Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Happy Hour Roundup

* Steve Benen skewers the U.S. Chamber's latest rebuttal of all the independent fact checks debunking many of the claims in its national, anonymously-bankrolled ad onslaught against Dems.

* Nevada Tea Party Senate candidate Scott Ashjian says what he thinks about Sharron Angle:

"As far as competence goes, or maybe, intellect goes, Harry Reid is probably a smarter person than Angle."

* That Alaska reporter shares new details with Sam Stein about getting handcuffed and detained by Alaska Tea Partyer Joe Miller's private police squad, which of course you need if you don't think government should be doing anything.

* Digby notes, rightly I think, that no one is really reckoning with just how unprecedented, mendacious, and ambitious in scope the anti-Dem ad campaign bankrolled by anonymous donors really is.

* Factcheck.org says the Jack Conway ad attacking Rand Paul over Aqua Buddha is accurate on the facts.

* Markos defends the ad: "No one has a right to electoral office, and in a democracy, you have to sell yourself to the voters. In many places, religion is part of the package."

* So does Theda Skocpol.

* If victorious GOP candidates think the Tea Party is going to let them get away with going weak-kneed and being all responsible and moderate next year, they've got another thing coming.

* Gallup finds that an astonishing two thirds of Republicans think the government is a big "threat" to them, the highest number of any party at any point in Gallup polling.

* Which may explain why Gallup also finds that the GOP is still benefiting in a big way from the enthusiasm gap.

* And a funny catch by Eric Kleefeld: Vince McMahon, the wrestling honcho and husband of GOP Senate candidate Linda McMahon, has wandered into a tougher neighorbood than he's accustomed to: Politics.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | October 18, 2010; 6:47 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Campaign finance, Happy Hour Roundup, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans, Tea Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Sharron Angle: My ads aren't referring to Mexico, except when they clearly are
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

Last time I will post this -- there have to be more pressing issues than foreign money contributed to campaigns -- whether it's Obama's or the Chamber of Commerce)

Lamestream media figures are wasting time on this because the inconvenient truth would hit a little closer to home. After letting him skate on not taking public financing, Obama's 2008 campaign raised over $103 million in UNCODED donations -- not all of those were under $200, but who care, the left wants disclosure of ALL amounts now -- so Obama is actually the one guilty of "failure to disclose" not Rove or the Chamber of Commerce:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638

Whatever happened to the hard-hitting INVESTIGATIVE reporting of the WaPo, you know, Woodward and Bernstein tracking down who ordered the Watergate breakin? Does that caliber of reporting only happen when a Republican is in the White House?

As an added irony, Sarah Palin's speech in California started with John Philip Sousa's "Washington Post".

If you missed her full speech:

http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2010/10/governor-palins-speech-at-gop-rally.html

As I noted, on the prior thread, there is NO RELIGIOUS TEST for any public office here in the United States. Remember, that's what the Pilgrims were fleeing from in England?!

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 18, 2010 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Must-read David Dayen piece on the foreclosure issue.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/10/17/mers-y-mercy-me-the-sewer-drain-at-the-bottom-of-the-housing-market/

Another great example of how the banksters (AKA, the smartest men in the world) got us into a mess we're going be paying for indefinitely.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 18, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Jake

Obama and the democrats have NOTHING. They have tried every issue they could think of over the summer and nothing has worked with the voters.

The American People wanted Obama to drop the health care plan and Obama refused.

Obama responded with arrogance and insisted on forcing his version of health care on the country.

In addition, Obama insisted on ignoring the economic crisis.

This is not a charge made by the Republicans - Obama himself went before Congress and stated that he would not be distracted by the economic crisis. This is NOT want the American People elected Obama to do.


Posted by: CapitolOrCapital | October 18, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL EVER BE REQUIRED as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Emphasis Added)

U.S. Const., Art. VI, para. 3

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 18, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

CapitolOrCapital:

We'll see on November 2nd.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 18, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Jake -- the issue, on this blog at least, has never really been the foreign money. It's disclosure and secret money funding ads, wherever it's coming from.

And multiple polls -- SUSA, Bloomberg, WPost -- all show that the public is strongly against what's happening.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 18, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

It was one of the most remarkable statements in American history - a man so out-of-touch with the country that he probably shouldn't even be living here, much less leading the nation.

Obama went before Congress a year ago September, in a special address on health care.

Obama stated clearly that he "did not come to Washington" to be distracted by the economic crisis. Obama wanted to do big things. And the economic crisis which was affecting so many Americans was simply NOT on the top of his list.

The arrogance was unprecedented.

It did not get much notice that night. However looking back that said it all about Obama. He just did not understand the position. He just did not understand politics. He just did not understand the American People.

Obama grew up in Indonesia and it showed.

Even if Obama felt this way, going in front of Congress and stating so was the height of arrogance. How in the world can any intelligent person defend this kind of behavior?

I am astonished by the lack of critical review of Obama by the democrats. The country deserves better on both accounts. The country deserves better from Obama and the nation deserves better from the democrats who should be honest about Obama.

Posted by: CapitolOrCapital | October 18, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Jake, why are you against transparency in election funding?

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 18, 2010 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Then why weren't you upset about Obama failing to disclosure, and secret money funding his ads, wherever it's coming from?

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 18, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Poor old Cap/Cap. He could only keep up the charade for so long. Now he has relapsed into STRF speak. All Obama all the time, once more.

Can the CAPS and the triple spacing be far behind.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 18, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

BGinCHI:

I'm not against transparency in election funding -- I am against changing the rules after the fact and trying to hold the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to some level of disclosure that's not required under current law -- most of all, I am for the First Amendment. Even anonymous political speech is valuable (see "Common Sense" and "Federalist Papers").

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 18, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Jake always answers my question with a reference to Obama, which is childish.

But let's have a look at Obama's disclosure stats:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?id=n00009638

Pretty good, I'd say. And yes, I wish they were 100%. I'm for transparency for ALL candidates, period.

What is the right so afraid of?

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 18, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Kristen Gillibrand was in the middle of the sub-prime mortgage crisis. And so was Andrew Cuomo.

Why isn't the media reporting that?

The media bias this year has been amazing. The economic issues are paramount and the country still hasn't really heard from the media how much the democrats were involved in the mortgage crisis and the situation on Wall Street.

It is unbelievable.

Greg - Obama said foreign money. The democrats said foreign money. The reason the democrats don't want to talk about "undisclosed money" is that they know they do it too. So your efforts to re-frame the issue may make sense to you, but to the democrats it would open them up to a series of attacks.

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 18, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

lol. Joe Miller said if east Germany could build a wall we could too on the border.

somebody might want to tell him what they did to people they found crossing that wall.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 18, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

From Bloomberg.com

"Watergate II Inevitable as Cash Floods Election: Albert Hunt"

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-17/more-cash-blots-out-sunlight-in-u-s-elections-albert-hunt.html


"A prediction: The U.S. is due for a huge scandal involving big money, bribery and politicians. Not the small fry that dominates the ethics fights in Washington; really big stuff; think Watergate.

It is axiomatic in politics that without accountability there is abuse. This year, there is a massive infusion of special-interest money into U.S. politics that is secret, not reported. Corporations and other interests will spend more than $250 million of undisclosed funds to affect the outcome of the Nov. 2 national elections.

One of the villains is Citizens United, a sweeping Supreme Court decision last January that gave the green light for the use of corporate and union funds to try to sway elections.

Chief Justice John Roberts’ five-member Supreme Court majority argued that massive amounts of special-interest cash don’t create an appearance of corruption; none of these five jurists ever faced a voter.

A former justice who did, Sandra Day O’Connor, was dumbstruck by the Citizens United case, cracking, “I step away for a couple years and there’s no telling what’s going to happen.” '

Posted by: Liam-still | October 18, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

STRF/CoC lies through his teeth about Obama's September 9, 2009 address to Congress. You allege Obama told Congress he "'did not come to Washington' to be distracted by the economic crisis." Your problem, liar, is that it is easy to check the transcript from many sources, and confirm that you are a liar.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-to-a-Joint-Session-of-Congress-on-Health-Care/

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 18, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Or this:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/outside-groups-dominate-campaign-ad-spending-in-2010.php?ref=fpblg

Jake, same old arguments from you. You don't care where the money comes from as long as it goes to the GOP. And so don't reference the Constitution (your 1st Amendment ref is laughable, but I'm assuming you typed it as you reflected on how awesome the current majority of the Supreme Court is), and don't cry to us when the corporate-bought GOP destroys the economy and the middle class even more than they did before 2008.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 18, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

LeafofLife = STRF = Classic777 = Cap/Cap

Will the aliases never end?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 18, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Greg

Ever hear of Joseph Sandler? He was in the middle of a scandal involving MoveOn.org - a scandal which led to fines by the Federal Government against MoveOn.org.

Joseph Sandler at the same time was serving as counsel for the Democratic National Committee.

Look it up - way way too close to make any case for disclosure or secret money funding ads. You really should know what the democrats have been up to over the past 15 years.

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 18, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

"Jake ALWAYS answers my question with a reference to Obama, which is childish." (Emphasis Added)

Q: Jake, why are you against transparency in election funding?

A: I'm not against transparency in election funding -- I am against changing the rules after the fact and trying to hold the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to some level of disclosure that's not required under current law -- most of all, I am for the First Amendment. Even anonymous political speech is valuable (see "Common Sense" and "Federalist Papers").

No reference to Obama at all. In fact, YOU have not answered my questions to you on prior threads at all. My QUESTION at 7:22 PM, less than one minute after your question, was directed toward Greg Sargent's hypocrisy, even quoting his exact words. Nice try, though, BGinCHI.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 18, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

@LeaforLife

The Left has been allowed to monopolize the official narrative about what drove the financial crisis. The examination of the entrails has been done in a thoroughly partisan manner so far. The entire crisis has been the pinned on greedy Wall Street sharpies. Well, that is true, in part. But there is a lot more to the story that has been ignored so far out of partisan butt-covering.

If the Republicans take the House, we will start examining the social engineering aspect of what happened at Fannie and Fred, especially the lending targets established by HUD.

Expect to see Issa drag Franklin Raines and Angelo Mozillo in front of Congress.

It would be nice to look at the Fed's role in this, but that is probably asking too much.

But don't worry, the Right may finally get its turn at bat.

Posted by: sold2u | October 18, 2010 7:36 PM | Report abuse

This isn't about holding the Chamber to some ex-post facto standard. Other than the supposedly non-activist Supreme Court just shredded 60 years of settled law.

The chamber is free to run ads funded by "people". The Dems are free to rip them for it. What? Your delicate sensibilities are offended by all those nasty things the Dems are saying? Too bad. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and your goose is about to be cooked.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 18, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse


LeafofLife = STRF = Classic777 = Cap/Cap

Will the aliases never end?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 18, 2010 7:33 PM

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

He had to switch once again, after I pointed out that he had slipped back into STRF, all Obama rants all the time, mode.

He should just start calling himself Sybil, and be done with it.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 18, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

anonymous political speech is valuable
--------------------------------
Not nearly as valuable as knowing who is saying what. That's common sense. We don't pay any attention to "unidentifed sources say". So how valuable is it?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 18, 2010 7:39 PM | Report abuse

BTW: I never laugh about the First Amendment.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 18, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Jake: "Then why weren't you upset about Obama failing to disclosure, and secret money funding his ads, wherever it's coming from?"

This wasn't a direct response to me, but it's your MO. Own it, dude; it's just what you do.

And no, I don't always answer time-consuming questions that the inquirer hasn't taken the trouble to think about. Don't worry, I'll answer you when you have a good question.

And so, to summarize: Jake's response to transparency in elections is that he's for it, except that he's not for it in the case of the CoC, nor is he for it if it's protected speech under his amazingly synoptic version of the 1st Amendment (in which he's certain the founders and Paine were talking about corporations-as-individuals and election financing).

You see why I can't take you seriously?

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 18, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous Bribes are not to be equated with anonymous speech. The Fat Cat Money launderers are trying to install a bought and paid for Republican Puppet Regime.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 18, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Bearclaw

Here is the quote:

But we did not come here just to clean up crises. We came here to build a future. So tonight, I return to speak to all of you about an issue that is central to that future -- and that is the issue of health care.


________________________________


Yes, do not concentrate on solving the economic crisis. Instead start spending Billions on a massive new health care program.

Did you actually read the link you provided?

Or do you just start the name calling without any basis? You should be banned and deported with Obama.

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 18, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Instead of listening to Jake and crazy STR/COC, the sock puppet king, check out the Rude Pundit on campaign financing:

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 18, 2010 7:44 PM | Report abuse

I'm pretty sure that the British wanted to know who wrote "Common Sense" and "The Federalist Papers" too (just like wbgonne re: any "Chamber" of Commerce, they would have gladly hanged them ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 18, 2010 7:44 PM | Report abuse

LeafofLife/Sybil

Can STFR come out?

Posted by: Liam-still | October 18, 2010 7:44 PM | Report abuse

As I said, STRF/CoC/LoL lied about what Obama said. "We did not come here just to clean up crises" logically means that "we did come here to clean up crises, but for other reasons as well."

Sybil the Jellyfish is quite the loser and liar.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 18, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Jake, so the donors to the CoC can't be disclosed for fear of their lives?

Now we're getting somewhere.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 18, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Yes that is right Abe Simpson. The voters want to know who is paying for all those ads being fronted by Karl Rove and The Chamber Of Con Artists, so they "can hang them". So how come they haven't hanged "Turd Blossom" since they know who he is, you demented ultra maroon?

Posted by: Liam-still | October 18, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

BGinCHI:

I don;t worry about you one bit.

If anyone else wants to actually argue that "Common Sense" and "The Federalist Papers" were worthless to the very founding of our Constitutional republic, let me know.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 18, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Expect to see Issa drag Franklin Raines and Angelo Mozillo in front of Congress.

Posted by: sold2u | October 18, 2010 7:36 PM
------

That would be something to see. Maxine Waters and Barney Frank would need wire brushes to get the boot black off their tongues.

Posted by: Brigade | October 18, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

To all the righties who still believe that the C.U. decision of the brain deads like Alito doesn't affect our nation. First question...how can you assure me that Osama Bin Ladin hasn't used some of his 100's of millions in contributions to our elections. You can't can you? Please provide assurance.
How about the Iranians..could they be players..the Chinese..thanks to pinheads like Alito we'll never know will we.

As far as the effect of $$ on our nation I leave it to someone far more articulate than me to state the case. How about Abraham Lincoln who was prescient enough to realize this even before big money was that BIG!!!! Argue with honest Abe you losers.

"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.. corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed. Abraham Lincoln"

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 18, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and your goose is about to be cooked.

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 18, 2010 7:37 PM
------

Just what polls have you been looking at? You must be listening to Robert Gibbs.

Posted by: Brigade | October 18, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

I'm pretty sure that the British wanted to know who wrote "Common Sense" and "The Federalist Papers" too (just like wbgonne re: any "Chamber" of Commerce, they would have gladly hanged them ; )
-----------------------------------
And your point is, what, exactly? That if the CofC tells the truth of their donors, they'll be hanged? Is that the donor who'll be hung or the CofC? Bwahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wait--that's not a question to you. Don't feel that you have to answer.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 18, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

BGinCHI:

Sorry, but that's not a "good" question.

If anyone else wants to discuss that, please see how the anti-Prop. 8 people PHYSICALLY ASSAULTED an elderly lady first:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znXHJQSX78o

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 18, 2010 7:53 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7

Bin Laden does love having Republicans in charge. He never had it so good as when Bush/Cheney spend over a trillion dollars, creating conditions in Iraq that would make him look appealing to the Sunnis.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 18, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Sold2u writes

But there is a lot more to the story that has been ignored so far out of partisan butt-covering.

If the Republicans take the House, we will start examining the social engineering aspect of what happened at Fannie and Fred, especially the lending targets established by HUD.

Expect to see Issa drag Franklin Raines and Angelo Mozillo in front of Congress.

____________________________


That would all be appropriate. It is unbelievable how the democrats have been allowed to lie about the economic crisis.

The media has not helped. I suppose some of them simply do not understand what they are doing.

However there are producers and editors out there who know that the public has been getting a biased view of the roots of the economic crisis.

For centuries, there has been a tradition in America that when a President comes in, he does not criticize the previous President and the new President is responsible.

Obama has disrespected that tradition. And I think that may be the word for Obama, disrespect. Obama has disrespected so many traditions about our nation that one has to wonder. And Obama keeps up the disrespect. It really is amazing.

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 18, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

Jake, this is like performance art now. You are a comic genius.

Do me a favor though, talk to Dick Cheney and his daughter and see if you all can agree whether Dems are cowards or bullies. I think your pissy pants fear is clouding your judgment.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 18, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous Bribes are not to be equated with anonymous speech. The Fat Cat Money launderers are trying to install a bought and paid for Republican Puppet Regime.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 18, 2010 7:42 PM
------

Replace "trying to install" with "are installing." The narrative has been written. After the election, you can change it to "have installed." Will you be here to eat crow?

"Liam's just on the blue side of lonesome,
Right next to the Heartbreak Hotel,
At a tavern that's known as D-Baggers,
On a barstool not doing so well."

Buck up, old boy. You'll live through it.

Posted by: Brigade | October 18, 2010 7:58 PM | Report abuse

@bg in chicago,

You should know that Jake keeps a list of who's naughty or nice. Nice are people he can corral into a sophist argument about some miniscule legal detail. Naughty are people he can't.

This is where you want to be on the naughty list.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 18, 2010 7:58 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade:

My "goose" isn't about to be cooked, as my candidates are not running 5-10 points behind ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 18, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

BGinCHI:

Still waiting for a "good" question from you.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 18, 2010 8:01 PM | Report abuse

'm pretty sure that the British wanted to know who wrote "Common Sense" and "The Federalist Papers" too (just like wbgonne re: any "Chamber" of Commerce, they would have gladly hanged them ; )
-----------------------------------
And your point is, what, exactly? That if the CofC tells the truth of their donors, they'll be hanged? Is that the donor who'll be hung or the CofC? Bwahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wait--that's not a question to you. Don't feel that you have to answer.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 18, 2010 7:52 PM

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

Apparently, our resident Abe Simpson is not aware that a whole lot of people signed their actual names to the declaration of independence, for the Brits to plainly discover.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 18, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

I'm beginning to suspect you're all Rainforest.

{{{except anyone posting as tao9, natch}}}

Posted by: tao9 | October 18, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Boxers or briefs?

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 18, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry. My responses are limited. You must ask the right questions.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 18, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Interesting historical fact: the War for Independence ended in 1783. The Federalist Papers were written in 1787 and 1788. The anonymity of authorship of the Federalist Papers had nothing to do with fear of the British.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 18, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

@sold2u Since you are a rational poster I wish to disagree in a most respectful manner.
Your Fannie Mae..Freddie Mac reference is a red herring...IMHO.

As someone with a Broker's license I do not deny that there was a lot wrong with the Real Estate industry before the bubble burst.
Appraisers were given contracts before the appraisals and voila...their appraisals always seemed to come in just a few grand above contract price...even if the home or commercial property may have actually been tens of thousands more valuable..why take any more liability than necessary...and in some cases tens of thousands lower than true value...there were plenty of phantom buyers and other shenanigans. But it saddens me to see people try to trace this back to spendthrift everyday Americans. Did many of them buy more house than they could afford..ABSOLUTELY...were they encouraged by real estate agents and mortgage brokers ABSOLUTELY. Did buying a home with a horrid subprime adjustable rate mortgage and then refinancing after a few years when enough equity enabled folks to do so work? ABSOLUTELY...hundreds of thousands of American families actually used this system successfully...did it blow up at the end of the bubble...YES!!1

But what turned this into a crisis was the Wall Street greedmeisters who developed the derivatives based on the subprime mortgages. I had a guy offer me one of these investments and when I said but hey by definition aren't subprime mortgages more risky...don't worry they're backed by real estate. I told him..what happens if the real estate market corrects..he pooh poohed my concern. I passed thank heavens...but if I had been a large enough investor..and AIG was there with a CDS to "insure" my investment...I might have snapped it up like many others...the returns were awesome.

If the subprimes hadn't been packaged as derivatives (now messing up all of our paper work as well at foreclosure time)..if the Wall Street "geniuses" hadn't promised insurance (never adequately collateralized thanks to a lack of regulation) this crisis would have already passed. It would have created a price adjustment in the real estate market but it wouldn't have WRECKED our economy!
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and "social" policies had nothing to do with this crisis. Nobody FORCED anybody to write a mortgage. Countrywide and the others to float all those loans. Loose gov't regs may have helped enable it..along with Freddie and Fannie but really...why would you single out Americans trying to get a better home for their families instead of greedy banksters trying for a larger yacht?

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 18, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Greg wrote, linking a WSJ piece on the stridency of Tea Party candidates:

"If victorious GOP candidates think the Tea Party is going to let them get away with going weak-kneed and being all responsible and moderate next year, they've got another thing coming."

And from that WSJ piece:

"Dick Armey, the House majority leader after the Republican landslide of 1994 and now a tea party promoter at FreedomWorks, says lawmakers next year should revisit efforts that failed in that earlier conservative wave, such as private investment accounts for Social Security, eliminating the Department of Commerce and turning all federal education aid into block grants to the states, with no role for the federal Department of Education."

Armey is completely predictable. He will move, post-election, increasingly to the sort of establishment position he has always represented because of who he represents, the corporate interests who pay his lobbying activities.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 18, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Expect to see Issa drag Franklin Raines and Angelo Mozillo in front of Congress.

Posted by: sold2u | October 18, 2010 7:36 PM
------

That would be something to see. Maxine Waters and Barney Frank would need wire brushes to get the boot black off their tongues.

Posted by: Brigade | October 18, 2010 7:49 PM
________________________

The FNM and FRE lending targets came from HUD. Guess who ran HUD when these targets were initially set? He isn't going to lose anyway, but I wish some journalist had the guts to ask him about HUD's role in Fannie Mae's American Dream Commitment.

Posted by: sold2u | October 18, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Oh, that's right, bearclaw1 -- because the British never burned down Washington, D.C. in 1814 either -- what great "student" of history you are!

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 18, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Has John Boehner's eight year terms limit, that he promised to abide by, back in 1994, expired yet?

Posted by: Liam-still | October 18, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

@ruk:

Fannie Mae Press Release talking about the American Dream Commitment.

WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 18, 2003--On the third anniversary of its "American Dream Commitment(R)," Fannie Mae and its lender partners already have fulfilled over half of its ten-year pledge to provide $2 trillion in home financing for 18 million historically underserved families, Fannie Mae Chairman and CEO Franklin D. Raines announced today.

Lender partners participating in today's announcement include: Bank of America; Bank One Corporation; Charter One Bank; Countrywide Financial Corporation; Doral Financial Corporation; First Horizon Home Loan Corporation; Fleet Boston Bank; Huntington Mortgage Company; Irwin Mortgage; J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; and Standard Mortgage Corporation.

"Together, America's top lenders and Fannie Mae have made terrific progress in bringing the nation's housing boom to overlooked Americans and addressing the gaps in housing opportunity," Raines said. "Fannie Mae applauds our lender partners for helping us surpass the halfway mark in our $2 trillion commitment to underserved families so quickly. Together, we lead the market in serving Americans of color and modest means."

Fannie Mae launched the American Dream Commitment in March 2000 to narrow homeownership gaps, increase the availability of affordable rental housing, and strengthen communities.

Highlights of Fannie Mae's 2002 American Dream Commitment report include:

Fannie Mae provided over $1.3 trillion for nearly 12 million families since 2000, including:

-- $670 billion for almost 5.5 million families in 2002
-- $67 billion for households headed by women
-- $190 billion for families in city neighborhoods

Fannie Mae met its voluntary commitment to lead the market in serving minority Americans. Last year, the company provided $136 billion for almost 1 million minority families, which:

-- served 213,000 African-American families with $24 billion in financing;
-- served 394,000 Hispanic families with $51 billion in financing;
-- served 2,488 Native Americans living on tribal and trust lands with more than $217 million in financing;
-- served 375,000 other minorities with $61 billion in financing; and
-- led to Fannie Mae partnering with lenders and community groups to finance $8.2 billion through our efforts to facilitate Community Reinvestment Act-targeted business.

In addition, Fannie Mae met or exceeded HUD affordable goals for the 9th consecutive year, with almost 52 percent of business serving low- and moderate-income families; almost 33 percent serving underserved areas; and over 21 percent serving very low-income families.

(more)

Posted by: sold2u | October 18, 2010 8:10 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7 wrote,
"First question...how can you assure me that Osama Bin Ladin hasn't used some of his 100's of millions in contributions to our elections. You can't can you? Please provide assurance.
How about the Iranians..could they be players.."
-------

If it will make you feel any better, I'll be safe in promising you that if Bin Laden and/or the Iranians are pouring money into the system, it won't be to support Republicans.

"the Chinese..thanks to pinheads like Alito we'll never know will we."

We already know. Johnny Chung. General Gi. Zheng Hongye. Moctor Riady. John Huang. Norman Hsu. Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple. Shall I go on?

Posted by: Brigade | October 18, 2010 8:10 PM | Report abuse

I am under injunction by (the) law in the house of Tao, that, regular season affinities notwithstanding, the American League entry from the Bronx shall be encouraged and extolled by all in the premises.

Your thawts & prairs are appreciated.

Posted by: tao9 | October 18, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Tao,

I thought you were a Red Sox fan?

Not sure if this is your cup of tea or not. Give it a listen.

A Dublin Prison Blues Song, By Brendan Behan.

The Auld Triangle


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aa7birRBmNM

Posted by: Liam-still | October 18, 2010 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Yes, of course, Jake, I must bow to your brilliance. Madison, Hamilton and Jay were paralyzed with fear, knowing in 1787 that the British would invade in 1814. Thus, John Jay insisted on serving anonymously as the first Chief Justice, Hamilton was but a nameless shadow as the first Secretary of the Treasury, and James Madison, well he was a complete cypher as a member of the House, Secretary of State, and President. Because they all knew "the British are coming (back)!!!" and they didn't want anyone to know of their roles in the formation of the United States.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 18, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

I am Red, Liam.

Alas, my fair cabin mate bleeds Blue. We have an "understanding."

Posted by: tao9 | October 18, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

rukidding at 8:04

You were going fine with that comment until the part about HUD and Fannie Mae. It was Clinton and his people - jamming 3 Trillion into the housing market for sub-prime mortgages

That inflated the prices beyond what some people could afford.

But the whole thing started in 2000 and Clinton jam packed Fannie and Freddie with his own long term appointees.

And do not forget Andrew Cuomo was the head of HUH and Kristen Gillibrand was there too - pushing this whole program.


GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY

all GUILTY AS CHARGED

Oh, I supposed the standard response is that all that is Bush's fault.

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 18, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

@ruk,

I guess my second post with the rest of the PR has been lost in moderation.

I am not letting Wall Street off the hook. I am not blaming the bubble on poor people. I am saying that our policy of subsidizing home ownership in the name of social policy was bound to have some unintended consequences, and it did - namely the inflation of a housing bubble.

Yes, the banksters had a huge role. So did the Fed (probably the most culpable, IMO). Bubble psychology on the part of homeowners played a role as well. And so did well-intentioned, but misguided social policy.

Up until now, the examination of the crisis has focused almost exclusively on the role of Wall Street. That horse has been beaten to death. If we want to make sure nothing like this happens again, we have to look at all of the causes and make appropriate adjustments.

I fear we are making huge mistakes in trying to artificially support the real estate market and not having a serious discussion of what the Fed is up to.

Posted by: sold2u | October 18, 2010 8:25 PM | Report abuse

"October 16, 2010 – Upon exiting the most recent debate with Barney Frank, located at WGBH studios in Boston, MA, Republican Congressional candidate, Sean Bielat, gets heckled by a Barney Frank “supporter” while talking to the media. While watching this video, we realized that we recognized this “supporter”. We received confirmation from two eyewitnesses that the mysterious cameraman was none other than Barney Frank’s pot-growing boyfriend, James Ready."
------
Barney and his boy toy. What a couple of sewer rats.

Posted by: Brigade | October 18, 2010 8:25 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw1:

I accept your apology!

Now, you just need to tell us what kind of lawyer you are, and I will once again answer your questions to me : )

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 18, 2010 8:27 PM | Report abuse

If it will make you feel any better, I'll be safe in promising you that if Bin Laden and/or the Iranians are pouring money into the system, it won't be to support Republicans.
----------------------------------
Seriously, brig, why would that be? It isn't obvious to me that Bin Laden is quaking in fear of Republicans since they had eight years to find him and didn't do so. Maybe, Bin Laden would prefer the R's based on their tracking history.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 18, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Now, you just need to tell us what kind of lawyer you are, and I will once again answer your questions to me : )

Posted by: JakeD2
+++++++++++++

I didn't ask you any questions. I've observed STRF. I see where the Dark Side leads.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 18, 2010 8:33 PM | Report abuse

I didn't say that you asked me any questions.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 18, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Bearclaw at 7:47

How can you post a link which proves you are wrong - and then proceed to call someone a liar three times?

Don't you actually read the links?

Please read the link you are providing - read the paragraphs before and after. Clearly the quote accurately describes what was being said.


There is no reason in the world the government should be creating a multi-Trillion dollar program in the middle of an economic crisis.

It just doesn't make sense. The leader of a country takes care of crisis first - and then works on massive government programs later. This is still a giant mess that has to be cleaned up. Obama has created another disaster.

Clearly.

The uncertainty surrounding health care costs which Obama has personally created has placed a massive drag on hiring in this nation. It has affected EVERY JOB IN THE NATION LIKE NO OTHER PRESIDENT HAS EVER AFFECTED EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, EVER.

This situation is truly disgraceful in the middle of economic crisis.

The reason is Obama is too arrogant to listen. Obama is inexperienced and too unqualified to fully realize the implications of what he was doing.

He has no business in the position he is. If he were a man, he would admit it and resign.

Unfortunately, we have an egomaniac who has been fueled by affirmative action to believe that he "is the one we have been waiting for."


Go look that quote up.

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 18, 2010 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Here come the October "surprises" (although we did warn you that companies / health insurance was going to have to reduce coverage / raise rates):

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101018/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_costs_boeing

This is also kinda funny:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=216721

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 18, 2010 8:39 PM | Report abuse

I am not letting Wall Street off the hook. I am not blaming the bubble on poor people. I am saying that our policy of subsidizing home ownership in the name of social policy was bound to have some unintended consequences, and it did - namely the inflation of a housing bubble.
----------------------------------
Obviously, for this horrendous bubble to take place, it took the cooperation of the laws and the financial engineering of Wall Street to come up with the derivatives (which were like booster rocket fuel), the suspension of the entire real estate financing sector's past practices, and then the selling of citizens & flippers that they could use their house as an ATM and real estate would "always go up".

I'm in favor of fully investigating all the roots of the debacle. But, frankly, based on what I've seen so far, I'm not hopeful that a damn thing will be done to stop it.

We don't even stop the flash crash from happening again. And that is easy next to the housing debacle.

I'm planning my financial life to anticipate more bubbles, not fewer. Sorry to say that. Looking back over the last twenty years, it seems the bubbles come more often and each is bigger.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 18, 2010 8:39 PM | Report abuse

I didn't say that you said I asked you questions.

Your statement and mine are both true. And completely useless to anyone else on the blog. I think that proves we are lawyers.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 18, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Seriously, brig, why would that be? It isn't obvious to me that Bin Laden is quaking in fear of Republicans since they had eight years to find him and didn't do so. Maybe, Bin Laden would prefer the R's based on their tracking history.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 18, 2010 8:32
-----

Republicans are war mongers. Don't you remember? They invade sovereign countries and kill and torture people---don't even give them due process. The whole world hates GW Bush and the Republicans. Have you forgotten? But the whole world loves Messiah Obama and the Democrats. Why would they give money to war mongers whom they hate?

Posted by: Brigade | October 18, 2010 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Republicans are war mongers. Don't you remember?
----------------------------
Please don't talk to me like I'm not a real person. I know you have better reasons than that.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 18, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

rukdding:

While you were completely wrong about Thomas Jefferson (see my replies on that thread) you are completely right about the economic crisis.

Wall Street, by virtue of the CFMA, took a localized housing bubble in CA, FL, NV, and AZ, and turned it into an international crisis through derivatives.

You're economically very squared away. Didn't you pay attention to history in school though?

Posted by: 54465446 | October 18, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

How odd -- I criticize a post by someone named "CapitolOrCapital" and someone named "LeafofLife" responds. With more lies. Bye.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 18, 2010 8:49 PM | Report abuse

@sold2u You make all valid points. I agree with virtually everything you have said about examining all of the causes.

For the life of me I still haven't figured out why appraisers were ever privy to contract price. When my wife and I bought our lakefront cottage up on Superior early in this millenium I joked with the local broker that the appraisel will come in at...I picked a figure $2,500 above contract price....it came in at $3,000 above contract (which was actually low at the time but more than enough to close the deal). The agent and I had a good life and my wife and I were happy to close on the deal. Why generate a larger appraisal anyway and run property taxes higher.

If I read you right sold2u you are suggesting that there is no SIMPLE answer and no ONE group responsible for the real estate bubble. I agree.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 18, 2010 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Bearclaw

I looked up your quote - you called someone a liar - but you refuse to admit that your own link proves you are wrong.

And you don't have the maturity to "man up"

Sounds like you are friends with Harry Reid.

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 18, 2010 8:56 PM | Report abuse

"To all the righties who still believe that the C.U. decision of the brain deads like Alito doesn't affect our nation."

More sloppiness, ruk. I don't know anyone who says it has no effect. And I'm pretty sure Alito would run rings around you in any test of intelligence.

" First question...how can you assure me that Osama Bin Ladin hasn't used some of his 100's of millions in contributions to our elections. You can't can you? Please provide assurance."

C.U. did not involve contributions or affect the law governing them. (Feel assured yet?) It also didn't affect regulation of foreign funding of ads, etc. (How about now?) All corporations, profit or non, exempt or not, are subject to audit and reporting. There are no guarantees that any law can't be broken, but the government is fully equipped to keep OBL out of the picture. If CoC is an OBL front, Obama will surely let us know.

"How about the Iranians..could they be players..the Chinese..thanks to pinheads like Alito we'll never know will we."

We found out that your party was raking in actual contributions from the Chinese for Clinton and Gore.

The Lincoln quotation really has no direct bearing on this. Sorry.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 18, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

Bearclaw

Still waiting to be honest and admit that you were wrong.

Quite astonishing -

If you had not set out to call someone a liar, you wouldn't be in this position, would you?

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 18, 2010 9:00 PM | Report abuse

A too little appreciated aspect of politics in America is the information control techniques developed (or copied from elsewhere) by the Pentagon after Viet Nam. In that case, information arrived on television screens and in newspapers that was instrumental in turning the US population firmly against the war. The Pentagon, I trust you'll understand, doesn't tend to believe it ought to be guided or constrained by domestic citizen considerations. But as this is something resembling a representative democracy, they can be so constrained.

The first glimmer we had of the Pentagon's address to this "problem" came with the attack on Panama City (Noreiga). There was a two-pronged information policy planned and implemented: a PR campaign from the suits in DC (eg, the first use of "surgical strike" which was a pretty serious lie as subsequent reporting revealed) along with the banning of reporters from entering the war zone. It worked quite well.

Moving up the the recent past, recall the Desert Storm operation and the media feed out of the Pentagon entertainingly MCed by Norman Schwarzkopf and featuring whiz-bang missile-tip videos (the press gobbled this up like candy).

And then the multi-million dollar "media center" in Baghdad and the reporters under the control of troop units. Not to mention, of course, the generals sent out to TV networks to spin the Pentagon version of truth. And the totally BS Jessica Lynch story and the totally BS Pat Tillman story, etc

And there's this today...

"The Pentagon said Sunday that it has a 120-member team prepared to review a leak of as many as 500,000 documents about the Iraq war, which are expected to be released by the WikiLeaks Web site this month."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/17/AR2010101703784.html

They are going to lie but it will take a while to figure the lies out. And they will go after wikileaks.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 18, 2010 9:51 PM | Report abuse

"And they will go after wikileaks."

A Predator "surgical strike" on Assange's noggin', hopefully.

Go Yankees!

Posted by: tao9 | October 18, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse

Here's what is wrong in River City, 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 announce 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 did stay 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 the 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, seemingly 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, where is Jesse Ventura, and Joe the Plummer when WE need them. 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 she 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 18, 2010 10:08 PM | Report abuse

No, Jake. Your candidate running about 15 down.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 18, 2010 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Another new handle ... the virus must now be airborne.

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 18, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

Sheesh. I missed that 37th is up to his 4th identity in as many weeks. Perhaps he should come to Politics & Pints on Monday and be his own team.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 18, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Quid Pro Quo

What is the densest place in the universe?

Posted by: SpendNomore | October 18, 2010 10:49 PM | Report abuse

No, No, and NO...

It isn't your adenoids, though some of y'all may need a transplant...

Posted by: SpendNomore | October 18, 2010 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Was there ONE WORD from the democrats on Conway's disgraceful conduct on Sunday?

You would think that would be discussed.

How about the heckler who lives with Barney Franks???


The bias of the topics here is unbelievable.

What about the apology to the Chamber of Commerce - which ACTUALLY CITED WASHINGTON POST ARTICLES IN THEIR RESPONSE.


AND what about the apology to the AMERICAN PEOPLE ???


There is $500 BILLION DOLLARS MISSING FROM THE FEDERAL BUDGET GREG -

Obama took $500 Billion out of Medicare and put it in his massive health care program - so that he could say his health care program was "paid for."

If you had any honesty, you would be calling out Obama for his LIE THAT THE HEALTH CARE PROGRAM WAS "PAID FOR."


There is $500 Billion missing - either from Medicare or from Obama's health care program.

Clearly, the Chamber of Commerce should not have to be emailing the Washington Post with its own articles to prove the TRUTH ABOUT SUCH THINGS.


.

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 19, 2010 3:10 AM | Report abuse

There is $500 Billion missing from the Federal Budget


But what is worse.

Unlike many of us who ACTUALLY READ THE ARTICLES IN THE WASHINGTON POST, it appears that Greg Sargent does NOT read those articles.


.

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 19, 2010 3:13 AM | Report abuse

THE TRUTH


Skynet has begun already: its name is MERS.

.

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 19, 2010 3:31 AM | Report abuse

The money that you save by refinancing every month can be sensibly used to repay your unique loan or to upsurge your savings. Do not forget to search online for "123 Mortgage Refinance" they found 3.17% rate for me.

Posted by: rachelbilson19 | October 19, 2010 4:49 AM | Report abuse

Republicans are war mongers. Don't you remember?
----------------------------
Please don't talk to me like I'm not a real person. I know you have better reasons than that.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 18, 2010 8:48 PM
--------

I doubt that your question was a serious one. You're right that we didn't get Osama. He evidently fled to Pakistan. However, George W. Bush was never the one chasing him. If you want to fault the U.S. military, be me guest.

If I were Osama, I'd probably prefer the treatment I got from Bill Clinton to the treatment that has had me living in caves for the last eight years. I'd probably prefer my day in U.S. Federal Court as opposed to a bullet in my forehead.

I applaud Obama's drone strikes into Pakistan. However, without better intelligence, they are unlikely to result in the death of Osama Bin Laden, campaign bluster aside. The reason there is no big debate going on in Washington now over our military adventures abroad is because Republicans mostly support it and Democrats are scared politically to question Obama---they're already running as far away from him on economic policy matters as they can in contested districts.

So it all comes down to one simple thing. If you were a foreign terrorist, who would you rather have supporting (or not) foreign policy directed your way? A greater number of liberal Democrats, who'd rather spend the necessary resources on domestic programs, or an increased number of Republicans? You might ask Saddam Hussein who he'd prefer---oh, wait . . .

And I'm sure you well remember all the campaign talk about how much other countries hated America because of our "cowboy" foreign policy. Supposedly, they love Obama. If this is all true, to whom would they more likely give money---Democrats or Republicans?

If you want to see your concerns addressed from a legal standpoint as regards the Citizens United decision, read quarterback1's post above.

Now, since we're such good friends, I've taken the time to respond seriously to your inquiry. I'm still not sure you meant it seriously, so I'll await your one or two-line snarky non-response or no response at all.

Posted by: Brigade | October 19, 2010 6:55 AM | Report abuse

Technical question:

Is there no way to identify this turkey's computer/server and automatically block it?

Posted by: bernielatham | October 19, 2010 7:19 AM | Report abuse

Breaking news from the WaPo! Sarah Palin not entirely stupid and/or evil!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/14/AR2010101404794.html

What kind of right-wing rag are you working at, Greg? ;

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 19, 2010 7:44 AM | Report abuse

Bernie (from yesterday):

"This is not really written for you..."

Evidently, since you've pretty much ignored what I have asked you. Again.

"I don't believe you might adjust your notions regardless of much of
anything."

The very epitome of projection. And still, at least I am willing to address your arguments honestly.

"First, I demonstrated the movement to the far right of the modern
party/movement through several examples..."

Well, no, actually. I don't think your examples demonstrate at all what you
claim, which is precisely why I wanted to analyze them further. I chose
your Goldwater example to focus on first, but we could just as easily have taken your others, neither of which demonstrates what you claim. Unfortunately, albeit typically, we find you stubbornly reluctant to engage any argument that doesn't simply accept The World According To Bernie without questions.

Shocker that.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 19, 2010 7:46 AM | Report abuse

@12Bar: "Seriously, brig, why would that be? It isn't obvious to me that Bin Laden is quaking in fear of Republicans since they had eight years to find him and didn't do so. Maybe, Bin Laden would prefer the R's based on their tracking history."

I dunno. Bin Ladin said it was Clinton's response re: Mogadishu that led him to conclude the U.S. was a paper tiger (something he was happy about).

Also, when "Bin Ladin" or his representatives make pronouncements, except for extolling allah and condemnation of the great Satan, they sound a lot more like Democrats. They've condemned us for not providing universal healthcare and for not doing enough to combat global warming. And, in general, America is an unjust place. Now, I don't think you can take those pronouncement as seriously meant, but it's interesting that they pick up on Democrat/Liberal talking points rather than Republican ones.

But I don't think they'd be putting much money into the U.S. political system to any party. Less money for suicide vests!

Seriously. Dude does sound like a Democrat . . .

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7104143/Osama-bin-Laden-enters-global-warming-debate.html

:P

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 19, 2010 7:57 AM | Report abuse

Kevin:

"Breaking news from the WaPo!"

Apparently, Kevin, you missed this at the bottom of the article: "Matthew Continetti is opinion editor of the Weekly Standard".

Clearly he is just a propaganda stooge for the evil and twisted Bill Kristol, founder of TWS. The only surprising thing here is that the WaPo has published this clear case of Rovian propaganda. Who knew that the Kristol/Rove/Murdoch/Ailes (have I left anyone out, Bernie?) brainwashing monster had managed to get its tentacles on the WaPo? I tremble at the fate which awaits a nation that is so mindnumbingly stupid as to allow this to happen.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 19, 2010 8:02 AM | Report abuse

@qb: "We found out that your party was raking in actual contributions from the Chinese for Clinton and Gore."

Which lead to what? Advertisements saying: "Democrats are awesome. You're morons. Vote for us!"

Those already convinced swooned. Those not convinced remained unconvinced still, no matter how much money was used to tell them that they were brainwashed zombies and wanted to kill the planet, unless they voted for Democrats.

Indeed, I'm not sure how much all that money helps. Oversaturation can work against a candidate. When the folks you're advertising to (including those otherwise sympathetic) start groaning: "Oh, not this guy again" when you're commercial comes on, all that spending is working against you, not for you.

GOTV is probably where the money will make the biggest difference, plus or minus. And the Democrats have shown themselves to be very creative with Getting Out the Vote, over the years, so I don't think a lot of anonymous money is going to do much to keep the Democrats from their GOTV operations.

BTW: still for full disclosure, I just think the hand-wringing over all the foreign money (dirty foreigners!) and anonymous contributors (excuse me, is the Chamber of Commerce anonymous in this? And don't we know something about the ads if they are paying for them, at this point) could use a little reality check. In my opinion.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 19, 2010 8:05 AM | Report abuse

Ronald Reagan fleeing from Lebanon after the Marines got blown up, and his willingness to pay ransom to Iran for Hostages, preceded the Black Hawk down incident. By the way it was Bush One who sent in the military to Somali.

Looks like invading Muslim lands, without having a clue about how they will be received, is a Bush Family trait.

Notice how scared so many right wingers are of a Muslim Cultural Center, and how they are scared to death of American Muslims, because they are going to implement Sharia Law.

So how come those very same bed wetting Right Wingers, were fully convinced that Muslims in Iraq would welcome an Invading army, from a predominately Christian country, with "flowers and sweets", as five deferment Dick, so quaintly promised?

Posted by: Liam-still | October 19, 2010 8:11 AM | Report abuse

Technical question:

Is there no way to identify this turkey's computer/server and automatically block it?

Posted by: bernielatham | October 19, 2010 7:19 AM
.............

I assume that is how they have blocked Bilgey.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 19, 2010 8:14 AM | Report abuse

"Corporations Hide Election Spending From the Public Eye "

http://www.thenation.com/article/155432/corporations-hide-election-spending-public-eye

"October 18, 2010

To avoid angering the public and their investors, some corporate interests are going to great lengths to hide their political spending. These companies have dumped money into nonprofits and trade associations that often have innocuous names like Americans for Job Security or Revere America, but in reality serve to shield donors from accountability for their spending in our elections. This activity was greatly enhanced by the Supreme Court's now infamous Citizens United decision, which opened the floodgates for unlimited and anonymous corporate spending in our elections.

Corporations are facing a choice that will have defining consequences for our democracy and will determine their relationships with shareholders, consumers and the public at large. If they believe in accountability to their investors and transparency for their consumers they have a responsibility to be more transparent and accountable about their political spending. From the beginning, the public has been outraged by Citizens United and companies that sought to take advantage of the new rules. When the decision first came down, 80 percent of Americans disapproved of it, according to an ABC/Washington Post poll. The distaste for the ruling cut across partisan lines; 76 percent of Republicans, 85 percent of Democrats and 81 percent of independents disapproved.

In a period of just six weeks, from September 1 to mid October, sixteen groups poured a combined total of over $22 million into federal races. To date, in the election cycle overall outside groups have spent $80 million—five times what they spent in the last midterm elections.

Several of the highest spending groups have already come under scrutiny for their activities. In one of the few examples publicly exposed to date, the New York Times revealed that Bruce Rastetter, CEO of one of the country's leading ethanol companies, Hawkeye Energy Holdings, is a major funder behind the American Future Fund. The American Future Fund is spending heavily in races where candidates have seats on legislative committees with a direct say on policy affecting the ethanol industry. Another group, Americans for Job Security, may be violating the law to shield their donors from the public. Americans for Job Security was formed as a nonprofit"

Posted by: Liam-still | October 19, 2010 8:25 AM | Report abuse

Bernie

Open up your mind to different ideas.

Block yourself.

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 19, 2010 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Bernie

Open up your mind to different ideas.

Block yourself.

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 19, 2010 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Kevin,

I share some of your skepticism about the power of carpet-bombing with TV ads, although there are times when I think it has been effective, such as Obama's carpet-bombing with shamelessly dishonest ads about McCain's position on health insurance. They were flat-out lies, and he blanketed the country with them, 24/7.

I think a "disclosure" requirement for political speech is patently unconstitutional, and all the bed-wetting (to use on of the left's buzz words) over "secret" and anonymous funding and speech is complete poppycock. First, there are no ads I've ever seen that list everyone who contributed to the sponsoring organization, and 99% of people would never bother to go look it up. Second, if it is critical, as the bed-wetting liberals claim, for anyone to know "who paid," they can and will discount any anonymous ad (which effectively means all of them). Third, it's silly to claim listing of funders adds anything to "Paid for by the Chamber of Commerce." Fourth, we have the POTUS and full weight of his media apparatchiks condemning the CoC as a front for nefarious foreign big business, so "disclosure" is rather beside the point. Fifth, the message is the message. Just like the message of "Publius" was the message.

Five good reasons to declare the liberals bed-wetting ninnies seem sufficient to the purpose. But we could add that they are raging hypocrites.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 19, 2010 8:30 AM | Report abuse

Scott: "And still, at least I am willing to address your arguments honestly."

No you aren't, scott. The thesis is one which you are not able to entertain in any serious way. Your goal and procedure will be, in all cases, to invalidate or discount the thesis. That's the game you play when fundamentals of your ideology are at issue. And feel free to do it with others but I'm not interested.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 19, 2010 8:31 AM | Report abuse

Counter-intuititive subhead of the day (from Dennis Prager at NRO)

"The quality of many GOP candidates is the highest in modern memory."

Posted by: bernielatham | October 19, 2010 8:36 AM | Report abuse

Try Campbell's new SHARIA SOUP.

It's Islam in a can.

MMMMMMM mmmmm Aaaaaaaaaack!!

Posted by: battleground51 | October 19, 2010 8:39 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/the_morning_plum_114.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 19, 2010 8:40 AM | Report abuse

Counter-intuititive subhead of the day (from Dennis Prager at NRO)

"The quality of many GOP candidates is the highest in modern memory."

Posted by: bernielatham | October 19, 2010 8:36 AM |

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

Not very much of a compliment to Newt and his 1994 Contract On America candidates, is it?!

Posted by: Liam-still | October 19, 2010 8:40 AM | Report abuse

"I just think the hand-wringing over all the foreign money (dirty foreigners!) and anonymous contributors (excuse me, is the Chamber of Commerce anonymous in this? And don't we know something about the ads if they are paying for them, at this point) could use a little reality check"

Yeah, who really cares whether American elections are influenced by secret money. I mean it would be nice if that didn't happen but, hey, what are you gonna do. And now I'm going to vote for people who think it's fine if companies secretly give money to political candidates.Of course, you understand, I'm against secret money to candidates but that will never happen and even if it does, both sides will do it anyway. So what are you gonna do? I'll also vote for people who think the 14th Amendment should be repealed, that the minimum wage is unconstitutional and that global warming is a hoax. Even though I don't believe any of those things I'll vote for candidates who do because those candidates will never do the things they say they want to do. What are you gonna do? Oh, and I want Sarah Palin to be president who also believes all those things I don't believe because she won't be able to do them either. What are you gonna do? Oh, did I mention that both sides do it?


Posted by: wbgonne | October 19, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse

Bernie demonstrated that Barry Goldwater moved to the libertarian left as an old man, and pretends this shows the GOP/conservatives moved radically to the right.

It's very simple, Bernie. On what issues has the GOP moved radically to the right from 1964, and what is your evidence of this? You contend that the party was dragged to the right by the "religious right" and have mentioned abortion and gay rights, yet you have offered no shred of evidence that the the mainstream of the GOP is to the right on those issues compared to where it was in 1964, nor where the country as a whole was.

Where is your evidence that the GOP of 1964 supported abortion on demand or gay rights? Where is your evidence that even the Democrats or the country as a whole did?

Of course, you have no such evidence, because that's a ridiculous contention. It is the Democratic party that has moved to the radical left on those issues even since the 1970s. You are well aware of this. You are impervious to evidence or reason, just as you charge Scott, because you are engaged in propoganda, not discussion or investigation.

You've held up Buckley as an exemplar of authentic conservatism (I'm sure you were a big fan when he was alive), without acknowledging that Buckley rose up for the express purpose of asserting conservative ideas in the vacuum of the Eisenhower era, in which he declared that conservatism was completely absent from public debate and discussion. Yet you hold up Eisenhower at the same time as representing true conservatism along with Buckley.

Your thesis is a contradictory and historically indefensible.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 19, 2010 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"The thesis is one which you are not able to entertain in any serious way."

And yet, you are the one who refuses to entertain questions about your thinking. You dismiss any such questions as unworthy of being asked, proclaiming your "disinterest" because it is me who is asking. Which is all the less believable since you keep feeling the need to announce how "disinterested" you are.

One word explains all of this...projection. Your mind is made up and will not be changed (which is not all that big a sin, to be honest...it is true of most people here), but you project that on to others as an all-purpose excuse to evade difficult questions about your thinking.

C'est la vie. I will content myself with continuing to point out the deficiencies in your claims while listening to you repeat over and over again how "uninteresting" it is to hear about them.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 19, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

"and historically indefensible failure."

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 19, 2010 8:52 AM | Report abuse

Liam:

The most frightening thing about the deluge of secret corporate money is just how brazen the Plutocrats have become. The main reason Big Business commandeered the Chamber of Commerce as its propaganda vehicle was because corporations feared the public reaction of the corporations were found to be influencing the political process. Big Business knew it was supposed to stay out of politics because that belonged entirely to the American people and the American people wouldn't stand for corporate intrusion. But now look where we are: when asked to detail its involvement in the political process, who its donors are, whether it gets money from foreign companies or foreign governments, the Chamber of Commerce tells the American people to shut up and mind your own business.

This speaks very poorly for the health of our democracy. The Plutocrats are staging a bold coup to install puppet legislators. The Plutocrats think the American people are so indoctrinated by free-market propaganda that we have become unable to defend our democracy.

The American people must rise up against the plutocrats and their propaganda vehicles like the Chamber of Commerce. Boycott the Chamber of Commerce and its member companies. Full disclosure now.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 19, 2010 8:53 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