Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Open Thread

Polls show voters only care about the things I say they should care about.

By Greg Sargent  | October 16, 2010; 8:57 AM ET
Categories:  Miscellaneous  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Hour Roundup
Next: Sunday Open Thread

Comments

Polls show voters only care about the things I say they should care about.


_________________________


Exactly - and just because the voters agree with you, that doesn't mean they are going to vote that way.


Polls show that voters - by large margins - have blue and red as their favorite colors.


Therefore, the candidate who has that color car will win.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 16, 2010 9:19 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 9:32 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne

I responded on last thread and will add her tomorrow. BTW, I still haven't been able to start your book, I've been really busy but am looking forward to a little down time after the election and doing some reading.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 16, 2010 9:38 AM | Report abuse

BTW: I'm no longer convinced the Dems are going to lose the House. If the Dems can sustain their attack on the Plutocracy they may be able to pull themselves out of the hole just enough to hold the House. If.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 16, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

"I still haven't been able to start your book, I've been really busy but am looking forward to a little down time after the election and doing some reading."

I figured as much but I was mildly afraid that you hated it.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 16, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

from Politico


Even as Manchin has sought to distance himself from Obama – he released an ad this week where he loads a rifle and shoots a bullet through the cap and trade bill and criticizes the “Obamacare” health care reform legislation – a majority of those polled still see the two as tied together.


_________________________________

If this is the ONLY way that the democrats can win an election - like the special election in PA --


Then the nation really doesn't want "wins" like these to result in democrats running wild around the country declaring that such "wins" mean a vindication of Obama's policies.


Seriously folks, if a democrat runs on Obama's policies, and that democrat wins, then Obama's policies have met the test. HOWEVER, if the candidate is running AGAINST Obama's policies, that in NO WAY can be a win for Obama's policies.


The country has REJECTED Obama's policies.


The democrats will dig deep in the numbers, cite this poll or that paragrah, or that subsection, to somehow say that the American People support their far-left agend. The American People do NOT want Obama's policies.


I can practically see the blog posts coming.


Anyway - the American People are sick of Obama - the American People are sick of the democrats LYING ABOUT OBAMA.


The deceptions and lies of the democrats these past few years have been UNPRECEDENTED.

It has gotten so bad that the democrats do not want to even have a normal conversation - look at Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg - that was completely unacceptable.


What was remarkable is Barbara Walters seemed to be the reasonable one !


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 16, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

OTOH:

Will the stupidity never end?

"The Department of Justice says it intends to prosecute marijuana laws in California aggressively even if state voters approve an initiative on the Nov. 2 ballot to legalize the drug. The announcement by Eric H. Holder Jr., the attorney general, was the latest reminder of how much of the establishment has lined up against the popular initiative: dozens of editorial boards, candidates for office, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other public officials."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/16/us/16pot.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig

Do these guys WANT to lose elections?

Posted by: wbgonne | October 16, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Oh, and look who is in the marijuana reform opposition:

"Opposition has come from a number of fronts, ranging from Mr. Baca and other law enforcement officials to the Chamber of Commerce, which has warned that it would create workplace health issues."

The ubiquitous Chamber of Commerce meddling in American politics again.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 16, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

"The Department of Justice says it intends to prosecute marijuana laws in California aggressively even if state voters approve an initiative on the Nov. 2 ballot to legalize the drug. The announcement by Eric H. Holder Jr., the attorney general, was the latest reminder of how much of the establishment has lined up against the popular initiative: dozens of editorial boards, candidates for office, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other public officials."

Posted by: wbgonne | October 16, 2010 9:56 AM
-------

And with the blessings of a "radical right wing" Supreme Court that believes EVERYTHING is covered under the Interstate Commerce clause.

Posted by: Brigade | October 16, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Here's some information relevant to an exchange yesterday about impeachment of Supreme Court justices (for anyone who's interested and not already familiar):

"A Supreme Court Justice may be impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office if convicted in a Senate trial, but only for the same types of offenses that would trigger impeachment proceedings for any other government official under Articles I and II of the Constitution.

"Article III, Section 1 states that judges of Article III courts shall hold their offices "during good behavior." "The phrase "good behavior" has been interpreted by the courts to equate to the same level of seriousness 'high crimes and misdemeanors" encompasses."

------

Alcee Hastings, NOT a Supreme Court justice, was the sixth federal judge to be impeached and removed from office in American history.

"In 1981, Hastings was charged with accepting a $150,000 bribe in exchange for a lenient sentence and a return of seized assets for 21 counts of racketeering by Frank and Thomas Romano, and of perjury in his testimony about the case. He was acquitted by a jury after his alleged co-conspirator, William Borders, refused to testify in court."

"In 1988, the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives took up the case, and Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury by a vote of 413-3. He was then convicted in 1989 by the United States Senate, becoming the sixth federal judge in the history of the United States to be removed from office by the Senate. The vote on the first article was 69 for and 26 opposed, providing two votes more than the two-thirds of those present that were needed to convict. The first article accused the judge of conspiracy. Conviction on any single article was enough to remove the judge from office. The Senate vote cut across party lines, with Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, voting to convict his fellow party member, and Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, voting to acquit."

"Alleged co-conspirator, attorney William Borders went to jail again for refusing to testify in the impeachment proceedings, but was later given a full pardon by President Bill Clinton on his last day in office.

"Hastings filed suit in federal court claiming that his impeachment trial was invalid because he was tried by a Senate committee, not in front of the full Senate, and that he had been acquitted in a criminal trial. Judge Stanley Sporkin ruled in favor of Hastings, remanding the case back to the Senate, but stayed his ruling pending the outcome of an appeal to the Supreme Court in a similar case regarding Judge Walter Nixon, who had also been impeached and removed."

(continued)

Posted by: Brigade | October 16, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

(continued)

"Sporkin found some "crucial distinctions" between Nixon's case and Hastings's, specifically, that Nixon had been convicted criminally, and that Hastings was not found guilty by two-thirds of the committee who actually "tried" his impeachment in the Senate. He further added that Hastings had a right to trial by the full Senate.

"The Supreme Court, however, ruled in Nixon v. United States that the federal courts have no jurisdiction over Senate impeachment matters, so Sporkin's ruling was vacated and Hastings's conviction and removal were upheld."

------

Gerald Ford's efforts to have William O. Douglas impeached were unsuccessful. Impeachments always have a political aspect, but ascribing motives to Ford are matters of opinion and not fact---unless Ford actually stated somewhere that he did it because he was in a snit.

Posted by: Brigade | October 16, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest, you seem a little afraid. What with all your justifications of 'even if Democrats win it still means nothing'. What's all this excuse making so early?

I'm predicting the Democrats are going to keep the House and the Senate. I look forward to the Republican Civil War.

Hi and a good morning to you Greg!

Btw I haven't read the comments section lately, but why on earth is SaveTheRainforest always on? He/she is like the first one commenting on every single story. SaveTheRainforest do you have a job or is this your life? Better yet, IS this your job? If not, get a life cause yours must be miserable.

Posted by: magnus_terra | October 16, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

I'm not sure Democrats won't hold the house, myself. Predictions of sweeping waves often turn out not to be the case. The 1994 sweep wasn't really predicted, for example, and when I went tobed the night before, dozens of races that ended up going to the Republicans were being called for Democrats.

It ain't over when it's over.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 16, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

You don't have to worry about impeaching any more SC judges. Those positions are now restricted to those who have attended Harvard and Yale. they will take care of their own.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 16, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

This might be worth a comment or two on a slow day:

"The Rev. Terry Jones, the Florida pastor who caused a firestorm last month when he came close to staging a public Quran burning, is getting a new car courtesy of a New Jersey dealership.

In the run-up to the planned book-burning, Brad Benson Hyundai in New Brunswick offered Jones a vehicle if the pastor backed down on his threat."

Posted by: 54465446 | October 16, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Kevin_Willis I agree with you.

Despite intense media hype and hope for a republican wave I don't see no wave of anything. Just loudmouths on Fox News who are donating to republicans when they're not busy finding every teabagger on every street corner in America.

I'm going canvassing this Wednesday, but I don't really see the need. I live in CA. And with Boxer and Brown leading in the polls I'm sure they're going to be ok. I'm also going to phone bank, but I don't really want to do any phone banking for some blue-dog. So does anybody know any progressive organizations, which are based in San Diego, that are targeting progressive candidates across the country?

Also what, if anything, are you guys doing and how are the races in your neck of the woods?

Posted by: magnus_terra | October 16, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

The President has been instant messaging with Greg again:

"I would feel very confident about our position right now if it weren't for the fact that these third-party independent groups, funded by corporate special interests and run by Republican operatives, without disclosing where that money is coming from, are outspending our candidates in some cases 5 to 1, 10 to 1.. . . And it's the direct result of a Supreme Court opinion called Citizens United."

TRANSLATION:

"We are losing because the voters are too stupid to know how to vote correctly"

Usually they wait until AFTER the election to trot this one out.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 16, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne at 9:41 AM


The democrats ARE the Plutocracy.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 16, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

magnus_terra | October 16, 2010 10:33 AM


If you know a way I can get paid for this, please send over the information.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 16, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

I thought you already did. Nice name by the way.

Posted by: magnus_terra | October 16, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Remember the recent case; where A Catholic Nun was immediately excommunicated, because she followed the advise of her hospital's medical ethics board, and saved the life of a young mother of four?

"Twas ever thus in The Catholic Church;

"Sainthood for Australian nun who exposed paedophile priest"

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0928/1224279829336.html


"PÁDRAIG COLLINS in Sydney

Tue, Sep 28, 2010

THE FOUNDER of the Sisters of St Joseph, who will be canonised as Australia’s first saint next month, was excommunicated from the Catholic Church in 1871 after exposing a paedophile Irish priest, it has been revealed.

Australian television has reported that Sr Mary MacKillop discovered that children were being abused by Fr Patrick Keating in the Kapunda parish near Adelaide in south Australia.

She told Josephites director Fr Julian Tenison-Woods about the abuse. It was then reported to the vicar general and Fr Keating was sent back to Ireland, where he continued to serve as a priest.

Fr Charles Horan, a Galway man who was a colleague of Fr Keating, swore revenge on Sr MacKillop and her order. After only four years as a nun, she was excommunicated by Adelaide’s bishop Laurence Shiel, who was originally from Wexford.

She was turned out on the street with no money and nowhere to go.

Five months later, though, on his deathbed, Bishop Shiel instructed that Sr MacKillop be absolved and restored.

Fr Paul Gardiner, who has advocated for Sr MacKillop’s canonisation for 25 years, said Fr Horan had been working for Bishop Shiel and had urged him to break up the Josephites. When Sr MacKillop, who was then aged 29, refused, she was banished from the church. “She submitted to a farcical ceremony where the bishop had . . . lost it,” Fr Gardiner said.

“He was a puppet being manipulated by malicious priests. This sounds terrible, but it’s true.”

In 2009, 100 years after Sr MacKillop’s death, Archbishop Philip Wilson of Adelaide publicly apologised to the Sisters of St Joseph for her wrongful excommunication.

“On behalf of myself and the archdiocese, I apologise to the sisters . . . for what happened to them in the context of the excommunication, when their lives and their community life was interrupted and they were virtually thrown out on the streets . . . This was a terrible thing,” he said.

After being reinstated by the Catholic Church, Sr MacKillop became known for her work with disadvantaged children, female ex-prisoners and prostitutes."

A footnote to the story. The Catholic Church never informed the people in Ireland that they were having a child molester being assigned to their parish.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 16, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

But if you really need a way, try contacting Karl Rove and let him know you spend every waking hour on a progressive blog trolling like your life depended on it.

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

from Politico


Even as Manchin has sought to distance himself from Obama – he released an ad this week where he loads a rifle and shoots a bullet through the cap and trade bill and criticizes the “Obamacare” health care reform legislation – a majority of those polled still see the two as tied together.
________________________________


I am simply making this point - it sure seems like what happened in the special election in PA

The liberals ran around like wild banchees after the 2008 election - claiming that that election meant an endorsement of liberal ideas.


That election did NOT mean an endorsement of anything liberal.


It was basically an endorsement for bipartisanship and post-racial policies.

Post-Racial Obama has been a failure - with his people and the democrats all over the nation leveling FALSE charges of racism over policy differences.

Obama's claims on bipartisanship were a fraud.

Politico today has some democratic candidates saying that they want to "fix" health care. Well HOW could they - with Obama and Pelosi dumping 2,000 page bills in the middle of the night? And Obama REFUSED to have bipartisan negotiations which were MEANINGFUL.

If Obama had held BACK on health care until a majority of BOTH parties supported a bill - then Obama would have had a victory and this would not be an issue.


I'm not going to argue this - but a process dominated by Obama's EGO is NOT BIPARTISANSHIP.

Then the democrats put the icing on the whole fiasco with FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM ON CAPITOL HILL THAT WEEKEND.

The American People have the RIGHT to expect a certain level of maturity and honesty that they simple did NOT get from Obama and the democrats.

Few people WANT to tell Obama he is a LIAR and few people WANT to tell the democrats that their job performance has been this horrible


But the TRUTH is that the democrats have treated the 2008 like it was ONE GIANT DECEPTION -

And the readiness of the democrats to abandon that platform has disgusted the nation. The country is SICK OF THE DEMOCRATS.


YOU want more time? For what?

MORE FRAUD?

MORE PROTECTING THE BIG BANKS?

MORE TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICITS??


WHAT DO YOU WANT MORE TIME FOR???


Amazingly, the ACTIONS of the DEMOCRATS IS THEIR PLATFORM


THE ACTIONS OF OBAMA (AND HIS EGO) IS OBAMA'S PLATFORM.


That is why NONE of these trial balloons have not gone anywhere.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 16, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

STRF.

Looking to get paid for your plumline work?

Contact some local organic farmers.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 16, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

STRF wrote:

"It was basically an endorsement for bipartisanship and post-racial policies."

No it was a thorough repudiation of the Bush era economy and politics. Even, God help me for saying this, Hillary would have won that election.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 16, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest, you really need to get a life.

Did Obama betray you? You poor baby.

Obama wasn't voted into office to ameliorate your hate by ushering us into a "post-racial" society. There is no such thing as a "post-racial society" and you better believe that Obama wasn't elected to make you ok about your resentment towards anybody different than you. We are all different, we're not post-anything, and we live in a "diverse" society. Get used to it cause it's only getting more diverse. I know the very thought drives you nuts.

Try to get out more, talk to a black person I promise we're not all reverse-racists or post-racists or whatever you think we are.

Posted by: magnus_terra | October 16, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

54465446, good translation. In addition, how much did Obama out spend McCain?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 16, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

So, why is Feinstien co-chair of the No on Prop 19 campaign?

I'm surprised more haven't latched onto that story.

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/148410/dianne_feinstein_tries_to_play_the_big_villain_in_the_fight_for_legal_pot_

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 16, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

From Politicalwire.com


"How Romney Manufactured a Bestseller"

"Earlier this year, Political Wire was the first to note that Mitt Romney's book, No Apologies, was boosted to the New York Times bestseller list through bulk sales.

Here's how he did it: Ben Smith has a document indicates that Romney asked institutions to buy thousands of copies of his book in exchange for his speeches which might otherwise be paid.

"Asking that hosts buy books is also a standard feature of book tours. But Romney's total price -- $50,000 -- was on the high end, and his publisher, according to the document from the book tour -- provided on the condition it not be described in detail -- asked institutions to pay at least $25,000, and up to the full $50,000 price, in bulk purchases of the book. With a discount of roughly 40 percent, that meant institutions could wind up with more than 3,000 copies of the book -- and a person associated with one of his hosts said they still have quite a pile left over."'

Posted by: Liam-still | October 16, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Liam,

That story about "Mandates" Romney has been around for a while but I'm glad it's getting traction. 

Magnus_Terra,

You might try phone banking for Nick Popavitch.  He's fighting the good fight in Ca-51.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 16, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

"I'll put it to you this way about the Tea Party: Anybody that would put Sarah Palin to the top of their list will never get me. She's a quitter."

-- Former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura (I)

Posted by: Liam-still | October 16, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Dang, I meant Nick Popaditch in CA-51. Sorry about the confusion.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 16, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Liam still wrote:

"How Romney Manufactured a Bestseller"

You're a little old to be losing your virginity aren't you? How is any politician's book sold? You don't really think "It Takes a Village" was read by anybody but reviewers and columnists, do you?

Posted by: 54465446 | October 16, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

"If Sarah Palin falls in a forest?
The GOP star is touring California, but no major Republican candidates are turning out for her"

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/sarah_palin/index.html?story=/opinion/walsh/feature/2010/10/16/palin

"t's strange to be aware that Sarah Palin is in California and no one I know seems to care much about it. Sure, my crowd is mostly Democrats, but I'm also thinking about GOP senate candidate Carly Fiorina and our would-be governor Meg Whitman. Both said they had other engagements this weekend -- they're washing their hair? -- and that's particularly hurtful coming from Fiorina. Palin's May endorsement helped shore up the former HP CEO's standing with party right-wingers, since Fiorina was a McCain surrogate in the state, and a real Tea Party candidate, Chuck DeVore, was in the race.

But Fiorina told reporters she wouldn't be with Palin this weekend: "There are lots of people who've endorsed me that I don't appear with." Wow, that's worse than Alaska GOP Senate candidate Joe Miller's diss of Palin. I think Fiorina should expect some nasty mis-spelled email from Todd Palin, if not a moose-head in her bed."

Posted by: Liam-still | October 16, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Damn,

I know she'd hate to lose the Jesse "I'm just asking questions about 9-1 being an inside job" Ventura constituency.

Thats devastating. Who'll betray her next? The makers of Loose Change? Michael Moore?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 16, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Did anyone link Greenwald's piece on the commonalities between the 'war on terror' and the 'war on drugs'?

"...The most important commonality between these two wars is that they continue -- and will continue -- for reasons having nothing to do with their stated justifications. Both wars ensure an unlimited stream of massive amounts of money into the private war-making industries which fuel them. By itself, the increasingly privatized American prison industry -- fed a constant stream of human beings put in cages as a result of drug prohibition laws -- is obscenely profitable. Add to these powerful profit centers the political fear that officials have of being perceived as abandoning any war before it is "won," and these two intrinsically unwinnable wars -- unwinnable by design -- seem destined to endure forever, or at least until some sort of major financial collapse simply permits them no longer.

It's the perfect deceit. These wars, in an endless loop, sustain and strengthen the very menaces which, in turn, justify their continuous escalation. These wars manufacture the very dangers they are ostensibly designed to combat. Meanwhile, the industries which fight them become richer and richer. The political officials those industries own become more and more powerful. Brutal drug cartels monopolize an unimaginably profitable, no-competition industry, while Terrorists are continuously supplied the perfect rationale for persauding huge numbers of otherwise unsympathetic people to join them or support them. Everyone wins -- except for ordinary citizens, who become poorer and poorer, more and more imprisoned, meeker and meeker, and less and less free."
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/10/14/wars/index.html

Glenn quotes (in a paragraph I didn't include above) the sincere concern on the part of the Chamber of Commerce that failure to wage this 'war' on drugs is important for matters of 'workplace safety'. Which as we know is a really important goal of the Chamber. They have considered changing their name to the Chamber of Workplace Safety but it would mean new letterhead - a fiscal imprudence.

Some years back, New Zealand was actively considering decriminalizing marijuana. They were convinced not to do so after a visit from US officials who told them that if they did so, there would be significant consequences for a key export to the US and thus to their economy.

BY FAR the best reporting I've ever found on the history and dynamics of the war on drugs was written in a series of long pieces by Gardner at the Ottawa Citizen.
http://www.cfdp.ca/ottcit.htm

Posted by: bernielatham | October 16, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Rachel Maddow did a great 10-minute segment on the Chamber of Commerce, talking about the Chamber advocating the outsourcing American jobs and taking money from foreign sources and GlennBeckistan urging his Stepfords to send their money to the Chamber to finance the outsourcing of American jobs.

http://www.americablog.com/2010/10/rachel-on-chamber-of-commerce-foreign.html

Great American Patriots, one and all.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 16, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

"So, why is Feinstien co-chair of the No on Prop 19 campaign?"

Um, because she's a dork. Just a guess.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 16, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse


Damn,

I know she'd hate to lose the Jesse "I'm just asking questions about 9-1 being an inside job" Ventura constituency.

Thats devastating. Who'll betray her next? The makers of Loose Change? Michael Moore?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 16, 2010 12:14 PM

........................
Go back and read what he actually said. He was talking about why he would have nothing to do with The Tea Party.


See my later post, about how Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina are now avoiding Palin.

Todd will have to hire a spammer to distribute his torrent of angry Emails.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 16, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

"if not a moose-head in her bed"

Ha! Good one.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 16, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

"So, why is Feinstien co-chair of the No on Prop 19 campaign?"

Term limits please.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 16, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Bernie hits a home run. now, if we can get you to bat for the Texas Rangers...

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | October 16, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Chuck, saw that game last night, I don't normally pull for the Rangers as an Angels fan, but I am right now. Uggghhh

Posted by: lmsinca | October 16, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

TrollMcWingnut are you kidding me? Nick Popaditch sounds like a teabagger.

Why on earth would you promote a republican to me when I specifically asked for progressives who needed help? SMH.

I have got to go people. Remember GOTV Democrats, GOTV!!! It's all about the ground game now and we will bring this home, I feel it. If you're not canvassing or phone-banking get your a.s.s. out there and help out the candidates you support. Tell everyone you know to vote, vote, vote. Pick who you want to help out. We can stand to lose the blue-dogs, but candidates like Senator Russ Feingold are irreplaceable. Peace out my plum-line people.

Posted by: magnus_terra | October 16, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

This is a GREAT post. Anyone interested in health care sould read this:

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/10/16/health-care-vs-health-insurance/

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 16, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

So, if person x comes to campaign/fundraise for candidate y, and candidate y will not appear with person x, can we assume that person x is un(re)electable for office?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 16, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Liam, my wife and I are going to see Palin today. Micheal Steele will be there too. I'm sure that Palin understands that Whitman and Fiorina are busy campaigning. They have at least been together before. Do you want the list of Democrats who won't appear with Obama.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 16, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Damn: "should."

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 16, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

I see that Palin has brought back the smear on Michelle Obama (not proud of America). Palin said she apparently hadn't met anyone in uniform.

Aside from the simple observation that Palin is being used by others at this point in response to Michelle's support for Dem candidates there's another element here that bears underlining.

There's little "libertarian" in the Tea Party memberships fetishization of the military. It is just one facet of their allegiance to police-state entities whether soldiers or police or the intelligence community. The fascistic tendencies that run deeply in this crowd (recall the illuminating graph from Yglesias on the correspondence between the TP population, Republicans, and social conservatives) are made quite obvious in their fetish for uniformed representatives of the state who carry weapons and can lock their neighbors up or shoot them.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 16, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

clawrence

I left you a response on the previous thread. Let us know how Palin is in person, I follow her facebook comments and know they are adoring to say the least. It's interesting to me although I'm not one.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 16, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Who is Palin campaigning for in California, if Whitman and Fiorina find her toxic, and and are avoiding her, even thought she endorsed both of them?

Posted by: Liam-still | October 16, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Oh yeah Bernie, you hit it right ci myself spend my days building internment camps for the coming right wing teabagging police state!

Your too funny Bernie. You owe me a newcomputer screen. LOL;<)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 16, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Term limits please.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 16, 2010 12:29 PM

........

I am no fan of Diane, but I hate the idea of term limits. If someone wins elections, they should be allowed to keep on running, until they get defeated at the ballot box. Term limits is just a way for the minority of voters to get rid of someone, that the majority of voters keep on electing.

I think that changing the constitution to limit a popular President to two terms was wrong. The Republicans did that, just because they had never been able to defeat FDR.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 16, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

liam

I understand your point but I believe that people in our government out live their usefulness and need to be challenged. I think it's one of the problems especially in the Senate right now. Just my opinion.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 16, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

bernielatham,


The first lady has been very active in meeting the needs of military families; especially those who have a husband or wife deployed in the two war zones.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 16, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Bernie hits a home run. now, if we can get you to bat for the Texas Rangers...

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | October 16, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Oh, man, I feel for you. I watched that one all the way through from the 4th inning. Wilson didn't cover first fast enough and the floodgates were open. When I saw Darren Oliver coming in I knew the Rangers were in trouble. Yankees have SO MUCH talent they just keep coming at you. I hope the Rangers can bounce back today because that was one tough loss.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 16, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

"Liam, my wife and I are going to see Palin today."

Please remember to leave Sarah all your money. You'll get a cupie doll. Thank you.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 16, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

The following is what hobbles the Democrat party in electoral politics:

The Democrat party has become wholly dependent on an assortment of minority voting blocs to win state and national elections. It is pandering to these minority blocs at the expense of losing the mainstream majority of American voters.

Examples: At this very moment Barack Obama is out there exhorting his black constituents to get out there and help keep Obamacrats in power. Blacks are bored without their savior on the ballot.

Obama sang and danced to the outlaw "immigrant" two-step to get latinos fired up but, without amnesty, latinos just aren't buying.

Young people are notorious for being bored with mid-terms and homosexuals aren't being satified so these groups are not going to race to the polls in November.

It is starting to look like 2008 was some kind of fluke or something.

Democrats need to fish for votes in the mainstream again.

Posted by: battleground51 | October 16, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

t
liam

I understand your point but I believe that people in our government out live their usefulness and need to be challenged. I think it's one of the problems especially in the Senate right now. Just my opinion.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 16, 2010 12:58 PM
...............

And I understand your frustration, but preventing them from running again, is not challenging them. That is supposed to happen through primaries and general election contests. I want to alway let the majority of the voters have the final say on who wins and who loses.

There is something that just does not sit right with me, about preventing voters from having their say at the ballot box, to determine if they should continue to back a candidate, or vote him out.

Enough about that. Do you know who Palin is campaigning for in California, since the Republican candidates for the two biggest contests are steering clear of her?

Posted by: Liam-still | October 16, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Liam still wrote:

"I am no fan of Diane, but I hate the idea of term limits. If someone wins elections, they should be allowed to keep on running, until they get defeated at the ballot box. Term limits is just a way for the minority of voters to get rid of someone, that the majority of voters keep on electing."

Robert Byrd says thank you. He's every bit as alive today as he was for the past 5 years you know. Also Charlie Rangel wants to know if you're in for his 50th Anniversary In Congress Party. Reservations are being taken right now. He's going to re-enact his role in the Korean War . . again.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 16, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

lmsinca, I will post an update.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 16, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

I hope the Rangers can bounce back today because that was one tough loss.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 16, 2010 1:00 PM

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

The one glimmer of hope that the Texas Rangers fans should hold on to is:

The Rangers lost both home games to Tampa, and won all three road games. I viewed that as an indicator that the Texas team does not get rattled on the road, and Tampa was just as good a team as the Yankees have been this year.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 16, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

The following is what hobbles the Republican party in electoral politics:

The Republican party has become wholly dependent on an assortment of white voting blocs to win state and national elections. It is pandering to these white blocs at the expense of losing the mainstream majority of American voters.

Examples: At this very moment Sarah Palin is out there exhorting her White constituents to get out there and help Republicans gain in power. Whites are bored without their savior on the ballot.

Palin sang and danced to the outlaw "anti-immigrant" two-step to get latinos fired up but, without amnesty, latinos just aren't buying.

Young people are notorious for being bored with mid-terms and homosexuals aren't being satified so these groups are not going to race to the polls in November.

It is starting to look like 2008 was some kind of fluke or something.

Republicans need to fish for votes in the mainstream again.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 16, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Robert Byrd says thank you. He's every bit as alive today as he was for the past 5 years you know. Also Charlie Rangel wants to know if you're in for his 50th Anniversary In Congress Party. Reservations are being taken right now. He's going to re-enact his role in the Korean War . . again.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 16, 2010 1:10 PM

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

Then you should be calling for the prevention of voters having any say in deciding who they want to represent them.

You forgot to mention Strom Thurmond, so you must be only against Democrats who the voters of their home districts and states keep voting back in, again and again.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 16, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

IIRC CofC businesses with less than 50 employees make up 70% of membership.

Perhaps these employers don't want stoned employees face2face with other workers and customers at close quarters.

Go figure?

Or maybe they're all fascists, ya never know.

You're a shopkeeper B, what say you?

nb.: Respect by folks for the military looks like fetishization to people who haven't respect for the military. Fetishists (3Xfast, hehe) probably see fetishes at-large more often than non-f'ists. They've got f-goggles or something.

Posted by: tao9 | October 16, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Richard Nixon's approval rating at this point in his first term = 58%.

Barack Obama today = 48%.

Gallup!

Wow!

Posted by: battleground51 | October 16, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

I hope the Rangers can bounce back today because that was one tough loss.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 16, 2010 1:00 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know. Losing to the Leafs at home in OT is bad enought but losing Drury and Gaborik
for a month is very, very hard news for NY...

Wait a minute, is it still baseball season?

Posted by: tao9 | October 16, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Good morning Tao.

I wish people would stop using The Military as a political football.

Since he is a big Tea Party booster, I think Palin should go on a tour with Cliff Claven, to demand more reverence for The Post Office.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 16, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Richard Nixon's approval rating at this point in his first term = 58%.

Barack Obama today = 48%.

Gallup!

Wow!

Posted by: battleground51 | October 16, 2010 1:26 PM |
.....................

"Reagan's popularity continued down to a low of 42 percent and Republicans lost 26 seats in the House of Representatives after two years of the Reagan presidency."

Wow Indeed!

Posted by: Liam-still | October 16, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Prediction: After November, Obama will do a Clinton to avoid becoming another Carter.

Clinton was much more clever and flexible than the stiff, tele-prompter-in-chief today. Clinton is an original and Obama will be a copy-cat Clinton.

But, after all the Obamacrat lemmings have lept to their deaths, Obama will try to join the mainstream and thrive. It may work but it will depend on the Republicans nominating another used up RINO in 2012.

I think the TEA PARTY folks will have something to say about that!

Posted by: battleground51 | October 16, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Wow! Wow! Wow!

Ronald Reagan was no Nixon. How about that!

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/barack-obama-ronald-reagan-approval-ratings-economy-link/story?id=11182543

"Barack Obama's "Absolutely Uncanny" Similarity To Ronald Reagan
While Policies Are At Odds, Slumping Approval Ties Obama and Reagan"

Ronald Reagan at the same time in his first term.
42% Approval Rating, compared to President Obama at 48%. Imagine how low Reagan would have sunk, if he had to two screwed up Wars handed over to him, when he took office!

Wow Indeed!

Posted by: Liam-still | October 16, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

I don't know if this is up anyone's alley but mine. As I'm a retired professional but still volunteer grief counselor I found a certain familiarity with the it. Stage two is Anger, blaming someone else.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lately we’ve been starting to see more fingerpointing, suggesting that they’re moving from denial to anger:

* It’s those lazy homeowners. (Never mind that we misrepresented our loans to many of them, and screwed around with them again using HAMP.)
* It’s the onerous banking regulations and government interference. (Never mind that we gutted any of those that would have prevented this mess.)
* It’s the shiftless loan originators and servicers. (Never mind that we knew what they were doing and turned a blind eye in order to bring in the profits to make up for our losses elsewhere.)
* It’s the evil pushers of the mortgage backed securities. (Never mind that we created these securitized instruments of mass financial destruction and the credit default swaps that went along with them.)
* It’s the robosigners. (Never mind that we hired and trained them.)
* It’s all the fault of MERS. (Oh, wait a minute, that’s us. Uh, never mind that one, too.)
* It’s everyone else’s fault. Really. Cross my heart and hope to die. Trust me on this.

Right.

http://firedoglake.com/2010/10/16/the-five-stages-of-grief-motu-edition/

Posted by: lmsinca | October 16, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Indeed, Reagan's approval went to 42% at this point in his first term but Reagan was a special case sorta like Clinton. I admire Clinton as a political natural even though I was embarrassed at his immature and immoral antics. Reagan did not change his ideology to suit the polls but Clinton did because he knew he had to. Reagan was honest, Clinton was not.

Obama must now trick a majority of Americans into re-electing him. Can he do it??

Posted by: battleground51 | October 16, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

lmsinca

It is typical blame the victim scapegoating.

Look at how many of those Tea Party candidates have smeared people who can not find jobs.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 16, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Liam still wrote:

"Then you should be calling for the prevention of voters having any say in deciding who they want to represent them."

Good point, but the problem is we took away one of the safeguards the Founders built into the system and put nothing in it's place.

The Senate as an old folks home or an aristocracy where office is conveyed from husband to wife, or to offspring is blowback from the direct election of Senators. If the state legislatures still controlled the process there is no way we would have had Byrd and Thurmond and near dead Kennedy and I'll do anything to stay in office Specter, etc.

Furthermore there is no way atrocities like the Murkowski legacy and the attempted Biden handoff would ever happen.

Remember the people who built this nation were relatively YOUNG men. The average age at the Constitutional Convention was about 43. Please don't give me that crap about people living longer today. Several of the Signers lived to be 90, they just didn't do it in office!

Get rid of the old people of both parties who run this country and who stand in the way of progress.

Term Limits Constitutional Amendment, it's a heckuva lot more important than anything else proposed.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 16, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Hah Hah Hah. "Reagan was a special case". Oh lord! Those Tea Bagger types are hilarious. Regan had that special good 42% low approval rating. It was actually very positive, like a low cholesterol rating.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 16, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Amazing. A liberal calling the political opposition "facistic"

This is really a case of projection:
====================
There's little "libertarian" in the Tea Party memberships fetishization of the military. It is just one facet of their allegiance to police-state entities whether soldiers or police or the intelligence community. The fascistic tendencies that run deeply in this crowd...
=======================

It is hard to over state the sheer nonsense of the above.

Yo, Bernie you are doing the kettle meet pot thing quite well. The fact is that it is liberals who incessantly demand more government intervention in our lives while the people you wrongly accuse demand less.

Liberals love new law, new regulation, high taxes and centralized command of the citizens.

Further, did it ever occur to you that some people admire the military, the police and others who make sacrifices and take personal risks to protect us?

Nah, that can't be it, right Bernie. The right loves these people because we all secretly yearn for a police state.

Let me tell, if such a situation occurs it will be brought to us by the left, not the right. The strangle hold that DC has on the country now is highly regarded by the lefties among us. More regulation, more taxation, more central control all head is in the general direction of a dictatorship.

Talk about projection. Which side of the political spectrum wants fewer new Federal REgister pages and which side wants more?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 16, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

54465446

What name do I refer to you by? I do not want to continue talking to a string of numbers.

Here is something that I think my provide a solution. Not term limits, but age limits.

We do not allow commercial pilots to fly big passenger planes, after they reach a certain age. I think the same approach should be taken, when it comes to when people should be prevented from seeking office.

Aside from everything else, I felt John McCain was way too old to be trusted with Piloting the most powerful nation on earth, for four or more years. I am just a few years younger than him, and I know that I do not have the energy that it would take, to stay on top of things 24/7 for the next four years.


Pick a name please.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 16, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Liam still wrote:

"Here is something that I think my provide a solution. Not term limits, but age limits.

We do not allow commercial pilots to fly big passenger planes, after they reach a certain age. I think the same approach should be taken, when it comes to when people should be prevented from seeking office."


Super heroes can't reveal their true identities now can they. Gvien your stated age, I'm guessing you were a DC fan?

Age limits would be unconstitutional, and realistically you can't expect 70 yeard olds an up to vote for age limits can you?

You and I remember that people talked about how old Reagan was, when first elected at 70, the oldest first time elected president ever?

That would only make him the 28th oldest Senator in office right now, and it would have been 30 except for the deaths of Kennedy and Byrd.

Is that unbelievable or what?

Posted by: 54465446 | October 16, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Age limits would be unconstitutional, and realistically you can't expect 70 yeard olds an up to vote for age limits can you?.

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

Yes I can. We old people do not want Abe Simpson driving the tour bus.

Pick an Alias, Secret Numbers Man. I am through talking to numbers, because I just can not stand doing so.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 16, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Liam still wrote:

"Yes I can. We old people do not want Abe Simpson driving the tour bus"

You can call me Sean then, in honor of our joint ancestry?

I simply disagree. I think we are the first generation in the history of the world that EXPECTS 70 year olds to still have a job and 80 year olds to still live on their own. I'm not that old, but I knew many people growing up, besides my own home, where one or more grandparents lived with the children. Today that is highly unsual, except in cases where the middle aged child still lives in the parent's house!

Your acknowledgment of some impairment makes you the realist exception, not the rule.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 16, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Sean,

I have to run out and do some get out the vote work. I will talk to you in the next few days.


With regard to term limits, how would you set them. Two terms for US Senators?. Biden was elected at 29, so that would have him ending his senate career at the age of 41. I would not like that.

On the other hand; what if some very wealthy business types, decide to run for those two terms, and they run for the first time at the age of 68 or older. They could end up in office until they are over 80.

Have a good weekend.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 16, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

We either believe in democracy or not. We either believe in the voters choices or not. Term limits means we don't believe in the wisdom of the voters. Same with age limits.

I'm against the limits for purist reasons.

If someone else has good argument for the evils of letting the voters choose, I'm willing to listen.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 16, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne, did you ever get a response to your email to the local Chamber. If not, here's the answer and better contact person:

"Thank you for your message.  The Greater Boston Chamber is not affiliated with the US Chamber nor do we pay any dues.  We’re an independently run organization in every respect – financing, governance, operations, staff, public policy advocacy, etc.
 
I hope this information is helpful. "
 
Tim Sweeney
Director of Public Policy
Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce
265 Franklin Street, 12th Floor
Boston, MA 02110-3113
617.557.7357, direct line
617.227.7505, fax
tsweeney@bostonchamber.com

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 16, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

12barblues wrote:

"We either believe in democracy or not. We either believe in the voters choices or not. Term limits means we don't believe in the wisdom of the voters. Same with age limits.

I'm against the limits for purist reasons.

If someone else has good argument for the evils of letting the voters choose, I'm willing to listen."

Well the founders certainly did not believe in this type of democracy. I don't know if that argument holds water with you. I also believe that the concerns of people in their 70's and older are not the concerns of the nation as a whole. The largest portion of the Federal budget, after defense, is taking care of the aged through SS, Medicare, and now prescription drug benefits. I read in Ezra Klein's column that 1/3 of our health care spending is done in the last 90 days of life. I can't vouch for that, but it certainly has a lot to do with the incredibly ancient Senate.

The average age of the Signers of the Declaration was 44. The oldest among them, Ben Franklin, would have only been the 28th oldest member of today's Senate. I believe that we would certainly never have been an independent nation today if people of the age of current Senators were in charge. As I say the concerns of the old are entirely different than the young but I am repeating myself.

The only other thing that would help would help is changing the rules of the Senate to eliminate the extreme advantages of seniority and some other of their self-made rules. Since only they and not we can vote on such things, good luck with that!

Posted by: 54465446 | October 16, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

I also believe that the concerns of people in their 70's and older are not the concerns of the nation as a whole.
-------------------------------------
Thanks for your thoughtful response. It's really good to read a response that isn't a flaming arrow.

The argument you make about the mix of concerns does not seem persuasive to me. Let the voters decide what is important. In districts with a lot of older voters, it will be important. In others it won't. Shouldn't the voters be the ones to decide what is a concern? I don't get why someone else should decide that? I don't understand how imposing someone else's opinion as to what is important, is better than letting the voters decide, district by district.

With regard to the founders intentions, it seems that the nature of our democracy today is what we have. Seems practical to me to deal with what we have, than what we might have had.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 16, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

I don't agree with the whole SS argument and the age of the Senate. But I do believe that too many of our Congress people on both side of the aisle are overly pre-occupied with winning the next election, too motivated to cave to media manipulation, and catering to a loud and wealthy minority and special interests.

If they knew they only have 12-16 years to serve and come up through the House to the Senate I believe when presented with tough decisions they will be more inclined to vote with the majority of their constituents and remain true to the promises that got them elected.

It's a pipe dream of course. Campaign finance reform would guarantee some of the same things, probably another pipe dream. I have a lot of those.

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

When I was working in venture capital, we specialized in service companies (as opposed to products). We gauged who was going to be successful by whether or not they could get development contracts from large clients to solve real business problems. We always resisted the idea that we, as funders, would decide what was going to sell. We let the market tell us.

Sometimes, entrepreneurs were unsuccessful in selling work. Sometimes, they weren't the right people. Sometimes, they were ahead of their time. We had to let those ventures fold up.

I'm using this analogy to the voters' decisions. Sometimes, we think we know better than the voters, by looking at this person or that person. But, I doubt it very much. Our wisdom is no better than the voters, and I would suggest, our wisdom is less.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 16, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

@54465446-

"I believe that we would certainly never have been an independent nation today if people of the age of current Senators were in charge."

Meaning what? They woulda all been Tories? Conservatives? Please enlighten us, time traveller. If Seniors are so "conservative", I guess they'll all be ready to give up Medicare/Medicaid.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | October 16, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

lms, you see that HC link of mine above from Balloon Juice?

You'd like it, and I think it makes an excellent clarifying point that really needs to be made.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 16, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Thanks BG, I'll go check it out, I missed it.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 16, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

I believe when presented with tough decisions they will be more inclined to vote with the majority of their constituents and remain true to the promises that got them elected.
------------------------------------
@lms,

How can this be? If the voters are betrayed, they will not reelect the pol. If you mean the voters have short memories, and are underinformed as to what their pol did, then I understand how a pol could perennially disappoint their constituents and still get reelected.

Maybe I'm a pollyanna, but I just don't understand how we don't trust the voters to make the decision as to who they want representing them.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 16, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

lmsinca, your pipe dream would make corrupt politics even more likely. The more "term limited" Senators there are, the more certain they are to vote with special interest groups who will take care of them afterwards rather than being held accountable by the threat of not winning another election.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 16, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

I think if we start putting limits, restrictions, and other nonvoter imposed rules on elections, we create a system that will be gamed. The power will shift from voters (dumb as they may be) to sharpies who prowl the halls of congress, influencing the people who make up the rules and restrictions.

I say, let well enough alone. Keep it simple. Let the voters decide who's too old, too dottering, too out of touch, too crazy, too much of a liar, etc. It may not be perfect, but it's the simplest system there is.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 16, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Term limits is one of those subjects that doesn't break down along ideological lines. Interesting.

I'd say the old saying applies:

"Politicians, can't live with 'em, can't have term limits or else they NEVER know what they're doing and the lobbyists will have even more influence."

OK, it's a version of the old saying.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 16, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

clawrence, if they're inclined to corruption they're doing it anyway, they just finesse it a little more along the way. How many Congress members and Senators from both sides of the aisle are running in spite of their transgressions and still winning? More than a few.

12Bar, I think they become entrenched to the point that they do get re-elected for no apparent good reason. It's not always the case obviously, and I think the voters would have more power not less with term limits.

BG, that's the same argument I made during the HCR debate except that if it included an alternative to the monopoly of the industry in the form of a public option it would have been even better. I don't object to the mandate although I understand why some do. I hadn't thought to link it to emergency care for the uninsured in that way though, it's a good argument.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 16, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

None of my defense of voter-centric elections, should mean that I think that we should have rules that make it easy to deceive voters. I do not believe in anonymity of donors to elections and to ads. I do not support foreign entities influencing our elections.

We should always tighten the rules that protect the right of the voters to know what is going on.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 16, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

12Bar, I think they become entrenched to the point that they do get re-elected for no apparent good reason.
----------------------------------
@lms,

I respect you girl...

How can an election win be for no good reason. If it's good enough for the voters who vote, isn't that good enough?

If a handful of voters influence the outcome, then the losing pol couldn't gen up enough interest. That's good reason to lose. If the voters are complete idiots, and elect a fool, aren't they well represented? Seems so to me.

Where I start drawing up the horses, is when voters are influenced by anonymous sources with big money to propagandize them. That's where we should be putting our rules and regulations.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 16, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

"Where I start drawing up the horses, is when voters are influenced by anonymous sources with big money to propagandize them. That's where we should be putting our rules and regulations."

Okay, you win this round, of course I agree with that statement. Term limits is just something I fool around with sometimes when I see so many entrenched folks running the country and can't help but wonder how it might be different.

Anyway, I'm our for awhile to work with my Women (older) for Hedrick buddies to GOTV. I can tell I'm getting old when I look forward to finger sandwiches and tea. :)

Posted by: lmsinca | October 16, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

I can tell I'm getting old when I look forward to finger sandwiches and tea.
-----------------------------
I'm going to a birthday party, where the big attraction seems to be taking all day to get drunk. I too primly remarked that "my drunk days are behind me". God, I felt old.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 16, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

I have to agree with lms re: term limits. Ther's no sign that term limits have damaged the presidency, or have made the office of the presidency any less dmocratic. Additionally, elections are limited already: by who can vote ( age and residency) and who can run, and when votes take place. We don't argue that it's undemocratic that we don't get to vote each week as to who will represent us. I think clearing out the deadwood automatically could only be a positive, myself.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 16, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

String up those damned homos or die trying!

"The Kansas Democratic Party raised questions about ties between the Republican Party's nominee for governor and the minister with headquarters in Kansas City, Mo. Brownback has participated in religious rallies in Tennessee and elsewhere hosted by Engle, who says Christians may need to martyr themselves in the campaign against abortion and homosexuality.

Engle and Brownback were together as recently as December 2009 when they appeared on the Internet broadcast of a prayer service seeking God's intervention to block Senate passage of health reform.

Brownback, interviewed following a TV appearance in Topeka, said Kansas voters should understand he doesn't agree with all positions expressed by Engle."
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_10/026158.php

Nothing extreme in here. Move along, folks.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 16, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne, did you ever get a response to your email to the local Chamber. If not, here's the answer and better contact person:

"Thank you for your message. The Greater Boston Chamber is not affiliated with the US Chamber nor do we pay any dues. We’re an independently run organization in every respect – financing, governance, operations, staff, public policy advocacy, etc.

I hope this information is helpful. "

Tim Sweeney
Director of Public Policy
Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce
265 Franklin Street, 12th Floor
Boston, MA 02110-3113
617.557.7357, direct line
617.227.7505, fax
tsweeney@bostonchamber.com

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 16, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Nope. No response. I guess my boycott has bankrupted them. Unless YOU work for the Chamber and this the Chamber's response. In any event, I am unimpressed by the formal separation of Chamber of Commerce units around the country. It strikes me as similar to what the Chamber does with its foreign money and donors with "firewalls" and the like. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce feeds off the good will of locals like Boston and they all know it. That was mentioned specifically in the 1971 Powell Memorandum, which set the Chamber on its present course as Big Business' propaganda arm. As I've said, if the Boston office truly is separate and especially if it disavows the U.S. Chamber's political activities fine, otherwise they have some responsibility for the policies.

The Chamber of Commerce has become a partisan political organization; that was their choice not mine. As I've mentioned before, it would be far better for the U.S Chamber of Commerce to come clean about the money it spends influencing our elections but that apparently isn't in its nature. So far.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 16, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Coming soon to a theater near you! See the blood! Watch the nails so cruelly driven in! It will be almost as if you were there on Calvary to witness.

The Passion of the Exxon Mobile

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/15/glennbeck-oil-evangelicals/

Posted by: bernielatham | October 16, 2010 6:08 PM | Report abuse

So, remember that $14 million haul from Angle?

Ends up it wasn't such a great hall in the end.

"But with the actual filings today, we know now that Angle's $14 million came at a cost. Specifically, about $12 million. That's how much her campaign spent to raise the money -- an unfathomable percentage. "

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20019812-503544.html

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 16, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

12barblues wrote;

I think that seniors vote more consistently than other blocs and the squeaky wheel gets the grease. But that is not necessarily what is best for society.

About 40% of the Federal Budget goes just for Medicare, SS and the Federal Worker and Veteran pensions. You might not like the characterization, but these are the least productive members of our society by GDP. That numbe is expanding and will hit about 43-45% of the budget when (or should I say if) the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq terminate.

This is an unsustainable number, but unlikely to change given our current legislative makeup.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 16, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

lmsinca, I'm here waiting for Palin. So far, Ed Royce, Gary Miller, Dana Rorabacher, Van Tran, and John Campbell.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 16, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne, I do not work for any Chamber of Commerce.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 16, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Mike, you gotta spend money to make money to lose money.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 16, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

BGinCHI:

Very interesting re: health care. Every step from national health care makes the system orders of magnitude more inefficient. We should have national health care, not quasi-national mandated health insurance. Why don't we? Because all that "inefficiency" is profit for the health care industry, not to mention all the enormous profits in the subsidiary health INSURANCE market. So Americans are paying far more for their health care because both the health providers and the health insurers insist on skimming their profits before we get the health care we're actually paying for and that we actually want. It's dumb.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 16, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

clawrence wrote:

imsinca, wrote:

"your pipe dream would make corrupt politics even more likely. The more "term limited" Senators there are, the more certain they are to vote with special interest groups who will take care of them afterwards rather than being held accountable by the threat of not winning another election."

Actually, the reverse is true. current politicians see the Senate not only as a life appointment for them, but for their family members in succession. many of them have literally never held another job outside of politics. Term limits would make it more likely that they already HAVE a second career, and therefore are LESS depndent on lobbyists for largesse.

We have really perverted the system in unforeseen ways by direct election of Senators. In the original, Senators were more responsive to the states than to national lobbyists, because that's who they had to please to remain in office. Now they HAVE to spend sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars on election campaigns that would cease to exist if they were elected at the state level. Where does THAT money come from?

If you want to take at least some of the money our of politics, you would end direct election of Senators.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 16, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

magnus_terra at 11:55 AM


I really have to disagree with you.


A great deal of people voted for Obama because he promised a post-racial society - people voted for Obama because they wanted to see racial lines and divisions go away - and see an end to it all.


The point is - the people who were voting that way were NOT endorsing a liberal agenda.

ON Bush - the democrats were whining about Iraq for years - and based on a bunch of lies as well - of course the public is going to tire of a war.

I found the attitude of the democrats offensive to the troops - who were giving their lives in the effort - but the democrats did not respect that effort.

Harry Reid demanding that we say we lost, and leave - instead of doing the Surge, is a case in point.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 16, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

chuckindenton wrote:

@54465446-

"I believe that we would certainly never have been an independent nation today if people of the age of current Senators were in charge."

Meaning what? They woulda all been Tories? Conservatives? Please enlighten us, time traveller. If Seniors are so "conservative", I guess they'll all be ready to give up Medicare/Medicaid."

Meaning drive for change and to create a better world is not a noted chatracteristic of people in their 70's and 80's on the whole. They won't give up Medicare for the obvious reason that's what they're trying to conserve!

Posted by: 54465446 | October 16, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Andrew Breitbart speaking now about saving the United States of America.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 16, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

wbg, yep, agree completely.

There's also no reason whatsoever for people on the right to disagree. Unless you fetishize the free market (so-called) you have to admit that it's a wasteful, inefficient system. We'd be better off with a public/private system that delivered HC without all the redundancy.

But when people on the right actually think that tort reform is the answer, how can you even argue with them?

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 16, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Sarah's up.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 16, 2010 6:38 PM | Report abuse

54465446


You are on with your nonsense again - which is nothing but partisanship to the point of blindness.


Why is Obama protecting the big banks???


At some point, everyone in the nation is going to realize that the economy does NOT need the big banks - and we are much better off without the big banks.


Obama needs to take a different look at this.


This mortgage crisis is going to come to this: THE BIG PENSION FUNDS (CDO holders) VS THE BIG BANKS - And The US government and the US people should come down HARD ON THE SIDE OF THE PENSION FUNDS.


Pretty simple


America deserves better.


Obama has allowed the banks to get away with unbelievable fraud over the past two years.


They should GO TO JAIL -

AND THEIR SALARIES AND BONUSES SHOULD BE CLAWEDBACK 7 YEARS.


Anything else from Obama is a failure to handle the crisis.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 16, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

STRF wrote:

"ON Bush - the democrats were whining about Iraq for years - and based on a bunch of lies as well - of course the public is going to tire of a war.

I found the attitude of the democrats offensive to the troops - who were giving their lives in the effort - but the democrats did not respect that effort"


I haven't taken a poll or anything, but if I were one of the troops, I would find it MUCH MORE offensive that Cheney, Rice, Perle, Clarke, Feith, Wolfowitz, Bremer etc never served their nation at all in the military and in several cases were cowards who avoided the draft. At least Bush and Rumsfeld wore the uniform although never saw a shot fired in anger.

Every one of them who started the war though is making millions, enjoying their lives, playing with children and grandchildren, while year after year others go in harm's way for them.

I would also find it offensive that at the leading promotional outlet of the war, Fox News, they have not one single on-air talent who has ever worn the uniform, and that they are not even owned by Americans.

Needless to say this goes also for other chicken hawks like Beck and Limbaugh.

Yeah, that would both me a LOT, but maybe that's just me.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 16, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

The democrats are such hypocrites on Campaign Finance Reform

When the democrats saw loopholes in 2004, 2006 and 2008 they RUSHED to exploit the financial advantage.


IN 2008, Obama TRASHED the only part of the Campaign Finance System that WAS WORKING - the limits on Presidential spending.

So, don't come off all CLEANER-THAN-YOU now.


The position of Obama and the democrat is a complete joke - it is BASED ON DECEPTIONS AND LIES.


Obama I can see.


But the other democrats who support this kind of behavior are either WILLFULLY IGNORANT OR STUPID, OR BOTH.


There is no intelligent conversation from democrats on Campaign Finance Reform - there is no discussion of what Obama did in 2008 - there is NOTHING but weak rhetoric filled with deceptions.


The democrats have NO CREDIBILITY on this issue. Obama DESTROYED his credibility on this topic in 2008.


If any of the democrats are looking for a reason WHY the American People have rejected you, you can look to this issue, the economy and health care.


The arrogance combined with stupidity is unbelievable.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 16, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

STRF wrote:

"Obama has allowed the banks to get away with unbelievable fraud over the past two years."

Which is a complete fraud on your part because as you have pointed out on here many times, Clinton signed the CFMA which passed in 2000, not 2009, and which lies at the very heart of the fraud you describe.

Strive for more consistency, because on some masochistic level I really do enjoy having you as a foil!

Posted by: 54465446 | October 16, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Sarah's speech was great!'

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 16, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

BG:

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

Do you notice that the net effect of "tort reform" is that Big Business keeps more money and injured citizens go uncompensated for injuries the business caused? There is a vast transfer of wealth long underway in this country: from the Middle Class to the Upper Class.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 16, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Insinca at 1:52


You got that right.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 16, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

"Sarah's speech was great!'"

Remember to give her all your money! And don't forget the kewpie doll! Let freedom RINNNGGGGG!

Posted by: wbgonne | October 16, 2010 7:04 PM | Report abuse

54465446 at 6:51 PM


Yes, it is OFFENSIVE that the democrats voted for the Iraq War - and then after hundreds of lives were sacrificed, decided to abandon the effort.


This was ALL done for domestic PARTISAN advantage - a few points in the overnight polling - truly a national disgrace.


_____________________


You don't know much about the Middle East - because you would be writing differenly.


Bill Clinton and the democrats pulled much of our intelligence assets out of the Middle East in the 1990s - based on some liberal ideas that the CIA shouldn't be tracking the terrorists there.


The result was 9/11 - and the US was left blind in the Middle East from an intelligence point of view

Sudan at one point in the 1990s offered to deliver Bin Laden to the US - Bill Clinton said no.


__________________________


Hence is the MORAL BANKRUPTCY of the liberal ideas concerning foreign policy.


- There were 22 reasons in the CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION as to WHY we went into Iraq

- The democrats LIED and DECEIVED those 22 reasons into "Bush Lied"


____________________________


The REASON we went into Iraq was to PREVENT CHEMICAL WEAPONS FROM BEING USED BY TERRORISTS IN US CITIES - KILLING US CITIZENS.


Our intelligence services KNEW Saddam had chemical weapons - because he used them on his own people

Those weapons could have been EASILY moved to Syria - but the democrats CONTINUE TO CLAIM THAT SADDAM WAS INNOCENT


_____________________________

There is STILL A THREAT OF TERRORISM HERE IN THE US - EVEN THOUGH OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO CLAIM OTHERWISE.


We have had Fort Hood,

- the Detroit plan bomb

- the New York Tunnel and Subway plot

- the Times Square Bomb

- C-4 Military Explosives were recently found in Manhattan.


AND yet Obama and the democrats would prefer to have a dispute over WHAT WE CALL THESE TERRORISTS, AS IF DICTION WILL END A WAR.


Idiots - complete idiots -

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 16, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

54465446 at 6:58 PM


Yes, Clinton is to blame for what he did in 2000


AND Obama is to blame for not cleaning up the banking industry over the past two years.


How in the world is that inconsistent??


The banks are COVERING UP all their fraud in the mortgage markets over the years - by COMMITTING more fraud by submitting fraudulent documents to Courts.


- Obama has been told numerous times in the discussions over mortgage modifications that the banks are submitting fraudulent documents.


- The REAL Problem is between the CDO holders and the big banks - that is the major reason WHY the banks are handling the paperwork the way they are.

- Obama STILL has not dealt with the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - which is a WHOLE OTHER SET OF PROBLEMS

Obama is a failure - there is no other way to put it -


IN the middle of an economic crisis - AMERICA DESERVES BETTER.


American does not deserve someone who is preoccupied with his own EGO - and someone who goes before CONGRESS AND STATES CLEARLY THAT HE "DIDN'T COME TO WASHINGTON" TO BE DISTRACTED BY THE ECONOMY.


Get RID of this guy as soon as possible.


ANYONE WHO CONTINUES TO SUPPORT OBAMA HAS A SEVERE CHARACTER FLAW - OR IS JUST STUPID.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 16, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Night, All. Go Rangers!

Posted by: wbgonne | October 16, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

The Chamber of Commerce has become a partisan political organization; that was their choice not mine. As I've mentioned before, it would be far better for the U.S Chamber of Commerce to come clean about the money it spends influencing our elections but that apparently isn't in its nature. So far.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 16, 2010 6:02 PM
------

Wise up, wbgonne. N.O.W., A.A.R.P., the Teacher's Union, et al. have all become partisan political organizations. They could care less about women, retired people, or teachers---unless they happen to be Democrats. Sane people don't give money to any of them. Send it to the United Way. Unless you want to buy some supplemental health insurance. Then call A.A.R.P.

Posted by: Brigade | October 16, 2010 9:33 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne wrote,
"Do you notice that the net effect of "tort reform" is that Big Business keeps more money and injured citizens go uncompensated for injuries the business caused?"
-------

What I've noticed is that courts have in some cases become simply a means of enrichment for attorneys. Pick a friendly jurisdiction, file a class action lawsuit with your drinking buddy representing the class, and hope to extort money out of whatever company. If you can squeeze a few million out of the company, the attorneys get the few million, and the "plaintiffs" all get a coupon for $1 off the purchase of their next widget. A friendly judge approves the settlement. And, mind you, it's all good for society because it discourages the evil company from doing its evil business.

Sometimes governments even get involved. Then they really shake the money tree. Like with the tobacco companies who, ironically, were subsidized by the government for years, until the government decided suing them and increasing taxes on their products was another great source of revenue to be wasted. Of course it was all to help people quit smoking and to take care of the increased medical costs of smokers. Well, not really, because most of the money from the many settlements has been wasted on other things, which have absolutely nothing to do with smoking.

In my state, smoking in public places is illegal, unless the public place happens to be a casino, which provides another great stream of vice revenue for the state government. Then health of the workers be damned.

Lawsuits are doubtless one of the reasons healthcare has gotten so expensive. Wbgonne incorrectly states that the purpose of tort reform is so "injured citizens go uncompensated". That's B.S. Look up the meaning of reform; I don't think it means what he thinks it means. Injured citizens would still be eligible to receive their widget coupons.

Posted by: Brigade | October 16, 2010 10:00 PM | Report abuse

This is an unusual piece from David Dayen who also recommends an article at the Daily Caller. I know, it's incredible. I haven't read it yet but I'm going to. There's an excerpt from the DC piece though which is worth the read here. Also DDay doesn't think the banks are going to get off scott-free in this whole mess, not because of pesky home owners but because of pesky investors.

I know it's long but I figure some here won't click FDL and others won't click Daily Caller, so I posted the highlights.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Even more interesting is the long piece in, of all places, The Daily Caller, an incredibly good summation of the issues that makes no bones about its conclusions:

"Wells Fargo wanted to foreclose on a condo unit which had multiple mortgages attached to it. Wells Fargo also owned one of those second mortgages. So Wells Fargo spent money to hire a law firm and file suit against the irresponsible lenders at Wells Fargo. Then, Wells Fargo spent money to hire a different law firm in an understandable effort to defend Wells Fargo from the vicious legal attack coming from Wells Fargo. The second law firm even prepared a legal statement for Wells Fargo which called into question the dubious claims being made by Wells Fargo. Sadly, Wells Fargo won the case, crushing the hopes of Wells Fargo.

As business reporter Al Lewis wrote at the time, “You can’t expect a bank that is dumb enough to sue itself to know why it is suing itself.” So goes the unprecedented wave of foreclosures that has swept across the country since the housing bubble popped. Mortgages have been bought, sold, and repackaged so many times through such an opaque process that banks have no idea who owns what. When they foreclose, they simply guess, making up the documents and information necessary to do so."

DDay: I’m actually recommending a Daily Caller story. Read the whole thing. It’s a comprehensive piece of reporting.

None of this means that the banksters won’t get let off the hook here. But you have investors who want to leave the market and probably will sue the servicers on the way out. You have purchasers who won’t go near a foreclosed property until the errors are corrected. You have title insurance sellers unlikely to touch these properties as well. You have experts who understand that you cannot improve the economy or the fiscal position of the country without addressing the behavior of the banks. You have media on the left, middle and even the far right recognizing the severity of the fraud.

This doesn’t set up favorably for an industry that will need even more massive support to get out from under the mess they’ve caused.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/10/16/expecting-bailout-ii-why-it-might-not-happen-this-time/

Posted by: lmsinca | October 16, 2010 10:06 PM | Report abuse

"So, remember that $14 million haul from Angle? Ends up it wasn't such a great hall in the end. "But with the actual filings today, we know now that Angle's $14 million came at a cost. Specifically, about $12 million. That's how much her campaign spent to raise the money -- an unfathomable percentage. " Posted by: mikefromArlington"

If that is true, some fund raising company burned up $12 million, or put it in there pockets, from a whole bunch of true believer T-People.

I have been wondering just where all the megabucks that are rolling the Republican's way have been ending up. Hundreds of millions of dollars are just so much that even candidates can't waste them all. So SOMEBODY is living very well on the delusions of others.

And when the R's remain in the minority, maybe lots of little people decide that they NEVER again give money to a Republican.

After the election, candidates, at least, have to account for how they spent their money. Do the BIG Secrets people at least have to say where the money they got went?

Posted by: ceflynline | October 16, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Imsinca,
It's a real mess. Thanks for the post. I much prefer it when you provide the information you consider relevant in this way. I can always dig deeper. I don't much care for posts that provide only a link and not much else.

Posted by: Brigade | October 16, 2010 10:17 PM | Report abuse

Brigade

I just finished the Daily Caller piece, it's well worth the read. I'm beginning to think Americans, left, right and center will be coming together over this mess. Considering that all 100 members of the Senate tried to bamboozle a bill through to deal with some of it but Obama vetoed it, under pressure I'm sure, I think we have to trust the AG's and keep the pressure on them.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 16, 2010 10:36 PM | Report abuse

STRF wrote:

"Yes, Clinton is to blame for what he did in 2000


AND Obama is to blame for not cleaning up the banking industry over the past two years.


How in the world is that inconsistent??"

Because the fraud didn't occur on Obama's watch it occured during the 8 years of the Bush administration though Bush was not involved.

Notice that your original post said that the fraud occured DURING the Obama administration. NOW, because you have been caught, you are saying he should have cleaned it up, a totally different concept.

By January 2009, the secondary mortgage industry was already dead. The deals that are causing such consternation over who actually owns the mortgages were moribund at that point. Everything that has happened since then is triage.


And you already knew that because you're not nearly the fool that you play on this board! No doubt you will now come up with a THIRD explanation on how Obama is responsible, because that is what you do.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 16, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

STRF wrote:

"- Obama has been told numerous times in the discussions over mortgage modifications that the banks are submitting fraudulent documents.


- The REAL Problem is between the CDO holders and the big banks - that is the major reason WHY the banks are handling the paperwork the way they are.

- Obama STILL has not dealt with the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - which is a WHOLE OTHER SET OF PROBLEMS"


Had to address this also. the fraudulent documents are a STATE matter, not a Federal one which is why the STATE AG's are convening. Obama has no role to play in this other than to be your own personal scapegoat.

There is no current answer for the Fannie Freddie problem which is why no serious Republican who is involved in finance has proposed a solution either. There is no way to unwind the guarantees, though no doubt you will propose something incredibly simple minded in caps with big spaces in between words because writing in normal English does not get you enough attention.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 16, 2010 10:52 PM | Report abuse

STRF wrote:

"Yes, it is OFFENSIVE that the democrats voted for the Iraq War - and then after hundreds of lives were sacrificed, decided to abandon the effort.


This was ALL done for domestic PARTISAN advantage - a few points in the overnight polling - truly a national disgrace."


Perhaps you should read this. It's from a speech that then state senator Obama gave on October 2, 2002:

"What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
. . . But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."

Now exactly what in that speech, before the war was even launched, wasn't 100% on the money correct?

Also Alan Greenspan in his most recent book said:

"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,”.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 16, 2010 11:09 PM | Report abuse

From Palin's speech:

"Let's pledge our lives, our fortune, our sacred honor. Will you do it? ... You wouldn't be here today if you didn't know too that America is at a turning point. … People know something has gone terribly wrong with our government and it has gotten so far off track. But people also know that there is nothing wrong in America that a good old-fashioned election can't fix."

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 17, 2010 1:18 AM | Report abuse

54465446 at 10:42 PM

You are a liar


the FRAUD did occur when Obama was President - we are talking about the Fraud of submitting FALSE papers to courts in forclosure - that is INTERSTATE FRAUD.


YOU claim that the Fraud didn't occur "under Obama" - but Obama is STILL responsible because he can bring prosecution for the FRAUD before he took office.

What is wrong with you? You are partisan to the point of blindness.


I seriously doubt that anyone on the face of the Earth can help you at this point - you are a complete liar and you have no respect for the truth.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 17, 2010 2:33 AM | Report abuse

54465446 at 10:52 PM


At this point your responses make so little sense that it really is a waste of time to talk to you.


Mortgages are in interstae commerce. If FAKE papers are made in one State - and brought to another STATE - the OBAMA IS RESPONSIBLE TO BRING CHARGES FOR INTERSTATE FRAUD.

Game, set, match

you really should give up now because you have made a complete FOOL of yourself.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 17, 2010 2:37 AM | Report abuse

54465446 at 11:09 PM


Do you even care about this country???


You are so sick that you would post lie after lie after lie - in pursuit of your partisan desires.


You are nothing but a disgrace to the greatness of America.


You do not deserve any more detailed responses.


Obama IS RESPONSIBLE. At this point all I can tell you is this: GROW UP, you little child.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 17, 2010 2:40 AM | Report abuse

54465446 at 11:09 PM


ALL I can say to you is this: Obama is wrong. ALL NATIONS MUST BE DEFENDED.


Obama is a weak person - who cares NOT about defending this nation against terrorism.


Obama is willing to "ABSORB" ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACK - AND "ABSORB" ANOTHER 3,000 AMERICANS BEING KILLED.


Really?


I AM NOT WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT. And neither is MILLIONS OF AMERICANS.


Obama is pathetic.


COMPARE the courage of 18-year-olds who are willing to go to the Middle East and DIE - to the WEAKNESS of Obama who says "let them kill another 3,000 Americans"


What is WRONG with you?


Your sickness has NO BOUNDS - you would PREFER TO LEAVE THIS NATION UNDEFENDED THAN ADMIT OBAMA IS WRONG.


Obama is wrong, wrong, wrong about JUST ABOUT EVERY ISSUE HE HAS EVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT.


OBAMA HAS A CHARACTER FLAW - he is weak - and he hates AMERICA, JUST LIKE REV. WRIGHT.


That is precisely why Obama DOESN'T CARE IF 3,000 AMERICANS DIE.


What is wrong with you???


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 17, 2010 2:48 AM | Report abuse

Ladies and Gentlemen


The liberals may want to fool themselves as much as possible.

Obama "claims" he is doing the "hard work" of delivering change.


The ONLY CHANGE Obama is delivering is A MASSIVE DRAG ON THE ECONOMY.


That is it.


Obama is a complete failure. Not only will the country be better off if he resigns, but the democratic party would be far better off. So I have no idea why the democrats want to continue to damage their party by keeping Obama in - but by all means, keep up the damage to the democratic party. With Obama in there, who even NEEDS the Republicans to oppose the democrats? Obama does ALL the damage all by himself.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 17, 2010 2:59 AM | Report abuse

Murdoch gets award from ADL and does Orwell...

"Murdoch told participants at the dinner that signs were abounding of rising anti-Semitism, particularly from elements on the Left under the guise of legitimate criticism of Israel.

“When Americans think of anti-Semitism, we tend to think of the vulgar caricatures and attacks of the first part of the 20th century,” Murdoch said. “Now it seems that the most virulent strains come from the left. Often this new anti-Semitism dresses itself up as legitimate disagreement with Israel.”
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/accepting-adl-award-murdoch-decries-ongoing-war-against-jews-1.319145

Attend carefully to that last sentence. If criticism of some Israeli policy or act is criticized and if it arise on the left (particularly) and if it appears to be legitimate, that's how you identify it as an instance of anti-Semitism.

What would give such criticism the "appearance of legitimacy"? If it was careful, rational, evidence-based, hewing to long-held legal and moral standards...those elements would do it. And, of course, if the criticism came from someone Jewish.

Rupert Murdoch is a very ugly creature and he's a very dangerous man.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 17, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Over at the NRO, Andrew McCarthy describes Geert Wilders' opinions as "bracing". I won't link it.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 17, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

And at the Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol again expounds on "manliness". To be fair, I suppose he could have asked a bodyguard what it feels like.

I won't link it either.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 17, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

"Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on Saturday urged a roaring crowd of Republicans to exhaust themselves over the next two weeks to take back California and the country for the "little guy.""

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/16/AR2010101603498.html?hpid=topnews

The "little guys" like British Petroleum, the Koch Brothers, Merck, MobilExxon, Citibank, Goldman Sachs, Pfizer, Bank of America, etc. It isn't sufficient that we already have a plutocracy in the United States or that Big Business is waging a war on the American Middle Class through the Chamber of Commerce and its other front groups. Now we have second-rate grifters convincing fools to part with their money to finance Big Business' War On the Middle Class. How dumb must you be to fall for this claptrap?

Posted by: wbgonne | October 17, 2010 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Aunt Jemima? Oh, she's just a Dutch Mennonite woman from Saskatchewan who was photographed on a cloudy day. Really.


"In yet another baffling explanation of previous statements, Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle (R) told a group of Latino students in Las Vegas that her anti-immigration ads that feature stock footage of Latinos don't actually feature Latinos and that it's really the Canadian border she's concerned about.

"I think that you're misinterpreting those commercials," Angle is seen telling the students in a video of the private meeting obtained by The Associated Press.

"I'm not sure that those are Latinos in that commercial. What it is, is a fence and there are people coming across that fence. What we know is that our northern border is where the terrorists came through. That's the most porous border that we have. We cannot allow terrorists, we cannot allow anyone to come across our border if we don't know why they're coming. So, we have to secure all of our borders and that's what that was about, is border security."
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/10/16/politics-us-nevada-senate-angle_8018797.html

Posted by: bernielatham | October 17, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

All, a fresh open thread:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/sunday_open_thread_9.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 17, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

From Palin's speech:

"Let's pledge our lives, our fortune, our sacred honor. Will you do it? ... You wouldn't be here today if you didn't know too that America is at a turning point. … People know something has gone terribly wrong with our government and it has gotten so far off track. But people also know that there is nothing wrong in America that a good old-fashioned election can't fix."

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 17, 2010 1:18 AM | Report abuse

Ho! Ho! Ho! From Big Business' latest propaganda vehicle: the Big Mama Grifter Mama. Translation for the intelligence impaired: You can keep your pathetic lives and whatever you think your "sacred honor" gets you. All we really want is your "fortune" and you getting out of the way so we can do whatever we want and make even more money for ourselves and our cronies. Because, you see, we are your betters. You are puny meaningless fools who should work like slaves, live however we tell you, and die ignorant in the gutter when your economic utility has ended. You are WASTING ASSETS people. Corporations live forever! Long live Big Money!

P.S., I hope you got the Sister Sarah Kewpie Doll. I bet there will be a booming derivatives market in SS Kewpie's in a year or so, just as soon as the Republicans put the Wall Street Casino back in full throttle.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 17, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Keep in mind that Obama soaked his supporters instead of agreeing to public financing.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 17, 2010 10:15 AM | Report abuse

STRF wrote:

"Mortgages are in interstae commerce. If FAKE papers are made in one State - and brought to another STATE - the OBAMA IS RESPONSIBLE TO BRING CHARGES FOR INTERSTATE FRAUD."


Wow, I kept you up until 3AM. I'm glad that I struck a chord. Unfortunately, you know nothing whasoever about the law and the above statement is, legally speaking, completely incorrect, like most of your other statements.

I'm glad you think I am no longer worthy of "detailed responses" from you. I just can't imagine where you ever actually made one before.

Let me save you some time by posting your response to this post:

"OBAMA IS THE ANTI-CHRIST

OBAMA IS THE ANTI-CHRIST"


There, now you can sleep in on a Sunday morning!


Posted by: 54465446 | October 17, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

clawrence12:

Great posts this weekend (I did watch her speech live too). If anyone else missed Gov. Palin's remarks in California:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/10/sarah-palin-bristol-palin-rnc.html

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 18, 2010 11:19 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