September 14, 2008

me vote pretty one day

9/14/08

Lemme see if I got this straight.

In 2000, we said George W. Bush was ethically-bankrupt liar who would be a disastrous President. We were right, and you were wrong.

As the protests against his illegal ascension to the White House thinned, we were told to stop being "sore losers" and that everyone had "Clinton fatigue" anyway. My wife screamed to a sparse crowd in Times Square "BUT SOMETHING MIGHT HAPPEN WHILE HE'S PRESIDENT!" She was right, and you were wrong.

In the lead-up to the Iraq War, we did everything we could to stop it. Many of us believed there were no weapons of mass destruction. We said it was the stupidest war at the stupidest time in history. We were right, you were wrong.

We said that our job in Afghanistan was completely unfinished, and that the Taliban would come back. You, however, fought to redouble our efforts in Iraq. We were right, you were dead wrong.

We begged everyone not to vote for Bush again. We said that he was a miserable failure and that his worst was yet to come. You chose to believe lies about the military record of the Democratic nominee, then made Bush our president again. We were right, you were wrong.

We bemoaned a non-functioning government where plum positions were given to old cronies who passed an ideological test. You didn't care. Then a hurricane came and almost wiped away a major American city while those same cronies did nothing. We were right and you were wrong.

We told you that laissez-faire economics doesn't work. We told you that corporations have no compunction and need to be regulated for our own good and their own good. You then brought us to the greatest meltdown in modern Capitalist history. We were right, you were wrong.

Now you've got a nominee for President who has utterly lost his moorings and has no discernable economic or military plan that is any different from his predecessor. A heartbeat away, you've nominated a Vice President who is criminally unprepared for office, and has shown the benchmarks of being a mean-spirited, revengeful twit who is impervious to facts. Listen up: WE ARE TELLING YOU THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE ANOTHER DISASTER.

On almost every issue, our record – that is, the record of progressives – has been vindicated as truth. Nobody likes sour grapes, or someone who says "I told you so," but you know what? Suck my fucking balls. This is our country too, and we're correct so often that we might as well open up a line of Tarot Card Kiosks and JUST STATE THE OBVIOUS.

So I gotta ask... how the fuck do you do it? How do you convince people to make the wrong choice again, and again, and again? You con people into voting against their economic self-interests, you convince Southern families to offer their kids as cannon fodder for a useless war, and you make Americans vote for nominees that make the rest of the world cringe with fear, rage and embarrassment.

Seriously, what's your trick? Ticklin' the prostate?

Posted by Ian Williams at September 14, 2008 11:20 PM
Comments
Posted by: chip at September 15, 2008 6:02 AM


Preach On, Ian.

This article from the Onion turned out to be the most accurate forecast of the Bush years

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28784

Posted by: Greg T. at September 15, 2008 6:15 AM

That article from the Onion is just flat-out depressing.

Posted by: Jody at September 15, 2008 6:33 AM

I like how this policy discussion from PNAC in 2000 predicts that Bush will have to deal with the "timebomb" foreign policy mistakes of Clinton:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/def_natl_sec_018.htm

There are many other jewels in the PNAC case. Unfortunately the electorate is too ignorant to comprehend or probably even read the defining policies of the past 8 years...

Posted by: Anne at September 15, 2008 6:39 AM

Click on my link; I was blogging about my disbelief and, well, despair on this subject last night. Damn. What's in the red-state water these days, anyway? If I had balls, y'all could suck mine, too.

Posted by: kent at September 15, 2008 7:03 AM

I'll tell you what's in the Red State water.

1. A deep distrust of all things 'liberal.'
2. A nostalgia for a noble past patriotic greatness that didn't actually happen.
3. A willingness to believe anything delivered embedded in the right rhetoric. A beautiful lie trumps an ugly truth every time.
4. Ignorance. Some willful, some a byproduct of working too hard for too little pays with too little benefit for the corporate overlords.
5. Distrust or rank Disbelief of news that contradicts their world view. You can SHOW them how Palin and McCain lie every time they open their mouths, and they'll think it's a liberal plot.
6. Racism. Overt or Covert, Conscious or Unconscious. I'm not imagining it, I've heard it first hand.

There is a sizeable population in the US that you can feed dogshit and tell them it's pancakes, and they'll follow you straight to perdition. That is the McCain/Palin campaign strategy.

Posted by: Ian's Muslim Friend (tm) at September 15, 2008 7:19 AM

You forgot the kicker for me: global warming.

On the one hand, you have the risk that we irrevocably destroy the planet, flood the areas where 80 percent of the population lives, create stronger hurricanes and typhoons. Fighting this threat will lead to less pollution and job creation in new industries. Every single scientist agrees that global warming is real and human-caused.

On the other hand, you have the Republicans.

So not only is there _no_ evidence to support the Republicans' position, there's no real upside to it, unless you're in the oil business or oil services business. IMF(tm)

Posted by: Anne at September 15, 2008 8:06 AM

Yay, Kent. Especially this:
"There is a sizeable population in the US that you can feed dogshit and tell them it's pancakes, and they'll follow you straight to perdition."

Including dogshit from a pitbull with lipstick? (snicker)

Posted by: Lyle at September 15, 2008 8:09 AM

I'm with Ian's Muslim Friend. Sometimes I go soft and think, well, at least if McCain wins, we'll see a woman in a higher position than ever before in the U.S., and for all the little girls out there, it will feel good to say to them, "You really CAN be anything you want to be when you grow up", but then, BANG!! -- I suddenly remember Palin's position on oil, OIL, OIL!!!! and her "Drill, baby, drill!" mantra and I totally freak out about the fate of the planet and the polar bears and whether the temperature and weather and sea levels will be viable for my grandchildren to have comfortable lives someday, and then the feeling of dread wells up again...until the next time I go soft and feel relieved that at least a woman might have the highest position so far in U.S. politics...and so on.

It's not just the economy. I want to scream out: It's the planet, stupid! We've already lost eight years' worth of potential research and funding that could have gone toward developing more energy alternatives to give us TRUE ENERGY INDEPENDENCE and help stave off drastic climate change. Now we're on the brink of electing another duo with no more commitment to ending our addiction to oil than the current idiots have. We must make a change for the sake of future generations. I hope it's not too late.

Posted by: Matt at September 15, 2008 8:27 AM

No one wants to read my take on why Ian has it exactly wrong (or how nearly every accusation made against Palin has turned out to be false), but last week I read an article that is spot on with today's topic: 'WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN?' by UVA Psychology Professor Jonathan Haidt. (He's one of you, by the way, and suffers from the same delusions, but he does make some good observations, IMO.)

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html

Excerpts:

"What makes people vote Republican? Why in particular do working class and rural Americans usually vote for pro-business Republicans when their economic interests would seem better served by Democratic policies? ...

"Our diagnosis explains away Republican successes while convincing us and our fellow liberals that we hold the moral high ground. Our diagnosis tells us that we have nothing to learn from other ideologies, and it blinds us to what I think is one of the main reasons that so many Americans voted Republican over the last 30 years: they honestly prefer the Republican vision of a moral order to the one offered by Democrats. To see what Democrats have been missing, it helps to take off the halo, step back for a moment, and think about what morality really is. ...

"When Republicans say that Democrats "just don't get it," this is the "it" to which they refer. Conservative positions on gays, guns, god, and immigration must be understood as means to achieve one kind of morally ordered society. When Democrats try to explain away these positions using pop psychology they err, they alienate, and they earn the label "elitist." But how can Democrats learn to see—let alone respect—a moral order they regard as narrow-minded, racist, and dumb? ..."

Read the whole thing, if such things interest you. It's interesting how conservatives are more able to see things from a liberal's perspective than vice-versa, and Haidt suggests ways Democrats might better connect with voters.

Posted by: T.J. at September 15, 2008 8:39 AM

I didn't vote for Bush either time, and I ain't voting Repub this time. I agree with almost everything you say, except "We told you that laissez-faire economics doesn't work. We told you that corporations have no compunction and need to be regulated for our own good and their own good. You then brought us to the greatest meltdown in modern Capitalist history. We were right, you were wrong."

Laissez-faire economics DOES work. It's just that we don't currently have a free market system. What we have is a mercantilist system whereby large corporations and the rich control the engine of government and get laws and regulations passed that benefit them. If Congress would let some of these companies fail, the survivors might learn something. Instead, we taxpayers are bailing out the mortgage industry, the auto industry, the airlines; you name it. If it's sufficiently big enough, it'll get the government to save it, to the detriment of every taxpayer, and the capitalist system itself. They have no ceiling on their profits, but government has created for them a floor on their losses.

Posted by: FreshPaul at September 15, 2008 8:43 AM

"No one wants to read my take on why Ian has it exactly wrong"

I do.

Why is Ian exactly wrong in his assessment(s)?

Assuming that you'll give a lucid and explicit riposte, you'll have articulated more specific ideas and understanding of the actual issues involved than the GOP's slate of candidates to run the executive branch.

I'm not primarily concerned if the accusations against Palin are false, tho it seems like they're more a matter of degree than anything else. No, I'm more concerned that people aren't making more accusations about McCain for picking her in the first place; his judgment in choosing her is much more of a concern than she herself, accusations notwithstanding.

Her place on the ticket is a gimmick first and foremost, and if it proves to be successful in bringing him victory in the election, then his strategery will prove more telling about American voters than about anything Palin's ever said or done.

I too read that piece by Prof Haidt. He's not wrong; he just leaps over one behemoth of an assumption or supposition...that is, that people are voting conservative in the modern world not because of the issues, but either despite them or with no concern for them. In other words, he's said more about why people don't vote for the Democratic party than why they do vote for the GOP...ie, what's the matter with Kansas besides amorphous notions of 'community'.

Posted by: kent at September 15, 2008 8:46 AM

Also important:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/216912.php

"The man most responsible for the financial services and banking deregulation that made today possible, fmr. Sen. Phil Gramm, is the man John McCain wants to put in charge of the whole economy."

Where "today" means the current financial crisis.

So let's recap. The Republican anti-regulatory crusade, not any natural disaster, war, plague, etc, allowed the home mortgage industry go into an insane feeding frenzy of dubious loans with no government oversight. The entire WORLD ECONOMY may be destabilized because of the knee jerk "REGULATION BAD!" article of Republican faith. Thousands if not millions of Americans lose their homes.

And somewhere -- somewhere very pleasant and expensive -- are a bunch of billionaires who made a bunch of money off the mortgage feeding frenzy, but who got out early because they knew it wouldn't last.

I understand the concept of 'moral hazard,' and a person doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to know when they're getting a loan that will probably screw them bruised and bloody. But I also know that

But this bullshit needs to be laid DIRECTLY at the door of the Republican Party, and in PARTICULAR at the feet of Phil Gramm. John McCain, remarkably, thinks this loudmouthed knuckledragger knows SO MUCH MORE about economics than he does, that he wants him to advise him on economic policy.

Posted by: kent at September 15, 2008 8:50 AM

Sorry, hit the post button too quick.

"But I also know that regulatory oversight could have prevented a lot of the predatory lending."

While we're on the subject -- not many remember this, but there used to be interest rate caps on credit cards. They were called 'anti-usury laws.' Thank that lovable old fascist Reagan for ramming through repeal of those laws so financial services companies could start reaping huge profits bankrupting people who don't understand debt and interst rates.


Posted by: kent at September 15, 2008 8:51 AM

MATT> I'm smiling and nodding, smiling and nodding.

Posted by: Piglet at September 15, 2008 9:01 AM

http://www.redroom.com/blog/tim-wise/this-your-nation-white-privilege

Posted by: salem at September 15, 2008 9:30 AM

Among those folks I love and adore, there are a handful of informed and intelligent McCain supporters. They seem to have three views in common.

1. They believe that Democrats will be practicing diplomacy with an enemy and not watch out for them sneaking up behind us. Somehow they see the two things as mutually exclusive. They cannot be convinced that a Democrat could defend our country. In a world where an internet recipe and a teenager pissed about the Prom, could kill thousands, they still believe that we can impose our will on the world with a gun. That quit working in the mid 90's. We need a gun in one hand,but we better have a more holistic foreign policy in the other.

2. They believe that keeping what they have will protect them in the future and that a Democrat will take what they have. They believe that a successful corporation today will bring prosperity to it's employees and America.I suggest that the "inventory" we count as wealth may stay the same, but the world economy will determine it's value, with or without us. An empowered USA can create real prosperity at such a rate that slowing down to build fences around it will only slow you down.

3. They are not affected by political lies. They dismiss the lies as part of the political game.

These three beliefs, in my experience, are the only ones that matter to my conservative friends.
I didn't bring up Roe Vs Wade because even Carl Rove doesn't believe that Roe Vs Wade will ever be overturned. McCain is a perfect example of someone who gets the Pro-Life, single issue voters, but will not say in public that he seeks to overturn Roe Vs Wade.

Folks over 50 vote. Young Americans better stand up and take responsibility this year.

Posted by: Schultz at September 15, 2008 10:07 AM

"You con people into voting against their economic self-interests"

Can someone elaborate on this please?

I am a very middle class, independent contractor paying quarterly taxes and 100% (both sides) of Social Security.

Obama wants to eliminate the cap on Social Security taxes, raise capital gains and likely raise taxes for anyone making a decent living in this country.

How is that in my economic best interests?

Please help me understand this.

Posted by: Caroline at September 15, 2008 10:53 AM

Schultz: Have you seen this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

Posted by: Schultz at September 15, 2008 10:59 AM

That's an interesting comparison.

But it does not account for Social Security or Capital Gains. The latter will have a staggering effect on my business personally. Sounds selfish, but this is probably the most important issue for me.

Posted by: Caroline at September 15, 2008 11:48 AM

Schultz: Would you be willing to tell us what line of business you are in?

Posted by: Neva at September 15, 2008 11:49 AM

I do often wonder why the very class of folks who are most likely to benefit from the Democratic economic agenda don't support it. I see that all the time in the "Nascar Dads" and "Walmart Moms" around here.
All I can figure out from living here in the South is that the Republicans have branded themselves better. To the uninformed voter they represent God and Country and for most that package sells and that's enough to get their vote. I also think the average poor to middle class white person in NC wants to think they are not poor or at least won't be much longer and they see Democrat economic policies as going to benefit those poor folks (ie blacks), not themselves.

Posted by: Piglet at September 15, 2008 12:02 PM

Obama wants to eliminate the cap on Social Security taxes, raise capital gains and likely raise taxes for anyone making a decent living in this country.

How is that in my economic best interests?

Please help me understand this.

Because the cap only benefits you if your income is over $80,000 for a single filer, $160,000 for a joint return. If you're under that, it means that you're paying full SSI while people richer than you are paying proportionally less.

Besides, eliminating that cap means that Social Security is more likely to be solvent when you yourself retire than it will be if the rich are allowed to keep extra money that would normally be subject to withholding. I'm self-employed too, and pay a lot of self-employment tax JUST FOR SSI, and it hurts. But the deal is, when I'm no longer working, I'm supposed to get that money back over time.

Which brings us to point #3--if the Republicans had had their way in 2005, your Social Security would right now be disappearing down the Stock Market whirlpool. If you're young like me, you could take comfort that it'll probably come back over the next few decades, but if you're nearing retirement age right now, be glad that Social Security is designed to be invested for safety--it won't get the best return out there, but it's not at risk of losing huge value just when you need it, either.

Posted by: dean at September 15, 2008 12:15 PM

There is a lustful distrust and dislike of the government by everyone -- have you noted the record disapproval levels of both Bush and also of Congress?

Given that the average voter hates both sides of the aisle, is it really hard to understand why there might be an inherent distrust of the political party that promises that government can be the answer?

Am I saying that Republicanism is the answer? No. I am simply stating that the average voter has a visceral dislike of the government and does not have the time in the busy schedule to research, examine, or study whether government is going to help them. The system perpetuates this problem by having "debates" that ask the candidiates to explain how they will help the world and to restrict their answer to 30 seconds.

In the end, a bunch of gobbledy-gook comes out of the candidates' mouths. Plus, both sides recognize that voters do not digest deep political positions, so almost all campaign advertising of BOTH parties appeals to the visceral, not intellectual: Obama hangs out with felons and literal bomb-throwers, Obama will raise all your taxes, McCain is old, Palin is inexperienced.

The voters have cast a pox on both parties and vote with their soundbitten ears.

Liberals may want to bemoan that voting Republican makes no rational sense. It ain't about rationality anymore and the campaigns of BOTH parties prove it.

Posted by: Matt at September 15, 2008 12:29 PM

That WaPo graph is a joke (and wrong). Not a single reference to where they are drawing their numbers nor an explanation of what their "average change" means. There's probably a good reason for that. Look at non-partisan websites that analyze this stuff and you'll see that income tax will rise for most people making less than $70k. A usual trick Democrats use is to deny that letting the Bush tax cuts expire is a tax increase. Ridiculous.

Kent, you may not be smiling and nodding on November 5, but knock yourself out. There's no need to keep telling me that you're ignoring me.

The Fannie Mae fiasco is a political scandal, and mostly a Democratic one at that. See here: http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/15/morning-bell-a-viscious-cycle-of-their-own-making/ They use lobbyists to get favorable treatment from the feds and guess who recieved the most money? Chris Dodd. Guess who received the second most? Barack Obama, and he was only there for 3 years.

Anyway, since FreshPaul asked:

"As the protests against his illegal ascension to the White House..."

It's called the electoral college. Gore lost fair and square. Recounts showed that Bush would have won under all scenarios that didn't involve guessing about overvotes.

"In the lead-up to the Iraq War, we did everything we could to stop it. Many of us believed there were no weapons of mass destruction. We said it was the stupidest war at the stupidest time in history. We were right, you were wrong."

Most of you never doubted the existence of WMDs. The worry was that Saddam would use them against us. You're still working off last year's talking points. Casualties are at their lowest ever, Al Qaeda in Iraq has been decimated, Iraq's army is in control of most provinces, it has met 15 of 18 benchmarks, and the war is now virtually won. Even Obama acknowledges the success. It's too soon to say whether Iraq will prove a stable democratic nation and have a positive impact on the region, but the signs are looking good at the moment.

"We said that our job in Afghanistan was completely unfinished, and that the Taliban would come back. You, however, fought to redouble our efforts in Iraq. We were right, you were dead wrong."

Uh, remember the "fierce Afghan winters," the mujahadeen that defeated the soviets, etc. Most leftist were OPPOSED to that effort as well. It was only after Iraq that they suddenly became interested in it, and once Iraq is out of the picture, most will go back to opposing our presence in Afghanistan again.

"You chose to believe lies about the military record of the Democratic nominee, then made Bush our president again. We were right, you were wrong."

Kerry's peers had a different view, but that wasn't what caused him to lose. He was a poor candidate in virtually every way. His VP candidate was... well.

"Then a hurricane came and almost wiped away a major American city while those same cronies did nothing. We were right and you were wrong."

New Orleans suffered mostly from an incompetent local government. The total absence of state and local first responders and failure to follow its own emergency plan magnified the short comings of the federal effort. Has any other city ever fared nearly as bad as N.O.?

"We told you that laissez-faire economics doesn't work."

TJ is right.

"A heartbeat away, you've nominated a Vice President who is criminally unprepared for office,..."

No less qualified than Obama and at least she's ran a state for 2 years. Obama's only run his mouth.

"and has shown the benchmarks of being a mean-spirited, revengeful twit..."

Huh? This is what's called projection.

"...who is impervious to facts."

Impervious to facts is exactly how I would describe her critics. Book banning? No. Teach creationism in school? No. Climate change denier? No. Slashed funding for pregnant teens? No. And the list goes on...

"So I gotta ask... how the fuck do you do it?"

No small part of it is the way you act. When you viciously smear people you disagree with and call them morons, you turn voters off. You make the object of your hatred a victim. Plus, your ideas (social_ist health care, tax and spend domestic policies, EU subservient foreign policies) are not in the best interest of the U.S.

Posted by: Matt at September 15, 2008 12:35 PM

"Which brings us to point #3--if the Republicans had had their way in 2005, your Social Security would right now be disappearing down the Stock Market whirlpool. If you're young like me, you could take comfort that it'll probably come back over the next few decades, but if you're nearing retirement age right now, be glad that Social Security is designed to be invested for safety..."

The plan Piglet is referring to would have given people the OPTION of investing a small percentage of their SS in a diversified mutual fund. People could choose to keep paying into the same system if they wanted and anyone over 50 would not have been affected at all.

Posted by: Father Tim at September 15, 2008 12:36 PM

Barrister,

Weak. Sauce.

You were down on The Liar when he was down in the polls, nice to see you coming around to your usual GOP lockstep tripe. That only tool a month or two, no? What's your favorite flavor of Kool-Aid?

Posted by: Jody at September 15, 2008 12:40 PM

Schultz,

I wouldn't see it as taxes specifically, more like this:

Republicans are not union friendly. Unions have lower and middle class workers. Taxes are irrelevant without job protection leverage.

Even with this leverage, tax and corporation laws favor the ownership and management classes, typically Republican.

Bankruptcy laws have been changed under the Bush administration to be more onerous than before. Quite obviously the accompanying rules for lending were not equally regulated. Something Republicans would oppose.

Republicans tend to favor free trade (I realize there are many exceptions to this, on both sides), reducing barriers, tarrifs and allowing for easier overseas production.

While Dems and Republicans offer large infrastructure programs, the Democrats tend to implement the parts of the programs that benefit the poor, ie: rural electrification program, The Appalachian Regional Commission portion of the Federal Highways Act.

Republicans fight environmental regulation. If you were working class, unemployed, with a defunct chemical plant in your small Louisiana town, you would be well aware that the steaming hunk of industrial refuse next to your pitiful neighborhood had been sold out by someone and you were a victim of "environmental economics". The same for incinerators, landfills, refineries, wildcatting oil rigs, mining tailings dumps, strip mining operations, etc.

All of these things would happen and you would probably be in debt to show for it. You still go for the God, guns and country slogan. I, along with Ian, find this strange.

I also look at these situations and can only conclude that the people involved were either slaves, psychologically forced into submission, screwed over by someone or intellectually deficient. The Democrats tend to offer a platform that hopes to improve the lives of those in these four descriptions.

I understand "trickle down" economics as a right-wing concept for the past 30 years. I'm not sure if it has worked, but it would seem a little obtuse compared to some of the detrimental policies obviously pushed on the working class.

I'm not a democrat or even particularly progressive, but don't understand why Republicans pick up this demographic, Matt's article notwithstanding.

Posted by: Ian at September 15, 2008 1:32 PM

Matt, seriously. I know you believe what you write, that much is clear. But you have a stunning inability to step outside yourself and look at what you're actually saying.

It's like... I'm describing a forest that is burning down, and you say it isn't because there's a ideologically-skewed website that says there's this one tree that isn't. Can you not look out your window at the windowless place you work, and see what's happening to the country?

I will argue one point, however. Gore did not lose the 2000 election "fair and square" and you know it. Let's take everything off the table except for one fact: Katherine Harris purged 57,700 eligible voters from the Florida voter list because they sounded like the names of felons. Roughly 21,000 of them were from Broward and Miami/Dade counties. That's the election right there, period. Disregard everything else if you wish, but that one illegal act made Bush president.

Posted by: Matt at September 15, 2008 1:32 PM

Father Coughlin: "You were down on The Liar"

I'm not a big fan of McCain now, either. He's merely the better of two poor choices. Speaking of "liar," what would you call a person who votes against the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, claiming he only did so because of reason X, and publicly delares his critics "liars," before later conceding that they were right all along? In fact, after it was revealed that reason X was untrue, Obama claimed reasons Y and Z for voting against the bill. Finally, his campaign manager was forced to put out a press release quietly acknowledging that reasons X, Y and Z were all inaccurate and, without apologizing to those critics he smeared as liars, cannot explain to why his candidate voted against a bill to prevent infanticide -- one that even NARAL did not oppose. If the word liar has any meaning...

Posted by: KTS at September 15, 2008 1:33 PM

I watched “La Corona (The Crown)” last night. It’s a documentary about an annual beauty pageant held in a Colombian prison for women to cheer up the inmates by getting their minds off their dire circumstances. Every cell block goes crazy for their respective candidate. Lots of chanting, cat-calling, a bit of violence, and just plain exuberance of being caught up in the spectacle. No talk on stage about the conditions of the prison. There is talk about a hopeful future and learning from the errors of the past. After the winner is crowned, there are charges of fixing the vote and racism.

“La Corona” reminds me of Republican campaigns. In short, assumptions are: The majority of voters don’t want to hear they are living in a crazy house caused by their own voting record. They don’t want to be reminded that they don’t have any real control over the system. They don’t want to hear the truth about the harsh details, or what it will take to fix things. They just want to kick some ass and Feel Good, Charlie. They want Gloss.


Posted by: noj at September 15, 2008 1:49 PM

it should also be noted that the heritage foundation backed website that Matt ref'd contained a link to a breakdown of the PAC contributions where the numbers are further roken down. Obama got 6000 bucks directly from Fannie & Freddie PACs & the rest were individual employee contributions, earmarked by employees to go to this candidate or that candidate. so, 120000 of the 126000 total in his post, written to make Obama look like he the ultimate on-the-take fannie and freddie pawn, was actually specified by individual employees who wanted to give their $$ specifically to Obama. just pointing out that, as usual, the "facts" that Matt used here are more complicated than he would have you believe. cheers!

Posted by: Matt at September 15, 2008 1:53 PM

"Can you not look out your window at the windowless place you work, and see what's happening to the country?"

The sky isn't falling, Ian, the Dow notwithstanding, but Obama's Marxist policies aren't the answer. And my office has windows!

Don't get me started on voter fraud allegations! I'm trying to keep up with Democratic shenanigans in THIS election cycle. If you haven't heard, Obama pays ACORN to help his voter turnout efforts, and they've been caught engaging in voter fraud AGAIN in Michigan and Ohio.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080914/NEWS03/809140383

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/08/cuyahoga_board_probes_voter_re.html

Posted by: salem at September 15, 2008 1:54 PM

Schultz,
Take the worst imaginable increase in your social security tax and your business/employees, then double it. I guarantee that it doesn't even come close to how this economy has hurt your business with the extreme increase in the cost of your building materials, or fuel costs for your truck.

Capital gains tax was a huge issue for small business and every day families in 2000. I dont know too many home owners or small businesses that have to worry about capital gains this year!

Are taxes really the biggest challenge or controllable cost for your business? You might be the only contractor outside of China that is having that problem in the last two years.

Congratulations. I mean that sincerely.

Posted by: ChrisM at September 15, 2008 1:58 PM

"If you prophesize that everything will suck, you cannot but predict everything that is sucky."

--Aristotle


Posted by: Matt at September 15, 2008 2:03 PM

noj, I thought Obama didn't take PAC money? And ever hear of "bundling?" By the way, how much PAC money did McCain take? Any idea? Oh well, it's probably of no significance that the top three recipients of Fannie Mae campaign contributions were Democrats, since Kent says this is a Republican scandal. If only your interest in "facts" extended elsewhere.

Posted by: kent at September 15, 2008 2:04 PM

Matt, for the record, 'Smiling And Nodding' is what I do now rather than take you on when I think you're full of crap, as I said last week. I never ignore you, I just want to avoid getting into arguments with you because you're so sure of the things you believe. I'm not convincing you, and it's an empty exercise to air my rebuttals to those who already agree with me.

Defending Palin is such a loser's game, I'm surprised you don't find a better use for your time. She is mendacious, venal, ruthless, hypocritical, ignorant, and completely unqualified for the job of President.

If you think 'nearly every accusation made against Palin has turned out to be false,' pony up boy -- it's hasn't 'turned out to be false' until it's actually turned out to be false. Read the New York Times article from Sunday's paper, which does the due diligence on Palin that apparently the McCain campaign didn't bother with.

And 'showing to be false' means something to me besides Clintonian parsing, obfuscation and further dishonesty, which is what we get from the Palin defenders on the news channels.

And that's even before considering the hard-right positions she holds, or the manifest ignorance of how the United States Government works, something she proves nearly every time she opens her mouth.

If you believe in Palin despite the ample evidence as to how bad a candidate she is, well that's not a considered judgement, that's blind faith.

Posted by: salem at September 15, 2008 2:14 PM

Schultz,
I should have mentioned one thing. From 1997 until 2008, I owned my own business with 50 employees year round. I do understand the pressures of a business owner. The contractors that ate at my restaurant from 1997 to 2001, brought their crews in with them for lunch. That changed in 2003. The ones who still have their homes and businesses, could hardly afford to eat out themselves more than once a week. It is not the governments job to magically create business for any of us. The credit goes to my employees when I succeed and it rests squarely on my shoulders when I fail. Don't kid yourself into thinking that one party or another is going to look out for the independent business person.

Posted by: Bud at September 15, 2008 3:32 PM

Dean's post sums up one of the two real problems with our current elections model: it's been reduced to the level of a cola war.

Two great PR, advertising and marketing teams battle it out for 'Miss Leader of the Free World'.

Why do people vote Republican? 40% of voters vote that way because to do anything else would create way too much cognitive dissonance. Their very identity, backed by a lifetime of statements and actions, is much more important to them than any number of facts or issues. They will believe what they want to believe.

Of course this is also true for the 40% of voters who would never vote anything but Democrat.

It's for the other 20% who actually think a little bit now and then (when they have time) that the great pageant is staged. As dean said so well, most of those decisions come down to 30 second sound bites.

(The other great problem with our elections is with the corporate financing of the great pageant; as Molly Ivins said, "You have to dance with them what brung you." )

Anyway, I still vote on issues and I think most people here are also part of that tiny minority that do the same. For us the challenge is seeing around the pageant...

Posted by: Schultz at September 15, 2008 4:02 PM


Salem- I am a commercial real estate broker. We actually do as well in down economies as good ones. And I don't think for one second that either party is going to look out for me. Frankly, I want less government in my business. Sarbanes Oxley, DENR, IRS, Zoning, Planning, Army Corps of Engineers, etc etc. It can be a nightmare but I am glad all these organizations are out there to keep developers in check.

We deal with A LOT of furniture and textile companies that have laid off workers, taken manufacturing overseas and are now only distributing here. But there are already glimpses of things changing- some manufacturing is coming back. A lot of it will come to NC- a right to work and employment at will state (something I absolutely love about NC).

Taxes, Social Security etc are a big deal to me and my clients. The credit markets have impacted our business significantly and have driven cap rates up on average by 150-200 basis points. This mean dramatic price changes or corrections to compensate for a harsher lending environment. So not only are buyers getting more picky- sellers are sitting on the sideline waiting to see what happens in November. A Democratic victory means increased capital gains taxes. This will just add fuel to an already flaming problem- no liquidity in the commercial markets. With less product on the market- Sellers will have less opportunity to roll or exchange into like kind product. Thus most people will just sit on the sideline for an indefinite period.

So yes- this will impact my business and this is why I will not be voting for Obama. I vote with my head not my heart. I'm sorry if this offends anyone here but I am really annoyed at the vitriol unleashed here on those that simply disagree.

Here is my favorite quote of the day:
"When you viciously smear people you disagree with and call them morons, you turn voters off. "

Here is why I think that quote is relevant:
"She is mendacious, venal, ruthless, hypocritical, ignorant, and completely unqualified for the job of President."

You may hate Matt. You may hate me and every stupid Republican out there. I don't care. I don't know what planet a lot of you are on.

If you cannot see that you are blinded with your own hatred, then you have far bigger problems that this election.

I'm not asking any of you to agree with me. I'm only asking that you respect my opinions because I have thought about this election and how it will impact me personlly and in my business.

Posted by: Salem at September 15, 2008 4:37 PM

Schultz,
I miss-interpreted what you meant by "independent contractor". I have no hatred for anyone in politics or otherwise. As it pertains to most businesses, I think it is best for government to stay out of the way. I also believe that today we have so many mega-monster corporations that the free market, as we used to know it, no longer exists. Companies like Tyson, which are the largest poultry producer as well as the largest pork producer, and own the largest beef producer, and own the largest soy bean oil producer, didn't used to exist.

The credit markets that are having such an impact on your business, are hurting you because government stayed out of their business. I hope you are not suggesting that government stay out of the credit markets so that you can "get yours" from irresponsible lending and cash out.

I am not an economist, but why do you think the credit markets are in such trouble?

I believe it came from a banking industry that has been gambling with other peoples money through dangerous lending. No one was watching except those that were reaping the benefits and they were scared to stop.

Posted by: Zel M. at September 15, 2008 6:36 PM

I'm late to the party, but here goes:

From Ian's original post, it's not that I disagree with any or all of the things you wrote. It's just that you have cherry-picked things that back up your view of things. Those from the right could argue that progressives were dead wrong about a bunch of things, too.

What does strike me is that the left never sees an electoral defeat as a repudiation of their way of thinking. Any time a progressive wins, well, that's the way things ought to be. But if a conservative wins, it must be an "illegal ascension" or voter fraud, a "con" or a "trick" if your guy loses.

I will say this - there is much distrust of big government in red-state America. Universal health care sounds great, until you realize it will be brought to you by the same government who brought you the TSA and FEMA. And let's not forget Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were governmental-born entities who had both Repubs and Dems on their boards.

And finally, as it relates to the fact that, given the administration of the last 8 years, Obama should have a double-digit lead over McCain: Obama is running a horrible general election campaign. Biden is asking men in wheelcharis to stand up, and more important, they are running against Palin, which is the wrong fight.

But most importantly, they are hamstrung by the Dem congress. In 2006, the Dems ran against GWB and asked for the keys to the Congress. They were elected by large margins and have since done absolutely zilch, with approval ratings even lower than GWB. Maybe, just maybe, voters are actually considering whether an unknown, grossly inexperienced candidate can actually get together with a do-nothing Congress to actually move the country forward.

I have said time and again I am eager to turn the page from the last 6 years (I was OK with GWB for the first 2) but Obama has a long way to go to prove something to me besides "he's not GWB".

Posted by: FreshPaul at September 15, 2008 6:50 PM

how about "he's less GWB than McCain is"?


that'll do.

Posted by: Ian at September 15, 2008 7:17 PM

I "cherry-picked", Zel? Fine then. Please list five things OF EQUAL IMPORTANCE TO THE THINGS I LISTED that progressives got wrong, and neo-cons got right.

Posted by: Schultz at September 15, 2008 7:21 PM

Salem,
I agree totally with your comments and am dumbfounded at how quickly banks, lenders, conduits, CMBS and others got hamstrung by this crisis. No one is lending except GE it seems.

If I am selling a building today, there is no absolutely no conduit market, the pool of buyers is greatly reduced because of new equity requirements and lenders/banks will throw out a deal for ANY reason. You are lucky to find someone with an aggregation of lenders pooling money to minimize risk.

Further, buyers (particularly private REITS) are so picky these days that if your city isn't Chicago, LA or NY, they aren't interested. This sucks for people selling stuff in 2nd and 3rd tier markets.

This will all correct itself in time. But for now it sucks.

What really pisses me off is all the high flyers getting golden parachutes, options and ridiculous compensation packages. I just don't get it. It seems no one is protecting or upholding these companies' fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders so I am all for the government getting involved- namely the justice department.

I hope whoever wins this election is sincere about "Change".

Posted by: Lyle at September 15, 2008 9:26 PM

Where's Caveman when we need him?

Actually I've come round to seeing Palin as an excellent Vice President pick.

Michael Palin, that is. Check out the funny campaign video cum Monty Python montage at:

www.michaelpalinforpresident.com

Posted by: Matt at September 16, 2008 3:14 AM

Kent wrote about Sarah Palin: "Read the New York Times article from Sunday's paper"

Yes, I saw it. Pretty thin gruel, as they say. If that's the worst their team of researchers could dig up then Palin has nothing to worry about. Not a single allegation against her was proved more likely.

I know you will find this shocking, but I like her. Sure she's inexperienced and I'd prefer she have a few more years as governor. But maybe she will change business as usual in Washington. She does have a record of reform, and you don't get 80% approval ratings by being incompetent. And she's not the anti-Christ that everyone's trying to portray, so gimme a break.

Having read "tomorrow's" blog entry, I think I will sit that one out. Sometime's I forget how personal Ian takes politics. I don't think I could get through an election season if lived and died with every twist and turn like that. (I don't want to see Obama elected, but it won't be the end of the world if he is.)

And yeah, where is Caveman? We could use some levity.

Posted by: Zel M. at September 16, 2008 7:11 AM

Ian:

I think I was thinking more globally than just GWB, and I believe my specific objection was to the "we're correct so often that we might as well open up a line of Tarot Card Kiosks and JUST STATE THE OBVIOUS" line.

As I said, I don't necessarily agree or disagree with any or all of the things you wrote. If you read my comments carefully, you will see that I am eager for a new direction, but am saddened that political discourse has turned into the race for sound bites, and that that the enmity between the sides is so palpable.

That having been said, here are things that I think progressives have been wrong about:

The Great Society: 40 years and 40 billion dollars later, how's that working out?

Reagan will provoke the USSR into WWIII (and subsequent admonitions about any Republican president): Sometimes the schoolyard bully needs to know you will whip his ass if he tries something. Sometimes the little sneaky snot-nosed kid (i.e. rogue nations, terrorists) need to know the same.

Personal character doesn't matter: We were told time and time again during the Clinton years that it didn't matter that he was getting hummers in the office from interns half his age (which would have gotten him fired from any company in America) and selling the Lincoln Bedroom for campaign cash like rooms at the Days Inn, all that mattered was getting the job done. You have twice referenced economic success under Clinton, much of which was propped-up by phanton dot-com wealth and later peppered by scandal (e.g. Enron got rich during the Clinton years - it only came crashing down in this decade). And what happened when Bubba was removed from the trappings of office - he turned into a lout and a liability on the HRC campaign trail. Character does matter.

On to more timely matters:

The Iraq surge worked. OK, we can debate whether or not we should have even been there, but once we were, rightly or wrongly, we had to make the best of it. Even Obama admits the surge worked, despite his opposition to it.

The current Congress. A historic election of the first female House speaker and working majorities in both houses, and yet this group's approval numbers are below Bush's. What are they doing - trying to run out the clock? Hope that Obama wins and they can really get to work? As I mentioned before, I think Congress may be an albatross around Obama's neck because people see the past two years with them as a sneak peek of the Obama administration.

This may or may not satisfy you, but it at least reveals my line of thinking.

Posted by: Matt at September 16, 2008 7:36 AM

"the enmity between the sides is so palpable."

True, and for all the talk about unity and bringing the country together... well it takes both sides. And there's never been a more divisive bunch since the Huns.

Posted by: Salem at September 16, 2008 8:00 AM

Schultz, I recently created a restaurant for a group of developers who put a lot of cash into the business with the intention of going to secondary markets for a low interest note after the business reached it's break even. Well, the restaurant was profitable in three months, but the secondary market no longer existed. Now they are caught without the cash they need to make deals work in todays market.

Posted by: triangleheel at September 16, 2008 8:04 AM

Just noticed the title of the day's blog- that is great!

Posted by: bridget at September 16, 2008 3:50 PM

probably too late for this but I have to ask...

Matt (repeating what he's heard) says Palin has a record of reform and 80% approval rates. What exactly has she reformed? What does this record consist of?

and... she has an 80% approval rating mostly because her oil-drenched state enabled her to cut $3200 checks for alaskans. Which is all well and fine, but it's not as if she has such high ratings for some other reason.

Posted by: Matt at September 17, 2008 2:32 AM

Bridget (repeating what she's read at Daily Kos) complains about Alaskan rebate checks. I played college hockey with a couple of guys from Fairbanks and they were receiving the same checks in the late 80s/ear;y 90s, as were all residents. It's nothing new and her popularity is much broader, but whatever helps you cope. And are really clueless about her reform credentials? Seriously? Never heard of anything, huh?

Posted by: bridget at September 17, 2008 9:49 AM

good to know your information is coming from college hockey players from Fairbanks way back in the late 80's. also love how you slant my comment by saying i "complained" about the rebate checks. nope - no complaint here. just pointing out the facts.

and seriously, i have never heard/read any real, good examples of her "reform" credentials. i've heard mccain repeatedly say she "took on the old boy network"-- since simple-mindedly repeating aphorisms seems to work for a lot of people.

i've heard her say "thanks but no thanks to that bridge to nowhere" -- but we all know that's not really what happened. her reply was more probably like, "thank you sir, may i please have another."

so there's this continual talk of how she took on the republican establishment and reformed alaskan politics. i want to know exactly what she did besides running against and beating murkowski.

that's why i asked you matt. what has she done exactly?

Posted by: Matt at September 17, 2008 11:53 AM

Dividend checks have been going out to Alaskan residents for decades, Bridget. Long before Sarah Palin burst onto the scene. You need to broaden your reading material. This stuff isn't exactly a state secret, even if you won't read about it in the pages of the NYT.

Palin did officially spike the Bridge to Nowhere (Alaskan Democrats credited her with it before it became an Obama talking point). She may have supported the construction at one time, but wisely saw it differently once she became governor and used the funds for other transportation projects instead. And while the tide was turning against the bridge in Congress, Obama and Biden both still voted to fund it. Twice! They voted for it even after the bill's own sponsor suggested using the funds for Katrina rebuilding efforts. That's some change you can believe in. It takes some real chutzpah for them to say anything about it.

Palin cut wasteful spending (personal chef, jet, flies coach, etc.), lowered the governor's travel expenses by 80%, fought "Big Oil" on behalf of taxpayers and won, pursued influence-peddling complaints against politicians and appointees, even those in her own party, toughened ethics rules, fired corrupt employees, etc. When you do that kind of thing, you make a lot of enemies. She has 80% approval ratings, but the pols she canned are unsurprisingly disgruntled.

Name me ONE THING Obama has ever done that was out of step with his party? (I'll check back in tomorrow if you need time to think about it.)

Posted by: Ian at September 17, 2008 1:46 PM

Oh Matt. Palin's excesses (tanning bed, being paid for staying home, etc.) are now becoming public knowledge. Sure, there are way worse cases than her, but to call her a penny-pinching reformer is a load of crap.

And your comment about Obama/Biden voting for the Bridge to Nowhere is so misleading as to be - basically - a lie. They voted for the 2006 National Appropriations Bill, issued by the Dept. of Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development. It contained THOUSANDS of things - go ahead and read the whole thing, I dare you:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-3058

It passed with 93 votes for, 1 against. McCain didn't bother voting.


Posted by: Matt at September 17, 2008 4:21 PM

Not true, Ian, and I think you know it. It is a FACT that her annual travel expenses are 80% less than her predecessor's ($463,000 vs. $93,000), and the per diem she collected was perfectly lawful. She was saving the state money! As for the tanning bed, she paid for it herself. You are something like 0 for 89 on Palin accusations.

And you're wrong on the Bridge to Nowhere, too. Obama and Biden voted against the amendment (the Coburn Amendment) to strike the earmark. McCain was on record opposing it. Seriously, where do you get your information?

Posted by: Ian at September 17, 2008 6:19 PM

For Christ's sake, Matt - where do you get YOUR information?

The Coburn Amendment was grouped together with 42 OTHER amendments to the same bill, and if you'd bothered to check your facts, you'd see that at the time of the vote, the bridge Coburn wanted to fix in Louisiana had ALREADY BEEN FIXED with money from the state of Louisiana's own budget.

Don't make me do your research!

Posted by: bridget at September 17, 2008 7:53 PM

ok! some reforms are listed. let's take a look...

"Dividend checks have been going out to Alaskan residents for decades, Bridget. Long before Sarah Palin burst onto the scene. You need to broaden your reading material. This stuff isn't exactly a state secret, even if you won't read about it in the pages of the NYT."

so dividend checks have been going out to alaskans for a while. however, this year's amount was $3200. 2007's amount was $1654. i'd say palin is very popular for doubling what alaskans already knew they were getting.

"Palin did officially spike the Bridge to Nowhere (Alaskan Democrats credited her with it before it became an Obama talking point). She may have supported the construction at one time, but wisely saw it differently once she became governor..."

i love how you use "wisely" instead of "begrudgingly" or "once it became clear it was a political nightmare." (She was for it before she was against it?) The fact is she fully supported the bridge to nowhere. She spiked the project when it became politically untenable (ironically just after John McCain derided the $220M earmark). She did keep all of the money though - you say she's using it for "other transportation projects." however only $25M is being used to build a road to nowhere (or gravina) instead of the bridge. i don't know what's being done with the rest of that bucketload of money. palin really likes the earmarks, despite her claims now.

"Palin cut wasteful spending (personal chef, jet, flies coach, etc.), lowered the governor's travel expenses by 80%, "

she reassigned the personal chef - she didn't get rid of her. she's still on the gov't payroll cooking now for the alaskan legislature. also, how much would the palin family need a personal chef when they do not spend most of their time in juneau? sure sounds good though to say she cut wasteful spending.

she did sell the jet, at a loss and not on ebay.

"fought "Big Oil" on behalf of taxpayers and won"

that's a very generous characterization. she's very much in favor of big oil - it's what puts bread (or $3200) on the table up there. it's the industry in which her husband works. the windfall tax is a great thing - something she joined in with alaskan democrats to pass despite objections from legislators. she would be fighting "big oil" for instance, if she was against drilling.

couldn't really find evidence of her actions against influence-peddling colleagues.

she did sign into law an ethics reform bill!

and firing corrupt employees... would that be the public safety director who refused to fire her ex-brother-in-law? i mean, who knows whether her firings were personal or not.

and about Obama...

"Name me ONE THING Obama has ever done that was out of step with his party? (I'll check back in tomorrow if you need time to think about it.)"

why should I? obama's not walking around proudly proclaiming he's a reformer while embroiled in a corruption investigation back home. an investigation which the mccain campaign is trying to get shut down using the same people and tactics as the bush admin. also - obama doesn't need to run against his party the way mccain does. republicans are pretty tainted.

thanks for the tip about "broadening my reading material" but it's entirely unnecessary.

Posted by: Matt at September 17, 2008 8:14 PM

Good grief, Ian, the Coburn Amendment failed because senators like Obama and Biden put pork ahead of people (Stevens threatened their pork earmarks if they voted against his, and Obama played ball). Even Mr. Daily Kos himself wrote: "Honestly, there's no reason for any Democrat to vote against this amendment." And the Twin Spans Bridge had NOT already been built. Sheesh. Worry about your own "research."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/10/opinion/main4435937.shtml

"The Twin Spans Bridge was 'the route I used to take to work every day,' she recalls by phone. When Eitel learned Monday that Obama and Biden helped junk Coburn’s plan to rebuild the bridge she traveled every weekday morning and evening for 14 years, she says, 'I was stunned. That bridge is critical to the economy of the greater New Orleans region.' Eitel says that Obama and Biden’s votes 'showed a tremendous lack of understanding for that community and the bridge’s importance to the reconstruction effort.'"

And what, nothing more to add to the "load of crap" you were peddling about Palin?

Posted by: Matt at September 17, 2008 8:39 PM

Bridget wrote: "so dividend checks have been going out to alaskans for a while. however, this year's amount was $3200. 2007's amount was $1654. i'd say palin is very popular for doubling what alaskans already knew they were getting."

It varied from year to year. Only the most belligerent of Palinphobes would insist her stratospheric popularity is owed to this.

"i love how you use "wisely" instead of "begrudgingly" or "once it became clear it was a political nightmare." (She was for it before she was against it?) The fact is she fully supported the bridge to nowhere."

The fact is she opposed it when she became governor and killed it when it mattered. That's a lot more than Obama and Biden can say.

"you say she's using it for "other transportation projects."

Show me anyone who is complaining that those projects are wasteful.

"palin really likes the earmarks, despite her claims now."

Most earmarks Alaska recieved were not at Palin's behest, and that $27M looks pretty small next to Obama's $1 billion worth of earmarks. Let's have that debate.

"she reassigned the personal chef - she didn't get rid of her. she's still on the gov't payroll cooking now for the alaskan legislature."

Right, and now there's one less chef on the state payroll (someone was cooking for the legislature).

"she did sell the jet, at a loss and not on ebay."

Uh, it's still a savings when you think for a second and a half to consider the maintenance and fuel costs that come with keeping the jet. Is this really difficult for you?

"she's very much in favor of big oil - it's what puts bread (or $3200) on the table up there."

It's what keeps your car moving and your house warm, too.

"it's the industry in which her husband works."

So?

"the windfall tax is a great thing - something she joined in with alaskan democrats to pass despite objections from legislators."

Right, this heelps proves my point.

"she would be fighting "big oil" for instance, if she was against drilling."

Let's not be silly. If you want to throw dung on a fire to heat your home, fine. The rest of us will use something else, and as much as we can produce ourselves instead of buying from the ME is a good thing. Let's have this debate with Americans, too.

"couldn't really find evidence of her actions against influence-peddling colleagues."

Look harder.

"she did sign into law an ethics reform bill!"

Told you.

"and firing corrupt employees... would that be the public safety director who refused to fire her ex-brother-in-law? i mean, who knows whether her firings were personal or not."

It is patently clear that the "scandal" is much ado about nothing. The PSD, disgruntled as he is, served at the governor's discretion. She could fire him if she didn't like his tie and it would be perfectly legal. Dems are getting no mileage out of this one, but if it gives you hope have at it.

"why should I? obama's not walking around proudly proclaiming he's a reformer"

Uh, yes he is. Or what do you think all that "change" is that he's been talking about? Nickles and dimes?

"trying to get shut down using the same people and tactics as the bush admin."

This is another example of liberal projection.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-mediasep17,0,6325137.story

Please have the last word, if you like.

Posted by: bridget at September 18, 2008 4:44 AM

your so gracious for giving me the last word. especially when you use language like "is this really difficult for you?" when replying back to me.

it's not difficult at all. obviously we can look at the same pieces of information and draw completely different conclusions.

finally, being an advocate of change is not the same as claiming to be a reformer. the republicans have to run a reform campaign, they've been running this country into the ground for the last eight years. is that really difficult for you?

Posted by: ruenee.com at April 14, 2013 2:47 AM

When prosperity's sake a family fully understand you and me; inside of misfortune we know a family. ruenee.com http://ruenee.com/

Post a comment





(We won't show it.)




Remember personal info?