Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Happy Hour Roundup

* NPR talks to some voters who don't seem to have gotten the pundit memo informing them that they aren't supposed to care about the anonymous cash flooding the airwaves.

* Endorsement of the day: Rush Limbaugh, in endorsing John Raese, the GOP Senate candidate in West Virginia, notes that they're both members of a private golf club in Palm Beach. That dovetails rather neatly with the Dem message that Raese is out of touch with West Virginia working folks.

* And: Raeses's wife is losing her West Virginia voting status because she's registered to vote in Florida.

* Wow: The Tides Foundation, a frequent target of Glenn Beck, writes an incendiary letter to Fox advertisers telling them if they don't pull their sponsorship they'll "have blood on their hands."

* And: I'm told that Media Matters will pivot off this to launch a new campaign calling on all Fox advertisers to boycott the network. Previously, the group had only focused on Beck advertisers.

* The outside groups Karl Rove founded are telling Mike Allen that they are really psyched about the Dem attacks on them, because they've been able to raise a quick $100,000 from small donors in recent days.

However, for some reason, Crossroads GPS is not to my knowledge revealing what overall percentage of the millions upon millions upon millions it has raised came from small donors.

* Tim Phillips, the head of the right-wing Americans for Prosperity, joins the list of those who are valiantly defending the right of donors and special interests to anonymously influence the outcome of our elections against the thuggish harassment of those who are asking for transparency.

* In fairness: Politifact does a monster fact check and points out that outside groups on both sides do their share of fibbing.

* It's not easy being Harry Reid: Turns out he raised one seventh the amount that Sharron Angle pulled in ($14 million) over the last quarter.

* Worth a try, I guess: House majority whip James Clyburn, in an apparent effort to revive flagging Dem enthusiasm, says that if voters come out and keep Dems in Congress, they just might revive the public option.

* Such lockstep discipline! Rand Paul's advisers are at war over whether the candidate does or doesn't support replacing the federal income tax with a national sales tax.

* Steve Benen points out a niggling flaw in Angle's argument that the market is a superior mechanism to mandated coverage: We've tried it that way before.

* Good read: Adam Nagourney watches the whole Nevada debate through the prism of our hyperpolarized national clash of competing philosophies about government.

* Liberal ecstasy: Anne Kuster, the Dem candidate in New Hampshire's second district who's being heavily promoted by liberal groups, edges ahead of GOPer Charlie Bass in a new poll.

* And: The photographer who took that phony "illegal aliens" pic that appeared in Angle's ad attacking Reid for giving all kinds of goodies to illegals rips the campaign for deception.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | October 15, 2010; 6:10 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Campaign finance, Happy Hour Roundup, Political media, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Sharron Angle: No insurance mandates
Next: Open Thread

Comments


I find these people who talk about the blog like it is the second coming are complete jokesters.

Their posts do not have near the quality they claim.

In addition, in terms of hostility and bringing down the discussion, they are often among the biggest offenders.

It really is unbelievable.


When this election is over, I think I'm going to switch sides. I prefer the underdog - and Obama is sure to lose in 2012 - so I suppose I will be supporting Obama next.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 15, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Raese is a good example of a candidate who is going to see his numbers go down the closer we get to the election.

If you're a nutjob candidate who has been riding the wave of anti-incumbency and Tea Party welfare/free advertising by Fox and everyone else in the MSM, it's coming time to be recognized for who you are and what you stand for.

And, with a few exceptions, the GOP candidates are not what any sensible American voter will tolerate.

Add to this the fact the Dems ARE going to come out and vote and you have a much more volatile situation than has been planned for by the MSM bellwethers.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 15, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

BGinChi

the latest poll was taken right after Bill Clinton was at a rally in West Virgina


The pollsters actually went through Bill Clinton's crowd to take their survey


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 15, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

What else is happening?

Due to severe tendinitis in his elbow, Brett Farve has been placed on the National Sexting League's Injured Reserve List.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

The same "scary immigrants" photo ALSO appears in an ad for David "Diapers" Vitter. Same exact photo.

They had something about it at The Upshot.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 15, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

The same "scary immigrants" photo ALSO appears in an ad for David "Diapers" Vitter. Same exact photo.

They had something about it at The Upshot.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 15, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

So the photographer says the photo Vitter and Angle used of "illegal aliens" was a photo of Mexicans in Mexico, that it was identified as such by Getty Images, and that the Vitter and Angle campaigns "either purposefully deceived their audience or they stole the photo from somewhere else."

Vitter and Angle: liars, or thieves?

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 15, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

GOPers here:

So, is impeaching every Democratic president your schtick now?

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | October 15, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

BGinCHI

Milwaukee media reported yesterday, that in the past four weeks, there have been over 18,000 thousand TV attack ads, from outsiders, run against Feingold, all over Wisconsin.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw, gypsies, tramps, and thieves. They hear it from the people of the town.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 15, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

"Vitter and Angle: liars, or thieves?

Posted by: bearclaw1"

Racists.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 15, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

I'm interested in what everyone thinks should be done about FOX news.  If a boycott is appropriate, should it cover all Newscorp. Companies as well?

What about other entities that repeat, or use FOX News stories?  Should they be boycotted?

What percent of any upcoming Republican success will be attributable to FOX?

Are there legal remedies to reduce FOX's presumed outside influence?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 15, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD,

"All of the above."

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 15, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Trollmcwingnut 6:37 What to do about Fox


CLEARLY, FOX IS ONLY PART OF THE CONSERVATIVE VIRUS WHICH IS INFECTING OVER A MAJORITY OF THE NATION.


We don't just need what you propose. We need a MASSIVE FEDERAL AGENCY.


We need a Massive Federal Agency to PROTECT EVERYONE FROM THE CONSERVATIVES.

Seriously, why should anyone have to listen or even be within eye-shot of a CONSERVATIVE IDEA ???


The LIBERAL PROTECTION AGENCY (LPA) would fan out accross the nation - banning and "taking out" any conservative idea that ANYONE found to be slightly conservative.


We need to help Obama put forth his far-left agenda - and what better way than to ban all ideas to the contrary? The LPA is what the nation NEEDS NOW.


HOW much will it cost? We don't know, and we will never know. However our great leader Obama has assured us that it is "paid for."


Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 15, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

McWing

I guess calling for a boycott is pretty much the same right of free speech as Glenn Beck trying to convince his audience of small donors and seniors to ante up for the CofC. Words have consequences, who knew?

Posted by: lmsinca | October 15, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Well, perhaps $20 billion won't purchase enough satellite laser weapons to protect the whole country from missiles, but maybe it will buy enough to protect the Palm Beach country club to which Rush Limbaugh and John Raese belong.

And Rush didn't just mention the country club. He told his listeners that Raese lives in Florida part of the year, and that Raese is a great guy because he is openly against the minimum wage.

What an endorsement!

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 15, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

No problem with the a boycott (though full disclosure, I don't think they're very effective, even the ones I've participated in!).  Just wondering if it covers FOX News, or Newscorp.  And if the problem is in fact FOX News versus it's presumed influence. 

I saw your exchange yesterday with ScottC3 about taking advantage of the elderly. With the exception for, lack of a better phrase, the feeble minded, why are our elderly more susceptible to manipulation?  The "elderly" I interact with seem much wiser than me. Not a slam on you, just wondering if it's a case of " one persons scam is another persons good cause.". I'm not a Scientologist, for example, and wonder why people give money to it?  Not saying there are not scammers out there just that the elderly are no more susceptible than the non elderly.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 15, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Media Matters calling for a Boycott of FOX...lol I'm sure that will sway allot of companies..

Posted by: CarolinaMike | October 15, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Boycotting Fox is a waste of time. People who would engage in it, are not current Fox viewers anyway.

The pressure point has to come from the sponsors. If you let the sponsors know that you will boycott them, as long as they advertise on the Fox shows you object to, that might have some effect. Personally, I would suggest that those who do not care for Fox, just do not tune in.

For the most part, they are just preaching to the choir.

Look at the ratings. Beck and O'Reilly average what number of viewers; four or five million? Does that sound about right? Those are just died in the wool Tea Party types, that would still vote against any Democrat, even if Fox never existed.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 7:04 PM | Report abuse

The LIBERAL PROTECTION AGENCY (LPA) would fan out accross the nation - banning and "taking out" any conservative idea that ANYONE found to be slightly conservative.

We need to help Obama put forth his far-left agenda - and what better way than to ban all ideas to the contrary? The LPA is what the nation NEEDS NOW.


There is NO REASON the Conservatives should be allowed to get away with saying the kinds of things they have.


Who knew?

The country deserves a whole set of REGULATIONS which will PROTECT US FROM CONSERVATIVE THOUGHTS - including submitting all blog comments to the new Federal Liberal Protection Agency BEFORE THEY APPEAR ON THE INTERNET.


It should only take a few months for every comment to be approved by the new Federal Agency.

AND we do NOT have to out-source to foreign nations the approving of comments.

We have more than enough ILLEGAL ALIENS IN LIBERAL SANCTUARY CITIES to read every comment approve its content BEFORE IT INFECTS THE YOUTH OF THIS NATION.


The new LIBERAL PROTECTION AGENCY can also be given the power to TEACH YOUNG CHILDREN HOMOSEXUALITY IN SCHOOLS.


It is never too early to start teaching homosexuality in schools. AND the local school boards have been way too slow in implementing these programs.

The High School drop-out rate may have risen under Obama, but it is far more important to make sure that first and second graders are taught our social agenda and exactly how to speak to other children.


We can not waste anytime teaching the LIBERAL AGENDA to children - and the LIBERAL PROTECTION AGENCY will be best suited to achieve this important national objective.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 15, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

McWing

The seniors I work with are pretty much 75% big fans of Beck, but they're also living on a shoestring, so it struck me as a little mean to try to get money out of them for the Chamber, as if they need it. And some of them are easily preyed upon by scammers, it's one of things we watch for and has absolutely zero relationship to politics.

Re the Fox boycott, I don't know the details you're looking for and agree sometimes they're not as effective as one would hope. I thought Beck felt the effects of the last one though, although it sure didn't take him down. Sometimes it's the only way to draw attention so can be effective in that regard.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 15, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Boycott? I don't watch Fock Snooze. But you can't take away "The Simpsons."

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 15, 2010 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Fox is destroying this nation with its Conservative ideas

Did you know that Fox runs 24 hours a day - never stopping ?

Have you looked at the demographic ratings? Fox is destroying the YOUTH OF AMERICA - the young people watching Fox - just unprotected.


And the way that Fox puts beautiful women on as anchors - it is ALL A TRICK !

And the Fox music - da dda daa dAAA


The music is so addicting.

And it is all a DEVIOUS PLOT to suck in unsuspecting Americans who have previously voted for liberals !

This all must STOP.


Our great leader Obama is seeking to establish the LIBERAL PROTECTION AGENCY which will "take out" any conservative idea within a hundred miles of the shoreline. Even cruise ships will be under the watchful eye of the new Federal Agency.


Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 15, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

Liam-still wrote,
"If the new format is going to restrict everybody, in order to restrict those two trouble makers, then I want no part of it. So please tell me, what are you asking me to be patient for. I took a look at that other blog, and I did not like what I saw. The Fix has been fixed alright. Fixed as in neutered."
-------
Kevin_Willis wrote,
"I don't care for the Fix comments per se, when I can see them, it's just that most of the time--for example, right now, waiting for a large batch of files to process--that I could participate, I won't be able to, if it's the same implementation as The Fix."
-------
Imsinca wrote,
Greg
I personally think your blog is doing fine without changing the comment format. It's easy to scroll past STRF because of his own formatting style, don't ever change please.
-------
bearclaw1 wrote,
Greg,
I don't see a need to change formats. I've been on blogs with a threaded format (Weigel when he was at The Washington Independent). While the "threaded" approach is useful in some respects to be able to follow a single discussion, it also seemed to foster even more "cut and paste" commenting -- people who wanted to inject the same point into every separate discussion. And it was a pain to scroll through multiple pages if I was late arriving to a discussion."
-------

I'll add my voice asking for the Plum Line format to remain the same. The Fix update was a disaster. I no longer post there, and it isn't just because of the lousy format---it's because many of the regulars whom I enjoyed reading abandoned the place after the format change. You get a lot of hits here during an average day. The last time I checked the Fix, a week or two ago, there was one thread that had 0 comments and a few others with only around 10 or 15.
Please leave well enough alone.


Posted by: Brigade | October 15, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Liam-still wrote,
"Sending most of our good paying manufacturing jobs to China and other foreign lands, and then having to purchase all the durable goods from them, that we used to make here in America, appears not to have done wonders for our "Fair Trade" side of the ledger. Who would have thunk it!"
-------

Liam's been unemployed and in a quandary ever since the manufacturing of honey buckets was outsourced to China as part of a nefarious Chamber of Commerce plot.

Posted by: Brigade | October 15, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse


Boycott? I don't watch Fock Snooze. But you can't take away "The Simpsons."

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 15, 2010 7:14 PM
................

Or Ned Flanders.

I have started to become attached to their new Friday Night Cop show; The Good Guys. It is a welcome respite from all those carbon copy police procedural shows, and all those shows that have some outsider in with the police, and who always ends up solving the crimes, in the last five minutes just with their powers of observation, or by reading body language.

The Good Guys is just a wacky spoof, with no pretensions toward seriousness. I expect that it will be canceled soon, since the few shows that I tend to like, always do. I loved Better Of Ted, and it got dumped.

I used to love the Denis Leary cop show, The Job, and it got canceled. I did get the DVD collection of the only season it ran, and I still find it to be one of the funniest and most daring network shows ever aired. I am amazed at some of the topics and language that the were allowed to televise.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

filmnoia wrote,
" The GOP, at bottom, is not looking out for your interests."

'This has been true for at least the last 100 years. Over the years the GOP has used social issues as a wedge , while at the same time undermining people's faith in their public institutions. It's a distraction while they and their corporate pals loot the country.'
-------

The last time you dropped a screed like this it was "the last 150 years." What, no more pining for the old Confederacy?

Posted by: Brigade | October 15, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Brigade

Every comment posted on the internet should be submitted to the Obama administration BEFORE they appear on the internet.

Children have access to these comments, which could potentially contain CONSERVATIVE IDEAS.

This is a threat to the nation like none other.

TO CONFRONT THIS CLEAR THREAT TO THE COUNTRY all blog comments should be submitted to the new Federal Liberal Protection Agency BEFORE THEY APPEAR ON THE INTERNET.

It should only take a few months for every comment to be approved by the new Federal Agency. AND we do NOT have to out-source to foreign nations the approving of comments.

We have more than enough ILLEGAL ALIENS IN LIBERAL SANCTUARY CITIES to read every comment approve its content BEFORE IT INFECTS THE YOUTH OF THIS NATION.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 15, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Liam's been unemployed and in a quandary ever since the manufacturing of honey buckets was outsourced to China as part of a nefarious Chamber of Commerce plot.

Posted by: Brigade | October 15, 2010 7:25 PM |

................

I got evicted from my quandary. Only all your Fat Cat friends can afford such luxury.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Foreclosuregate:

John Carney (http://www.cnbc.com/id/39686897):

"Here’s what is going to happen: Congress will pass a law called something like “The Financial Modernization and Stability Act of 2010” that will retroactively grant mortgage pools the rights in the underlying mortgages that people are worried about. All the screwed up paperwork, lost notes, unassigned security interests will be forgiven by a legislative act.

There’s a big difference between the financial crisis of 2008 and the new crisis. In 2008, banks were destabilized by the growing realization that they were over-exposed to the real estate market. Huge portions of their balance sheets were committed to mortgage-linked investments that were no longer generating the expected revenues or producing losses. That was a problem of economics that could only be solved by recapitalizing banks or letting some of the biggest banks in the U.S. fail.

The put-back crisis is not driven by economics. It is driven by legal rights. And there’s simply zero probability that the politicians in Washington are going to let Bank of America or Citigroup or JP Morgan Chase fail because of a legal issue.

So here’s what I expect will happen. The lame duck session of Congress will pass a bill that essentially papers over the misdeeds of the banks that originated mortgage securities. Every member of Congress and every Senator who has been voted out of office will cast a vote for the bill. And the President will sign it."

Hate it, but I got a feeling Carney's right.

If Obama allows this to happen without serious and exact punishment (i.e. not just clawback, but jail time for bank CEOs), then no one can say he is a man of the people.

Posted by: Papagnello | October 15, 2010 7:30 PM | Report abuse

"Does she explain how the Ice Ages came about. Did the sun move further from our Planet, or was it the Earth that backed off a bit from the fire, to cool down. She talks excellent O'Donnell like nonsense."

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010
-------

Actually, it was because some early liberals over-reacted to a round of global warming. We don't want to make the same mistake again.

Posted by: Brigade | October 15, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Foreclosuregate:

John Carney (http://www.cnbc.com/id/39686897):

"Here’s what is going to happen: Congress will pass a law called something like “The Financial Modernization and Stability Act of 2010” that will retroactively grant mortgage pools the rights in the underlying mortgages that people are worried about. All the screwed up paperwork, lost notes, unassigned security interests will be forgiven by a legislative act.

There’s a big difference between the financial crisis of 2008 and the new crisis. In 2008, banks were destabilized by the growing realization that they were over-exposed to the real estate market. Huge portions of their balance sheets were committed to mortgage-linked investments that were no longer generating the expected revenues or producing losses. That was a problem of economics that could only be solved by recapitalizing banks or letting some of the biggest banks in the U.S. fail.

The put-back crisis is not driven by economics. It is driven by legal rights. And there’s simply zero probability that the politicians in Washington are going to let Bank of America or Citigroup or JP Morgan Chase fail because of a legal issue.

So here’s what I expect will happen. The lame duck session of Congress will pass a bill that essentially papers over the misdeeds of the banks that originated mortgage securities. Every member of Congress and every Senator who has been voted out of office will cast a vote for the bill. And the President will sign it."

Hate it, but I got a feeling Carney's right.

If Obama allows this to happen without serious and exact punishment (i.e. not just clawback, but jail time for bank CEOs), then no one can say he is a man of the people.

Posted by: Papagnello | October 15, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Actually, it was because some early liberals over-reacted to a round of global warming. We don't want to make the same mistake again.

Posted by: Brigade | October 15, 2010 7:32 PM

.................

Except when it comes to putting Mitch Kevorkian McConnell and John Kevorkian Boehner back in charge of treating the patient they almost euthanized in 2008. Then you have no problem with making the same mistake again and again.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Come on the cost of the new Liberal Protection Agency will not seem to be that much if we just tack it onto Obama's new Health Care Program.

Next to those trillions, a few hundred billion means nothing.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 15, 2010 7:36 PM | Report abuse

"* To avoid GOP romp, Democrats must get out black vote *"

So Dems not only have to get out the vote, but they are also going to have to be swarming all over the polling stations, because the GOP will have their voter suppression goons out in full force.

Posted by: filmnoia | October 15, 2010
-------

I suppose you mean the black panthers.

Posted by: Brigade | October 15, 2010 7:36 PM | Report abuse

No. We checked with all the zoos around the country, and they will not let us borrow those magnificent creatures for election day.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 7:39 PM | Report abuse

What I find so amazing about liberals today is their worship of FDR. It forces them to ignore several decisions he made. Among them was the Quirin case which featured the prompt "trial" and execution of Nazis caught on American soil.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 15, 2010
------

Execute the Nazis, throw the Japanese-Americans in concentration camps, nuke the Japanese. And now FDR and Truman are heroes of the left and GW Bush is a war criminal. LOL.

Posted by: Brigade | October 15, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

There you have it folks. The Right Wingers are Soft On The Nazis who slaughtered six million Jews.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Papagnello at 7:32 PM

That is really a fantastic idea.

EXCEPT for one thing: the Constitution states clearly no ex poste facto laws.


In addition, MOST OF THE FRAUD COMES UNDER STATE LAWS - the Federal government has no jurisdiction.


So your plan sounds great - and if the big banks COULD buy off the democrats to do that, they would have done that already.

Also - the FRAUD is against the HOLDERS OF CDOs - so what you are proposing is a MASSIVE TAKING OF PROPERTY from the CDOs holders (including pension funds and institutions around the country) TO THE BIG BANKS.


You didn't think about that TRANSFER OF WEALTH from the pension funds to the big banks, did you?


There are so many State laws affected.


HOW ABOUT THIS AS A PLAN


ALL THE FRAUD gets EXPOSED - the Federal government steps in and PUTS ALL THE BANKERS IN JAIL FOR FRAUD.


The big banks are INSOLVENT - get used to it.


OH - let's CLAWBACK ALL THE SALARIES AND BONUSES for the last seven years


FORECLOSE ON ALL THEIR HOUSES AND HIGH PRICED MANHATTAN APARTMENTS.


Thank you.


It's CALLED JUSTICE - THAT IS MY PLAN.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 15, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse

You've really been bombing the threads today with this chestnut. It was good that you also once made mention of all the federal largess which makes its way from Washington to Alaska. You can't paint someone as a big government liberal on decisions made at the state level alone.

I'm still looking for the post where you say Palin's socialist tendencies have convinced you to stop bashing her and start supporting her for president.

Posted by: Brigade | October 14, 2010 7:31 PM
........................

Yes you are correct. Palin did not turn Alaska into a Socialist State, all by herself. All that money that was stolen from taxpayers around the rest of the country, and given to the Welfare State Of Alaska, was because of the work of the state's two Republican US Senators.

Ted Stevens, Lisa Murkowski, and Sarah Palin. Alaska's Axis Of Socialism.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

A major survey conducted by The Washington Post, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University found that 80 percent of black Democrats are as interested or more interested in the midterms than they were in the 2008 presidential election, when their enthusiasm helped propel Barack Obama into office.

This year, 62 percent of all black Democrats say they're likely to encourage others to support certain candidates, according to the survey, compared with 47 percent of white Democrats and 57 percent of all Republicans.

It only remains to be seen what kind of racist voter suppression tactics your Republican Party will employ this election cycle.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 15, 2010
-----

Hey, don't mess with success. Blacks have been pulling that lever for 'D's for almost 50 years now. If you're satisfied with the plight of the black community, just keep doing what you've been doing. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

As for "suppression tactics", I've heard a rumor that Republicans are going to hire some Black Panthers. They can intimidate voters with impunity and never have to worry about being called to task by Dirty Barry and his J.D.

Posted by: Brigade | October 15, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

ALL,

Obama and his people have been told about the foreclosure situation numerous times over the past year and a half - practically everytime there was a discussion about mortgage modifications this subject came up.

Obama has been PROTECTING THE BIG BANKS


Obama has been ALLOWING THE BIG BANKS TO RAPE THE PENSION FUNDS.


Obama has been sitting back, doing nothing.

This is PENSION FRAUD - and clearly the Federal Government can put the bankers in JAIL FOREVER.


Has Obama done that?


NO Obama is just sitting there, doing nothing - just allowing the banks continue their FRAUD and RAPE of America's PENSION FUNDS.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 15, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Brigade,

Clearly, Republicans find black men scary.

That must explain why Jim DeMint won't debate Alvin Greene.

Or have you forgotten your complaint from yesterday that the national media would never televise a debate between DeMint and Greene? Except it would be impossible for the national media to televise a debate that Jim DeMint won't agree to.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 15, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Remember all those Republican Black Panther Goons that flooded the vote counting offices in Florida in 2000, who kept banging on the office partitions to disrupt the vote counting?!

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

I meant to say, the Church's position on birth control, not abortion. Sorry.

Posted by: Brigade | October 14, 2010 9:22 PM |

....................

Their position on both issues is; molest young boys, because they can never become impregnated, and the priests can always find some new boy toys, in each new parish they are moved around to.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Rainforest, since you're addressing me, can you name me the GOP reps or sens that are coming out hard against the banks in this crisis?

As for the state vs. federal laws, that's the crux of the matter. A lot of people buzzing that this time the banks will surely eat it, i.e. death by a 1,000 lashes (each state, each homeowner, etc. suing BoA, JPM, C, WPF, GMAC, etc.). All the networks are going to spin that as a crisis simply not worth the sacrifices we need to make on the way to a solution, and I suspect the words "national emergency" will usurp the Constitution again as they keep pulling right out from beneath us the twin foundations -- freedom, and right to property.

It would mean that the banks have basically forced DC and the White House to legalize Enron.

Posted by: Papagnello | October 15, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

FWIW, the SCOTUS didn't grant anonymous speech. They just granted speech. Dems did try to pass DISCLOSE. But some party blocked it. I forget which one.

Although who knows if DISCLOSE would have held up to legal challenge. We've got a pretty activist Supreme Court, in case anyone didn't notice.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 15, 2010
-------

And we KNOW how liberals loathe an activist Supreme Court. A right to abortion? It's there in the Constitution. Gay marriage? It's there, too. A right to keep and bear arms? Where? You must be kidding.

Until the Bork debacle, there was at least a pretense that qualifications were the operative standard. Eisenhower nominated Earl Warren and William Brennan; John Paul Stevens was nominated by Gerald Ford. Eventually ole Chuckie Schumer came right out and said it was all about ideology. You libs made the bed, now stop whining and wallow in it.

Posted by: Brigade | October 15, 2010 8:06 PM | Report abuse

I just want to be clear about the Pension Funds

Many pension funds are holders of CDOs - the shares in the mortgage portfolios which are the subject of the foreclosure crisis.


You see - the big banks, in their rush to sell mortgages into these portfolios, failed to deliver all the proper paperwork.


So the problems is REALLY BETWEEN THE CDO HOLDERS AND THE BIG BANKS.


The CDO holders include the big pension funds and institutions like schools, colleges and everything you hold dear in America.

That is WHY the big banks are engaging in the fraud surrounding the foreclousures - the TRUSTS HOLDING THE MORTGAGE PORTFOLIOS should be the ones in Court doing the foreclosures.


It is called STANDING

Instead, the big banks have been sending in all sorts of other entities.

This is ALL TO MASK that the mortgage portfolios NEVER got the proper paperwork in the first place.


So NOW the lawyers for the CDO HOLDERS are saying to themselves "WE DON'T ACTUALLY OWN ALL THESE BAD MORTGAGES ????"


If the CDO holders DON'T OWN the mortgages - who does ???


The TRUTH IS that BIG BANKS STILL OWN THE BAD MORTGAGES.


There are significant problems to having the mortgage portfolios TAKE OWNERSHIP OF THE BAD MORTGAGES NOW.

Not the least of which is that it HIGHLIGHTS THE INITIAL FRAUD. These securities were supposed to be significantly different than they ARE.


So, NO ONE is going to approve a transfer of WEALTH FROM THE PENSION FUNDS TO THE BIG BANKS.


Let the big banks go INSOLVENT

CLAWBACK ALL THE SALARIES AND BONUSES FOR THE PAST 7 YEARS.


If anything, the conduct of the big banks over the past two years has PROVEN THAT THE ECONOMY DOES NOT NEED THEM.


"Too big to fail" is a fraud - along with all the other frauds.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 15, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Media Matters calling for a Boycott of FOX...lol I'm sure that will sway allot of companies..

Posted by: CarolinaMike | October 15, 2010
------

OOOOhhhh. That'll have them quaking in their boots. We could boycott MSNBC but so few watch it anyway. The last time I turned on, around five o'clock, I saw a tub of hog manure in a suit. They called it Ed Schultz.

Posted by: Brigade | October 15, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Interesting post, Greg, but when I try to read the comments I'm just put off by the fool who posts multiple irrelevant ALL CAPS posts that make personal attacks against other posters.

Posted by: hellslittlestangel1 | October 15, 2010 8:15 PM | Report abuse

How dare people try to keep the guy who implemented the Saturday Night Massacre for Tricky Dick, off The Supreme Court. Of course Republicans feel outraged because they did not get the guy who aided and abetted Nixon, in an attempt to cover up his crimes, on the Supreme Court.

How dare the Supreme Court decide that women have a right to make their own health care decisions, and not allow the Headquarters for The Global Pedophile Protection Mafia, to dictate to them about their reproductive decisions.
The Republicans claim that Rapists are entitled to have their babies carried to term, by the women they have raped, and impregnated.

Those poor Republicans, they keep losing sleep over the injustice that is being visited upon Rapists.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Brigade,

You need to learn a little history. First, Eisenhower had no idea what Earl Warren would do on the Supreme Court. Second, Eisenhower himself wasn't a conservative (the Tea Party would have hated him), so his nomination of Warren was hardly surprising move ideologically. Third, the appointment was a way of taking the highly popular Republican Governor of California (Warren), who had challenged Eisenhower for the nomination in 1952, out of politics.

Ideology? Do remember when Gerald Ford (as a Congressman) tried to impeach William O. Douglas? That was a few years before Chuck Schumer.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 15, 2010 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Imsinca wrote,
"The seniors I work with are pretty much
75% big fans of Beck, but they're also living on a shoestring, so it struck me as a little mean to try to get money out of them for the Chamber, as if they need it. And some of them are easily preyed upon by scammers, it's one of things we watch for and has absolutely zero relationship to politics."
-------

I'm bombarded daily with emails from Dems like John Kerry, always begging for money and telling me the world as we know it will end if we don't beat those rotten Republicans. I hadn't realized that I was a member of some elite group. I guess those emails don't go out to senior citizens, welfare moms, and poor minorities. Huh?

Posted by: Brigade | October 15, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

This is a follow-up on a chat I had with (wbgonne?) regarding boycotting businesses that are members of the Chamber of Commerce. I ran into the owner of my local wine shop and related the exchange. Evidently the chamber is a big networking opportunity, though there are differences amongst local affiliates.

Sometimes, folks, you need to turn it all off. Leave the politics at the door and have a beer. In my case, a glass of Wolftrap, a nice and affordable blend from South Africa.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 15, 2010 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Papagnello at 8:05 PM

Congress is not in session so I have not kept track of everything the Republicans in Congress have been saying.


The Republicans in the rank-and-file are 100% AGAINST another bailout - that much is clear.

I can point to the States' Attorneys General - all 50 of which have gotten together to look into this foreclosure situation - so the Republicans in that group are going after the big banks.


_______________________

Take a look at a different aspect of this crisis.

WHY are the big banks engaging in this fraud ? It is more than PAPERWORK.


The PAPERWORK between the CDOs holders and the big banks is WHAT THE BIG BANKS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT.


The big banks HAVE TO TAKE BACK ALL THE BAD MORTGAGES.


Why? Believe it or not, it is ILLEGAL to put those mortgages in the TRUSTS -


AND THERE IS NOTHING THE BIG BANKS CAN DO ABOUT IT


The big banks are insolvent - and you know what? The country should not care. They are not "too big to fail"


Quite the contrary, the big banks ARE HURTING THE NATION'S ECONOMY.


The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should just step in - and unwind the big banks properly - and let them DIE THE DEATH THEY SHOULD HAVE DIED TWO YEARS AGO.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 15, 2010 8:25 PM | Report abuse

The put-back crisis is not driven by economics. It is driven by legal rights. And there’s simply zero probability that the politicians in Washington are going to let Bank of America or Citigroup or JP Morgan Chase fail because of a legal issue.

So here’s what I expect will happen. The lame duck session of Congress will pass a bill that essentially papers over the misdeeds of the banks that originated mortgage securities. Every member of Congress and every Senator who has been voted out of office will cast a vote for the bill. And the President will sign it."

Hate it, but I got a feeling Carney's right.

If Obama allows this to happen without serious and exact punishment (i.e. not just clawback, but jail time for bank CEOs), then no one can say he is a man of the people.

Posted by: Papagnello | October 15, 2010
-------

I hate to pile on, ole buddy, but what did you expect? You surely didn't believe Chris Dodd and Barney Frank when they said their hands were clean. It isn't Republicans and Independents who get snookered by all the populist rhetoric. Votes will get you B.S.; big money will get you action.

Posted by: Brigade | October 15, 2010 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Brigade,

To give him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps Jim "won't debate Alvin Greene" DeMint doesn't want to get near anyone accused of a sex offense.

So does he caucus with David Vitter?

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 15, 2010 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Brigade keeps getting snookered by The Welfare Queen Of Alaska. He believes all her BS about being against the welfare state, when her own record shows that she ran Alaska much like Hugo Chavez would have done.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

Brigade

The put-back crisis is not driven by economics. It is driven by legal rights. And there’s simply zero probability that the politicians in Washington are going to let Bank of America or Citigroup or JP Morgan Chase fail because of a legal issue.


_________________________


THAT's a bail-out No one is going to go for that.


The banks are INSOLVENT.


There is NO WAY Congress can pass a law that will eliminate the RIGHTS OF PRIVATE CITIZENS TO RECOVER FRAUD DAMAGES.


It's NOT going to happen.

The banks are insolvent - get used to it. The Federal government is going to have to step in and UNWIND THEM.


CLAWBACK ALL THE SALARIES - CLAWBACK ALL THE BONUSES - FORECLOSE ON THEIR HOUSES.

It is called JUSTICE.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 15, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Brigade,

Clearly, Republicans find black men scary.

That must explain why Jim DeMint won't debate Alvin Greene.

Or have you forgotten your complaint from yesterday that the national media would never televise a debate between DeMint and Greene? Except it would be impossible for the national media to televise a debate that Jim DeMint won't agree to.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 15, 2010 7:59 PM
-------

I have no inside knowledge of why DeMint won't debate Greene. Has the national Dem Party been pushing for a debate? I'm not really authorized to speak for Republicans, but I don't think they find ALL black men scary---just the Democrats.

Posted by: Brigade | October 15, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Would Chaste O'Donnell caucus with Diaper Vitter?

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

I'm not really authorized to speak for Republicans, but I don't think they find ALL black men scary---just the Democrats.

Posted by: Brigade
++++++++++

Thanks for the encapsulation of how the "Tea Party" formed so quickly after Obama's inauguration.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 15, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Brigade

How can I protect myself from Fox News ?

I am soooo afraid of all the Conservative ideas and beautiful women they have as anchors.

Megan Kelly, Martha McCullom, Allison Camerota, Kimberly Giulfoyle, Juliet Huddy - OH PLEASE STOP.


Clearly, Fox is a threat to the national security of the nation.


HOW am I going to protect myself ? - I mean what can I can I do? I have this thing called a REMOTE, you think that if I just change the channel, that would work?

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 15, 2010 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Right Wing Men are afraid of Gay People, Black People, and Women who want to control their own reproductive health care decisions. In fact Right Wing Men are afraid of their own shadows. They wet their beds over everything.

And yet; they keep claiming that they will defend the nation. Sure; provided our enemies will die from laughing too hard at such a litter of scaredy cat bedwetters.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Remember all those Republican Black Panther Goons that flooded the vote counting offices in Florida in 2000, who kept banging on the office partitions to disrupt the vote counting?!

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 8:03 PM
------

Don't remember that. I do remember Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and a mob of people who weren't even from Florida marching in the streets, whining about disenfranchisement. I remember a renegade Florida Supreme Court that overturned every single ruling, including those by Democrat judges, that went against Gore. I remember a fellow named Nader who took wbgonne's advice and ran on the liberal agenda instead of a watered down version.
I remember a colossal number of Democratic voters who couldn't seem to master the art of casting a vote and another group convinced that Al Gore's name was spelled B-U-C-H-A-N-A-N. You guys have all the deep thinkers in your party.

Posted by: Brigade | October 15, 2010 8:42 PM | Report abuse

STRF wrote:

"There is NO WAY Congress can pass a law that will eliminate the RIGHTS OF PRIVATE CITIZENS TO RECOVER FRAUD DAMAGES.


It's NOT going to happen.

The banks are insolvent - get used to it. The Federal government is going to have to step in and UNWIND THEM.


CLAWBACK ALL THE SALARIES - CLAWBACK ALL THE BONUSES - FORECLOSE ON THEIR HOUSES.


It is called JUSTICE."


Gotten into the Red Bull again? You know you can't handle it late in the day!

Nothing of the sort is going to happen. After the new year. things will be quietly taken care of. Paperwokr that wasn't good will be pronounced good. some accommodation wil be made with the state's attorney's general, just like in the tobacco case, and it will be over in the spring.

When Warren Buffet starts selling instead of buying, then I run for the exits, not until.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 15, 2010 8:42 PM | Report abuse

I meant to say, the Church's position on birth control, not abortion. Sorry.

Posted by: Brigade | October 14, 2010 9:22 PM |

....................

Their position on both issues is; molest young boys, because they can never become impregnated, and the priests can always find some new boy toys, in each new parish they are moved around to.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 8:05 PM
-----

Tsk, tsk, tsk. That wasn't very nice. I hope you're not one of those people like Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg who keep reminding us that all Muslims aren't extremists.

Posted by: Brigade | October 15, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

ALL,


The FIFTH AMENDMENT

NO person shall...

be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


We all know the 14th amendment has a similar prohibition against the States.

THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF PRIVATE CITIZENS TO RECOVER FRAUD DAMAGES can not be affected by a Congressional law - So Congress can't sweep in and suddenly pass a law stating that the CDO holders have NO FRAUD CLAIMS against the big banks.


The whole issue involves property rights -


Besides, if the government officials are concerned about the economy - and RESOLVING THE SITUATION QUICKLY, the best thing to do is just have the Federal Government step into the big banks - unwind them and run them properly


It has to be done that way.


CLAWBACK ALL THE SALARIES AND BONUSES - those bankers can suck it up this time.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 15, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Ideology? Do remember when Gerald Ford (as a Congressman) tried to impeach William O. Douglas? That was a few years before Chuck Schumer.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 15, 2010 8:17 PM
-----

You need to study a little history yourself. William O. Douglas SHOULD have been impeached.

Posted by: Brigade | October 15, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Liam said: "Right Wing Men are afraid of Gay People, Black People, and Women who want to control their own reproductive health care decisions. In fact Right Wing Men are afraid of their own shadows. They wet their beds over everything.

And yet; they keep claiming that they will defend the nation. Sure; provided our enemies will die from laughing too hard at such a litter of scaredy cat bedwetters."

I resent the hell out of that statement. There is no way on earth that I'm afraid of... a Frenchman.

Deal with it!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 15, 2010 8:51 PM | Report abuse

DeMint is correct in not debating Greene.

Reid found out the hard way last night that when you debate an idiot, you only lose credibility yourself, and give it to them.

Just one more piece of stupidity by the loathesome Reid.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 15, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse

54465446 at 8:42 PM

Clearly you have not involved all the issues involved.

The REASON why the big banks are messing with the paperwork is that the big banks will face massive losses if they try to fix the paperwork between the banks and the CDO mortgage portfolios.


The banks have alot of lawyers - Manhattan lawyers - the banks are AFRAID of the POTENTIAL CLAIMS FROM THE HOLDERS OF THE CDOS.

That is not a "paperwork" fix.

And Congress can't just come in and alter the property rights of so many people - it is unconstitutional.


The CLAIMS are going to make the big banks INSOLVENT.


Get used to it - and besides the STATE LAWS are what are at issue.


YOU have heard of them - there are 50 of them.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 15, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

I meant to say, the Church's position on birth control, not abortion. Sorry.

Posted by: Brigade | October 14, 2010 9:22 PM |

....................

Their position on both issues is; molest young boys, because they can never become impregnated, and the priests can always find some new boy toys, in each new parish they are moved around to.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 8:05 PM
-----

Tsk, tsk, tsk. That wasn't very nice. I hope you're not one of those people like Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg who keep reminding us that all Muslims aren't extremists.

...................

I see that you also worry about people not being nice enough to a Global Pedophile Protection Mafia, being run out of The Vatican.

How far back does that sex crimes syndicate go. Probably all the way back to the beginnings of the Church.

The Vatican recently Canonized an Australian Nun, who died in the late 1800s. One of the things, mentioned in passing about her was; she reported about an Irish Priest, stationed in Australia, who was molesting a lot of the young boys in the parish. This was a hundred and thirty years ago. Guess what the church did with that Priest. They did exactly what they have been doing up to this very day. The send him back to serve in Ireland for the rest of his life, without ever informing the people in that Irish parish, what he had being doing to young boys in Australia.

Anyone who defends The Vatican on their long long history of protecting sexual predators, must surely be depraved their selves.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

TrollMcWingnut at 8:51 PM

What about the black members of the Log Cabin Republicans???

They are out there - and they are more right-wing than you might imagine.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 15, 2010 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Someone please PROTECT me from Fox News.


Megan Kelly, Martha McCullom, Allison Camerota, Kimberly Giulfoyle, Juliet Huddy - OH PLEASE STOP.

It is just horrible looking at all these beautiful women - IT MUST BE ILLEGAL.


Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 15, 2010 9:04 PM | Report abuse

STRF wrote:

"Get used to it - and besides the STATE LAWS are what are at issue.


YOU have heard of them - there are 50 of them."


That's why I mentioned the states attorney's general. How quickly we forget a few years ago the tobacco companies were being sued everywhere and the sky was falling and the claims were going to bankrupt Philip Morris and all tobacco companies, etc.

The "bankrupt" Altria Group (sometimes a name change helps) closed at about $25 a share today, still making cigarettes that cause cancer, still making money.

Hate to be redundant but here's a story from almost exactly two years ago when once again the world was coming to an end:

" Buffett's seal of approval came at a price. Omaha, Nebraska- based Berkshire, led by the 78-year-old billionaire, is buying $5 billion of perpetual preferred stock that pays a 10 percent dividend. The securities can be repurchased by Goldman at any time in return for a 10 percent premium. In contrast, the dividend yield on the common stock sold today, based on a $1.40 annual payout, is about 1.1 percent.

$115 Warrants

Berkshire is also getting warrants to buy $5 billion of common stock for $115 a share at any time in the next five years. Based on yesterday's closing price, Buffett reaped an instant paper profit of $437 million on the warrants."

Closing price of Goldman Sachs today:

$150

Enjoy the end of the world. I sold my financial stocks about two weeks ago. I'll be buying them back again, perhaps soon.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 15, 2010 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Brigade, was on a mission of mercy over at Eugene's <|: )

What else is happening?

Just what influence will Rush L. have on WV politics that John Raese won'yt already have if he is elected. If R.L. had indorsed Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer that would be news. May even have helped those two, since they are running as fast as they can all the way home, where maybe some will forget they have a great, big fat "DEE" tatooed across their foreheads.

Slick with the 'GOPer' Greg, you bad, but seriously people are reding the 'leaves', hearing the winds of change in DC, and sensing a downpour from the sky that will lift all boats that aren't already shot full of holes by the regime. Is that really drugs you people are on when you see the results of a Scientific re-arrangement of those *od Awful numbers that have been coming out. maybe the poll-crats are using too, delicious...

The photog-ripper, was he on that ecstacy too? Too bad he didn't catch those same phony illegal campaign donors accepting foreign campaign converted funds loaded onto fake plastic atm cards (some for them, some for the messiah). Wonder who got the ten percent?

Harry Reid?

Harry Greid ""GDDD"" NV speaking during a Media Shoot-Out with Sharon Angle (WE've got your back Sharon): "Insurance Companies are destroying America's recovery, by denying people Colonoscopy Procedures, they are denying America a cure for Cancer (all those pinky things, you know), they, (Docs can go up there and snip off, you know those things they find up there, and, and boom it's gone." All of this gibberish tumbled out of this, the most powerful male (WE are assuming, gender not power) lawmaker in the world, while standing on the free, sovereign ground of the State of Nevada.

Sharon Angle is now being portrayed as the Extremist Kook, a tool of 'those' special interests. WE think Harry needs one of those Colon Procedures and while they are in there they can try to find the tumour up in his brain that causes him to think he is even qualified to accuse anybody of being an incoherent, extremist, fiscally irresponsible Coockoo, and snip that puppy.

Presumably the special interests Ms Angle is working for have neglected to get themselves declared special (or endangered), like the prarie dogs and jack rabbits shoved off their own land by Harry BLM.Com RE Trust run by all the friends and family of Harry (I had no idea they were doing so well investing in the private, special interest sector) Reid.

Maybe Sharon should have asked him what color the boxer, briefs, or whatever he was wearing to support colonoscopy reform.

Qid Pro Quo: Which one of these two would you give candy to if they showed up on your porch on Halloween Night, which one would you throw off your porch, which one would you chase down the street with a hedge trimmer and make sure they got on the Neighborhood Watch List?

Posted by: SpendNomore | October 15, 2010 9:12 PM | Report abuse

STRF:


Hey here's a story straight from today's Post that tells you all you need to know about how these things wind up:


Under the terms of the SEC settlement, (Angelo) Mozilo must pay a total of $67.5 million. Most of that amount is designed to pay former Countrywide investors who were harmed by the alleged wrongdong, and will be paid by Bank of America under a Countrywide indemnification agreement with Mozilo. Mozilo is paying about $23 million out of his own pocket as a penalty."

Mozilo's fortune originally made at Countrywide?

Estimates vary, but no less than $400,000,000. So he had to pay a little more than 5% of his fortune to keep the other 95%. You'll see some very similar arrangements made in the future at these banks.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 15, 2010 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Eye of Newt, hair of a blue dog, stir and bubble, toil and trouble, there Rainfor, that ought to hold y'all 'til you get back to the belfrey.

You are as Looney as any Toon, everybody knows Obama campaigned in all 57 states, same ones John Kerry hunted in.

Posted by: SpendNomore | October 15, 2010 9:20 PM | Report abuse

54465446 at 9:10 PM


Fine - go buy those bank stocks.

I'm completely out of them - and I'm not going back in - the banks basically have to run the tables in every State court in the country.


But that is not really what the concern should be - the claims from the CDO holders - they NEVER got delivered the mortgages. So now the banks are going to ask a Judge to put the BAD MORTGAGES INTO THE MORTGAGE PORTFOLIOS ???


So the FRAUD of the sub-prime mortgages and the packaging of all that - the banks have to NOW get a JUDGE TO PUT THOSE BAD MORTGAGES INTO THE MORTGAGE PORTFOLIOS ?


If that is what you think.....


If I was the lawyer for the CDO holder - I would say - "Judge - no we were defrauded in the beginning - we would like to have the bad mortgages stay with the banks - and we would like to be compensated"

Besides, Judge "We were promised good mortgages and these are clearly BAD mortgages"


So 54465446 YOU think that the PENSION FUNDS should be stuck with the BAD MORTGAGES THAT THEY DON'T EVEN OWN OFFICIALLY RIGHT NOW ??


The pension funds NEVER really owned the bad mortgages.


Sorry to the big banks - their own fraud is now on themselves.


There really is NOTHING Obama or the corrupt democrats in Congress can do to "fix the FRAUD"


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 15, 2010 9:25 PM | Report abuse

I wanted to add a bit about Justice William Douglas. Democratic congressman Don Wheeler was the FIRST to introduce a resolution to impeach Douglas. Years later Gerald Ford tried to impeach Douglas for the same sort of scandal that had forced Abe Fortas to resign: Douglas, hard up for cash, had become president of a seedy outfit called the Parvin Foundation
to supplement his income.

As for Douglas's judicial temperament:

"Douglas was often at odds with fellow Justice Felix Frankfurter, who believed in judicial restraint and thought the court should stay out of politics. Douglas
did not highly value judicial consistency or 'stare decisis' when deciding cases.
In general, legal scholars have noted that Douglas's judicial style was unusual in that he did not attempt elaborate justifications for his judicial positions on the basis of text, history, or precedent. Instead, Douglas was known for writing short, pithy opinions which relied on philosophical insights, observations
about current politics, and literature, as much as more conventional "judicial" sources."

"In his dissenting opinion in the landmark environmental law case, Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972), Justice Douglas famously, and most colorfully argued that 'inanimate objects' should have standing to sue in court."

You be the judge.

Posted by: Brigade | October 15, 2010 9:29 PM | Report abuse

54465446

The economy does not "need" the big banks.

They are not lending to businesses - they have been hurting the economy the whole way through.

Credit cards which are supposed to be variable have never gone down when interest rates went down.

The economy will be BETTER OFF without the big banks.

OK - you say the big banks can buy their way out of this - that is a corrupt view of the universe - and of the democratic party.


But I say that the American Public are sick of the bail-outs - sick of the big banks who did this to the economy -


and sick of the big banks that continue to pay out BIG BONUSES before they fix the damage they caused to the economy.


The MOST POPULAR thing anyone can do at this point is let all the big banks fail.

And CLAWBACK all the salaries and bonuses - stick ALL that money into the Treasury which has been so damaged by the actions of the Wall Street banks.


That is JUSTICE.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 15, 2010 9:31 PM | Report abuse

Someone please PROTECT me from Fox News.


Megan Kelly, Martha McCullom, Allison Camerota, Kimberly Giulfoyle, Juliet Huddy - OH PLEASE STOP.


It is just horrible looking at all these beautiful women - IT MUST BE ILLEGAL.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 15, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

And yet; they keep claiming that they will defend the nation. Sure; provided our enemies will die from laughing too hard at such a litter of scaredy cat bedwetters.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 15, 2010 8:40 PM
----

I guess that's why Dems are always trying to disqualify military ballots. They think all those brave men and women in uniform are Dems and they don't want to put Republicans at too much of a disadvantage. Right?

Posted by: Brigade | October 15, 2010 9:35 PM | Report abuse

STRF:

This is the big boy arena. Nobody gets to plead innocent in the sale of these securities. There will be additional compensation go out to those making claims, just like in my post about Mozilo. Three things used to be a certainty in politics:

1) Any mayor of Detroit, Camden and Providence will eventually go to prison.

2) Any governor of Illinois will be indicted.

3) Any governor of Louisiana, will suffer a scandal that will insure his re-election to that position.

Now we can add a fourth:

4) No President of the United States will ever cross the big financial institutions

Posted by: 54465446 | October 15, 2010 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Qid Pro Quo: Which one of these two would you give candy to if they showed up on your porch on Halloween Night, which one would you throw off your porch, which one would you chase down the street with a hedge trimmer and make sure they got on the Neighborhood Watch List?


Posted by: SpendNomore | October 15, 2010
-----

This should interest Liam. Radio celebrity Mancow, of Chicago, says that Harry Reid reminds him of a fellow who tried to molest him at a mall in Kansas City when he was a child.

Posted by: Brigade | October 15, 2010 9:43 PM | Report abuse

Here's what is wrong class, first WE are told of great new stuff coming, then we are told the stuff got lost in the mail, then We see wonderous, scary events and WE are told don't believe it nothing will be different, and frankly this whole thing has become a mystery WE can no longer abide.

when JFK went to Dallas in 1963, to anounce his reform of the tax system, FED, IRS, etc., he was mowed down and the country mourned, but the world stood by and wondered...then the Politicians, the Media, and the Pundits wrote and said: "The World will never be the same", oh but, America stayed the same, and The World breathed a sigh of relief. Next thing WE know, Lyndon B. Johnson (D) TX (according to him following orders from higher up), led US to ignominity in Vietnam (not because WE couldn't Win and get out, but because 'they' wouldn't). Fast forward to 09/11/01, Twins gleaming in the sun, reaching to the sky in the sunrise, a pile of rubble at dusk. Now that was a paradigm shaker, wouldn't we think? The World shuddered, the Jackals danced in the street, and celebrated. Next thing we hear is "don't worry" 'we' (you) will take the War to the 'war-makers' and everything "will be the same", except for those *amned exceptions. Now the 'special' interests have become supremes (back boodle Harry Greid) and the corporations are on a short leash, apparently, but look again, only certain corporations are on that short leash, while others are on the USS Clinton-Bush-Obama, seeming unconcerned that there was a paradigm shift in November 2008. Does this begin to look and smell like a Cabal's Conspiracy, just Cruel Fate, or some kind of design?

WE vote for design, and will be voting for every Amateur Candidate no matter what letter is behind the name. Give US numbskulls, give US *itches or *itches, CEO's of DOT.COM fame, ex- westling promoters, actors (with the Right Creds), butchers, bakers, candle-stick makers, and Joe the Plummer if he runs. WE are nearly sick and tired of the EXCUSES, ad infinatum, then no excuse for why this mess hasn't been cleaned up, loaded up, driven to the edge, and shoved into that proverbial BRINK.
American's have, can, and will right the Ship of State, and make sure turns back to the shores of prosperity for the most people ever in the History of the World.

WE have to find 'them', wherever they hide, and stop them. ONLY Amateurs can do this job, because unlike 'them', they have lives outside the hog-trough and will return to those pursuits as soon as they can.

Posted by: SpendNomore | October 15, 2010 9:45 PM | Report abuse

54465446

Look at it this way - the big pension funds have lawyers.


Suddenly, these lawyers have realized that the big losses in the CDO holdings WEREN'T REALLY THERE.


All the bad mortgages - they aren't ACTUALLY IN THE MORTGAGE PORTFOLIOS. That is some claim.


NOW all those lawyers can challenge the placement of those bad mortgages INTO the portfolios.


AND there are significant parts of the LAW on their side. The bad mortgages were NEVER in the portfolios.


Think.


Think about it - ALL those losses, all those bad mortgages were NOT LEGALLY in those portfolios.


Those losses are STUCK AT THE BIG BANKS.


____________________________

And review your history of Andrew Jackson - he even got his picture on the 20 in the end.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 15, 2010 9:47 PM | Report abuse

54465446

Look at it this way - the big pension funds have lawyers.


Suddenly, these lawyers have realized that the big losses in the CDO holdings WEREN'T REALLY THERE.


All the bad mortgages - they aren't ACTUALLY IN THE MORTGAGE PORTFOLIOS. That is some claim.


NOW all those lawyers can challenge the placement of those bad mortgages INTO the portfolios.


AND there are significant parts of the LAW on their side. The bad mortgages were NEVER in the portfolios.


Think.


Think about it - ALL those losses, all those bad mortgages were NOT LEGALLY in those portfolios.


Those losses are STUCK AT THE BIG BANKS.


____________________________

And review your history of Andrew Jackson - he even got his picture on the 20 in the end.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 15, 2010 9:48 PM | Report abuse

By the way guys


Great show on PBS the other night - on the Bobby Kennedy speech the night Martin Luther King was shot

The speech was in Indianopolis at 17th and Broadway.

They showed some monument at the end - I'm not sure if that monument is at that location or not - but I recommend it.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 15, 2010 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Brigade,

You really don't know history, do you? Was Douglas ever convicted of a crime? No. Is judicial temperament a matter of "high crimes and misdemeanors"? No.

Ford was angry about the scuttling of the Carswell and Haynsworth nominations, and he was being a petty little ideologue. His testimony in support of impeachment was as much about Douglas's liberal rulings as it was about the Parvin Foundation. (If Douglas has done anything criminal, don't you think Nixon's henchman John Mitchell would have found it?)

Oh, about "trees" having standing. Ships can be parties to lawsuits. So can corporations. We have lots of legal fictions allowing inanimate or incorporeal things to be parties to lawsuits.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 15, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Brigade and bearclaw

You are talking about "My Three Sons," right?


Widower Steven Douglas is left to bring up three boys all by himself with the aide of his housekeeper "Uncle Charlie". The series revolves around the trials and tribulations of life's experiences as a single parent family.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 15, 2010 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Oh, about "trees" having standing. Ships can be parties to lawsuits. So can corporations. We have lots of legal fictions allowing inanimate or incorporeal things to be parties to lawsuits.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 15, 2010 9:53 PM
-----

I don't think he was too worried about corporations. Trees, rivers, swamps, maybe. The guy was a left-wing nutbag and unfit to serve IMO. Was he ever actually convicted of a crime? Did Al Capone ever do anything other than cheat on his taxes? Obviously not. And Ford nominated Stevens as Douglas's replacement, so I don't think you'll get much mileage out of the "petty little idealogue" charge as it applies to Gerald Ford.

Posted by: Brigade | October 15, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse

By all.

Have a nice weekend.

You Repubwiccans be sure to turn off the light when you are done.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 15, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse

4) No President of the United States will ever cross the big financial institutions

Posted by: 54465446 | October 15, 2010 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Except Teddy Roosevelt.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 15, 2010 10:20 PM | Report abuse

SpendNomore

You could have just told us you were voting a straight Tea Party ticket and saved a few words.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 15, 2010 10:54 PM | Report abuse

to Farlington blade and STRF:

Notice that I said "will not cross", not has never crossed. Those days in both cases are long behind us. The creation of the Federal Reserve changed the relationship of the government to the largest banks entirely. Remember our currency is a Federal Reserve Note, not a US Treasury Note.

To control the nation, you need to control three positions, and you don't have to worry about anything else, the presidency, the chairmanship of the Federal Reserve and the the Supreme Court.

As I wrote in an earlier post:

-the chair of the Fed has belonged exclusively to a Harvard grad for the last 31 years

-the Presidency has belonged exclusively to a Harvard or Yale grad for the last 22years

-the Supreme Court, ALL 9 positions, belongs exclusively to those who attended either Harvard or Yale

These are totally UNPRECEDENTED conditions in the history of our republic.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 15, 2010 11:32 PM | Report abuse

Harvard and Yale?

Those were my safe schools.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 16, 2010 12:21 AM | Report abuse

I went to Harvard AND Yale...


................ for a day.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 16, 2010 3:45 AM | Report abuse

Brigade

"I'm bombarded daily with emails from Dems like John Kerry, always begging for money and telling me the world as we know it will end if we don't beat those rotten Republicans. I hadn't realized that I was a member of some elite group. I guess those emails don't go out to senior citizens, welfare moms, and poor minorities. Huh?"

I missed this response to my seniors/Beck/CofC comments yesterday. Let me try to explain myself again, not that it really matters I suppose.

I'm not a donation cop and really could care less who donates to what cause be it, a John Kerry PAC, a Sarah Palin PAC, the humane society or their local parish.

People can try to beat back socialism at the hands of Democrats or the corporate takeover of our country at the hands of Republicans, their choice.

I thought I made a pretty simple complaint re Glenn Beck asking his listeners, at least the large majority of those living on very minimal monthly income who are susceptible in SOME cases to pleas from scam artists, to donate to a pretty exclusive club of business owners.

With dues of $7500 yearly, which is about half of the seniors I work with annual income, I fail to see the need or a cause in there anywhere.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 16, 2010 8:18 AM | Report abuse

lmsinca, the need or cause is that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is attempting to violate free speech rights. First, they came for the Chamber of Commerce, so you did nothing. Maybe by the time they come for liberals who complain about Obama not doing enough for them, then you will realize what this is about. It may be too late by then.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 16, 2010 8:35 AM | Report abuse

All, here's a fresh open thread for you:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/open_thread_8.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 16, 2010 8:59 AM | Report abuse

"lmsinca, the need or cause is that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is attempting to violate free speech rights."

Too much. The only civil liberties the Radical Right cares about are the rights of people to possess deadly weapons. Other than that all the Radical Right cares about is empowering corporations and their front groups as they attempt a coup to establish a permanent plutocracy. What's next? A corporate right to bear arms?

Posted by: wbgonne | October 16, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

Imsinca:

Ann Kuster, a true liberal, has pulled ahead of Charlie Bass in NH-2.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2010/10/15/kuster_has_slight_lead_over_bass_in_nh/

Perhaps a good addition to the PL Actblue roster?

Posted by: wbgonne | October 16, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne

I'll add her tomorrow and we'll make one more push to the finish. I was just reading about her yesterday, so thanks. I have another couple of candidates in mind also who are close. Maybe we'll be able to double our original goal by the end of the week.

And thanks for your contributions.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 16, 2010 9:34 AM | Report abuse

No, wbgonne, individual board of directors DO have 2nd Amendment rights however. If Obama shuts down HuffPo and other liberal bloggers, then will you object?

lmsinca, if I contribute to PL Actblue, will you answer my question?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 16, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

clawrence

I wasn't aware you asked me a question. Did you have a question regarding my complaint re Beck soliciting private/individual donations for a membership group that represents corporate interests?

Did you happen to notice I haven't entered the ruckus over the Chamber? I know who their donors and members are and what interests they represent so I know who not to vote for.

What I believe in is transparency and campaign finance reform across the entire process, left, right, middle. I no longer contribute to PAC's, National Committees, or Senate/House committees as I prefer to donate directly to candidates and issues I support.

In case you're interested in making a donation to our act blue page, here's the link. I would suggest Feingold. :)

http://www.actblue.com/page/plcommunity

Posted by: lmsinca | October 16, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Yes, I noticed you haven't entered into anything with the Chamber of Commerce. Maybe by the time they come for liberals who complain about Obama not doing enough for them, then you will realize what this is about?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 16, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

clawrence

I thought maybe you were interested in a real conversation, but I guess not. You guys and your paranoid fantasies really crack me up.

Enjoy Palin.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 16, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

I'm not the one who doesn't answer questions.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 16, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

clawrence

A statement hinting at some great conspiracy with a question mark at the end is not a question. It's like some great mystery only you know about and you expect me to discuss it with you. Ask me a direct question and I'll answer and I won't even expect you to contribute to our actblue page, although it would be great.

Am I in favor of free speech? yes

Are there consequences to free speech? yes

Posted by: lmsinca | October 16, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

If Obama shuts down HuffPo and other liberal bloggers, then will you object?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 16, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

That's pretty hypothetical question since I don't see Obama trying to "shut down" anyone, but yes I would object. I don't believe anyone should be shut down because I disagree or agree with them.

Listen, my stand is I'm in favor of free speech, I'm in favor of transparency, and I'm in favor of keeping foreign donations out of our electoral process.

I'm not particularly worried about the CofC dumping gobsmacks of money onto Republicans. If I were a member of the CofC I would drop out though, and I won't vote for any of their supported candidates. Everyone else can decide for themselves.

And I do think the CofC may have a bit of a problem with foreign contributions but since they don't seem to be required to open their books there's not much I can do about it. Do we have the right to question it, yes.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 16, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Of course you have the right to question, and wbgonne even has the right to boycott the wrong Chamber. What the GOVERNMENT cannot do, however, is abridge First Amendment rights. When the next Republican President goes after leftist organizations like Obama is, maybe then you will consider it "shutting down" free speech.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 16, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

clawrence

Debating an issue is not shutting down free speech. If the Chamber decides to endorse, in huge sums, Republican candidates, and refuses to open their books to verify that the foreign dues they collect are kept separate and they're legally entitled to do so, no problem. But you can't also expect the rest of us, including the President, to just sit idly by and let their corporate donors buy elections without speaking up.

Meg Whitman is trying to buy a governorship, no problem, but it doesn't mean some of us aren't going to fight back. It's all part of the political process AFAIC. Like I said before, the solution is campaign finance reform, pure and simple.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 16, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Trying to intimidate them, via the FEC and IRS, violates the First Amendment.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 17, 2010 1:00 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company