Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiShe’s Clueless, He’s Worse
Ignorance is bliss, which perhaps explains Gov. Sarah Palin being so confidently wrong about the root cause of the federalization of most of the nation's mortgage market. But what is Sen. John McCain's excuse? Both act as if the financial meltdown of the U.S. economy has nothing to do with the policies of the political party they represent -- but she at least may not know any better.
Distracted momentarily from her campaign revelries of maverick opposition to the "bridge to nowhere," which she had supported until it became a public relations debacle, and congressional earmarks for which she, as a small-town mayor, had hustled piggishly at the federal trough, Palin made the mistake of dealing with an unscripted subject.
Referring to the government's bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Palin opined that the two had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers," displaying abysmal ignorance of the fact that only now will those privately owned banks become a huge taxpayer obligation, as the federal government takes them over. Nor can the meltdown of home values be traced to those two beleaguered institutions, because they did not make the original subprime mortgage commitments.
The housing bubble was the result of the Ponzi-scheme antics of those other financial entities: commercial banks, stockbrokers and hedge funds, which were allowed in a GOP-deregulated market to get into the "swap" business. Through the rampant reselling of loans, the obligation to collect on a loan was divorced from the act of selling it in the first place, so who cared if the recipient of the loan was not at all qualified or the appraisal of the property value was inflated, as long as the paper was traded away, or insured, before the moment of foreclosure?
As with any Ponzi scheme, the perps, who included the legislators as well as the bankers who exploited the loopholes they provided, expected to bail long before the bubble burst. The role of the legislators, Republican-led but with far too many Democratic running dogs, was critical to the success of the scam.
The mortgage swaps distancing the originator of the loan from the ultimate collector were made legal only as a result of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which former Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, pushed through Congress just hours before the 2000 Christmas recess. Gramm, until recently co-chair of the McCain campaign, also had co-authored the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which became law in 1999 with President Bill Clinton's signature. That gem, which Gramm had pushed for years with massive financial industry lobbying, destroyed the Depression-era barrier to the merger of stockbrokers, banks and insurance companies. Those two acts effectively ended significant regulation of the financial community, and no wonder we have witnessed an even more rapid and severe meltdown in housing values than during the Great Depression.
Not surprisingly, Gramm was rewarded for his service upon retirement as a senator and as head of the Senate Banking Committee with a top position at the Swiss-based UBS bank, which is close to drowning in the subprime mortgage nightmare he helped create. These folks have no shame, as was evidenced when the senator's wife, Wendy, was named a director of Enron, whose roiling of the energy market had been made possible only through yet another provision of Gramm's Commodity Futures Modernization Act.
While neophyte Palin can claim ignorance of such matters, that would be particularly difficult for McCain, who as a senator consistently lined up with Gramm in his deregulation crusade. Clearly McCain had not learned much from his previous involvement with the savings-and-loan debacle about the risks to consumers in unregulated banking.
McCain served as chair of Gramm's abortive 1996 presidential campaign, and Gramm returned the favor, providing critical support for McCain with the hard-line Republican base, including the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal. It was assumed in the business press that Gramm was the front-runner to be Treasury secretary in a McCain administration. Gramm left his role as the top economic person near McCain only after he made an embarrassing statement blaming the current economic downturn on "whiners," an awkward reference to the victims of his disastrous legislation.
Amazingly, the turmoil in the housing market, which has led to the socializing of the nation's revered homeownership market in a massive expansion of the role of big government, has apparently not troubled McCain's conservative supporters. As I said, ignorance is bliss, and evidently not just for the newbie Palin.
270 Comments so far
Show AllThe blind leading the blind??? This is getting scarier by the day.
War with Russia. This just in. Palin declares war on Russia. This stupid biatch is gonna be the one to press that red hot button and take us all down the tube. She see is Cheneys evil twin !!
Palin is just putting our bipartisan foreign policy consensus into plain English. Both McCain and Obama support NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, in which case an attack on Georgia or Ukraine is an attack on America!
Vote third party to break the Republicrat stranglehold.
Lets hope the rational thinking people outweigh the shallow thinking RepubliCONs or we're doomed to 4 more years of the same hell we've been in for the last eight...
No I don't think Obama is a messiah (& I'm offended when RepubliCONs call him that)...but I do think he cares a lot more for the REAL everyday people than John (I don't know how many houses I own) McCain. People who worry about how they're going to afford getting back & forth to work this week with gas prices so high. Who have to buy generic more than name brands because their grocery bills have doubled in the last 8 years. The kind of people who buy their socks at Wal-mart and can't REMOTELY imagine spending $300 G's on an outfit! I sure wish someone would pay ME to stay in my own home!!! That might pay for the health care I can't afford because the restaurant I worked at closed. And God help me if I was coming home late one night from my job as a bartender and I was raped in the parking lot and became pregnant. Not only would it destroy me mentally & emotionally if I was forced to carry the baby of my rapist to term, but it would ruin me financially with no health insurance. Especially if I had to pay for my own "rape kit"!!!
Sorry, but I don't want a reactionary, hot-tempered, war-hardened old man with 1 foot in the grave (who was caught singing "Bomb, bomb, Iran" on youtube) to have his finger on that red button at 3am. He'd probably push it just to go back to sleep! I want a man whose nature it is to intelligently think through a problem and approach it from all angles. Obama has the brains to adjust his thinking when new evidence arises or circumstances change.He doesn't lock into a position stubbornly and rigidly refuse to change his thinking. Lets not forget that this man graduated from Harvard Law having been head of the Law Review. THE most prestigious position there is. AND he was the 1st black man to do it. McCain, by his own admission graduated 5th from the BOTTOM of his class in the Naval Academy. Not a candidate for Mensa to be sure. With all due respect, being a "POW" might have developed his character (which has been in serious question lately) but it didn't earn him a degree in the RIGHT to be President. And since when is the Presidency a "reward" that McCain has "earned" because he was a POW & spent 26yrs in Washington? I thought it was based on whoever was BEST for the country. Silly me...And lets not overlook the fact that McCain has a well-known reputation of being nasty when he's not agreed with. On the matter of his temper, he's DEFINATELY bi-partisan, having thrown members of BOTH parties out of his office if they irked him. (again check out YouTube if you don't believe me) No wonder Bill O'Reilly worships at his altar...He sees himself in McCain. An since the media has a "if it bleeds, it leads mentality", they dutifily parrot everything the GOP says as if its gospel before later having to retract most of it when it turns out to be lies.
AMEN, I COULD NOT HAVE SAID IT AS WELL. MANY KUDOS TO YOU(DOS). I LOVE TO RHYME.
You can put lipstick on a pig, but then some Republican Senator will want to have sex with it.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
How does the democratic party plan on changing pigs?
They are going to send a hog in to lead them.
I am a Progressive but I can think of nothing useful in voting for Nader. The stakes are simply too high to piss my vote away and in essence elect McPalin. I am of the firm belief they would be a disaster of epic proportions. She is woefully unqualified and he's got one foot on a banana peel and one foot in the grave. Do I want a Dominionist with their perfectly manicured nail on the hot button? HELL NO. ENOUGH I am sick, sick, sick to death of the religious right getting their way election after election to the detriment of my Country. Any Progressive that aids and abets this travishamockery of a ticket to elevate to our highest office has only themselves to blame for the inevitable fallout that will occur.
War is Peace
Ignorance is Strength
Freedom is Slavery
Ditto. But after this election, and after I finish college this December, I am sure as hell going to try to help establish a viable alternative/independent political party. We need it so bad.
I agree with you. There's too much at stake to vote for a 3rd party candidate; they just won't win, which is unfortunate. A vote for a 3rd party candidate would give the keys to the asylum back to the inmates --- the Republicans.
Vote for OBAMA for President!
Yeah, that is the problem, both the Dem O Rats and the Greedy Oil Party have the keys.
I wished I could say the same but even though I didn't vote in the primaries, I waited to see what Obama would be like. I would have expected Hillary to run further to the rightwing on Iraq, trade, and other issues but Obama surprisngly did it all too faster. I don't see Obama standing up to the rightwing bullies even now so how can I expect to see him do so as President?
Exactly Frederick.
He bought himself the democratic ticket with audacity and hope.
Now that he has that secured, he is trying to buy the presidential ticket on conformity and despair.
Who in their right mind does not see this?
Excuse me I mean he is trying to buy the presidential ticket on acquiescence and despair. My bad.
Sarah Palin is a bully and a rube who thinks she's sooo tough. I agree with her that she's a female canine, however. She's also a racist and a sexist against her own sex; she said "So Sambo (Obama) beat the bitch (Hillary)." Being raped and then giving birth to the rapist's child is A-OK with her; she's against abortion. In Alaska, the victim of a rape is charged for the rape test kit. If it's a poor girl that can't afford it, then there's no rape charge and the rapist goes free. I think she (along with McCain) has a few screws loose. Alaska has the highest number of sex offenders, by the way.
The Obama/Biden ticket have to look beyond that issue if they want to win. Besides, Roe V Wade has already been rendered IRRELEVANT legislation after legislation these past 8 years.
Well, I've been thinking about this whole thing, and some of you who have read my posts might find that scary, but I have been. It seems to me that a fine line of distinction that goes unnoticed here and everywhere is that whomever wins will only win by plus or minus a few percentage points or less, and certainly less than ten percent of the American vote.
Every other voter can fall into the category of lifetime supporter of one of the two parties. There lies within these two realities a general hatred one for the other. Thus approx. one half of our nation hates the other half and vice versa.
Not only that but we are lined up with more of one than the other in particular states.
Of course there is a small but significant minority group ranging for zero to six percent that often if not always votes for a third party.
Then there are the non voters which account for up to forty percent of our national election group.
This is not news to anyone, but I find it a significant reality often overlooked.
Will our country eventually fracture?
Leea, your country is the ONLY place on this globe which hasn't changed its political system in a whopping 250+ years!!! I mean, you are still doing things the way they thought was great in the 18th century, i.e, before even the French Revolution!, when you had just a few million inhabitants!!!!
There is no place on earth (!!) MORE conservative when it comes to structures than the USA! I want you to know that and think about it!
Your entire system is hopelessly outdated, an 18th century KING (yes, that's what your president was originally supposed to be, they had no other role models) who is head of state and head of government at the same time, pretty much UNIQUE in the world today. Unique among democracies, for sure!!
A government that can hardly be dissolved at any time by a parliament, pretty much UNIQUE in the world as well!!!
It's as backward as these ancient household appliances they still keep selling in America or as these school-buses that look like they are from the 1950s. The world has moved on.
America is still governed by the ignorance its schools and media, both underperforming, seem to dish out to the greater public, so Americans still don't know that they are the only(!!!) country on earth that hasn't revised the way it is governed for more than two centuries! And no, it wasn't that perfect then, what they devised. It was okay, considering that they had no role models at the time. But that's just it: Okay.
And that their system is dramatically outdated and inefficient and that Americans are too uneducated to know, this is simply a tragedy. Also for the rest of the world.
I've been thinking too (but then I can do little else these days). If you look at what has happened in this country in the past eight years, you can see clearly how wedges have been driven into every segment of our society to divide us. A wedge has been driven to divide Republicans from all others; a wedge to divide the Christian Right from all other believers; a wedge dividing Patriots (war mongers) from all others; and every other area that has two sides, which is everything - it's all been riven by that wedge.
So who's responsible for having those wedges driven? I have my opinion, but I'll leave yours to you.
Actually wedge driving is a nasty by-product of ego consciousness. According to experts this crippling human tendency will absolve it's self.
I don't see it happening yet though.
I'd like to hear your opinion.
"Every other voter can fall into the category of lifetime supporter of one of the two parties. There lies within these two realities a general hatred one for the other. Thus approx. one half of our nation hates the other half and vice versa."
I'm not so sure about that. There are a lot more swing and undecided voters out there. It's just that they're not getting any attention. As far as I can tell, of those who do vote, here's the breakdown:
Staunch Democrat - 30-40%
Staunch Republican - 30-40%
Swing/Undecideds/Moderate/Independent - 20-30% - could go either way or even 3rd party if the anti-two-party sentiment is strong enough.
It's not as divided as one thinks. Also, Staunch party voters can switch to being swing voters if their opposition actually interests them. For example, I have come across gun toting, anti-abortion zealots who vote Democrat when that candidate makes ending "free" trade a central campaign theme and doesn't let the social issues arise.
"Then there are the non voters which account for up to forty percent of our national election group."
That definitely is the lower non-voter percentage and is generally higher 50-55%. That certainly doesn't bode well. I have read that statistically, the reason people don't vote is simply because they were not able to get their registration in more than those not interested in politics or don't like either party but have no hope in 3rd party candidates standing up to the system. However, while true, I would add that neither party truly motivates people to register in droves although amazingly the Democrats have been able to register new voters registered to the party while the Republicans have registered fewer for the first time. Where these new votes go to is anybody's guess. If more people were actually motivated to vote, far more voter registrations on time would be happening and the system would be forced to make room for increasing number of highly motivated newcomers into voting.
"Will our country eventually fracture?"
It already has, just not territorially obvious. Also, it all depends on which state and/or area you're in. I live in South Carolina and the state has been in total disrepair for at least 20 years, not that it was stellar even in the 1960s. YMMV for your state and/or area you're in.
Thanks Frederick. I knew my numbers were generalized and someone might tighten them up.
I still can't help but think that in essence candidacies are won on prejudice and apathy.
No matter who you vote for, this overriding theme cannot be healthy for a country.
I think if unchecked, it will eventually calcify and we will never recover.
Even the third party representatives must play this card to a large degree.
Don't you agree?
"candidacies are won on prejudice and apathy."
Prejudice, I can see that as these days all we get of the major party candidates are big empties. Apathy? I guess it depends. But how do you think apathy is really responsible for a candidate's victory?
"Even the third party representatives must play this card to a large degree."
I lost you on that one.
Nader and McKinney have both used prejudice or dislike for the nature of the other two parties and or their policies as a levering stick to bolster their support.
Apathy and prejudice go together in my opinion. The lack of really caring can be turned into caring about base and primal fears or prejudices of the 'other'. Though for some reason almost half of our population is not motivated by this maneuvering.
Did you hear Obama's joke, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.
I think he didn't really get the issue. It depends on who owns the pig.
I think he would have been more effective if he had asked, how do republicans change a pig? Put lipstick on it.
"Nader and McKinney have both used prejudice or dislike for the nature of the other two parties and or their policies as a levering stick to bolster their support." Yep. That makes EVERY human being prejudiced. In other words, having an opinion makes one prejudiced against a counter-opinion and the real world. Welcome to the real world.
ty jo, I appreciate the warm reception. The lights a little glaring though.
Ahh, I see. I did hear about the pig lipstick joke. That's 4 years old anyway and was surprised he didn't try something else. I can't be too surprised though.
As for Nader and McKinney, I can see where they can be called mere fault finders but yes, I think they had no choice but to attack the two parties because a lot of conservative voters who really care about privacy and a lot of working class citizens who really care about the economy are being blatantly sold and written off by the Republicans and Democrats. I cannot be sure what the main reason for half our population not voting is. The lack of 3rd parties to actually care but instead be tempted into fault finding sounds like another great reason why voters who don't vote are turned off.
Yes, I think it weighs in. The person that can focus on the issues and when the other side falls into petty human foibles, still focus on the issues, will be the one that can really lead us effectively.
I don't know if this will ever happen. We might be the ones who do this work.
So far I find myself sidetracked if not falling in to the petty issues. I can't seem to help it. But while I'm sidetracked, I figure I may as well make the best of it.
Heh.
Robert Scheer makes some fairly stunning revelations here: connecting Phil Gramm's lobbyist-inspired legislation directly to the mortgage crisis and pointing out that Gramm is in line to become Sec. of the Treasury in a McCain administration.
But what's even more stunning is how so few posters seem to recognize the significance of these revelations and are happy to simply paste posts that they generated on other threads.
After reading the title I thought this was going to be a Sarah Palin and Barack Obama commentary.
The situation we the middleclass find ourselves today is the result of the supression of wages over the last 25 years.The fed using the argument that raising wages causes inflation to rise.
This wage supression forced people to turn to debt to live their lifes.
Yet, they (the Fed), pumped trillions of dollars of their fiat currency into the market, destroying our purchasing power while the government and their banking buddies on wallstreet reap the profits of the hidden tax,inflation.
So, while you wonder why you working longer hours for less money in real purchasing power then you were 25 years ago? You have only one place to look..
The Federal Reserve, the handmaiden of Wallstreet.
And the Great Deregulator at the core of that change? Ronald Reagan, still the most destructive President in this country's history, and his "conservative" Republican Party. It doesn't matter who the personalities are, folks, electing Republicans means more exploitation of the American worker.
Obama needs to attack the "conservative" ideology. He did praise Ronnie Raygun in the past and has taken a lot of flack for it and I too was thoroughly disappointed. I don't remember Hillary praising Raygun.
To Beat McCain-Palin, Obama and Biden Need to Start Using the ‘C’-Word (No, not that one, the other one…)
by
Thomas J. Bico
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v6iSEPT102008Cword.htm
Also,
The Fatal Flaw of Dems' "Competence" Strategy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/the-fatal-flaw-of-dems-_b_17954.html
The "conservative" ideology has not only owned the Republican Party lock stock and barrel but also a great deal of the Democratic Party.
"Every country has the government it deserves."
(Joseph Marie de Maistre; French diplomat, writer, philosopher and politician, 1753-1821)
One might add: And the politicians it deserves.
excellent, thanks for that one A.
I've been to BOTH right wing and sights like these, trying to get both sides and an education( learning experience) as well. Trying to be open minded. And now the WINNER of the most closed minded, self serving, insulting, BOORISH postings goes to.......DRUM ROLL please.....................wcdevins.
Hey WC....do us all a favor and dial it down a few notches. You just may learn something....and there's much to learn.
Ten bucks says I'm not the first one to tell you that.
(that's for BOTH left and right wing groups)
geepers wc...you've come full circle
Are you referring to wc's comments concerning Reagan? If so, why are his comments closed minded? Are you referring to his comments concerning the Republican Party? Why are those comments closed minded?
The popular (and false) narrative in relation to the Republican Party is that they are fiscally conservative, "small" government proponents, and won't raise one's taxes. History shows this view to be patently false and in fact almost the opposite of reality. The deficit goes down with Democrats in office and government doesn't grow as much as under Republican leadership - it just grows in different sectors that I imagine many people just can't abide due to their own personal set of values.
It amazes me, in terms of Reagan, just how revered he is based again on a false narrative. Trickle down economics is a myth but it certainly does benefit those near the top of the economic "food-chain," so of course those people will find rationalizations to support his theories while everyone else is left to fend for themselves.
What we saw happening in New Orleans can be directly traced to 80's economic philosopies and their accompanying moral imperatives that allow the flawed theories to exist and even flouish while establishing the less than humane mantra that we all stand alone and either make it or not. This philosophy was propogated to enable the "trickle down" theory to flourish. Truth is we all need help and anyone who finds themselves "privileged" didn't do it on their own - somewhere, some way they were assisted. Another false narrative.
The erosion of the constitution can also be traced to the Reagan administration (Iran-Contra), which of course has benefited some circles financially so that segment (usually the powerful) will find the necessary rationalizations to justify this obscenity as well. Any time we as a nation are involved in arms dealing and cloaking it in some sort of national security cloth we as a society are suspect.
Ollie North, cloaking himself in patriotism (false) to protect Reagan and his criminal and immoral ways only places himself in that realm as well. Are these attributes that we should revere? I don't think so.
Truth be told Reagan as well as Nixon and the current Bush all deserved to be impeached and live the remaining years of their lives in disgrace - and this from the party who claims some sort of "moral" superiorty. Another false narrative.
This is not to excuse the Democrats for their mendacity, hubris, and expedient morals, but right now the subject is Reagan and the Republican party.
If these observations are closed minded in your view, then I would suggest that perhaps you're not as much a seeker of truth or education as you think you are.
To my way of thinking, if truth, sincerity, and authenticity were recognized and truly valued in our society we would be trying to decide between the likes of people like Kucinich, Hagel, Nader, Paul, Feingold, Chafee, Webb, (none perfect by any stretch of the imagination) etc. instead of McCain or Obama. But of course that will never happen - the powers that be have too much to lose to give us those kinds of choices. If it ever happens it will be because the people have taken that power and simply circumvented the power elite. We'll see.
Thanks for coming to my defense, ej, but I think he (she?) was referring to some of my name-calling and personal invective. Good stuff about the real Reagan legacy, though!
My bad, sorry.
Hey Atheist...
Welcome to the vast right wing conspiracy...*wink*
The paranoia level in here is reaching epic proportions...forget CERN, this place is going to implode into a black hole (no pun) any day now
"the vast right wing conspiracy"
I remember the time Hillary first said that phrase back in 1998. The GOP went relentless on it once Bill confessed. She did use that phrase later I think when trying to tackle the media for its rightwing bias
Right-wing Propagandists Wet Pants - Hillary Clinton Is Tougher - and Stronger - Than Them
by
Thomas J. Bico
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v6iNewHampshireresults.htm
Maybe that's why the media made sure Obama won although it was a close race in the end.
This election campaigning looks dumber and dumber every day. I wish Mccain would be honest with himself and actually discuss what he had actually done these past 26 years and explain himself and inform the public how he plans to further what he did. He says he stood up to his own party and the Democrats but doesn't specify. And he doesn't mention the bills he passed. Is that supposed to mean that those are bad policies he doesn't want the public to know about? I could pretty much say similar for Obama and Hillary.
Regardless of whether Obama or Mccain makes it to the White House, I don't see any hope for change and even those who withstood the past 8 years of the damages Bush/Cheney laid on the country and better be prepared for the worst. Even Bob Barr looks a hell of a lot better than John Mccain.
Bring America Back !!!!
**The real clueless one is Pres Bush and his incompetent Neocons. American Taxpayers must realize that all these buyouts come at the sheer expense of their pockets. If we wonder why education, healthcare, border security, and home ownership and infrastructure suffers==it is the Incompetent, Mindless, Unfeeling Repubbbies ruining our Nation !!
**Despite how adorable Sarah Palin is, and she really is, a vote for the McCain Ticket is a continuation of 4 more years of economic recession, depression, and further agrandisement of the corrupt corporate ruling structure.
**The only hope is an Obama Victory, where there will be at least an open
ear, and a chance to influence another direction for the betterment of mankind !
**On this 7th Anniversary of 9/11, let us renew our pledge to Never Forget, and revive our heartfelt intent to get Republicans out of power completely !
Hopefully, forever !!! If it has an "R" after it's name, Do Not Vote For It!
This site is crawling with Karl Rove agents pretending to be dissafected Hillary voters, or more often, hard leftists who crap on Obama and promote Nader.
memo to getreal
Karl Rove isn't on anyones campaign this go round...He's a Political Analyst for Newsweek
(maybe it's the Illuminati or the Bilderberg Group...Booga Booga)
racom40
Rove is the only reason holy joe is not the vp selection, he was/is mccains first choice. rove is in this campaign up to his lying eyeballs. Try to catch up.
Did any of you read the story Newsweek did on Sarah "Palintology" Pretty good article.
Pretty balanced in my opinion. Whether she will be good or bad for the nation seems to be anybodies guess there at NW. Still wish I could get my hands on Cheney's crystal ball.
Cheerio
If I had to guess, I'd say that in the end, Palin's not really going to bother evangelizing this country to death in an obviously blatant matter. Their priorities are all about the money. She might help Mccain smash what's left of the lower/middle/working class further and dragging more people into wars for oil but as far as more abuse of religion for control fear goes, most of that is already done.
You have to understand that these are really only symptoms of what is wrong with the Democratic Party in general. If Obama had been a true progressive/liberal populist for the past 4 years in his Senate term and had not sold his base out and pandered to the rightwing, the attacks against Obama on who was his religious leaders would have been irrelevant as he would have working class issues to campaign on. And if he had those issues to campaign on, he would most likely be going on the offensive rather than playing defensive because currently, he is running more on empty. I cannot speak for all Hillary supporters or even all Nader supporters. However, the fact remains that Obama should have seen this coming a long time ago if he was going to run for president. Now, having seen both Hillary and Obama, both their backgrounds are controversial and the GOP would have done the same thing to Hillary as they're doing to Obama although I don't know if Hillary is as controversial as Obama. As for me, I'm voting for Nader because of the important issues like I said and if that qualifies me as a far leftist, so be it. The American people really want a leftist government for a change after decades of the "conservative" ideology bankrupting America all the way. Obama gave a feeling that it was coming during the primaries and effectively labelled Clinton pro-Bush. However, his flip-floping to the rightwing and going on rightwing shows and allowing himself to be bullied into more submission to the rightwing is what convinced me that Obama will do nothing to stand up to rightwing bullies and hence, I checked out Nader and Mckinney and found out that I had nothing to lose. I may live in South Carolina which will certainly go Mccain but I wouldn't have been any different even if I did live in a "swing state". The party needs a long term R-E-P-A-I-R first and foremost. Get that done and then you can complain about Nader, Hillary, or whatever you want to blame for the GOP getting the election yet again.
"The American people really want a leftist government for a change after decades of the "conservative" ideology bankrupting America all the way. "
Americans by and large are conservative. If they were really as liberal as you claim both McCain and Obama would be lurching to the Left. I dont see ant inclination of that, starting with either the 'wars' or socio-economic issues.
"Americans by and large are conservative."
Then you're implying that CA and NY are "conservative". Sure, maybe the rural areas but even then not necessarily because they happen to vote Republican. Are you trying to tell me that Americans love getting sold out on the economic front and lied into unneeded costly wars?
" If they were really as liberal as you claim both McCain and Obama would be lurching to the Left."
No. The Republicans motivate their social "base" to identify with them while making sure that their real base, the economic elites, are given their goods. Most Democrats, on the other hand, believe in some corporate written polls and don't even try to stand up for what they claim to believe in. Obama had no business selling his base out and trying to "appease" his opposition's base even as the public made it very clear these past 4 years that we are all sick and tired of the bankrupt "conservative" ideology and would highly welcome liberalism for a change. Moderate, swing, and independent voters are seeing Obama more as an opportunist and a coward than reaching out to all. And this is the same thing that happened to Gore and Kerry. If you're going to settle for some half-baked "conservative" such as Hillary or Obama, you might as well vote Mccain and get the full deal and get it over with it. The Democratic Party has been sticking to the LOSER's handbook for this decade and even before that and must now discard it. Running to the rightwing is NOT running to the "center".
NY and CA alone won't be able to win an election, right?
The rest of America isn't only just conservative, in many of the fly-over states the general attittude is so racist and conservative that it would be branded as "extreme right-wing" or Neo-Nazi where I live. In Europe, that is.
I am amazed that some federal states on the coasts haven't tried to secede lately, quite frankly. That country of yours is bascially so conservative (no, wrong word: Basically fascist would be the right one, they don't really believe in a true democracy, these dudes) that I am surprised that it still is one country.
---"Are you trying to tell me that Americans love getting sold out on the economic front and lied into unneeded costly wars?"
Uh .. yeah. I am. The moment Bush and his Dick were re-elected 4 years ago that became abundantly clear dont you think ?
I said 'by and large', in other word a majority of Americans. The coasts tend to be more liberal but that doesnt mean much.
----"If you're going to settle for some half-baked "conservative" such as Hillary or Obama, you might as well vote Mccain and get the full deal and get it over with it."
This is B.S. If any voter follows this line of thought they must be really .. how do i put it mildly ... stupid.
Tell you what. Look up George Lakoff and framing on google and learn what framing is all about. You can't blame the voters when the party has yet to show that it is what it claims to be. There are indeed a lot of staunch "conservatives" as there are staunch "liberals". However, to win a swing voter, you don't pander to the opposition and expect to score. It never worked and never will, PERIOD
By the way, here's the most recent article from George Lakoff for you:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/11-11
"You can't blame the voters when the party has yet to show that it is what it claims to be."
Sure you can. There are alternatives. Voters can support Nader, Greens, etc but they are considered the lunatic fringe by the Dems and Pukes. The voters can definitely try NOT to choose between 2 conservative parties but yet they do .. consistently and persistently. How do you explain that?
Maybe a few, but you might want to get out of under whatever stone Obamaites are hiding under, and smell the coffee, or any other of your fav. wake up smell:
There are still a small minority of Americans who have the integrity not to vote for a war monger of either of the two war parties.
http://almusawwir.org/resistance/
Here are a few of Obama's friends,supporters relatives and preachers,just 10 reasons NOT to vote for Obama.A Hillary supporter not voting for anyone.
William Ayers - American Terrorist
Raila Odinga - Cousin, Radical Islamist
Raul Reyes - Columbian Terrorist
Antonio Rezko - Muslim Slum Lord
Professor Khalidi - Muslim Terrorist Supporter
Reverend Wright - Racist Muslim Supporter/Preacher, Anti-American
Reverend James Meeks - Racist
Reverend Louis Farrakhan - Racist Nation of Islam / Faux Preacher
Reverend. Jesse Jackson - Racist - Anti-Semetic
Nadhmi Auchi - Muslim Billionaire
Sohaib Abassi - Muslim Millionaire
When you say "radical", do you mean as radical as your criminal Rep government has been acting for the past 8 years?? Like just invading other countries on a whim and because they want their oil and because your government is made up of people too ignorant to get any job more sophisticated than man a check-out counter in Wall-Mart and such?
What do you mean by "anti-semitic"? Critizising Israel's policy vs the Palestinians? That's not anti-semitic, because in that case, half of the Israeli press would be anti-semitic. See haaretz.com, one of the most influential papers in Israel.
Are they antisemitic Jews? Oh, you don't know they even exist, right??
Or, to be nice, are you merely too uneducated to know anything about Israel and the Middle East, being obviously Right-Wing, it's not surprising, so you're just repeating some standard phrases you are told to post, which is what I sense? You personally have no f***ing clue, right? Your post sure suggests you don't.
Or else you are one of these many right-wing American Jews who think that they can buy US politics: I hope that one day you'll be proved wrong. And let me tell you that quite a few Jews around the world are very tired of you and your "influence" as well. It has only created mayhem in Israel and around the world.
You don't know enough about anything to get near a keyboard.
Posts like yours reaffirm the commitment of this lifelong socialist to make an exception and vote for the Democrat Obama, against all my best instincts. There must be something good about the guy when he inspires so much hatred and goofiness in the right's propagandists.
Exactly!
Is McCain-Palin hiding racism behind Palin's skirt?
It seems the amount of racist and crypto-racist behavior has flooded America after hurricane Palin.
I don't see any evidence that Mccain/Palin are racists. You need to put that issue behind you and get back to the issues that really matter the most such as the economy, war in Iraq, healthcare, environment, etc ... Nobody on this forum is a racist and just because someone didn't vote for Obama does not mean that he or she is a racist.
By the way, some people are mistaking Atheist as a rightwinger. Actually, she's not that kind having seen her postings.
Here's a perfect example:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From an earlier topic "Society of the Incarcerated"
atheist May 21st, 2008 9:25 pm
I love you people !!!! If this article had been published on a web site that attracts the general public, the vast majority of comments would have been "Who cares about prisoners ? Hang 'em !" The intelligent responses here make me want to cry.
The vast majority of inmates are released sooner or later, and then we all have to deal with the aftermath of incarceration. Education and rehabilitation benefits ALL of us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And here's another example:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
new
atheist August 13th, 2008 10:42 pm
I'm just not getting this anti-meat campaign here. Stop eating factory-farmed meat, I wholeheartedly agree. There's no sense in submitting animals to such cruelty because we only want to pay $x per pound instead of $2x or $3x. Plus there's the health factor.
But farms that treat their animals well and feed them good food produce meat this is good for you. My sister raises her own chickens and they are happy and healthy, well-fed, run freely, and pretty much do as they please. The ones that aren't egg layers are ultimately humanely slaughtered.
We are omnivores, let's not forget that. Lots of other animals eat meat, so obviously meat eating isn't inherently unhealthy. If you don't want to eat meat for whatever reason, that's fine. I can't stand mushrooms. But please don't think that you have a right or even a responsibility to tell responsible meat eaters to stop. Then you're like a suffocating religion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks atheist for understanding the 50 year plight of small farmers being forcefully taken over by Big Agri. Before factory farms, meat was of the grass-fed pasture raised type. It was later that petroleum manufactured corn feed with anti-biotics to suppress the side effects of corn seeds causing e-coli in cows as cows were never meant to be force fed corn feed.
I did find her comments on the foreclosure issue kind of questionable. Not everyone is fortunate and lenders can be crooks too. This crisis is the fault of both the homebuyers who wanted to misuse their homes as cash cows for profit, move in and out as quickly as possible, and the lenders who wanted fast business. Also, suing ain't always easy and lawyers these days are more expensive than at any other time since like most professions, their's has been privatized.
Update: Atheist is not mean to those folks who were tricked by bad lenders.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
atheist May 21st, 2008 8:22 pm
I have purchased several homes and am currently in the middle of refinancing. I'm well aware of how difficult it can be to buy property and select a mortgage and so I am very sympathetic to those people who truly did not understand what they were getting themselves into. I've had mortgage brokers agree verbally to rates and loan amounts and then send paperwork with entirely different figures. And having to pay for an appraisal for each broker/lender puts poor people at an even greater disadvantage, they are likely stuck with one broker/lender who knows he has no competition.
However, I suspect that most of the recent foreclosures are due to greedy people who wanted to make some quick $$$ on what they thought were sure-thing real estate markets. And they screwed up because the property values dropped. I do not want to bail these people out !!! I pray that Congress figures out a way to identify them and exclude them from any bailout program.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I realize that I probably was a bit too rough on her and do apologize for the misunderstanding.
Palin is a bridge to nowhere.
A very expensive one at that.
Cindy, Sarah, Hillary, and Michelle are having lunch.
Cindy says, "Well, I don't tell many people this, but as a result of
all his suffering my husband can now heal the sick with a touch of his
hand."
Hillary says, "How interesting! My husband has been working on global
poverty issues so much, he can now feed a multitude with a few loaves
and fishes."
Michelle says, "That's wonderful! You know that commercial that the
Republicans ran with Barack parting the Red Sea? Well, we couldn't
help but laugh when we saw it - Barack has overcome so many obstacles
that he really can part bodies of water with a wave of his hand, we
didn't think anyone else knew!"
Sarah says, "So? My daughter had an Immaculate Conception!"
for some interesting commentary from the good folks of alaska, go to craig's list, 'alaska' and head to the 'politics' discussion......
i have written a couple of times to common dreams about our comments not being in chronological order...makes it difficult to follow the comments on the comments...haven't had a response yet....
Yeesh, that discussion group is downright freakin' scary. Someone took me to task for stereotyping uneducated Palin/McCain supporters but I couldn't come near to the utter stupidity I found in five minutes on that site. These are the people we are fighting, my friends. Bigotted idiots without the sense to even vote against their own demise. Flag-waving simpletons with no comprehension of the mess they are in. Loud-mouthed windbags who think talking football would be better with McCain than Obama, so he's got their vote. Totally brainwashed Rush/O'Reilly repeaters with absolutely no ideas, intelligence or curiosity of their own. My apologies to everyone on this site whose intellect I have demeaned - we are all geniuses next to that slice of American life (shudder). Check it out, McCain supporters, and see who your fellow travelers are...
Bush-Cheney's Third Term is McCain-Palin. The names have been chanced to protect our innocence.
The press is obliging its masters and dutifully crowning the next leaders of our country (it's not a nation anymore).
Welcome to the Democratic Socialist State of Amerika. What is waiting in the wings to happen will make Germany of the '30s look like a liberal and progressive nation, protecting the rights of all citizens.
We will be getting the leaders we deserve - McCain and Palin. Just look at the majority of undereducated citizens flocking to their banner of fear and exclusiveness. They actually believe those critics pointing out the falsehoods and innuendos of these candidates are 'picking on' these real nice people.
As others have advised - learn the horst wessel and learn to give one arm salutes and do the goosestep. That may not even be enough to save your bacon. More than a few acquaintances are quietly moving what's left of any retirement and savings overseas, bit by bit. November 5 will see a stream of people becoming ex-pats that will increase as the corporate fascists consolidate their power under the new 4th Reich.
But I could be wrong !
What you point out is not a "Democratic Socialist State". Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Iceland are Democratic Socialist States and their elections are much more democratic than ours. You must mean "National Socialist State", what Germany had.
atheist,
No, I'm ticked off because I suspect you're a racist. My black friend Doug here in Winston-Salem opined this morning that most of the political discourse we're hearing these days is a mask for the fact that a white person often doesn't like someone simply because he or she is a person of color.
Obama has many positive attributes apparent to almost anybody, so why wouldn't this be a likely thought? First, he has some "decency," to use Doug's word. So did Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. Ronald Reagan?-- don't think so. Charm, yes, but decency? Remember Iran-Contra and Oliver North?
Obama is a good listener-- a very fine trait. He's been known to answer critical blogs on his own website (anybody can have one there, incidentally). I see this route as much more productive than the negative, unfocussed nature of most of the present discussion (Sarahsteria?). Please join me in trying to convince Barack Obama-- the most viable presidential candidate in decades-- not to create a new quagmire in Afghanistan, probably leading to a coalescing of all of our wars into
world holocaust, with the added argument that our problems at home now demand our undivided attention and finance.
I wouldn't say atheist was a racist just because she didn't vote for Obama. Now, since I'm neutral on Obama vs Hillary, I will say this. Regardless of which candidate were to win the nomination, one thing was already clear. The media and the GOP would continue to create a divide between the Hillary and Obama voters. Earlier in the primaries, there was speculation in some states that Hillary won because the otherwise Republican voters batted for her while in others Obama won because of the GOP voters as well. It is unclear whether Hillary or Obama would have been better. That certainly will be heavily debated and may very well split the party if Obama loses come November. I did come across atheist's posts and she supported Hillary and was looking forward to Democrats getting 16 years in the White House. I'm guessing that she might have been looking forward to a Hillary/Obama ticket or Hillary/someVP ticket that would last. I understand completely that a lot of Hillary supporters were upset that Hillary didn't get the nomination and the same thing would have happened with the Obama supporters if Obama hadn't won the nomination.
Having said all this and having read transcripts of Hillary supporters campaigning for Mccain showing pure personal animosity, all I can say is that this was a childish attack. I did not vote in the primaries because I did not trust either Obama nor Hillary but preferred Kucinich and Paul. Had Hillary won, I would have already planned to vote for Nader already. However, since Obama won, I waited to see how he would campaign but was disappointed to see him flip-flopping just like Mccain to the rightwing despite the fact that at a time such as this when the country is in utter shambles, America strongly prefers progressive/liberal leadership over "conservative" recklessness. I'm all for 3rd parties at this point because regardless of who wins this election, I see no hope for any recovery from the extreme damage the rightwing "conservatives" have done to the country.
As for Obama being a good listener, yeah maybe if you're referring to Obama listening more to Wall $treet and Bill O'LIEly over the people which is what has been the case so far. I see no evidence of his intentions to stand up to rightwing bullies once in office, not that I would have expected Hillary to be any different.
Doug's point from Winston-Salem is spot on
The only thing that Obama and any candidate running for elections will listen to, is that unless s/he changes his/her position - you will not vote for him. The rest, "decency" "responding" etc. - those are pointless. A kinder gentler face on the killing machine is pointless, and an insult to the victims of US imperialism.
Tell Obama that unless he renounces all war against the people of the world, you will not vote for him - and get the millions of hoodwinked so-called progressives to do the same, in the next month, raise Nader and/or McKinney's poll numbers to 7-10% - and then he will be forced to listen.
What you are suggesting is that people vote for him, and hope for the best - that is not how you build power, nor how you bring change. Obama is just another useless politician aiming to be the administrator of US imperialism, you owe him nothing.
http://almusawwir.org/resistance/
Would it were true, would it were true, but it isn't.
Funny, today in Fairfax, VA, Mccain/Palin had quite a few disgruntled "Hillary" voters and the campaigning was nothing about the issues other than drilling for more oil, dig up more coal, build more nukes, and nothing about conservation or even alternative renewables. The Obama/Biden ticket was not a whole lot better in Norfolk, VA. Obama spent more time reacting to Palin than going on the offensive. Like Mccain, Obama talks about plans but doesn't show his voting record to show that he did it. Even where he voted supposedly liberal/progressive, he never brings it up. I don't know how Hillary would have handled this campaign but I seriously doubt it would have been much more different though I doubt that she'd go overboard on religion or flip flop on oil drilling. She did vote against FISA for telcom but I'm not sure if she would have done that had she been the more likely nominee over Obama. I did get to read transcripts of how Obama, Hillary, Mccain, et al campaigned but I don't think there really is much of a difference in any of these candidates in both parties.
By the way, in case nobody noticed, in addition to religion, Big Military/Defense gave Obama more campaign contributions than either Hillary or Mccain earlier this year alone and probably lots thereafter. Is this why Obama is calling for nuking Pakistan and Afghanistan when that's a dumb idea? I don't know how far to the right of Mccain Hillary would have moved but the way Obama's going, I'm already feeling less regrets going Nader and am even giving Mckinney a look now that she too is on the ballot in South Carolina. A vote for Obama is a vote for Mccain and a vote for Mccain is a vote for Obama.
The first thing one does when one begins to think is to begin to distinguish. Here is seems that you have avoided this for some reason. Perhaps since you seem to feel that if you are not going to get what you think you want you are going to take your ball and go home or perhaps you have become accustomed to Republican rule.
Contrary to common belief even among the educated, (Aldous) Huxley and (George) Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think." Neil Postman, 1985
I may live in South Carolina but that doesn't mean I'm necessarily accustomed to Republican rule. Voting 3rd/Independent party is perfectly fine. I might have voted for Obama has Obama actually stood up to the rightwing bullies. That he didn't and that he accepts big money donations that dwarf Hillary's or even Mccain's was already a warning sign that Obama doesn't really intend to end the war. Looking further into Obama's voting record history, he's for continued spending on the Iraq war/occupation for oil, courtesy of borrowing the money from China until China hits the foreclosure switch of course. Moreover, he has flip-flopped just like Mccainso basically Obama has framed himself as being less open about his indirect support of the war unlike Hillary and Mccain who made it clear that they'll stay the course regardless. Not that I support Mccain or Hillary but as Bill would say "better to be strong and wrong than weak and right".
I wonder if 3rd Party voters have "thought it through" sufficiently to envision the McCain-Palin regime? Maybe James Dobson will become Minister of EDUKATION or be head of the Farenheit 451 brigades. Rush Limbaugh could be Minister of Information.
I believe Obama has a chance and I cannot use my vote to simply make a statement.
I wonder if you've thought through the merits of Democratic partisanship that gives the Republicans everything they want.
That's enough of a statement for me, thanks.
Well, I for one have and I see very little difference in the visions between Obama/Biden and Mccain/Palin. With the way Obama and now his wife are making a big deal about religion thinking that they're going to just win over evangelicals just like that, I don't see Obama standing up to the rightwing religious bullies such as Dobson. Moreoever, Obama's support of expanding Bush's faith-based bullshit from children to employment gives me no hope. It's basically a win-win for Dobson and a lose-lose for the rest of us. And don't forget that both tickets are going to spend big time on defense and empowering Big Brother. On privacy, Biden has proven to be the worst by siding with Big Media/Entertainment scumbags such as RIAA and MPAA against P2P. Privacy rights are already being shredded and Obama's pick of Biden doesn't make me feel comfortable. If Obama had picked Kucinich or even Hillary, who at this point looks "liberal" in pale comparison to Obama these days, I might have given Obama a slight chance.
To kind of paraphrase Justice John Paul Stevens of 2000, IT IS NOT CLEAR WHO WILL WIN THIS ELECTION OR EVEN WHAT THE NEXT FOUR YEARS WILL LOOK LIKE OTHER THAN TO SAY THAT IT WILL LIKELY GET WORSE. HOWEVER, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LOSERS ARE ALREADY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
Did Joe McCarthy has a hand in the 1954 version of the pledge?
I liked the 60s and 70s version "...with liberty and justice for SOME".
And the Founding Fathers wanted Church and State to be separate...oh well don't confuse Sarah with the facts.
We will not simply get 4 more years of the same I think we will get much, much worse.
Obama is going to expand Bush's faith-based programs ! And he wants to spend $500 million to send kids to bible camps.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4281940.ece
Obama: "I felt that I heard God's spirit beckoning me, I submitted myself to his will, and dedicated myself to discovering his truth."
Honestly, this kind of talk scares me. It tells me that Obama is delusional. Mentally ill.
Question: What is your opinon of having students recite the Pledge of Allegience in schools?
Gov. Sarah Palin: If the Pledge of Allegience was good enough for the Founding Fathers,it is good enough for me.
FACT: The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, 125 years AFTER the founding fathers started the USA
I guess you can put lipstick on a pig, but you cant teach it to SHUT THE FUCK UP.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
You should have asked Obama the same question, I'll bet he would have gotten it wrong too. Very few people know the origin of the Pledge. Even fewer know that the god stuff was added in 1954.
Original Pledge:
"I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
After 1923 alteration:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
After 1954 alteration:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Very good, atheist.
Now the worms of laziness croak their memory loss.
Please, do not entertain their lack of historical research. There is a swamp here of self-ordained guardians to knowledge by revisionists only. Let them find their own curiosity.
Who cares if they don't?
Could you provide some links so that we can see more info on that history?
Democrats should brace for another defeat and more in the future.
The big problem is the Demacrats campain to convince voters to vote for them, the Republicans campain to win, there is a difference until the Democrats wakeup and change tactics they will always be second best at the polls.
They aren't asleep. It's in their genes.
,
He's a senile old Republican Senator; She's an inexperienced silly person, who wears too much lipstick.......
This November the Republican Party is doomed to major defeats across the nation.
Bush has been the Worst President of the United States...ever.
SHAME >>> SHAME >>>> SHAME >>>>
,
I agree with sentence #1 but sentence #2 is a non sequitor.
All of this yapping about whose more racist, more sexist--though not without merit--takes the heat off of the real issues:
Our economy is in the dumper;
We're mortgaging our children and grandchildren's future for empiring;
We've dumped the constitution and have allowed the over-turning of habeus corpus; institution and normalization of torture; limiting the freedom of the press; we've handed our public discourse over to money, money, money which gives disproportionate voice to corporations and the very rich; and we're watching as our health system crumbles--what's ahead--we'll be like Russia some day with negative population growth. Not that a little negative population growth would be bad but when a massive erosion of the people's health signifies a degeneration of the work force and ability to be productive, it presages our ability to generate real goods and services.
Please quit yapping about the silliness and demand a real discussion of the issues. It's clear that McCain represents purely more of the same and our country cannot take it.
"It's clear that McCain represents purely more of the same and our country cannot take it."
Problem is that Obama also represents more of the same, and the world cannot take it.
http://almusawwir.org/resistance/
Atheist: I think he picked her to appeal to Fanatical,Evangelical Christians...the most frightening part of the right wing "base". I am a woman and a Catholic Christian and she sure as h*ll does not appeal to me.Will young women be inspired before or after they lose their right to choose?
To Bluegie: Palin scares many of us because behind her vapid,repetitive Stepford speeches is the Radical Christian Right and once they get a firm foothold through Palin all may be lost.Anti-environment,anti-choice and supported by James Dobson that's enough to scare me. She is another hypocrite wrapped up in pseudo-values of the neocons (e.g. pro-life and pro-war for starters)and rammed down America's throat.
Right, I should have been more specific. They chose Palin to appeal to Republican Christians, in particular the Evangelicals who are not comfortable with McCain because McCain doesn't mention Jesus every 5 seconds.
Don't forget that usually if a GOP pol is hardcore "Christian conservative", Wall $treet will favor that pol the most. In fact, Wall $treet has replaced their favorite pick Obama with Palin. Moreover, if you see how Palin actually handled the federal taxpayer money coming to her state, you'll notice that it's nearly identical to the same way Wall $treet churns the people's money. It's not religion alone but also business reasons. Mccain could have just as well picked Huckabee if his goal was to appeal to Christians.
Grappa
I absolutely despise the republican philosophy, but folks get ready for another four years of the same. You would think a brother would know how to fight , but I've come to the conclusion Obama is a wus. He's a educated fool.
Shhhhhh, you might offend Mrs. Six-Pack.
&YYY&
Large sums of money can be taken,
Only from large numbers of people mistaken,
as dupes, rabble, and wage slaves who thought,
that amassing wealth and power is a right and not a rort.
The oligarchy wants fanatical conservative moron puppets and cost is no object.
.
Nader/Gonzales is looking better and BETTER...
.
Well after watching Sarah interviewed by Newsweek in March of this year, with her trumpeting her success of working to wrestle Alaska's wealth as natural resources out from under entrenched big oil interest, I can't help but wonder what she will do for America.
Most of the rest of American's wealth currently relies on our service industry.
Being from a family that works with their hands and a state that relies on resources for it's wealth, what does she hope to do to help us all out? Our service industry runs on oil, I hope she is able to move that resource that is all locked up in AK down here so we can keep running.
Oh yeah I remember, she's going to Washington to work for St. John to serve the people, I wonder when the realization that she might have had to sell her soul and her state's resources to the devil's advocate to seal the deal?
Why exactly did McCain pick her....was it in the service of big oil?
I think he picked her to appeal to the Christians more than he picked her to appeal to women.
3 obvious reasons:
1) to solidify the evangelical base who doesn't like or trust McCain
2) to appeal to woman who are upset Hillary didn't win (especially those with a wee bit of racism...)
3) to accomplish exactly what it did: add pizazz to a convention and ticket that would have been as boring (old white men) as possible. Look what happened.
Don't forget that usually if a GOP pol is hardcore "Christian conservative", Wall $treet will favor that pol the most. In fact, Wall $treet has replaced their favorite pick Obama with Palin. Moreover, if you see how Palin actually handled the federal taxpayer money coming to her state, you'll notice that it's nearly identical to the same way Wall $treet churns the people's money. It's not religion alone but also business reasons. Mccain could have just as well picked Huckabee if his goal was to appeal to Christians.
The grab-bag mixing of Sarah Palin, Phil Gramm, and the mortgage crisis just doesn't pass the laugh test. She isn't responsible for the financial mess created by governments going back to the time she was born. She doesn't have a clue? Who does? She was asked by McCain and his cabal to add spark to his dim campaign. She is doing that. Win or lose, good for her.
Did you even read the article? Your attempt at being clever doesn't pass the laugh test. The article (like hundreds of others) explains how Gramm is one of the key players in the deregulation that led to the excesses that created the mortgage meltdown.
All he says about Palin is that she tried to comment on the federal bailout of Freddie and Frannie and she showed she doesn't begin to have a clue about the whole thing. She said that Freddie and Frannie had...""gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers," !!!??? They WERE PRIVATELY-OWNED BANKS....and NOW they've been taken over by the taxpayers!! But they weren't before. DUH! She doesn't begin to have a clue about having a clue.
Freddie and Frannie didn't contribute anything to the mortgage meltdown. They DID NOT MAKE THE SUBPRIME LOANS.
And screw all of us with Republican identity politics - Hey, looky, Merle - them publicans nominated a good-lookin' broad. Let's go a-votin' fer her if'n we kin 'ford some gas fer the pick-up. Yeah. Good for her.
Nice stereotyping.
The Repugnantins have been very deliberately 'ruralizing' the party. Imagine a party of such genuine rich bluebloods and what did you hear at the convention? Crapping incessantly on big cities, where elitist (isn't that precious that they call other people 'elitist'!!) liberals drink their lattes and look their noses down the 'real' folk of Amerka...rural folk.
Here's what Eric Margolis (great reporter) says about Palin's choice, in part:
"Palin’s emergence simply confirms the final dumbing down and ruralization of the Republican Party, and its metamorphosis into a political vehicle for the religious far right".
http://www.ericmargolis.com/
So, I can't get too upset with a characterization that polks fun at ignorant rural folk. The nasty Repugs did it to themselves. (Obviously, not all or nearly all rural folk are dumb...I come from the country. But the Repugs go after the dumb ones. Duh!
Universe created in 6 days 6000 years ago!)
It's just an example of how identity politics works, on uneducated yokels and phony pheminists alike...oops...
You are SOOOO helpful in helping to build a broad proggressive coalition! Thanks!
I think Vern and wcdevins came over from dailyKos. Kos silenced all of the Obama detractors, so now it's just one big boring Obama circle jerk over there. The angry groupies have to pick fights elsewhere.
They did this a long time ago when potential Nader/Mckinney supporters spoke up against the party's pandering to the rightwing. I haven't been to DailyKos in over a year. How was that site in 2007 when the Democrats kept giving Bush everything he wanted in Congress vote after vote issue after issue?
P.S.: Huffpost also silenced those who opposed Obama by banning them or cutting their comments when he was close to getting the nomination. In fact, most of the blogosphere, supposedly "liberal" and/or "progressive" did the same.
You should have seen the results at uselectionatlas.org throughout the primary. Interestingly, Hillary was way ahead in the popular vote most of the time all the way up to PA. Obama did finally cone out ahead but barely
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2008&elect=1
I think that if Hillary had not voted for the Iraq war in 2002, she would have been more popular this year. I can't say if her voting on other issues would have affected her since she was attacked for her vote on the war and her continued support of the war-turned-occupation. She did later acknowledge that her vote was a mistake and apologized but it was bad timing.
VERN & WC DEVINS: Excellent answers to the few who in our forum who mistake tokenism for gender progress, and fail to see beneath the skirt to the POLICIES and PRINCIPLES that would become implemented.
Hey Souixrose! Been a long time since a howdy, so...howdy:) Been enjoying your posts, keep up the good work! -aussidawg (used to post under "Shawn", at least on CD. I use aussidawg everywhere else so why not stay consistent?) Take care girl:-)
There are times when affirmative action helps. This is one of those times.
You think race hasn't played a part in Obama's rise ? That he wasn't selected as the Dem golden boy because he's (half) black ? He admitted it himself in an interview with the Chicago Tribune, available on his own web site. He admitted that if he weren't (half) black he wouldn't be where he is.
Admit it, Obama missed a golden opportunity to choose a competent woman as his VP pick. If he had, would you have called it "tokenism" ?
Withdraw all soldiers and contractors from Iraq and Afghanistan both, and fast. We've made a stupid mistake in the two places.
We need to take care of our own problems. Decisiveness on this would be a good character trait. George W. Bush and John McCain are self-delusional, not to mention the pusillanimous people who support them.
No one on that side of the question has any character. Worse, these people have put our country in decline. A curse on them all! They're un-American, un-admirable, and not what they think.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If the New York Times of 9/10 is correct in supporting President Bush on one point only, that "Afghanistan's success is critical to the security of America," we're not going to have security ever (the history of Afghanistan is very clear on this point), so we might just as well go about our business.
It's time for Afghans to take care of Afghanistan, Iraqis to take care of Iraq, and Americans to take care of America.
In future years the braindead right can exaggerate the numbers of people killed after our departures just the way they do for Vietnam.
If they had their way we still would be in Vietnam. The numbers of dead in Vietnam would be quite high by now, with the prospects for more dead in the near future also very good.
I see a likelihood for all of our wars to coalesce into a largely unforeseen, turn-of-the-century cataclysm. With or without war we are in decline, similar to all other big empires in history. What is the one word people will use to describe our fate, assuming there still are people on earth?
Uneducability.
Americans by and large are Conservative any which way you look at it. We can blame the Media all we want. We can lay the blame at the feet of the Dems and blame Obama but that is only part of the problem. Obama moving to the right actually gets him more votes than the supposed hordes of Progressive voters who have abandoned him.
McCain's move to the Right (on issues as well as VP pick) has virtually assured him the election. This should tell you how conservative we are as a nation. Instead all we hear is how the Dems screwed up by not sticking with the issues that matter to Progressives. That is incorrect and it doesn't matter how much we engage in breast-beating and hurling invectives at Obama.
How is it possible that the people of Pakistan, having one of the lowest education rates in the world and having a human development index that's virtually non-existent can overthrow a hated dictator by mass uprising while we just bend over and grease up for the next gig ?? The Media is complicit no doubt but we as a people are just plain stupid.
The meanest, hardscrabble peasants of the Dark Ages weren't as ignorant as the 21st Century American populace.
Palin was nowhere in the vicinity of Obama's riff on pigs and fish-wrap.
He was speaking of McCain's "change agenda" (the lipstick, or the newsprint) being slapped over modern republicanism (the pig, or fish carcass).
Apparently, that's too nuanced for those whose intelligence level falls somewhere between that of a lipstick tube and that of a severed fish head.
The most depressing thing about propaganda in this environment is that it no longer requires any skill.
Right. Obama has too much class to insult a lady as the Rethuglicans claim and are trying to twist his statement and smear him with lies. As far as fish and Palin, all I can say is if the shoe fits wear it.
And if Palin described one of Obama's actions as "niggardly", would Obama and his groupies cry racism ? Even though it's not a racist word ? (Who was that columnist or journalist who used the word and then suffered serious repercussions because of it ?)
Not sure why she would call Obama a cheapskate, since he hasn't exhibited any such behaviour.
However, while he's being slammed for NOT calling Palin a pig, she gets a free pass for calling hockey moms "dogs".
actually she named her children after her dogs... food for thought.
...peace...
You understand my point, you're just pretending like you don't. Same is true of Palin's "pit bull" remark.
Anyone who has actually raised pigs knows that they are very smart, extraordinarily strong, and that they make really good mothers. So even if Obama's comment was directed at you-know-who (which it wasn't), it's hard to tell who was actually being insulted -- the pig or you-know-who.
By jumping on Obama's comment, it was actually McInsane who called his VP a virtual you-know-what.
Obama is a poker player and he just raised the stakes. Miss Sarah is so way out of her league. She is arriving here in Fairbanks today for her son Track's deployment ceremony. It's beautiful here right now, all the birch trees are in their golden fall glory, and the weather is both unusually warm and humid for this time of year. Wonder if that has anything to do with the thawing Arctic Ocean ?
Anyway, I am holding in my mind the most authentic image I've seen of her -- fishing in Bristol Bay, tired but happy, glasses spattered with slime, holding a nice big sockeye . . . please, Sarah, remember your roots, you are becoming an embarrassment to Alaska and a clear and present danger to the world . . .
Obama is LOSING ! He has made several critical errors, and if he doesn't figure out how to win support instead of turning people off, McCain will win in a landslide victory.
Obama already turned off voters a long time ago based on his voting record alone. Had he voted like an assertive progressive/liberal, he would have had better issues to campaign on. Don't look at the poll numbers. Look at the long term performance of Obama. And don't forget, he went down in the polls every time he flip-flopped to the rightwing issue after issue vote after vote and even went on the Bill O'LIEly show to surrender to the scum and say that the "surge in Iraq worked" despite the already proven fact that it didn't. I'll give Hillary some credit for being able to take on Big Media unlike Obama. If Obama can't stand up to him, how's he gonna stand up to the rightwing bullies on Capital Hill as President, right?
.
http://www.votenader.org/issues/
single payer national health insurance:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
No to nuclear power, solar energy first:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Open up the Presidential debates:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Adopt a carbon pollution tax:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Impeach Bush/Cheney:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Put an end to ballot access obstructionism:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Work to end corporate personhood:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
.
Ralph -
Shame on you!
You fooled the American people enough in two election cycles to have made the difference and twice elected "W". I hope we have collectively learned our lesson and will ignore your candidacy this year!
I spoke with you several times and heard your comments on this subject as well as in the "debate" with Robert Sheer (on the "Nation" magazine cruise to Alaska), so I am familiar with your argument that the Democrats lost the election with no help from you. The facts prove otherwise! I agree that the Dems fall far short of the progressive government both you and I would like to see, and I agree that you are correct on most of the issues. However, there are political realities and this country cannot tolerate another 4 - 8 years of Republican rule. Your presence in the race does not further the progressive cause!
Thanks for reading this commentary,
David Richardson
Baloney. "The facts prove otherwise!". What facts? Did you know that David McReynolds the Socialist Candidate for prez in 2000 got more votes in Florida than the supposed margin of victory for G.W. over Gore? So why aren't Dems blaming McReynolds? Why just Nader? I'll tell you why. Because they can't fathom that their guy, Al Gore, BLEW IT! That the dim one defeated the bright one. So they have to blame Nader whom people know. Gore also lost his home state of Tennessee, and Bill Clinton's home state of Arkansas. Brilliant campaign, no? And, 300,000 plus Democrats voted FOR G.W. Bush in one Florida county alone. So please stop the spin. Nobody buys it any more. We are NOT going to ignore Nader's candidacy. Quite the contrary. Nader will hit 10% and demand being in the debates. I beg to differ with "Your presence in the race does not further the progressive cause!. It is in fact NADER, not Obama, who is advocating "the progressive cause". Obama has thrown progressives overboard. He no longer needs them.
You have your facts wrong, even after all this time.
Gee maybe the powers that be don't want an elected person who can think just be controlled.
America is screwed now my job is to stop Harper in the next election in this country so the take over of Norht America is stopped.
Get used to it, Bob. Dubya was clueless and still is. Its 4 more years!
I had to excuse myself from the boss this morning. He started telling me how terrifed he was because Obama might get elected in this time of America alone at war with the world. He started telling me we are at war with Russia, and France! I got in a "Reagan tore down the wall, but didn't have any plans for US missiles in Poland", and ran for it.
Palin is clueless, and McCain is worse. While McCain dumped Gramm for publicly sneering at all of us low-life proles and calling us whiners, he did not repudiate Gramm's economic policies, which have been so demonstrably catastrophic. To the contrary, he thought so highly of them to have Gramm as his top economic adviser. Just think for a moment about the past eight years, and imagine what for more years of the same will do to the country.
Even Robert Scheer falls for the "tragedy of the loss of housing value" lie.
To an ordinary American, stability in housing prices is a GOOD thing. It means that your property taxes remain the same, that you can sell your house easily (because it's affordable to more people) and if you need to move, you can buy another home. It keeps rents affordable.
The housing bubble started in the 80s, and that's when we first started seeing homeless people on American streets. Coincidence? I think not!
This latest bubble helped no one but real estate speculators and home "flippers". Some people may have used their homes to borrow money, but they can still pay off their loans, unless they're unemployed, in which case they will lose their homes anyway!
It bugs me that high home prices are considered a good thing, but high gas prices are considered a bad thing. This is widespread and ridiculous.
http://wagelaborer.blogspot.com/2008/09/wages-of-sin-is-death-but-profits-on.html
You're wrong, on more than one topic. Your casual mention of the homeless problem starting in the '80's due to a housing bubble is nonsense. The homeless problem began with Reagan emptying out mental institutions and putting the patients on the streets.
Second, the cruel hoax foisted on the American public by the Republican-led financial industry was abetted by Alan Greenspan urged ordinary Americans who may have not bought a McMansion to begin with to "buy into the dream." This was a deliberate ploy to prop up the economy in a Republican administration. We're all the victims of that.
Third, we're not talking about stability, we're talking about a catastrophic decline in the value of homes. To the point where if the bank is able to resell a repo'd home, they'll have to take huge losses.
It's hard to blame Bush or our government in general for the horrendously poor decisions of home buyers.
I bought my condo in 2004. I purchased a home within my means, carefully read all of the loan documents, and did not count on my home appreciating to any particular target value. I thought I would be there less than 5 years so took a 5/1 ARM. When I realized this year, well in advance of the adjustment date, that I wanted to stay longer than 5 years, I watched the rates like a hawk, locked at a good time, and refinanced. THIS WAS NOT DIFFICULT ! I have little pity for anyone who bought property for investment purposes, bought more home than they could afford, took out interest-only loans, didn't read the paperwork or at least bring someone along who could read it, or any of a number of other bad reasons that have caused so many to default.
I purchased within my means too. The City is still raising my "property value", and my taxes. What a joke--theyre just broke! I couldnt give this house away. Its worth alot less than the natl median.
I read some of the contracts that elderly and disabled people signed. They just changed them , when they felt like it, and the bankruptcy laws made it worse. You lose your house if you file bankruptcy. (Thanks to Biden and otheres)If you get sick, you have no med care.So you borrow agaisnt your house.This is the cycle that many of these people are caught in.
I have no sympathy for "flippers" or people who bought McMansions on a working class income.Or any income for that matter! American houses are just too big (It destroyed alot of open land, and most of them sit a 2500 sq. ft. house on 1/10 th of an acre--I dont get it)But, alot of lower income neighborhoods werwe targeted, the "rules" changed to allow them to break the contract or change it; alot of these people were under the impression that the mortgage cos. were "federally insured"--they remembered WWII level ways of doing business; and the peeople wh did the appraisals just lied and made off with cash.
You dont have to have participated in this mess to be hurt by it.The damn Captains of Industry just had to grab one more chunk of the middle class--they knew that most middle income peoples' wealth is in their home. They encouraged peopel to "spend out the equity". Even if they were legal OK--they were morally bankrupt.
If someone was misled by their mortgage company, then they should sue.
Yes! Are you an attorney? Will you do it pro bono? And, we should impeach Bush. And have single payer health care. Yes, they shoudl just "sue them" with al the threats to put everything into arbitration these days, that should help. We cant even get these basteres in Congress to regualte the credit card inedustry!
As I said--I did NOT get one of thsee loans. But my deceased parents' house sold for about a 1/3 of what it would have when my father died 8 yrs ago. Who do I "sue"?
Well, home values are not guaranteed. If the property value declines because other buyers are idiots, there's nobody to sue, at least not that I'm aware of. Real estate can be a risky venture. People have long viewed it as a sure thing, this is a gross misconception.
However, if the mortgage company falsely advertised or did not properly disclose closing costs, the actual interest rate, or other info, then the mortgagee has a right to sue, and should. But to be honest I wonder how a person could get through a closing without finding the error prior to signing ! I know the paperwork can be dizzying, I've done 3 purchases and one refinance. I have found mistakes each time and insisted that they be corrected before I will sign. Buying property and taking out a mortgage is not a simple process. I was very careful, worked hard to save up the money for down payment and closing costs, I am not interested in bailing out the people who risked more than they could afford to or were careless.
(duplicate)
(duplicate)
(duplicate)
Ah yes....;)...How come I knew who wrote this even before I look at the name?
Me, me, me. I am so great, I know everyone's life experiences and it was through the sweat of my brow that I pulled my self up by the bootstraps to reap the fruits of my labor. Why don't those welfare mothers get an education and work hard and defer gratification and if life hands you lemons, make lemonaide!
Sound familiar? It is the libertarians creed that never takes into account the exploitation of those who don't have someone to bring along, the loss of wages from previously secure employment, the lack of healthcare security resulting in sudden health crisis as the biggest contributor to losing the farm---and the endless variables that result in foreclosure. But the Right always, always, always blames the victims and holds themselves above as the only ones doing the right and proper thing.
I also have a mortgage--I lost my home due to flooding as the result of overdevelopment and was forced to move. I would never think to boast that I did it the right way, comparing myself to someone whose circumstances I can't know. But still, people on the Right would blame me for previously living in a flood plain. Well, it never flooded in the forty+ years that we lived there until the developers paved over the landscape. No one ever blames them.
I have worked in land developement as a surveyor/engineer for almost 30 years and I do know that impervious cover (concrete, asphalt, any surface that is not permiable to water, accelerates rainfall runoff), does indeed increase the likeyhood of flash flooding in areas that didn't previously flood because it increases the speed of runoff/water volume being drained. Also, alteration of existing natural drainage areas such as creeks and streams, channeling water from too large of an area into too small of a drainage structure, etc., which can happen gradually as deveopment expands and is not closelly monitored by the authorities responsible for overseeing the development of new areas, for being suffient to take the added rainfal runoff. Typically, it is the responsibiity of the local planning commission/city engineering department that is responsible for approving storm runoff plans for new developements to avoid exactly the problems you seem to be facing. Now, all homes must be built with a finished floor elevation one foot above the 100 year flood hazard area as determined by FEMA's National flood insurance rate maps, which show areas prone to 100, and 500 year flood hazard areas, to be eligble for flood insurance. These maps are generally available for your inspection at your local city engineer's office or the county health department. You may want to check with you city's engineering department to determine to see if in fact new developement around where you live was responsible for the fooding of your house. That might actually give you a case to pursue for damages, depending on how long ago this happened and your local developement codes. Hope this is helpfull to you!
You lost your home ... but did you go through foreclosure ? Did you sue the developers ? Do you have another home now ? Tell me how this all worked out for you. I suspect you are not in any of the categories I mentioned in my post.
I am not "the Right", btw. I've voted Dem in every prior election. The only reason I'm not voting Dem this year is because I detest Obama (and Biden too).
Why is it that you Obama groupies think that anyone who doesn't like Obama must be a right wingnut ? This is why you're going to LOSE !
These days the courts are bound to favor the developers over the residents in most cases. Usually, no one would bother to get flood insurance for a location that's never seen a flood in decades. And despite the overdevelopment suddenly making it more prone to flooding, insurance ain't cheap. Just a thought.
Ah, the mating cry of the Libertarian - "I got mine, so screw you."
How about this:
I live honestly and work hard. If you don't and you screw up, don't expect me to bail you out.
I worked hard too, for 35 years, then became disabled from an injury. Thanks to the saftety net our country has in place for circumstances such as thses, I have lost almost everything I had and struggle to put food on the table and pay utilites and rent. I don't have any problem at all with people doing well financially, in fact I like to see people succeed. However, when it comes to looking down their noses at those who have less than they do and blame it on laziness or not trying hard enough, I don't have much patience. My disabiity income from Social Security is not an entitlement. I paid into the fund for 35 years and in return, I get a meager check that isn't enough to live on. Sorry to bitch, but just remember, no matter how well off you are today, you are only a serious injury or illness away from losing it all.
So people who "screw up" should just be left on the road to die, right? You are going to give atheists a bad name
Like it's not bad enough already ! :-)
Well, I'm talking about screw ups driven by greed or carelessness. If someone lost $100k gambling, I don't want to bail them out, because they sure as h*ll wouldn't pay me a cut of their profits if they won. The money only goes one way when it comes to leeches.
That's a rather extreme example. You're not mentioning the fact that the lenders also had a role too. Sure, some are honest while the customer might not be so in those cases the lender is not at fault. However, there have been more cases where the lender tries to cheat the customer any way they can. You can't blame the customer for everything either.
test
"She’s Clueless"
And winning. So who's really clueless?
--
Eric Patton
http://www.myspace.com/412205319
Those who would have her win.
Their cluelessness is deliberate. I wonder if her's is?
Aw, hell! Phill Gramm says we are a "nation of whiners", and that our economic complaints are mostly "mental".
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/071108dnpolgramm.424e457.ht...
So stop whining, and imagining that the economy is in meltdown. Phil Gramm says its OK!
"Ignorance is bliss, which perhaps explains Gov. Sarah Palin being so confidently wrong about the root cause of the federalization of most of the nation's mortgage market."
I would have to disagree. She just doesn't believe that everyone hasn't found a way to bully their way up to the trough.
I expect that if most Americans could equally fool ingnorant taxpayers into funding sleeping in their own beds at night, that there would be no mortgage crisis... why would we care? Paying my mortgage? No problem. I get $60 per day mortgage aid. Don't you?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/us/politics/10billing.html
Referring to the government's bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Palin opined that the two had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers,"
Thank you Robert Scheer for finally offering something substantive and relevant to this debate over whether or not Palin is capable of excelling in the role of VP. I've been fed up with all these character based arguments.
We've been falling into the GOP's trap! They want to make this election a referendum on 'character' and 'family values' the same way they did so successfully with GWB, the guy you want to have a beer with.
This election should be about policies, platforms, and judgment!
Then why is Obama making pig and fish comments ?
Because they've fallen into the GOP's trap.
I have to give credit to the people who run these GOP campaigns. They make obnoxious yet brilliant plays that put them on the offense and win them elections. Bush's pandering to the evangelicals, Kerry's swiftboating, and now, it appears, Palin.
And what does Obama do ? Alienate the Hillary supporters, choose Biden as his VP, and now make double-entendre sexist insults. The stupidity of his actions astounds me.
Ah yes, so political brilliance is appealing to the lowest common denominator?
Get over it. Clinton lost and she was-is not admired or repected by progressives--including progressive women. Hillary appealed to the lower angels of racism and militarism and basically ran a Republican campign against Obama in the Democratic primaries. She did a lot of damage. I think you overestimate her support--especially here. Your arguments, which you repeat endlessly, basically reinforce the Right's repeated complaint. Why are you here?
She is here because she is trying to have an intelligent conversation. Unfortunately a few folks have shown up here lately that seem to believe that they own the site and their opinion is the only one that counts.
If you can't answer her respectfully and give intelligent counter arguments what are you here for?
You are correct. People have to go back and look at the user overall. Believe it or not, she's no rightwinger although her take on the foreclosure crisis felt a bit too harsh to some who weren't as fortunate as her. Still, now that I sat down and thought about it, I realized that no two people are alike. Sure, I get disgusted with too many staunch "conservatives" and even those who refuse to acknowledge who the candidate he or she blindly supports really is. I think we're all going to have to realize that these forums are meant to get us all to know one another and eventually find some common ground. Again, my apologies to atheist. I would also like to say this to those who are mad at me for not supporting Obama. Look, I wished I could support the guy. However, when it comes to voting for someone running for political office, looking at the candidate's background relating to the position is important. After all, when we apply for jobs in our lives, we are questioned on skills, knowledge, experience, judgement, etc ... Sure, personality can help but it's not as much of a major factor in determining the make or break unless of course you show up looking shabby at a job interview.
P.S.: As far as the Hillary vs Obama thing is concerned, from all the looks of it, I think both of them damaged each other regardless of who started it. The media and the GOP saw to it that the Democratic primary would end up being between Hilary and Obama to divide the Democrats on race and/or gender. The plan was if Hillary won, she would be tagged as a racist and that black and/or young voters would stay home or even flock to the GOP whereas if Obama won, he would be tagged as a sexist and that women voters would not vote and/or flock to the GOP. This division was purposely created to distract the public from the real issues facing us all be it the bankruptcies, foreclosures, gas prices and crude oil prices affecting the prices of everything, war in Iraq getting worse than Vietnam, Afghanistan slipping right back into the hands of the Taliban, healthcare gone worse, etc ... We progressives and liberals had better sit down and ask ourselves how many more elections do we keep having to lose like this allowing the GOP and the media to divide us election after election. It is long time to unite and find populist Democrats who will not let the rightwing bullies walk all over us. Do that and watch Democrats win even red states such as my state of South Carolina.
Ah yes, the amen choir reinforcing the notion of intelligence by spewing Right-wing talking points over and over. Oh my, Mr. Political correctness is scolding those rude ones who would have the audacity to confront the obvious. More of that old demand for civility from the unethical, immoral Right while they deregulate (break laws)so they can loot the treasury, send poor kids off to kill and be killed for Rich mans wars, enrich their cronies at the expense of the common good and then whine about the anger and rudeness of those who would challenge the thugs. Your claim is like the Republicans complaining about the liberal press--to them the truth is a liberal conspiracy and it is disrespectful to disagree.
I'm beginning to think that Vern is a McCain supporter posing as an Obama groupie.
If you guys arent careful , you will end up being dominated by a few self-appointed pundits for Obama--like 1000 other sites.NO, I'm not a "GOP TROLL", so back off!
Referring to the government's bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Palin opined that the two had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers,"
God help us if she is elected VP
Try and take Finance 101 again
She also asked just what is it a VP does. Yes, I already checked it. There's a video on Youtube that I viewed where she asked that question. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8yT1H4gPKs It's 3 minutes into the video. You've got to ask yourself when H.L. Mencken is going to be wrong when he stated his prediction that in the U.S. we'd eventually end up electing an idiot only on this ticket we get two.
What’s the difference between the Bush administration and a McCain administration?
Wait for it.
McCain will put lipstick on the pig.
Of course, it’s so obvious. Why didn’t Obama just come out and say it. Then he could have said “Oh, come on, it’s only a joke. Kind of like ‘Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran’ or ‘that’s all we need, another black man asking for change.’ Those are just jokes too right? What, only you guys get to tell them? You can dish it out but you can’t take it? Wow, how small…”
We need to pass this joke around and repeat it until it’s an embarrassment to the McCain campaign and to that pit bull in lipstick. That’s how they’d do it. We can make it out mantra… “John McCain, lipstick on a pig.”
And then when anybody asks you what you think and Sarah Palin make sure and respond “I think she’s a pig.” Simple as that.
Everybody loves a joke. The right seems to especially love one. What will they think of this one? It should be repeated ad nausea.
And then we could get a whole line of “What’s the difference between a Hockey Mom and a …”
What’s the difference between a Hockey Mom and a pig? A pig would have better judgment than to name her sons Track and Trig.
We need to come up with a blues song, “Put Lipstick On That Pig.”
What’s the difference between a 42 year old hockey mom that wears an American flag bikini while toting a gun and bad-mouthing community activists and telling lies about “thanks but no thanks”-after I originally said show me the money about a boondoggle bridge to nowhere, and who spews venomous hate speech while burning books, and a pit bull?
Answer: One is a cuddly, friendly, warm blooded creature and the other wears lipstick.
What’s the difference between a Hockey mom in Washington and a Pig wearing lipstick?
One is pork, the other likes it.
Hey, if you have read any of my posts you will know that I am not a McLame/Palin fan,
but you do know that the picture you reference..."42 year old hockey mom that wears an American flag bikini while toting a gun"...is a fake picture?? She has enough
real problems we can bash her for, please don't be like the Repubs and make shit up.
Also according to FactCheck.org she did not burn any books, even though she apparently did "ask" about banning some.
Cindy and John go out on the town one night for dinner at a local diner. The waiter approaches Cindy and asks what she would like for supper. She looks at the menu and after thinking for a few minutes replys that she would like the chicken fried steak, a salad, a glass of iced tea and a piece of apple pie. The waiter then asks her "and what would you like for your vegetable?" She answers "oh, he will have the same thing."
i am wondering about the inflammatory cover of i think it was the New Yorker in June or so, the one which showed the Obamas in the Oval Office and Barack was in a turban and Michelle was wielding an AK-47 and the American Flag was burning in the fireplace . . .
This was dismissed as 'satire', (in other words, a sick joke) . . .
But the IMAGE remains.
Can anyone imagine a similar Oval Office cover, depicting Palin as white trailer trash with, say, Todd's 'wife-beater' t-shirts hung up to dry over the fireplace and Sarah speaking in tongues while the kids play with the red button . . .
And yet the Obamas had to put up with what was done to them . . .
Oh, but it's just 'satire'. Yeah. Right. It's all about image, and the Republicans make sure everybody plays by their rules, which they can change anytime they want, without letting anyone even know the rules have changed . . .
It's a tactical mistake to make such "jokes". They discredit the Dems and turn women away in droves.
atheist:
after reading some of your comments on this board today, i had to get my own id so i could respond to you. are you a repub shill? "And what does Obama do ? Alienate the Hillary supporters, choose Biden as his VP, and now make double-entendre sexist insults. The stupidity of his actions astounds me."
I commend Obama for not letting this slip by - and i hope he continues to hammer it home. Obama sincerely has the American people in consideration with the policies he has for real change, not the same "lipstick on a pig." You can read all about them at Obama.com. What our country's folks need to see is our commonalities. We are not dems and repubs (actually i'm an independent female of the baby boomer generation). We are all Americans. We need to do something good for ourselves, our families and our country. OBAMA / BIDEN '08!
I had said this repeatedly and I will say it again: I am not pro-McCain or pro-Palin.
Obama is a very intelligent man, and I hope that the people who are advising him are also very intelligent. So why would he make the pig and fish remarks ? Why didn't he know that the Republicans would latch on to those remarks a nanosecond after he said them and use tbem against him ???? He needs to keep it clean to win. He needs to stick to issues. He needs to respond immediately and powerfully to the stupid things that the Republicans are saying about him.
He should have picked a better VP, that would have helped.
I would like to add that the oh-so-clever 3am communiqué did not go unnoticed. Great way to win over the Hillary supporters. (shaking head)
It's a tactical mistake to make such "jokes". They discredit the Dems and turn women away in droves.
Really, remind me of that in January when they're playing Hail to the Chief to McCain and the pit bull.
Read Glen Greenwald. I've always admired him, even if i might have gotten his name wrong. He agrees that McCain's poll vaulting is the result of all the crap that the right is sending out in emails that you aren't the recipient of because you have no sense of humor and they've identified you as such (yes, their minions have identifed you). But believe me, the right is passing them around unabashadly. Many of them are just outright malicious lies, and when I debunk them and reply to everyone in the chain I am suddenly removed from that person's spam list. That's how they do it.
Someone posted here the other day that the republicans will resort to anything to win. What are we to do? You want to take the high road to hell?
The Dems cannot afford to make careless mistakes. Look what happened to two perfectly wonderful candidates in the prior elections, Gore and Kerry. They both would have made fine presidents ! How did they lose ??? Did Obama and his handlers learn nothing from those elections ??? They seem to be continuing to rally their core demographic without making any attempt at all to win over other voters. Obama cannot win with his core alone.
Obama already ditched his base, the working class voters, when he supported the war in Iraq funding and a great deal of the rightwing economic policies such as "free" trade except for CAFTA. Are you referring to the social-only base as the core demographic?
It's not a joke; it's an expression. Precisely the same expression John McCain used verbatim in reference to Hillary Clinton's voting record a few months ago. It's also a perfectly accurate description of McCain's attempt to repackage Reaganism as an overwhelming success. Despite the blitherings, it has no sexist connotations.
Only if you spin it as a joke and only if stupid women buy it.
I hope the "stupid women" you refer to are the ones in the audience who laughed when Obama made those remarks.
Why the h*ll is this guy taking the lowest possible road ? Does he really think that this is going to win him the independent votes he so desperately needs ? Did he not see the latest poll of independent women voters ?
You know, it is an expression, not to be taken literally. Except you can't tell that either to those looking for a reason to make it an issue--or a smear--or those types, who are so unsophisticated in their thinking processes, interpret the bible literally. In addition, McCain is also on tape using the same expression--more than once-- regarding Hillary Clinton's health care plan--even with the disclaimer that he "hated to use the expression", underlining the intent--and I am sure you weren't squealing (oops, sorry) about that.
As far as I am concerned, he hasn't gone low enough to confront these thugs and I am not buying your shrill(ooops, sorry)cry that women are so stupid to think that Obama isn't playing nice and these thugs are all integrity, decency, sweetness and light.
It doesn't matter what McCain did or said. What matters is that Obama made an obvious double entendre that the Republicans could use against him, and *SURPRISE*, they did !
The pig/fish comments are just like the *clever* 3am test message to announce his VP pick. Wink wink to his core demographic. Hilarious to them, offensive to everyone else. There is no question, Obama is very very intelligent, but his ego and his snooty retaliatory behaviors are winning him enemies.
Blugie--I know Palin is a good looking woman, but she has nothing in common with me. She's a religious extremist, anti-environmentalist, aerial wolf-hunter, anti-choice, and she's in bed with the oil companies and war industry. She will not help women. She is no friend to progressives.
To the article. I'm not surprised that the two candidates are completely ignorant or complicit with the economic bungling. It's too bad most Americans are too busy watching Paris Hilton or the other famous blonde chick to care. I guess they won't care until they are starving and have no gas for their F150.
"...I know Palin is a good looking woman"
I don't see that. She has a butt as wide as a HumVee, and calves/thighs thicker than an Alaskan pipeline.
I guess she is not my kind of woman.
Even some of us old Democrat leaning Independents like a woman with some meat on her
bones, not the skinny anorexic pipe stems you seem to favor. It's all a matter of
taste WTF. For a 44 year old with five kids, she doesn't look bad to this old fart.
Well, I guess if your idea of anorexia is anything smaller than US size 14, sure, whatever turns your crank.
She's a Republican ! So of course she's no friend to progressives.
But you're wrong when you say she will not help women. If McCain wins, her mere presence in the #2 political position WILL help women, especially girls and young women who will be motivated to enter politics, knowing that they too can achieve high office.
Obama was a complete and total idiot for not choosing a women to be his running mate. Dumb dumb dumb.
Btw, Obama is just as much of a religious loony as Palin is. In other threads I have posted his plan to expand Bush's "faith-based" free handouts of taxpayer money to religious groups, and that he will spend $500 million sending kids to bible camps. He has repeatedly stated in public that he feels compelled to do "the Lord's work". This scares the hell out of me, he will be much worse than Bush when it comes to religion. Bush's god delusion was total fakery to get votes, Obama's appears to be the real thing (i.e., real mental illness).
"But you're wrong when you say she will not help women. If McCain wins, her mere presence in the #2 political position WILL help women, especially girls and young women who will be motivated to enter politics, knowing that they too can achieve high office."
More girls and young women are already motivated to enter politics and achieve high office. Have you looked at the Congressional and Senatorial races? There are more women fighting for higher offices than before. I don't know how just being #1 or #2 alone makes a difference.
Just a simple question. Why has religion in general, and a candidates personal religious beliefs in particular become so terribly important in deciding whether or not they wil make a viable candidate for whatever office they happen to be seeking? This whole charade, which seems to have been going on since Reagan, reminds me of the Bible thumpers in the area I live in. They are always calling others "not as good of a Christian" as they are, or if the person happens to belong to another CHRISTIAN denomination, they are certainly going to Hell because they don't "believe right." It's absolutely ridiculous and has no place in politics or government. In fact, its importance ranks right up there with whether or not a particular candidate wears a flag lapel pin or not as a symbol of their patriotism (or nationalism.) Does anyone remember the principle of separation of church and state?
I would bet that everyone in politics remembers the principle "separation of church and state." Being religious is not mandatory for serving in public office, interestingly enough. But you'd never know it today.
Religion has been co-opted as a hot button "must have" for candidates. Republicans are particularly fond of using it because they have powerful members of the Religious Right backing and encouraging particular policies. Over the years I would say it is probably almost impossible to hold a public office without saying you practice some sort of religion which is a shame. It ought to remain a personal matter in any event and not mixed with politics (eg. linking "God's will" to political policy like gas pipelines and the Iraq war.)
Often it is a distraction. We lose sight of what's really important... the issues that make this country what it is.
Perhaps it is time for Progressives to reject the current definitions of america (a particularly narrow framing of patriotism, taxation and freedom, etc)... definitions that diminish and weaken an america that is capable of so much more. By reframing and redefining, we can communicate what is truly necessary and important for a healthy, strong democracy and work towards making it just that.
Nope. I used to excuse it in candidates like Jesse Jackson--in the uS, churches are historically more than "places of worhsip" for minority communities. But it has just gotten ridiculous! The DNC Convention was ridiculous. If you want a theocracy, people, move to Iran, or secede from the US..
I would have thought that Dubya's ididotic "religion"
would have awakened people. Gawd, appaerntly not!
A Theist protests: "If McCain wins, her mere presence in the #2 political position WILL help women..."
Your "reasoning" is so upside-down as to be laughable. Take it somewhere where lies and distortions play, like any Republican website. That's where you came from, anyway, isn't it? Just slink back and we'll all agree never to speak of this again.
No one in politics is a bigger religious looney than Palin. Her vagina does not negate her failings, shortcomings, and hypocrisies, which are myriad. Voting for her to help women is like legalizing aerial hunting to help caribou.
How old are you ? 22 ? Your post 100% hateful spewage and 0% reasoning.
It's good for girls and young women to see women in positions of power, just as it is good for young blacks to see blacks in positions of power. It helps to encourage them.