Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Congressional Republicans Fret Over Potential Losses

Republican strategists closely monitoring the race for the Senate and the House are increasingly worried that they may be headed for large losses in November due to the increased focus on the economy over the last few weeks.

The Fix and Shailagh "Shazelle" Murray have a story in today's Post documenting the potential disaster that many GOP operatives believe awaits them unless something drastic changes between now and Nov. 4.

"The crisis has affected the entire ticket," said Jan van Lohuizen, a Republican consultant who handled the polling for President Bush's reelection campaign. "The worse the state's economy, the greater the impact."

Added another unnamed Republican strategist discussing the Senate prospects: "If you turn the clock back two or two and half weeks, you could make a plausible argument that if a couple of things go our way we will lose three to four Senate races. Now we will lose six to eight.

The picture in the House is no brighter with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee on television in 41 districts as compared to just two for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

With the bailout bill now through Congress, Republicans must hope the focus moves off the economy between now and November. Or, that is is always the darkest before the dawn.

By Chris Cillizza  |  October 4, 2008; 12:45 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008 , House , Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Photo of the Week
Next: SNL Does the Veep Debate

Comments

I wish the candidate would discuss global poverty more. According to The Borgen Project:
$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.
$540 billion: Annual U.S. Defense Budget

Posted by: maryna1 | October 7, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone researched the etymology of the word "mavericK'? In a simplified term suggested by a teenager, Jack Bauer of 24 is a maverick !
See below what I got from dictionary.com:
Origin: 1865–70, Americanism; after Samuel A. Maverick (1803–70), Texas pioneer who left his calves unbranded
7 dictionary results for: maverick
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
mav·er·ick [mav-er-ik, mav-rik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. Southwestern U.S. an unbranded calf, cow, or steer, esp. an unbranded calf that is separated from its mother.
2. a lone dissenter, as an intellectual, an artist, or a politician, who takes an independent stand apart from his or her associates.
3. (initial capital letter) an electro-optically guided U.S. air-to-ground tactical missile for destroying tanks and other hardened targets at ranges up to 15 mi. (24 km).


The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

maverick

SYLLABICATION: mav·er·ick
PRONUNCIATION: mvr-k, mvrk
NOUN: 1. An unbranded range animal, especially a calf that has become separated from its mother, traditionally considered the property of the first person who brands it. 2. One that refuses to abide by the dictates of or resists adherence to a group; a dissenter.
ADJECTIVE: Being independent in thought and action or exhibiting such independence: maverick politicians; a maverick decision.
ETYMOLOGY: Possibly after Samuel Augustus Maverick (1803–1870), American cattleman who left the calves in his herd unbranded .

Posted by: muranosky | October 7, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Has anyone researched the etymology of the word "mavericK'? In a simplified term suggested by a teenager, Jack Bauer of 24 is a maverick !
See below what I got from dictionary.com:
Origin: 1865–70, Americanism; after Samuel A. Maverick (1803–70), Texas pioneer who left his calves unbranded
7 dictionary results for: maverick
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
mav·er·ick [mav-er-ik, mav-rik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. Southwestern U.S. an unbranded calf, cow, or steer, esp. an unbranded calf that is separated from its mother.
2. a lone dissenter, as an intellectual, an artist, or a politician, who takes an independent stand apart from his or her associates.
3. (initial capital letter) an electro-optically guided U.S. air-to-ground tactical missile for destroying tanks and other hardened targets at ranges up to 15 mi. (24 km).


The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

maverick

SYLLABICATION: mav·er·ick
PRONUNCIATION: mvr-k, mvrk
NOUN: 1. An unbranded range animal, especially a calf that has become separated from its mother, traditionally considered the property of the first person who brands it. 2. One that refuses to abide by the dictates of or resists adherence to a group; a dissenter.
ADJECTIVE: Being independent in thought and action or exhibiting such independence: maverick politicians; a maverick decision.
ETYMOLOGY: Possibly after Samuel Augustus Maverick (1803–1870), American cattleman who left the calves in his herd unbranded .

Posted by: muranosky | October 7, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Has anyone researched the etymology of the word "mavericK'? In a simplified term suggested by a teenager, Jack Bauer of 24 is a maverick !
See below what I got from dictionary.com:
Origin: 1865–70, Americanism; after Samuel A. Maverick (1803–70), Texas pioneer who left his calves unbranded
7 dictionary results for: maverick
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
mav·er·ick [mav-er-ik, mav-rik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. Southwestern U.S. an unbranded calf, cow, or steer, esp. an unbranded calf that is separated from its mother.
2. a lone dissenter, as an intellectual, an artist, or a politician, who takes an independent stand apart from his or her associates.
3. (initial capital letter) an electro-optically guided U.S. air-to-ground tactical missile for destroying tanks and other hardened targets at ranges up to 15 mi. (24 km).


The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

maverick

SYLLABICATION: mav·er·ick
PRONUNCIATION: mvr-k, mvrk
NOUN: 1. An unbranded range animal, especially a calf that has become separated from its mother, traditionally considered the property of the first person who brands it. 2. One that refuses to abide by the dictates of or resists adherence to a group; a dissenter.
ADJECTIVE: Being independent in thought and action or exhibiting such independence: maverick politicians; a maverick decision.
ETYMOLOGY: Possibly after Samuel Augustus Maverick (1803–1870), American cattleman who left the calves in his herd unbranded .

Posted by: muranosky | October 7, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Has anyone researched the etymology of the word "mavericK'? In a simplified term suggested by a teenager, Jack Bauer of 24 is a maverick !
See below what I got from dictionary.com:
Origin: 1865–70, Americanism; after Samuel A. Maverick (1803–70), Texas pioneer who left his calves unbranded
7 dictionary results for: maverick
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
mav·er·ick [mav-er-ik, mav-rik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. Southwestern U.S. an unbranded calf, cow, or steer, esp. an unbranded calf that is separated from its mother.
2. a lone dissenter, as an intellectual, an artist, or a politician, who takes an independent stand apart from his or her associates.
3. (initial capital letter) an electro-optically guided U.S. air-to-ground tactical missile for destroying tanks and other hardened targets at ranges up to 15 mi. (24 km).


The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

maverick

SYLLABICATION: mav·er·ick
PRONUNCIATION: mvr-k, mvrk
NOUN: 1. An unbranded range animal, especially a calf that has become separated from its mother, traditionally considered the property of the first person who brands it. 2. One that refuses to abide by the dictates of or resists adherence to a group; a dissenter.
ADJECTIVE: Being independent in thought and action or exhibiting such independence: maverick politicians; a maverick decision.
ETYMOLOGY: Possibly after Samuel Augustus Maverick (1803–1870), American cattleman who left the calves in his herd unbranded .

Posted by: muranosky | October 7, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Has anyone researched the etymology of the word "mavericK'? In a simplified term suggested by a teenager, Jack Bauer of 24 is a maverick !
See below what I got from dictionary.com:
Origin: 1865–70, Americanism; after Samuel A. Maverick (1803–70), Texas pioneer who left his calves unbranded
7 dictionary results for: maverick
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
mav·er·ick [mav-er-ik, mav-rik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. Southwestern U.S. an unbranded calf, cow, or steer, esp. an unbranded calf that is separated from its mother.
2. a lone dissenter, as an intellectual, an artist, or a politician, who takes an independent stand apart from his or her associates.
3. (initial capital letter) an electro-optically guided U.S. air-to-ground tactical missile for destroying tanks and other hardened targets at ranges up to 15 mi. (24 km).


The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

maverick

SYLLABICATION: mav·er·ick
PRONUNCIATION: mvr-k, mvrk
NOUN: 1. An unbranded range animal, especially a calf that has become separated from its mother, traditionally considered the property of the first person who brands it. 2. One that refuses to abide by the dictates of or resists adherence to a group; a dissenter.
ADJECTIVE: Being independent in thought and action or exhibiting such independence: maverick politicians; a maverick decision.
ETYMOLOGY: Possibly after Samuel Augustus Maverick (1803–1870), American cattleman who left the calves in his herd unbranded .

Posted by: muranosky | October 7, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008

Posted by: hclark1 | October 6, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse


37th and O writes

"Why would you be such an irreponsible person as to place this nation at the gravest risk by voting for some inexperienced affirmative action guy whose only economic or business experience is buying cocaine" ???

I asked this about Bush in 1999 & 2004. You mean he is still getting powedered?

Posted by: Thatsnuts | October 6, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

...So, 40 year old history is now news....The Vietnam War as a travesty in this nation back then, so when the RNC/GOP lie machine are unable to talk about the real problems that need to be discussed, economy, health care, war, unemployment, aids, they come up with this crapola....

peeeuuu Palin should keep her idiotic and repetitive mouth shut...with her Caribou Barbie pull string in her back....

What about news from just 2 weeks ago....

Katie: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part as your foreign policy experience, what do you mean by that?

Sarah: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side... the land... uhh boundary... that we have with uhhh Canada. It it it's fff-funny that a comment like that was uh kind of made to...... uhh... character.......uhh......I don't know.....you know.......reporters...

Katie: Mocked?

Sarah: Yeah, mocked. I guess that's the word. Yeah. umm....

Katie: Well, explain to why that enhances your foreign policy credentials?

Sarah: Well, it certainly does. Because our......our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They are in the state that I am the executive of.

Katie: Have you ever been in an negotiations for example with the Russians

Sarah: We have trade missions back and forth we... we... It's very important when you even consider nation security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and and uh comes into the a a a air space of the United States of America wh wh where do they go? It's Alaska, it's just right over the border. It it is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that.... an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there they are right next to umm our state.

....What about the Keating five in 1988 20-year-old story when McCaint was 52...

The story may be old, but it's recently become surprisingly relevant to current events -- we are, after all, talking about a scandal involving major bank failures, financial fraud and greed, and political ineptitude.

There is history repeating itself 20 years later....

McCaint is running with a message about his ability to "reform" both DC and Wall Street record.

I agree with Jack Cafferty at CNN and his take on that CBS Interview...

Watch that report @
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8__aXxXPVc

McCaint is no hero...but peeeuuu Palin is a hero sandwich...full of old baloney

Posted by: AlexP1 | October 6, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA GOES TO WAR AGAINST FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Site:
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200809292079/edi ...

We CAN NO LONGER AFFORD to continue to travel on the path of the Democratic and Republican 'push forward' into the destruction of our Constitution and Sovereignty as a nation and elect politicians such as Obama and McCain to ANY office of government were they can continue to make laws against us and REFUSE to listen to our voice.

We MUST look into 3rd Party Presidential Candidates such as REP. CHUCK BALDWIN - endorsed by Ron Paul. He is the ONLY candidate that promises to defend and protect our Constitution and our Sovereignty!

IT IS OUR TURN TO STAND UP FOR OUR REPUBLIC AND MAKE A REAL CHANGE HAPPEN - VOTING AGAINST DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN RULE IS THE BEGINNING!

Posted by: cingi | October 6, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

...So, 40 year old history is now news....The Vietnam War as a travesty in this nation back then, so when the RNC/GOP lie machine are unable to talk about the real problems that need to be discussed, economy, health care, war, unemployment, aids, they come up with this crapola....

peeeuuu Palin should keep her idiotic and repetitive mouth shut...with her Caribou Barbie pull string in her back....

What about news from just 2 weeks ago....

Katie: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part as your foreign policy experience, what do you mean by that?

Sarah: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side... the land... uhh boundary... that we have with uhhh Canada. It it it's fff-funny that a comment like that was uh kind of made to...... uhh... character.......uhh......I don't know.....you know.......reporters...

Katie: Mocked?

Sarah: Yeah, mocked. I guess that's the word. Yeah. umm....

Katie: Well, explain to why that enhances your foreign policy credentials?

Sarah: Well, it certainly does. Because our......our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They are in the state that I am the executive of.

Katie: Have you ever been in an negotiations for example with the Russians

Sarah: We have trade missions back and forth we... we... It's very important when you even consider nation security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and and uh comes into the a a a air space of the United States of America wh wh where do they go? It's Alaska, it's just right over the border. It it is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that.... an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there they are right next to umm our state.

....What about the Keating five in 1988 20-year-old story when McCaint was 52...

The story may be old, but it's recently become surprisingly relevant to current events -- we are, after all, talking about a scandal involving major bank failures, financial fraud and greed, and political ineptitude.

There is history repeating itself 20 years later....

McCaint is running with a message about his ability to "reform" both DC and Wall Street record.

I agree with Jack Cafferty at CNN and his take on that CBS Interview...

Watch that report @
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8__aXxXPVc

McCaint is no hero...but peeeuuu Palin is a hero sandwich...full of old baloney

Posted by: AlexP1 | October 6, 2008 8:35 AM | Report abuse

Is the McCain campaign hiring 5th graders to spam message boards or are the children doing it themselves independently? The usual wingnut trolls who hang out here are at least relatively literate and worldly, but these new ones sound as if they've never seen and heard campaigns before.

Posted by: Budikavlan | October 6, 2008 1:53 AM | Report abuse

.


I am personally upset that just about everyone coming from the Obama campaign is deceptive.


It is pathetic.


McCain and Bush DO NOT GET ALONG - THEY HAVE BEEN FIGHTING FOR YEARS.

Yet the Obama people keep saying they are the same. That is deceptive.


The liberals say McCain would be the 'third Bush term.'

The liberals CAN NOT COUNT.

This is the third Bush term. We had his father and two terms for the younger Bush.

Engage on the issues.


OH the Obama campaign is unable to engage on the issues - the problem is Obama wants HIGH TAXES


That is NOT the way to go.


OBAMA IS LYING ABOUT WILLIAM AYERS THE TWO WERE CLOSE

OBAMA IS BEING DECEPTIVE ABOUT HIS CHURCH - THE RACIST ONE THAT HATES WHITES.


.


.

Posted by: 37thandOStreet | October 5, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

JOHN MCCAIN, HE REGARDS LYING AS AN ART HE IS PROUD OF AND BRAGS ABOUT IT

I heard Mccain say something once I found interesting in light of this election. He was talking and bragged that one of the things he learned as a POW was the ability to lie and be deceptive. Look you right in the face and lie. He said you had to if you were to survive as a POW. This was at a VFW hall he was speaking at around the time he wrote one of his books. I knew nothing about Mccain at the time and being president was far in his future. It stuck with me though and I was reminded of it in this election. When cornered Mccain will say or do anything to survive. I believe Mccain has no problem telling lies even today, including professing to being a straight talker. He lies about being honest. He is a walking catch-22. Is he lying when he says he is not lying? With him the truth is what ever serves his needs at the time he says it. You have been seeing it the last few months as he swears he didn't say something he said only the day before and continues the lie even in the face of proof like a tape of him saying it. Lying to Mccain is a tool, I suspect has served him well all his life be in private life such as cheating on his wife or in politics. Mccain is not a compulsive liar, he is a well practiced liar.

Posted by: popasmoke | October 5, 2008 9:03 PM | Report abuse

The GOP will take a bath, as it deserves. Not only will Democrats win in "vulnerable" districts or states, they will take out some GOP incumbants no one is expecting.

The only mystery left is seeing whether the Democrats get a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate. At least as many GOP Senators will fall as did Democratic Senators in Regan's 1980 election win.

In Montana, the only prominent Republican running for relection is at-large US Representative Denny Rehberg.

His Democratic "challenger," John Driscoll, running with no money,no campaign, told a debate crowd in Helena that he's voting for Rehberg, lol.
Though he's clearly under no real reelection pressure, Rehberg has made some notable breaks with the GOP on child health care and also opposing the bailout. Plus he's a much friendlier guy that Conrad Burns was. He will return to Washington as a member of a much smaller Republican minority.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | October 5, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

The funny thing to me is, now that GWB's ridiculous policies are seriously coming home to roost, leading to what could end up being a long 40 years in the wilderness for the GOPpers, I'm actually starting to feel a little sorry for the guy. He thought he was doing the right thing, and it's only his spoiled, indulgent upbringing that made him unable to pay attention to the criticism about his administration that was right all along.

Even more ironically, the guy who looked so good in comparison in 2000 has turned out to be the latest incarnation of The Emperor's New Clothes. He was hailed as a maverick, then proceeded to throw all that out the window in order to win nomination and the Presidency in 2008. McCain's nakedly cynical choice of the New Phyllis Schlafly as his running mate and the shamelessly nasty swipes at Obama are fortunately (apparently) boomeranging on him. I hope the polling trends continue for another month. Getting rid of a few slimes like McConnell and Chambliss would be a nice cherry on top of the sundae.

Posted by: Budikavlan | October 5, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

The Keatng 5 - Lincoln Savings and Loans and the Cheating McCain

If you take a step back in time to the late 1980's and early 1990's, we had the Lincoln Savings and Loan Bailout. Maybe they do not remember how Charles Keating took investors money as well as hard working American's money and used it for his own personal gain. He gave his friends loans and made high risk loans. Do they remember how McCains own wife benefited from the fleecing of the American Taxpayers. McCain's wife made over 10 million off of a 400,000 investment. McCain took gifts and money from Keating and he along with 4 Congressmen diverted the FBI's investigation. McCain was slapped on the wrist and the Lincoln Savings and Loan Scandel cost the American Taxpayers almost 300 billion dollars. And just like before we are bailing out his wealthy friends who like to gamble with the lives of hard working Americans. I wonder how much his wife made off of this Bailout.

But instead of looking at the issues of the Taxpayers, they continued to push for deregulation. Deregulation allows big companies to benefit of high risk loans while Americans can continue to be robbed and cheated without repercussion. Phil Gramm the father of the Deregulation Bill and McCain carried on the Deregulation Bandwangon. Gramm, McCain and the Rupublican allowed the deregulation laws to be written. They saw what it did to the "American Joe Sixpack", we lost jobs and homes and were in a deep economic crisis. But I guess he feels no harm to their friends and no gain for the average american.

So if McCain went to rally his troops because he the Maverick, why didn't the Republicans sign the Bailout Bill without the added perks. Who will actually benefit from these newly inserted crap. Will it actually be the Average Joe Sixpack, because we are the ones losing our jobs and homes. We are the ones who are are praying the price of gas does not go up.

If the Republicans were so concerned about the Average American Citizen, then why do we have to go thru another Lincoln Savings and Loan Bailout. Where were you Rebublicans?

Posted by: free2beme2121 | October 5, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

The Keatng 5 - Lincoln Savings and Loans and the Cheating McCain

If you take a step back in time to the late 1980's and early 1990's, we had the Lincoln Savings and Loan Bailout. Maybe they do not remember how Charles Keating took investors money as well as hard working American's money and used it for his own personal gain. He gave his friends loans and made high risk loans. Do they remember how McCains own wife benefited from the fleecing of the American Taxpayers. McCain's wife made over 10 million off of a 400,000 investment. McCain took gifts and money from Keating and he along with 4 Congressmen diverted the FBI's investigation. McCain was slapped on the wrist and the Lincoln Savings and Loan Scandel cost the American Taxpayers almost 300 billion dollars. And just like before we are bailing out his wealthy friends who like to gamble with the lives of hard working Americans. I wonder how much his wife made off of this Bailout.

But instead of looking at the issues of the Taxpayers, they continued to push for deregulation. Deregulation allows big companies to benefit of high risk loans while Americans can continue to be robbed and cheated without repercussion. Phil Gramm the father of the Deregulation Bill and McCain carried on the Deregulation Bandwangon. Gramm, McCain and the Rupublican allowed the deregulation laws to be written. They saw what it did to the "American Joe Sixpack", we lost jobs and homes and were in a deep economic crisis. But I guess he feels no harm to their friends and no gain for the average american.

So if McCain went to rally his troops because he the Maverick, why didn't the Republicans sign the Bailout Bill without the added perks. Who will actually benefit from these newly inserted crap. Will it actually be the Average Joe Sixpack, because we are the ones losing our jobs and homes. We are the ones who are are praying the price of gas does not go up.

If the Republicans were so concerned about the Average American Citizen, then why do we have to go thru another Lincoln Savings and Loan Bailout. Where were you Rebublicans?

Posted by: free2beme2121 | October 5, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

When A reporter brought up Keating 5 recently Mccain just blew it off saying it was a long time ago and he doesn't live in the past. He never attempted to defend himself. He just likes to either lie or change the subject. It is worth bring up though and make him have to defend himself.


--------------
I hope the republicans loose their seats. The country was better off with Bill Clinton a Democrat in the Oval Office. The republicans are on the wrong side of everything. Its the Republicans like Mccain who wanted this deregulation and called himself the "Deregulator", Its obvious Mccain has gotten what he wanted but its leaving a 800 Billion dollar burden on the American tax payers. We lost a trillion dollars because again the republicans couldn't get their act together because they wanted to include pork, and less regulation in the bill. This is ridiculous. Now Mccain has a new strategy to bring up associations of Obama as if his association with Charles Keaten isn't a issue. Its even worst because it involved another Bailout on the Loans and Savings inwhich Mccains good friend Charles Keaten was the Ceo. Mccain pressed regulators to for Charles Keaten. Doesn't that sound like whats has happening now? So Mccain has some nerve trying to demonize Obama when he has worst skeltons in his closet which has enabled the biggest federal bailout in history. When is the media and pundits going to talk about that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAzDEbVFcg8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TM2OYd1hBc

Posted by: amosdefnails | October 5, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: popasmoke | October 5, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse


TARGETING OF AMERICANS BY GOV'T AGENCIES
A ROOT CAUSE OF WALL STREET MELTDOWN

Too Bad. Thats my answer to the conservatives who believes it should be less government involvement. Less Regulation, etc. The reason I say, Too Bad and who cares, is they have been in power for 8 years. The republicans has had it their way for the past 8 years, less government, less regulation, more tax cuts for the rich and LOOK WHERE OUR COUNTRY IS NOW. WE DON'T TRUST REPUBLICAN RULE ANYMORE. THEY HAVE DESTROYED THE ECONOMY SO WHO CARES ABOUT THEIR PHILOSOPY ANYMORE. THEY MISMANAGED THE ECONOMY. BILL CLINTON HANDED THIS ECONOMY OVER TO BUSH WITH A SURPLUS, NO WAR, CREATED MORE JOBS, INCOME LEVELS RISED AND IT HAS BEEN THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE UNDER GEORGE W. BUSH AND MCCAIN WHO VOTED WITH HIM 95% OF THE TIME. Conservatives should be worried about what went wrong when their was less government, tax credits, less jobs, inflations, and regulation. Find out what went wrong when they had it their way before they ask for them again.

Posted by: amosdefnails | October 5, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

I hope the republicans loose their seats. The country was better off with Bill Clinton a Democrat in the Oval Office. The republicans are on the wrong side of everything. Its the Republicans like Mccain who wanted this deregulation and called himself the "Deregulator", Its obvious Mccain has gotten what he wanted but its leaving a 800 Billion dollar burden on the American tax payers. We lost a trillion dollars because again the republicans couldn't get their act together because they wanted to include pork, and less regulation in the bill. This is ridiculous. Now Mccain has a new strategy to bring up associations of Obama as if his association with Charles Keaten isn't a issue. Its even worst because it involved another Bailout on the Loans and Savings inwhich Mccains good friend Charles Keaten was the Ceo. Mccain pressed regulators to for Charles Keaten. Doesn't that sound like whats has happening now? So Mccain has some nerve trying to demonize Obama when he has worst skeltons in his closet which has enabled the biggest federal bailout in history. When is the media and pundits going to talk about that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAzDEbVFcg8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TM2OYd1hBc

Posted by: amosdefnails | October 5, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

HOW CAN THEY COME UP WITH A 'SOLUTION'
WHEN THEY DON'T YET KNOW THE CAUSE?

TARGETING OF AMERICANS BY GOV'T AGENCIES
A ROOT CAUSE OF WALL STREET MELTDOWN?

Once again, Congress rushed through emergency legislation -- socializing the capital markets, ceding effective control of the economy to the government.

Officials continue to blame lax lending policies on the part of the mortgage industry for spawning this crisis.

But were lenders ORDERED to offer "easy credit" to people "targeted" by government agencies?

Is government "extra-judicial targeting" of American citizens a root cause of the mortgage meltdown that spawned the broader financial crisis?

And is there a disinformation campaign underway to blame the Democrats, instead of ideologues who have hijacked federal agencies as their tool of "social engineering"?

Consider this:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/targeting-u-s-citizens-govt-agencies-root-cause-wall-street-financial-crisis OR
http://members.nowpublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | October 5, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA GOES TO WAR AGAINST FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Site:
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200809292079/edi...

We CAN NO LONGER AFFORD to continue to travel on the path of the Democratic and Republican 'push forward' into the destruction of our Constitution and Sovereignty as a nation and elect politicians such as Obama and McCain to ANY office of government were they can continue to make laws against us and REFUSE to listen to our voice.

We MUST look into 3rd Party Presidential Candidates such as REP. CHUCK BALDWIN - endorsed by Ron Paul. He is the ONLY candidate that promises to defend and protect our Constitution and our Sovereignty!

IT IS OUR TURN TO STAND UP FOR OUR REPUBLIC AND MAKE A REAL CHANGE HAPPEN - VOTING AGAINST DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN RULE IS THE BEGINNING!

Posted by: cingi | October 5, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

The most revealing thing in that and all the polls is, John Mccain has flat lined. He has had no real movement in a while. Historically the longer numbers stay the same they begin harden. People have stopped bouncing around and made up their minds. It appears now Mccain can not ever pass 50 no matter what happens. His biggest moments have not really moved him. His supporters will still support him but he has nowhere to find more. Independents are moving to Obama and Obama's supporters would not vote for Mccain if you held a gun on them. Mccain will also lose some to Nader and Barr.

---------
Saturday's Gallup tracking poll revealed two big numbers for Obama. Obama hit 50% in the tracking poll and took an 8% lead over McCain. This isn't the first time that Obama has hit the 50% mark, and it isn't the first time he has held a lead of 8%; but now we are in the last month of the campaign and numbers like these in October usually mean electoral success in November.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 5, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: popasmoke | October 5, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

The structure can still be put in place even though it is not yet funded. That is the most important part, getting started. He will do it, I have met Obama numerous times and Health care is one of his most important issues. It will absolutely happen is some form even if not as he would like to. There are a lot of things that need to be done and there are certainly priorities and health care is one of them. Hundreds of thousands die every year. It is a social holocaust that can not be allowed to continue.

========
Now that we’ve committed $750 Billion to the Bailout, Obama’s Health Plan proposal for insuring 47 Million Americans with public funding is as obsolete as a recipe for Roast Dodo and as meaningful as an Edict from the Commisioner of the More Taste League.

Posted by: thecannula | October 5, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: popasmoke | October 5, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Saturday's Gallup tracking poll revealed two big numbers for Obama. Obama hit 50% in the tracking poll and took an 8% lead over McCain. This isn't the first time that Obama has hit the 50% mark, and it isn't the first time he has held a lead of 8%; but now we are in the last month of the campaign and numbers like these in October usually mean electoral success in November.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 5, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Now that we’ve committed $750 Billion to the Bailout, Obama’s Health Plan proposal for insuring 47 Million Americans with public funding is as obsolete as a recipe for Roast Dodo and as meaningful as an Edict from the Commisioner of the More Taste League.

Posted by: thecannula | October 5, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Although they do some real polls, Zogby is a polling company you hire when you want a predetermined result. They do on line polls and depending where they place the poll they can get what ever result they want. If they want a poll that says smoking is is not bad just place a poll on a site that sell cigars etc. By the way, if you think polls don't count. Mccain has pulled out of Michigan. This important decision was based on polls. Polls can also become self-fulfilling-prophesies. As they swing to Obama it can cascade as Mccain people just give up. Who wants to go out and knock on doors or make calls when it looks like it is a waste of time and then things get even worse. Mccain is sending signals to his supporter whether he knows it or not, they are desperate. Desperate does not inspire. You will see no comebacks by Mccain it is pretty much over. Having said that, I am heading out in 30 minutes to a bar-B-que rally to register new voters. "It's not over till it is over". What we have done in Florida may be the winning chip. I am pretty proud of what my wife, myself and thousands of other have accomplished in Florida.
By the way, what have you really done, "FOR REAL" for your candidate to help? Just writing nasty things on blogs doesn't help much.

----------------
"WHILE THE FLAMIN LIBERALS WOULD LIKE TO WRAP THIS UP AND THINK THEIR EMPTY SUIT HAS WON PLEASE LOOK AT THE MOST ACCURATE POLL ... THE ZOGBY POLL SHOWS A MERE 4 PONT LEAD HERE IS THE LATEST POSTING
The Horserace
10-2/3
9-26/27

Obama/Biden
48.4%
47.1%

McCain/Palin
43.8%
45.9%

Other/Not sure
7.8%
7.0%"
Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 5, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: popasmoke | October 5, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Are you nuts? Castro did a military take over of a small government. Cuba is a place where there are no guns and the military runs the country. Funny sort of like Mccain believes. Mccain seems to forget we are a democratic government, governed by the people, not a military government. Right now the people want out of Iraq and Mccain could care less. Reminds me of Cheney a few months ago when asked "The American people do not agree with the war? Cheneys answer "SO, We can't be blown off course by what the american people think". Watch this youtube clip. Save it and watch it everyday. It should scare the heck out of you what our government has become and where it can possability go. John Mccain has even more radical views.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh8E0QPGARw


=======
A message I wish to share from an old wise man " Man years ago a young politician campaigned on the promise of change in education, and healthcare, and pay equity. His message was intoxicating and when he came into power he made changes. We never asked what the changes would be, but now we know. The place is Cuba." I was shocked by his warning of socialism and wanted to share. Especially now that Bloomberg is going to change term limits in NYC to clear the challenge for the president.

Posted by: palmisanoarch | October 5, 2008 8:20 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: popasmoke | October 5, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Thank you for the poll numbers from Uranus.

However, here on Planet Earth it's O up by 12 (DailyKos, 10/5/08) and ahead in every battleground state, including VA, NC, OH, MI, PA, and FL, with MO a toss-up (see RealClearPolitics.com). In electoral (no-toss-up) polling, O is at 353.
_____
Earlier post:

"WHILE THE FLAMIN LIBERALS WOULD LIKE TO WRAP THIS UP AND THINK THEIR EMPTY SUIT HAS WON PLEASE LOOK AT THE MOST ACCURATE POLL ... THE ZOGBY POLL SHOWS A MERE 4 PONT LEAD HERE IS THE LATEST POSTING
The Horserace
10-2/3
9-26/27

Obama/Biden
48.4%
47.1%

McCain/Palin
43.8%
45.9%

Other/Not sure
7.8%
7.0%"

Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 5, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Just saw the Tina Fey impression of Palin on YouTube. Incredible, dead-on performance. I thought Frank Calliendo as John Madden was fantastic but Fey takes it to a new level. The funniest thing I've seen since that movie "You're in the Navy" where Lou Costello puts his head down a cannon at the end of the film and the cannon goes off.

Big winners this week: Katie ("What newspapers do you read?" -- who knew that was to be a brain buster question?) Couric, Tina Fey, with an honorable mention to Queen Latifah as the clueless Gwen Awf-, er, Ifill.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 5, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

response to: (arwah | October 5, 2008 1:03 AM)

You're a little bit funny there, arwah.

First of all, it must suck being you.

Secondly, isn't it time to move out of your Momma's basement and get a real job-- instead of trolling for the RNC?

The presidential race will be closer than the polls show, because as we all know, Republican bigots such as yourself don't like to admit via polls that they're racists. I can't say 100% that Obama will win - anything could happen in a month. That said, I read a fascinating article in the Baltimore Sun today. The ratio in Maryland has steadily been 2:1 - Dem/Repub. However, the number of newly registered voters and particularly youngsters - has skyrocketed. McCain has a one in a million chance to win Maryland. But if Obama has created that much excitement in Maryland - a "true blue" state - it could be enough to tip the scales in Battleground states and Red States. Bottom line is that I disagree with the pundits - I don't expect the election to break either way before November 4th. It'll probably go down to the wire. Probably not a tie, but close to it. McCain is a scrapper and I don't leave anything to chance after RepubTards cheated in Y2K and Y2K4.

Posted by: con_crusher | October 5, 2008 8:25 AM | Report abuse

A message I wish to share from an old wise man " Man years ago a young politician campaigned on the promise of change in education, and healthcare, and pay equity. His message was intoxicating and when he came into power he made changes. We never asked what the changes would be, but now we know. The place is Cuba." I was shocked by his warning of socialism and wanted to share. Especially now that Bloomberg is going to change term limits in NYC to clear the challenge for the president.

Posted by: palmisanoarch | October 5, 2008 8:20 AM | Report abuse

It's not a matter of changing the subject, as if it were small talk in someone's living room. The economy is THE issue right now. The Iraq war has cost 1 TRILLION dollars--the Iraq economy is growing at 8%, while America's is growing at a mere 1-2%. Jobs are shipped south of the border and overseas. Manufacturing jobs in South America. Call center jobs in India and the Philippines. Inferior-quality products from China. With all of McCain's talk of "country first," both parties have put special interests first, selling America to the highest bidder. A conservative wingnut Australian bought the Wall Street Journal. Some fruity Belgian company bought Anheuser-Busch. What's next? Microsoft? Coke? McDonalds? In all the rankings that really count, America has fallen behind Europe. Instead of building democracy in America, Republican cockroaches are only concerned about lining their own pockets. Even the illegal immigration issue is phoney - if all the illegals were deported today, the American economy would collapse. The bottom line is that Repubs won't be able to change the topic - the economy is THE topic because it has to be fixed. Somethings gotta give, or harder times are ahead.

Posted by: con_crusher | October 5, 2008 8:13 AM | Report abuse

To vote effectively, you need to understand that this is not a Democrat or Republican issue. There are Liberals and Conservatives in each party and they are divided between big business and social issues. The Liberal business folks from both parties are to blame for the crisis, and they are primarily but not exclusively Republican. They are the big machine behind moderate McCain. In fact, both candidates are moderate despite the trolls. Greenspan served under Reagan, both Bushes, and Clinton. Clinton was a paradox being a Liberal in both social and big business camps. Greenspan was a big business Liberal and a Republican.

This is the big problem with ideology, it affects every decision such a the decision to allow only big banks to leverage to the sky and self-regulate, without checking that it was not damaging. Ideology clouds thinking.

Liberal Democrats believe in social activism where money is pumped from the Government to the poor to get them out of the rut. Conservative Conservatives believe the opposite, money trickles down and by perseverance and values you pull yourself up.

The Moderates from both parties just try and get along financially but still differ a bit on social issues.

The hard nosed Conservative Republicans that revel when yet another irresponsible person loses their home, will find that attitude to be hazardous when police budgets are cut, taxes increase, and increasing numbers of criminals that will kill for beer money stalk the streets like vampires after dark. In FL they tell you to lock your car doors when you get gas. There is grave danger socially in a contracting economy when for years we have been trained to be frivolous consumers in debt up to our eyeballs. The Liberal Republicans cram credit cards and advertising down your throat and say act responsibly but keep borrowing and spending. Democrats, even Liberals, are balanced budget people.

If you want to break the hold of financial Liberals on the country, you only have one choice for your vote for President. You will need to do your research on the Congress.

As far as the recession, we may be simply rightsizing. Don't expect 20 year old bartenders originating sub-prime mortgages on every street corner anytime soon. And for those cheering bankruptcy, wait until the companies holding your pensions, annuities and retirement accounts go bankrupt, you might look at the bailout differently. A rising stock market doesn't help if you have lost everything.

Posted by: Beacon2 | October 5, 2008 7:40 AM | Report abuse

To vote effectively, you need to understand that this is not a Democrat or Republican issue. There are Liberals and Conservatives in each party and they are divided between big business and social issues. The Liberal business folks from both parties are to blame for the crisis, and they are primarily but not exclusively Republican. They are the big machine behind moderate McCain. In fact, both candidates are moderate despite the trolls. Greenspan served under Reagan, both Bushes, and Clinton. Clinton was a paradox being a Liberal in both social and big business camps. Greenspan was a big business Liberal and a Republican.

This is the big problem with ideology, it affects every decision such a the decision to allow only big banks to leverage to the sky and self-regulate, without checking that it was not damaging. Ideology clouds thinking.

Liberal Democrats believe in social activism where money is pumped from the Government to the poor to get them out of the rut. Conservative Conservatives believe the opposite, money trickles down and by perseverance and values you pull yourself up.

The Moderates from both parties just try and get along financially but still differ a bit on social issues.

The hard nosed Conservative Republicans that revel when yet another irresponsible person loses their home, will find that attitude to be hazardous when police budgets are cut, taxes increase, and increasing numbers of criminals that will kill for beer money stalk the streets like vampires after dark. In FL they tell you to lock your car doors when you get gas. There is grave danger socially in a contracting economy when for years we have been trained to be frivolous consumers in debt up to our eyeballs. The Liberal Republicans cram credit cards and advertising down your throat and say act responsibly but keep borrowing and spending. Democrats, even Liberals, are balanced budget people.

If you want to break the hold of financial Liberals on the country, you only have one choice for your vote for President. You will need to do your research on the Congress.

As far as the recession, we may be simply rightsizing. Don't expect 20 year old bartenders originating sub-prime mortgages on every street corner anytime soon. And for those cheering bankruptcy, wait until the companies holding your pensions, annuities and retirement accounts go bankrupt, you might look at the bailout differently. A rising stock market doesn't help if you have lost everything.

Posted by: Beacon2 | October 5, 2008 7:40 AM | Report abuse

Elizabeth61

Please write-in my name.

.

Posted by: 37thandOStreet | October 5, 2008 3:58 AM | Report abuse

gatorsn09


Obama voted for it too.

/

Posted by: 37thandOStreet | October 5, 2008 3:54 AM | Report abuse

"WHILE THE FLAMIN LIBERALS WOULD LIKE TO WRAP THIS UP AND THINK THEIR EMPTY SUIT HAS WON PLEASE LOOK AT THE MOST ACCURATE POLL ... THE ZOGBY POLL SHOWS A MERE 4 PONT LEAD HERE IS THE LATEST POSTING"

Unfortunately for you, the flamin liberals aren't taking anything for granted. The offices are still at full gear cranking out all the voters they can get. The staffers are organizing with every last bit of strength and the volunteers are just blanketing the swing states.

I know people who are in deep red states who are fully committed to turning their states blue. McCain, instead thinks that his money is better spent on ads on sex education.

Some good staffers or some nasty ads? I think I know what I would take.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 5, 2008 2:01 AM | Report abuse

Phoenix11, that was a superb link and I repost it for convenience.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/who_caused_the_economic_crisis.html

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 5, 2008 1:16 AM | Report abuse

WHILE THE FLAMIN LIBERALS WOULD LIKE TO WRAP THIS UP AND THINK THEIR EMPTY SUIT HAS WON PLEASE LOOK AT THE MOST ACCURATE POLL ... THE ZOGBY POLL SHOWS A MERE 4 PONT LEAD HERE IS THE LATEST POSTING
The Horserace
10-2/3
9-26/27

Obama/Biden
48.4%
47.1%

McCain/Palin
43.8%
45.9%

Other/Not sure
7.8%
7.0%

The poll shows Obama with a slight lead among political independents, 43% to 41%, which accounts for Obama's overall lead, which is statistically insignificant. Polling this year shows that, with such large percentages of Democrats and Republicans supporting their own candidate, the independents may well make the difference in the election. In this latest survey, Obama wins 88% support from Democrats, and McCain wins 87% support from Republicans.

In a key age demographic, those age 35-64, Obama enjoys a 50% to 44% advantage. This group of voters is important because, in addition to being the largest group, it is one that at once wrestles with many of the challenges facing the average American household. Among men, McCain leads by a five-point margin, 48% to 43%, while Obama leads by 14 points among women.

The online survey, conducted Oct. 2-3, 2008, included 2,873 likely

IF THAT IS THE BEST OBAMA CAN DO WHEN ALL THE STARS ARE ALLIGNED FOR HIM I WOULD NOT POP THE CHAMPAIGN BOTTLES YET...

MAYBE THE POST NEEDS TO FOCUSS ON TELLING THE NEWS AND NOT MISLEAD THE PUBLIC WITH THEIR BIASED STORIES.

Posted by: arwah | October 5, 2008 1:03 AM | Report abuse

gatorsn09>
The rush is on because it is less than a month to election day. Similar to marketing strategies, politicians hire election stategists who know how to play the charade and equally know how the American mind thinks. American has one among many intersting psychologies... we LOVE to be irked, love a good fight, for some masochistic purpose also love to set ourselves up to be deliberately offended, so we can have good reason to be righteously indignant...... funny.... a demise at our own hands! We just can't leave it alone to the extent that the original issue is soon forgotten, and we move on to another outrage of some sort.
Ten round is never enough. Nine innings is far too short a ballgame, and instant replays (whether in football OR politics) just never seems to quench our desire to be just that... OUTRAGED again!

Posted by: Protus | October 5, 2008 12:55 AM | Report abuse

Think wisely before you sell McCain short. What you will get in return for your vote is a black man that you will be stuck with for 8 years...his greed will make him use up all 8 years. It will be too late by then.

Obama does not care a fig for whites. Michelle has already held a rally to help those Tuskeegee black men who were involved in a study for "SYPHILIS"....

Some of the negative remarks are probably made by the homeless laying around on the street that Obama's campaign have rounded up to vote for him.

Posted by: WISEOWL1 | October 5, 2008 12:51 AM | Report abuse

No matter the genesis of the meltdown, the Bush administration owns it. They had six years of control of both houses of Congress and the Whitehouse. One of the admirable traits of the administration has been the way they imposed their will on every aspect of government, from ignoring or repealing environmental laws, to "signing statements," to regulating corporate statements (for about a year) post ENRON, to selling a misbegotten invasion of a sovereign country, to eavesdropping on our formerly private communication to-you name it. Had they wanted to do something to prevent the financial meltdown or 9/11 they had the muscle but not the desire. That spells ownership in anybody's book. Whose watch was it on?

Posted by: wchr | October 5, 2008 12:49 AM | Report abuse

I live in SW Florida, i'm not voting for any Republican who voted yes on the $700 Billion gift to the wealthy. Bush says it will take months for it to start to work, why did Congress rush it through so fast ?

Posted by: gatorsn09 | October 5, 2008 12:34 AM | Report abuse

There is a great deal of disagreement on here about who is to blame for the financial mess. Factcheck.org put up a new entry on this topic today. Might be a good place to go to check out the who's and what's behind this.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/who_caused_the_economic_crisis.html

Posted by: phoenix11 | October 4, 2008 11:37 PM | Report abuse

Thank you whatbull, as a Hoosier . I am counting on our fine young people to fix what a lot of old people did in the last two elections. I am putting my faith in the youth! Old white women from Indiana ,Connie

Posted by: grams1944 | October 4, 2008 11:26 PM | Report abuse

apparently there is some relationship between hr 3221 and pubic law 110 the energy bill signed in 2007. Maybe don jasper you can make some legislative sense of its timing since Aspergirl is so incensed that a D Congress could actually have passed legislation to try and do something about the mtg crisis merely months after taking control over Congess.

http://themortgagecorner.blogspot.com/2008/08/hr-3221-foreclosure-prevention-act-of.html

Posted by: leichtman | October 4, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse


JOHN MCCAIN LEADER OR LOOSE CANON
YOU BE THE JUDGE.

WASHINGTON — Senator John McCain arrived late at his Senate office on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just after the first plane hit the World Trade Center. “This is war,” he murmured to his aides. The sound of scrambling fighter planes rattled the windows, sending a tremor of panic through the room.


Erik Jacobs for The New York Times
John McCain said he had consulted Henry A. Kissinger on foreign policy before and after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Within hours, Mr. McCain, the Vietnam War hero and famed straight talker of the 2000 Republican primary, had taken on a new role: the leading advocate of taking the American retaliation against Al Qaeda far beyond Afghanistan. In a marathon of television and radio appearances, Mr. McCain recited a short list of other countries said to support terrorism, invariably including Iraq, Iran and Syria.

“There is a system out there or network, and that network is going to have to be attacked,” Mr. McCain said the next morning on ABC News. “It isn’t just Afghanistan,” he added, on MSNBC. “I don’t think if you got bin Laden tomorrow that the threat has disappeared,” he said on CBS, pointing toward other countries in the Middle East.

Within a month he made clear his priority. “Very obviously Iraq is the first country,” he declared on CNN. By Jan. 2, Mr. McCain was on the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt in the Arabian Sea, yelling to a crowd of sailors and airmen: “Next up, Baghdad!”

Now, as Mr. McCain prepares to accept the Republican presidential nomination, his response to the attacks of Sept. 11 opens a window onto how he might approach the gravest responsibilities of a potential commander in chief. Like many, he immediately recalibrated his assessment of the unseen risks to America’s security. But he also began to suggest that he saw a new “opportunity” to deter other potential foes by punishing not only Al Qaeda but also Iraq.

“Just as Sept. 11 revolutionized our resolve to defeat our enemies, so has it brought into focus the opportunities we now have to secure and expand our freedom,” Mr. McCain told a NATO conference in Munich in early 2002, urging the Europeans to join what he portrayed as an all but certain assault on Saddam Hussein. “A better world is already emerging from the rubble.”

To his admirers, Mr. McCain’s tough response to Sept. 11 is at the heart of his appeal. They argue that he displayed the same decisiveness again last week in his swift calls to penalize Russia for its incursion into Georgia, in part by sending peacekeepers to police its border.

His critics charge that the emotion of Sept. 11 overwhelmed his former cool-eyed caution about deploying American troops without a clear national interest and a well-defined exit, turning him into a tool of the Bush administration in its push for a war to transform the region.

“He has the personality of a fighter pilot: when somebody stings you, you want to strike out,” said retired Gen. John H. Johns, a former friend and supporter of Mr. McCain who turned against him over the Iraq war. “Just like the American people, his reaction was: show me somebody to hit.”

Whether through ideology or instinct, though, Mr. McCain began making his case for invading Iraq to the public more than six months before the White House began to do the same. He drew on principles he learned growing up in a military family and on conclusions he formed as a prisoner in North Vietnam. He also returned to a conviction about “the common identity” of dangerous autocracies as far-flung as Serbia and North Korea that he had developed consulting with hawkish foreign policy thinkers to help sharpen the themes of his 2000 presidential campaign.

While pushing to take on Saddam Hussein, Mr. McCain also made arguments and statements that he may no longer wish to recall. He lauded the war planners he would later criticize, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney. (Mr. McCain even volunteered that he would have given the same job to Mr. Cheney.) He urged support for the later-discredited Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi’s opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress, and echoed some of its suspect accusations in the national media. And he advanced misleading assertions not only about Mr. Hussein’s supposed weapons programs but also about his possible ties to international terrorists, Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 attacks.

Five years after the invasion of Iraq, Mr. McCain’s supporters note that he became an early critic of the administration’s execution of the occupation, and they credit him with pushing the troop “surge” that helped bring stability. Mr. McCain, though, stands by his support for the war and expresses no regrets about his advocacy.

In written answers to questions, he blamed “Iraq’s opacity under Saddam” for any misleading remarks he made about the peril it posed.

The Sept. 11 attacks “demonstrated the grave threat posed by a hostile regime, possessing weapons of mass destruction, and with reported ties to terrorists,” Mr. McCain wrote in an e-mail message on Friday. Given Mr. Hussein’s history of pursuing illegal weapons and his avowed hostility to the United States, “his regime posed a threat we had to take seriously.” The attacks were still a reminder, Mr. McCain added, of the importance of international action “to prevent outlaw states — like Iran today — from developing weapons of mass destruction.”

Formative Years

Mr. McCain has been debating questions about the use of military force far longer than most. He grew up in a family that had sent a son to every American war since 1776, and international relations were a staple of the McCain family dinner table. Mr. McCain grew up listening to his father, Adm. John S. McCain Jr., deliver lectures on “The Four Ocean Navy and the Soviet Threat,” closing with a slide of an image he considered the ultimate factor in the balance of power: a soldier marching through a rice paddy with a rifle at his shoulder.

“To quote Sherman, war is all hell and we need to fight it out and get it over with and that is when the killing stops,” recalled Joe McCain, Senator McCain’s younger brother.

Vietnam, for Senator McCain, reinforced those lessons. He has often said he blamed the Johnson administration’s pause in bombing for prolonging the war, and he credited President Richard M. Nixon’s renewed attacks with securing his release from a North Vietnamese prison. He has made the principle that the exercise of military power sets the bargaining table for international relations a consistent theme of his career ever since, and in his 2002 memoir he wrote that one of his lifelong convictions was “the imperative that American power never retreat in response to an inferior adversary’s provocation.”


But Mr. McCain also took away from Vietnam a second, restraining lesson: the necessity for broad domestic support for any military action. For years he opposed a string of interventions — in Lebanon, Haiti, Somalia, and, for a time, the Balkans — on the grounds that the public would balk at the loss of life without clear national interests. “The Vietnam thing,” he recently said.

In the late 1990s, however, while he was beginning to consider his 2000 presidential race, he started rebalancing his view of the needs to project American strength and to sustain public support. The 1995 massacre of 5,000 unarmed Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica under NATO’s watch struck at his conscience, he has said, and in addition to America’s strategic national interests — in that case, the future and credibility of NATO — Mr. McCain began to speak more expansively about America’s moral obligations as the only remaining superpower.

His aides say he later described the American air strikes in Bosnia in 1996 and in Kosovo in 1999 as a parable of political leadership: Mr. McCain, Senator Bob Dole and others had rallied Congressional support for the strikes despite widespread public opposition, then watched approval soar after the intervention helped to bring peace.

“Americans elect their leaders to make these kinds of judgments,” Mr. McCain said in the e-mail message.

It was during the Balkan wars that Mr. McCain and his advisers read a 1997 article on the Wall Street Journal editorial page by William Kristol and David Brooks of The Weekly Standard — both now Op-Ed page columnists at The New York Times — promoting the idea of “national greatness” conservatism, defined by a more activist agenda at home and a more muscular role in the world.

“I wouldn’t call it a ‘eureka’ moment, but there was a sense that this is where we are headed and this is what we are trying to articulate and they have already done a lot of the work,” said John Weaver, a former McCain political adviser. “And, quite frankly, from a crass political point of view, we were in the making-friends business. The Weekly Standard represented a part of the primary electorate that we could get.”

Soon Mr. McCain and his aides were consulting regularly with the circle of hawkish foreign policy thinkers sometimes referred to as neoconservatives — including Mr. Kristol, Robert Kagan and Randy Scheunemann, a former aide to Mr. Dole who became a McCain campaign adviser — to develop the senator’s foreign policy ideas and instincts into the broad themes of a presidential campaign. (In his e-mail message, Mr. McCain noted that he had also consulted with friends like Henry A. Kissinger, known for a narrower view of American interests.)

One result was a series of speeches in which Mr. McCain called for “rogue state rollback.” He argued that disparate regional troublemakers, including Iraq, North Korea and Serbia, bore a common stamp: they were all autocracies. And as such, he contended, they were more likely to export terrorism, spread dangerous weapons, or start ethnic conflicts. In an early outline of what would become his initial response to the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. McCain argued that “swift and sure” retribution against any one of the rogue states was an essential deterrent to any of the others. But Mr. McCain’s advisers and aides say his “rogue state” speeches stopped short of the most sweeping international agenda put forth by Mr. Kristol, Mr. Kagan and their allies. Mr. McCain explicitly disavowed direct military action merely to advance American values, foreswearing any “global crusade” of interventions in favor of relying on covert and financial support for internal opposition groups.

As an example, he could point to his 1998 sponsorship of the Iraqi Liberation Act, which sought to direct nearly $100 million to Iraqis who hoped to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The bill, signed by President Bill Clinton, also endorsed the ouster of Mr. Hussein.

Mr. McCain said then that he doubted the United States could muster the political will to use ground troops to remove the Iraqi dictator any time soon. “It was much easier when Saddam Hussein was occupying Kuwait and threatening Saudi Arabia,” the senator told Fox News in November 1998. “We’d have to convince the American people that it’s worth again the sacrifice of American lives, because that would also be part of the price.”

Hard Calls

Mr. McCain spent the afternoon of Sept. 11 in a young aide’s studio apartment near the Capitol. There was no cable television, nothing but water in the kitchen, and the hallway reminded him of an old boxing gym. Evacuated from his office but stranded by traffic, he could not resist imagining himself at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. “There are not enough Secret Service agents in the world to keep me away from Washington and New York at a time like this,” Mr. McCain told an adviser.


Over the next days and weeks, however, Mr. McCain became almost as visible as he would have been as president. Broadcasters rushed to him as a patriotic icon and reassuring voice, and for weeks he was ubiquitous on the morning news programs, Sunday talk shows, cable news networks, and even late-night comedy shows.

In the spotlight, he pushed rogue state rollback one step further, arguing that the United States should go on the offensive as a warning to any other country that might condone such an attack. “These networks are well-embedded in some of these countries,” Mr. McCain said on Sept. 12, listing Iraq, Iran and Syria as potential targets of United States pressure. “We’re going to have to prove to them that we are very serious, and the price that they will pay will not only be for punishment but also deterrence.”

Although he had campaigned for President Bush during the 2000 general election, he was still largely frozen out of the White House because of animosities left over from the Republican primary. But after Mr. Bush declared he would hold responsible any country condoning terrorism, Mr. McCain called his leadership “magnificent” and his national security team the strongest “that has ever been assembled.” A few weeks later, Larry King of CNN asked whether he would have named Mr. Rumsfeld and Colin L. Powell to a McCain cabinet. “Oh, yes, and Cheney,” Mr. McCain answered, saying he, too, would have offered Mr. Cheney the vice presidency.

Even during the heat of the war in Afghanistan, Mr. McCain kept an eye on Iraq. To Jay Leno in mid-September, Mr. McCain said he believed “some other countries” had assisted Osama bin Laden, going on to suggest Iraq, Syria and Iran as potential suspects. In October 2001, when an Op-Ed page column in The New York Times speculated that Iraq, Russia or some other country might bear responsibility for that month’s anthrax mailings, Mr. McCain interrupted a question about Afghanistan from David Letterman on that night’s “Late Show.” “The second phase is Iraq,” Mr. McCain said, adding, “Some of this anthrax may — and I emphasize may — have come from Iraq.” (The Federal Bureau of Investigation says it came from a federal government laboratory in Maryland.) By October, United States and foreign intelligence agencies had said publicly that they doubted any cooperation between Mr. Hussein and Al Qaeda, noting Al Qaeda’s opposition to such secular nationalists. American intelligence officials soon declared that Mr. Hussein had not supported international terrorism for nearly a decade.

But when the Czech government said that before the attacks, one of the 9/11 hijackers had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence official, Mr. McCain seized the report as something close to a smoking gun. “The evidence is very clear,” he said three days later, in an Oct. 29 television interview. (Intelligence agencies quickly cast doubt on the meeting.)

Frustrated by the dearth of American intelligence about Iraq, Mr. McCain’s aides say, he had long sought to learn as much as he could from Iraqi opposition figures in exile, including Mr. Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress. Over the years, Mr. McCain often urged support for the group, saying it had “significant support, in my view, inside Iraq.”

After Sept. 11, Mr. Chalabi’s group said an Iraqi emissary had once met with Osama bin Laden, and brought forward two Iraqi defectors who described terrorist training camps and biological weapons efforts. At times, Mr. McCain seemed to echo their accusations, citing the “two defectors” in a television interview and attesting to “credible reports of involvement between Iraqi administration officials, Iraqi officials and the terrorists.”

Growing Impatient

But United States intelligence officials had doubts about Mr. Chalabi at the time and have since discredited his group. In 2006, Mr. McCain acknowledged to The New Republic that he had been “too enamored with the I.N.C.” In his e-mail message, though, he said he never relied on the group for information about Iraq’s weapons program.

At a European security conference in February 2002, when the Bush administration still publicly maintained that it had made no decision about moving against Iraq, Mr. McCain described an invasion as all but certain. “A terrorist resides in Baghdad,” he said, adding, “A day of reckoning is approaching.”

Regime change in Iraq in addition to Afghanistan, he argued, would compel other sponsors of terrorism to mend their ways, “accomplishing by example what we would otherwise have to pursue through force of arms.”

Finally, as American troops massed in the Persian Gulf in early 2003, Mr. McCain grew impatient, his aides say, concerned that the White House was failing to act as the hot desert summer neared. Waiting, he warned in a speech in Washington, risked squandering the public and international support aroused by Sept. 11. “Does anyone really believe that the world’s will to contain Saddam won’t eventually collapse as utterly as it did in the 1990s?” Mr. McCain asked.

In retrospect, some of Mr. McCain’s critics now accuse him of looking for a pretext to justify the war. “McCain was hell-bent for leather: ‘Saddam Hussein is a bad guy, we have got to teach him, let’s send a message to the other people in the Middle East,’ ” said Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts.

But Mr. McCain, in his e-mail message, said the reason he had supported the war was the evolving threat from Mr. Hussein.

“I believe voters elect their leaders based on their experience and judgment — their ability to make hard calls, for instance, on matters of war and peace,” he wrote. “It’s important to get them right.”

Posted by: popasmoke | October 4, 2008 11:03 PM | Report abuse

America is not in any "fix", we are merely receiving what we deserve, what we have earned, collectively.

If you have maxed out credit cards, own partial title on a 2 or three year old gas guzzler, and have a mortgage on a home you would not be able to pay off even if you live to be 90, you were an instrumental part of this "tragedy of the commons".

The people still rule this country. Here is hoping they wake up, take personal responsibility, and get to work fixing it, one family budget at a time.
It begins at home, and requires a village with a vision.

Go Team America!

Posted by: stmc | October 4, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans deserve to lose because they have nothing to offer.

Posted by: paulnolan97 | October 4, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

"On 31 July 2007, after the Democrats obtained control of the Congress in the November 2006 election, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced HR 3221, a "bill to provide needed housing reform and for other purposes." Among other things, the bill granted the newly formed Federal Housing Finance Agency "supervisory and regulatory authority over Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the federal home loan banks (enterprises)" (per CRS analysis)

you are right that public law 110 I referenced was energy legislation an error on my part. My point was that Pelosi actually passed legislation on the mtg crisis that was signed into law against strident R opposition, not many months after taking the gavel, that does not make me a conservative if that was your reference. My response was to Aspergirl saying the Ds have done nothing. The idea that Rs lead on this issue is a joke.

Posted by: leichtman | October 4, 2008 10:43 PM | Report abuse

We should all know that BOTH Repub and Demos have participated in the bubbles. Let's face it, the bloated housing price market needs to crash back to sustainable pricing, the fraud in lenders needs to be exposed and allowed to face the consequences, the government (both parties) need to go back to basic arithmetic to find a reasonable/logical balance of their checkbooks, and last and most important... we everyday consumers need to exert self discipline in our saving and spending principles. Just because the neighborhood is going raving crazy in overspending and living lavish unaffordable lifestyles doesn't mean that I HAVE to or need to. Can anyone of us stand up and admit that we are responsible adults who should be examples of good moral judgement when it comes to life style and social responsibility?
OH, no! We are all just poor victims, ever growing in learned helplessness! Forget that!
Play the game... take the pain... everyone live within their means and stop being glutons. Maybe we are all so busy trying to avoid pain, seek pleasure (at any expense), and just wanting to have all the candy and cake without working and paying the price... IN CASH! NOT credit.
I think this advice just sounds like what our grandparents said and today's crisis was foretold.

Posted by: Protus | October 4, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

================================
================================
P A Y B A C K
================================
================================

Posted by: T-Prop | October 4, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse

I am not voting for anyone who is currently in office, Democrat or Republican. They all need to go.

Posted by: Elizabeth61 | October 4, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

"Unfortunately that means we must now NOT support either McCain or Obama, the biggest deficit spenders in the history of the country. (We will easily pass WW2 debt in the next year as percentage of GDP and remember the recent GDP numbers are inflated with financial bubble profits and are not real.)"

This is just plain wrong. Do you nave a clue what the WWII debt was as a percentage of GNP then?? Hint-it was whopping big.

Posted by: plaza04433 | October 4, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

I will be SO GLAD when Republicans lose and STFU.

We need to empty government of these leeches, but remember also that some Democrats behave like republicans, too.

And that's no good, either. So someone needs to check them, as well.

Posted by: zer0lin | October 4, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

seems really weird being on the same side as bonjedi but maybe she can appreciate how totally p.o. I am with Palin and the McCain/Hoover economic policies.

Here is a perfect example of the McCain/Hoover economic policy by one of his fine supporters here:

"Since it is not enough, please let the free market work. We needed to let the big banks go bankrupt that were incompetent enough to invest in these derivatives based on housing prices never going down. And they will go down AT LEAST another 25%. The housing bubble is collapsing. The financial bubble must collapse"

Apsergirl you think I am alone in my sentiments blaming the economic collapse and the loss of 1.2 trillion dollars on Monday at the feet of the McCain/Hoover ticket, then ask yourself this.

Why was John McCain up by 2-4% nationally 10 days ago before Monday's vote and now he is losing by 6-8% points an 8-12% swing in the last 10 days, including being down by 12 points in Pa, 4% in Fla, 6% in Ohio, Va and Colorada. Those numbers in a Presidential election are of landslide proportions so it is obvious that American voters realize like me that not only can John McCain not lead this country, he can not even lead 12 wingnut Republicans in his own party. Its over. Start planning for the 2012 HC v Obama race. Sorry to bring that sore subject up bonjedi.

Posted by: leichtman | October 4, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

Don't believe Republican LIES, FABRICATIONS and MISREPRESENTATIONS of Obama and his policies.

McBush and the Pitbull know they cannot make legitimate attacks on Obama, so what do they do? They stoop so low into the gutter and MAKE UP STUFF about him to try to instill fear into people and to deflect attention from their HOPELESS CALAMITY of a campaign and lack of true plans, policies and ideas about reform.

FACTS ABOUT OBAMA:
1. He is a Harvard law professor and constitutional law expert, with a Juris Doctor of Law degree and is involved in many senate committees such as foreign affairs, homeland security, veterans affairs, health, education and family (he has the qualifications and experince)

2. He is patriotic and only cares about America and the interests of its people

3. He is not and has never been a Muslim

4. He is not and has never been associated with terrorists

5. He has never been to a "madrassa"

6. He is not planted by Osama Bin Laden to infiltrate America (don't laugh, some idiots really believe this!)

VOTE OBAMA, not McBush

Posted by: kbuckingham777 | October 4, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

The republicans have passed large tax cuts every year they have been in control. According to their theory that tax cuts are the only road to growth, we should be enjoying unprecedented prosperity right now! The truth is they badly damaged our country with their superstitions. This is the end of the road for the republicans. Out that door!

Posted by: RegisUrgel | October 4, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

What difference does it make when both McCain and Obama voted to bail out the incompetent, rich NYC banks?
$700 billion will not be enough. $2-5 trillion are estimated to be needed in future bank bailouts....maybe. The deleveraging can not be stopped. The collapsing derivative market is too big by a 100 fold.
$700 billion is the nail in the coffin for any hope of future funding of Social Security and Medicare. It will bankrupt the US government. The money must be repaid by taxpayers someday. It is the straw that breaks the camel's back according to the IOUSA movie.

Since it is not enough, please let the free market work. We needed to let the big banks go bankrupt that were incompetent enough to invest in these derivatives based on housing prices never going down. And they will go down AT LEAST another 25%. The housing bubble is collapsing. The financial bubble must collapse too to remove the excesses from the system.
In 1907 most big banks did go bust. The country was fine in two years. Pouring money into this black hole will prolong our economic agony for decades.

Vote against anyone who favored this bill.
Vote FOR anyone who voted against the bill.
They will vote for more!
Unfortunately that means we must now NOT support either McCain or Obama, the biggest deficit spenders in the history of the country. (We will easily pass WW2 debt in the next year as percentage of GDP and remember the recent GDP numbers are inflated with financial bubble profits and are not real.)
In the minds of millions, if any GOP elected official supported this bail out bill they might as well be a liberal democrat. This is going to cause a bunch of upsets this November if the challenger is quick enough to understand the anger of the middle class outside of NYC and DC.
Please get us back on track. And vote this time like you lives depended on it because they really do THIS TIME.
Thanks.

Posted by: RamseySt | October 4, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

McSame/Failin 08'
Same/Failin 08'
McSame/Failin 08'
Same/Failin 08'
McSame/Failin 08'
Same/Failin 08'
McSame/Failin 08'
Same/Failin 08'
McSame/Failin 08'
Same/Failin 08'
McSame/Failin 08'
Same/Failin 08'

Posted by: CallPablo | October 4, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Another conservative that invent facts:

--"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced HR 3221,"--

Signed by President Jul 30, 2008

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-3221

--"Pelosi's bill became Public Law 110-140 on 19 December 2007.

Posted by: leichtman | October 4, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse "--

Public Law 110-140 started as HR 6 becoming the "Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007"

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-6

Signed by President Dec 19, 2007

Who else is up to ->here<- with conservatives liars?

Posted by: DonJasper | October 4, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

I love riding to leichtman's rescue.

Aspergirl, I can appreciate your tone of the last few days, suddenly critical about McCain, pensive about Obama. Some might call it street smarts and that you can read the writing on the wall, while some would call it craven self-interest. You can guess which school of thought I subscribe to.

You have been cutting-and-pasting with reckless abandon, though you have eschewed your normal wing-nut rant sites in favor of Googled eco-babble. Blame everyone for the current state of economic affairs - eventually you will get the right one.

At least you are consistent with your ritual deployment of sock puppets.

Posted by: bondjedi | October 4, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

SECRET SERVICE CODE DESIGNATIONS USED THROUGHOUT

Given that the Democrats caused the crisis by blocking every effort to reform and rein in Fannie and Freddie, and that includes Barney Fink and Senators Oboe, Dudd and Cobbler, it's ironic that Magoo is taking the hits, particularly when he promoted the shelved reforms. It would be better for him, of course, if he himself remembered or enunciated this in the first debate with Oboe rather than mumbling, stumbling and praising Sen. Chappie while promoting amnesty and blaming Wall Street. Evidently, he and his handlers forgot to tell Denali, too; she missed a great opportunity in her debate.

It's clear the Republicans goofed with their ticket head. Thanks, guys, but do we have to hand the country over to Oboe and the crowd behind all the chaos?

Posted by: filoporquequilo | October 4, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

"PALIN"S choice as VP sealed the deal for ALL my friends to vote dem this year !!!"

Believe me you are not alone. HC supporters like me sitting on the fence reached that same conclusion with Palin's selection. McCain's dumb stunt that costs investors 1.2 trillion dollars last Monday was the final nail in his campaign. He played politics with the most serious vote in Congress in my lifetime. He will pay a political price for that stunt in November. Voters are not stupid they saw how he was willing to jepordize the world's economic stability in order to further his political dreams. Country did not come first to John McCain, politics did.

Posted by: leichtman | October 4, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

like a child and W you are great at just saying no to any legislation with a D behind it.

NANCY PELOSI PASSED MTG LEG IN JULY 2007 while W and his job killing/stock market killing party sat on their hands and watched Rome burn.
Are you better off than you were 8 years ago when W and the Rs took total economic control of this country?

If you are then you must be part of that 8% of America that now says America is going in the right direction.

Incidentally you have consistantly said that the Ds and Pelosi have done nothing. You were wrong, read HR 3221. We have always known that you are part of the 26% W apologist and never the HC supporter you masqueraded as.

Once again do you know about the Senate's Nuclear Option and R Congressional leaders regularly locking the doors to Banking Committe Meetings you insanely blame on Barney Frank, blocking D input and participation between 1999 and 2006 since you seem to have constantly blamed D Congressional actions between 1999 and 2006 when they had 175 D Congressmen and 45 D US Senators?
Rs are really great at re-writing history.

Posted by: leichtman | October 4, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

we cannot trust the gop with our country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i5T301aAWg

Posted by: sobugged | October 4, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

I am a teacher and will ask all my students to score as low as possible, they probably do not want to be tagged elitists and shunned.

Elitism is a reason for being a conservative not against it.

Posted by: pkkm | October 4, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

"Republicans must hope the focus moves off the economy between now and November. Or, that is is always the darkest before the dawn."

What plausible event could intervene between now and November to turn things better or refocus things for the Republicans??

Finding Bin Ladin maybe...but not too plausible.
Iran nuking Israel maybe...but not plausible.
Obama being indicted for something?... not at all plausible.

Iraq? I see no hope there of anything helpful to the Repubs happening there... stability is a ways off, and any negative news from Iraq works in Obama's favor.

Same for Afghanistan.

Same for N.Korea.

Same for China.

The Republicans need good news, but I see none on the horizon anywhere.

However I see lots of possible bad news. The economy and Palin will remain potential bombs to deepen Republican woes until the election.
Troopergate???
The nuclear deal with India now makes Pakistan more of a potential bad news bomb that ever.
Iraq making an oil deal with China is not well known by the public yet, another bomb.

Not only that, McCain and the Republicans are showing a talent for making even marginal opportunities blow up in their face. The bailout is a prime example.

The chickens have come home to roost.

Posted by: plaza04433 | October 4, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

As an INDEPENDENT with lots of friends just like me.. we have signed up iin mass for the get out the vote in OHIO Penn and florida.. as a car dealer in CLEVELAND OHIO where the car business is terrible I plan to give all my loaners ( 24 loaners )to 85 of my of my son's frat brothers from OSU to go to INDIANA to turn that state BLUE in a huge get out the vote effort MCCAIN watch out your get out the vote will NEVER equal this one.. OBAMA-BIDEN ROCK !! let's fumigate the white house and put this wonderful country back on the right track .. PALIN"S choice as VP sealed the deal for ALL my friends to vote dem this year !!! HE HAS THE BRAINS THE GRIT AND THE TEMPErment to be PRES.. better start making the padded room for MCCAIN because on NOV 4 we will witness the biggest meltdown and temper tantrum... and we dont want him to get hurt... send ms mooseburger packing to alaska... what a hoot .. some say she is the new face of the GOP well betcha dogone it ... let her crawl back to Wasilla where she came from.. unless she is indicted for troopergate MID october,,,

Posted by: whatbull | October 4, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Every time Palin or McCain tell a lie, we try to recruit one more vote against Susan Collins, a GOP enabler from Maine. Why not send donations to Tom Allen her challenger.

She is completely congenial in person, a practice she practices GOP pork politics for the wealthy and connected and condescending discipline for the poor.

Well, Why not discipline the GOP? What a sad dishonest bunch.

Defeat Collins!

Posted by: protagoras | October 4, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

"On 31 July 2007, after the Democrats obtained control of the Congress in the November 2006 election, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced HR 3221, a "bill to provide needed housing reform and for other purposes." Among other things, the bill granted the newly formed Federal Housing Finance Agency "supervisory and regulatory authority over Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the federal home loan banks (enterprises)" (per CRS analysis). Pelosi's bill became Public Law 110-140 on 19 December 2007."

Posted by: leichtman | October 4, 2008 8:44 PM

Enough. Your points are wrong. Nancy Pelosi just rushed out some great-sounding stuff after the mortgage industry started to collapse in early 2007.

The housing/banking market first collapsed in Summer 2007. The S&P financial sector went from steady growth to volatile on February 16, 2007 and started its current dive, from which it hasn't pulled out of yet, on June 1, 2007. The bad mortgage portfolio meltdown was already set in motion by July 2007. Certainly any legislation passed in December 2007 after the Fed had already started having to pump cash to banks via its term auction facility because they wouldn't lend to each other, was a case of shutting the barn door after the horses got out and everyone was staring at each other.

By late 2007, it was too late to stop the mortgage meltdown by changing how mortgages were being given out and packaged.

Link to Google chart showing the volatility and slide in the S&P 500 financial sector stocks started in early 2007.
http://finance.google.com/finance?chdnp=0&chdd=0&chds=0&chdv=1&chvs=Linear&chdeh=0&chdet=1223168397673&chddm=493051&q=INDEXSP:.SPSY&ntsp=0

Posted by: AsperGirl | October 4, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

If you live long enough, you eventually arrive at that unpleasant crossroads where you realize that all USA electoral politics is manipulative. It's all the more offensive, because the manipulators claim to have the highest motives (the common good, the nation, whatever).

The people who really have the nation's good in mind are raising children to be honest and hard working, and respectful of differences.

Posted by: officermancuso | October 4, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

It is common sens that a leader should be better than an average citizen. It looks like such a simple concept is elusive to the republican supporters.

There are many good arguments for conservatism. Mediocrity is not one. Populism used to be liberal strategy, some how it got to conservatives.

Posted by: pkkm | October 4, 2008 9:02 PM | Report abuse

"Agency’s ’04 Rule Let Banks Pile Up New Debt", by Stephen Labaton.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html?_r=1&oref=slogin or http://tinyurl.com/3jzwb6

Posted by: officermancuso | October 4, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

"GIVE THIS COUNTRY A BREAK."

Well the Job Killing/Market Killing R's seem to have already done that.

Are you aware that McCain's campaign manager has been receiving $30,000/month from those lobbyists you criticize?

Apparently you just don't seem to get it.

AMERICA IS FED UP WITH 8 YEARS OF FAILED R ECONOMIC POLICIES.

R campaign slogan. Vote McCain: Peace and Prosperity. We will give you neither.

Posted by: leichtman | October 4, 2008 8:51 PM | Report abuse

"AsperGirl, you raise many excellent points, and no junk points that I can see."

Posted by: officermancuso | October 4, 2008 8:26 PM

Thank you!

These are serious problems. As far as I can tell, John McCain has been acting as if he was caught off guard by these banking failures, when everyone in Congress should have known they were coming. Early this year, the FDIC started staffing up for banking professionals to handle all the bank failures that were coming. It's hard to understand why McCain could be so incoherent and off-base, as if he were sideswiped.

But there is time in the next few weeks for each candidate to show some leadership in the economic issues.

It appears that Obama is coming out ahead, simply by not imploding with flailing leadership like McCain appears to have been doing since the economic upheavals started.

It's also kind of shocking how badly McCain has mismanaged Sarah Palin's debut.

McCain seems to be more comfortable as a lone outsider against the world, outside the loop, than he is a team leader.

Posted by: AsperGirl | October 4, 2008 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Who has Fannie Mae lobbyist working for him as his top henchman ? One hint, McSenile. Connie from Indiana

Posted by: grams1944 | October 4, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Nancy Pelosi and the Ds actually passed Mtg reform as one of their first orders of business when they took over control of the House in January 2007:

Do you mean Rs? "In 2005?" Because according to the link you provided, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 was introduced on Jan 26, 2005. Where it died in a Republican-controlled committee of the Republican-controlled Senate.

This page tracks various initiatives from 2003, and demonstrates how no progress occurred on any reform bill while the Republicans controlled Congress. In stark contrast,

On 31 July 2007, after the Democrats obtained control of the Congress in the November 2006 election, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced HR 3221, a "bill to provide needed housing reform and for other purposes." Among other things, the bill granted the newly formed Federal Housing Finance Agency "supervisory and regulatory authority over Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the federal home loan banks (enterprises)" (per CRS analysis).

Pelosi's bill became Public Law 110-140 on 19 December 2007.

How are any of the facts consistent with your thesis about McCain? How are the Dems responsible for Richard Shelby's failure to get the reform bill out of committee, or for the Republican failure to pass any reform bill from 2003-2006?

Posted by: leichtman | October 4, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: leichtman | October 4, 2008 8:21 PM

leichtman, your points are meaningless because they don't support your argument. My argument is that Democrats and Republicans are both responsible for the economic mess we're in. Your point is that Democrats are not responsible and that Republicans are.

You can pose all the stupid questions you want as to who sponsored the repeal of Glass-Steagall, even though Clinton signed it. But you're the one with the mutually exclusive argument.

I.e. the fact that a Republican wrote the legislation while Clinton signed it, doesn't undermine my argument that both Republicans and Democrats are responsible, whereas it totally undermines your argument that Democrats are not responsible.

By pushing points that one or more Republicans were in the loop in the Clinton-era banking deregulation, you don't support the argument that Democrats are not responsible for their own Democrat-created subprime housing programs and their Fannie and Freddie enablers getting out of control. Since Barney Frank successfully blocked regulation attempts in 2003 and since John McCain's 2005 Fannie, Freddie reform attempts were defeated by Democrats, it's not possible for you to prove they were powerless. And it's not possible for you to argue Democrats were not in the loop and powerless during the Clinton administration, since he had veto power.

Posted by: AsperGirl | October 4, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

leichtman


Do you know who received the SECOND MOST MONEY FROM FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC ???

IT WAS OBAMA A FRESHMAN SENATOR.

GIVE THIS COUNTRY A BREAK.

.

Posted by: 37thandOStreet | October 4, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Why did John McSenile say one day he would not vote for the bailout if it had pork and then he did ? Why is Alaska the state that has gotten the most pork? If Palin/McSenile wins what are they going to do with Todd?Forget the baby being a special child , who would drag a baby that age around, hand him off to everyone? Connie from Indiana

Posted by: grams1944 | October 4, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

AsperGirl, you raise many excellent points, and no junk points that I can see.

Posted by: officermancuso | October 4, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

George Bush wanted to make a name for himself, well he done that, he is called the village idiot. Now McSenile can just stay in Arizona we do not need another village idiot.
Connie from Indiana

Posted by: grams1944 | October 4, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

People are sick to death of republicans. McCain has zero credibility, especially after the "I'm suspending my campaign" stunt. It will be a bloodbath. A well deserved one.

Posted by: jmp66 | October 4, 2008 8:23 PM | Report abuse

aspergirl says-- (Clinton) repealed Glass-Stegall,

curious:
1. Do tou have any idea who wrote that legislation and what party they are in?
guess. He is a former US senator from Texas
2. For $100 do you have any idea who has been President between 2001 and 2008?
3. And if you can answer this aspergirl we will know like Sarah Palin you are an economic genius as well. Which party controlled Congress between 1999 and 2006? And since you believe that the D and Frank were at fault are you also aware that Rs regularly LOCKED Ds including Frank out of banking committee meetings that you now claim he and his band of mighty 175 D Congressmen somehow blocked R legislation. You do know about the nuclear option in the US Senate and threats to use it by R SENATORS if Ds should dare to ever use the filibuster, Certainly you too haven't been asleep for the last 8 years. While you are at it why don't you also rewrite history and now lets see if you can also blame Ds for starting the Iraq war along with blowing through Bill Clinton's 250 billion dollar dollar surplus served up on a silver platter to W in 2001.

Posted by: leichtman | October 4, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

"officerman: those who blame this on Bill Clinton and his 1999 signing miss some very important concepts points:"

Posted by: leichtman

Democrats:

-- (Clinton) forced subprime mortgage requirements on banks, accusing banks of engaging in racist lending practices when they rejected bad loan applicants. The subprime mortgage requirements were effected, in part, by forcing banks to lower lending standards industry-wide and then punishing those who didn't have enough minority loans. These Clinton-era requirements forced mortgage banking into risk-prone portfolio practices.

-- (Clinton) mismanaged Fannie & Freddie into becoming poorly run, easy-mortgage, misrepresented-risk derivatives packagers

-- (Clinton) repealed Glass-Stegall, breaking down the barriers between investment banks (wall street) and commercial banks (main street) that were put in place during the Great Depression (investment bankers have become a de facto shadow banking system free from the regulations that regular banks are subject to, and then, being investors, they get to gamble by trading against their worth in stock markets, commodities and in other securities while highly leveraged on margin).

-- (Clinton) signed into law banking deregulation that prohibited the federal government from oversight of certain financial derivative products and also created some commodity market problems (both kinds of problems we have suffered from this year).

-- (Congressional Democrats) (including Barney Frank) blocked the Bush Administration from regulating and investigating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003. Democrats also defeated John McCain's 2005 Federal Housing Regulatory reform, wherein he sought to regulate Fannie and Freddie, warning that big problems will arise if they weren't.

-- (Congressional Democrats) are mismanaging the problem today, backing a back "bailout" package and engaging in other high-risk political ploys, because they want to win the election (they are blaming Republicans for the housing finance problems and engaging in political posturing that is false, to gain an advantage in the election positioning).

Republicans have a lot to answer for, too. George Bush's incompetent, no-prosecute and no-investigate SEC and Justice Department let abuses of the foregoing conditions run wild. Perhaps no one recalls, but the SEC was so flaccid that New York (Elliot Spitzer) was investigating Wall Street corruption and handing down indictments using NY state laws. George Bush shrunk mortgage fraud branches of the Justice Department, while forcing it to focus on immigration and "voter fraud" cases by pressuring and firing U.S. attorneys who failed to focus on those things. Basically, all the SEC and Justice law enforcement that could have helped, was instead directed into partisan hack activity during the Bush Administration.

Also, Bush weakened the dollar with his huge federal spending deficits, and allowing Alan Greenspan to go crazy with his low-interest rate, inflation-creating loose monetary policies. The inflation rate Bush and Greenspan created with this overspending, crazy-low-interest rate environment was what drove the mortgage market to such a lending frenzy and then the inflation that developed (along with the need to raise interest rates stiffly) created the ARM-reset shock. The swiftly rising interest rates made necessary by inflation was a big cause of a lot of the adjustable rate mortgages going quickly into foreclosure. The rising interest rates also meant that new mortgages on the same homes became unaffordable due to higher monthly payments. Prices have to fall a lot when interest rates increase a lot, and the rising interest rates was catalyst that started pushing house prices down and mortgages under water. So George Bush was responsible for (1) the historic, excessive federal spending deficit that drove up interest rates and (2) the Alan Greenspan crazy interest rate seesaw that first heated up the mortgage industry with drastically low rates, then broke home price levels with stiff interest rate hikes that made the current price levels too high.

Democrats and Republicans are not only both responsible, but they are each responsible to such an extent that each party was on the side of incompetent evil, and neither side was remotely "good".

As far as your belief that this all started on Bush's watch, the tech stock bubble built on Clinton's watch and burst in 2000. After about 3 years following the deregulation of Clinton's last year in office, the credit backed derivatives products started to take off and the tech stock bubble burst morphed into the real estate bubble, with those flawed securities proving the basis for the investment banks' overleverage.

A look at a 10-year chart of the NASDAQ (tech stock heavy), the Dow Jones US Housing Construction index, and the S & P 500 Energy index, shows the relationship in time for these investor bubbles, as they occurred and then burst, with the first bubble starting well before the end of the Clinton Administration.

http://finance.google.com/finance?chdnp=0&chdd=0&chds=0&chdv=1&chvs=Linear&chdeh=0&chdet=1223164526236&chddm=1000178&cmpto=INDEXDJX:.DJUSHB;INDEXSP:.SPNY&cmptzos=-18000;-18000&q=INDEXNASDAQ:.IXIC&ntsp=0

Posted by: AsperGirl | October 4, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

republican supporters, particularly libertarians, did not want even the second bailout, so i'm not sure that will hurt the gop congressional prospects all that much a month out. but, as www.straightrecord.com has pointed out in several items, there are many other shoes of the centipede to fall, driving home to everybody the fix this nation is in. economic dominoes (i know, mixed metaphors)already are falling and the worst is yet to come.

Posted by: rapswork | October 4, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

"

Whoever the stupid donkey is who is trying to insinuate he is me by flipping my name, you stupid burro remarks give you away. Why don't you come up with your own name, instead of using mine to garner attention for your foolish posts.

If you haven't noticed, people are not fooled by your purloined moniker. They keep pointing out your donkey mistakes.

Posted by: Oand37thStreet | October 4, 2008 7:51 PM"

Trust me; no one gets you two mixed up.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 4, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Actually I read a story today about the Fannie Mae CEO who took over in 2005 and made disastrous missteakes. I son't see any evidence whatsoevr that Barney Frank pushed NO DOC loans as a public policy. Minority unemployent has doubled since 2001 and that was likely the alarm bell that should have told regulators that there would be a problem with home mtgs, only think is funding for regulators was also slashed as soon as W took office. Trusting W to do the right thing was a grave error. Deregulation/Privatization that is all we heard between 2001 and 2008 by this Administration. Can anyone from the R side please post a speech ever given by W touting more regulation or oversite? Even after Enron and Worldcom he resisted the word regulation and suggested those companies were isolated situations. Curious why we don't hear more about Privatizng Social Security by McCain and his R enablers?

Posted by: leichtman | October 4, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse

"how about the editor of the Washington Post, is he or she qualified to lead economic and military policy of the strongest nation on Earth?"

Over McCain? Of course.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 4, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse

You can blame the Republicans and you can blame the Democrats, but make no mistake that everything went to hell on BUSH's watch. His clowns in charge were so used to bullying and lying their way in order to get what they wanted, they thought it was the norm. Paulson is no different then Cheney, or Rumsfield. The main problem is that no one was watching the store, because they felt they didn't have to. They thought they were above all the mundane duties of their positions. They thought they were Super heroes fighting the bad guys, saving the world, instead they managed to defeat the United States all by themselves. Unemployment will increase, more businesses will fail, more houses will be foreclosed, credit will be impossible to get for the average taxpayer, and interest rates will increase on the loans you have.
Folks, this is a recession, except for the wall street bankers and their polical beneficiaries. There is nothing you as a taxpayer can do, because even congress doesn't listen to you anymore.
There are 60 Democratic Countries in the world, only 5 do not have a National Referendum, one of which is the U.S...
So the number one Democracy has no recourse for its citizens when wronged by its elected officials.
It is time to initiate legislation that allows for a National Referendum, even Iraq has one. When the government disdains its own citizens as much as this Congress has demonstrated, the citizenship must take steps to re-instate TRUE DEMOCRACY.

Posted by: Xcalibar | October 4, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

You can blame the Republicans and you can blame the Democrats, but make no mistake that everything went to hell on BUSH's watch. His clowns in charge were so used to bullying and lying their way in order to get what they wanted, they thought it was the norm. Paulson is no different then Cheney, or Rumsfield. The main problem is that no one was watching the store, because they felt they didn't have to. They thought they were above all the mundane duties of their positions. They thought they were Super heroes fighting the bad guys, saving the world, instead they managed to defeat the United States all by themselves. Unemployment will increase, more businesses will fail, more houses will be foreclosed, credit will be impossible to get for the average taxpayer, and interest rates will increase on the loans you have.
Folks, this is a recession, except for the wall street bankers and their polical beneficiaries. There is nothing you as a taxpayer can do, because even congress doesn't listen to you anymore.
There are 60 Democratic Countries in the world, only 5 do not have a National Referendum, one of which is the U.S...
So the number one Democracy has no recourse for its citizens when wronged by its elected officials.
It is time to initiate legislation that allows for a National Referendum, even Iraq has one. When the government disdains its own citizens as much as this Congress has demonstrated, the citizenship must take steps to re-instate TRUE DEMOCRACY.

Posted by: Xcalibar | October 4, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

We have seen enough after the debates.

McCain could not win. Obama clobbered him.

Palin was useless against Biden.

McCain can not handle the economy. Obama mastered the credit crisis.

Obama has a realistic foreign policy, ready from day one. McCain is incoherent.

The choice is obvious.

Obama/Biden '08

Posted by: Oand37thStreet | October 4, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

"officerman: those who blame this on Bill Clinton and his 1999 signing miss some very important concepts points:"

(a bunch of clueless ideas follow)

Posted by: leichtman

Bill Clinton is as responsible for this mess as those Democrats in Congress who blocked regulation of Fannie and Freddie in the past few years and as George Bush who used the SEC and Justice Department to prosecute partisan agendas instead of mortgage fraud and securities fraud.

Democrats:

-- (Clinton) forced subprime mortgage requirements on banks, accusing banks of engaging in racist lending practices for rejecting bad applicants, and lowing lending standards industry-wide

-- (Clinton) made Fannie & Freddie into easy-mortgage, misrepresented-risk derivatives packagers

-- (Clinton) repealed Glass-Stegall, breaking down the barriers between investment banks (wall street) and commercial banks (main street) that were put in place during the Great Depression (investment bankers have become a de facto shadow banking system free from the regulations that regular banks are subject to, and then, being investors, they get to gamble by trading against their worth in stock markets, commodities and in other securities while highly leveraged on margin).

-- (Clinton) signed into law banking deregulation that prohibited the federal government from oversight of certain financial derivative products and also created some commodity market problems (both kinds of problems we have suffered from this year).

-- (Congressional Democrats) (including Barney Frank) blocked the Bush Administration from regulating and investigating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003. Democrats also defeated John McCain's 2005 Federal Housing Regulatory reform, wherein he sought to regulate Fannie and Freddie, warning that big problems will arise if they weren't.

-- (Congressional Democrats) are mismanaging the problem today, backing a back "bailout" package and engaging in other high-risk political ploys, because they want to win the election (they are blaming Republicans for the housing finance problems and engaging in political posturing that is false, to gain an advantage in the election positioning).

Republicans have a lot to answer for, mainly in George Bush's incompetent, no-prosecute and no-investigate SEC and Justice Department. Perhaps no one recalls, but the SEC was so limp and impotent that New York (Elliot Spitzer) was investigating Wall Street corruption and handing down indictments using state laws. George Bush more or less shut down mortgage fraud branches of the Justice Department, while forcing it into a pointless focus on immigration and "voter fraud". Basically, all the law enforcement that could have helped, was spent on partisan activity during the Bush Administration.

Also, Bush weakened the dollar with his huge federal spending deficits, and allowing Alan Greenspan to go crazy with his low-interest rate, inflation-creating loose monetary policies. The inflation rate Bush and Greenspan created with this overspending, crazy-low-interest rate environment was what drove the mortgage market to such a lending frenzy and then the inflation that developed (along with the need to raise interest rates stiffly) created the ARM-reset shock. The swiftly rising interest rates made necessary by inflation was a big cause of a lot of the adjustable rate mortgage foreclosures. The rising interest rates also meant that new mortgages on the same homes became unaffordable due to higher monthly payments. Prices have to fall a lot when interest rates increase a lot, and the rising interest rates was catalyst that started pushing house prices down and mortgages under water. George Bush was responsible for the historic, excessive federal spending deficit and he also let Alan Greenspan set up the country for the crazy interest rate seesaw that first pumped up the mortgage industry with low rates, then broke housing prices with stiff increases.

And in the past couple of years, Congress and Bush and the presidential candidates, have been too obsessed with their political posturing and negligence to want to own the problem. They have all been engaging in deliberate negligence, partisan game-playing and lying.

Democrats and Republicans are not only both responsible, but they are each responsible to such an extent that each party was on the side of incompetent evil, and neither side was remotely "good".

As far as your belief that this all started on Bush's watch, the tech stock bubble built on Clinton's watch and burst in 2000. After about 3 years following the deregulation of Clinton's last year in office, the credit backed derivatives products started to take off and the tech stock bubble burst morphed into the real estate bubble, with those flawed securities proving the basis for the investment banks' overleverage.

A look at a 10-year chart of the NASDAQ (tech stock heavy), the Dow Jones US Housing Construction index, and the S & P 500 Energy index, shows the relationship in time for these investor bubbles, as they occurred and then burst, with the first bubble starting well before the end of the Clinton Administration. In that sense, the housing/mortgage bubble is just one in a series of bubbles, made fatal by the weaknesses in the core of our banking system forced on the banking industry by the Democrats' subprime mortgage minority banking programs and Fannie and Freddie enablers.

http://finance.google.com/finance?chdnp=0&chdd=0&chds=0&chdv=1&chvs=Linear&chdeh=0&chdet=1223164526236&chddm=1000178&cmpto=INDEXDJX:.DJUSHB;INDEXSP:.SPNY&cmptzos=-18000;-18000&q=INDEXNASDAQ:.IXIC&ntsp=0

Posted by: AsperGirl | October 4, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

dunnhaupt, when you say "The fury of the public against the Republican lawmakers seems to be greater, even though the Democrats were in the majority for the last few years",

do you mean to suggest that the economic mess of the moment has roots which only go back to 2006, when Democrats took control of congress after 6 years of Republican majorities there?

Posted by: officermancuso | October 4, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

"The irresponsible point was when Wall Street was deregulated"

Do you mean all of Wall Street? This is the kind of vague, ambiguous statement only a foolish jackass can make. Keep braying like the stupid donkey you are!

Posted by: Oand37thStreet | October 4, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse


davidscott1


Obama got to be editor of the Harvard Law Review only because they thought it would be cool to have a black in that position, not because Obama deserved it anymore than anyone else.


Get a grip on yourself.


Why don't you support another editor for President then if you are so into editors - how about the editor of the Washington Post, is he or she qualified to lead economic and military policy of the strongest nation on Earth?


Debatable at best.


Your logic is so twisted no one can help you. You have decided to be irresponsible with your Constitutional Right to Vote for President and nothing will change your mind.

.


.

Posted by: 37thandOStreet | October 4, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

What's going on in state legislative races? I know Democrats are trying hard to win back the Ohio House. Given how many state legislative bodies we took in 2006, and the upcoming redistricting in 2011, I'd expect a lot of bodies could change hands this fall too, and there must be a lot of intensity around those in many states.

Posted by: JonSM99 | October 4, 2008 7:56 PM | Report abuse

"The irresponsible point was when Wall Street was deregulated"

Do you mean all of Wall Street? This is the kind of vague, ambiguous statement only a foolish jackass can make. Keep braying like the stupid donkey you are!

Posted by: Oand37thStreet | October 4, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Hello,my fellow Americans.I come before you tonight with a heavy heart.Our nation has entered into a time of unprecedented challenges.
The greatest challenge is to come together as one nation,not one torn apart by partisan preferences or individual concerns.We stand on the brink of a new,but tried nation...one conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equally.
The advent of widespread and interactive voices is a good thing...we must embrace it's potential.Yet,when we no longer view reality as a reasonable counterpoint to fantasy,then we subject ourselves to the mentality that brought down the Roman Empire.
This is the America in which we live,but it is not the America that will endure.If the status quo fumbles along to suit the operatives that manages it,then check your brains at the table and let the chips fall where they may.
Are we really one nation under God,or are we one nation under the spell of special interest groups and self-serving politicians? I know the answer.Do you?
Roll up your sleeves,America,and do the right thing...if you care to know what it is.
It has been a privilege and an honor to speak before you in the manner that has been given me.
Now,just go vote and stop the mindless psychobabble.

Posted by: klowry57 | October 4, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Whoever the stupid donkey is who is trying to insinuate he is me by flipping my name, you stupid burro remarks give you away. Why don't you come up with your own name, instead of using mine to garner attention for your foolish posts.

If you haven't noticed, people are not fooled by your purloined moniker. They keep pointing out your donkey mistakes.

Posted by: Oand37thStreet | October 4, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

officermancuso


The irresponsible point was when Wall Street was deregulated - with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act - mortgage insurance? AIG ???


Sorry.


Responsibility falls squarely on Bill Clinton, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank - you can't be serious

.

.

Posted by: 37thandOStreet | October 4, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

leichtman, I haven't seen a point you've made that I disagree with.

You misunderstand me - and it's no big deal - when you say, "officerman: those who blame this on Bill Clinton and his 1999 signing miss some very important concepts points".

I think it would be crazy to try to blame Bill Clinton for this economic mess. I have great respect for Bill Clinton's administration (somewhat less respect for his recent moping).

I think that Barney Frank and company have been guilty, during the post-9/11 "Bush boom", of advocating subprime lending as social policy. They then turned a deaf ear to warnings that the financial system was digging a hole it might not be able to get out of, because to acknowledge those dangers would have called into question things they were committed to.

None of that involves Bill Clinton, or Barack Obama.

And I only mention the Democrats' role in this mess in fairness. This mess is for the most part a result of a regulatory culture which held, "Let's get the government off the backs of the people who are turning the wheels of the economy", and that was a distinctly Republican attitude.

Posted by: officermancuso | October 4, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

It is always darkest before the lights go out completely. The fury of the public against the Republican lawmakers seems to be greater, even though the Democrats were in the majority for the last few years.

Posted by: dunnhaupt | October 4, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

"We need someone who knows Washington, who has the experience and the PROVEN LEADERSHIP ABILITY TO LEAD THIS NATION OUT OF THE ECONOMIC CRISIS AND TO MAKE THIS NATION STRONG AGAIN."

I agree. And the GOP gives us a pandering, senile, lying goat and Alaska's version of Ellie Mae Clampett as his Veep. FYI, pal, Obama was editor of Harvard Law Review -- one of the most prestigious academic honors in the country. Get a life.

Posted by: davidscott1 | October 4, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

re Let's get one thing straight: wall street was deregulated under CLINTON in 1999.

Republicans held the House, Senate and White House for for entire years, and held the Congress even in 1999. (Remember Ken Starr?) They have had the opportunity to do anything they pleased -- with Wall Street, taxes, spending, starting wars -- you name it. They have promoted deregulation. And blaming Democrats after years of total GOP control of government is just infantile.

Posted by: davidscott1 | October 4, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

37'th Street and O is my candidate for "Most Partisan Poster at Washington Post"

Posted by: officermancuso | October 4, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton and the democrats SHOULD HAVE anticipated that the economy would have ups and downs over time."

Actually no one in their right mind could have known the country would have been so stupid to let W and Rs be selected by the US Supreme Ct. and destroy our nation's economy, except us Texans, who saw W piss through our 2 billion dollar rainy day fund just like he did Clinton's $250 billion dollar budget surplus in months. I guesss only Texans knew in 2001 what a disaster W would be for the US economy.

You are absolutely right. Between 2001 and 2006 sitting President Bill Clinton and his Democratically controlled congress should have fixed Phil Gramm's monumental scewups. Oops. Bill Clinton was not President between 2001 and 2006 and Ds did not control Congress. Is there some more historical revisionism you wish to spew. Have you been asleep for the last 8 years?

Posted by: leichtman | October 4, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse


.


.


Why would an American be so irreponsible as to place this nation at RISK by voting for some INEXPERIENCED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION guy whose only economic or business experience is buying cocaine ???

I feel sorry for all of you.

You apparently do not care about this country's future or your children if you would like to place this great nation in DANGER by voting to put in charge such inexperienced person. I honestly believe the Obama people are being irresponsible with this Country.

The position is one of responsibility. The position is not one for on-the-job training.


We need someone who knows Washington, who has the experience and the PROVEN LEADERSHIP ABILITY TO LEAD THIS NATION OUT OF THE ECONOMIC CRISIS AND TO MAKE THIS NATION STRONG AGAIN.

.

.

Posted by: 37thandOStreet | October 4, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

to the poster who writes :Unless someone can prove otherwise and that Bill Clinton is currently in office and that we had a D Congress between 1999 and 2006 then enough of your TOTALLY UNINFORMED GARBAGE already by you obsessive Clinton haters."

Right wing nut jobs are hopeless. Give up. I saw one the other day who blamed Jimmy Carter for the bank mess. You have to admire the unmitigated lunacy of these people.

Posted by: davidscott1 | October 4, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

"I'm shocked. They led us into the most foolish, destructive war in modern US history, the economy is a shambles, their tax cuts for the rich and spending spree helped turn a surplus into anohter sea of red ink, they did nothing to fix Medicare or Social Security, they chose a Senate Environment Chair who calls global warming a hoax and ran Ellie Mae Clampett for VP, and they're worried about LOSING SEATS??? They ought to be hunted with dogs."

Posted by: davidscott1 | October 4, 2008 5:30 PM
-------------
Unfortunately, there are no easy answers. "They" consist of both Republicans and Democrats.

davidscott: No, they don't. But for Bush and the GOP, there would have been no war in Iraq and no series of trilion-dollar tax cuts for the rich. Republicans controlled the House from 1994 to 2006 and the entire government from 2002 to 2006. Republicans gave us an Environment Chair who calls global warming a hoax, Sen Inhofe, and they've been bashing government regulation since Reagan. They really DO deserve the blame for the mess we're in.

Posted by: davidscott1 | October 4, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Since Rs are obviously fixated on 1999, I am curious if they have amnesia or have totally forgotten which party controlled ALL BRANCHES of governnment between 2001 and 2006. I believe it was W and his Congressional enablers. The bill you hate so much was totally written by my lame brained US Senator Phil Gramm. Guess which party he is in?

Unless someone can prove otherwise and that Bill Clinton is currently in office and that we had a D Congress between 1999 and 2006 then enough of your TOTALLY UNINFORMED GARBAGE already by you obsessive Clinton haters.

Posted by: leichtman | October 4, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

jgisler


Why would you be such an irreponsible person as to place this nation at the gravest risk by voting for some inexperienced affirmative action guy whose only economic or business experience is buying cocaine ???


I feel sorry for you.


You apparently do not care about this country if you would like to place the country in such danger by voting for an inexperience person.

.

.

Posted by: 37thandOStreet | October 4, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

SENATOR MC CAIN and the HOUSE CAUSED A WORLD WIDE LOST OF $2 TRILLION DOLLARS IN STOCK MARKET VALUE ON MONDAY.

Posted by: FutureJumps | October 4, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman

When an industry is deregulated, that deregulation applies to good times and bad.


Clinton and the democrats SHOULD HAVE anticipated that the economy would have ups and downs over time.


MAKE NO MISTAKE - Clinton and the DEMOCRATS took the money from the Wall Street Lobbyists to make the deregulation of Wall Street possible - and to make the REPEAL OF THE GLASS-STEAGALL ACT POSSIBLE.


ONE HAS TO BLAME THE DEMOCRATS YOU ARE A COMPLETE LIAR.

Leichtman you can sit by as not quietly as you want.


HOWEVER THAT DOES NOT CHANGE THE REALITY THAT CLINTON AND THE DEMOCRATS INCLUDING "CHUCK" SHUMER PUSHED THROUGH THE DEREGULATION OF WALL STREET.


CHRIS DODD HEADED THE COMMITTEE IN CONGRESS.


RESPONSIBLE.


BARNEY FRANK RESPONSIBLE.

GROW UP DEMOCRATS YOU CAN NOT BLAME BUSH FOR THIS ONE. (HE REALLY WOULD NOT UNDERSTAND IT AFTER ALL.)

.

.

Posted by: 37thandOStreet | October 4, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

"DDAWD

how are things at Obama headquarters pretty quiet huh? Now that you realize that Obama is going to lose."

I'm in a deep red state, so I don't bother going into the office. There's only one in the whole state anyways. I've just been calling from home to Ohio. Get the biggest bang for my buck with the early voting. Obama is looking good right now and every Obama vote cast today is one that can't be changed later.

I have good friends in Virginia and Florida who tell me how packed the Obama offices are there. One phone bank was described as chaotic since there were so many people there.

This will be one of the biggest stories of the election. McCain spent his limited money on ads and was doing quite well in the summer when he kept it close. Obama, however, was spending all his money on offices and staffers. That sort of machine takes a little while to get started, but its tough to beat once it gets started. One hundred people making calls and knocking on doors is worth far more than any thirty second ad. Obama invested heavily in a ground game and the results are finally appearing in the polls. And its one hell of an effect with McCain losing like five points a week now.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 4, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

.


.


Let's get one thing straight: wall street was deregulated under CLINTON in 1999.


This entire disaster is a result of the banks and insurance companies wishing to keep up with the crazy returns which the internet companies appeared to be producing for investors.


In a failed attempt to keep up with the internet companies, the banks and insurance companies had their lobbyists secure the repeal of the Glass-Stegall Act which led to this week's events.


The Democratic National Committee and the Congressional Democrats took eons of money from the Wall Street lobbyists to get this repeal passed.


THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE ONES WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE -

OK


Bush's Father During the first Bush Term in the early 90s "If you want this economy to look like Arkansas, Elect Bill Clinton and see what happens to our economy."


HE WAS RIGHT.

.

.

Posted by: 37thandOStreet | October 4, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

officerman: those who blame this on Bill Clinton and his 1999 signing miss some very important concepts points:


1. In 1999 the economy was still booming but starting to slow by 2000. In 1999 people did not have problems paying their mortgages like they have had in the last few years.
2. Things have changed oh how they have changed since W and Rs controlled both branches of govt till 2006.
3. Blaming Clinton is wrongfully presuming that neither he nor Rubin would have seen this coming in the early 2000s had they been in office, which they clearly were not and changed direction. Blaming him for stubborn/boneheaded R policies between 2001 and 2008 makes no sense at all.
4. People forget that in 1993 Clinton and Rubin went to the rescue of Mexico and were savaged by Rs and Phil Gramm, and ended up making money by rescuing Mexico. Did we ever hear Gramm who said "Clinton's Mexico and economic policies will drive the 1994 US economy into the ditch" Did he or the R party ever ever admit they did not know what they were talking about? Does anyone think that W would have made that decision about Mexico and does anyone think that Clinton would have waited 6 years to finally figure out there was a problem in the housing market. He would not have waited 6 weeks much less 6 years like this administration has.
I will not sit quietly and listen to Bill Clinton and the Ds being blamed for W and his R Congressional cronies being asleep at the wheel for 6 years.

Posted by: leichtman | October 4, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

The impostor 37thandOStreet wrote - "Bush's Father During the first Bush Term in the early 90s "If you want this economy to look like Arkansas, Elect Bill Clinton and see what happens to our economy."

What a foolish mule you must be. That old cracker said those things, and Bubba knocked the broccoli out of him.

It reminds me of those fools Palin and McCain talking trash, and how they are going to get their bums kicked in one month.

You stupid donkey.

Posted by: Oand37thStreet | October 4, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

"McCain would seriously damage the economy. It is already in the pits. He will have you eating Campbell's soup every night."

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | October 4, 2008 5:46 PM

This economic upheaval has been looming all year. It's both the Democrats and Republicans who have caused it and it's both of their dysfunctions that have created an impasse in dealing with it. This was as inevitable as a train wreck where there are two trains on the same track.

It's been obvious this has been coming. When the rice riots broke out in the Far East and it seemed like it might get hard for a while to get Thai Jasmine rice and some other things I like, I went out and bought a lot of jasmine and basmati rice. Then, when I was pondering the stock market, I thought, Why not? So I laid up 2 years supply of food, like the Mormons do.

I don't know if it will turn out to be wise or silly, that I did that. But I do think that things are going to get worse, and they will not get better for a long time. This bailout package is not only not going to help, but it prevents the bloated, overgrown finance sector from contracting down to a more reasonable size for our economy that it is supposed to serve, and from developing the more effective, efficient business models that come from having to survive or die during times of change. Not only will the bailout package not help anyone except those who will be selling bad portfolios to the U.W. Treasury at above-market prices, but it will prop up an inefficient, broken and bloated financial sector that is outdated and has become a corrupt burden on our society.

What is so shocking isn't that this all has happened. It's been obvious for a long time that this was coming. What is shocking is that John McCain was totally sideswiped by this.

I'm wondering if there's something wrong with him...

Posted by: AsperGirl | October 4, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

I voted yesterday... for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Posted by: jgisler | October 4, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

The impostor 37thandOstreet wrote "This country is lucky to have John McCain as President."

What kind of stupid donkey do you have to be to think John McCain is president? The election is still a month away, and when it happens, Obama is going to kick that old cracker's a$$ for drill.

What a silly burro you are.

Posted by: Oand37thStreet | October 4, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

.

.

Let's get one thing straight: wall street was deregulated under CLINTON in 1999.


This entire disaster is a result of the banks and insurance companies wishing to keep up with the crazy returns which the internet companies appeared to be producing for investors.


In a failed attempt to keep up with the internet companies, the banks and insurance companies had their lobbyists secure the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act which led to this week's events.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE ONES WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE -


Ok


Bush's Father During the first Bush Term in the early 90s "If you want this economy to look like Arkansas, Elect Bill Clinton and see what happens to our economy."

HE WAS RIGHT.

.

.

Posted by: 37thandOStreet | October 4, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Question for McCain and R supporters here?

Why have we not heard either from McCain or R Congressional leaders their plans to privatize Social Security lately, and allow part of Social Security funds to go into the stock market?

Any guesses?

Would love to see those R pro privatization of Social Security quotes show up in Florida and Pennsylvania campaign ads.

Posted by: leichtman | October 4, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

This country is lucky to have John McCain as President -

with the economy the way it is -


America is very fortunate to have a man who wants to fight the lobbyists in Washington and return influence to the people.


Instead of the monied interests who give money to lobbyists to give to the Congressmen.

Posted by: 37thandOStreet | October 4, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

leitchman, folks who've done a regression analysis on correlation between S&P 500 and party in power have long known that the stock market does better when Democrats are president than it does when Republicans are president.

I agree with you 90% of the way, and I am partisan for the Dem in this election - but in fairness it ought to be said that Democrats have had a hand in this economic mess we face, if only by urging subprime lending as a matter of social policy, and turning an ideologically deaf ear to pleas that Fannie and Freddie were headed for trouble.

I agree with AsperGirl when she says, "Unfortunately, there are no easy answers. 'They' consist of both Republicans and Democrats."

That said, my vote this year will be cast for Barack Obama.

Posted by: officermancuso | October 4, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

The concept of John McCain as GOP presidential candidate, going way back, was that he could hold the base while bringing in independents.

That was back when he was media-friendly.

I don't think many independents are going to find a "go negative on Obama" and "bash the media" campaign by a guy from Bush's party to be tasty fare.

Posted by: officermancuso | October 4, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

DDWAG do you have any idea what R policies have done "to" BIG Business? They have destroyed their capital, driven their stocks to 10 year lows and placed our nation's largests companies on the verge of collapse. Look at the stock prices of our most successfull companies like GE and Caterpillar if you think that Rs have been good for big business. Forget capital gains taxes we need to increase the tax level of yearly capital losses on our tax returns. Would love to see Obama propose that. The idea that R's have been good for either Mainstreet or Wallstreet is a joke. And McCain's healthcare policy to do away with employer based healthcare may look like its good for big uiness but it will not only be the largest tax increase in this country's history for mainstreet, if it ever passes, but it will be impossible for individuls to replace a $12,000 plan with $5,000(is this McCain's new fuzzy math?) but it will destroy a major recruiting tool all big corporations use to lure the best employees to their company.

Palin/McCain
Bad for Mainstreet, Bad for Wallstreet.

And has anyone noticed that no one talks about John McCain any longer. Its Obama v Palin.

A landslide is coming get ready for it. Reluctant Clintn supporters no longer trust John McCain after his idiotic choice of a neophyte and his bonehead stunt last week with the most important Congressional vote in a generation that cost investors 1.2 trillion dollars. He was willing to play Russin rulette wih our nation's eonomy. Is that what he means by putting country first?

325 or more electoral votes for Obama. And this is from someone who just 30 days ago was contemplating voting for the market killing/job killing "Palin/McCain"/Hoover ticket.

Posted by: leichtman | October 4, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD

how are things at Obama headquarters pretty quiet huh? Now that you realize that Obama is going to lose.

.

Posted by: 37thandOStreet | October 4, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

I couldn't vote for McCain because he appears to not have anything other than the old republican line and Sarah Palin just doesn't appear to be any smarter than W. The gosh-darns, heckavas and betchas just won't get it for me.

I VOTED Obama/Biden!

Posted by: OneFreeMan | October 4, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

"I would be happy to do the baking for a "welcome back" luncheon for PUMAs."

They have been pretty quiet lately, haven't they? I guess they realized that a woman can be disliked for reasons other than being a woman.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 4, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

No one thinks Obama is going to drag down the democratic ticket this year ???


.

Posted by: 37thandOStreet | October 4, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

No one thinks Obama is going to drag down the democratic ticket this year ???


.

Posted by: 37thandOStreet | October 4, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

No one thinks Obama is going to drag down the democratic ticket this year ???


.

Posted by: 37thandOStreet | October 4, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

No one thinks Obama is going to drag down the democratic ticket this year ???


.

Posted by: 37thandOStreet | October 4, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

The worst is yet to come
By Jonathan Burton, MarketWatch

"SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- An influential investment strategist has a dire forecast for U.S. stocks, credit markets and the continued independence of some of the nation's top financial institutions."

"Jeffrey Gundlach, chief investment officer at Los Angeles-based mutual-fund company TCW Group Inc., told clients on a conference call late Wednesday that the crisis in credit and housing may not abate for several years and is actually getting worse."

more at: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/worst-yet-come-investment-strategist/story.aspx?guid=%7B55B21789%2D3A26%2D495A%2DB0D3%2D5AF3F6ABDA18%7D

And at this point, it doesn't matter who is elected in the sense that the candidates' promised programs and initiatives will not be forthcoming from either candidate now. Whomever wins the election will likely be presiding over something a lot like a depression.

If John McCain can't seem to handle these economic upheavals, and maintain a leadership voice, how can he argue that he should be elected?

I'm wondering if Republicans today, believing in the free market forces as they do, simply don't have anything in that part of their brain where most politicians and leaders think about economics. Do they simply have zero economic ideations apart from the notions of cutting taxes and letting the markets run free? Does believing in free markets means they never feel they have to think about economics and the economy?

It seems that way. It's hard to explain how McCain has allowed himself to be totally shellacked by economic events that were clearly looming all year, except by admitting he probably has no economic thought process at all in his brain.

He couldn't have fallen harder from his competitive position.

Posted by: AsperGirl | October 4, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

"I'm shocked. They led us into the most foolish, destructive war in modern US history, the economy is a shambles, their tax cuts for the rich and spending spree helped turn a surplus into anohter sea of red ink, they did nothing to fix Medicare or Social Security, they chose a Senate Environment Chair who calls global warming a hoax and ran Ellie Mae Clampett for VP, and they're worried about LOSING SEATS??? They ought to be hunted with dogs."

Posted by: davidscott1 | October 4, 2008 5:30 PM

Unfortunately, there are no easy answers. "They" consist of both Republicans and Democrats.

And the "bailout" is a ripoff that will not help anyone but some people and companies in the finance sector who don't want to suffer the effects of their bubble burst.

Posted by: AsperGirl | October 4, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

So, the rotten, incompetent republican motherfeckers are worried they'll lose seats after their throrough mismanagement of everything? Indeed, why on earth would anybody vote for the idiots who started a needless, trillion-dollar war while they set up things to allow their fat-cat cronies to steal us blind and run the economy into the ground? Not only should they lose their seats, but some of them should be brought up on charges for malfeasance. And this goes for some Democrats as well since they were too cowardly to stop Bush and his liars and thieves. "Country First," what a crock! I know my fellow Americans - they worry about school prayer and the "homosexual agenda" more than about their jobs. That's why the sh!tty, lousy republicans have been able to pass laws that allow sending Americans' jobs overseas, and waste our money on their interminable wars that they promote through their fake, pseudo-patriotic blather and lies.

It is a favorite thing to do for the business-b&stards, laying off workers in order to boost the companies' ratings on Wall Street. They lay off workers to please the stockholders. Enjoy it now, stockholder-b&stards. I hope you feckers lose every penny and become street people.

Posted by: hfisher1 | October 4, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

I would be happy to do the baking for a "welcome back" luncheon for PUMAs.

Posted by: officermancuso | October 4, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

The Republican band encompassing the entire GOP is now like a disease that has spread throughout the entire body.

It will take years for the GOP to repair the brand damage done during the Bush years.

And rightly so, these "followers" of the Bush presidential strategy has caused worldwide problems-it will take years for the healing and the rememberance to fade.

And, I hope each and every night, Bush, Cheney and the rest of his crew is haunted by the faceless souls of those lost in Iraq...a war that did not have to happen.

And, for a war in Afghanistan now surpassing the time of WWII and our fight with both Japan and Germany.

Posted by: blackjack3 | October 4, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

McCain would seriously damage the economy. It is already in the pits. He will have you eating Campbell's soup every night.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | October 4, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST BAILOUT:

PRECURSOR TO THE BIG "OCTOBER SURPRISE"?

This was posted in the headlines section of Democracy Now! on 9/22:

* Army Unit to Deploy in October for Domestic Operations *

Beginning in October, the Army plans to station an active unit inside the United States for the first time to serve as an on-call federal response in times of emergency.

The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent thirty-five of the last sixty months in Iraq, but now the unit is training for domestic operations.

The unit will soon be under the day-to-day control of US Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command.

The Army Times reports this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to Northern Command.

The paper says the Army unit may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control. The soldiers are learning to use so-called nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals and crowds.

IS THIS THE "OCTOBER SURPRISE"?

Please note the last sentence, an apparent reference to "directed energy weapons" that emit silent, potentially deadly radiation. What happened to the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits using the Army for domestic policing?

Put this item together with the financial crisis; extra-legal targeting of Americans; telecom immunity; electronic voting and the lack of a paper trail to allow recounts; the Sarah Palin pick... are we in the amist of a "silent coup," leading to a suspension of civil liberties, and a crackdown on "dissidents."

Note that we haven't seen the above item in the mainstream media.

HOW CAN THEY COME UP WITH A 'SOLUTION'
WHEN THEY DON'T YET KNOW THE CAUSE?

TARGETING OF AMERICANS BY GOV'T AGENCIES
A ROOT CAUSE OF WALL STREET MELTDOWN?

Once again, Congress rushed through emergency legislation -- socializing the capital markets, ceding effective control of the economy to the government.

Officials continue to blame lax lending policies on the part of the mortgage industry for spawning this crisis.

But were lenders ORDERED to offer "easy credit" to people "targeted" by government agencies?

Is government "extra-judicial targeting" of American citizens a root cause of the mortgage meltdown that spawned the broader financial crisis?

And is there a disinformation campaign underway to blame the Democrats, instead of ideologues who have hijacked federal agencies as their tool of "social engineering."

Consider this:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/targeting-u-s-citizens-govt-agencies-root-cause-wall-street-financial-crisis OR
http://members.nowpublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | October 4, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

"How about that Sarah? You know what, Sarah did a great job! And would probably do a better job as President than Obama or Biden who still seems to have a difficult time with truth telling."

Posted by: mbm011 | October 4, 2008 3:03 PM

What is really unfortunate is that she appears to have a stronger leadership voice than the no-leadership, no-strategy John McCain right now. It's McCain who appears to have imploded or checked out of the hotel and left the building.

His campaign has gone from having a poorly thought out post-convention strategy to being leaderless, disoriented and incoherent during the economic upheaval. But there was nothing about the economic upheaval that wasn't obviously going to happen, and that wasn't teetering on the brink of happening, for more than half a year.

His campaign's mishandling and poor preparation of Palin squandered her political capital from the convention launch, and destroyed her image, leaving her to try to rehabilitate it on her own in the face of a hostile press, using her debate.

Is McCain senile or something?

Posted by: AsperGirl | October 4, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

NEITHER party supports the free market.

The Democrats are socialists. They seek to mandate market outcomes rather than allowing the market to take its course. The government's role in the markets should be to set the level of supply of a resource in the national interest (ex: carbon caps, gas taxes) and to set and enforce business regulations. This works fine when the government sets the supply beneath true levels (again, carbon caps or using gas taxes to artificially lower the short-term supply of fuels), but it does not work when the government uses its power to artificially inflate the supply -- case in point: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Had Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae not been assured with active government backing for risky mortgages, they would not have taken such huge risks. Fewer people would have been able to own homes, and the Democrats would have attacked conservatives as wanting to destroy the American dream, but our country's economy would be sound today. However, it was the guarantee of government intervention that inflated the supply of capital to invest in risky mortgages and artificially inflated the pool of qualified home-buyers. Fannie and Freddie's status as government-sponsored entities publicized the risks of these business ventures while allowing the profits to remain private. Of course the lenders were going to take irrational risks.

Now the government is more than happy to encourage further forays into fiscal incompetence.

NEITHER of these parties really supports the free market. If they did, the EESA would not have stood a snowball's chance in hell of passing.

Posted by: acronon | October 4, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

I'm shocked. They led us into the most foolish, destructive war in modern US history, the economy is a shambles, their tax cuts for the rich and spending spree helped turn a surplus into anohter sea of red ink, they did nothing to fix Medicare or Social Security, they chose a Senate Environment Chair who calls global warming a hoax and ran Ellie Mae Clampett for VP, and they're worried about LOSING SEATS??? They ought to be hunted with dogs.

Posted by: davidscott1 | October 4, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

"With the bailout bill now through Congress, Republicans must hope the focus moves off the economy between now and November."

Let's see....that leaves us with Iraq, where Obama and Biden are articulate enough to argue that although Petraeus improved the mess, the whole shebang never should have happened, and all those dead and gravely wounded soldiers should not have been asked by their government to put themselves in that particular harm's way.

And it leaves us with Afghanistan, where we're no closer to victory than we were six years ago.

And it leaves us with Korea and Iran on the brink of going nuclear, both thumbing their noses at Washington.

And it leaves us with Russia, which might have been an ally, but has been driven into opposition by the current administration's bellicose policies.

It also leaves us with a USA once justifiably proud of its record on human rights, now reviled among the "first world" for its turn to torture of prisoners and its turn against the right of its own law abiding citizens to 1) not be spied upon, and 2) be able to be informed about what their increasingly secretive government is up to.

And it leaves us with New Orleans.

"With the bailout bill now through Congress, Republicans must hope the focus moves off the economy between now and November."

As George W. Bush famously remarked, "Bring it on!"

Posted by: officermancuso | October 4, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

As incompetent and incoherent as McCain has been in the past few weeks, from mismanaging Palin's public handling to being totally confused by the economic events that anyone in the loop knew could erupt for months now, it's hard to argue that McCain would be a better president than Obama.

Obama's not got enough experience and he has seriously flawed adult associations, but the level of incoherence and lack of leadership on McCain's part, especially in the past 2 weeks, is worse.

McCain's implosion is even more incomprehensible since Clinton figured out the formula for beating Obama and showed how it should be executed, this Spring. All McCain had to do was understand the fundamental elements of her late-Spring successes against Obama and how they applied to his own contest, and to prepare on the obvious problems that America was facing. Now, it seems that McCain was neither paying attention to Clinton's experiences during the primary season nor was he prepared to deal with the economic problems that were obviously percolating all year long and that he could expect to erupt at any time.

Obama didn't have to beat him. He only had to let McCain beat himself.

I think it appears that McCain has not been competent as a leadership voice or strategist in the past few weeks.

It's unfortunate that McCain's mismanagement of Palin, his bungling of her preparation and handling, has damaged her public image as a rising talent, too.

Maybe the right-wingers hate McCain for a reason?

Posted by: AsperGirl | October 4, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

"Fiscally, the country IS center-right. It prefers free markets to government intervention."

Democrats are generally free market. They just aren't so mindlessly purist about it. Its not that Republican policies are pro-business, its that they are pro-BIG business.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 4, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

I just hope and pray that what they fear is exactly what happens on 11/4. Another incompetent Republican administration would just drive this nation further into the ground, and even I don't want to suffer that much.

Posted by: bb211 | October 4, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

I disagree with the comment about Joe Lieberman. The problem with this country is too many politicians stick to their party line instead of exercising their independent judgment. While I do not always agree with Sen. Lieberman, I highly respect his independence and centrism and I hope he is not punished by Democrats for speaking his mind.

Posted by: acronon | October 4, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

It is a fact that Republicans are incapable of governing -- although they can campaign!

With a pick-up of eight or nine seats in the Senate, watch Lieberman be kicked out of his chairmanship -- and not a minute too soon.

Posted by: DoninTexas | October 4, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

With the brown shirts of Acorn acting as storm troopers on election day to help steal the election for Obama, America can look forward to a bold new future of socialism & loss of freedom. I could almost wish this on the idiots too stupid to know better but I live here too.

Posted by: jbianco28 | October 4, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

The current conditions are optimal for the emergence of a third party. The Republicans have abandoned the fiscal conservatives in their base. We are now politically homeless.

Fiscally, the country IS center-right. It prefers free markets to government intervention. This is evident in the widespread public dissatisfaction with the EESA. Furthermore, there is strong evidence that many of these subprime mortgages were encouraged by liberal policies promoting "affordable housing" for everyone.

A wise third party (and the Libertarians are not wise) would seek to claim the fiscal conservative mantle while redefining "social conservatism" as a form of liberalism and embracing what we now call "social liberalism". Republicans have done an excellent job of convincing the country that "socially conservative" views are conservative policies. In reality, most of them are government intrusion into the private lives of individuals. This is liberalism.

A wise third party would make a strong effort to redefine what we consider "socially liberal" to "social conservatism" while casting right-wing social "conservatives" as the liberals that they are.

I believe that this is the ideological middle ground of the country. If a third-party could attract fiscal conservatives and successfully paint Republicans as the big-government liberals that they are, they could become the new party for true conservatives. If only the Libertarians were a wise party as opposed to the amalgamation of malcontents that they currently are. Save us Ron Paul.

Posted by: acronon | October 4, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Pennsylvania drew a +12 today making their RCP aggregate over 9 points for Obama. So much for that state for McCain. All McCain can do is hope the national tide for Obama's favor begins to ebb. That's it.

Of course, that's not happening today. Obama drew a +6, +7, and +8 nationally.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 4, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

How about that Sarah? You know what, Sarah did a great job! And would probably do a better job as President than Obama (our socialist leaning professor) or Biden (our old tome senator who still has a difficult time with truth telling).

Posted by: mbm011 | October 4, 2008


Does mbm011 stand for minus brain matter, IQ 11 ?

Tell me one thing that gijoe has said that's true?
I bet you don't even know what socialism is, just something you heard on FAKE News.

Posted by: jime2000 | October 4, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

I agree,Republicans will loose a minimum of 6- 8 senate seats.

Posted by: mbm011 | October 4, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama Bin Biden is kind of funny.
But no way will I kiss your behind.

The GOP does need to do some soul searching. Plenty of independents who are fiscally conservative, like myself, see nothing in their actions when in power that indicates they know anything about effective governance.

Personally, I loathe the 2 party system. That's why we have an obviously overmatched VP candidate who can receive any praise for the vapid performance she turned in last week. It could be anyone up there and 35% of the country would vote for him or her just because she is the party's candidate. That's bad enough, but the worst are those people who actually have brains (in this case on the right) who actually try to argue that she did a good job. Yeah, right.

I want bright people running the country.

Obama-Biden '08!

Posted by: rightsaid | October 4, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Mbm, Gov. Palin performed terribly in the debate. Granted she was actually able to speak at a fluid pace unlike her halting performance in the Couric interviews. But there was absolutely ZERO substance to almost everything she said. She was not actually forced to answer any questions; in fact, she outright stated she was going to ignore questions and stick to her talking points.

I like John McCain, and had he picked Mike Bloomberg or Joe Lieberman, I may be voting for that centrist ticket. But Six-Pack Sarah is a cancer within our political discourse that must be cutout before it spreads.
Gov. Palin dumbs down the national dialogue during one of the most dangerous times in our history. No offense, but I do not want "Joe Six-Pack" leading the nation during this time. If this is the Republicans' new standard, who excels at being the most average, then perhaps their 2012 primaries should be converted to a 50-state, double-elimination beer pong tournament.

Posted by: acronon | October 4, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

I would like competence and excellance in government. That standard eliminates all conservatives, with the mantra of, do you believe in God?, are you gay? and , most importantly, are you loyal to George Bush?. Gag and more gagging! Please give me academic excellance, Barack Obama, elite my a--, I want, and our country needs, competence and excellance .
Next time a conservative kid comes home make sure he has D or F for his school grades, or he is an elitist.
Joe Biden real experience and real decisions. Sarah Palin is neither competant or excellant, robotic, yes. And McCain does not need the stress of the presidency, he could not take it and we should not put him in that position. He has done enough for this country. Take a break Mccain, for you and the country. It is a killer job, you had the right stuff but not any more.

Posted by: MikeQ2 | October 4, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Instead of fretting over their losses, the republicans should try some soul-searching and corrective action to right their monumental mistakes of the past 8 years. In just 8 short years, the republicans have taken us from:

Prosperity to poverty
Employed to unemployed
Peace to war
A nation of homeowner to a nation of homeless
International economic power to international economic disaster
World military supremacy to military inferiority
Balance national budget to largest national debt in our nation’s history

How does a political party destroy the world’s greatest economy and military in just 8 short years?

Posted by: jandcgall1 | October 4, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

I plan on voting for Obama bin Biden 08 because the Republicans need a few years in political exile to reflect on the disastrous path on which they've led this country. But do you guys really think that the Democrats intend to change anything? Hell no. What exactly are they going to change? And how do they plan to do it? And with what money? "Change" became Obama's theme based on some pollster's results; not because Barack Obama just happened to represent what everyone was asking for this year. Don't be so naive. If you guys really buy their spin about "change" and "middle-class values", then you are all a bunch of dolts. There are plenty of good reasons to vote Obama/Biden(or if you prefer, as I do, against McCain/Palin), but specificity of their "new direction" for the country (particularly in light of the EESA and the constricting effect it will have on the next administration's budgetary flexibility) is not one of them.

P.S. The first of you to say something about the use of "Obama bin Biden" can kiss my ass. It may not be PC, but it is funny.

Posted by: acronon | October 4, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

How about that Sarah? You know what, Sarah did a great job!

Posted by: mbm011 | October 4, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

How about that Sarah? You know what, Sarah did a great job! And would probably do a better job as President than Obama or Biden who still seems to have a difficult time with truth telling.

Posted by: mbm011 | October 4, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

*****The truth is that this problem is a lot like our impending crises of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. These too are completely predictable and solvable, IF we act to balance the budget NOW******

You want to balance the budget now? Fine. Elect Democrats...last time the budget was balanced was under Bill Clinton...we've all seen what Puddinhead Bush did after that...Republicans are going to think a tidal wave swept through Washington come November. So serve up the sleaze, McShame, keep reminding voters how sleazy you Republicans can be...great strategy you moron.

Posted by: Jerryvov | October 4, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

McPsycho and Josephine Six-Pack....a team for the ages, one to lie and the other to swear to it. Sleazoid and the Gollum, interchangeable parts perfectly suited to reside at the bottom of the cesspool...wink, wink.

Posted by: Jerryvov | October 4, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

How about that Sarah? You know what, Sarah did a great job! And would probably do a better job as President than Obama (our socialist leaning professor) or Biden (our old time senator who still has a difficult time with truth telling)

Posted by: mbm011 | October 4, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

How about that Sarah? You know what, Sarah did a great job! And would probably do a better job as President than Obama (our socialist leaning professor) or Biden (our old time senator who still has a difficult time with truth telling)

Posted by: mbm011 | October 4, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

I have to agree with Opa2. While I am a Progressive, I was disappointed to see Franken win the nomination to run for that seat. He's a comedic writer for heaven's sake! If we had a strong candidate, that race would be over.

But the fact that he is keeping this close and looks like he may actually pull it out in the end makes you wonder about the Repug brand and where its future lies.

PG

Posted by: PeixeGato | October 4, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

How about that Sarah? You know what, Sarah did a great job! And would probably do a better job as President than Obama (our socialist leaning professor) or Biden (our old tome senator who still has a difficult time with truth telling).

Posted by: mbm011 | October 4, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

What I meant was that the Republicans want to keep their base from getting discouraged and not bothering to vote. The negative assault on Obama fires up their loyal voters, which could make a difference in close senatorial and congressional races.

Posted by: harlemboy | October 4, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

The republicans have good reason to be worried about the second and third tiers on the ballot. As a rule the party that wins the presidency also takes a few seats from the other party in the Congress. In addition, if Al Franken is ahead in Minnesota, no matter by what small a margin, things are not good for the republicans. A comedian can stay even with a polished and experienced politician in a toss-up state, that set me to thinking. What's wrong with the republican party this time around?
.

Posted by: Opa2 | October 4, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

McCain is just a place-holder that the neo-cons are using for Sarah Palin. They plan to get him in the White House (notice I said "get him in", not "win") and then eventually disgard him and watch the person who is supposed to be the "future of the Repug Party" (i.e. Caribou Barbie Sarah Palin) take over.

If Sarah Palin is the Repug Party's future, then you guys don't have much to look forward to.

On a side note, just imagine how the left would react to Sarah Palin as Pres and the right would react to Nancy Pelosi as her VP, lol! Talk about an Odd Couple!

PG

Posted by: PeixeGato | October 4, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Do you guys really think the Democrats are more capable of handling this crisis, or are they just trying to score political points since they haven't been in power? This goes far beyond either party; this is a problem created by a complacent and entitled political class on both sides of the aisle.

The truth is that this problem is a lot like our impending crises of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. These too are completely predictable and solvable, IF we act to balance the budget NOW.

Under the current political status quo, we will wait until these problems shake the pillars of our nation before we act. Our complacent leaders, searching for a quick fix, will produce some asinine plan to put a golden Band-Aid on the problem-- then they will pat themselves on the back for a job well done. All the while, (Ruling Party) will be sighing that "No one could have seen a crisis of this magnitude coming." (Minority Party) will then keenly point out that, in fact, it was quite possible to see (Crisis) coming and that (Prominent Party Figure with Presidential Ambitions) has been warning about this for years -- but he/she has been ignored, presumably because (Ruling Party) secretly hates America and disdains "middle-class values." (Ruling Party) will then counter that (Crisis) is actually the result of the policies advocated under (Most Recent Minority Party Administration).
Soon realizing that voters are disgusted with their partisanship and incompetence, (Minority Party) and (Ruling Party) will then seek to out-"bipartisan" each other in a lame attempt to convince the American people they are more mature than the average 8-year old. (Ruling Party) and (Minority Party) then call for a commission to ensure that (Crisis) never happens again. Soon after, they both get back to their jobs of ignoring the next impending crisis through clever diversions such as discussing the fate of some lady in Florida on a feeding tube or a perennial favorite, such as raising votes on anti-flag-burning laws. So long as it does not require thoughtful analysis, it's fair game. Rinse. Repeat.


This is a problem with both Democrats and Republicans. George Bush is the problem. John McCain, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden are the problem. Pelosi and Boehner are the problem. McConnell and Reid are the problem. And then there's the distinguished Gov. Palin, who presumably pounds a six-pack every night to take her mind off the problem. I urge everyone to vote against incumbents this year, regardless of their political affiliation. Or better yet, vote for a third party or Independent. Anything besides more of what we have now.

Posted by: acronon | October 4, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

As an Obama supporter and whole hearted Progressive, watching the returns come in on November 4 is going to be ORGASMIC!

PG

Posted by: PeixeGato | October 4, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Harlemboy, I find your theory about a scorched-earth strategy minimizing down-ballot defeats intriguing. Offhand, it seems (as you point out) that in this election it would be the opposite. Can you elaborate?

Follow-up question: If asked to fall on his sword for the good of the rest of the ticket, would McCain "maverick" his party to save what's left of his reputation, or is he a good soldier?

----- -----

harlemboy:

The Republicans know they're going to lose, so the scorched-earth strategy is, I think, intended to keep a narrow McCain loss from turning into a blowout. Doing so could minimize down-ballot defeats. This approach has worked for them in the past, but I'm wondering if it could backfire this time.

...

Posted by: harlemboy | October 4, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: stickbook | October 4, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

McCain did not distinguish himself with this bailout mess. But neither did Obama. First he said he backed the bailout w/o knowing the details, then he stood in the Senate and said there was no time left to consider other options and the bailout must be approved. He even lobbied for it actively. Any presidential candidate who said there were no other options except to throw away 850 billions and hope it works doesn't deserve the office. There are always other options unless it were Russian missiles already in the air heading straight for America. Imagine JFK during the Cuban missile crisis saying there were no other options, that the missiles were already in place and they must be taken out immediately! Well if he had, we would not be here blogging.

A president who lets himself be boxed in by events, or worse be blackmailed by wrongdoers, will be a failed president.

So yes McCain can make a case about Obama's judgment. And his character too.

Posted by: bobte | October 4, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

What any "yes" congress person had better hope for is some tangible ressults to this bailout of Paulson's crooked Wall Street cronies. And it has to happen this month, otherwise "yes" voters will find the bailout hangins like a millstone around their necks.

Smart opponents of any incumbent of either party should be preparing attack ads pointing out that millstone.

Republican congress persons were stupid for backing Bush on the bailout. They should have let the Democrats carry the ball.

The "yes" voter who failed to get his/her 25 millions bribe in a numbered account from the Wall Street fat cat crooks is a double stupid!

Posted by: wj_phillips | October 4, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

It's about friggin time. This country has been sold out from under it's feet by Bush and the Republicans, just look at how much of our debt China owns for evidence.

It's pathetic that we've allowed the last eight years to occur. It's even more pathetic that people would consider the thought of voting for the hot headed McCain who will say or do anything to get elected. And then there is Sarah, OMG, what are people who intend to vote for her thinking? Because she winks at you, she's capable????? Give me a friggin break, the only difference between Sarah and Cheney is lipstick.

America is on the brink, we need leadership that can make our nation great again.

VOTE OBAMA!!!!

Posted by: paguy1 | October 4, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

get rid of the old and bring in new blood that won't bail out their cronies...a lot of independents are running...time to shake things up...

Posted by: DwightHCollins | October 4, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans know they're going to lose, so the scorched-earth strategy is, I think, intended to keep a narrow McCain loss from turning into a blowout. Doing so could minimize down-ballot defeats. This approach has worked for them in the past, but I'm wondering if it could backfire this time. I surely hope so.

The Republican Party has nothing positive to offer the country, and I suspect the voters are angry enough to really punish them this time. An ugly, relentlessly negative and personal barrage against Obama could cause many independent voters to recoil when they are looking for serious answers to serious problems.

Posted by: harlemboy | October 4, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it a big problem when a party desperately wants the focus of the campaign on anything but the most important issue facing the country?

The republican party is becoming a joke.

Posted by: l_quimby | October 4, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

A nice new war with Iran would do the job.

The Israelis will start it and when The Iranians sink the US fleet in the gulf, Bush will join in too.

Dont forget that the Neocons always wanted to attack Iran first..... but there was never a valid excuse.

Posted by: kuseldavid1 | October 4, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

And Democrats in DC will be better for the country? Please! The Democrat Congress just voted to give away 700 billions to WS and 150 billions to the special interests.

A bunch of Democrat congressmen/women stood up in the House and said they voted for the bailout because they were promised the money will be used to help modify mortgages for struggling homeowners in their poor neighborhoods. They either did not know what they were talking about or were sold a bill of goods. These mortgages were bundled up and the bundles were then sliced into pieces to spread the risk and sold all over the world. There is no way Hank gonna spend time piecing them back together in order to help out the homeowners individually. And they must all be bought first and then pieced back together if the individual mortgages are to be legally modified. That will take months if not years. These representatives did not have even the most rudimentary understanding of how WS works and they voted to give it the money anyway!

This money will go straight to bankers in NY and perhaps London too. Yes tax dollars from South LA will help bail out European banks!

Posted by: bobte | October 4, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

When you see that clip just think of the Penguin in Batman. On Tuesday Mccain is going to look like a troll wandering around the stage next to Obama who will look like a president. Mccain may try some kind of death roll with his negative campaigning but he will only succeed in taking himself and others down with him.


--------------
How about that Sarah Palin, Ehh? How about her, Ehh? How about the job she did, Ehh?

If you were holding 1,000 shares of Freddie Mac and need a laugh, watch this clip. Hilarious. A month is a long time, but this is worse than Dean's war whoop.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r8hhShMyZw&feature=bzb302

Posted by: SharptonVoter | October 4, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: popasmoke | October 4, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

As a Georgia voter, I'm glad some folks in the media are finally picking up on the potential sea change emerging in Southeastern politics.

Since this crisis began, support for Saxby Chambliss, who seemed virtually invincible a month ago, has quickly eroded. However, Chris, you could not be more wrong about why people are disgusted with the bailout bill. They are not sickened by the "struggle" to pass the bill on Monday, they are angry at the bill itself. It does not help that the House Republicans grandstanding on Monday only led to a $150 billion more expensive pork-fried version of the same bill. The passage of the EESA on Friday makes the House Republicans' ham-handed attempt to stop this bill seem inauthentic and foolishly costly.

Folks in the South are frankly disgusted by what this bill represents. People believe it is a waste of taxpayer money designed to temporarily mask the damage to the economy. Poor decisions were made and the economy will suffer accordingly; this is the system we have and attempts to change the rules mid-game will only create more problems down the road. Jim Martin's latest ad reflects this sentiment. He does not attack Congress' inability to pass the bill, he attacks Chambliss' support for the bill! I expect this to emerge as the standard line of attack in conservative districts against any incumbent who supported the EESA. And it will work. In a poll released Tuesday by SurveyUSA, Martin was behind Chambliss by only 2 points. That was BEFORE Chambliss' vote for the pork-fried bailout bill. It will be very interesting to see what the polls are after his vote and Martin's corresponding ad.

Posted by: acronon | October 4, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

It can't be turned around anymore. The numbers are hardened and people are making up their mine for good. Mccain will go neg and turn off even more voters.

-------------
I understand that McCain is preparing what Karl Rove just called the largest barrage of negative advertising in American political history. No doubt this might include some kind of "October Surprise." This is a standard from the Nixon, Lee Atwater, Karl
Rove playbook, now being run by McCain's campaign functionaries, Steve Schmidt, and Rick "Freddie Mac is my ATM" Davis. Apparently, they are going to throw everything, including the kitchen sink, at Obama, but how is this supposed to reduce the already very high negatives of McCain and Palin? Bush won a "scorched earth" campaign in 2004, as did his father in 1988, but it left neither of them in a good position to actually govern the nation. Or, am I missing something here . . .

Posted by: osullivanc1 | October 4, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: popasmoke | October 4, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

How about that Sarah Palin, Ehh? How about her, Ehh? How about the job she did, Ehh?

If you were holding 1,000 shares of Freddie Mac and need a laugh, watch this clip. Hilarious. A month is a long time, but this is worse than Dean's war whoop.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r8hhShMyZw&feature=bzb302

Posted by: SharptonVoter | October 4, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

I understand that McCain is preparing what Karl Rove just called the largest barrage of negative advertising in American political history. No doubt this might include some kind of "October Surprise." This is a standard from the Nixon, Lee Atwater, Karl Rove playbook, now being run by McCain's campaign functionaries, Steve Schmidt, and Rick "Freddie Mac is my ATM" Davis. Apparently, they are going to throw everything, including the kitchen sink, at Obama, but how is this supposed to reduce the already very high negatives of McCain and Palin? Bush won a "scorched earth" campaign in 2004, as did his father in 1988, but it left neither of them in a good position to actually govern the nation. Or, am I missing something here . . .

Posted by: osullivanc1 | October 4, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Why would Repubs be scared? They should explain why we are in this mortgage bailout situation - the Community Reinvestment Act mandating high risk loans. This is a Dem piece of...legislation.

Posted by: Pharmer | October 4, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Can you see the new spin coming? Democrats are benefiting from bad economic news, watch the dittoheads try to spin this as some sort of Schadenfreude.

Now that McCain is sinking in the polls and Obama is opening up a greater lead than Republican vote suppression will be able to overcome, watch for the REALLY dirty tricks.

And watch them fail, since everyone will know that's what they are.

Heh heh heh McCain the honorable old soldier .. who lies a lot.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | October 4, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

You reap what you sow. They should have thought about this before chugging Bush's Corrupt Cool-Aid Cocktail. I say good riddance to them. Come Jan. we'll see what a real president and congress with integrity looks like.


Posted by: Godhimself1 | October 4, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

sweet.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 4, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company