Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Political Take: Bailouts, Biden and Palin -- Oh My!

The Fix and Newsweek Managing Editor Dan Klaidman rap -- not literally, that would be weird -- about the politics surrounding the bailout vote, tomorrow night's vice presidential debate and next Tuesday's second presidential debate. And all in under ten minutes!

It's the latest edition of the "Political Take" -- a joint video collaboration between washingtonpost.com and Newsweek -- and it's below.

By Chris Cillizza  |  October 1, 2008; 1:45 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Independent Group Raises McCain Health Issue
Next: McCain: The Angry Warrior?

Comments

smaggie and ksaund both have a point, but its soon lost in the partisan arguments about who is to blame. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have screwed up, this time. The Democrats in government have gone too far to push "affordable housing" with rules and practices that encouraged people to agree to mortgages they couldn't afford, and encouraged lenders to make the loans to back them. The Republicans in government have bent over backward to serve and protect major corporations and insitutions from the consequences of their own poor judgment. BOTH parties were too eager to accept the counsel (and flakey accounting) of the "Wizards of Wall Street" and the Fed (which may be largely the same people, with different hats).

It IS important to assign responsibility, and determine exactly what happened, but claims by either party to be entirely on the side of the angels should be scrutinized carefully.

Posted by: Iconoblaster | October 2, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

ksaund: You are absolutely correct about when this started. The only reason it has ended up in this situation is that the RULES AND REGULATIONS were not followed by these companies. The Democrats have been trying to get the Republicans, for years,to sit down on these iregularities and make them follow regulations, BUT the Republicans refused to step in and it ALL got out of hand with the people getting
rich doing things the way they wanted. Oh yes, do you kow a person who has been on a job for less that six months receiving a bonus of over 10 million dollars? OR a person who was dismissed because of some wrong doing getting a bonus of over one hundred million dollars? What it will amount to is that we will have to repay this money through our taxes, so how can the taxes be reduced?

Posted by: smaggie | October 2, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

UBCSteve raises an interesting point about the wisdom of GOP tactics for selling Palin, but it doesn't look as though they have much choice. They can't sell her as intellectual, so there is nothing to do BUT try to exploit the anti-intellectual biases of some American voters, and sell her as "folksy".

It may be a bad gamble, but if its the only bet they can cover...

There IS a certain segment of the population that takes a perverse pride in ignorance. I hope it isn't a large enough segment to make the difference.

Republicans for Obama!

Posted by: Iconoblaster | October 2, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

As far as who is primarily responsible for the Fannie/Freddie situation. Here's a link to the NY Times article from 9/1999 with the original announcement. It may have taken several years for the resultant fall out, but Clinton initiated this process.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=


Posted by: ksaund | October 2, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

I would like to see Gwen Ifill remove herself as moderator for tonight's debate. The overwhelming public opinion relative to this (bipartisan) speaks for itself. It's time for her actions to back up her reputation as an ethical journalist. I'm hoping she will step aside voluntarily, and demonstrate her level of integrity and ethics. If she doesn't, I personally believe that in and of itself speak volumes.

I'm tired of empty words without the action to back them up. I'm tired of hearing journalists and politicians alike making claims that their actions/records simply don't evidence. I'm a democrat, and even I see that in Obama. He's a great speaker - inspiring even - but there's no record, evidence, or action to back up much of what he's saying. Anyone one can say great things. Being inspiring is definitely a gift. But what has he actually DONE that qualifies him to be the next President of one of the greatest countries in the world??? Are we seriously considering electing a president that has NO executive experience in ANYTHING?? No business experience? No foreign policy experience? How can we ignore the people he has chosen as mentors and friends? Why isn't he willing to fully disclose education, contribution and countless other information? Why aren't we demanding this? HELLO...?? America, are you serious??

Posted by: ksaund | October 2, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

You are missing one major point, "NO ONE CARES". We want a new direction and it ain't John Mccain. You should have gotten a better candidate.


-------
Powerline has a compelling blog on the many fraudulent contributions for Obama--including from overseas. Here's one example, Mr. Good Will: In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as ''Will, Good'' from Austin, Texas. Mr. Good Will listed his employer as ''Loving'' and his profession as ''You.''

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 3:21 PM
Posted by: 37thandOStreet | October 2, 2008 7:24 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: popasmoke | October 2, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

You are missing one major point, "NO ONE CARES". We want a new direction and it ain't John Mccain. You should have gotten a better candidate.

Posted by: popasmoke | October 2, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

There's an interesting bit of comment/analysis on Palin's capablity vis-a-vis the VP debate here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR_JFpD02D0

The guy in the clip recommends that she find any excuse to pull out of the debate!!

But I've seen a bit of comment suggesting that Palin's ignorance may come over as 'refreshing'.

It'll be interesting to see how her 'unpretentious' lack of competency plays out among the great masses / independents.

I mean, some pundits criticise Obama for being too cool and intellectual - I guess by that logic someone who is anti-intellectual (or comes across that way) might appeal to a lot of independent voters?

Pretty high risk strategy going into a live debate tho - play dumb and hope the public love you for it!

Thoughts?

Posted by: YBCsteve | October 2, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Powerline has a compelling blog on the many fraudulent contributions for Obama--including from overseas. Here's one example, Mr. Good Will: In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as ''Will, Good'' from Austin, Texas. Mr. Good Will listed his employer as ''Loving'' and his profession as ''You.''

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 3:21 PM

Posted by: 37thandOStreet | October 2, 2008 7:24 AM | Report abuse

It's the end of the GOP as we know it ...and I feel fine.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4egXbhSOhk
.


"Our economy is structurally sound for the long term"
*George W Bush - Feb 11, 2008*


"The American people can remain confident in the soundness and the resilience of our financial system"
*Henry Paulson - Sept 15, 2008*


"The fundamentals of our economy are strong"
*John McCain - Sept 15, 2008*


"The economy is fundamentally sound"
*Herbert Hoover - October, 1931*
.

Posted by: DrainYou | October 1, 2008 11:21 PM | Report abuse

The only surprise about recent polls about Sarah Palin is how many persons persist in thinking she is qualified to be president. Of course, the vast majority of right wing ideologues and Republican sheep will support anyone who is a right winger or very conservative. However, the 60-65% of the rest of Americans, who are moderates, liberals, progressives, independents,and Democrats should be united in realizing she is not qualified for the presidency.

However, I think Palin may come across in her debate with Joe Biden as being overall reasonably competent. The format of the "debate" allows an individual, who is largely uninformed about many important issues, but who is tutored and prepper with scripted lines, to conceivably come across as more or less competent.

Sarah Palin is a performer, by her background, in certain respects. A candidate for high national office could possibly come across fairly well, especially with the questions likely being quite general, predictable and very limited interaction between her and Biden.

How a candidate comes across on television in a quasi-debate is given too much importance by the media, whether among presidential or vice-presidential candidates. This is a highly superficial forum, but too many people, in the media and among the general public, may be unnecessarily influenced by relatively unimportant sound bites or "performance" criteria, more worthy of evaluating the skills of an actor or actress, than the next president of vice-president of the United States.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | October 1, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

With the administration's proposed $700 billion bailout nothing more than a blank check to give the Treasury Secretary unbridled power with no real oversight, we ought to consider the consequences of having that much power.


Should McCain actually occupy the White House, we could very well face the prospect of TREASURY SECRETARY PHIL GRAMM.


Wait whaaat?? That Phil Gramm?! The same man who fought tooth and nail in the '90s with John McCain to to deregulate Wall Street?

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/foreclosure-phil.html
.


The same Phil Gramm who said we're all a bunch of whiners in this economy? The same guy who was in bed with Enron and who snuck in their pet legislation at the 11th budget hour while co-sponsoring legislation that destroyed Glass-Steagall?

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/foreclosure-phil.html
.


Don't believe me? Just last week, Tucker Bounds refused to rule him out.

http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/mccain-phil-gramm-as-treasury-secretary-are-you-kidding/
.


Foreclosure Phil Gramm would ride to the rescue for the same folks who he enabled to start this damn mess! Now, imagine Treasury Secretary Gramm having this authority under the bailout:


"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

Posted by: DrainYou | October 1, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

McCain should suspense his campaign for good!

Posted by: sauyinzhi | October 1, 2008 9:26 PM | Report abuse

"Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008"

*sigh*

The Democratic candidates are Obama and Biden.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 1, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse


hclark1 dribbled:
Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008
---------------------

And the earth is only 6000 years old.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

you Lib nitwits really beleive that promise? It took Bill clinton exactly one month to renege on that one.

besides, it was Obama who was caught in an out and out lie when he said he did NOT vote to tax earners making $42K. Expect the same.

how else will he pay for all his socialist programs and reward all his friends for laying low until the election.

you Libs are truly gullible. a tax cutting Democrat - ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

The reality is that Obama will LOWER TAXES on 95 percent of American citizens. McCain will RAISE TAXES on 90 percent of American citizens.

Of course, if you already MAKE - TODAY, not tomorrow - $5 million a year, then you should want McCain's plan.

Naturally, it will destroy America, but McCain is unlikely to survive two terms, so he doesn't care.

Posted by: WillSeattle | October 1, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008

Posted by: hclark1 | October 1, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

John McCain is over 70, his father John McCain Jr, died at 70, and his grandfather John McCain Sr died at 61.

Modern medical science being what it is, John McCain has not lived the healthiest life (through bad luck in many cases), and he has had cancer. The odds are definitely against nature granting him eight more healthy years.

Crass though it may seem, John McCain made his age an issue when he picked Palin to be his VP. Were she competent and trusted by the public then it would be entirely inappropriate to raise age as an issue since the potential replacement would be seen as a capable caretaker. However, Palin is widely and correctly seen as way in over her head, so the fact that McCain's age makes her statistically more likely to assume the Presidency instantly forces the public to discuss whether he is too old to take a risk on.

In order for her to beat Biden in a debate, she literally needs to give a detailed explanation of String Theory, in Latin. Let's be honest, she's displayed such stunning levels of incompetence that she is required to prove otherwise beyond any reasonable doubt.

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

"Or perhaps that raising taxes might harm a fragile economy?"

Obama is lowering taxes. Stop lying.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 1, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

I've heard from some "experts" that if Governor Palin simply makes it through the debate without making a fool of herself, she wins the debate.

Using this theory, does this mean that since John "Foreign" McPolicy is the Wizard that since Senator Obama faired quite well on Friday, that he won his debate in a landslide?

Posted by: helloisanyoneoutthere | October 1, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Sweet Jaysus!

Obama now leads Florida, Nevada And Missouri!

Ohio coming his way!

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Opinions are important and debating skills a MUST at this level of politics.
http://twitter.com/DigitalElection

Posted by: davidmwe | October 1, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

"America needs an administration that is based in reality"

you mean for example, admitting that the surge worked?

Or perhaps that raising taxes might harm a fragile economy?

Or that we are not able to pay the billions that Obama proposes.

since the social programs are out and the war is won, what does he have left to offer? nothing.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

When pressed about the ad claiming that Obama wanted to teach 5yo girls how to use condoms (verified not true), he insisted that it was true.

-------------------------

McC: Truly Mr. Loony-Tunes. Or just your average liar.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

5PLANEMCCAIN scribed:

Hey wpost4112;

Get used to it. You see, there are millions and millions of people, many of which I know, that - every time they read some REALLY irritating thing about magoo or the hillbilly wench - just bop on over to barackobama.com and donate another $20 bucks.

-------------------

??

I'm FOR Obama. Not sure what your point is.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

The NPR interview this morning and the Iowa editors interview today show a seething, cranky, nasty, bitter and mean spirited old man on the defensive. When pressed about the ad claiming that Obama wanted to teach 5yo girls how to use condoms (verified not true), he insisted that it was true. He insisted the Press is out to get him, that the only Republicans who had any concerns about Palin as VP were Georgetown cocktail party attendees, that he has consulted numerous times with Palin on important foreign policy matters, that because energy was an international issue and She was an 'expert' on energy, therefore she was an expert on foreign policy.

The Bushies once accused their critics of being trapped in a reality-based world. America needs an administration that is based in reality. Enough is enough. The McCain campaign is crumbling before our eyes. Watch out, they[re going to get even more crazy as they fall.

Posted by: thebobbob | October 1, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

so let's review the Dem leadership and their qualifications:

Barack hussain Obama - community organizer, ran for things. Left every job early looking for himself. No major accomplishments.

Joe biden - been in the Seante for decades, voted to abandon vietnam, ignore the first Saddam invasion, then got muscular and voted for the next invasion right before voting to defund the troops, partition Iraq, Most famous for saying totally idiotic motor mouth ramblings

Pelosi - pays her hubbie with PAC money, runs the house like a sandbox, can't even muster 40% of her own for vote, can't pass simple budget bills, worst approval rating in history, best known for extreeme liberalism and rabid partisanship, despite title.

Barney Frank - chair of financial services - responsible for protecting Fannie during regulatory battle. never saw it coming.

Chris dodd - biggest collector of Fannie graft - blocked refrom in committee.

Rangle - chair of ways and means - doesn't pay taxes

schumer - hinted that Indie bank may have problems, leading to its failure.

Murtha - slandered Marines and called them murderers. Lower than a snake's belly.

and the weakest human on the Planet - Harry Reid. rumored to have a spine but has never used it.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

October 1, 2008

To Joe Biden: Time for Confession
by Ray McGovern

Dear Sen. Biden,

I don't have to remind you of the importance of this Thursday's debate from a political perspective. But as you prepare, I invite you to spare a few minutes to look at the opportunity from a moral and religious perspective. You may wish to examine your conscience regarding how you have acted on key foreign policy issues and reflect on John 8:32: "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."

The holy days of religious traditions serve a very useful purpose, if we but take the time to pause and ponder. I write you on Rosh Hashanah, the first of 10 days focusing on repentance.

In Judaism's oral tradition, Rosh Hashanah is the day when people are held to account. The wicked are "blotted out of the book of the living," while the righteous are inscribed in the book of life. Those in the middle are given ten days to repent, until the holiday of Yom Kippur – the solemn Day of Atonement.

If that has a familiar ring to it, Joe, we heard it in as many words at Mass last Sunday in the first reading, from Ezekiel 18: "If one turns from wickedness and does what is right and just, that one will live."

Same Tradition

At Rosh Hashanah the ram's horn trumpet blows to waken us from our slumber and alert us to the coming judgment. Rabbi Michael Lerner has been a ram's horn for me. On Sept. 28, he sent a note addressing forgiveness and repentance.

He encourages us to find a private place to say aloud how we've hurt others, and then to go to them and ask forgiveness. "Do not mitigate or 'explain' – just acknowledge and sincerely ask for forgiveness," says Rabbi Lerner. He suggests we ask for "guidance and strength to rectify those hurts – and to develop the sensitivity to not continue acting in a hurtful way."

Again, a familiar ring. Think, Joe, about the instruction we both received as Irish "cradle Catholics." Surely you will remember the emphasis on examining one's conscience, confessing, and pledging to "sin no more." The phrase comes back, clear as a bell; we were to "confess our sins, do penance, and amend our life, Amen." Remember?

And remember how clean we felt at the end of that therapeutic process? I was reminded of that by Monday's gospel reading from John 1, in which Jesus says of Nathaniel: "Here is a true child of Israel; there is no duplicity in him." Just think of how Nathaniel must have felt.

Joe, you can feel that clean; but one cannot shortcut the process. You must first come clean on your role in greasing the skids for President George W. Bush's war of aggression on Iraq. I use "war of aggression" advisedly, for that is the term used by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson to denote "the supreme international crime, differing from other war crimes only in that it contains the accumulated evil of the whole."

There is no getting around that – despite the reluctance of church, state, and the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) to acknowledge it. I imagine that you, as a lawyer, have moments of acute shame over our country's flouting of international law and the UN Charter, duly ratified by the Senate and thus the law of the land.

And there is no getting away from the important role you played in roping Congress into facilitating that war. Were the war not to have killed, injured, and displaced hundreds of thousands, your lame circumlocutions regarding your own culpability would be laughable – on a par with, say, some of the recent comments of your rival for vice president. But they are in no way funny.

Fulsome Prose

For my own penance, I made myself read again through your marathon, "in-depth" interview with the late Tim Russert on April 29, 2007. Your comments are notable for two things: (1) periodic sentences that can be diagrammed only by a German philologist with the patience of Job in waiting for verbs and an empty quiver for dangling participles; and (2) lies.

It is not hard to spot the lies half-hidden in the underbrush of euphemism and circumlocution. I do not refer to relatively harmless ones like your firm denial of any interest in running for vice president. I'm talking about the real whoppers – the ones we used to call mortal sins. Despite the goings-on in Washington in recent years, Joe, I don't believe anyone has actually passed legislation repealing the commandment against false witness. It's time you come clean.

Confess What?

For some reason, you were calling for an invasion of Iraq and making unsupported claims about its "weapons of mass destruction" even before President George W. Bush came into office. Later, on Aug. 4, 2002, after it had become clear to many of us that Bush was intent on attacking Iraq, you declared that the U.S. was probably going to war. That was three weeks before Vice President Dick Cheney voiced his spurious "intelligence" and set the terms of reference for the war. And it was a month before the administration launched its marketing campaign for the new "product."

You became the administration's most important congressional backer of Bush's preemptive-with-nothing-to-preempt war advocated by neoconservatives and various oil-thirsty functionaries.

Former UN weapons inspector and ex-U.S. Marine Maj. Scott Ritter was correct in describing the hearings you chaired during the summer and fall of 2002, from which you were careful to exclude Ritter and other expert witnesses, as a "sham … to provide political cover for a massive military attack on Iraq." What the country needed was an appropriately skeptical Sen. William Fulbright who listened to dissenters after he got burned on Vietnam. Instead, you took unusual pains to ensure that those dissenting on Iraq would not get a fair hearing.

Ritter: "While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. … It is clear that Sen. Biden and his colleagues have no interest in such facts." Indeed, just before the Senate voted to give Bush authorization to attack Iraq, you plagiarized Cheney in assuring your Senate colleagues that Iraq "possesses chemical and biological weapons and is seeking nuclear weapons."

And why, tell us, Joe, why did you join Sen. John McCain and others in voting against the amendment offered by Sen. Carl Levin that would have forced the president to obtain UN Security Council approval before launching war on Iraq?

'Explaining' the Unexplainable

Then, in 2007, when your catastrophic misjudgments were obvious and hundreds of thousands were dead and maimed, you borrowed administration rhetoric to "explain" to Russert how "everyone in the world thought Saddam had them [WMD]." That was rank hyperbole. When you added, "The weapons inspectors said he had them," that was a lie.

Please, no more torturous explanations of the kind you gave Russert; I mean like this one: "It [the resolution] allowed the president to go to war. It did not authorize him to go to it." Come on, Joe. The resolution says: "The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate." Sen. Robert Byrd, who, unlike you and other Senate Democrats, had no presidential ambitions, rightly observed at the time that those who "voted for a use-of-force resolution handed a 'blank check' to the president."

When the war/occupation brought bloody chaos, you expressed regret only that the Bush people weren't doing it right. For example, in 2004 you told Charlie Rose and in 2007 Russert: "If I'd known that they were going to be so incompetent in using it, I would have never, ever given them the authority." So you approve of preemptive war as long as no one botches the job?

More recently, Joe, you have said of your vote to authorize the war: "It was a mistake. I regret my vote." Pardon the comparison, but you sound like the disgraced Colin Powell, who has expressed regret only for the "blot" on his record. But wait, Joe: "Imagine All the People."

Im-Palin Old Joe

If you do not find my suggestion for confession and repentance morally compelling, Joe, then think of it this way. Your debate partner on Thursday evening will be loaded for bear. I assume you wish to avoid being field dressed.

Ain't no way out of your dilemma but by making a clean breast of it, Joe. She is going to wave her finger at you and quote your fulsome remarks at length – no stranger she to dangling participles. She will do a John Kerry on you, which worked so well four years ago. You were for the war before you were against it, she will wink. And she will have a field day, if not a field dressing.

I don't know what your motives were in giving the president permission to attack Iraq – whether it was the neoconservative-cum-Israel-lobby cabal, the Cheney notion that the only way to ensure the supply of foreign oil is to control it, or a calculated move to ensure your viability as a candidate for president (the kind of thinking that turned out to be, deservedly, the kiss of death for Sen. Hillary Clinton). You had more luck, landing on your feet – sort of.

But you are a "grave and growing" danger (so to speak) to the campaign of Sen. Obama; that is, unless you mount a (God forgive me) "preemptive attack." And you have only one day – not 10 – in which to prepare. It will not wait for Yom Kippur.

Here's What You Do…

And it makes sense from a practical, as well as a moral, point of view. Forget the natural inclination to try to defend the indefensible on your cheerleading for the war. To claim you were fooled by the administration, after almost 30 years in the Senate, is not going to be any more persuasive or exculpatory than to cite what other pressures you may have yielded to.

Here's an idea that might not have occurred to you, since it involves a practice that has been out of vogue for so long. Shock everyone by telling the truth! (But briefly, please.)

Some suggested text:

Gov. Palin, I feel terrible about the role I played in helping President Bush launch this godforsaken war. I confess; it was a terrible decision. I apologize to you and to other mothers whose children have been sent to Iraq, to the hundreds of thousands who have died and been injured, to all Americans and all Iraqis. And I ask for forgiveness. I have learned a painful but powerful lesson; you can count on me never letting that kind of thing happen again.

Heed Rabbi Lerner's caution: "Do not mitigate or 'explain' – just acknowledge and sincerely ask for forgiveness."

Now, Joe, to be quite honest, I cannot guarantee a good result from this kind of approach, since I have no empirical evidence. That is, although I've been in Washington 45 years, I've not seen unvarnished honesty ever risked in quite this way. But I am guessing it could be quite disarming, and could send your debate partner scurrying for less effective talking points.

You will be debating a "fundamentalist," but that is actually a misnomer. The fundamentals of Judeo-Christian morality have to do with truth- telling, justice, and concern for the unprivileged. Confessing, forgiving, and repenting are also fundamentals. Don't be ashamed of them, Joe. Embrace them. My guess is that if you do, you will leave your debate partner shocked – if not speechless.

In the process, you will have succeeded in drawing a stark contrast between the "lies to nowhere" that she continues to tell on the one hand, and your (hopefully) terse, disarming honesty, on the other. You will be free to go ahead and demonstrate that in John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin, no presidential candidate in the history of this country has made a more irresponsible selection for his running mate.

And best of all, you will be able to sit back and smile next Sunday as you listen to the second Scripture reading (from Philippians 4): "Whatever is true, honorable, and just … think about these and keep on doing them. … Then the God who gives peace will be with you."

Let Nathaniel be your model: no duplicity.

Sincerely,
Ray McGovern

This article first appeared on http://ConsortiumNews.com.

Posted by: scrivener50 | October 1, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Hey wpost4112;

Get used to it. You see, there are millions and millions of people, many of which I know, that - every time they read some REALLY irritating thing about magoo or the hillbilly wench - just bop on over to barackobama.com and donate another $20 bucks.

Karl Rove taught the world a couple things; 1. is that negative campaigning works better than positive campaigning, and, 2. that money, and ONLY money, wins elections.

The Democrats got beat by the Supreme Court once and by Rove once. I recall Bush butchered some old saying about learning from mistakes. But then McCain should have known that since he's been around for 200 years.

Posted by: FivePlaneMcCain | October 1, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Congress is about to pass what amounts to a ripoff of the American taxpayer that will sentence us to a sick economy and dysfunctional financial sector, for years on end. The U.S. is following in the footsteps of Japan, which lost a decade of economic health because it refused to let national iconic banks fail when it faced a similar housing and development bubble burst.

Congress, like Japan's leadership, is poised to sacrifice years upon years of national economic health, to prop up an investment banking system that has become dysfunctional and failing.

We will all pay, for years, for their actions.

Posted by: AsperGirl | October 1, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Let's just do what the GOP hero George W. Bush would do whenever he was faced with a challenging situation - make a frat-boy drinking game out of it.

Every time that Palin does this: We'll Do This:

Points her finger - Drink some beer
Says; "Yew knooow" - Drink Beer
Says; "hoooawkey" - Take a shot
Has a run-on sentence - Everybody runs around the room with their arms flailing
Refers to John McCain - Everybody sings "I'm Popeye the sailor man" and drinks.

Well, you get the idea.

Posted by: FivePlaneMcCain | October 1, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

http://www.youtube.com/TheMouthPeace

This is a very important video. It is 10 minutes long but it goes fast. Essentially, it outlines how the Democrats are responsible for the raising then the falling of home prices thanks to their pushing and Freddie May/Mac's pushing of subprime loans. Targeting a small segment of the population who want a home but can not hack the payments, these government run businesses(corruption and all) pushed bad loans because that is how they continued to make money$. When this unnatural cause reversed... when people started defaulting home values plunged$$.

Now, how can you argue with that? If I could see this coming how could these experts not see it coming as well. And the fact that 2 times or more the Republicans tried to stop or regulate and the Democrats blocked the regulation well, it makes this their fault.

Yes, it is just possible the Democrats are directly responsible for making an artificial home market completely detached from inflation$$. Prices were influenced by cheap loans and then those loans stopped flowing. This all goes back to the problem with the Democrats they think money$$$ thrown at things fixes everything. Here, they threw money$$$$$$$ at people so they could buy a home--they never even gave a thought (apparently) to how these people would keep their homes.

If you watch the video you will see that Obama himself worked for a law firm that pursued banks to ensure poor people would have access to loans, and homes they could not afford. This is just an aside but it should make you question: Why the heck would you ever give this guy your vote? If you still are thinking you want Obama, just remember, the another wave is coming-- more defaults are coming and these loans (which are not accounted for in the current crisis) will come to term down the line.....this is not over. And remember Mr.. Obama was planning life in public service long before he became a lawyer. His misguided thinking was set long ago in Chicago when he joined Rev. Wrong's church.


This is the misguided thinking, ideology of the Democratic party, that believes throwing money at problems is a solution$$

Posted by: Fred29 | October 1, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

From realclearpolitics.com. So much for Obama's "downward trend" in EC votes.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | October 1, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign Obama campaign has raised a whopping $426.9 million -- nearly twice that of John McCain's campaign. About $200 million of that has come from unknown and unreported donors.

if the culture of corruption is in full swing and no one reports it, does it make a sound?

Posted by: king_of_zouk

---------------
This is just more paranoia from Kenneth Timmerman of the NeoCon website NewsMax.

He's all a twitter about all the "under $200" contributions...as if it's some vast conspiracy...rather the simple truth that many of us donate what we can when we can out of our non-Wall Street earnings.

Read it for yourself...it's pure paranoia...

http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/Obama_fundraising_illegal/2008/09/29/135718.html

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

The Republican led government sailed the United States ship into the perfect economic storm, Oh My is right on. ................
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/09/30/the-perfect-economic-storm-with-no-captain-video/

Posted by: glclark4750 | October 1, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

the drindl candidate:

Moonbat Alert Cynthia McKinney Meltdown Presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney announced that she has received information that some 5000, mostly male, possibly prisoners, were killed execution style, using hurricane Katrina as a cover

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign Obama campaign has raised a whopping $426.9 million -- nearly twice that of John McCain's campaign. About $200 million of that has come from unknown and unreported donors.

if the culture of corruption is in full swing and no one reports it, does it make a sound?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Speaker Pelosi Paid Husband With PAC Funds House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has directed nearly $100,000 from her political action committee to her husband's real estate and investment firm over the past decade

so now we have a tax cheat in charge of taxes, a financial moron heading up the banking committee, a fundraising traitor running for CinC, and the worst speaker in history breaking the PAC laws. remember when she said she didn't know she wasn't allowed two PACs? dumb, dumber and dumbest - the liberal leaders.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Palin is no Reagan

In the past few days, republican pundits have derided McCain “handlers” for cramming facts and figures down Palin’s throat, thus causing her to lose her voice and confidence. These same pundits reference Ronald Reagan’s first and second debates with Walter Mondale as prove of how Palin will perform if left to her own devises. If Palin were a Reagan, theirs would be a rational argument—but Palin is no Reagan.

Before his debates with Mondale, Reagan served two terms as governor of California (the most populous state in the nation). During his tenure, Reagan dealt with a number of complex issues:
1) Terrorism: demands from a terrorist group, Symbionese Liberation Army (S.L.A);
2) Commander in Chief: commanded the California National Guard during widespread protests in Berkeley, California;
3) Abortion: dealt directly with the abortion issue when he signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act into law—this pre-dates Roe vs. Wade;
4) Constitutional Question: dealt with the constitutional question of “cruel and unusual punishment” with the People vs. Anderson (California Supreme Court case).

Reagan unsuccessful run for president in 1976 further exposed him to national issues.

By the time of the Reagan-Mondale debates, Reagan served a full term as President of the United States. Clearly, Reagan had all of the information he needed when he stepped to the podium to debate Mondale. Reagan dismissed his tutors before the second debate because he knew the issues and where he stood on the issues.

Palin’s short time as governor and candidate for Vice President does not begin to rise to the level of experience and knowledge Reagan gained as a two term governor and a full term President before he debated Mondale.

Bottom line: Palin does not have the knowledge and/or experience to competitively debate Biden on her own. Palin needs McCain’s handlers to tutor her on the issues and policies.

Posted by: jandcgall1 | October 1, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Powerline has a compelling blog on the many fraudulent contributions for Obama--including from overseas. Here's one example, Mr. Good Will: In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as ''Will, Good'' from Austin, Texas. Mr. Good Will listed his employer as ''Loving'' and his profession as ''You.''

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

"I was talking to a friend and the subject of possible October surprises and he said, "The first October surprise is going to be when everyone gets the quarterly statements on their IRA or 401k." "

http://www.minnpost.com/ericblack/2008/10/01/3727/october_surprise

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 1, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

This is dead on. Did anyone see the Maxine Waters comments today? You have to see this. Is it just me or is she this narrow minded?

http://www.greenfaucet.com/blogs/hanlons-pub

Posted by: normanrockefeller | October 1, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Pinocchio Palin will do what she has always done in debates, if you've watched any of her past performances, she never answers the questions asked. She speaks in jingo's...just like she did at the Wingnut convention and just as she's done in repeatng the same exact speech at every stop. It wont be a real debate anyway because of the format. The only thing we can hope is that Gwen Ifill will make Pinocchio Palin answer the questions that she evades with her crap GOP rhetoric..I think Ifill is up to it....

Posted by: DrainYou | October 1, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

hmm, some idiot can't spell weird.

Posted by: newageblues | October 1, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

WHY IS AN 'URBAN COMBAT' ARMY UNIT DEPLOYING IS THE U.S.?

What about the Posse Comitatus Act? Why is a U.S. Army unit skilled in Iraqi urban combat deploying in the U.S. on Oct. 1st, the first ever domestic deployment of an active army unit stateside?

Why has the mainstream media failed to explore this deployment, and the status of the Posse Comitatus Act?

Army Times says this unit will be assigned to assist in quelling domestic disturbances, using "non-lethal weapons." Are these radiation-emitting, silent "directed energy weapons"? Is this the vanguard of a coming police state?

See: http://members.nowpublic.com/scrivener -- "Zap! Have You Been Targeted by a Directed Energy Weapon?"


Will this issue of using the Army as a domestic police force come up in the VP debate, or in next week's second presidential debate?

And how about THIS question re: the bailout?

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 is being asked to rush through emergency legislation -- to cede 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 "targeting" of American citizens a root cause of the mortgage meltdown that spawned the broader financial crisis?

Consider this:

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

Posted by: scrivener50 | October 1, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

that wouldn't be wierd at all, Chris C. Now McCain picking Palin, that was wierd.

Posted by: newageblues | October 1, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company