Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 5:54 PM ET, 01/27/2011

Happy Hour Roundup

By Greg Sargent

* Stickin' to his guns: CBO chief Doug Elmendorf doubles down on his claim that health reform will reduce future deficits.

* E.J. Dionne floats an interesting theory: Could divided government force Obama to make the progressive case more aggressively?

* Move over, Tea Party Caucus: Senate Dems have now unveiled the Senate Social Security Caucus.

* Worth watching: Virginia governor Bob McDonnell voices support for infrastructure spending. More GOP governors to follow?

* Dahlia Lithwick says Obama's State of the Union ceded the Constitution to Michele Bachmann.

* White House chief of staff Bill Daley makes it official in an email to staff: Jay Carney is the new White House press secretary.

* Get the full lowdown on Carney in this new profile.

* Chris Cillizza and Anne Kornblut note that Robert Gibbs's closeness with the President is going to be tough to replicate.

* From prime minister to president? Ronald Brownstein says Obama's real repositioning is from "leading one party into battle against the other to leading the entire nation into economic competition against foreign challengers."

* Steve Benen aptly sums up why the partial failure of filibuster reform is such a big deal:

It is, to borrow a phrase, pretty tough to win the future with a Senate that doesn't work.

* Rand Paul and David Vitter introduce a resolution to amend the Constitution that would deny citizenship to anyone born in U.S. "unless at least one parent is a legal citizen, legal immigrant, active member of the Armed Forces or a naturalized legal citizen."

* Markos Moulitsas, who got burned by Research 2000, calls on all pollsters to release their raw data, which would bring more transparency to the polls that shape our national dialog.

* Atrios braces himself for "dozens of press conferences by Republicans no one has ever heard of announcing that they are not running for president."

And don't forget the days of fevered media speculation about whether they will run that will lead up to those press conferences at which they will announce they aren't running.

* Relatedly, right on cue: "Sharron Angle threatens to run for president." Joking aside, she probably does intend it as a threat, if you think about it.

* And Jonathan Bernstein makes a good point about the right's "American exceptionalism" nonsense: "this is a reminder that one side of a political argument really can't determine what the other side will say."

I'm pretty sure that's a polite way of saying that some on the right live in an alternate and thoroughly impenetrable reality.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | January 27, 2011; 5:54 PM ET
Categories:  2012, Happy Hour Roundup, Health reform, House GOPers, filibuster  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Did Reid and McConnell just doom future filibuster reform?
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

What else?

Mark Sanford on beach with mistress.

http://m.radaronline.com/v/Photos/PhotosGovMarkSanford/?KSID=ad9cc93b53fd877c444ce384e6024793

Posted by: mikefromArlington | January 27, 2011 5:58 PM | Report abuse

From Obama's youtube townhall today:

"WASHINGTON -- Drug legalization is an "entirely legitimate topic for debate," President Barack Obama said Thursday during his online YouTube town hall, in response to a question from a former deputy sheriff who has turned sour on the drug war.

In endorsing such a debate, Obama went further than any president has since the start of the war on drugs, which can be traced back at least to President Richard Nixon, but more realistically to the early 20th century, when the federal government began criminalizing drugs that had long been legal.

...

"His answer Thursday was hardly an endorsement of legalization, but it was nonetheless a marked turnaround. "I think this is a entirely legitimate topic for debate," he said. "I am not in favor of legalization. I am a strong believer that we need to think more about drugs as a public health problem."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/27/obama-drug-legalization-debate_n_815074.html

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 27, 2011 5:59 PM | Report abuse

GM withdraws application for $14.4 billion in federal loans

"General Motors announced Thursday that it is withdrawing its application for $14.4 billion in federal loans to upgrade its manufacturing operations, a move that reflects the bailed-out company's new financial strength.

The automaker says it has enough cash available to cover the efficiency and modernization projects it had wanted to complete with the low-interest federal loans, a marked contrast to two years ago, when the company was forced to ask for government help."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/27/AR2011012703317.html

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 27, 2011 6:00 PM | Report abuse

This should make future conversations among the Republicans kinda interesting:


"Boehner Backs Off On Call To Raise Social Security Retirement Age To 70"

In an interview with CNN's Kathleen Parker on Wednesday evening, Boehner admitted he erred when he suggested to a Pennsylvania newspaper in June 2010 that the retirement age for Social Security should be raised to 70.

"I made a mistake when I did that because I think having the conversation about how big the problem is is the first step," Boehner said. "And once the American people understand how big the problem is, then you can begin to outline an array of possible solutions."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/mulligan-boehner-backs-off-on-call-to-raise-social-security-retirement-age-to-70.php

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 27, 2011 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Re: Slate article/Bachmann and that old, dusty piece of paper sitting the National Archives...

Maybe, Obama didn't mention the Constitution more or "more agressively defend"(whatever the h*ll that means) his vision of it because it never crossed his mind that he'd have to reclaim it from teh crayzee. Not every sign of someone blowing smoke means there's a fire.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | January 27, 2011 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Obama says:

""I am a strong believer that we need to think more about drugs as a public health problem.""

Perhaps he should simply let us know when he strongly believes something should not be thought of as a "public" problem. That would be news.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 27, 2011 6:05 PM | Report abuse

What else?

Gov Bob McDonnell to blame for poor storm response.


"Thousands of people were stranded last night. There were no emergency vehicles to be seen.
Where was the state of emergency?

Where was the Gov? What an utter failure.

This is what happens when Republicans take over. They talk a good talk but when it comes to actually doing something they are nowhere to be seen.

There should have been double the trucks for this snow storm on the roads.  22 trunks for NoVA is unacceptable.  "

http://www.bluevirginia.us/diary/2943/great-job-gov-mcdonnell

Posted by: mikefromArlington | January 27, 2011 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Dahlia Lithwick says Obama's State of the Union ceded the Constitution to Michele Bachmann

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

Shorter Dahlia Litwick:

President Obama should have shrunk himself down to the same size as the lilliputian nitwit from Minnesota.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 27, 2011 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Scott, you prefer to think of drugs as a public crime problem like we do now?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 27, 2011 6:08 PM | Report abuse

"Perhaps he should simply let us know when he strongly believes something should not be thought of as a "public" problem. That would be news."

Yeah...kinda like a post from you that did consider the public at large..and not simply a collection of individuals.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 27, 2011 6:11 PM | Report abuse

@ScottC3-

I think I understand where you are coming form on this, meaning that not every problem requires a government solution. I agree. What I'm really curious about is if you don't think the *debate* about it is a worthy activity. It would be quite Liberatarian to just leave it up to individual choice.

Another point, though, is that obviously there is a public health concern otherwise why regulate drugs at all or criminalize them?

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | January 27, 2011 6:11 PM | Report abuse

What else?

Groups fight back against Koch's takeover of this country.

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/149691/koch_brothers_feel_the_heat_in_dc%2C_as_broad_coalition_readies_creative_action_to_quarantine_the_billionaires_gathering_in_california_desert/

Posted by: mikefromArlington | January 27, 2011 6:14 PM | Report abuse

* Worth watching: Virginia governor Bob McDonnell voices support for infrastructure spending. More GOP governors to follow?
----

I'd say ours will.

"Governor Rick Snyder announced his support for plans to build a second bridge over the Detroit River in his State of the State address last week. Snyder announced he had secured an agreement with the federal government to allow Michigan to count $550 million Canada has offered to invest in the project toward Michigan's federal match for road funds. This development will ease the burden on the budget and ensure the state will have funds for statewide road repairs and infrastructure improvements in future years."

http://www.michigan.gov/snyder/0,1607,7-277-57577-250364--,00.html

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 27, 2011 6:19 PM | Report abuse

RainForestRising, we are reaching a tipping point. This week, five Democratic representatives introduced a bill to make Obama's vital records public. The bill's primary sponsor, Rep. Rida Canania, says that she wants to end the controversy surrounding Obama's birth by handing over official state documents to anyone who pays a $100 fee.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 27, 2011 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Scott believes in Prohibition because it worked so well back in the days of Al Capone.

Right Wing Church Ladies don't care if Prohibition is failing, and creating narco terrorist states, because they just don't want people who are using narcotics to get the notion that they should start using narcotics.

The War on drugs has failed. The Drug Cartels have won.

Give addicts the drugs for free, they are very cheap to produce, and also offer them treatment. That would destroy the Drug Cartels, since they will have lost almost all of their revenue streams.

Furthermore, when users can get drugs and treatment for free, it will allow them to come in from the cold, just like we allow people with other addictions to do. That means that none of them will have to engage in violent crimes or burgalaries to support their habit, and it will also undermine the reach of the urban gangs, who distribute the drugs on the street corners and crack houses.

That will free up a lot of cops, and also reduce the among of gangland turf wars.

I don't care what The Church Ladies want. They are clueless. They want to keep doing the same thing over and over, and do not even expect different results. Holy Idiots, Batman!

Posted by: Liam-still | January 27, 2011 6:20 PM | Report abuse

I heard President Obama's answer to the drug legalization question and I applaud him saying the matter was worthy of discussion. That is, indeed, further than Obama has gone in the recent past and not dismissive in the manner that his previous answers on the topic have been.

I remain convinced that, by every measure, legalizing marijuana is the right thing to do: 1) the amount of money saved from federal law enforcement spending will be significant; 2) it will drain the life from the Mexican drug cartels; 3) it is a matter of personal freedom; 4) it will improve the safety of a product that millions of American citizens use routinely.

Repeal the federal drug laws and let the states use their own laws to regulate drugs.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 27, 2011 6:22 PM | Report abuse

"they just don't want people who are using narcotics to get the notion that they should start using narcotics"

Classic Liam.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 27, 2011 6:25 PM | Report abuse

As an addendum to my last post;

Think about how much money states and the federal government would save, by not having to warehouse millions of people for having used or sold small amounts of drugs. Of course the Prison Industrial Complex will not like that, but screw them. Let them go invest in something that benefits society instead of turning us into the nation with the highest ratio of incarcerated citizens in the civilized world.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 27, 2011 6:27 PM | Report abuse

"Another point, though, is that obviously there is a public health concern otherwise why regulate drugs at all or criminalize them?"

I'm not disagreeing with your post Chuck but I would like to point out that we regulate drugs for far more reasons than simple "health". Otherwise why would we allow alcohol...celebrate it in our culture...but punish those who choose cannabis. Is there any possibility that the rich and power behind the alcohol lobbies like it that way. Quite honestly if I could go and purchase a doobie..ala Amsterdam..legally...it would mean my last drink of Vodka...just sayin.....

I'm not advocating marijuana or alcohol..what I'm advocating is that libertarian freedom Scott likes to promote. The ability to choose our poison.
Cigarettes compared to pot..are you kidding me..why is nicotine legal?

We have plenty of alcoholics in this nation due to the easy access of alcohol...we also have plenty of 'heads in this nation despite "somewhat" less access. Both drugs present that risk to users who are easily addicted. However there are also plenty of citizens who drink responsibly and those who smoke dope responsibly if illegally.

Alcohol kills your brain cells, ruins your liver, and places other strains upon the body. Pot is obviously bad for your lungs..also effects the brain and other organs just like alcohol. Neither drug is more of a "gateway" drug than the other...again I'll leave it to shrink to tell us about addictive personalities that need to get higher and higher and can't stop till they're fried on heroin or crystal meth.

Our drug laws are truly ludicrous! It should be a health problem...not a crime..except for DUI or obvious endangerment of the general public. Alcohol addiction...cigarette addiction...pot addiction...are problems..treat those who need the help but don't punish those who don't.

Let the debate begin. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 27, 2011 6:30 PM | Report abuse

WTF

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 27, 2011 6:31 PM | Report abuse

I like the idea of people doing drugs paying for their own drug use, their own rehab, their own incarceration, all their crack babies and all their health care, and all the murders, assaults, robberies, burglaries and car thefts, etc.

I like the idea. Now, if we could only get them to do it.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 27, 2011 6:35 PM | Report abuse

@ruk-

"..treat those who need the help but don't punish those who don't."

Bingo. Yeah, why couldn't there have been a "Pot Lobby" all these years trying to claim their First Amendment right to put up billboards of their spokespersons Cheech and Chong extolling the virtues of Panama Red?

You ever see an angry pothead? I guess they exist...

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | January 27, 2011 6:36 PM | Report abuse

I second Liam's and wbgonne's posts on our current drug laws. They are ludicrous and grossly inconsistent.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 27, 2011 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Liam, this is Scottsdale comment:  

"Obama says:

""I am a strong believer that we need to think more about drugs as a public health problem.""

Perhaps he should simply let us know when he strongly believes something should not be thought of as a "public" problem. That would be news."

I don't know what Scott's position is, vis a vis drugs.  But I am impressed you were able to discern this:

"Scott believes in Prohibition because it worked so well back in the days of Al Capone."

What didn't he write that only you can see?  Is there something about disrupting the magnificent Liberal Consensus Building that goes on here?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 27, 2011 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Oops, not Scottsdale, but Scott's. There goes my Best Commentor of the Year award.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 27, 2011 6:41 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7: "I second Liam's and wbgonne's posts on our current drug laws. They are ludicrous and grossly inconsistent."

Kumbaya!

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 27, 2011 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Obama shows he is tone-deaf again


His new key phrase is Winning the Future


The initials are WTF


And that just about sizes up Obama's job performance

WTF


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 27, 2011 6:43 PM | Report abuse

You know who does not want the current drug laws changed?

I will tell you who;

The Axis Of Drug Cartels And Church Ladies.

Think about that all you pious "Just say no to drugs" folks.

The Narco-Terrorist Drug Cartels fully back your position, and hope they can always count on your support. They say, without you standing up for them, they would be out of business.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 27, 2011 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Liam,

The legal pot growers in CA helped to defeat legalization there in November. So, yeah, the cartels would definitely oppose legalization of any drugs.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 27, 2011 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Troll,

It was my way of paying tribute to Scott, since he has perfected the technique of extracting snippets of other people's comments, and spinning them into something entirely different.

Imitation is the sincerest forum of flattery.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 27, 2011 6:48 PM | Report abuse

@Chuck

"You ever see an angry pothead? I guess they exist..." LMAO

That reminds me of a story. When I was working in TV in the Tri Cities of Tennessee one of the crew people hosted a big blowout.
It was rare for "air talent" to socialize with "crew people". Don't you love that difference...we were "talent" they were crew.:-)

Anyway as Scott and Q.B. can confirm..being the commie pinko I am..a lover of the proletariat..somebody who has always valued "labor" and the working man..I accepted the invitation along with only one other "air talent" person. I had an assignment and didn't get to the party until very late..close to midnight.
Downstairs the guys who had been drinking George Dickel and Jack Daniels were cursing, and screaming, wrecking the house with boisterous rowdy behavior....
Upstairs...those who had been smoking pot were busy smiling, munching down on the snacks, and trying to figure a way to get into the ladies pants.

It would have made a great scene for a movie...and the difference in behavior couldn't have been more striking. I rolled and rolled...with laughter..not joints...see I knew what the loons were ready to accuse me of before hand...LOL

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 27, 2011 6:48 PM | Report abuse

clawrence

So now Hawaii is going to charge $100 to show people an empty folder???


I still don't get why Obama won't just sign a RELEASE - and allow everyone to see his HOSPITAL-GENERATED LONG FORM, WITH THE DOCTOR'S SIGNATURE


Why is that so difficult???


Either Obama wants the controversy to continue, or he really doesn't have the paperwork


NOW - the question is clear - I heard the Obama people trying to float that idea that they would have a Federal Court review the meaning of "natural born citizen"

ON one level, Obama having his mother as a citizen, could challenge the meaning of that phrase.

However, in that case, Obama has been deceiving the public for so long, it would be difficult to see Obama remaining in office.

The OTHER possibility is that there is a NOTATION in the file indicating that Obama was ADOPTED INTO INDONESIA, MAKING OBAMA AN INDONESIAN CITIZEN.


This is curious - because the result of all of that may be to make Obama an illegal alien - and subject to deportation to Indonesia.


ON a boat, if possible......


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 27, 2011 6:51 PM | Report abuse

@liam: Just curious where pro-legalizers stand on heroin, cocaine, LSD, crystal methamphetamine, GHB, ecstasy, special k, and so on.

Posted by: sbj3 | January 27, 2011 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Rahm won.

QB1, I did not see how the Court of Appeals distinction drawn between the phrase "resides in" for candidates and the word "resident" for voters could stand.

Having conceded Rahm's voting residency, they distinguished where he "resided in" to remove him from the ballot.

I thought the Supremes in IL would make short shrift of that because to have affirmed would have put every IL Congressman in jeopardy of being limited to one term.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 27, 2011 6:54 PM | Report abuse

@ruk-

Great story. I think George Carlin musta done a few riffs off that theme back in the day.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | January 27, 2011 6:55 PM | Report abuse

@liam: Just curious where pro-legalizers stand on heroin, cocaine, LSD, crystal methamphetamine, GHB, ecstasy, special k, and so on.

Posted by: sbj3 | January 27, 2011 6:51 PM | Report abuse

I'm curious where you stand. I assume that as a libertarian you oppose all drug criminalization. Yes?

Posted by: wbgonne | January 27, 2011 6:55 PM | Report abuse

RuKidding:

"White Lightning is still the biggest thrill of all".

And of course the biggest fuel of wife and girlfriend beaters.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 27, 2011 6:55 PM | Report abuse

"It was my way of paying tribute to Scott, since he has perfected the technique of extracting snippets of other people's comments, and spinning them into something entirely different.

Imitation is the sincerest forum of flattery."

That's a neat trick! Can you show me when he has done that.

Thanks in advance! :-)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 27, 2011 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Rahm is stuck at 44%


Look for all the other candidates to unite behind Gary Chico and push Rahm out.


No one wants him and his outside money -


Posted by: RainForestRising | January 27, 2011 6:57 PM | Report abuse

suek:

""Scott, you prefer to think of drugs as a public crime problem like we do now?""

Nope. I think there are reasonable arguments on both sides, but I am largely in favor of legalizing drugs.

But, in any event, my comment was aimed at making a point not about drugs but rather about liberals in general and Obama in particular. Every problem is a "public" problem to most of you guys.

Chuck:

""I think I understand where you are coming form on this, meaning that not every problem requires a government solution.""

Exactly.

""What I'm really curious about is if you don't think the *debate* about it is a worthy activity. ""

The debate is definitely worthy. As I said, I think there are reasonable points to be made by both sides.

Liam:

""Scott believes in Prohibition because it worked so well back in the days of Al Capone.""

I do?

Perhaps, after reading the above, you might be a little bit embarrassed. You ought to be, in any event.

McWing:

Scottsdale?!?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 27, 2011 6:59 PM | Report abuse

There should have been double the trucks for this snow storm on the roads. 22 trunks for NoVA is unacceptable.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | January 27, 2011 6:07 PM
=========================================

All this talk about global warming has lulled people into complacency. :)

Posted by: Brigade | January 27, 2011 6:59 PM | Report abuse

@sbj May I jump in on Liam's question.

We stand on the side of common sense.
As you noticed in my first comment to Chuck I acknowledged that there are some laws re drugs that are actually related to health and not profit...unlike most righties we libs don't view the world in stark black and white..but rather shades of gray.

Re the specific drugs you mention..rather than go down the list individually it's really not the hard...again..when a danger to society...such as a dude slipping a roofie to a girl at a club...put him in jail. If he's sitting at home enjoying his own roofie...I don't give a cr!p.
If someone wants to burn themselves out on heroin it's really no different than the wino's currently out on the streets of St. Pete begging for $$$. Treat addiction, bust people who place other lives in danger through DUI or whatever and then get them some help or treatment.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 27, 2011 6:59 PM | Report abuse

"McWing:

Scottsdale?!?"

Predictive text. Curse or blessing?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 27, 2011 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Alcohol kills your brain cells, ruins your liver, and places other strains upon the body. Liam is living proof.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 27, 2011 6:30 PM

Agreed.

Posted by: Brigade | January 27, 2011 7:05 PM | Report abuse

McWing....a curse. Most definitely a curse.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 27, 2011 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Folks,

Have you noticed that most of the Right of Center regulars on Plumline, rarely start out with a fully developed commentary of their own.

All they do, for the most part, is quibble with some select snippets of other peoples comments.

They are almost all complete reactionaries, who attack other people's comments. I used to drive Scott nuts, when I started calling him The Comments Parasite. back when all he did was, highlight excerpts from postings from Bernie and others, and try to make his selected out of context snippets into the focal points of the discussions.

SBJ does much the same thing, as does QB, Brigade, Skippy, Claw/AKA JakeD, TrollMcWingNut......

They appear to be incapable of generating any complete comments of their own, but instead rely on attacking those that actually attempt to do so.

In many ways, they are more like Stepford Wives, or brainwashed students of radical madrasses, than they are independent thinkers.

They are certain of what blasphemes against their rigid believes, and always keep a supply of stones on hand, for when ever a Life Of Brian stoning occasion crops up on Plumline.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 27, 2011 7:12 PM | Report abuse

@Liam

"White Lightning is still the biggest thrill of all".

And of course the biggest fuel of wife and girlfriend beaters."

Having resided in a very beautiful part of the Appalachian mountains, having been raised in Kentucky...alas your point is valid.

I have a friend who finally gave up alcohol and went to weed for that very reason. We might as well admit to reality.
It's not just humans...animals also like to get high...catnip..cows eat certain kinds of grass etc...people have been getting high on various substances for a very very long time...but as you suggest Liam...church ladies get easily upset at someone actually having pleasure.

When I was younger...and I hate to confess this...a rightie myself...I was really into bodybuilding. Arnold was not the Governator then...he wasn't even yet the Terminator...Arnold was known as the "Austrian Oak" I'll never forget the first time I saw "Pumping Iron" and watched Arnold fire up a victory doobie after winning a Mr. Olympia Title. I was shocked. Luckily by then I had already been to Vietnam and realized Arnold was not really in the great danger portrayed by "Reefer Madness"

Now that I think about it thought that hemp must have really messed with Arnold's mind...he turned into a freaking Republican.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 27, 2011 7:13 PM | Report abuse

my opposition and antagonism to obama has nothing to do with his race. i'd much rather have malcolm x or even james brown in the oval office. than this half-black uncle tom. in new york city, alabama, since ghouliani took office the NYPD has killed hundreds of almost entirely young blacks and all acquitted. and NYC since 911 has had a 'stop&frisk' program "to prevent terrorism" but has a single 'terrorist' been apprehennded? and last year, 575,000 were stopped&frisked here and 81% were blacks witih 9% latino, 4% arabic/moslem and just6% whites in a city 65% white. yet they still deny any racial profiling? and obama stands for this? young black male unemployment in NYC 3x what it was 2006; 25+% now!

Posted by: tazdelaney | January 27, 2011
=========================================

An obvious liberal plant sent here to convince people like me that Obama isn't really all that bad after all.

Posted by: Brigade | January 27, 2011 7:14 PM | Report abuse

""they just don't want people who are using narcotics to get the notion that they should start using narcotics""

That's also their basic reason for opposing sex education and birth control: they just don' t want people who are having sex to get the notion that they should start having sex.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | January 27, 2011 7:16 PM | Report abuse

The question that so many have is what is it that Obama believes in enough to fight for without being prodded and cajoled to do so?

Posted by: peterdc | January 27, 2011
======================================

I'll be safe in promising you that it isn't deficit (or debt) reduction.

Posted by: Brigade | January 27, 2011 7:16 PM | Report abuse

@wb and ruk: "We stand on the side of common sense... unlike most righties we libs don't view the world in stark black and white..but rather shades of gray."

"I assume that as a libertarian you oppose all drug criminalization. Yes?"

That's funny - because WB wants to pin me in to a b&w position!

I stand on the side of common sense as well. (However?) I do not support repealing laws that criminalize the use of drugs such as the ones I listed. I will never support the legalization of heroin or crystal methamphetamine.

How can one at once support a mandate for health insurance on the grounds that we will eventually incur greater costs if some don't pay, with a belief that drugs that can cause massive health care costs should be legal in one's own home?

Posted by: sbj3 | January 27, 2011 7:18 PM | Report abuse

We have met the enemy and it is US. We wallow in our own ignorance.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 27, 2011
========================================

That's what some of us have been trying to tell you. Good to see you're finally waking up.

Posted by: Brigade | January 27, 2011 7:19 PM | Report abuse

When Harry Met Mitch.

If Mitch starts to act out the Meg Ryan restaurant scene, run for your lives.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 27, 2011
========================================

Better get Ruby out from under the table.

Posted by: Brigade | January 27, 2011 7:21 PM | Report abuse

And to think that Mrs. Palin quit her governorship because it was freaky, expensive and just plain got on her nerves.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 27, 2011 5:03 PM
========================================

Did she say that or are you mind-reading again?

Posted by: Brigade | January 27, 2011 7:23 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7

It always astounds me how the Right Wing Church ladies who crop up on Plumline, always get their knickers in a bunch, when ever anyone even broaches the notion of trying to find some better way to control and regulate the flow of illegal narcotics; but when ever someone mentions the dangers that the unlimited accessed to lethal handguns, where every violent mental case can get a gun, poses to our society; the same Right Wing Church ladies take the complete opposite position.

Of course the really irony is that the drug gangs and drug cartels rely on the NRA to make it easy for them to get their hands on the guns they need to fight their turf wars, just like they rely on the Moronic Church Ladies to make sure that their Drug Cartels will go from strength to strength.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 27, 2011 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Tax cuts raise revenue, being obese is healthy, and drugs aren't a problem.

Yay Conservatives!

Posted by: DDAWD | January 27, 2011 7:26 PM | Report abuse

I guess part of the implication of the Constitution and the vision of the Founding Fathers is that people in government might disagree on policy, but at least have the best interests of the country at heart. Given that this is not the case with Republicans . . .

Posted by: DDAWD | January 27, 2011
=======================================

Poor, bitter DDAWD clearly believes this. I wonder how much the taxpayers chipped in to give him a shot at an education. Some of us had hoped he might eventually amount to more than a pinch of sh*t, but I guess that ship has sailed.

Posted by: Brigade | January 27, 2011 7:28 PM | Report abuse

And of course, I have no sooner posted this comment, when along comes Brigade with his usual shower of snippets, taken to allow him to emit his usual barrage of brain farts.

Folks,

Have you noticed that most of the Right of Center regulars on Plumline, rarely start out with a fully developed commentary of their own.

All they do, for the most part, is quibble with some select snippets of other peoples comments.

They are almost all complete reactionaries, who attack other people's comments. I used to drive Scott nuts, when I started calling him The Comments Parasite. back when all he did was, highlight excerpts from postings from Bernie and others, and try to make his selected out of context snippets into the focal points of the discussions.

SBJ does much the same thing, as does QB, Brigade, Skippy, Claw/AKA JakeD, TrollMcWingNut......

They appear to be incapable of generating any complete comments of their own, but instead rely on attacking those that actually attempt to do so.

In many ways, they are more like Stepford Wives, or brainwashed students of radical madrasses, than they are independent thinkers.

They are certain of what blasphemes against their rigid beliefs have been posted, and always keep a supply of stones on hand, for when ever a Life Of Brian stoning occasion crops up on Plumline.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 27, 2011 7:30 PM | Report abuse

"They appear to be incapable of generating any complete comments of their own, but instead rely on attacking those that actually attempt to do so."

I don't care thaty they can't come up with topics for discussion. The problem is that even all their responses are all based off some Sarah Palin twitterbook post.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 27, 2011 7:33 PM | Report abuse

sbj3 - I don't think anyone is proposing legalization of heroin or meth, but rather decriminalization of heroin and meth use. There's an important distinction there: law enforcement can and should continue to pursue those manufacturing and selling heroin and meth (cocaine too) while laying off the users. An addict's problems aren't going to be addressed by incarceration, and it does nothing to stop the sale of the drugs. Spend money on what works: treatment for addicts and law enforcement solutions for dealers.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 27, 2011 7:33 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade

I'm probably wasting my time here since you basically come to this blog to hurl insults and show what a funny(not) guy you are and just how clever(not) you are. But again Brigade do you ever deal in facts.

In other words..factually your statement could not be more ignorant!!!!

"I'll be safe in promising you that it isn't deficit (or debt) reduction."

And why would you feel safe? Look at the freaking facts just once Brigade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

Obama has two more years to try and dig out of the record setting hole and ruined economy one of the worst presidents in U.S. history left him and so the verdict is still out.

But Brigade, let's look at all the Presidents who have enjoyed at least one, many of them two full terms.

Why would any rational or intelligent make such a stupid statement as yours. Again can you read? Look at which Party's Presidents had success balancing the budget and which Party's Presidents have run huge deficits ala St. Ronnie.

Call it coincidence, call it what you will...there is such a clear trend that only an uninformed person would say something like that absurd line of yours.

Take a shot Brigade...with some facts please...why would you take a shot at a Dem President when the Dem Presidents are the ONLY ones who actually balance the budget. Let me guess...you've fallen hook line and sinker for the old saw that the R's are somehow fiscally responsible.

Well at least you're making Dick Armey, the Koch Brothers and Faux News happy...they love pliable gullible folks who don't pay attention to reality or the facts.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 27, 2011 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Rukidding

You have to watch this video of Dylan Moran, explaining how Arnold became Governor. It is hilarious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlLpCh-lE54

Posted by: Liam-still | January 27, 2011 7:36 PM | Report abuse

"It always astounds me how the Right Wing Church ladies who crop up on Plumline, always get their knickers in a bunch, when ever anyone even broaches the notion of trying to find some better way to control and regulate the flow of illegal narcotics"

Posted by: Liam-still | January 27, 2011 7:23 PM
=======================================

You're either drunk or just looking for a fight (or both). If you read back over the thread, you'll notice that most conservatives here have voiced support for discussing some "better way to control and regulate the flow of illegal narcotics." I'm certainly open to it.

Posted by: Brigade | January 27, 2011 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Liam opined (twice):
"They appear to be incapable of generating any complete comments of their own"
========================================

I've noticed this about you in particular, but I can't accuse you of not trying.

Posted by: Brigade | January 27, 2011 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Still not an original thought of his own. Just another childish brain fart from the Republican Stepford Wife AKA Brigade.

No wonder he likes Granny Grizzly; compared to him, she is a veritable female Shakespearian palm reader.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 27, 2011 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Liam

Thanks for the link..yesss it was funny..and for me enlightening...I had never seen Dylan Moran before. He's quite funny that lad.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 27, 2011 7:49 PM | Report abuse

The Founding Fathers decided to keep slavery.


Case closed.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 27, 2011 7:49 PM | Report abuse

"SBJ does much the same thing, as does QB, Brigade, Skippy, Claw/AKA JakeD, TrollMcWingNut......"

I don't know what to say... I'm shocked.  I'd like to thank my agent, my manager, my freshman English teacher, Mr. George.  Oh, so many, I don't want to forget anybody... And of course, no wait, don't start the music,  and most of all, I'd like to thank my Dark Lord, Cheney (Chaos be Upon Him) for providing me with the resources and pro-torture ideology I need to effectively disrupt this latest 5 Year Plan to Build Liberal Consensus.

And I'll tell ya', anybody who says it's an honor just to  be nominated is a LIAR!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 27, 2011 7:50 PM | Report abuse

In other words..factually your statement could not be more ignorant!!!!

"I'll be safe in promising you that it isn't deficit (or debt) reduction."

And why would you feel safe? Look at the freaking facts just once Brigade.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 27, 2011 7:35 PM
========================================

Looks like one of your wheels came off again. I'm not interested in your golden oldies about Jimmy Carter and Andrew Johnson. I was talking about our current President. He's obviously not too concerned with the deficit, or he would be willing to lead instead of sitting back waiting for House Republicans to propose ways to reduce---so he can call them evil, cruel, and heartless while he proposes still more "investments". He's even got you all but repeating the Dick Cheney line that deficits don't really matter.

I'll deal in facts relevant to our current situation. You go ahead and dwell in the past, and tell us what an economic genius was Carter---but you really should have gotten the word out to Ted Kennedy in 1980.

Posted by: Brigade | January 27, 2011 7:51 PM | Report abuse

I saw him in Shaun of the Dead. Didn't know he was a comedian.

But the last line of the clip says it all.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 27, 2011 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Bwwwaaahaaaa RFR are you now advocating slavery? Or just trying to be like Michele Bachmann and say something outrageous to get someone to notice you?

And while we're on the subject of looney tunes...Andy Borowitz got off the best line yet about Michele Bachmann...

"Michele Bachmann gave her response and proposed "Don't add, don't spell."

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 27, 2011 7:55 PM | Report abuse

"OAKLAND, Calif. — A second-grade teacher in Northern California was placed on leave while a school and police investigate accounts by students that classmates engaged in oral sex and stripped off some of their clothes during class, officials said Friday.

"The investigation was under way at Markham Elementary School in Oakland, where the principal notified parents of the situation in a letter Thursday.

"We believe if the reports are true, there was a serious lapse of judgment or lack of supervision in the classroom," said Troy Flint, a spokesman for the Oakland Unified School District.

"One incident involved several students who partially undressed and acted disruptively during class, while the other involved students who engaged in oral sex, district officials said."---Huffington Post, January 27, 2011.

======================================

Lapse of judgment? Let's throw some more money at this school. That'll take care of it.

Posted by: Brigade | January 27, 2011 7:59 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade....As Liam suggests...you have no facts...only cheap shots.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 27, 2011 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Mark,

I haven't followed Rahm's residency flap at all. I just assumed all along that, whether legit or not, he would have it wired.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 27, 2011 8:05 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade....As Liam suggests...you have no facts...only cheap shots.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 27, 2011 7:59 PM
==========================================

The "fact" is that Obama has no intention of proposing a budget that deals in any meaningful way with the deficit. He's going to let the buck stop with the Republican House, while he and Uncle Harry propose new spending and tell the country that we don't need to worry about deficits until at least 2016.

Posted by: Brigade | January 27, 2011 8:05 PM | Report abuse

I am usually a very forgiving man, but I will never forgive that tribal village in the Amazon jungle for having let their idiot wander away.

Good night folks. Let that Brigade Moron keep on making the case that we should not make sure our children get a world class education, with better trained and rewarded teachers, just because some teacher allegedly allowed a classroom to get out of control.

Strange how they always want to punish the children and the many underpaid good teachers, and will use any excuse to do so.

Pro-life my Arse!. All they are is pro-birth. They actually hate most of America's children, and see them as tax burden only.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 27, 2011 8:06 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade....As Liam suggests...you have no facts...only cheap shots.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 27, 2011 7:59 PM
==========================================

The "fact" is that Obama has no intention of proposing a budget that deals in any meaningful way with the deficit. He's going to let the buck stop with the Republican House, while he and Uncle Harry propose new spending and tell the country that we don't need to worry about deficits until at least 2016.

Posted by: Brigade | January 27, 2011 8:07 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade....As Liam suggests...you have no facts...only cheap shots.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 27, 2011 7:59 PM
==========================================

The "fact" is that Obama has no intention of proposing a budget that deals in any meaningful way with the deficit. He's going to let the buck stop with the Republican House, while he and Uncle Harry propose new spending and tell the country that we don't need to worry about deficits until at least 2016.

Posted by: Brigade | January 27, 2011 8:09 PM | Report abuse

BTW Why haven't some of you righties come to the defense of Ronald Reagan.

You sit idly by and let DICK Armey suggest that Mike Pence is the second coming of Ronald Reagan. Listen with all due respect to Pence who seems likable enough, he's NO Ronald Reagan.

I obviously am not fan of Reagan's policies but I never disparage his leadership, charisma, and ability to inspire people....Mike Pence?
C'mon he can't carry the Gipper's jockstrap...really that's insulting but then DICK Armey was never known as a smart or clever man...pretty much a big pompous arse who would be a buffoon in any other state than Texas...OK Mark in Austin..I know I live in a glass house...yeah he'd probably do ok in my home state as well..I mean any populace that would elect Rick the fraudster Scott is capable of anything.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 27, 2011 8:09 PM | Report abuse

I am usually a very forgiving man, but I will never forgive that tribal village in the Amazon jungle for having let their idiot wander away.

Good night folks. Let that Brigade Moron keep on making the case that we should not make sure our children get a world class education, with better trained and rewarded teachers, just because some teacher allegedly allowed a classroom to get out of control.

Strange how they always want to punish the children and the many underpaid good teachers, and will use any excuse to do so.

Pro-life my Arse!. All they are is pro-birth. They actually hate most of America's children, and see them as tax burden only.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 27, 2011 8:10 PM | Report abuse

I am usually a very forgiving man, but I will never forgive that tribal village in the Amazon jungle for having let their idiot wander away.

Good night folks. Let that Brigade Moron keep on making the case that we should not make sure our children get a world class education, with better trained and rewarded teachers, just because some teacher allegedly allowed a classroom to get out of control.

Strange how they always want to punish the children and the many underpaid good teachers, and will use any excuse to do so.

Pro-life my Arse!. All they are is pro-birth. They actually hate most of America's children, and see them as tax burden only.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 27, 2011 8:12 PM | Report abuse

"The world is eating up the story of Rep. Dennis Kucinich's $150,000 lawsuit against a congressional cafeteria that sold him a sandwich wrap containing an olive pit.

"The case Kucinich filed earlier this month is leaving a bad taste in people's mouths as it makes the rounds of newspapers and blogs throughout the English speaking world. On Wednesday night, CNN host Anderson Cooper put Kucinich on his "RidicuList."

"You know what makes the price of food skyrocket?" Cooper said. "Suing a cafeteria for $150,000 for making you a sandwich."---The Plain Dealer, 27 January 2011
=======================================

How did Kucinich ever learn to walk on two legs? This is one of the Dems' perennial presidential candidates.

Posted by: Brigade | January 27, 2011 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Don't know what's up with the multiple posts. Glad to see that Liam has grabbed Ruby and a bottle and hit the sheets.

Posted by: Brigade | January 27, 2011 8:22 PM | Report abuse

BTW Why haven't some of you righties come to the defense of Ronald Reagan.

You sit idly by and let DICK Armey suggest that Mike Pence is the second coming of Ronald Reagan. Listen with all due respect to Pence who seems likable enough, he's NO Ronald Reagan.

I obviously am not fan of Reagan's policies but I never disparage his leadership, charisma, and ability to inspire people....Mike Pence?
C'mon he can't carry the Gipper's jockstrap...really that's insulting but then DICK Armey was never known as a smart or clever man...pretty much a big pompous arse who would be a buffoon in any other state than Texas...OK Mark in Austin..I know I live in a glass house...yeah he'd probably do ok in my home state as well..I mean any populace that would elect Rick the fraudster Scott is capable of anything.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 27, 2011 8:23 PM | Report abuse

"...really that's insulting but then DICK Armey was never known as a smart or clever man"

I'm not a huge fan, but he does have real PhD in economics. Must have some brain cells.

I'm still trying to figure out ruk's position as a loud and proud Keynesian who apparently thinks deficits are a great evil.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 27, 2011 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Liam is back


Who are you going to try to smear this time?

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 27, 2011 8:30 PM | Report abuse

Ethan is still gone

Liam is back


Just wait until the Chicago Obama office is going - the Obama paid trolls will be over this blog like locusts.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 27, 2011 8:33 PM | Report abuse

Picking through republican political detritus, you must be bored.

The 'Arab Street' is biting its stage managers. America is properly silent. Lebanon is always in crisis, but Hezbollah has made a mistake. Timing is everything.

Syria must be afraid and the Saudis, the Iranian religious clique...they have to find some way to either blame America or get 'us' to help them with this problem...the Twitter revolution.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 27, 2011 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Liam is back


Who are you going to try to smear this time?

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 27, 2011 8:46 PM | Report abuse

More evidence that Marco Rubio is one slick dude....he may be a crook...after all he is a Florida Republican..which is synonymous with being a crook...but he is very, very crafty. After using the Tea Party to unseat a popular Governor's nomination for the Senate race..and make no mistake...Rubio had no chance until the Tea Party people in the Sunshine State picked up his candidacy and made him the "golden" boy...Rubio has now declined joining the Tea Party Caucus with the wacks like Paul and Lee. And how did he keep his tea party cred after this betrayal...he's a freaking genius that's how...he used tea party lingo to make his case.

Rubio said the tea party is a grass roots organization that shouldn't be co opted by DC politicians...but should remain with the people not politicians looking to advance themselves through the tea party faithful....it's genius I tells ya...it also throws Sister Sarah and Bachmann under the bus without leaving any nasty fingerprints. Watch out for Marco!!!

Meanwhile David Frum had an interesting observation this evening...his take on the fact that Fox did not air Bachmann's response...the tea party is now dead because Fox is pulling the plug on them.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 27, 2011 8:49 PM | Report abuse

I didn't notice anyone linking here to the FCIC report regarding the financial crisis. David Dayen has been following it most of the day. Here's the pertinent part re the housing and foreclosure issues.

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

"Angelides also understood the serious complications that could still arise from MERS and the true ownership of mortgages, and the impact that could have on the system. The FCIC report, on pages 407-408, does go over various aspects of foreclosure fraud and additional lawsuits, including Countrywide v. Kemp, which easily could pose a systemic risk to the financial system. Needless to say, the foreclosure crisis, and its potential for 13 million families to lose their homes before it’s all over, remains a giant sore thumb as well. “Who would have known a system so efficient at creating mortgages would be so hard to unwind,” Angelides said.

Angelides added that, as of September of last year, the regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac demanded $35 billion in repurchases of 167,000 defective mortgages, where the underwriting standards were lax or not as represented. So far, the banks have paid up on $20.9 billion. And Fannie and Freddie have only sampled a small percentage of loans so far, finding almost 1 in 3 to be ineligible. Obviously, this is why Bank of America decided to settle with Fannie and Freddie, but the other big banks have resisted that to this point. Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee $1.5 trillion in loans. This isn’t going away."

Here is the commission conclusion on this aspect of the going-forward crisis:

""The Commission concludes the unchecked increase in the complexity of mortgages and securitization has made it more difficult to solve problems in the mortgage market. This complexity has created powerful competing interests, including those of the holders of first and second mortgages and of mortgage servicers; has reduced transparency for policy makers, regulators, financial institutions, and homeowners; and has impeded mortgage modifications. The resulting disputes and inaction have caused pain largely borne by individual homeowners and created further uncertainty about the health of the housing market and financial institutions.""

http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/01/27/brooksley-born-of-the-fcic-we-may-well-still-be-in-a-financial-crisis/

Posted by: lmsinca | January 27, 2011 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Q.B. Ah my favorite black and white knee jerk ideologue buddy.

"apparently thinks deficits are a great evil."

What is apparent to you is not apparent to me. I do not think deficits are good or a great evil. I think on the whole (again see if you can wrap your mind around something that is not an "absolute" Q.B.) balanced budgets are better than unbalanced budgets. But as you suggest Q.B. as someone who respects John Maynard Keynes's body of work..I do believe there are times when deficits are indeed desirable. We've already run two deficits far worse than the current one and IMHO both were justified..perhaps even you Q.B. can accept one of the two. The first of course was FDR's efforts at repairing the damage of the Great Depression. Doubt you're happy with that one...and of course the second time...and the very largest deficit in our history...a deficit that dwarfs our current problem as a % of GDP was WWII. I suspect even YOU Q.B. would not have advocated hampering our war effort with artificial budgetary constraints i.e. a balanced budget.

I find it ironic that factually FDR's New Deal dropped U.E. from 25%-15%...where it hovered until WWII at which point of course U.E. disappeared with the largest public investment, and the largest deficit in our nation's history.

No Q.B. unlike you I am not black and white. I do not posit that deficits are either good or bad...they are simply a tool for our leaders to utilize. You perhaps wish to go on the record as saying ALL deficits are bad...OK..that's one opinion...but not mine...

Q.B. your difficulty in understanding me is you seem to find the need for absolutes..
if I advocate for a tax policy that splits the difference between Ike's era and Clinton's era..I am labeled a socialist...
life is just not that simple.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 27, 2011 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Ims, yes this is the #1 issue facing us in the near term. Neither side wants to talk about it because it is just too damn bad. That $1.5 trillion, that well I've gabbed about it before, to no interest. Apparently, it is too much to talk about. We'd rather talk about hypocrisy in the media, or the weather.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 27, 2011 9:10 PM | Report abuse

@lmsinca & shrink

Thanks guys for keeping us up to date on the continuing foreclosure crisis. It's very complex..and not sexy like hearing Sister Sarah ask the President..what the fck...but obviously far more important.

And so I toss out a few questions for you.

Is there a solution to the problem?
Does it involve yet another bailout..this time of John Q Public or would the money end up once again in the hands of the banksters?

I guess what I'm asking guys is that if you could wave a magic wand and address this issue what do you believe should be done.

12Bar you also seem to be a very sharp corporate vet who knows finance..chime in.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 27, 2011 9:14 PM | Report abuse

If you listen to the People, Obama's speech was a complete failure


Obama NEVER LISTENED TO THE PEOPLE AS EXPRESSED IN THE ELECTION.


Obama is pressing for MORE government involvment? What a joke. Obama destroyed his last remaining chance of being re-elected in the speech.


.


Posted by: RainForestRising | January 27, 2011 9:17 PM | Report abuse

The Solution to the Foreclosure Crisis


Is to recognize that the big banks are bankrupt.


The banks never put the mortgages in the portfolios correctly.


That means all the losses are with the banks - not the owners of the derivatives.

The derivatives have been one giant FRAUD from A to Z.


Each bank involved in creating the mortgage portfolios is going to have to go bankrupt - and accept the losses.

Then, ALL THE BONUSES should be clawed-back as PROCEEDS OF FRAUD.


Then the government will have to sort through the remains of the banks - and keep what is needed for the Economy.


Smaller banks with CLEAN balance sheets then can emerge - AND the government will have STRICT RULES


Finally, ALL WALL STREET FIRMS AND BANKS should be banned from making any political contributions - by a Constitutional Amendment if necessary.

That is the solution. You think Obama, with his banking friends and Bill Daley from a big bank - is going to do anything?

Rahm Emanuel was on the BOARD of Freddie Mac - when the Board was accused of MISLEADING INVESTORS.


THOSE GUYS SHOULD BE IN JAIL, WHO ARE THEY KIDDING???


Instead, Rahm is able to raise 14 million to run for Mayor of Chicago - INSTEAD OF GOING TO JAIL.


That is the problem.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 27, 2011 9:24 PM | Report abuse

"If you listen to the People, Obama's speech was a complete failure"

Yes lets listen ohh deranged one...

"Most Americans said they had a positive reaction to President Obama's State of the Union speech, according to the latest USA Today/Gallup poll, posted Thursday on the newspaper's website."

"A large majority of Americans who watched President Obama's State of the Union Address generally approve of the proposals he outlined in his speech, according to a CBS News Poll conducted online by Knowledge Networks immediately after the President's address."

RFR we realize you are a delusional, anti social idiot but this is right up there with your birther delusions....

Seriously RFR GET HELP!!!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 27, 2011 9:26 PM | Report abuse

"Q.B. your difficulty in understanding me is you seem to find the need for absolutes.."

I'd suggest that if I have any difficulty -- not really -- it's instead because you express a number of contradictory positions, in rather strong (strident?) terms. You spend a lot of time unequivocally trashing Republicans for deficits and praising Dems for lack of deficits. But then you espouse Keynesianism. This might raise qustions in a cynical person's mind.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 27, 2011 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Point taken Q.B. But think about it. The reason I keep throwing up the R deficits really has nothing to do with my views about deficits. But I accept how that could seem contradictory to you.

I keep bringing this up because R's keep trying to spread the myth that they are fiscally responsible and the Dems are not.
That's simply untrue. It's a shibboleth amongst the righties and I like to burst bubbles. This evening Brigade was simply the latest in a long long line of righties who tried to float that canard as if it had any merit...of course after making fun of any reference to Jimmy Carter...actually successful from the standpoint of deficits and job creation...thanks to OPEC not so successful re inflation.

And so just as Scott's position on drug decriminalization was mistaken when all he was really saying is that Dems call everything a "public problem" I am being misunderstood on my position on deficits when my actual point is...Hey R's how about stifling unsupported BS about Dems and deficits.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 27, 2011 9:41 PM | Report abuse

ruk, I think balancing the budget is a terrible idea right now. The 10% unemployment is still here, no matter how much we try to ignore it. Republicans managed to shift the subject to deficits, but the truth is that deficits are not our primary concern now. We need to start getting people back to work and balancing the budget is counterproductive to that goal. We need to invest in infrastructure to get people working and raise demand. Then the jobless situation will be under control, we'll have more taxable revenue, and we can tackle the deficit. If nothing else, we increase taxes on the top bracket to pay for public investments.

But the discussion has completely shifted away from the unemployed which is sickening. Those scary yellow people in the east can't do anything to us that we aren't doing to ourselves by not addressing the problem.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 27, 2011 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Sorry to bail on you Q.B. ole buddy but I'm getting ready to hit the hay.

I have an early morning yoga class...and who knows after that I might have a latte..and even some arugula for lunch. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 27, 2011 9:45 PM | Report abuse

in a bit,

Posted by: shrink2 | January 27, 2011 9:55 PM | Report abuse

""We'd rather talk about hypocrisy in the media, or the weather.""

Not me Shrink. I've been reading everything I have time for regarding this "banking" crisis. I think BofA is going down. I really don't see how they can survive and I think the courts are ruling against the banks more often than not so they may not be alone. I also noticed Third Way is promoting a method to hide a "bailout" under the guise of real estate reform. That's a Federal program we should all be protesting if we were paying attention.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 27, 2011 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Just a test...

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 27, 2011 10:16 PM | Report abuse

In down markets, the short version is confidence. Everyone has to believe the bottom is near, otherwise...well the consequences are unspeakable.

So we can't talk about it because it is not partisan. We are all in the same boat and we don't have that common understanding. It is as if we can endure anything so long as we know it is someone else whose fault it is.

The problem is huge. It was ignored by both parties and so neither wants to bring it up. America, perhaps its nemesis, can not handle problems that can not be blamed on others.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 27, 2011 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Hi lms!

Did you see this?:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/print/2011/01/e-mails-suggest-bear-stearns-cheated-clients-out-of-billions/70128/

Of course they all knew. They also knew the rot was so widespread and deep, that no one but taxpayers via the Fed&Treasury would have the wherewithal to make whole their leveraged trash.

GSachs, citi, BAC, Ally, Morgan all knew.

More regulation is a fools errand because DC knew too. Who's going to regulate the next Chris Dodd? The idea that GOP's are worse than Dems at reining in this pillaging is a canard.

Jail for the highest level of the corrupt bankers and politicians (bi-partisan lockups) is all that will discourage this in future.

Posted by: tao9 | January 27, 2011 10:34 PM | Report abuse

"Jail for the highest level of the corrupt bankers and politicians..."

Heh, heh, The highest level does not go to jail, They decide who goes to jail. Revolution? Street violence? Is America ready?

No, of course not. It can not fathom what has happened. It still thinks the concentration of wealth in the hands of a smaller and smaller number of people will be good for the little guy.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 27, 2011 10:43 PM | Report abuse

Hi Tao

Just finished eating dinner at my desk, that's how busy I am. Here's a link to a three part series from Bill Black. I can't comment, no time and I haven't finished it yet, too long for a dinner read. Anyway here it is if anyone's interested, re regulating the mortgage industry. He oughta know. Shrink said to ask you how the weather is? :>)

http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-to-regulate-mortgage-lending-part-1.html

Posted by: lmsinca | January 27, 2011 10:48 PM | Report abuse

Have a good one guys, back to work for this ole gal. BTW tao, I saw your post last week re lib females and Palin. Very funny in a guys locker room sort of way. More later, but if you were mine you'd be hittin' the couch for that one. LOL

Posted by: lmsinca | January 27, 2011 10:57 PM | Report abuse

shrink,

citi is hollow, they're still holding, by some estimates, $1Tril in dead paper.

BAC is a zombie.

If you won't lock them up, let their institutions die and sell off their enfeebled, illiquid at present, assets. It's the only way back for ResRE in the US, a vital sector.

This is where this Con lines up with lms, wbgonne, DDAWD, Liam, et.al.. For once, if Obama is a lefty let him fly his flag here.

{{{meanwhile Cairo burns, Iran ascends, and we lost our shot when we let Neda die without so much as a scornful glance}}}

Posted by: tao9 | January 27, 2011 11:01 PM | Report abuse

""For once, if Obama is a lefty let him fly his flag here.""

I wish he would, but doubt it will happen. Have you seen his BFF banking buddies? Anyway, see y'all soon I hope.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 27, 2011 11:07 PM | Report abuse

America still thinks it can protect corrupt regimes. America should look in the mirror. Who will protect you America? Are you on your own? America thinks it can win the first cold war and then history is over and our liberal democracy (sorry conservatives, your idea of conservative looks really, really liberal to people everywhere in the places where the numbers are), our liberal democracy will just buoy us up onto the shoulders of all of those people...

If America thinks it can protect its own corruption and *fight* corruption that doesn't really bother us and protect corruption that seems good for today's balance sheet...I mean, all we are saying is that we have the money...to do that...for now...well you've got to have friends...

sing along, ♫♪ well you've got to have friends ♫

Posted by: shrink2 | January 27, 2011 11:07 PM | Report abuse

I agree with 110, every word.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 27, 2011 11:11 PM | Report abuse

No, of course not. It can not fathom what has happened. It still thinks the concentration of wealth in the hands of a smaller and smaller number of people will be good for the little guy.

==

And the "conservatives" believe this *passionately*.

But then pretty much everything they believe is flat out wrong.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 28, 2011 12:37 AM | Report abuse

I'm pretty sure that's a polite way of saying that some on the right live in an alternate and thoroughly impenetrable reality.

==

Which is itself a polite way of saying that a lot of people on the right are bugfụck nuts.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 28, 2011 12:43 AM | Report abuse

Heh, heh, The highest level does not go to jail, They decide who goes to jail. Revolution? Street violence? Is America ready?

==

Yeah guess how that would end up. The people with the guns are on the side of the bankers.

Meanwhile Rand Paul wants a Constitutional Convention. The agenda is illimitable by law. Guess what America would look like when THAT was over.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 28, 2011 12:49 AM | Report abuse

The whole country would essentially turn into California.

The BBA is a terrible idea.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 28, 2011 12:59 AM | Report abuse

And the BBA is coming from the side that's shown for a century that they can't do it. Yeah, stop me before I kill again.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 28, 2011 6:28 AM | Report abuse

More evidence that Marco Rubio is one slick dude....he may be a crook...after all he is a Florida Republican..which is synonymous with being a crook

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 27, 2011 8:49 PM
========================================

Is Alcee Hastings your favorite Republican? Is Gore spelled 'G O R E' or 'B U C H A N A N' ?

Posted by: Brigade | January 28, 2011 6:36 AM | Report abuse

No Q.B. unlike you I am not black and white. I do not posit that deficits are either good or bad...they are simply a tool for our leaders to utilize.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 27, 2011 9:05 PM
========================================

He simply posits that deficits are good under Democratic presidents and bad under Republican presidents. Hell, just look at the graphs he links to.

Posted by: Brigade | January 28, 2011 6:41 AM | Report abuse

Ims, yes this is the #1 issue facing us in the near term. Neither side wants to talk about it because it is just too damn bad.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 27, 2011 9:10 PM
=========================================

Never fear, RUK and Liam can post links to some site that explains what a "wonderful job" Frank Raines did. They'll even call that a "fact".

Posted by: Brigade | January 28, 2011 6:45 AM | Report abuse

"Worth watching: Virginia governor Bob McDonnell voices support for infrastructure spending. More GOP governors to follow?"

Even the Chamber of Commerce likes infrastructure spending. How sensible was it of them to go all out to elect a Republican Congress for whom infrastructure is a dirty word? Is there any organization that can compete with the Chamber for knee-jerk brainlessness?

Posted by: rhallnj | January 28, 2011 6:48 AM | Report abuse

The problem is huge. It was ignored by both parties and so neither wants to bring it up. America, perhaps its nemesis, can not handle problems that can not be blamed on others.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 27, 2011 10:27 PM
=========================================

Uh, shrink, ole buddy, only one party has been in control of government for the past two years---you know, setting agendas and that sort of thing. Why do I have this feeling that if Republicans had been that party, we wouldn't be describing the mortgage crisis as a huge problem "neither (party) wants to bring up"? No one on the left described the bursting of the housing bubble as a bi-partisan wreck---it was all Bush's fault.

Posted by: Brigade | January 28, 2011 6:54 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, I can name a few. The Club for Growth, the Tea Party, Focus on the Family ...

Posted by: caothien9 | January 28, 2011 6:58 AM | Report abuse

From 11:12 PM to 6:35 AM---over seven hours: no posts by anyone but caothien9 and DDAWD, jerking in the echo chamber. The sewers of Hanoi and New Orleans were each one rat light for a few hours.

Posted by: Brigade | January 28, 2011 7:01 AM | Report abuse

Is there any organization that can compete with the Chamber for knee-jerk brainlessness?

Posted by: rhallnj | January 28, 2011 6:48 AM
=========================================

The DNC?

Posted by: Brigade | January 28, 2011 7:04 AM | Report abuse

meanwhile Cairo burns, Iran ascends, and we lost our shot when we let Neda die without so much as a scornful glance

==

But hey imagine how much worse it would be if Iraq was stilll under Saddam instead of a client of Iran.

That sure was worth five trillion buck and thousands of lives.

Let's Roll,
CT in CT

Posted by: caothien9 | January 28, 2011 7:11 AM | Report abuse

There appears to be a strong consensus across the political spectrum that marijuana should be legalized. So why isn't it?

Posted by: wbgonne | January 28, 2011 7:18 AM | Report abuse

"My battles with Rupert Murdoch
Murdoch will tolerate competition, but prefers market dominance. Monopoly? Even better"

An insider's view of how Murdoch operates...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/27/rupert-murdoch-battle

Posted by: bernielatham | January 28, 2011 7:22 AM | Report abuse

Update on the phone-tapping scandal by Murdoch's paper (he's in Britain now trying to do damage control) but so far, things are getting worse for him. Still, he wields enormous power in Britain and could effectively crush serious on-going investigations and/or consequences...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/27/phoning-hacking-row-tessa-jowell

Posted by: bernielatham | January 28, 2011 7:28 AM | Report abuse

Or, more to the point, while Obama said that legalization was worthy of discussion, he also said that he opposes it. Why? It will save a lot of federal money, which I think is the immediate goal. What reason does the White House have for opposing something that the American people want?

Barney Frank has a bill pending to eliminate the federal marijuana laws: why doesn't the Obama Administration support it? Let's have the discussion with the White House participating not just issuing declarations of opposition. Someone should ask the president to explain his opposition in light of the overwhelming evidence favoring legalization.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 28, 2011 7:37 AM | Report abuse

The lesson of the Irish debacle, then, is very nearly the opposite of what Mr. Ryan would have us believe. It doesn’t say “cut spending now, or bad things will happen”; it says that balanced budgets won’t protect you from crisis if you don’t effectively regulate your banks — a point made in the newly released report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which concludes that “30 years of deregulation and reliance on self-regulation” helped create our own catastrophe. Have I mentioned that Republicans are doing everything they can to undermine financial reform?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/opinion/28krugman.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 28, 2011 7:57 AM | Report abuse

Murdoch is bad in England (and elsewhere, of course) but Berlusconi is like Caligula is Italy. The entire Western World is plagued by grandiose media oligarchs who use their power over the news to rape the countries in which they operate.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 28, 2011 8:11 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne, NOW we know why you oppose Obama. He opposes legalizing marijuana from personal experience, it's wrong, and leads to bad things.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 28, 2011 8:12 AM | Report abuse

pragmaticagain, not "everything" (yet ; )

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 28, 2011 8:16 AM | Report abuse

First graph from a WSJ editorial this morning...

"Amid his Reaganite sunshine and new admiration for the wonders of private enterprise, President Obama's political message in Tuesday's State of the Union address boils down to this: Republicans, it's your budget problem now.:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703293204576106293283157786.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

For the sake or argument, let's accept this interpretation (which the editorial goes on to say may be a smart strategy but is an abdication of responsibility).

First, I accept that if Obama proceeded in such a manner, it would be an abdication of responsibility.

But if we recall the many instances here and elsewhere, when it is pointed out that the deficit ballooned under Republican administrations of Reagan and Bush, the responsibility for these situations is attributed to Dem congresses, not to the Republican administrations. Yes? And conversely, when it is pointed out that the deficit inherited by Clinton was turned to a surplus under that administration, it was due to the diligence of a Republican congress. Yes?

Posted by: bernielatham | January 28, 2011 8:18 AM | Report abuse

Luckily, Murdoch has no where near the power that someone like Hurst did.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 28, 2011 8:23 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of the budget deficit, ending marijuana prohibition will save $42 Billion per year.

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7380

By contrast, the federal wage freeze will save $2.5B per year.

Legalizing marijuana is a no-brainer so what is the problem?

Posted by: wbgonne | January 28, 2011 8:23 AM | Report abuse

@wb - the Caligula comparison is kind of cute. But, yes, control/ownership of media systems (thus content) is a prime means of exerting domination in a modern democratic (very small "d") nation. Thus the importance of Assange.

The NRO now runs a daily poll which is really worth checking most of the time to get a peak into what the NRO audience is thinking. Today's is particularly revealing...

"The Current State of the GOP Presidential Field Makes Me Feel:"

followed by four choices. Go take a look (just vote and the results will appear)...

http://www.nationalreview.com/

Posted by: bernielatham | January 28, 2011 8:25 AM | Report abuse

Here's a good example of Weekly Standard propaganda techniques...

"Leftists Push Back Against Koch Brothers' Right to Free Assembly

5:45 PM, JAN 27, 2011 • BY DANIEL HALPER
Guess who’s holding a super secret, ill-intentioned meeting this weekend in Palm Springs, California? The nefarious Koch brothers – nefarious because they donate to conservative causes, of course.

Already, leftist groups are beginning to fulminate (against what, it’s not quite clear), insisting that there’s something inherently corrupt in the free assembly of the Koch brothers and their cohorts."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/leftists-push-back-against-koch-brothers-right-free-assembly_537485.html

There is, of course, no attempt to prevent or deny or "push back again" the right to assembly. He's lying.

Of course, an assembly might forward corruption or might forward nefarious ends and there's nothing wrong with suggesting that might be the case where it might be the case. But that's not the same as threatening denial of a liberty.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 28, 2011 8:37 AM | Report abuse

I meant "Hearst" of course, that infamous DEMOCRAT and inventor of yellow journalism that Murdoch can only dream about being. Many forget that he was elected to the U.S. House and ran for Mayor and Governor in New York. His defeat in the NYC mayoral election, in which he ran under a short-lived third party of his own creation (the Municipal Ownership League) is widely attributed to Tammany Hall. Tammany, the dominant Democratic organization in New York City at the time (and a widely corrupt one), was said to have used every dirty trick in the book to derail Hearst's campaign. He also sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 1904, but found that his support for William Jennings Bryan in previous years was not reciprocated. The conservative wing of the party was ascendant and nominated Judge Alton B. Parker instead. An opponent of the British Empire, Hearst opposed American involvement in the First World War and attacked the formation of the League of Nations. Hearst's last bid for office came in 1922 when he was backed by Tammany Hall leaders for the U.S. Senate nomination in New York. Al Smith vetoed this, earning the lasting enmity of Hearst. Although Hearst shared Smith's opposition to Prohibition he swung his papers behind Herbert Hoover in the 1928 presidential election. Hearst's support for Franklin D. Roosevelt at the 1932 Democratic National Convention, via his allies William Gibbs McAdoo and John Nance Garner, can also be seen as part of his vendetta against Smith, who was an opponent of Roosevelt's at that convention.

Hearst's reputation triumphed in the 1930s as his political views changed. In 1932, he was a major supporter of Roosevelt. His newspapers energetically supported the New Deal throughout 1933 and 1934. Hearst broke with FDR in spring 1935 when the President vetoed the Patman Bonus Bill. Hearst papers carried the old publisher's rambling, vitriolic, all-capital-letters editorials, but he no longer employed the energetic reporters, editorialists and columnists who might have made a serious attack. His newspaper audience was the same working class that Roosevelt swept by three-to-one margins in the 1936 election. In 1934 after checking with Jewish leaders to make sure the visit would prove of benefit to Jews, Hearst visited Berlin to interview Adolf Hitler. Hitler asked why he was so misunderstood by the American press. "Because Americans believe in democracy," Hearst answered bluntly, "and are averse to dictatorship."

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 28, 2011 8:38 AM | Report abuse

Ho-chi-Hoser,

I doubt you even know who Neda is. You live in a nation run by butchers analogous to those that killed her.

cheers

Posted by: tao9 | January 28, 2011 8:39 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

The Cons aren't feeling so good about the Mittster and his ilk. I saw on Rachel Maddow that Mitt made Marriott stop selling in-room porn to clear some brush out of his way. The Mittster is a chameleon and half the excitement is trying to guess who he will be this time. A lot of baggage for the chameleon and I don't think he can overcome his MA health care law or his Mormonism so he loses. My dark horse prediction is for Chris Christie to ride in (on a very strong horse) to save the day for the GOP.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 28, 2011 8:39 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/the_morning_plum_175.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | January 28, 2011 8:39 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne writes
"There appears to be a strong consensus across the political spectrum that marijuana should be legalized. So why isn't it?"

Do you think that's true in the Repub caucus that holds the House majority? If you can get a bill past them, there might be a case for the WH to go with the flow. But it would be political suicide for the WH to initiate that discussion.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 28, 2011 8:40 AM | Report abuse

Rubio is pulling in the big boys for staffing...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/marco-rubio-picks-chief-staff-cesar-conda_537520.html

This is the guy to watch. They aren't going to waste him in the next cycle but continue to prepare everything for his arrival in the following cycle. I'd say that this is the most predictable single aspect to what the Republican establishment will be doing over the next few years (aside from the regular activities).

Posted by: bernielatham | January 28, 2011 8:44 AM | Report abuse

"He opposes legalizing marijuana from personal experience, it's wrong, and leads to bad things."

Yeah...like becoming President of the Unites States...or the film maker of classics like Oliver Stone...or the host of hit TV series like Bill Maher...or creating the music that defined a generation...The Beatles...do I really need to go on?

Do some pot smokers become unproductive heads? well yes..do some alcohol drinkers become unproductive? well yes...Do virtually ALL cigarette workers become less productive and require more of our health care $$$ Absolutely. Clawrence probably saw "Reefer Madness" one too many times.
Certainly at least the past three U.S. Presidents have smoked dope..and how childish are we about that...one..who has a propensity for lying as in "I did not have sex with that woman"..claims he didn't inhale. LMAO Did Bubba not realize how freaking moronic that was..."Yeah I'm going to experiment with an illegal substance..commit the crime without actually doing what it takes to complete the experiment..really smart..or perhaps we had a Pres who was so unable to resist peer pressure he simply faked his way..yeah I want someone who can't handle peer pressure in the W.H. NOT. We all know bubba inhaled..and that G.W. and B.O. both snorted as well as inhaled...but as Liam suggests the church ladies like Clawrence simple can't handle reality.

@wbgonne "Speaking of the budget deficit, ending marijuana prohibition will save $42 Billion per year."

I assume you are talking about savings from ending the "War on Drugs" But as far as the budget there is another consideration...you have described cutting expense...good thing..how about revenue enhancement..have you seen any numbers about how much tax income would accrue to the various entities...and trust me at minimum the states and the Feds would have their hands deeply into everybody's bag of weed.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 28, 2011 9:08 AM | Report abuse

@Bernie...

Don't know if you saw my earlier post on the clever way Rubio disassociated himself from the Tea Party, he's not going to join the wackjob Caucus..yet simultaneously keep his TParty cred and throw Sister Sarah, Bachmann, and Demented under the bus by saying the Tea Party is a grass roots organization and he thinks it should remain that way and not get co-opted by DC pols.
You are right Bernie HE is the one to watch..and again I agree he will not be the sacrificial lamb who gets steamrolled by B.0. in 2012..he'll wait for 2016. He'd be the first Hispanic President in our history and that could help ameliorate the R's Hispanic problem. Best of all he is one of the "good" Hispanics from the right's perspective..he is a Cuban..not one of those brown menacing types in the R campaign commercials who are invading our country from Mexico..which again always leads me to a hypothetical question.

If Mexico had been governed by a Communist Dictator for the past 50 years would we view the Mexican immigrants differently?

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 28, 2011 9:23 AM | Report abuse

* Dahlia Lithwick says Obama's State of the Union ceded the Constitution to Michele Bachmann.

From Lithwick's piece:

"The Constitution isn't a Tea Party document and—as the Constitutional Accountability Center has been at pains to point out—Americans overwhelmingly prefer Obama's version of the document to the Tea Party's."
=============
My observation is the complete opposite to this statement and I bleieve the results of the mid-term elections tend to support my observations, so.....

From the CAC website vision statement: "Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) is a think tank, law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of our Constitution’s text and history"

OK so that little gem tells me all I need to know. A 'Progressive' (socialist) think tank with a 'progressive' (socialist) world view writes press releases about what it thinks...reads them in other print sources...believes them...and summons truth from them. And from this slap stick comedy Lithwick derives the delusion that 'overwhelmingly Americans prefer Obama's version of the document....' Tells me all I need to know about Dahlia Lithwick thank-you very little.

Posted by: PanhandleWilly | January 28, 2011 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Dahlia Lithwick says Obama's State of the Union ceded the Constitution to Michele Bachmann.

From Lithwick's piece:

"The Constitution isn't a Tea Party document and—as the Constitutional Accountability Center has been at pains to point out—Americans overwhelmingly prefer Obama's version of the document to the Tea Party's."
=============
My observation is the complete opposite to this statement and I bleieve the results of the mid-term elections tend to support my observations, so.....

From the CAC website vision statement: "Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) is a think tank, law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of our Constitution’s text and history"

OK so that little gem tells me all I need to know. A 'Progressive' (socialist) think tank with a 'progressive' (socialist) world view writes press releases about what it thinks...reads them in other print sources...believes them...and summons truth from them. And from this slap stick comedy Lithwick derives the delusion that 'overwhelmingly Americans prefer Obama's version of the document....' Tells me all I need to know about Dahlia Lithwick thank-you very little.

Posted by: PanhandleWilly | January 28, 2011 10:00 AM | Report abuse

"not one of those brown menacing types in the R campaign commercials who are invading our country from Mexico..which again always leads me to a hypothetical question.

If Mexico had been governed by a Communist Dictator for the past 50 years would we view the Mexican immigrants differently?"

==========================

Just because illegal immigration from the southern border is identified as a problem mostly in Republican ads...doesn't mean that illegal immigration from the southern border isn't a REAL problem. The better question would be why ISN'T illegal immigration from the southern border identified in democratic party ads? Rhetorical...I already know the answer.

And for your information Mexico HAS been ruled by a mostly socialist single party set of rulers for the last 100 years--the PRI--which is THE primary reason Mexico, with all it's natural resources and healthy population to develop them, is still basically an economic basket-case from which millions escape for better opportunities to the USA...which is not a socialist country...yet.

Posted by: PanhandleWilly | January 28, 2011 10:10 AM | Report abuse

@claw-

Legalization or use leads to bad things? Sounds to me like the Right has a lock on both: the fiction that its a "gateway drug" or that decriminalization is a gateway to legalization of other drugs?

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | January 28, 2011 11:20 AM | Report abuse

this country has become a nation of debt where only money matters, not law, freedom or rights described in the constitution. police are kicking doors down like this is Iraq for non voilent crimes, the reason they need money. if the have to investigate for weeks to find wrong doing wouldnt it be safe to assume that any activities were not out in the open disrupting the community. they need helicopters and planes burning taxpayer gas outfitted with infrared cameras to see through walls, to invade your privacy to find you breaking the law. then they say voters dont want legalization, fellons can no longer vote so it seems to me the voters necessary to pass such laws are stripped of their rights so the govt can control who votes and on what issues.

Posted by: johnmahr | January 30, 2011 11:10 PM | 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

© 2011 The Washington Post Company