Democrats & Liberals Archives

GOP: The party of Fernando Lamas

Fernando Lamas, Billy Crystal’s famous character once said:
“Remember, my friends. Saludos, it’s better to look good than to feel good.” It now appears that the GOP is taking Fernando’s advice seriously.

The Washington Post reported Sunday (link), the GOP met this past weekend to polish the image of the GOP, bash President Obama and form, yet another, partisan organization: National Council for a New America.

Instead of accepting the decision of Americans soundly rejecting the partisan rhetoric and destructive policies of the GWBush GOP and adopting updated policies to help American and American families. The GOP chose to update its image.

Earth to GOP: It’s not the image; it’s job performance.

As part of their ‘new’ economic principles message, NCNA claims that ‘we must learn from the mistakes that led to the current crisis to ensure that these problem never happen again.’

Does that mean that the GOP has moved away from their ‘deregulation’ mantra of the past generation? I highly doubt it.

At a time when Americans need substance, the GOP’s new message is merely a repackaging of the same old failed policies of the past.

I’m reminded of an old phrase that many of my golf buddies repeat when they chip in from 40 yards off the green for a quadruple bogey and say: “Whipped Cream on Dog Crap”.

Even Fernando can recognize this dog crap.

Posted by john trevisani at May 3, 2009 9:48 AM
Comments
Comment #281235

The Democratic definition of bi-partisan seems to be that Republicans have the option of following Democratic orders. This is nothing new. Democrats complained bitterly in 2004 when Republicans enjoyed majorities in 2004. I looked back at the Watchblog archives and saw some of these complaints.

No party has had such complete control of the agenda – congress, president, press – as the Democrats do today. They can do whatever they want and indeed are doing so. As an American, I hope they succeed. As a person experienced in the world, I don’t believe that much of their big government solutions will work as advertised and we will be paying for them for the rest of our lives.

Why are Democrats still so interested in attacking Republicans when Democrats control the whole game anyway?

I think there are three big reason:

1. Democrats suspect that today’s big government solutions will be tomorrow’s big government problems. They want to share the blame with Republicans W/O sharing decision making. Republicans are wisely staying away from this. Why get on board? They know that they will be thrown over the side if it succeeds or fails. Better not to embark on the Titanic government.

2.Democrats just cannot give up the hatred they cultivated during the last eight years. It is what holds their disparate group together. They understand that it will get harder and harder to blame Republicans past. They need a current enemy.

3.Democrats in politics are out of touch. Many are lawyers; few have actually run a business and even fewer of the younger ones are veterans. They hang around with each other and with activists exchanging their big ideas. They mainstream media confirms their opinions. They really cannot believe that some people honestly disagree with their policies. It is poignant.

I really cannot blame Democrats for this last point. It always happens after a big victory. Republicans were like that in 2004 and their victory was not as complete. It is one reason why we have political change.

Posted by: Christine at May 3, 2009 10:30 AM
Comment #281236

I noticed that I missed a qualifier.

No party SINCE LYNDON JOHNSON has enjoyed such power as the Democrats do today. It is all up to them, is what I was saying.

Posted by: Christine at May 3, 2009 10:32 AM
Comment #281237

Christine:
Yes, you are true that the Dems have a tremendous responsibility with the amount of power that currently have. But your other statements seem to come out of old rhetoric and hearsay.

Your:
1. The government grew at the LARGEST rate since LBJ under GEORGE W. BUSH, not Obama. The current size of the government is GWB’s doing. If you have a problem with that; blame him.
2. What hatred are you speaking of? For the past eight years the Dems or rather ANYONE that disagreed with the previous cabal were BRANDED as anti-American, Saddam-loving, Bin-Laden loving people.
3. Out of touch? REALLY!? REALLY!? Lawyers? Thanks for the Sunday morning laugh.

The point of this piece is that the GOP is more interested in branding and marketing their message than actually working to make change.

Posted by: john trevisani at May 3, 2009 11:14 AM
Comment #281238

John

Republicans messed up royally by bloating government. I have no need to defend Republicans I believe in right sized and effective government, one that knows its limits. Our society works best when different sections - business, government, NGOs etc - do what they do best. ALL politicians get seduced by big government. It is the biggest challenge to liberty.

I agree with you that the Republicans bloated government. No argument. Do you believe that the answer to Republican excess is even more excess by Democrats? If the deficit was a problem before, how much more a problem when it is three times as big?

Bush grew the government too much. Obama should CUT the size. Instead he will greatly expand it.

2. Democrats built their power on being anti-Bush/Republican. Maybe their hatred was justified by what Republicans did. BUT those conditions are gone. Democrats won big. Why keep up the myth that Republicans CAN block them? I think I explained the reasons.

3. All politicians are out of touch. They move into an environment of privilege & power, where “the people” are reduced to voting blocks and interest groups to be placated or opposed.

IMO - the current Democrats are drunk with the idea that they have a mandate and that they CAN remake America. The Republicans has similar intoxication in 2002-4 about security issues.

Re making real not image changes - It always takes a little while and it takes a leader. The Republicans don’t have those things yet.

I am looking beyond politics. I believe that the government can lead the country, but the best leaders are those that create conditions for others to succeed.

There is a big difference between bossing and leading. Government gets into bossing. I don’t think that works.

About lawyers etc - what % of the new Democrats in congress have significant experience in business where they actually had to manage people and things? What % are veterans who had to lead people in dangerous conditions? Each year it is fewer and fewer.

I am not worried ONLY about Democrats. Our government have been becoming more … government for long time. When you have people making laws about practical things who have no practical experience they will probably make impractical laws.

Posted by: Christine at May 3, 2009 12:31 PM
Comment #281239

I did blame Republicans John; I didn’t vote for them last November. That doesn’t mean I like this administration’s solution to take Republican ideas like the “deficits don’t matter” and “borrow and spend” to all new heights.

And I won’t vote for any Republican who tries to block Obama’s Supreme Court pick on political grounds. I hope they at least figure that one out.

Posted by: George at May 3, 2009 12:56 PM
Comment #281240

Christine,

“About lawyers etc - what % of the new Democrats in congress have significant experience in business where they actually had to manage people and things? What % are veterans who had to lead people in dangerous conditions? Each year it is fewer and fewer.”

This is a canard. Truman sold shoes, Reagan was an actor, Bush Jr barely made it out of the Air National Guard.

We’re talking about Congress here, and though you may feel uncomfortable with the make-up of our representatives, there are no “experience” requirements to be a member of the House or Senate.

Lawyers theoretically know law, Congress makes law. Businessmen and veterans, regardless of their ability to lead have no practical knowledge that would make them better candidates.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 3, 2009 12:58 PM
Comment #281241

The GOP in not changing their spots. They have this God complex wherein they believe they are right, always right, and everybody else is wrong (or un-American). It’s a theme they have followed for over a hundred years.
Grant and the Credit Mobilier scandal - remember that?
How about all those trusts that Teddy Roosevelt is famous for busting up? Yeah, I know, the GOP is all in love with Teddy now and used him the last campaign as one of theirs. They haven’t always been so fond of him.
Anybody remember Teapot Dome and President Harding?
Which party was in charge in the 1920s when the banks and the stock market were allowed to become so familiar with each other? That ideology ultimately overloaded the financial system with fraudulent and wishful thinking until the system collapsed under its own weight and gave us the crash of 1929, ultimately leading to the Great Depression. Wow! That one is just all too eerie. It gives me the willies.
How about McCarthy and the Red Scare of the fifties? How many good people paid for that one and which party led the charge? They ignored Eisenhower’s warnings and gave us the biggest military power on earth. It’s a holdover from the Cold War, but the GOP hasn’t given up on it yet.
Remember Nixon and Watergate? Remember Iran-Contra?
Where does the original George Bush rank on the scale of GOP favorites after breaking his, “No new taxes!”, promise? Probably in the same place in where they hold Teddy and Dwight. Not to trotted out until needed for propaganda purposes.
I think if Lincoln were a part of the current GOP, he too would have joined Arlen Specter and walked away from them as being truely out of touch with the People they are supposed to serve.
Don’t believe the GOP is changing anything except the way in which they serve up their propaganda. I would be the first to admit that the Democrats are far from perfect. But at least whatever they try to do includes me. It isn’t just for corporations or million and billionaires, they include me and the People. Remember the People?

Posted by: brian thompson at May 3, 2009 1:38 PM
Comment #281242

Wow, propaganda much, Brian? I suggest accepting a little dose of reality with your whacked-out view of the Democratic party…

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 3, 2009 1:55 PM
Comment #281246

Rocky

We agree. Presidents like Truman, Eisenhower & Reagan had long careers outside politics. Even Bush1 built an oil company and Carter ran a farm. The NEW politicians have never done these things. They start off as political staff or they run political feeder organizations. They are very slick at using our own money to bribe us and makes us want to let them run things for us. And in today’s congress the % of veterans is less than in the general U.S. population.

We used to demand that our leaders had at least dappled in something practical. The strength of America has always been that we didn’t have an established political class - one that does almost nothing else but politics. In our lifetimes, we have seen its creation.

I worry about people making laws who don’t have any reference to real world experience. They set standards that are impossible or maybe silly. I think that is what has been happening. It is a bipartisan problem. Politicians are becoming less and less tethered to reality. What they learn in school, talking to each other or on listening tours may not provide what they need to understand the laws they are imposing on the American people.

Posted by: Christine at May 3, 2009 3:00 PM
Comment #281247

Christine,

You are talking apples and oranges when comparing Congress to the President.

The current age requirement for Congress is 30. The age requirement for President is 46.
16 years is a long time.

In the 111th Congress there are only 25 members that are younger than I am at 56.
There are only 6 that are younger than 49, the youngest is 43.
4 of the 6 are Democrats.

We are the people that elect these folks, and we have the responsibility to elect those we think will serve, not just our interests, but the interests of all of America.

Slick presentations aside, I blame us, not those that run for office.

Rocky


Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 3, 2009 3:43 PM
Comment #281248

Rocky,

I don’t think anyone is blaming anyone but US. But to not recognize the problem is a problem in itself.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 3, 2009 4:05 PM
Comment #281249

Rhinehold,

“But to not recognize the problem is a problem in itself.”

Not recognizing the problem?

We’ve been talking about this for years, and as far as I can see, other than replacing the “offending” Congress member (assuming that we are his/her constituents), there isn’t squat anyone can do about it.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 3, 2009 4:41 PM
Comment #281250

Rocky & Rhinhold

Yes WE are to blame. AND we have to recognize the problem, but it might be structural and perhaps one of those problems of democracy which even the U.S. is not immune.

Politicians create dependencies by dividing the citizens into groups that get differential rewards from government. They create a type of tragedy of the commons. Most of us would be better off w/o some of the programs, but any one of us would be foolish not to get our piece of the government pie since government will send us a bill for it anyway (taxes).

Historically, democracies have turned to tyrannies when well organized minorities or even misled majorities have chosen the the expedient of politics to get their way in less political arenas such as business or society. Why build if you can just make a law?

America has avoided this trap for many years because of our wise constitution, our dynamism and sheer size. As James Madison noted, our great size could prevent some of the permanent factions that had destroyed earlier democracies.

In our lifetimes, this equation has changed. As technologies have brought us closer, they also have created options for divisions and subdivisions. Politicians can precisely target groups to bribe or intimidate. Professional politicians are those who do it best.

If government is small, its distribution of favors is a tolerable problem, sometimes even desirable. As it controls more of the wealth, groups belly up to the government either to get favors or defend themselves from the favor seeking of others.

The treasured American option of just minding your own business is taken away when the government is minding it for you.

I am sorry if I am not perfectly clear. I like President Obama. I wish him well. But I am profoundly uneasy about the exponential expansion of government authority.

The power of government will soon be greater than at any time in history with the exception of during WWII and even then government did not reach as deep into society.

I am troubled that the people now managing will have little or no experience in management or leadership outside the specialized sphere of government and its associated institutions.

President Obama says he doesn’t want to manage a car company and I believe him. The problem is that he DOES want a particular result and many of his associate DO indeed want to boss. Achieving results means management and government is not up to the task. The government and the UAW that now “owns” GM will not do a better job, but they will now have the power and money of government to keep them in business.

Posted by: Christine at May 3, 2009 5:16 PM
Comment #281268

Christine,

you said,

President Obama says he doesn’t want to manage a car company and I believe him. The problem is that he DOES want a particular result and many of his associate DO indeed want to boss. Achieving results means management and government is not up to the task. The government and the UAW that now “owns” GM will not do a better job, but they will now have the power and money of government to keep them in business.

While I don’t disagree completely with this statement, it begs the question, “What do you want, no goals or bad results?” Obama has not chosen to run a car company simply to put some reasonable limits and duties associated with lending them money. Isn’t that reasonable? Would you lend them money without stipulations?

Posted by: gergle at May 4, 2009 12:41 AM
Comment #281276

Christine

Much of this thread has been in response to the unsubstantiated assertions that the Democrats are mostly lawyers,have no business experience and are not veterans.The assumption hints that the Republicans have fewer lawyers,more business experience and more veterans. You have provided no basis for this assumption. You get your own opinion. You do not get your own facts. You made the statements. You do the research. You wouldn’t believe me. When you find out that the Dems have more business experience and more veterans and about the same percentage of lawyers will you switch parties or just continue making things up?

Posted by: bills at May 4, 2009 4:14 AM
Comment #281277

Christine

A quick look: http://grunt.space.swri.edu/senatevet.htm

As of 1/2/2009
The Democrats had 15 members of the Senate that are veterans and the Republicans 10.Out of that,the Democrats have 6 combat veterans,one with the Medal of Honor, and the Republicans only one,John McCain. How does crow taste?

Posted by: bills at May 4, 2009 4:36 AM
Comment #281284

BillS

Politicians in general (both parties) have fewer Veterans and people with practical experience than they did before. This is the general problem. Beyond that, the veterans are the older guys. The newer politicians are more like professional politicians. I am not as partisan as some folks here. I see problems in the general structure.

The problem I have with both parties is that they are overreaching and expanding government beyond its ability to function.

Republicans did it really badly in the last eight years. Democrats are matching the Republican bloat and raising it many times more.

Democrats a couple of years ago claimed they wanted to rein in executive power and they cried about the high cost of government. They were right back then. Now that they have power, let them act on their own convictions.

Posted by: Christine at May 4, 2009 7:55 AM
Comment #281286

>Democrats a couple of years ago claimed they wanted to rein in executive power and they cried about the high cost of government. They were right back then. Now that they have power, let them act on their own convictions.
Posted by: Christine at May 4, 2009 07:55 AM

Christine,

Aren’t you somehow forgetting the mess? Even the side of the road needs to be picked up once or twice a year or we’ll be driving through trash and garbage. Don’t you think the current growth has at least a LITTLE to do with Obama having to clean up the mess before he can start cutting back? What demension would we live in if roses grew beside the road and GLB/AIG stuff didn’t happen?

Posted by: Marysdude at May 4, 2009 8:39 AM
Comment #281287

PS:

I meant to say, ‘trash eating roses grew beside the road’…oops!

Posted by: Marysdude at May 4, 2009 8:43 AM
Comment #281305

Christine,

For better or worse, lawyers have been the dominant profession represented in political office since the founding of this country. According to the “Encyclopedia of Law and Society,” 25 of the 52 signers of the Declaration of Independence were lawyers and 31 of the 55 members of the Continental Congress were lawyers. That overrepresentation has continued throughout our history at all levels of government. For example, 26 of our 44 presidents have been lawyers.

It is not a new trend and certainly not exclusive to the Democratic party.

.


Posted by: Rich at May 4, 2009 3:21 PM
Comment #281306

Marysdude

Yes. There is a mess. A bloated government created by George Bush and a Republican congress until 2006.
We have the equivalent of a 300lb man who has let himself go. The solution to his problem is NOT more pie. President Obama, the Treasury and the Fed need to pump money into the system. But they should not use that as an excuse to cram more pie down the throat of the already obese and indulgent government.

If Democrats would just do what they said they wanted to do – rein in executive power and cut the deficit, we will be okay. To use your garbage metaphor instead of my fat-man, the solution to cleaning up garbage is not to dump more garbage on top.

Rich
There are two big differences. (1) lots of the founders were lawyers, but they also did other things. Beyond that, it was not possible in those days to just work in government and its feeder organizations because the government was smaller and the feeder organizations didn’t exist. For example, Abe Lincoln was a lawyer. He was also a farmer, grocer and barge captain. As a lawyer he worked on ordinary local cases and on RR affairs. He close to the people because he could not do otherwise. (2) the smaller government didn’t get as involved in management. Lawyers are good and necessary for the law. You don’t want them making lots of management decisions in industry, agriculture or materials sciences.

So it is INDEED getting worse. The lawyers in government are more specialized in government and government is pushing farther into the business of ordinary people and firms.

You are right that it is a bipartisan problem. It may not be fixable.It may eventually cost us our liberty. America is not immune to the trends that have affected other Republics.

Posted by: Christine at May 4, 2009 7:51 PM
Comment #281309

Well…I found out what dimension…?!?!? The world may very well be up to its elbows to the tune of 50-60 trillion dollars, and you want the US to spend a buck or two?

As far as the peripheral spending is concerned…without fixing health care, the future will be even deeper in debt…without an educated populace, we won’t have the intelligence to worry about it, and without a better energy source than oil wells, it won’t be worth saving anyway.

Posted by: Marysdude at May 4, 2009 9:28 PM
Comment #281315

Marysdude

I agree that we need to spend money and provide liquidity. The other things, not so much.

You assume bigger government will solve those problems. Experience in Europe, Russia, China etc – places with much bigger government sectors, doesn’t bear this out.

You may not know that the U.S. became the world’s biggest producer of wind power last year and will be the biggest solar producer this year. “Google U.S. biggest wind energy” to find lots of articles re. We also are the world’s biggest investors in alternative fuels. All this happened before Obama, BTW.

Re Schools – we have the best university system in the world by far. The reason is that we offer a mix of private and public institutions and lots of choice. Maybe we should try more choice in elementary and HS, as many Europeans do. They can copy our universities and we can learn from their elementary schools. Money is not the answer. We spend a lot more per student and the places that spend the most, like DC or NYC, produce the worst results.

Re health care, we spend way too much on marginal cases and the last years of life. We should ration care like the Europeans do. In Europe, a terminal patient is made comfortable and allowed to die. We try heroic measures and gain a couple of weeks. In Holland they practice active euthanasia among terminal older people and babies with serious birth defects. Bioethics is the problem; not money. If Obama can solve that, great. Good luck with getting Americans to go along with these sort of things.

Personally, I told my kids not to buy me a few months of life with expensive heroics.People should just die when it is their time. It is against nature what we sometimes do in hospitals. Just say no. That alone would save a fortune in health care.

Posted by: Christine at May 4, 2009 11:59 PM
Comment #281318

Yeah…several indian tribes, right here in this country, at one time, merely asked their elders to go find a hillside, park their old bodies next to a stump, and just wither away. There was a practical reason for that quaint custom…

You may feel that our K thru 12 public schools should become private, that all education tax monies should be applied through vouchers or other such program, or withdrawn from education altogther…perhaps shut down the Department of Education…we built our advanced degree college program on the back of our public education system. It would not be the envy of the world if it was not for the public school system. If we do not get serious about education reform, our colleges will soon not be the envy of the world. They are becoming less an envy as we speak, because the K thru 12 system has been neglected for thirty or more years, and funds for inovation, reform and school infrastructure used for war making, Congressional field trips and bridges to nowhere. I lay that neglect at the door of the ‘less government’ lobbyists. Those short-sighted powerful groups that set out to, and conspired to diminish Social Security, Education, Energy, Environmental Protections, etc., etc.

Posted by: Marysdude at May 5, 2009 3:56 AM
Comment #281337

Marysdude

You are the one advocating universal government health care. I am just letting you know what it means in practice. We already spend more than anybody else on health care. You implied that fixing health care will save money. It will. The same way the Europeans save money.

What I advocated for our K-12 was something closer to the choice and mixed system we have in colleges. Beyond that, many European countries offer MORE choice than we do. They often do it within the public system, but the key is choice. They also, BTW, rely a lot more on standarized tests.

You may think the K-12 has been neglected. I would just say mismanaged. We spend more than any other country on K-12. We just don’t get much for the money. And the decline has come in line with more money and more “innovative” methods. Maybe it is not in spite of, but BECAUSE of all this money and professional education.

So look at the models and the experience, our own and others.

The rest of the world, not surprisingly, is catching up with us. They are doing it in various ways. Most European countries have lowered their corporate taxes, for example, to levels below ours.

Posted by: Christine at May 5, 2009 2:17 PM
Comment #281340
perhaps shut down the Department of Education…we built our advanced degree college program on the back of our public education system. It would not be the envy of the world if it was not for the public school system.

Do you even know the history involved here? We were the envy BEFORE the DoE was created, we have gotten worse each and every year since the department was enacted.

Posted by: rhinehold at May 5, 2009 2:33 PM
Comment #281350

Christine,

“And the decline has come in line with more money and more “innovative” methods.”

The decline has also come as more children have become “latchkey” kids.

“They often do it within the public system, but the key is choice.”

The “choice” already exists. If you want to send your kids to a private school, knock yourself out. Remember though that “private” schools have standards that public school children don’t necessarily have to meet.
Beyond that, both my parents worked (in the ’50s and ’60s) to put myself and my three siblings through private school. This at a time when the “stay at home” mom was the rule, not the exception.
Children may have a right to an education in this country, but they need to “want” to learn. Money pulled from the public schools and given, through vouchers, to the private schools wouldn’t truly solve anything, unless we want to build more private schools, and then what’s the point.

I would bet the farm that, as the private schools become more populated with these former public school children, we will see diminishing returns on our investment in the form of a drop in the quality of education at those schools.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 5, 2009 5:31 PM
Comment #281353

Rocky

I agree that family breakdown is a big problem.

I don’t think that MOST parents would choose private schools if they had the option. But the fact that they had a choice would serve to keep the public schools better.

Again, I point to the example of our university system. U of California, Virginia, Michigan etc are excellent schools. But how good would they stay if the kids from their states were forced to go there and had no other options? AND if they got no advantage from being better or best. AND if powerful professor’s unions demanded that nobody get paid better or worse because of their greater skills or hard work.

Major public universities worry a lot about their reputations and rankings BECAUSE they compete for students and professors. I would like to see the same incentives driven into the public school system.

Posted by: Christine at May 5, 2009 8:50 PM
Comment #281361

>Do you even know the history involved here? We were the envy BEFORE the DoE was created, we have gotten worse each and every year since the department was enacted.
Posted by: rhinehold at May 5, 2009 02:33 PM

What a jerk…I’ve LIVED your silly history, where were you? While the Department has not always been a Cabinet post, it has been around for decades, and off and on for more than a century.

The Department of Education did not kill our public education system. Leadership that did not believe in public education, short sighted fools in positions of power, and obstructionists on the right weakened our public school system. The folks in charge now seem to have a positive attitude toward public education, and may be able to guide it onto firmer grounds…at least there is hope…the Bully Pulpit means a lot.

We were the envy as long as parents took an interest, and had the time to be involved in schools, school children and school activities. The envy began to fade when that parental involvement began to fade. As long as parents tried to instil a love of learning, children, in the main, loved to learn…what the hell did the DoE do to change THAT?

It was when the DoE had to become nursemaid, hand holder, substitute daddy, and diaper changer that the failure began. That was an economic problem, not an administrative one.

Watchblog Manager, I merely answered an insult with one. These Baiters get away with murder on this site.

Posted by: Marysdude at May 6, 2009 12:15 AM
Comment #281386

You think the Republicans look good? (Other than Palin’s old wardrobe)

Posted by: Aaron Hughes at May 6, 2009 5:25 PM
Comment #281404

Christine,

“I don’t think that MOST parents would choose private schools if they had the option. But the fact that they had a choice would serve to keep the public schools better.”

Perhaps one of us is missing something here.

As I said before, the choice already exists. Folks can choose to send their children to private schools, they just have to come up with the money.
I am not for vouchers, I am however, for scholarship programs for children that are capable of excelling at the pace set at private schools.

My point is not every child is capable of being accepted into a private school, and that is as it should be. Private schools should have higher standards, and should be able to choose the students they wish to accept.
If a child is able to pass the entrance exam, want to learn, and can excel, they should be helped.

Otherwise we are wasting our time, and money.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 7, 2009 10:33 AM
Comment #281576

We all need to wake up. When the sitting President says that he is “not aware” of protests involving hundreds of thousands of Americans, it is time for him to resign. He is clearly a liar. The white House was locked down when protestors threw tea bags onto the lawn. He is depending on the “sheep” mentality of the average voter to keep him in power. Nancy Pelosi would resign today if she had one iota of responsibility, as would Chris Dodd. Her wrote the huge bonuses into the spending bill and denied it. Only after being pressured did he have the balls to admit that he did it after being forced by Obama. Why is this not in the “news”? Because they don’t want you to know. The stupider you are the more they can steal from your children and grandchildren.

Posted by: JandRon the rightside at May 14, 2009 5:44 PM
Comment #281577

And, for all you people with 20/20 hindsight, I told people over two years ago exactly what Frank, Dodd And Pelosi were up to. They absolulely ruined this economy to win the white house. They were able to do so only because the average voter could NOT pass the citizenship test. The average voter has NO idea which branch of government has the control over the economy.
Obama knew this simple fact and simply had to say one word to lure the idiots into voting for him. “Change”. Well, you got exactly what you voted for. I hope your Great Grandchildren will understand.

Posted by: JandRon the rightside at May 14, 2009 5:55 PM
Comment #281655

Who licked the ‘sweet’ off YOUR lollypop?

I’m pretty sure the world is NOT coming to an end because we elected Obama to the Presidency, but if you prefer to look at it that way, more power to you.

Please remember it took almost thirty years for us to come to this pass, and ‘wingers’ have been at the forefront of the downfall for most of those years.

Posted by: Marysdude at May 16, 2009 10:29 AM
Post a comment