment needs a slight revision
You wrote:
IMO the heights to which McCain has gone and will go far excede anything the Obama camp has done or will do.
It should read
IMO the heights depths to which McCain has gone and will go far excede anything the Obama camp has done or will do.

Next to Stephen
It is not just the amount, but the tenor of the “negative” ads
McCains are character assinations and are FALSE (and have been shown to be so) — NOT misrepresentaions, or perceptions of political policies or votes.
THESE are the ones most of us are repulsed by,and yet he PROUDLY and DEFIANTLY uses them even in the face of being shown the facts, — NOW THAT is down right SAD and PATHETIC to watch!)
If we did a comparison of the number of ads that have been declared OBVIOUSLY misleading and deceptive — McCain would “win” — dirty hands down!
This from the “Straight talking express”???
Is he vying to out-Rove, Rove??
At this point I just counsel people to look at how each is running their campaign — and how it reflects on them as a person, and ask
Do you REALLY want that sort of person running the country?
More and more people are saying “no” to McCain’s slime and slander.

Posted by: Russ at October 5, 2008 2:46 PM
Comment #265940

Russ - agreed, there is a difference between a negative ad that attacks an opponents policies and one that attacks the opponent. I haven’t seen Obama running ads about Pastor Hagy or cheating on his first wife or even taking bribes. He has run ads about the disastrous foreign policy choices he has supported, the disastrous economic policies he has supported, and the disastrous president he has voted with over 90% of the time. This whole guilt by association thing that PALIN/mccain are trying makes me yawn. They’ve come up with nothing that Hillary didn’t hit him with before. They need some new material if it is going do anything other than annoy everyone other than their supporters who are the only ones who even care about this garbage.

Posted by: tcsned at October 5, 2008 5:18 PM
Comment #265941

Unfortunately for the GOP, Obama has already been vetted. The recylced GOP character smears have already been debunked, and I thought it was interesting that a CNN Truth Squad came right out and said the Palin smear about “palling around with terrorists” was simply false. I hope the Obama campaign resists the urge to bring up certain aspects of McCain’s past. It’s unnecessary. The media has had more than enough of Rove slime, and having Palin spew lies changes nothing; the media has had enough. Some of them will not be complicit.

The good news? Palin thinks that smearing Obama hurts him, but she really is tarring herself with her own brush.

Posted by: phx8 at October 5, 2008 5:34 PM
Comment #265948

“From June 3 through Sept. 7, according to The Nielsen Co., the campaign of Republican John McCain ran 76,238 negative ads against Democrat Barack Obama in the presidential contest, and the Obama campaign ran 75,246 negative ads against McCain.”

When McCain announced that he was going to go negative because Obama wouldn’t agree to more town hall type “debates”, it put Obama in the position of fighting fire with fire. IMHO it does me good to see Obama ready willing and able to fight this battle with McCain’s rovian gestapo. We all seen what happened when Gore and Kerry didn’t respond to Bush’s negative adds.
Had Obama’s negative ad numbers been down significantly I would have been disappointed in his campaign. To lose 4 more years to more of the same policies and political appointments that we have just lived through is worth the “fire with fire ads” of Obama’s.

One difference in past elections between a liberal and a conservative is the conservative will threaten to push the mutually assured destruction button when it appears they are losing the battle. A liberal would prefer not to push the MAD button that would destroy the country and would take the loss instead. Obama by fighting back is calling the bluff of the conservative McCain. It’s good ,IMHO, that Obama has the courage to stand up to the bully and is prepared to take the country back from those that would push the button for political gain. Has McCain been rovianated enough that he is ready to push the button for political gain or is there a little decency left in him? Time will tell.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 5, 2008 8:10 PM
Comment #265950

Marysdude, thanks for covering my back and you said it much clearer than I did.

Russ, A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Heights-depths, whatever, You obviously got the point I was making.

Posted by: Carolina at October 5, 2008 8:22 PM
Comment #265951

Obama called the McCain campaign for resorting to smears. The McCain campaign responded that those were not smears, just true facts. Whoops! Wrong answer.

Obama has cleared his campaign to bring up McCain and the Keating Five. That’s a pretty mild counter, and I doubt it will deter McCain.

Posted by: phx8 at October 5, 2008 9:13 PM
Comment #265953

The Keating Five thing is incredibly weak tea, and unlike the Obama scandals, something that’s hardly been ignored or hushed up by the media. There’s just nothing about the Keating Five that isn’t already been completely gone over in the public record. I’ve been extremely surprised lately, in conversation with people, how few of them are only now hearing about Ayers.

Kerry’s problem, when allegations were made against him in 04, was hardly that he didn’t fight back and throw everything including the kitchen sink at George Bush. It was that he didn’t even try to answer those allegations until they’d gotten too big and the damage was done.

A “CNN Truth Squad.” I love it. Ever since Rathergate, Americans have tuned in with eager anticipation to hear the opinions of liberal journalists before deciding what the “truth” might be.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at October 5, 2008 9:41 PM
Comment #265955

LO-
He accepted thousands of dollars in campaign funds directly from Keating. His wife and father-in-law invested in a Keating project. McCain pushed through legislation that would have deregulated thrifts in a way favorable to Keating. If you’re holding up Rezko to be a problem for Obama, then by that standard, Keating is many times worse for McCain.

As for Ayers, Obama wasn’t close friends with him. Their relationship, to put it neatly, was strictly business. G. Gordon Liddy, though, Watergate burglar and advocate for shooting ATF agents between the eyes, is a longtime friend of McCain.

As for Obama’s scandals being hardly covered in the media? That’s not what I’ve seen, so I’ll chalk that up as one of the usual appeals to pity and ad hominem logic that the GOP’s been employing on a regular basis.

It’s become a crutch for your folks, and a miserable one at that. If Republicans spent less time trying to make stuff look good to the media, and inhibit the media from reporting bad things, they could actually get the kind of things done that would impress people and generate organic good press. Instead, the Republicans have chosen the path of BS’ing things until people believe their story. It doesn’t make for good politics anymore than rainwater makes for solid limestone.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 5, 2008 10:33 PM
Comment #265960

SD,

Sounds like the old saw about…oh, he’d lie about it, even if the truth sounded ten times better…come to think of it that has to be a plank in the GOP Party Platform…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 5, 2008 11:00 PM
Comment #265961

“Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and his associates.[32] In addition, McCain’s wife Cindy McCain and her father Jim Hensley had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators. McCain, his family, and their baby-sitter had made nine trips at Keating’s expense, sometimes aboard Keating’s jet. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating’s opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay. McCain did not pay Keating (in the amount of $13,433) for some of the trips until years after they were taken, when he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln.[7][33]”
Wikipedia, “Keating Five”

Weak tea? It’s a truly sleazy scandal. It’s not just some made-up guilt by association garbage, either.

If the McCain campaign continues the personal character attacks, will the Obama campaign retaliate in kind? Should they? The issues are so solidly in favor of Obama, and his ability to lead has outshined McCain so significantly during the bailout bill, that focusing on issues and leadership ability would seem preferable for Obama to following McCain down the low road.

Posted by: phx8 at October 5, 2008 11:01 PM
Comment #265962

phx8,

In an ideal world, ‘O’ would be able to do it on issues alone…but, issues are boring to the American people, who love a good scandal…so, I’m pretty sure ‘O’ will have to sink down there to win…damn! Can you imagine his quandary…do I or do I not lower my party to the level of the GOP???…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 5, 2008 11:08 PM
Comment #265964

Marysdude,
It might be necessary to at least address the more despicable character attacks which the McCain campain will launch. I mean, that’s pretty incredible, when the Vice-Presidential candidate for the Republican Party accuses the Democratic nominee of “palling around with terrorists.”

I think the best way to address the character attacks will be to confront McCain at the next debate. McCain can’t even bring himself to look Obama in the eye. Obama should call McCain on his dishonorable campaign in a very public way, live, with the cameras rolling, and keep hammering McCain for a retraction, especially a retraction for Palin’s statements, until McCain folds or loses his temper or ‘suspends his campaign’ again and storms off the stage.

Posted by: phx8 at October 6, 2008 12:11 AM
Comment #265965

LO,
By the way… I don’t think you’re picking up on the significance of the Keating Five situation for McCain. It’s not just the corruption aspect that makes McCain look bad, although that’s plenty bad enough. It is the backing of deregulation by McCain, resulting in the S & L scandal in the first place, just as we are seeing today, where McCain the ‘deregulator’ contributed to the current debacle with Wall Street.

A 13 minute video will be widely distributed tomorrow on McCain, the Keating Five, deregulation, and the relationship of the S & L scandal to the current economic meltdown on Wall Street.

Whack!

What is that sound? Ah. I understand. That the sound of a trap being sprung.

Posted by: phx8 at October 6, 2008 12:40 AM
Comment #265968

phx8 during this same early 80’s time frame the the McCains were stealing drugs for themselves, well only Mrs. McCain fessed up to her addiction and then took the hit in front of the judge for the Senator, but lets face it, if your wife were on drugs would you know it or not? Anyway in addition while set up front companies (actually charties)for channelling drugs to support “her” habit she managed to bring 2 young children back from southeast asia with her. Seems she gave one away once she made it back to the states. I cannot find any reports indicating whether she was using these young kids for transporting drugs or not but when your the Senators wife you can do lot of things, like give the baby away upon your safe return. So when you think about it, The Senator and his wife were international drug traffickers and well with the little girls …

While they had time to fly to the Islands with a convicted felon and use drugs Senator McCain does not recall noticing that his wife was not only using drugs but sedating her children with the very same drugs? What they did with the sedated children is unknown, but in most places most people would see the inside of a jail cell for the same thing. Of course they would not be able to retain custody of them but influence peddling works to circumvent these types of issues I’m told.

While the McCains have put out rumours indicating she has managed to beat her addiction insiders have scoffed at this. Those that knew the McCains during the party days of the early 80’s suspect at the very least she is still self medicating. What she is giving her kids is unknown.

So while Obama will probably handle it your way IMHO you need to fight fire with fire on theses issues, Ask John Kerry. I realize polls and such indicate people don’t like this kind of campaigning but when no one’s around they sure don’t seem to mind listening to it. The last time I was back home my son in law asked me if I knew about Obama being a muslim and having terrorist friends. Seems he was listening to the conservatives at work spew the hateful rhetoric. If you say it enough times….


http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Whistleblower_breaks_15year_silence_to_allege_0911.html

Posted by: j2t2 at October 6, 2008 1:31 AM
Comment #265969

This election isn’t about McCain, it’s about Obama. We know what we’re getting with McCain.

There are many people who have only heard that Obama’s going to change the world, that he’s going to save us. If you all on the left want to say informing people that he’s capable of human faults is playing dirty that’s fine, but it’s my opinion that it’s the duty of McCain’s campaign to inform everyone of the entire story of Obama. Obama’s father, his early schooling overseas (Muslim), Ayer’s, Wright, an extermely liberal voting record when he decides to show up, his personal presidential seal, his admiration for communist radicals, not wanting to outwardly show his appreciation towards the country he, by luck or the opposite of luck, happened to finally end up being born in.

If it’s all old news then what’s the big deal? Go ahead and counter with the Keating 5…actually if you want to talk about old news please do counter with the Keating 5. That was in the 80’s right? What was Obama doing? I saw he was making paycheck’s in the 90’s representing a firm that was suing banks for not lending enough sub-prime loans.

Who is Barak Hussien Obama? Wake up America.

Posted by: andy at October 6, 2008 1:49 AM
Comment #265972

Dear Citizen:
Are you ready yet for the November 4th Elections? How about your friends, family, and neighbors?
More Americans are expected to vote this year than ever before in history, so don’t be left out! Be sure to ask everyone you know the following questions:
 Are you registered to vote? If you moved recently, have you updated your voter registration?
 Did you apply for an Absentee Ballot? Do you know your state may not require any reason?
 Can you find your local Polling Place? Do you know it may have changed from last time?
The answers to these questions — and all your voting needs — can be found at www.StateDemocracy.org — the FREE 1-Stop citizen empowerment portal that Delivers Democracy to your Desktop! StateDemocracy is among the Internet’s first (since 2001) and most encompassing civic empowerment tools.
In order to boost voter participation this year, StateDemocracy.org is offering FREE widgets for all 50 states. You can simply download and embed these widgets into your own website so your visitors can register to vote, get an absentee ballot or find their local polling place.
Lobby Congress Via StateDemocracy
StateDemocracy.org also equips you to maintain an active dialog with your state and federal lawmakers once they are elected. And RIGHT NOW is an especially opportune time to contact your U.S. Senators and House Member, as Congress takes up major legislation on such issues as offshore oil drilling, another economic stimulus package and all federal appropriations bills over the next few weeks.
As you lobby your elected officials, remember that lawmakers view your constituent input as reflective of scores of other citizens who felt similarly, but didn’t have (or take) the time to share their opinions.
LobbyDelegates.com Further Empowered Grassroots Voices
Over the past 5 months, you may have visited www.LobbyDelegates.com, along with 26,000 other visitors. This latest public interest portal by the StateDemocracy Foundation remained the only online tool enabling rank-and-file Democrats to lobby all 800+ Super Delegates on which candidate to back for the party’s Presidential nomination.
StateDemocracy Foundation Website Users Unite!
Many of you have used our StateDemocracy.org and LobbyDelegates.com tools in recent times, and have hopefully found your experience uplifting and empowering. I encourage all of you to help spread the news about StateDemocracy.org to enable more of our fellow citizens to Connect! Engage! And Empower!

Posted by: dennis at October 6, 2008 3:28 AM
Comment #265977

Well, as a test this weekend I put a McCain/Palin bumper sticker on my car and drove around Boston.

I was flipped off about 30 times.

The Mighty Eagle’s feelings were hurt.

One guy shouted to me “Damon’s right! He won’t live until the second term!”

Another yelled ” You fascist!”

Still another yelled “Eat Moose shit!”

And those comments were from the McCain supporters!

Now, if I can just find my old Nixon button…..

I ask you all: does it eriously make any difference who is at the top nowadays?

60 Minutes had a piece on “Credit Default Swaps” last night..a concept that 99% are oblivious on.

Seems light mortgage backed security holdeers bought a form of “insurance” from the big houses..Morgan, Goldman, ect. which were to have acted like an insurance policy in the event of mortgage defaults.

However, unlike the insurance industry which is supposed to set aside funds for losses, the “credit default swap” regulations have no such requirement as they are completely UNREGULATED!

Experts on the program last night estimated that there are between 50 to 60 TRILLION dolars of those things floating around out there!

TRILION!

Now I ask you one simple, idiotic question:

Shouldn’t Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, as chairmen of their respecvtive banking committees, have at least ASKED about them these last two years?

Pass the hat people…neither McCain or Barry has a chance. Neither do we, it seems.

Anyway, I am puting on TWO bumper stickers this morning.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 6, 2008 7:16 AM
Comment #265979

Mighty eagle,
Are you blaming democrats for not regulating enough in the last two years?

Folks expecting O to slap down Mccain in the debate for the attacks have got it wrong. I expect McCain to launch some heavy hitting verbal attacks painting O as a non-patriot. Obama needs to be better prepared than he was for the last debate.

Posted by: Schwamp at October 6, 2008 7:55 AM
Comment #265981

Speaking of non-patriot attacks…perhaps if ‘O’ reads Rolling Stone, he’ll get some ammunition.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain

Perhaps Americans are calling the wrong guy unpatriotic…???

Posted by: Marysdude at October 6, 2008 8:25 AM
Comment #265983

“Shouldn’t Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, as chairmen of their respecvtive banking committees, have at least ASKED about them these last two years?”

The damage was done by then SE it was to late. The asking should havwe been done years ago at the latest by the 108th COngress.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 6, 2008 9:21 AM
Comment #265985

j2t2

Had America been aware of this LAST week, the hue and cry would have prevented the bailout.

We were conned last week. Hold onto your boots.

Schwamp

I heard nary a wrod of a potential 50 Trillion problem from Dodd, Frank, Pelosi, Paulson, the MSM (until last night), Barry, McCain, Biden, (3 US senators who should know at least SOMETHING), Cox, …no one…zip..nada..

Credit Default Swaps.

Google the trem.

Left, right, middle,..it makes no difference.

We are ucfayed as they say in New England.(I think I can say that on WB, right David?)

Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 6, 2008 9:40 AM
Comment #265987

TO ALL MY FRIENDS….LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE……..FYI only.

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.
A little over one year ago :
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) the DOW JONES hit a record high—14,000 +
5) American’s were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!…

But American’s wanted ‘CHANGE’! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes—we got ‘CHANGE’ all right.
In the PAST YEAR:
1) Consumer confidence has plummeted ;
2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;
3) Unemployment is up to 5..5% (a 10% increase);
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another low~~ $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!

YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE…AND WE SURE GOT IT! …
REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS.

AND WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
NOW THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE IS GOING TO REALLY GIVE US CHANGE ALONG WITH A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS!!!!

JUST HOW MUCH MORE ‘CHANGE’ DO YOU THINK YOU CAN STAND?

Posted by: Carolyn Wright at October 6, 2008 9:59 AM
Comment #265991

Carolyn Wright,

Just how much of this problem suddenly appeared after 2006? Wow! what a crock-o-crap…go read something besides the Limbaugh Weekly, and come back for a chat. Perhaps you’ll make some sense by then…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 6, 2008 10:10 AM
Comment #265994

Marysdude

I’ll go back a little further for you…the Clinton years.

That is when the lax lending to the poor started.

Freddie and Fannie, always leaning LEFT, accelerated under CLINTON, and THAT IS WHERE this whole mess started.

Those blaming Bush for this are blind as bats.

Posted by: sicilaineagle at October 6, 2008 10:32 AM
Comment #265996

Mighty Eagle,
You said you watched 60 minutes and seem to have taken it to heart. Didn’t they say that the mortgage issues themselves would not have been a huge problem, but now you’re going back to Freddie and fannie for the start of it all.

They found a way to beat the system and everyone went along to get in on the profits. It happens every time. I don’t know how to prevent it - it will happen again. Maybe we need a way to prosecute people based on hindsight.

Posted by: Schwamp at October 6, 2008 10:51 AM
Comment #265998

A hell of a lot of White out, as in Liquid paper. and this kind also . en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiteout_%28weather%29

Posted by: Rodney Brown at October 6, 2008 11:03 AM
Comment #266004

SE-
It all depends on what the ensured securities are worth. It’s the uncertainty that’s the trouble. On the ones that are good, the CDS, essentially a bet on whether the loan owners default, will not be a problem.

The trick of all that is that the regulations are so lousy on these things that they never required that sort of disclosure. The Market works on meaningful knowledge, and if you can’t get meaningful information about what your assets are worth, then you won’t know what to do with them.

There are rules that tell you in baseball when you’ve hit a homerun, whether that long hit you just did can be called a homerun. Because folks can agree on what the different hits mean, the score is clear, and arguments only come along in marginal cases. Good regulations make things clear.

The complication comes because some people seek out loopholes, and no law can be written that covers everything.

As for what started this, this stuff started in the private sector, with Countrywide and those entities. They’re the ones who got overleveraged, who cared more for their balance book than for the true condition of their assets. I know you’ve just recently cottoned onto this, but Blogger Atrios was on the case long before the Republicans even realized there was a problem.

The policy under Republicans has been not to admit that there is a problem until it becomes a political liability.

You resist and resist until you’re just Seconds From Disaster (to borrow the title of a Nat. Geographic Channel Series), by which time the economies already in progressive collapse. Again and again it happens, and you folks don’t seem to learn the lesson.

Andy-
First, if you’re going to use Obama’s name, do us all the favor of spelling it right. Repeat after me: Barack Hussein Obama.

Second, I don’t think he was suing them over not making subprime loans, rather for violating the Community Reinvestment Act. I know some people aren’t clear on the distinction, but half of the institutions that made those loans weren’t even really banks, and therefore weren’t bound by the CRA. Of the half that remain, half of those to two thirds were not originated by banks fully covered. The rate at which uncovered mortgage lenders originated these loans was twice of the rates covered banks originated them.

Which is to say that the banks covered by the CRA had far less risky lending. Those loans also tended to have lower interest rates under the act, and were made to more responsible borrowers.

On the subject of his early schooling, he might have learned a few things about Islam, the way the kids here being taught the pledge might learn something about Christianity, but he was not brought up in a Madrassa as some of your more misinformed colleagues might suggest.

As far as Ayer’s go, he did associate with him, but he never became the man’s friend, much less sympathize with his more radical politics, or despicable actions. It’s funny that you folks keep on trying to imply that he’s some sort of radical by association, because I figure if you had something real on him, you’d use that stuff, the directly damning stuff, not this weak as water “served on a board” crap.

As for an extremely liberal voting record, as Obama pointed out, the methodology in determining what was liberal was flawed. Many of the proposals they used were common sense stuff that people of all political persuasions could agree on, things like ethics reform and campaign finance. You know, you can slap this label or that label on everything, but in the end, it’s the results that matter, not the packaging.

I don’t envy you your position. You’re having to support a candidate based on what he’s not, and he’s having to go 100% negative to lure voters away from his opponent. But you folks set yourself up for this. Y’all let your measure of what is good and bad in a senator become primarily a political question of keeping your winning streaks going. In seeking permanent dominance of politics, you’ve ensured another long term period of wandering the wilderness.

Carolyn Wright-
You’re not fooling anybody, and your capital letters won’t change anything.

The Democrats have been in office less than two years. They’ve hardly gotten anything passed, thanks to what is literally the most obstructive Senatorial minority in US History, which achieved the record with a year to spare.

But more to the point, what legislation from the Democrats would be responsible? You don’t name a single Act, a single bill that would serve as this causative agent. In short, you just want us to believe that Republican leadership itself was keeping things nice and cool.

You say six years of the 7 1/2 were okay. Bull. Enron, WorldCom, the fake Energy crisis in California, the massive restatements of value in nearly every company. The dollar dropping like a frigging rock, massive surges in national debt.

The only thing that held this economy up for years was a poorly regulated housing and credit market, where Republican-originated legislation and deregulation allowed these folks to rack up huge gains on their balance sheets that were not there in reality. When they finally pushed the housing market too hard, it snapped.

For your information, the cost of living, of energy, of all these things have been going steadily up, We have seen more market consolidation, more consolidation of energy companies. Your gas is expensive partly because the consolidating oil and gas companies had less competition and their oil gets speculated on in a poorly regulated market which allows all kinds of arbitrary factors to kick up the price.

The roots and causes of much of these problems can be traced to Republicans, to their philsophy of governance. As much as you try to apply a revisionist history to all this, the truth remains that the Republicans have led us, willingly, even enthusiastically to where we are now. We do need change, and we need a change from the Republicans, not back to them. You folks had your chance, and you blew it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 6, 2008 11:30 AM
Comment #266006

Sicilian Eagle,
Glad to see you and I are on the same page. Most people still do not realize what is happening. All of the focus has been on subprime loans and Fannie and Freddie. There are problems there, no question. The declinging real estate market is a problem, no question.

However, the real catastrophe, the crisis, the ‘OMG we’re doomed’ is not any of those. It is the Credit Default Swap market.

The next question is, how did that market grow so huge, without any regulation or oversight whatsoever? How did a market of only a couple hundred billion in the late 90’s turn into a market of tens of trillions of dollars (notional value).

There were two keys: 1) the repeal of the Glass Steagal Act, and 2) The CFMA, an 262 page Act inserted into an 11,000 page budget bill by Senator Phil Gramm.

Should Frank and other Democrats have asked questions sooner? Perhaps. However, the Federal Reserve is in charge of overseeing order in markets, and the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, was the CEO of Goldman Sachs, a firm responsible for the creation of many of those CDS contracts, at great profit to himself and his firm.

This enormous CDS market was created because of an overall philosophy of deregulation. There are lots of people at fault, but the primary backers of deregulation are Repulicans, in particular Phil Gramm.

By the way, I think it’s rude for people to swear or make gestures based on a bumper sticker. Sorry you had to endure that.

SE, I think you are probably right. For once, we’re pretty much in agreement. Yeah, we’re screwed. And most people don’t even understand why.

Take Carolyn Wright’s comment as an example. It’s a rather odd attempt to blame the current situation and the state of the economy on the Democratic Congress, rather than the Bush administration and the GOP. There is no awareness in her position of what happened with job creation because of outsourcing during the past seven years, or of the CDS market, the policy of the Fed which maintained low interest rates, the first recession, the national debt, and federal deficits, and so on.

Carolyn,
I’ve been commenting on these issues for some time, and so have many other liberals in various forms and forums. History did not start in 2006. It took a long time to get into this hole, and it will take a long time to get out.

I really don’t think people understand just how bad this could get. The Japanese are smart people. However, when they went through their economic contraction, it was the equivalent of the Dow Jones Industrial Average being down at 4259… in the year 2026. Think about it. A 4259 Dow in the year 2026.

That’s why we tried the $700 billion bailout, even though it may very well fail.

Posted by: phx8 at October 6, 2008 12:02 PM
Comment #266007

So we should change from those who in your opinion did it, to those who sat back and let them do it?
That makes about as much sense as always trying to change the subject away from Obama anytime someone dares question “The Obama” image you guys have created to get him accepted and elected.

Posted by: kctim at October 6, 2008 12:15 PM
Comment #266009

“So we should change from those who in your opinion did it, to those who sat back and let them do it?”

Blame the victim.

Posted by: phx8 at October 6, 2008 12:51 PM
Comment #266010

Yeah, those Dems are nothing but innocent little victims.

Posted by: kctim at October 6, 2008 1:13 PM
Comment #266011

McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time. He chaired the Senate Commerce Committee that is SUPPOSED to oversee the financial markets. Yet he consistently fought for derugulation and the privatization of Social Security - which would have been disastrous, thanks to this $700 bailout that has happened under the watch of a Republican administration McCain is in lock-step with.

Oh, But Palin CAN see Russia from her house. I forgot about that. Remembering that, her creationist theories and belief that God wants us to be in Iraq DOES make her part of a maverick team after all!

So let’s hear it for McCain/Palin. A ticket with no new ideas, an out of touch old guy and a dimwit VP who will use attack, smear, and “God’s will” instead of intelligence or substance.

Posted by: Toast Points at October 6, 2008 1:42 PM
Comment #266012


Congress has done the right thing and will continue to do so in reguards to future bailouts. Congress has appropriately sent the bills for the bailouts and future ones to those who bare most of the responsibility for this economic debacle, the people; in specific, the taxpayers and voters.

Those who would continue to vote for these Democrat and Republican politicials care more about their parties victory that their country and these voters show a complete lack of self-respect.

Posted by: jlw at October 6, 2008 1:46 PM
Comment #266013

kctim,
The problem with deregulation and lack of oversight is that it means what it says. Markets can function anyway they want, and no one even knows what they are doing. That is what happened with this crisis. A market in obscure securities mushroomed into the tens of trillions, and few people were even aware it existed. Without oversight, it was hidden, out of sight. That was made possible by Phil Gramm, who inserted an act into into an enormous budget bill in 2000. The act codified deregulation. The federal government was forbidden from interfering with these types of markets by law, and that was the fault of Phil Gramm.

Posted by: phx8 at October 6, 2008 2:22 PM
Comment #266019

The Thesis of this 13 minute video by the Obama Campaign, entitled Keating Economics is essentially that deregulation has enabled the companies in the middle of this mess to lie about their finances. That’s what this is essentially about, in the end.

The investors in a company like Countrywide, and the regulators who check to see whether they’re obeying the banking laws, have an interest in making sure that banks have the money to take the hits, and that they’re not simply setting themselves up as a bubble of bad debt to be popped at everybody else’s expense. Whatever you think about the free market, I’m sure most people can agree that there’s little good in having a system that encourages fraud and misleads investors.

Now jlw can curse both parties, but while we’re waiting for the next great party or two to arise, we might as well let folks in Congress know that their jobs are on the line.

However, in the scheme of things, it’s no good to get Congress in a re-regulating mood if the long and the short of what happens next is that our president takes Bush’s route of lax execution and even sometime outright refusal to enforce the law. Then there will be no more impediments or excuses left. If they don’t do their job, there are plenty of Democrats out there, and willing candidate who will replace their jaded counterparts. And this is not the idealistic Democrat speaking, this is the p***ed off, pack your bags, clean out your desk before noon, Democrat talking. There are quite a few of those out there, I’ll tell you for sure.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 6, 2008 3:33 PM
Comment #266022

Phx8
Was it made possible by Phil Gramm? Or was it made possible by everyone who signed it? Do you think the lefty Dems are so irresponsible that they don’t have a clue as to what they are ever signing up there in DC? I wonder why all the Dems didn’t hold a press conference and tell the country why this was wrong? Then, all they would have to do is say play what we said when this bill was passed. We were right and they were wrong. But no, instead they play it so they can take credit for supporting something when it works and claim they were tricked when it doesn’t, like with the war.

History may not have started in 2006, but it sure as hell didn’t start in 2000 either, and the longer you guys ignore or justify your partys role in everything, the longer it will take to get things fixed. If it can ever be fixed again.

Posted by: kctim at October 6, 2008 4:17 PM
Comment #266024

kctim,
As the chairman of the committee, Gramm inserted the CFMA, a 262 page act, into a bugdet bill that was 11,000 pages long. The CFMA prevented the federal government from involvement with those commodity futures, prevented oversight and regulation. It was hidden within a must-pass budget bill. I doubt anyone in Congress ever read the CFMA, and if they did, I doubt they knew what the CFMA meant. Remember, the GOP was in charge of Congress until January 2007. Since January, 2007, the Democrats have been largely stopped by the GOP with filibusters and presidential vetos.

I don’t see any other way to describe it. What happened was a direct result of a political philosophy of deregulation championed by the GOP, including Gramm and McCain. There have been markets which have gone up and down before, of course, but there has never been a market which had a $45 trillion dollar tower build upon it in the name of ‘risk management’- an unstable tower, as it turns out.

Posted by: phx8 at October 6, 2008 4:32 PM
Comment #266025

Sorry for the misspelling, I have not yet perfected the spelling rules of Muslim names. I had to look up the spelling of Osama Bin Laden’s name for a while.

Where did the CRA originate and which President signed it? BaraCk made money by helping to bury the poor people who’s souls he claims to want to save. He helped his buddies, Raines and Johnson, who are still working with him today.

In other news, I saw Palin accepted the endorsement of the leader of the LA chapter of NOW over the weekend. Palin’s not used to failing and wants to enact an agenda for this country, and to do so she will need to be on the winning ticket this November. She has 4 weeks to make it happen. Obama’s shine has been fading since Iowa and the info that’s been trickling out and will continue to trickle should be enough to wake up the country. I just wish he wouldn’t have hid his wife, she was well on her way to blowning his cover.

Posted by: andy at October 6, 2008 4:38 PM
Comment #266027

Phx8
I know its inconvienent, but everybody who sign’s a bill is liable for that bill when it passes. You may be willing to give them a pass for failing to do their job, but I am not.

Its just like Stephens post here. Someone speaks negative of Obama, change the subject to Palin, McCain, Bush or Republicans in general. Someone dares mention other parts of whats going on and they are shouted down and told the only reason is deregulation and the Republicans.

I know you guys want to win at any cost, but this is getting downright comical.

Posted by: kctim at October 6, 2008 4:58 PM
Comment #266028

kctim-
The operative question here is whether the Democratic base much appreciated their actions either. You can spread the blame as much as you want, but in the end, the greatest responsibility falls on those who conceived of law changes and deregulations like this.

If you accept that, though, the entire current political raison d’etre of the Right-Wing becomes weakened.

The folks on the right are bitterly opposing their greater share of blame for this, because acknowledging it requires painful rethinking of their underlying ideology.

The truth is, Republicans and folks on the right wing need something more than a platform.

They need, first and foremost, to reconcile with the rest of society. You cannot paint a person as an enemy who cannot be compromised with one moment, then expect that same person to swallow their pride and agree with you the next. They need, secondly, to recognize that they cannot continue to demand that America follows their policy and theirs alone. People have come to believe in the vast majority that conservative policies are not effective, nor helpful in their lives.

It would be easier for the Right if they were the people who, as they once did, had a diplomatic skillset as well as their more hawkish sensibilities. It would be easier for y’all if you agreed to necessary tax increases in the absence of spending cuts, putting a balanced budget over idealistic drives to starve the beast. It would be easier for everybody involved if we included financial fraud among the moral hot-button issues, and if the Republicans would mind their own business about people’s private lives.

The Republican Party has to expand beyond its hardliners if it expects to survive.

Andy-
Your mistakes had little to do with questions of tranliteration. If you’re going to make a point of calling him by all three names, as if you were his grandmother chastising him, you should at least get the publically available spelling of his name correct.

The CRA originated in 1977, which means it’s had well over thirty years to cause problems. Yet only now do they show up. The current credit crisis has more to do with the rampant accounting fraud, and the reliance on certain kinds of securities and derivatives to cover it up, than it has to do with a program which was mainly meant to lead regular banks and thrifts (which participated in less than three quarters of the Subprime market.) to end the process of deliberately leaving qualified loan recipients in Black and minority neighborhoods out of the mortgage market.

You assume that it was some kind of economic deathtrap for people. It was nothing of the sort. the CRA loans have lower interest rates and a lower rate of foreclosure than their counterparts in the subprime market.

If the CRA had really been the problem, we’d be seeing much more foreclosure and failure over the last three decades. Instead, we see this only after thirty some odd years, and mostly in a sector of the market where the CRA doesn’t even apply.

Palin is a joke. You say the shine wore off of Obama after Iowa. Well, he’s done pretty good, considering. He only wrestled control of the Democratic Party from the Clintons, became the first African American to achieve a major party nomination for president, and he’s the odds on favorite to win at this point. If that’s the shine wearing off, then how would things have been if it hadn’t worn off, Republicans laying down on the sidewalk to let him walk across their backs?

Obama’s doing better than fine. All you’re doing here is playing a game of double standards, praising McCain and Palin the way parents cheer their kid for succeeding in their potty training, and then setting up expectations for Obama and Biden the way evil wizards set up their labyrinths in fantasy films.

As for hiding people, when is Palin going to do more interviews? When people stop asking tough questions like “What newspapers or magazines do you read?” What are your people afraid of? That people might actually find out what she believes? The mystery seems deeper, thicker, and more troublesome on your side than ours.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 6, 2008 5:18 PM
Comment #266029

Obama has better financial plans than McCain with the exception of his taxation policies on the avarage working class person.

Posted by: Samantha at October 6, 2008 5:20 PM
Comment #266030

kctim,
Clinton did sign the budget bill. You are correct. He also signed the Glass Steagal Act repeal. He faced a GOP majority that would have brought enough Democrats over to cast a veto proof vote. It is extremely rare for a president to let their vetos be overridden.

So there’s always a way to share blame in the real world. Nothing in politics is ever 100%. However… I think you know where I’m going with this…

Andy,
Wake up! You must have been dreaming. Was it a nice dream? Because Obama is up 7 - 8% in most of the polls, and some are even showing double digit leads. Every polls shows that Obama beat McCain in debate, and Biden beat Palin in debate. Polls show Palin in decline, especially with Independents.

Palin has known plenty of failure, by the way. She lost a campaign for Lt Gov, and she lost that beauty contest, for starters. She attended, what, five different colleges? That’s not exactly covering oneself in academic glory, eh?

Why should Obama’s be any more or less visible than the other wives/spouses? Last I checked, Michelle never belonged to any political party advocating secession from the United States. Last I checked, she never funded a charity in order to feed her drug addiction. I’m just sayin’.

Posted by: phx8 at October 6, 2008 5:23 PM
Comment #266032

It’s a lot of ground to make up in such a short time.the Democrats have what 77 million and the republicans what 59 million. and the independents are going obama’s way the only thing that will save MCCains bacon is.. Reagan democrats and right now if the vote was today it looks grim..

Posted by: Rodney Brown at October 6, 2008 5:46 PM
Comment #266033

Stephen
The “operative question” is whether the Democratic base will hold their own to the same standards they hold the Republicans and the answer is clearly no.

“The folks on the right are bitterly opposing their greater share of blame for this, because acknowledging it requires painful rethinking of their underlying ideology”

Thats the difference between you and I Stephen. You are more concerned with convincing people the “greater share of the blame” is with the Republicans so as to do the best for your party and I want the freakin problem fixed for the best of the country.

Phx8
Politics may not be 100%, but our representatives acting on our behalf should be. That means they do their job, know what the heck they are agreeing too and stop making excuses. But why should they, really? The “other side” is always worse, so might as well give our guys a pass.
Palin went to 5 different colleges, Obama used drugs in college. Michelle and Obama attended a radical church and hung with militants, Palin and her husband and the secessionist party. The ridiculous thing isn’t that they all did this, its that people excuse one side and condemn the other.

Posted by: kctim at October 6, 2008 5:47 PM
Comment #266036

kctim-
Are you familiar with the Commodity Future Modernization Act?

Author: Phil Gramm. Who served as McCain’s economics advisor. He also pushed, unsurprisingly enough, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act, which essentially enabled the incestuous sort of conflicts of interest that allowed this to both happen and spread out beyond the borders of one particular industry.

We have the smoking gun on Credit Default Swaps, one of the main instruments by which this credit crunch ceme to be. But do you mention that in assigning blame? No. You give us a generality about how different folks voted for it.

In my book, you assign blame in policy terms. Yes, Democrats are partly responsible for letting this happen, and I wouldn’t mourn the retirement of many of these folks and the inclusion of fresh blood. But do I think electing Republicans would help? No. I think they would still push legislation just like this, and have said as much.

I’m looking for a basic shut-out in this election, and maybe a few years after where people aren’t electing Republicans for dogcatcher. And it’s not because I’m especially prejudiced against your average conservative on the street.

No, my concern is that the Republican party, over the past half century, has become very good at convincing itself that its policy failures are somebody’s else’s fault, that it’s theories are impeccable, that if only people would let them do everything they want, the country would be in better shape. And trying to prove that during the Bush Administration, they’ve made an incompetent mess of things.

And then, what I want, is for the humbled Republicans to come back, and start treating the opinion of the American people with some respect, start treating the other half of the country as neighbors rather than enemies.

The irony of the last few years is that Democrats have been fully willing to take the fight to this country’s enemies, but the Republicans were too busy on their wild goose chase, and portraying the Democrats as traitors to remove their opposition to it, to actually take care of that serious situation. People like me, ironically enough, became unapologetic in our liberalism because Bush had failed to attend to the war we were hawks about, the war you could argue was justified in just about everybody’s view.

Ultimately, I mourn the opportunity this country would have had if our leader and his party had been humble in their leadership, and not simply giddy with the possiblities of what old enemies they could even scores with, or what gains they could make in Congress.

I back the current drive to win more seats, and the White House not because I’m particularly in love with the way my party’s behaved, but because I know all too well what kind of policies might get pushed if the Republicans retain the kind of power they have now, and I’ve grown very skeptical during the Bush administration of the unwillingness of the Republican party to further radicalize its policy. I’ve told myself too many times that the Republicans wouldn’t dare to do something, wouldn’t be so stupid as to do something, wouldn’t say certain things, and I have learned through bitter experience that the current crop of Republicans will say or do just about anything to get their way.

I can’t imagine why I should allow things to go on the way they’re going. This has been one of the worst decades in our nation’s history. Folks were saying that my generation would have to become the next “Greatest Generation”, and oddly enough, it seems like Bush and his folks have made that a near necessity. We will spend the majority of our adult lives cleaning up this mess. This election is about kicking out the brats who have been dirtying things up.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 6, 2008 6:19 PM
Comment #266037

Stephen sums up his prose by saying; “This election is about kicking out the brats who have been dirtying things up.”

Ironically he spent 99% of his writing about Republican irresponsibility and little about Democrats. Stephen, are there no brats in the Dem party? Some continue to believe, erroneously, that all dems are liberals and all reps are conservative.

I am proud of the conservatives within both parties who wouldn’t vote for this horrendous bail-out bill for reasons I’ve stated before.

Where are all the pointy-headed economic professors from our great liberal colleges and universities in this time of crisis? Why haven’t they put forth a plan to challenge the administration and congress with a plan that will really work? Or, do they all agree with the plan originated by Mr. Bush and merely porked-up by congress to buy votes?

The entire world, it seems, is rushing toward government to save their sorry asses. When the smoke clears at some future date, government will no longer just be in bed with lobbyists and greedy marketeers sharing the same blanket, it will own the bed and the blanket.

Posted by: Jim M at October 6, 2008 6:42 PM
Comment #266038
kctim wrote: “The “operative question” is whether the Democratic base will hold their own to the same standards they hold the Republicans and the answer is clearly no.”

Ah…lemme see here - Bush likes to claim executive privilege to keep his staff from testifying. So does Palin!

Y’know, NOT EVEN NIXON tried to get his staff to ignore subpoenas!

kctim, can you name a Democratic president or even a governor - EVER - who told his staff to ignore Congressional subpoenas?

Can you?

If you can’t, then THERE is your proof that Democrats DO hold themselves to a HIGHER standard than do Republicans. Come to think of it, though, maybe this comparison doesn’t work since
no Dems have been involved in scandals of this degree in recent memory…we’re just not in the same league of corruption as Bush.

Does that mean we’re not in the Bush leagues? Ow…..

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 6, 2008 7:18 PM
Comment #266045

Jim M-
Oh, there are plenty of them in there. They’re next. If you follow what people are saying on DKos, the catchphrase is essentially more Democrats, then better Democrats.

The discussion on the bailout is fierce, and there are quite a few prominent bloggers who are just disgusted with it. But they are not pickup opportunities for your side. These folks are many of the same folks who identified the Credit Default Swaps and Securitization of mortgages as a problem early on, and they know who was behind much of the deregulation that made these things possible. They’ll look at Obama’s support as a necessary political evil, a viewpoint Obama in turn acknowledges by saying it’s not a very good plan, but that something had to be done immediately.

People do want the goverment to do something. It did something before, without having to own the bed and the blanket as you complain they will. There’s a middle ground of moderation that’s possible with regulation, but your side wants to stick with its radical free market ideology. If you folks were more flexible, you could get on board with this and serve a balancing function. However, y’all just want to keep the status quo going. Confronted with such problems, your response seems to be to run the clock out with bluff and bluster.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 6, 2008 8:55 PM
Comment #266051

Stephen…once again my apologies. I didn’t want to come off sounding like his “typical white person” grandmother chastising him. Honest mistake, there’s a c before the k, got it.

With the CRA I was actually talking about the changes made in 1995. It was never a great idea and smells a little liberal to me. Perfect for Carter I guess.

Obama did win the nomination from Clinton but he left a few democrat dissenters out there in the process. McCain limped into the nomination with little fanfare but we don’t need P-Diddy or the latest hot celebrity to get us to vote. Obama may be the perfect candidate to get those votes but you never know. Usually character and body of work does ok.

Btw I didn’t see the Couric interviews (I did read some of Michelle’s college thesis though, scary…where’s Obama’s). What’s the deal with the newspaper question? Did she say she’s read a paper in all 57 or 58 states?

Posted by: andy at October 7, 2008 12:12 AM
Comment #266057

Stephen

Hey there, bucko…Sarah is my babe!

Even if the Repubs lose the election, in four years that “lack of experience” mantra will be a distant memory…she isn’t going away.

Especially as the energy crisis looms large going forward.

Meanwhile, Barry will be way over his pay grade.
If he wins, the economy will still implode…except this time he will have a Democratic Congress that will get flushed too.

I bet that Mitt/Sarah or Sarah (gasp)/ Mitt would be a mighty attractive ticket in ‘12.

Better still, how about a Hillary/Sarah or Sarah/Hillary ticket?

Don’t laugh…ex-presidents don’t like getting locked out of parties my friend.

In any case, guys like me ..the 30 or 35% of Americans who essentially hold conservative values…will form a shadow government of sorts right after the election and make the necessary peparations.

What? Did you think the Mighty Eagle would just fly away?

HOWEVER: Right now, Barry has an 8 point lead. It is my humble opinion that about 5% of that is soft. I think folks are saying that they will vote for him, but in the finial analysis will be incapable of pulling the lever for a black man.

Is that racism? Well, if it is, it comes from the liberal Democratic or independent side my friend, as 43% of us have already decided to vote McCain based on him, not racism.

If the debate is spirited for McCain, and if more bombs and revelations continue to come forward, that 3% just might disappear and the election will be much closer that we all think.

God, I love the smell of politics in the morning!

Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 7, 2008 8:01 AM
Comment #266058

>God, I love the smell of politics in the morning!
Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 7, 2008 08:01 AM

se,

I’m pretty sure that what you just ranted has very little to do with politics…in the morning or any other time…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 7, 2008 8:46 AM
Comment #266059

If you honestly these ridiculous attacks by the McCain/Palin bunch are going to harm ‘O’, please take a look at this…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/06/olbermann-special-comment_n_132456.html

All harm from these slimy ploys will only hurt future discourse, not Obama…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 7, 2008 8:50 AM
Comment #266061

Oops! The phrase is…’honestly believe these’…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 7, 2008 9:19 AM
Comment #266062

Eagle,
Is Palin really the future of the repubican party?

Ms fresh face Washington outsider sure seemed to pick up the tactit of smear politics in a hurry - and blaming the press - and stonewalling investigations; maybe she is a quick study after all.

Posted by: Schwamp at October 7, 2008 9:30 AM
Comment #266064

marysduse

1. what movie did I “liberally” take that quote from?

2. Its title applies today.

3. The Eagle never rants….he does,however scream a bit when he reviews jis credit card interest rates. :)

Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 7, 2008 9:31 AM
Comment #266066

Stephen
“Yes, Democrats are partly responsible for letting this happen”

Then they deserve part of the blame, not defending. The same goes for the Republicans who went along.
We can’t keep changing the subject away from our own if we expect anything to be fixed.

Glenn
The statement was about same standards, not higher standards. And the “proof” you give only shows that Dems and Reps have higher standards (your words) than President Bush on this one issue.

No Dems have been involved in scandals of this degree in recent memory? You are either very young or just very partisan. I am going to go with very partisan and that is why things will continue how they are now. Divided and at war with ourselves.

Posted by: kctim at October 7, 2008 9:35 AM
Comment #266069

Looks like a prime issue has just surfaced.

Jim Corsi, who is in Kenya, just got detained.

This will be a big big story in a matter of hours/days.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 7, 2008 9:54 AM
Comment #266070

“In any case, guys like me ..the 30 or 35% of Americans who essentially hold conservative values…will form a shadow government of sorts right after the election and make the necessary peparations.”

Seems that is part of the problem isn’t it SE? This destroy the country from within approach favored by the 35 % only shows disloyalty for this country. This divide the country approach has failed, the 35 % should work to unite this country not divide it. Wouldn’t it be better to become part of the solution instead of oart of the problem?


“HOWEVER: Right now, Barry has an 8 point lead. It is my humble opinion that about 5% of that is soft. I think folks are saying that they will vote for him, but in the finial analysis will be incapable of pulling the lever for a black man.”

Is that a little optimism showing SE? I will give you 3% but 5% may prove to be excessive. Such a shame to still be judging by the color of the skin instead of the content of the character. Had y’all listened to Powell perhaps things would be better for you this election. Some people learn from their mistakes, but then there are the conservatives who seem to just pass the blame for thier mistakes onto others, of course that worked for a while but people are getting wiser.

“If the debate is spirited for McCain, and if more bombs and revelations continue to come forward, that 3% just might disappear and the election will be much closer that we all think.”

The latest bomb I heard had to do with the 35% actually. Seems McCain was part of group of nazi sympathizers in the early ‘80’s forming a shadow government within the government as you deem to think is the right thing , council of freedom or some such name. Nazi’z SE Nazi’s for freedom!


Posted by: j2t2 at October 7, 2008 11:13 AM
Comment #266071

j2t2

Huh? Didn’t the Dems spend the last 8 years plotting their return to power? What are we supposed to do…change colors? Nah…we are what we are.

As far as being disloyal…nah..perhaps too layal..to a fault, I think.

I think that McCain screwed the pooch with the way he handled this who campaign…but hey…what do I know.

This I do know: In an energy crisis or a foreign affairs issue, McCain/Palin isn’t a bad combination.

I can’t think of a 2 issue combo that the other two bring to the table.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 7, 2008 11:29 AM
Comment #266072

“This I do know: In an energy crisis or a foreign affairs issue, McCain/Palin isn’t a bad combination.”

Palin is a lightweight on energy issues SE. All she knows is drill baby drill in ANWR. Short term thinking results in short term answers. We need leadership in that area, cleraly the dems can lead on this just based on the past 30 years of repub obstructionism on this issue.

McCain foreign policy is more of the same, so what if it doesn’t work. We really need to move beyond this. Now that the Armed Services policy has been changed to nation building McCain is more dangerous that ever.

While the 35% continue to tear the nation apart from within whether due to blind loyalty or blind disloyalty is irrevelent we are still torn apart.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 7, 2008 11:39 AM
Comment #266074

“we are still torn apart”

Amen to that J2, but The Obama is only going to make it worse. If you guys thought the clinton years were bad, wait until you see what happens over the next 4-8 years.
You guys have no idea.

Posted by: kctim at October 7, 2008 12:10 PM
Comment #266075

Amen to that J2, but The Obama is only going to make it worse.
Only in your mind kctim, say you aren’t one of those libertarian types that believes martial law will be declared and people will be put in the prison the government built below DIA are you?

“If you guys thought the clinton years were bad, wait until you see what happens over the next 4-8 years.”
The Clinton years what about the Bush years? Where have you been?

“You guys have no idea.”

kctim your worrying me, there are no prisons under DIA man.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 7, 2008 12:18 PM
Comment #266076

No J2, I’m not one of any type really. I am just looking back at what happened when clinton got a little liberal happy and see it being even worse when The Obama goes very liberal happy. What he calls “clinging” is really a way of life and people don’t take too kindly to people who have no clue, trying to change their way of life.

IMO, the election of The Obama is going to open up a can of worms that will make all those silly protest marches look like childs-play.
It is going to be a defining moment for our country and it ain’t going to be pretty.

Posted by: kctim at October 7, 2008 12:44 PM
Comment #266077

j2,

I think kctim was talking about the obstructionists on the right that almost derailed Clinton. kctim is a closet Republican in Independent Clothing, but he does see what might happen if ‘O’ is elected. A preview of that is seen at recent McCain and Palin rallys that you hear ‘kill him’, kill Obama’ and ‘kill reporters’ shouted out and no one to quell such lynch-mob crap. kctim says that we ain’t seen nothin’ yet. He may be right.We’d better gird our loins, rough times are-a-brewin’…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 7, 2008 12:48 PM
Comment #266078

andy-
His typical white person grandmother supports her grandson. What business do you folks have getting offended on her behalf?

The CRA was changed in 1995, but the CRA, if you read my previous responses, wasn’t even involved with originating most of the subprime loans, much less the questionable loans. One of the first institutions to go under, Countrywide, wasn’t even covered by it. This notion that it’s regulation’s fault is typical, and it misses the fact that mortgage debt was just incidental to the problem, not essential.

The essential problem is that many of these mortgages were underwritten by lumping together mortgages into a security With it sold, they could claim that things were even. But only so long as they could sell it. The Mortgage market was in part driven by a passing along of risk. As long as values rose and mortgages remained relatively safe, nobody questioned the value of the securities, nor was their much question of what would happen with the Credit Default Swaps. Most would never be cashed in.

But then the collapse of the housing bubble made people wary of buying more mortgage securities. Mortgage companies suddenly had a lot of debt they couldn’t pass on to others, and not enough reserves to soak up the costs of good mortgages, much less the bad ones. Those further down the line who had taken on this debt were in a similar situation, in addition to those who took out those CDS’s.

The uncertain worth of those instruments, of whether they were good or bad, has made them hard to dispose of, bailout or no bailout.

That’s the problem: in an effort to fool investors, the leaders of these companies created a complicated array of financial instruments, which when the market crashed created a black hole of uncertainty about the solvency and lending power of many institutions.

You can shift all the blame you want to, but your people pushed and advocated for the changes in regulation that allowed this to even be possible.

SE-
Sarah Palin is a joke. You should have given her a keynote speech, let people get used to her. Instead, you tried to push her on voters with a few months to go. If she loses the election, she moves off into Adlai Stevenson territory. Her past election performance will come back to haunt her.

You can talk about the softness of whatever lead, but its still a lead, and it’s coming about in all the wrong places for McCain

As for Jerome Corsi? I think if Obama is told about this, he’ll be magnanimous and call for his release. However, I don’t think, like some of the more paranoid folks that he would be so dumb, if he had any pull in the Kenyan government, to actually ask them to detain him. I think Corsi just ticked off the wrong people in the wrong part of the world.

kctim-
I think you have a problem with acknowledging that the guiding philosophy for the policy resembles your own.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 7, 2008 12:53 PM
Comment #266079

In Palin’s eyes, the KKK rides again, with her as the Grand Dragon. She incites to riot…she speaks in terms of fear and threatens with news of the anti-christ…I fully expect to see burning crosses following her rallies.

It will fit right in with her leanings toward secessionists groups…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 7, 2008 1:45 PM
Comment #266080

Dude
When the people are pushed to their limits, they react. Some whine, complain and hold stupid marches and others take it much more seriously.
And again with the false claim of Republicans are racists? Color had nothing to do with clinton and his liberal lite policies and color won’t be why people react to hardline liberal policies under The Obama.
As I said, just my opinion, so go ahead and discount and mock it all you want. Means little to me.

Closet Republican in independent clothing? I know many people who would disagree with you, but whatever floats your boat man. If respecting the Constitution and taking facts, not opinions, as the truth makes me a Republican in your eyes, then label me as a Republican.

Stephen
Apparently it also resembles the guiding philosophy of all the so-called Democrats who agreed with it and signed their name to it. So, even if I “have a problem with acknowledging” it as you say, thats still better than being a hypocrit and saying I’m against it but vote for it.

Posted by: kctim at October 7, 2008 1:46 PM
Comment #266081

Shisshhh, kctim, I did not mean to mock you…I was agreeing with you that just winning the election was not going to be enough to quell the unrest. As far as the Republican thing is concerned, I can only reflect that which shines on me. Call yourself an anarchist or Constitutionalist or freelancer if you want, your words and tone speak Republican to me…if it is not so, mea culpa…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 7, 2008 1:58 PM
Comment #266082

kctim-
Essentially, the guiding philosophy of many Democrats over the last thirty years has been to follow the Republican lead. I used to be somewhat sympathetic to that angle, with the proviso that we gradually take things back. Two bad elections and a terrible presidency later me and most of my generation have come to take a different view.

Now you should think for a moment what’s happening, what’s about to happen: The Youth of America are now a great deal more progressive, have registered to vote in record numbers, and are one of the best connected and organized generations, politically speaking, in generations.

And if you take a serious look at what they’re saying and what Obama’s campaigning on, you’ll find that he’s campaigning to their right.

Obama is not the leftward limit of where a candidate can go. He’s only the beginning. And he will have a great deal of support to liberalize the government.

More to the point, the guiding policies of deregulation and catering to Business without question is what the older, more Reagan and Clinton-Era Democrats were supporting. Guess what: Democrats have little love for them, and what they’ve been doing However, Americans by and far do not want to have much to do with the guiding principles of the right.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 7, 2008 3:20 PM
Comment #266087

I wonder how Sarah Palin plans to explain this.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 7, 2008 4:06 PM
Comment #266088
When the people are pushed to their limits, they react. Some whine, complain and hold stupid marches and others take it much more seriously.

So according to kctim there are a number of republicans as dangerous now as Ayers was back in the 60’s.

Posted by: Schwamp at October 7, 2008 4:09 PM
Comment #266090

Stephen
Good post, allow me to see if I follow correctly:
The “great deal more progressive Youth of America” are tired of being governed from the middle (give or take depending on who’s in power) and are ready to liberalize the government. Obama is just the beginning of this liberalization of our govt and you guys are willing to put up with the establishment Democrats and moderate Democrats until they are eventually voted out and replaced with more progressive Democrats.

I really hate to rain on your parade Stephen, but that is pretty much what people expect to come from an Obama administration.
People have taken a serious look at The Obama and they agree that he is campaigning to the right of his base, but they also know his past and that the campaign rhetoric is just to get elected.
The Obama is not the beginning of the liberalization of our govt, but he is the beginning of the extreme liberalization of our govt and millions of Americans see that or this election wouldn’t be so close.

I’m not blind, I understand you guys have an agenda and that you want to push it onto the country and I understand that you have huge support for doing so. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that there is huge support in stopping you and they are not the kind of people who just whine, complain and march.

The Obama is not going to mend our divide, he is going to stick a crowbar in it and widen it even more and people are going to react.

Posted by: kctim at October 7, 2008 4:12 PM
Comment #266091

No Schwamp, IN MY OPINION, there are people who will not put up with the liberal crap The Obama will force on them. Independents, Republicans and Democrats.

Just my OPINION, which I base on past events.
But what do I know, maybe the people will throw away the American way of life and accept The Obama and his leftist vision for our country. In fact, I bet I’m the only person in our country who doesn’t agree with that vision. Don’t worry, I know that one of me isn’t a match for the 300 million who agree with The Obama and his vision, so I will cause no problem for anybody. I will willingly sit back, do nothing, take my govt handout and do as I am told, just like all good citizens do.

Posted by: kctim at October 7, 2008 4:28 PM
Comment #266093

kctim & Stephen,
What we are about to see is the nationalization of the financial system. Call it corporatism run amok, or socializing losses. In any case, it is something virtually no one wants, regardless of their political point of view. It will mean socializing enormous losses and sinking them where no one wants to see the money sunk. However, the nationalization will have to happen. It already has, in part, and the Europeans are being forced down the same road.

One of the most, um, interesting challenges that will face the next administration will be the restructuring of the national and international financial system. What is left of the current system will not work. There are three basic financial groups left which will form an oligopoly, and that just won’t work in the long term. Commercial paper is being backed by the Federal Reserve. That doesn’t work either. Who knows what will be left of the CDS market? And obviously mortgages will have to be re-thought, re-regulated, and basically backed by the federal government.

We rather unwisely decided to ignore history by repealing the Glass Steagal Act, so some version will have to be revived. The old investment banks are more or less done, but the new oligopoly will need to find its function.

The good news is that the small savings and loans and credit unions performed very well. They might offer a ground floor for recreating a new financial system.

Posted by: phx8 at October 7, 2008 4:44 PM
Comment #266094
kctim wrote: “The statement was about same standards, not higher standards. And the “proof” you give only shows that Dems and Reps have higher standards (your words) than President Bush on this one issue.”

Ah, in kctim we might have yet another conservative who believes that Bush does NOT represent the Republican party!

Sorry, kctim, but ANYONE who believes Bush doesn’t represent the Republican party is simply desperate, searching for a way, ANY way, to hypocritically deny that the REPUBLICAN VALUES that Bush championed AND used during his tenure have ruined our economy, our world reputation, and to some extent even our military.

Just as Clinton represented the Democrats (and to some extent still does), Bush DOES represent the Republican party until the day he leaves office, kctim, like it or not.

kctim wrote: “No Dems have been involved in scandals of this degree in recent memory?”

I notice you didn’t give ANY examples of Democrats committing crimes on the order of:

* starting a war on false pretenses (the Bay of Pigs doesn’t count, ‘cause we pulled out at the last minute, and the Tonkin Gulf Incident appears to NOT have been ordered by LBJ),
* outing an American spy (and the ENTIRE spy network associated with her) just to take revenge on her husband,
* the collapse of our economy (and he DOES share a significant portion of the blame)
* torture, indefinite detention, the end of habeas corpus - the first being an actual honest-to-goodness crime against humanity, and the second two strictly against our Constitution.

C’mon, kctim - SURELY you can find SOMEthing the Dems have done to equal the scandals of the most powerful Republican president in history (and YES, his power IS greater than Reagan’s was (thanks to the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, et cetera, ad nauseum).

Oh yeah - have you found ANY Democratic presidents or governors who, like Bush and Palin, had their advisers IGNORE Congressional subpoenas? And while you’re at it, didja know the founder of the Alaskan Independence Party, the same party that Sarah Palin’s husband belonged to until 2002, got to speak before the U.N. to demand Alaska’s independence in 1993? His appearance was sponsored by…IRAN. THE TERRORIST STATE OF IRAN. (thanks, Stephen)

Yeah, those’re REAL AMERICANS you got on the Republican ticket - the VEEP candidate whose husband was for Alaska’s secession from America…and the presidential candidate who either didn’t properly vet her or didn’t care what her husband had done.

I’ll be waiting for your examples of those terrible scandals of the same degree as Bush’s

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 7, 2008 5:04 PM
Comment #266099

For people who were not alive back then, JMcC was only included in the Keating Five because they needed to blame one Rpblcn along with the Democrats.

Posted by: ohrealy at October 7, 2008 5:27 PM
Comment #266102

Seventh attempt to post this:

S.D., “I know the numbers on his legislative experience.”

Why use this Axelrodian tactic of pretending to be naive, or deliberately deceptive while accusing others of spreading lies about your candidate? By entering my library card number, I have access to the Chicago Tribune database. Do you know what you get when you look up the guy who you claim sponsored 800 bills in Springfield? Mostly blank space. He is mentioned significantly about once at year in 2001, 2002, and 2003.

Here is one of those:

June 12, 2002 Chicago Tribune

Frustration among Senate Democrats boiled over to the point that two agitated Chicago lawmakers had a heated exchange on the chamber floor after Sen. Barack Obama voted—inadvertently, he later said—in support of closing a child welfare office serving the West Side district of Sen. Rickey Hendon. Hendon took exception during debate and, moments later, slapped away Obama ‘s extended hand when Obama reached to put his hand on Hendon’s shoulder.”


If you look up significant individual votes, there are more blank spaces where his vote should be. Then there is a big upturn in 2004 when he is coincidentally running for the US Senate, and I have already explained exactly what happened then, but you are calling me a liar, from Texas, where you would surely know more about what happens here than I do. Our real senator, Dick Durbin, is up for reelection this year, but your guy is sucking all the air out of the room on his visionquest.

Posted by: ohrealy at October 7, 2008 5:36 PM
Comment #266103

cranston got hit the hardest .

Posted by: Rodney Brown at October 7, 2008 5:44 PM
Comment #266106

Glenn
So now I’m a conservative? Sure, why not.

You can believe Bush represents all Republican values and that the likes of clinton, frank and pelosi represent all Democrat values if you wish, but I vote on the person, not the party. That is why my vote sheet has an X next to Independents, Republicans and Democrats.

I didn’t give any examples because you view them just as far-right wingers (and The Obama, I guess) view warrantless wiretaps. I’ll play your game to show you how:
- fought a war under false pretenses (millions of innocent civilians in mass graves) against a nation which posed no threat to the US.
- covered up illegal land deals
- abuse of power by targeting his enemies for audits
- the collapse of our economy (and he too DOES share a significant portion of the blame)
- torture and execution of American citizens (Waco and Ruby Ridge)
- rendition of suspected terrorists
- violations of the 2nd Amendment
- violation of the 4th Amendment (no-knock warrants)

What do you know, I guess I did find some, although I am sure those are “different,” aren’t they?

“thanks to the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, et cetera, ad nauseum”

With the help of your fellow Democrats who voted for those, no? Thanks Obama, way to stand up for the people.

And yes, I am well aware of Palin’s husband and the AIP. But to be honest, the spouse of someone who used to hang around a few pissed of rednecks concerns me less than someone who used to hang out with Ayers, a known terrorist who wishes he would have done more and who is good friends with the likes of Rashid Khalidi.

Yep, those are real Americans you got on the Democratic ticket there Glenn - the VEEP candidate playing second fiddle to someone who can’t carry his jock…and the presidential candidate whose mentors have been communists, domestic terrorists, anti-Israel supporters and an anti-American racist preacher.

“Oh yeah - have you found ANY Democratic presidents or governors who, like Bush and Palin, had their advisers IGNORE Congressional subpoenas?”

No, you got me there. Well, unless having aides hide evidence counts for something.

Posted by: kctim at October 7, 2008 5:57 PM
Comment #266108

kctim-
No, it’s not going to be extreme, at least not by most people’s standards. But we are going to see a return to something closer to the kind of politics practiced by our grandparents.

But let me address the scariness in your tone. To put it plainly, your side has been pushing their agenda on the country for quite some time.

Actually, more than pushing it, you’ve been pushing it heedlessly. Even FDR, Truman, and Kennedy had to make some compromises, and so will Barack Obama. But Republicans have found it difficult, with the exception of Eisenhower, and to a lesser degree Reagan, to compromise with the other party. They’ve treated the stonewalling of liberalism as an existential battle for America’s future. Because they saw it as such a high-stakes thing, they didn’t allow themselves to risk their electoral gains to make sure their members were clean, and had some core principles.

Democrats want to avoid that, hence “more, then better”.

Glenn Contrarian-
No, it gets better than that: He was going to be sponsored by Iran on the matter, but he died before he could go there in a plastic explosives deal gone bad.

ohrealy-
He was included because he attended meetings where pressure was put on regulators and bank investigators to prevent them from taking action against the Lincoln S+L and Charles Keating. His father-in-law and his wife invested in one of Keating’s real estate deals. He took numerous flights on Keating’s Jet and celebrated parties with him. He accepted tens of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from Keating.

I know the numbers on his legislative experience, and I know that the bill that does get covered is rare. It’s fallacy to suggest that just because we don’t hear about a bill, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have effect. We have only to recall that 100+ page rider that was mostly ignored by the media, which later turned out to be a critical piece of both the Enron Debacle and the Subprime Mortgage crisis.

Oh, and by the way: your REAL senator (I suppose Obama’s tenure has been a figment of everybody’s imagination) has been supporting Obama all along, even suggesting to him that he take the opportunity to run now, rather than wait. Durbin is unlikely to lose his seat in this election If you call a 24 point lead having all the oxygen sucked out of the air, you must live in an oxygen tent. Even the atmosphere has only a 21% lead on that gas.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 7, 2008 6:06 PM
Comment #266110

kctim

i recently moved from so. cal. to ohio, and have to laugh every time ray shoenke from the ahsa ( formerly the head of one of the most anti gun groups around ) claims that obama cares about the second amendt. i wonder how many people are foolish enough to believe either one of them ? i have to say though ohio being a swing state and all, my vote will help swing it 1 more vote away from obama. hell, in cali my vote was worthless, i’m just glad to be out of that piece of crap. nothing good about cali. anymore except the wheather. the liberals have ruined it, and completely f@#ked up the states finances. now the governator is demanding 7bil. in fed funds or cali is going to go belly up. can’t wait to see what they do at the federal level. ;.)

Posted by: dbs at October 7, 2008 7:12 PM
Comment #266111

dbs,
Ohio polls show the state swinging to Obama. According to pollster.com the latest shows him with a 4.4% lead over McCain. The election is shaping up to be a blowout of epic proportions. It’s turning on the economy, and McCain is utterly clueless, and it shows.

CA once had an educational system that was the envy of the nation. Hard to believe today, isn’t it? The state began its long decline when Reagan became governor. He put the institutionalized people on the street, and started the movement which passed Prop 13, and destroyed the state’s finances and its educational system.

Posted by: phx8 at October 7, 2008 7:24 PM
Comment #266112

phx8

“Ohio polls show the state swinging to Obama. According to pollster.com the latest shows him with a 4.4% lead over McCain.”

we’ll see what happens.

as far as cali. sorry i lived there all my life, and your, explaination doesn’t even begin to ressemble the truth. cali has had an increase in revenue every year, and if the budget had remained tied to the rate of inflation, and the increase in population, it wouldn’t be in the mess it’s in now. double digit increases in the budget every year have screwed the pouch.

Posted by: dbs at October 7, 2008 7:46 PM
Comment #266113

phx8, that would be Howard Jarvis of prop 13 fame, he was Mr. one percent somewhat of a visionary in regards to the real estate values ,That was passed in like 1978 wow can you imagine if they had to pay tax rates like here in upstate NY everyone would be broke , I agree with the schools though they were the best we lived not far from rep Dave Dreier,my Dad donated quite a lot to my Grade school. Their complex reasons why and i really don’t care to get into specifics why the schools are broke ,A very large increase in population and other factors.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at October 7, 2008 7:54 PM
Comment #266114

Wow, talk about walking into a mess! Bulls**t and eagle feathers all over the place…
I see the racial hate issue has crossed over here as well.
Obama was threatened today with death at a rally where Sooper Sarah was inciting the crowd for McCain. Their camp just poo-pooed it and spun back around to attack Obama on a long-ago and long dead Ayers issue.
They are scared…….scared and more scared. Loss is looming large over their heads, so nastier and dirtier are in the marching orders I’d say.
It’s going to be interesing tonight. I just want to see if McCain is going to even acknowledge Obama’s presence on the stage with him. What an arrogant, nasty, little vindictive man.

Posted by: janedoe at October 7, 2008 8:37 PM
Comment #266115

Looking at the nasty, hate inciting tone the McCain/Palin campaign has taken the last few days, coupled with the high probability of a long economic downturn, and a good chance the Democrats will control both the Presidency and a filibuster proof Congress, I can see a large portion of conservatives taking a turn toward domestic terrorism. What do people do in economic hard times, when they are completely out of power, and when they have a predilection toward violent outbursts against people ideologically different than themselves?

Think about the hatred conservatives had toward the Clinton administation in the 90’s. Now make the President a mixed race man with a foreign sounding name and take away the Republican controlled Congress, add a long economic recession or depression, sprinkle on the effect of hate radio on an even more polarized and powerless electorate, and we have a powder keg ready to blow. We’ll be dealing with more Oklahoma City type bombings, and crazed out of work conservatives shooting up liberal establishments like the guy in Tennessee this summer.

Republicans should realize their party in its current form is finished. The Reagan revolution has ended in complete failure. Now is the time to kick the bums out of your party and work for a comeback in 4 years. The best action for your party to gain more supporters, considering our current economic situation, would be a more economically populist and socially moderate approach. But I doubt the corporate and religious masters of the party would be happy with that. So most likely the Republican party will turn more nasty, more alligned with fundamentalist religious dogma, while keeping the laissez faire economic policies under the table to fool the base. Basically they will turn into Bush/Palin on steroids, preying on the fears and hatred of their shrinking white fundamentalist base, in a country that is turning more brown and secular every year. I’m pretty sure they won’t be fading into obscurity peacefully.

Posted by: pops mcgee at October 7, 2008 8:44 PM
Comment #266118

Nice that CNN releases this during the debate when no one is reading the news , http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/obama.ayers/?iref=hpmostpop

Posted by: john at October 7, 2008 11:08 PM
Comment #266148

pops -

Well said. I think it’s also noteworthy that at the conventions, the Democrats were 40% minority, whereas the Republicans were almost completely lily-white (although Fox did try their best to point the camera specifically at the few minorities in attendance - but a whole-crowd shot showed the reality). The Republicans don’t seem to be able to take in the fact that whites are no longer a supermajority of American citizenry. If they don’t get a clue and attract more than a few token minorities, the Republican party will continue to diminish as the decades go by…and eventually become a part of the lunatic fringe.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 8, 2008 3:21 AM
Comment #266149

kctim:

- fought a war under false pretenses (millions of innocent civilians in mass graves) against a nation which posed no threat to the US. - covered up illegal land deals - abuse of power by targeting his enemies for audits - the collapse of our economy (and he too DOES share a significant portion of the blame) - torture and execution of American citizens (Waco and Ruby Ridge) - rendition of suspected terrorists - violations of the 2nd Amendment - violation of the 4th Amendment (no-knock warrants)

Another WONDERFUL example of people-who-hate-Clinton trying to find SOMEthing, ANYthing to justify their hatred and suspicion.

“War under false pretenses”? NO. Remember ‘ethnic cleansing’? Just under a million - mostly Albanians - had been forced from their homes…and the Europeans wanted to avoid a repeat of what had happened in Croatia during WWII, where the hard-line Catholic Croatian government (whose methods even horrified the Nazis) had brutally killed about 700,000 non-Catholics, expelled a like number from the country, and forced about that many to convert to Catholicism. THAT is the real reason why, kctim - to prevent another genocide…and I’d like to see you post any proof of Clinton’s “millions in mass graves”. You’re 0-for-1

“covered up illegal land deals” - Whitewater was almost NOTHING, kctim. That was a political red herring…and when Ken Starr couldn’t find sufficient evidence to charge the Clintons, he switched to ‘travelgate’ and ‘filegate’…and found NOTHING. Of course he waited until AFTER the 1998 election to completely exonerate the Clintons from ‘travelgate’ and ‘filegate’. Much ado about not much at all, kctim…and NOTHING compared to what Bush/Cheney has done. O-for-2

“abuse of power by targeting his enemies for audits” I’ll even agree Clinton did this…which is more easily compared to TSA’s putting their enemies on the flight risk list. Really now, kctim - does this compare to EXPOSING AN ENTIRE NETWORK OF AMERICAN SPIES? No it does not. So in this list so far, you’re 0-for-3.

“the collapse of our economy”. I’ll always remember Clinton with Bush Sr., Reagan, and Ford all together to push NAFTA. You see, Clinton was a FISCAL CONSERVATIVE (for the most part). So I’ll give this to you - Clinton DOES bear part of the blame…but Bush bears far more, as you would see if you read the link I posted. You’re 1-for-4.

“torture and execution of American citizens (Waco and Ruby Ridge)” - OH COME ON, kctim! These are LAW ENFORCEMENT MATTERS…and if these are ‘torture and execution’, then EVERY police action gone wrong is ‘torture and execution’. On Waco, Clinton authorized it on the advice of the FBI and Janet Reno…AND RUBY RIDGE HAPPENED BEFORE CLINTON EVEN TOOK OFFICE! Yeah, you really swallowed the neo-con line on that one, didn’t you? You’re 1-for-5.

“rendition of suspected terrorists” Hm? Didn’t hear that one. Got a reference? Based on your average so far, I’ll assume you don’t until you prove otherwise. 1-for-6.

“2nd amendment” - and the scandal to which you refer is…what? Tell you what, kctim - while you’re trying to find one, can you name ANY country with total freedom of gun ownership that is not a third-world country? Even one? Here’s a hint: there are NONE. Gun ownership in America is less restricted than in any other industrialized country, INCLUDING Switzerland and Israel. We also have the highest rate of gun violence of any non-third-world country. Do ya see the connection? Hm? 1 for 7.

“4th amendment (no-knock warrants”). That was the SUPREME COURT, guy. In 1995, the Supreme Court unanimously (even the conservative judges, mind you) held that no-knock warrants are allowed only when occupants may be armed or evidence may be easily destroyed. 1 for 8.

You’re batting .125, kctim. Not good. Got some facts wrong, laid the blame where it didn’t belong, made assumptions you shouldn’t have made.

I suggest you get better references.

Better luck next time.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 8, 2008 4:14 AM
Comment #266154

Stephen
The “scariness” is in the facts and your own words Stephen. Millions of Americans do not want or agree with your side trying to “liberalize the govt.” I know you believe they are just a small handfull and their way of life and desires mean nothing to you, but that is not the way to go IF we want to fix the divide.
The Obama may not be too far left for you, but he is for millions and he will only increase the tension.

As far as my “side,” here is where I am coming from: I hold very extreme views on issues and I do not think it is fair to associate my beliefs with a certain party, that is why I am an Independent. My views on abortion, privacy, war and marriage are often labled as that of Democrats, but I know very few Dems who share such extreme views with me. The same goes for the Republicans and issues such taxes and the 2nd.
But go ahead and keep labeling me as the enemy because I won’t bow down to the Obama, it makes no difference to me. You’ll just be wrong in doing so.

Posted by: kctim at October 8, 2008 9:18 AM
Comment #266163

Glenn
Now see? That is exactly how I said you would react. Its interesting how you say I am trying to find SOMEthing, ANYthing to justify my hatred and suspicion of clinton, but yet you defend, ignore or excuse all of it. Interesting not because I don’t agree with some of your points, interesting because you do the same thing when you speaking of Bush.

Just like WMD’s ruled the airwaves for the run-up to Iraq, mass graves ruled the airwaves then. And even if you could prove Bush lied about WMDs and their importance of going to war, you still need to prove the other reasons in the resolution were lied about also. You know, the resolution that states things such as human rights of Iraqis and such? Guess its ok for one President to use that as a reason, but not another. I wonder if political party has anything to do with that? Naw.

I agree that most of those “gates” were petty, but the only way we now know that is because there have been investigations into them. When the investigations into Bush/Cheney prove what you guys alledge, then it will be fact. Until then, all this “terrible” stuff you have on Bush/Cheney is nothing but opinion and assumptions.

The auditing and outing were both wrong and comparing them based on which one is more wrong, is nothing but politics and the reason DC is so corrupt.

The blame game with the economy is silly Glenn. Both parties are responsible and both should be held accountable for not doing their jobs. You are for more govt regulations, so you blame the lack of regulations. Some are for less govt intrusion, so they blame govt sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong.
Fixing the problem is the goal and in order to fix it, both sides need to acknowledge the roles their policies played in this and fix it the right way.

Law enforcement matters that happened under clintons watch and orders. You guys sure are fond of saying that the President is responsible for what happens on his watch, why does that not apply to this?
Look, I bring Waco up because of the way it was handled and how it ended. I don’t think Koresh was right, but I know the clinton administration was wrong.
Ruby Ridge was Aug. or Sept. of 92, so you are of course correct, but my mistake is not because I “swallowed the neocon line.”
I refer to it because I usually speak of govt, not right or left govt, but govt in general, when I am on this topic. I view our modern day govt as being corrupt and as stealing our rights no matter which party is in control.

Rendition:

“The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton”

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1539284.htm

Gun ownership in America is less restrictive than other socialist nations because our founders gave us that right and comparing us to other nations who were not given that right is ridiculous. Like it or not, the Brady Bill was a big step against that right and it greatly aided in gores defeat in 2000.
There are rules for getting rid of our rights, get your two thirds or leave it alone.

clinton signed the bill into law and while its the SC job, they are not always right. You can be petty and determine whether they are right or not based on your personal beliefs if you want, but I do not. They were wrong about about privacy in 96 and they were wrong recently.

So you see Glenn, its your interpretation of events, not the facts, where the differing opinions lie. clinton was a Democrat, so things really aren’t as they seem or are just opinions and assumptions. Bush is a Republican, so you treat opinions and assumptions as fact. You trivalize or just out right ignore the concerns about Dems, but you expect everybody to accept concerns about Reps. Not very productive there Glenn.

Here’s the funny thing Glenn. I don’t buy into all that negative stuff about clinton any more than I buy into all the negative stuff about Bush. Sure I believe some of it is true, but I also believe some of the stuff about Bush.
My dislike of clinton is based mainly on him being my CiC for almost 10 years.

At the end of the day, the concerns I hear from the left today are no different than the concerns I heard from the right back then.

PS
The little batting average thing was funny, nice touch.

Posted by: kctim at October 8, 2008 10:44 AM
Comment #266165

kctim-
Democracy is a compromise between the respective goods and evils of serving the interests of the majority, and serving the interests of the minority. There will always be tension. Millions of people will not like the liberalization of our government.

A government could do nothing, though, if it sat around trying to please everybody. Folks have had three decades of increasingly more conservative governance, of more deregulation, more assaults on the use of government for the general good.

Majorities of Americans have come to the conclusion that the policies in place are wrong. It’s just so sad that some people aren’t going to be pleased by the direction things have been taking politically, but that’s the same tough s*** many of the rest of us have had to deal with for the last three decades. Live long enough, and you’ll have the opportunity to be displeased with the ideology in charge.

The question now is whether these people embrace fear and loathing, or whether they stop sulking in their corner and come join the rest of us as equals who are confident enough in their own beliefs and their own voice that they can seek their ends through persuasion rather than political or physical force.

That folks on the right try and make martyrs out of folks at Ruby Ridge and Waco, places where the authorities mishandled the situation, but where the folks involved did their own share of provocation and lawbreaking. Can’t they see the kind of extremism they’re trying to lionize, the consequences of politicizing events of this kind?

This is a country which relies on the peaceful handing over of power according to the dictates of fair and free elections. When folks go beyond these means of gaining and keeping power, when they support those who deny the legitimacy of that system and threaten its destruction by violence, what’s the end result, except strife and needless division? The Right Wing in this country needs to make peace with everybody else before its actions provoke civil unrest

Bow down to Obama, don’t bow down. I won’t lose a wink of sleep over your vote. I don’t care to label you the enemy. At most I would call you a rival, an opponent in a debate. It’s my firm belief that we’re best served by a system that allows people to constructively and safely let out their antagonisms, rather than trying to outlaw or marginalize them. We benefit from a political system where everybody has a voice, even if that voice is one in the minority.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 8, 2008 10:55 AM
Comment #266183

kctim,

When our founders decided to break away from Great Britain, they rebelled in such a way it formed a new nation. One in which most, if not all, could provide a life for their families without fear of governmental or religious interference. They did a good job, and the result has been a long run of free people.

That being said, much of what the founders started has gone by the wayside. That has happened for various reasons, mostly to do with forgetfulness and apathy, but the result IS what the people generally wanted.

The founders had several things going for them, not the least of which was a fertile country, both in the fertile minds of the people, but also the fertility of the land. Both were needed to make it stick. Right now there is some question about the fertility of either.

If you really want to change things back to the way you think they once were or to a way you would like them to be…your best bet is to relocate to a place where you can find people of fertile mind and a place rich in natural resources, and form a great nation there. It may very well be too late for that to happen here, as we have become less of fertile mind and have raped our lands that were once fertile.

Your best chance for success might have been during the 1930s. Great turmoil makes for a better place to plant those kinds of seeds, but those who tried to plant seeds then, for the most part, failed. The great socialist movements of the time were only successful in things like stronger unions and public social programs like Social Security. Both of which were pretty much necessary at the time.

Right now we need some cheaters who can out cheat the cheaters that got us into this current mess…we can’t use people who want to live in the past…sorry!

Posted by: Marysdude at October 8, 2008 1:07 PM
Comment #266190

Stephen
Not wanting govt to intrude on our lives is not fear and loathing, its freedom and the love of that freedom is what makes us different than any other country.
But, you are right, our country is at a point where majority rules and too bad for those who do not believe that.

It is people on the far-right who see Waco and RR as bad Stephen. Almost every damn Republican I know thought both groups, not the govt, were at fault and got what they deserved in the end.
The consequences of politicizing this event is no different than those of the Iraq war. In both cases, people are trying to stop it from happening again and always believe the worst case scenario. Well, unless they support such actions, then they go to the ends of the earth to trivialize or defend the action.

Your view of the situation is only valid IF there is only a very small number of people who oppose your views. I believe that number to be just as large as those who support them and that is why I see a very unstable and divided nation when The Obama administration begins ruling over us. Who’s right? I guess only time will tell.

Posted by: kctim at October 8, 2008 1:39 PM
Comment #266193

Dude
The govt is in control of the people now, so yes, it is way to late for things to change and I am not naive enough to believe things will once again be as they were meant to be.
I am also well aware that the left has no use for people who still believe in the documents that this nation was founded on, but I think you guys severly underestimate just how many of them there are.

As far as relocating? Naw, not me. I’ll probably just give up and go with the flow and hopefully live long enough to tell my grandchildren what freedom was like when I was a kid.

Posted by: kctim at October 8, 2008 1:52 PM
Comment #266204
I am also well aware that the left has no use for people who still believe in the documents that this nation was founded on, but I think you guys severly underestimate just how many of them there are.

How funny you should mention that kctim…do you mean like Bush saying the Constitution was just “a Goddamned piece of paper.” ??

Posted by: janedoe at October 8, 2008 3:30 PM
Comment #266209

janedoe
Who said Bush is one of those who believes in the documents this nation was founded on?
The only thing funny is that you automatically think anybody who dares speak negative of liberalism just has to be a Republican.

Posted by: kctim at October 8, 2008 5:01 PM
Comment #266217

kctim, you’re chastising Liberals , for not believing in documents from our founding days, but ignoring Bush’s disrespect and disdain for the Constitution. Looks like that double standard at it’s best.

Posted by: janedoe at October 8, 2008 5:37 PM
Comment #266221

janedoe
Dude, an admitted lefty, said “much of what the founders started has gone by the wayside” and “we can’t use people who want to live in the past…sorry!”
I was “chastising liberals” because that is who were were talking about. Bush was not mentioned.
You brought up what Bush said in an attempt to throw his words back in the face of a Republican and it may have meant something IF I Bush believed in those documents or IF I was a Republican.
Neither is true. There is no double standard on my part.

Posted by: kctim at October 8, 2008 5:57 PM
Comment #266233

kctim-
Everybody wants freedoms that suit their interests. Democracy is our way of sorting that out without getting at each other’s throats. But even with Democracy, some people feel they have to push things.

Partisan politics is inevitable in a Dmeocratic system. What’s not so inevitable, is the tendency to try and cut others out. The point of the kind of extreme rhetoric about Democrats, the accusations of collaboration, is not to inform, but rather to blunt opposition pre-emptively.

This kind of politics reached its forte under the Bush Republicans this last decade. Things like loyalty oaths, surveillance of dissenters, the redistricting controversy in Texas, and efforts towards “permanent majorities” drenched the politics in that toxic brew of exclusion.

Ulimately, this is part of what led Democrats to push back; the failure of the policies motivated voters to go looking for a new majority.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 8, 2008 11:05 PM
Comment #266236

kctim -

“yet you defend, ignore or excuse all of it”

Um, no, I did not. I agreed that Clinton shared some of the blame for the economic meltdown. However, your comparison of Clinton’s ‘audits’ to Bush’s exposure of an ENTIRE network of American spies just to ruin one person’s career…just didn’t work.

“Just like WMD’s ruled the airwaves for the run-up to Iraq, mass graves ruled the airwaves then. And even if you could prove Bush lied about WMDs and their importance of going to war, you still need to prove the other reasons in the resolution were lied about also.”

‘Only’ 5080 bodies were found according to a detractor’s website. So let’s say true ethnic genocide wasn’t happening (ethnic cleansing certain was, OTOH). Was there ANY intelligence shown to Clinton that a genocide like that which DID happen in the SAME place fifty years earlier was NOT happening? No. Bush, however, WAS told the intel was NOT RELIABLE…AND DICK ARMEY, the #3 guy in the Bush administration after Bush and Cheney, just recently stated how Cheney had LIED to him about Iraqi nuclear capabilities (because Armey actually OPPOSED the war).

But I guess you’ll say that Bush’s President Pro Tem is full of it, too. Try doing a little research on the sites you don’t like, kctim - you might find something you didn’t expect. I check the Fox News site almost every day, and I DO check breitbart.com every day (which site was endorsed by Rush Limbaugh).

Law enforcement matters that happened under clintons watch and orders. You guys sure are fond of saying that the President is responsible for what happens on his watch, why does that not apply to this?

Because when I’ve said that, I nearly always apply it to big-picture issues: the economy, war, constitutional rights. If there had been NO changes in policy as a result of Waco, or if there had been MORE ‘Waco’ events, then I would certainly lay it at the feet of Clinton. BTW, the conservatives howled long and hard about Ruby Ridge and Waco (and with some reason), and most of their complaints were about the power of the FBI and its lack of accountability. And what’s happened under Bush? The FBI has MORE power than ever before and, thanks to warrantless wiretapping, LESS accountability than ever before. But nah, keep ragging on Clinton and never on Bush, yeah, that’s the ticket, huh?

“Rendition: “The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton””

I now agree - but did Clinton authorize TORTURE? How about indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without trial, without access to a lawyer? Hm?

Gun ownership in America is less restrictive than other socialist nations because our founders gave us that right and comparing us to other nations who were not given that right is ridiculous.

So EVERY OTHER NATION is either communist or socialist? ONLY America is a democracy? Dude, you need to hit the books! AND you don’t have a problem with our gun crime rate being the highest among all industrialized countries and our prison population the highest in the world in EVERY sense of the word?

kctim - are you truly a patriot? Which is better for America, the NATION? Your personal right to ownership of a gun? Or doing that which would lower the entire nation’s murder rate? Which is more important - you? Or the nation as a whole? No man is an island, kctim….

So you see Glenn, its your interpretation of events, not the facts, where the differing opinions lie. clinton was a Democrat, so things really aren’t as they seem or are just opinions and assumptions. Bush is a Republican, so you treat opinions and assumptions as fact. You trivalize or just out right ignore the concerns about Dems, but you expect everybody to accept concerns about Reps. Not very productive there Glenn.

About a month ago, Rhinehold proved me wrong when it came to election fraud by Democrats as well as Republicans. Did I trivialize or outright ignore him? In both his personal blog and on Watchblog, I said that he was right and I was wrong, and I thanked him for proving me wrong. Prove me wrong and I’ll sincerely thank you, kctim - that’s my way. I don’t care who says it - right is right and wrong is wrong. Bush (and Obama) was right that the ‘gas tax holiday’ was a gimmick, and my candidate Hillary (I was an alternate state delegate for her) was wrong. But she was right on many, many other things.

But you’re not proving me wrong. Far from it. If you would actually try to understand the other side of the story (such as whether Bush/Cheney lied us into war), you might learn things you didn’t expect.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 8, 2008 11:13 PM
Comment #266259

glenn

“So EVERY OTHER NATION is either communist or socialist? ONLY America is a democracy? Dude, you need to hit the books! AND you don’t have a problem with our gun crime rate being the highest among all industrialized countries and our prison population the highest in the world in EVERY sense of the word?”

“kctim - are you truly a patriot? Which is better for America, the NATION? Your personal right to ownership of a gun? Or doing that which would lower the entire nation’s murder rate? Which is more important - you? Or the nation as a whole? No man is an island, kctim….”

you’ll find the cities and states in general with the most restrictive gun control laws also have higher violent crime rates. DC is a prime example. if gun control made people safer, then DC would be a shinning example. unfortunately criminals don’t register, or apply for ccw permits they are after all criminals. my guns, or kctims guns for that matter are no threat to you. that is unless you break in to my house. you should also check out the stats on CCWs you’ll find a very high success rate. the OK corral scenario proponents of stricter gun control howl about is a fantasy.

if you’re a violent criminal where are you more likely to go ? somewhere where anyone on the street could be armed, or somewhere where it’s illegal for anyone to possess a gun. in other words, where are the odds better for the criminal ?

Posted by: dbs at October 9, 2008 9:15 AM
Comment #266261

Stephen
“Everybody wants freedoms that suit their interests”

Not everybody. I want freedoms that suit everybodys interests, not just mine, and the only way to have that is to respect everybodys individual rights.
I know that is no longer so and makes me nothing more than a dreamer, but thats what I was raised to believe in.

Posted by: kctim at October 9, 2008 9:24 AM
Comment #266271

Glenn
“just to ruin one person’s career…just didn’t work”

Ok, no problem. I can accept when I am wrong. But, if Bush is personally responsible for taking down the ENTIRE network of American spies, why has he not been charged with doing so and why did Pelosi say there was no evidence of wrong doing?

“Bush, however, WAS told the intel was NOT RELIABLE”

I don’t think it is as clear as you want it to be. But even if it was unreliable, there were numberous other reasons for the invasion that you guys like to ignore. Isn’t it possible that the decision to invade was based on looking at all the reasons as a whole?
I was against the invasion Glenn, but until investigations and facts show different, I am going to look at the situation as a whole, not just parts. I made that mistake with clinton.

“But I guess you’ll say that Bush’s President Pro Tem is full of it, too. Try doing a little research on the sites you don’t like, kctim “

I’m not saying anybody is full of it Glenn, not even you. Everything you bring up could be true just as everything those against clinton could be. But because of the partisan bias on these things, I try let the facts speak.
I look at all kinds of sites Glenn and I have seen tons which support and refute us both. In fact, my favorite site, inforwars.com, is very anti-Bush.
I am not blind because I question and base my judgement on hard facts. Again, I learned my lesson with clinton.

“the conservatives howled long and hard about Ruby Ridge and Waco (and with some reason), and most of their complaints were about the power of the FBI and its lack of accountability”

Their complaints are about the power of govt, not just the FBI. The ATF got away with a ton of crap under clinton and still today under Bush.

“But nah, keep ragging on Clinton and never on Bush, yeah, that’s the ticket, huh?”

Yes, I do “rag” on clinton more than Bush. I have a real dislike of clinton dating from when I served under him and his positions on issues that does not compare to my dissatisfaction with Bush.

“I now agree - but did Clinton authorize TORTURE? How about indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without trial, without access to a lawyer? Hm?”

Yes, he just wasn’t as upfront and honest about it as Bush is.
IF American citizens are being imprisoned without trial or access to a lawyer, it is wrong, no matter who is President.

“So EVERY OTHER NATION is either communist or socialist? ONLY America is a democracy?”

A “democracy” in which the majority rules and passes socialist programs IS a socialist nation. But then again, I am one of “those” who believe we were founded on the principles of being a Representive Republic where that was not meant to be.

“kctim - are you truly a patriot? Which is better for America, the NATION? Your personal right to ownership of a gun? Or doing that which would lower the entire nation’s murder rate? Which is more important - you? Or the nation as a whole?”

It depends on what one views as being best for America: individual rights and freedoms or the hope for an unattainable feel-good utopia. So yes, my personal Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is more important than anothers fear of me exercising that right.

“But you’re not proving me wrong. Far from it. If you would actually try to understand the other side of the story (such as whether Bush/Cheney lied us into war), you might learn things you didn’t expect.”

And your opinions do not prove you right, far from it. I do understand the lefts side of the story Glenn, I just will not accept it when its based on opinions rather than facts as I did with clinton.

Posted by: kctim at October 9, 2008 10:42 AM
Comment #266274

kctim

here’s some information i found on the gun control issue. i haven’t gone through a lot of it, but you may find it interesting.

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/

Posted by: dbs at October 9, 2008 11:30 AM
Comment #266291
Not everybody. I want freedoms that suit everybodys interests, not just mine, and the only way to have that is to respect everybodys individual rights.

Interesting how intent you are on here to push your own beliefs…..kind of belies that statement, doesn’t it?

Posted by: janedoe at October 9, 2008 1:03 PM
Comment #266297

Thanks Dbs.

Janedoe
Interesting question. Which of my beliefs am I trying to push?

Posted by: kctim at October 9, 2008 1:45 PM
Comment #266299

kctim,

As you said, I am an admitted liberal (far left???), but my little post was as a quasi-historian (someone who once wished to teach history, but didn’t have the necessary gumption to follow through)…my regard toward the Constitution is as strong as yours, I’m just more realistic and pragmatic about our failure to abide by its requirements.

As a people, we have failed it…it has not failed us…but the concepts it ordains are none the less pretty much finished in this world. America has neither the mind-set or the will to bring it back. In fact if it were brought up for referendum today there would be few signatories.

I’m sorry, but your best bet is still to create a revolution, but if our people are so out of it, perhaps you need to find some somewhere who care…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 9, 2008 2:00 PM
Comment #266302

kctim, in comment #261 you’re arguing not only with Stephen, but yourself. Not only do you want what you feel is right for you, but what you feel is right for everyone else as well…… yet, when others state their beliefs and argue for them…you argue against them.
And before this goes in another circle, I’ll quit.

Posted by: janedoe at October 9, 2008 2:12 PM
Comment #266313

Aw janedoe, don’t quit, just read what is written instead of what you think was written.

My exact statement from comment #261:

—-“Everybody wants freedoms that suit their interests”
Not everybody. I want freedoms that suit everybodys interests, not just mine, and the only way to have that is to respect everybodys individual rights.
I know that is no longer so and makes me nothing more than a dreamer, but thats what I was raised to believe in.—-

“Not only do you want what you feel is right for you,”

Yes, respecting everybodys freedoms are what is right for me.

“but what you feel is right for everyone else as well……”

Yes, I think it is right for everyone to respect each others individual freedoms.

“yet, when others state their beliefs and argue for them…you argue against them”

Well, if their beliefs are against individual rights and freedoms, would I not be disrespecting them if I did not argue in their favor?

Posted by: kctim at October 9, 2008 3:08 PM
Comment #266314

janedoe

“my regard toward the Constitution is as strong as yours, I’m just more realistic and pragmatic about our failure to abide by its requirements.”

please explain.


Posted by: dbs at October 9, 2008 3:19 PM
Comment #266315

He was included because he attended meetings where pressure was put on regulators and bank investigators to prevent them from taking action against the Lincoln S+L and Charles Keating. His father-in-law and his wife invested in one of Keating’s real estate deals. He took numerous flights on Keating’s Jet and celebrated parties with him. He accepted tens of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from Keating.

I know the numbers on his legislative experience, and I know that the bill that does get covered is rare. It’s fallacy to suggest that just because we don’t hear about a bill, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have effect. We have only to recall that 100+ page rider that was mostly ignored by the media, which later turned out to be a critical piece of both the Enron Debacle and the Subprime Mortgage crisis.

Oh, and by the way: your REAL senator (I suppose Obama’s tenure has been a figment of everybody’s imagination) has been supporting Obama all along, even suggesting to him that he take the opportunity to run now, rather than wait. Durbin is unlikely to lose his seat in this election If you call a 24 point lead having all the oxygen sucked out of the air, you must live in an oxygen tent. Even the atmosphere has only a 21% lead on that gas.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 7, 2008 06:06 PM

Posted by: ohrealy at October 9, 2008 3:26 PM
Comment #266317

Well, that turned into a mess, but imagine my consternation when reading [ridiculous statement] “I know the numbers on his legislative experience, and I know that the bill that does get covered is rare”[/ridiculous statment], when I had attempted to post more extensive excerpts from the Tribune’s coverage of BHO’s actual published record in Springfield 6 times previously, which the site would not accept, and David R Remer responded to my email that he could not find my post, so I shortened it until the site accepted it.

On Keating, you are reading the revisionist Wiki version of what happened. No one at the time thought that JMcC’s inclusion was anything other than an attempt to spread the blame.

Posted by: ohrealy at October 9, 2008 3:35 PM
Comment #266318

dbs -

Your example of Washington D.C. as an example of the inherent failure of gun control doesn’t work. Why? Because it was too easy to go to a nearby state or city that did not have such strict gun control, buy the guns there, and bring them back to D.C.

Gun control in D.C. did not work for the same reason that Mississippi’s system of wet counties and dry counties did little to diminish alcohol abuse.

The POINT, dbs, is about nationwide gun control, not in this or that city! All I want is the same sort of gun control that Switzerland has - everyone (who is not a felon, doesn’t have a violent history, or doesn’t have psychological issues) can own guns, but those guns must be registered.

I grew up down South, dbs - I have no problem with gun ownership. I DO have a problem with gun fanatics who think that gun registration is some kind of evil plot.

I’m not sure if I asked you before, but please put these two facts together about what gun control or the lack thereof means when it comes to having a prosperous nation:

Can you name even ONE modern industrial country in all the world where gun ownership is as open as the anti-gun-control crowd wants? No, you can’t.

And can you name poverty-ridden third-world countries where gun ownership is every bit as open as the anti-gun-control crowd wants? Sure you can - plenty!

Put those two facts together, please.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 9, 2008 3:43 PM
Comment #266325

kctim -

You said you base your opinions on hard facts.

1. Please show me your proof that Clinton knowingly allowed torture, and that he knowingly allowed indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without trial or access to legal counsel. If you cannot do so, then you are not basing your opinions on hard facts.

2. You complain about the power of the government agencies during the Clinton administration, so please show me your proof that his administration had greater authority, had greater power over the people than did, say, Reagan and Bush Sr. - and if he did not, then why complain so much about Clinton, but not at all about Reagan and Bush? Why did you try to blame Clinton for Ruby Ridge…but not the sitting president of the time of the event?

3. And when it comes to your strong dislike of the power of government agencies, I must ask why, since you are so anti-Clinton, you post almost nothing about the power of those agencies under Bush II when he (unlike Clinton) politicized the Justice Department, expanded the government’s power and reach in every sense of the word, AND fostered an atmosphere of NO accountability for their actions? Why do you rail against Clinton when he did NOTHING to compare with what Bush and Alberto Gonzalez did to do an end-run around Attorney General John Ashcroft? Why do you not show outrage at the warrantless wiretapping that was greatly expanded by Bush? At least under Clinton it was reviewed by a judge within three days…but under Bush - no judge required (which is what the Bush administration did after Ashcroft refused to reauthorize it).

You gripe and growl SO much about certain things Clinton did…and you say nothing about Bush II when he not only did those same things, but to a much greater degree.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 9, 2008 4:17 PM
Comment #266331

S.D. “Obama’s tenure has been a figment of everybody’s imagination”, yes, you are exactly right there! See how willing I am to admit when you get something right?

Enough is enough with the cult worship of Obamao, the Newport man, the Kool Kandidate, the Hope Pope, promoted by dillusional young confuseniks.

You need to learn to read non-fiction with a more critical eye.

Posted by: ohrealy at October 9, 2008 4:43 PM
Comment #266333

glenn

“Your example of Washington D.C. as an example of the inherent failure of gun control doesn’t work. Why? Because it was too easy to go to a nearby state or city that did not have such strict gun control, buy the guns there, and bring them back to D.C.”

this makes no sense. you’re saying they went to places with less ristrictive laws and bought guns. then took them back to DC. if it was the about the easy access of guns, then why not stay close to the supply, and do your business right there in the same town? let me answer that one. because they would be far more likely have been killed by an armed citizen. an unarmed populace makes for easy pickens. but why not just take the ability away from everyone, and make them all equal opportunity victims. you are responsible for your own saftey. if you choose not to be armed, that is your choice, but you don’t have the right to take it away from others, and that is exactly what DC did.

“I grew up down South, dbs - I have no problem with gun ownership. I DO have a problem with gun fanatics who think that gun registration is some kind of evil plot.”

registrations are illegal for a good reason. it makes confiscation easy. if you don’t know who has the guns, you can’t confiscate them .gun registrations don’t work, because criminals don’t register thier guns.

“I’m not sure if I asked you before, but please put these two facts together about what gun control or the lack thereof means when it comes to having a prosperous nation:”

i didn’t bring up the gun issue, i responded to others that had. you weighed in so i responded.

“Can you name even ONE modern industrial country in all the world where gun ownership is as open as the anti-gun-control crowd wants? No, you can’t.”

this is the united states. i don’t care how other countries do it. check the link i posted for kctim. you’ll find answers to most of your questions. armed law abidding citizens aren’t the problen, so registering there guns is not the solution.


“And can you name poverty-ridden third-world countries where gun ownership is every bit as open as the anti-gun-control crowd wants? Sure you can - plenty!”

i see your argument is that our policy on guns makes us a third world nation. if you don’t like the const. change it. there is a process for doing so. do some research, gun control in GB, and australia are complete failures.

there is no gun crime epidemic in the US, only a group of people who create one to push an agenda of gun control.


Posted by: dbs at October 9, 2008 4:58 PM
Comment #266335

dbs, that wasn’t a comment of mine that you’re
looking for clarification on. (your post on #314)

Posted by: janedoe at October 9, 2008 5:00 PM
Comment #266337

janedoe

sorry, your right it was marysdude. my mistake.

Posted by: dbs at October 9, 2008 5:02 PM
Comment #266338

Glenn
1. I told you that I gave the you the same partisan complaints about clinton that you gave of Bush. I also stated that I believe some them are false and fewer are true for both. In addition, I mentioned how I used to take every bad “opinion” about clinton for fact, but I had learned my lesson.

2. I complained about the power of govt agencies during the clinton administration and stated it continues on today.
I also stated that I had a huge dislike of clinton due to serving in the military under him and his position on the issues.
Reagan? Well, other than ending the cold war and his economics, not much is really said about him on here. I was also just a teen during his administration and to be perfectly honest, I was more concerned with girls than politics.
Bush I? led a successful war and what else? Not much.
Ruby Ridge? As I said before, when I speak of those things it is usually while speaking of govt in general as being police state like. It should not have been included in there and it was only in there because I was in “police state” mode. I apologize.

3. I rail against clinton more than Bush on here for the same reasons you guys will still be talking about Bush for years to come: his policies and actions ticked me off big time and that highlights everything else he did. I am however, working on that which I think is why I view govt as the culprit more than other things.

“and you say nothing about Bush II when he not only did those same things, but to a much greater degree”

One reason is because all of the lefts opinions and allegations have not been proven to be based in fact yet.
Another reason is because of all of the things that happened on clintons watch. How you feel about Bush and the 4th, is how I felt about clinton and the 2nd. How you guys feel about Gitmo is how I felt about Waco. How you guys feel about Iraq, is how I felt about Bosnia and Iraq.

In fact, I have stated many times on here that I disagree with this warrantless wiretapping and war, but that is ignored because I don’t buy into all the lefts talk of evil Republican backroom politics that comes with it.

Instead of defending or condemning one or the other, or debating who’s actions are worse, we should be working together to hold both accountable.

Posted by: kctim at October 9, 2008 5:06 PM
Comment #266339

dbs, it’s okay….we look a lot alike ;)

Posted by: janedoe at October 9, 2008 5:09 PM
Comment #266423

>dbs, it’s okay….we look a lot alike ;)
Posted by: janedoe at October 9, 2008 05:09 PM

janedoe,

Dear gawd, I hope not…I’m a fat old man, who has traveled too many miles…no one should look like me…lol

Posted by: Marysdude at October 10, 2008 6:55 AM
Comment #266438

I just want to make a suggestion here people. Please remember that our government NEEDS checks and balances! If you elect Obama the checks and balances will be non-existent and we will be well on our way to a socialistic nation. If you are wanting to vacation in parts of Russia please do so but do not take the rest of our beloved country with you. Better yet, if your into the socialist thing, just move and leave us the heck alone!!!

Posted by: Bridy at October 10, 2008 12:04 PM
Comment #266447

dude, if we put our miles together, we probably have traveled the world a few times over.
During those travels I’ve learned a few things, and one is that how a person looks isn’t always determined by our eyes.

Posted by: janedoe at October 10, 2008 12:54 PM
Comment #266453

janedoe,

Right on! I think you are beautimus, too…lol.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 10, 2008 2:20 PM
Post a comment