I was at a small fundraiser last night, and my counterpart on the Republican side came up to chat. Now back in 2000-2004, this was a sane guy, Republican, but moderate. We used to have actual chats about issues. Anyways, I haven't seen him since 05 - the time the tide really started changing here in Northern VA. The first words out of his mouth - "you guys don't have many people here, tough to get them motivated."

I replied that I had 8 back-to-school nights going on, with multiple teams of volunteers at each event handing out lit and doing voter registration. He looked at me like I was crazy and said "I can't believe you're supporting him, he plagerizes and will raise taxes and blah blah blah." I was shocked, this guy used to have a brain. Now he's just repeating Republican attack bullshit. I laughed and said he should enjoy the next couple of months before his second Senator and his Congressman are Democrats. He looked at me and said "at least I'll have a Republican President and Vice President"

I laughed a little at the Palin reference and his response was that "liberals are all delusional, Palin represents what's great about America and everyone but my small cadre of hard-core party Democrats likes her". Realizing that my poor former friendly-adversary had clearly gone on meds in the last couple of years and was now off them, I moved away as he started blabbing to someone else.

That's what I see a lot of - the former Republican Party grassroots leaders are all out of the game or have drunk so much of the Kool-aid they're about to keel over from liver damage.

By the way, my county Democratic Committee raised about $100,000 THIS MONTH. That's more than the county Republican committee has raised since Jan 1, 2007.

That's how I know things are changing.

This election is turning from simply a debate on ideals and values and a difference of opinion to a stark contrast between someone who is steady, methodical, intelligent, thoughtful and analytical versus someone is half cocked, senile, incompetent, has a temper and is impulsive, hasty, erratic and quite volatile.

I've seen it that way for a long time, but I agree with you 1000%, and love the way you phrased it.

And Obama graduated magna cum laude, or some such thing and was President of the Law Review. Smarty pants elitist prick. Who would want such a person as President? No, Obama is too smart to be President. We like them dumb, or better yet, stupid. Harvard, Smarvard, don't even consider voting for someone from there. Do you really want to have to rack your brain and concentrate when the President explains his nuanced policies to you after he and his staff have analyzed the country's needs and problems using that elite concept, intelligence? Of course not. Who needs the resulting headache? McCain is perfect: graduated near the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy and his main qualification for being President is that he sat in a cell for 5 1/2 years, as he constantly reminds us while trying to control his dementia. Of course we all have an obligation to say in the same breath how we respect his service, but does that sort of service really represent a qualification for making the types of decisions a President must make? We don't know how it is that Palin (that reminds me, did I already talk about McCain's dementia?) eventually graduated, apparently without any honors, from the University of Idaho after attending something like five or six colleges and universities. But whatever the story, I'll bet you one pig with lipstick on it it has nothing to do with elitism or an overabundance of academic achievement. No, give me the dumb candidates. I don't want an elitist President who is smarter than me or knows more than me. I want someone who I would feel comfortable shooting a moose with (mooseburgers, I love them), or going to one of the AARP meetings, senior division. Signed, John Q. Public

You, sir, are a right eloquent whoremonger!

(Message edited by porker on September 26, 2008)

Let me see if I have this straight..... If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're "exotic, different." Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, a quintessential American story. If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim. Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a maverick. Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable. Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded. If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience. If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive. If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian. If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian. If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society. If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant , you're very responsible. If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's. If you're husband is nicknamed "First Dude", with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable. OK, much clearer now.

I agree with LA Guy, except instead of suicide, I'd just DEFECT?

Uhh, uhhh, or something like that!!!

Porker: Thanks. Good to see you around.

My analysis on the debate.

This is McCain's "expect subject" and Obama held his own. I don't think either candidate really separated himself from the other tonight. I don't think either clearly blew the other out, but I would actually give this one to McCain about 55% to 45%. It is not really enough to help him much though.

Actually, I agree with the analysis on the networks that Obama was annoyed and frustrated by somewhat by McCain. It will be interesting to see how McCain's condescending tone towards Obama plays with the independents and how Obama seemed to be the one reaching out and trying to find points of agreement between the two. (But hey, it was a debate!) Again, perhaps a preview of how each will govern?

This really sets the stage for the Biden-Palin debate and I can't wait. There is huge potential in this debate for her to slip up, especially given her disastrous interviews so far. The expectations will be for Biden to blow her away. I will call this now and don't think it will happen. All Palin needs to do is tread water. The "trainwreack" factor will be extremely interesting. I just hope Biden doesn't have one of his own moments especially since the expectations on his part will be high and the expectations on Palin so incredibly low.

Neither came off all that well but it was probably a wash - which hurts McCain far more than Obama.
The most amusing thing all night were the closeups of ancient old McLame. He used Tammy Fay Baker's make up artist obviously. I think he had so much pancake makeup on his face that it would have would have cracked and fallen off if he made any expression whatsoever He came off very stiff and uncomfortable most of the night.

I was pissed at Obama that he let Mclame keep saying all night that he " just didn't understand" or "just didn't get it" without responding. Obama was too passive IMO but then again he is ahead and increasing his lead daily so why rock the boat ??

(Message edited by Khun_Mor on September 26, 2008)

I agree about Obama being passive. I thought Obama should have been more forceful in some of his responses to McCain. Two moments stuck out. One where McCain was hammering him on meeting with Ahmadinejad. He looked like he wanted to respond forcefully and then relented. The other was towards the end of the debate where McCain called him out as saying he honestly thought he wasn't ready. Obama responded by talking about the economy.

Definitely a "not rock the boat strategy" though. He doesn't want to piss off independents with attacks. So I guess we will see.

Looked like a tie to me, although the preliminary polling from CNN and CBS suggests advantage Obama.

I just hope the Biden/Palin debate is more interesting. It should be: an experienced gaffe machine against a rank amateur gaffe machine.

It depends on the standard used to judge each man. We expected Obama to be well spoken and come across informed. He did and people gave him a "C". McCain was expected to stumble and mangle his speeches and he didn't. So people gave him an "A". If your judging the performance of each man based on prior history, McCain get's most improved points and Obama was normal. But Obama is still leagues ahead of McCain in ability.

Plus my own 2cents. Even the RNC is saying they'll lose seats in both houses this election. Would you rather have a guy constantly fighting congress, not getting anything done, or someone who can get the votes every time out?

I would give an edge to McCain. He played very well the experience card. He rambled on for quite a while about all the wars in which he had partaken. Obama's only card in response is the judgment card and he did not play it as well as McCain did.

But there were two responses that both of them sucked on.

What are the lessons learned in Iraq? I thought it was a softball question, and they both mangled it. The answer is so easy. We need allies, and Iraq (no matter how they painted it) was a unilateral action by the United States. We need true allies (which we had in Afghanistan) and not squander our alliances (like we did in Iraq). Moreover, unilateral actions are more expensive since there is no one to share the cost. Why did neither of the candidates say anything remotely close to this?

Now that we are staring at a $700B bailout, does this change your plans if elected president? Both candidates waffled on the question even when the moderator reiterated the question. This is horrible news because the bail out and the resulting deficit is indeed a game changer. Neither candidate came close to discussing how we would pay for this massive bailout. McCain said he would attack earmarks, and Obama made a list of things he would NOT cut. Unbelievable given the severity of things. No one even mentioned that WaMu failed as the same day as the debate.

I really had hoped Obama could nail the two above questions and set himself from the field. I believed that if he could focus on the economy, he would win the election hands down. But he missed the mark, and I give a slight edge to McCain for playing the experience card surprisingly well.

>>Would you rather have a guy constantly fighting congress, not getting anything done, or
>>someone who can get the votes every time out?

I would MUCH rather have the guy constantly fighting congress. That way only the stuff really worth passing - the stuff everyone agrees on, gets put into effect.

I didn't think either had an edge on the other.

But the overriding impression I had was one that had me laughing the whole evening. John McCain is soooo old he now makes that whistling sound when he talks, like a guy with a bad set of dentures. He sounds very much like Herbert, the old neighbor on "Family Guy." I could not stop laughing every time McCain started talking.

Something about Sarah Palin seemed to ring a bell, like this was deja vu all over again. I had seen something like her before.

It finally dawned on me.

But first, let's look at her in the swimsuit competition:

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

And now, what I am reminded of every time I see her answer an interviewer's question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww

If Palin gets dumped off the ticket (as even some conservatives are speculating may become necessary) are we looking at McCain's next VP choice, another map expert?

It will be interesting to see Palin debate Biden. The GOP has been hiding her thus far because she's barely qualified to film a cumshot scene much less a presidential debate. If your McCain, your just hoping her plane crashes in route...

"I would MUCH rather have the guy constantly fighting congress. That way only the stuff really worth passing - the stuff everyone agrees on, gets put into effect."

Phoenixguy has it more correct than anyone. I'm sure allot of you are anxious for Pelosi, Obama, and Reid to have carte blanche to impose their will on anyone and everyone. Just imagine, nothing they dream up ever vetoed, no spending program they desire ever reigned in, any morality they deem to be just and moral imposed on the public. Sound familiar?

"Gridlock" during the last 6 Clinton years was surly the greatest thing that ever happened to this country. Clinton was relatively restrained by congress from doing anything too stupid.... congress was relatively restrained by Clinton from doing anything too stupid. While they bickered amongst themselves over blow jobs and extramarital affairs, and pretty much did little else, they left the country alone and surprize surprize, things thrived in the absense of constantly being fucked with by the government. I'll concede that unrestrained power in the hands of the Republicans turned out poorly. But the problem was not so much one of political beliefs as much as through out history, unrestrained power has ALWAYS ended poorly.

Be careful what you wish for.

Bluestraveller,
I agree with you. On the economic question, neither candidate could name ONE thing he would be willing to eliminate from his wish list!! The pandering never ends.

IAS,
Right on. Republicans love to take credit for the "contract with America". They seem to conveniently forget that is was Bill Clinton who signed all that legislation into law.

Phoenixguy,
I tend to agree with you, divided goverment can work well. But that means voting for McCain/Palin. I am starting to have doubts that McCain will live to the end of his term. I shudder to think of Palin taking on the duties of President of the United States.

Divided government hasn't worked too well the past two years. It only works when a President is actually willing to compromise (which this one isn't) and when a Congress is not afraid to challenge the President (which this Congress isn't)

The President essentially tells Congress to "do what I say" and then makes the American public believe it with the rhetoric he spews.

This Democratic led Congress is so afraid of this President and they won't do anything to rock the boat because they think they will win the Presidency and they don't want to piss off the voters with anything dramatic. They don't want any "guilt by association with their party and the Presidential election." Their majority in the Senate is so razor thin anyway they can't get anything done.

Regardless of what happens in the Presidential election, the Democrats will expand their majority in both Houses. They may get close to 60 in the Senate and nothing gets done in the Senate without 60 votes. If McCain wins, this may embolden them to challenge the President more with their expanded majority, but I doubt it.

If Bush didn't have 911 the public probably would have voted a lot of the Republicans out of Congress in 2002 like they did to Democrats in 1994. 911 essentially let the Republicans control all three branches of the Federal Government for 6 years because people were "scared" of change during a crisis one war already in progress and another on the way.

If Obama does win, you will probably see wholesale changes to Congress in 2010 just like in 1994 unless Obama is really able to accomplish something significant in two years.

(Message edited by xenono on September 27, 2008)

Xenono, what 'new' really stupid agenda has Bush advanced in the last 2 years. Most of the problems go back further than that. By problems, I refer to the massive expansion of the Federal government which goes against core Republican beliefs, massive increases in spending, trampling the constitution, mishandling the war, and general corruption. I'd say the last two years of gridlock have not been a bad thing.

I have ZERO confidence that a Democratic party with absolute, unrestrained power will do any different, only the themes will change and the brand of the ensuing moral crusades. The activist left is if anything, more aggressive than the religous right in attempting to impose their morality on everyone. I say let the activist left squabble forever with the religous right and give neither absolute power. Fighting each other tends to distract them from sticking it to me.

IAS: If the "activist left," whatever that is, ever takes power (doubtful given the conservatism of the American public) we'll have a chance to test your speculative theory. In the meantime, I look forward to the moderates who currently control the Democratic party implementing sound policies that neither bust our economy nor our civil liberties.

That would be real change, at least from the last eight years.

If Bush didn't have 911 the public probably would have voted a lot of the Republicans out of Congress in 2002

Xen
Without 9/11 Bush would have NEVER won a second term. It fucking changed our lives forever and in many ways we are only now realizing.

Xen is on to one thing. I'll agree the Republicans probably would have lost congress in '02 if not for 9/11. In which case we would be comming off of 6 years of gridlock, probably all the better for it. Bush would have been considered a good president for battling congress for the last 6 years while nothing was accomplished and everyone was left alone.


BTW on the points where the Democrats 'could' have had some balls and done something useful such as not expanding FISA, warrentless wiretapping, et al.... they always do the WRONG thing and say they don't want to be seen as soft on terror.

I agree with Sancho on the last point. Democrats caved on the FISA bill to my great disappointment. They caved on Iraq war funding two times. They stood up on the Military Commissions Act, but a few Democrats supported it and it passed. SCHIP passed with solid backing from both parties, but not a override-able majority. (Note: Obama voted against the Military Commissions Act. McCain voted for it.)

Whether one believes it or not, I actually hope and think an Obama Administration along with a Democratic Congress will undue some of the great damage the Bush Administration has caused like the FISA bill, the Patriot Act, and the Military Commissions Act. Obama has basically said as much. We'll see if it happens, or even if can happen if Obama becomes President.

BTW, if one is unfamiliar with the Military Commissions act, it essentially ended Habeas Corpus and gives the President the power to declare ANYONE an illegal enemy combatant. It also excludes their access to a civilian lawyer or the US court system.

To IAS' question. it is not so much that Bush has proposed anything dramatic the past two years (He did get the Military Commissions Act through in 2006 though. 8 total Republicans opposed it in Congress versus 194 Democrats total from each House that opposed it. Unfortunately, it was not enough and it passed), but that Bush basically was able to get everything he wanted with two Iraq War funding bills and the FISA bill by using rhetoric.

"How could you cut off funding for our men and women fighting for our country?"

"If you don't pass the FISA bill, you are making our country less safe and more vulnerable to attack"

And how about this last point for Sancho. If Obama does becomes President, you can always throw out all the Democrats in 2010. That will give Obama two years to undo some of the Bush Administration damage and then we can all go back to gridlock to make you happy! It is not like things can get much worse? Why not let them try? What radical agenda from the activist left do you think they will put forward?

And don't forget about the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is in serious danger of becoming ultra-conservative which could be disastrous for this country. Conservatives have a 5-4 majority now. But John Paul Stevens is 88 and Ginsburg is not in the best of health. If gridlock is your thing, you'll want Obama appointing their successors, not McCain...

(Message edited by xenono on September 28, 2008)

Whether one believes it or not, I actually hope and think an Obama Administration along with a Democratic Congress will undue some of the great damage the Bush Administration has caused like the FISA bill, the Patriot Act, and the Military Commissions Act. Obama has basically said as much. We'll see if it happens, or even if can happen if Obama becomes President.

If the Democratic congress had spent the last two years doing just that only being thwarted by Bush vetos on those issues, I could be a believer in change. But they have not. And you and I are basically in complete agreement on those issues. Come on, presure your boys to do something useful. The Independants who are willing to sacrafice any and all freedoms for the sake of the "war on terror" are never going to vote for Osama. Any Republicans who feel that way are certainly not going to vote for Obama. Even Democrats who crossed over just on the "war on terror" issue are probably not going to vote for Obama. So who are the Democrats affraid of offending. You have nothing to gain on the core constitional issues by not looking "week on terror". There is however a fairly signifigant base of Independents and believe it or not, even a very substantial number of "small government" type Republicans who are very upset about the huge expansion of Federal powers. But I can already hear it in '10. Well we were going to repeal the Patriot Act but we didnt want to look soft on terror so we didn't.

There seems to be a contradiction in IAS's fear of the power of the "activist left" should Obama take over and his concern that nothing is going to change with respect to such core issues as the FISA bill, the Patriot Act, and the Military Commissions Act. Don't you think?

IAS:

I can offer one possible explanation below. But I do honestly believe they are bidding their time hoping to get the Presidency and then a greater majority in both Houses. If we elect McCain, we stand a ZERO percent chance of overturning those laws. If we elect Obama, we at least have a chance, however small. And at least the Democrats have a record of voting against these pieces of legislation in LARGE numbers.

Let's just look at the numbers:

Google search for "Military commissions act roll call"

For the Military Commissions act:

	Yes	No
Republican	53	1
Democrat	11	32

In the House:

Google search "Military commissions act roll call house"

	Yes	No
Republican	219	7
Democrats	34	160

For the FISA Bill:

Google search "Protect America act of 2007 roll call"

In the House:

	Yes	No
Republican	186	2
Democrats	41	181

Google search "Protect America act of 2007 roll call senate"

In the Senate:

	Yes	No
Republican	43	0
Democrats	16	27

We as a people stand NO CHANCE without a Democratic President and larger majority.

Although I can't say for sure, I imagine the small number of Democrats voting for this bill are from inherently conservative districts and are recent pickups. They simply can't afford to be labeled as "soft" on terrorism or national security.

One example is Heath Shuler. He was elected in 2006 from North Carolina's 11th District. He defeated Charles Taylor who was in office from 1991-2007. The district is extremely conservative, He is a Blue Dog Democrat. They are moderate Democrats from conservative districts. They believe in being fiscally conservative and accountable. Some are socially liberal, others are pro-life and quite socially conservative. This group is mainly responsible for FISA being passed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition

They have 47 members in the House.

Although the numbers are not as dramatic as those above, it is important to also note that contrary to what many believe the majority of House Democrats did not support the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq (often referred to as the Iraq War resolution). 126 Democrats voted against the resolution versus 81 who voted in favor.

To be fair though, 29 Democratic Senators did support the resolution, including regretably all who had presidential aspirations for 2004 or 2008.

Of course, if a Democrat had been President such a vote would never have been taken.

Sorry, one last point. To more directly answer Sancho's question. It was September 2006 when the Military Commissions Act was up for vote. The Democrats were still the minority. For the FISA bill, given the numbers above, the only other option the Democrats would have would be for the leadership to NOT bring that bill to a vote. They would have been hammered by the Administration if they had done that and given the rhetoric (you are making America less safe, why not give this an up-down vote) they really had no choice but to roll-over.

The Democrats also decided not to impeach Bush, despite strong evidence to do so and it was their constitutional duty to do so. They didn't for two reasons. 1. They could have ended up with Cheney as President. That is scary. He would never be convicted in the Senate anyway. 2. They remember the lessons from Clinton. The more Republicans attacked and investigated Clinton, the more popular he became. Yes, they are playing politics and I don't agree with it. But again, they want the Presidency. They were not about to make Bush sympathetic and more popular during a Presidential election.

With an Obama Administration and controlling both Houses, the Democrats have a larger ability to control the message and re-shape the debate on FISA, the Patriot Act, the Wars, etc.

(Message edited by xenono on September 28, 2008)

Democrats, we don't like Bush and Cheney and crew and we just want them to shut up and be gone. Republicans, they have actual hatred for guys like Clinton and Kerry and Obama, and they want harm to come their way. Maybe not physical harm, but malice of some kind. That's the big difference. I don't know of too many Democrats who actually hate - personally - Bush. Cheney, maybe. Rove, probably. But it's a very short list of the more sinister ones. So that's why you don't impeach Bush. Everyone knows what he's done, impeaching him won't correct the mistakes. It will just take up time and energy and make him a martyr and thus make him stronger.

Republicans, hell, you could see in McCain's body language the other night the contempt he has for Obama. I still don't care for Obama that much, but I'm supporting him more and more loudly because of the hate coming down from Republicans.

Cat: I guess I wasn't included in your poll of Democrats. I have nothing but utter contempt for W. After just eeeking out the narrowest of victories in the 2000 election, rather than try to unite the country as any honorable man cast in such a situation would have (e.g., by appointing a truly bipartisan cabinet), he and Cheney acted like military leaders who had just taken power in a coup and were entitled to divide up the spoils. They have governed as though there is a war against all who do not agree with their view of the country and world.

W has done more to damage this country (and the world) than any President in the history of our nation, and is directly responsible for the deaths of what are probably hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq, not to mention over 4,000 U.S. soldiers. Whether he should be considered a murderer for this, or simply a retard guilty of manslaughter through his grossly negligent stewardship of that war, is a question I could argue for either side. Either way though, I have no sympathy at all for him.

I did not hate Ford, Reagan, or the first George Bush and this contrasts with many Republicans who hate Clinton, Kerry, and perhaps Obama. But I believe we are entitled to hate the arrogant clown who is presently President, and not consider that a badge of dishonor.

Hey, Beachman, do you really think that McCain is going to win the election?

Obama can really reach out and get votes when needed. He is a member of the Black Caucus and the majority voted against the Bailout plan. He sure has some influence with them....what make him think he can reach out to Republicans if elected when he can't even influence members of the Black Caucus!

And with Peloski, Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel, etc. in leadership on the Hill....you see what they have done...nothing except cause more bickering after swearing if they where put in to power things would change!

McCain isn't any better....he can't speak about anything with out throwing he was the only one who believe the surge would work when nobody else would believe it would work.

Mitt Romney would have been the best choice for President....he proved he could work with the most liberal legislative branch in the country in Massachusetts. He is not perfect....but he would have been the most qualified to lead the country.

Obama's ambiton is to be the first black President and extend the trend toward socialism.

McCain's ambition to out do his father and grandfather's achievements.... 4 star Admirals by out ranking them as Commander-in Chief.

Explorer-


It really doesn't matter who wins....whoever wins the American people are the losers.

This band-aid they are working on is just that. And the blame game will continue whoever is elected. The corruption is so high and on so many levels that with both parties being bribed by Wall Street executives that the truth will never come out. They all are telling each other if "I go down, you will go down too!"

And the "fourth branch" of government, the media....is just as corrupt and the blame as anyone. Both the liberal and conservative media have their "constituents" and they report only to their "constituents what will get ratings and make the media money. The truth is not reported by the media anymore, only what propaganda liberal or conservative media outlets put out to advance their own political views and wishes.

Bush and Paulson just want the band-aid to delay the worst of what is to come. Obama and McCain want to keep their hands as cleans as possible but look like they are concern with the bailout.

And most of the American people still don't have a clue how serious this is. A huge part of our economy is based on luxury products and services that are mostly bought with credit. When the average American stops eating out as much, staying upscale hotels, buying tech toys, latest computers, cell phones, ipods,plasma tvs,etc. Stop upgrading their homes with granite counter tops, new appliances, etc. Stop paying other people to mow their lawns, clean their pools, do their nails, etc. The avalanche of unemployment has just begun.

"[Obama] is a member of the Black Caucus and the majority voted against the Bailout plan. He sure has some influence with them."

I'm not really sure what strained point Beachman is trying to make here. The best I could come up with is that Obama is not black enough for him. LOL.

Laguy-

If they go through motions of even having a Black Caucus....they must discuss major legislation as a Caucus and Obama who claims he knows how to get things done should have been able to impressed upon members of the Black Caucus how important to the country it was to pass this bill. The majority of the Black Caucus voted against this bill.

Some could say that Obama is in the senate and has no business trying to influence members of the House. We all know that is just not the case!

Could you imagine the outrage there would be if there was a call to have a White Congressional! Caucus

The "Black Caucus" has breakfast once a month. Other than that, it's no different from any other intra-House/Senate group. So no, all the black Congressmen and Senators don't get together before every vote and decide what to do as a block.

"Could you imagine the outrage there would be if there was a call to have a White Congressional! Caucus."

Sounds like Beachman doesn't understand that the U.S. has long history of discriminating against Black people, including centuries of slavery. There is nothing wrong with a group that has been the subject of the type of discrimination Blacks have been subjected to having a group that attempts to achieve a redress of this discrimination.

Moreover, Beachman ignores there already is a White Congressional Caucus; it is called the Republican caucus.

(Message edited by LAguy on September 30, 2008)

(Message edited by LAguy on September 30, 2008)

I thought black cockuses were bigger than white cockusses. I'm I missing something here? How does this relate to the bail out?

There is a whole lot of cringing going on these days thanks to I am Sancho and Sara Palin!

Doesn't this scare you!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTm5rp8r6fE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1L4i523s88

Hiling to the chosen one.


You can see at times Obama just laughing to himself how easy it is to get the followers to drink the Kool-Aid!

The Bush Administration wanted sweeping changes in September 2003.


http://iperceive.net/famous-last-words-barney-franks-9-11-paean-to-fannie-freddie/

Yes, the Bush Administration wanted to basically dissolve Fannie and Freddie and let "the market" handle all of the mortgage market. What a grand plan, except what's happening now would have happened last summer instead.

Catocony-

You must not have understood what article said. Here is what the article says:


Under the plan. . . a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates. . . .


They wanted to create a new government agency (not Congress)that would oversight what Fannie and Freddie and determine if Fannie and Freddie were adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.


Congress had oversight of Fannie and Freddie and both Fannie and Freddie was paying off and bribing both Democrats and Republicans of Congress to look the other way while executives cooked the books to make outrageous bonuses.

Dodd and Obama are at the top of the list of taking bribes and payoffs from the Fannie and Freddie. How can Obama stand up and say with a straight face he will protect the American taxpayers from greedy executives!

I know you hate Bush so much that even when he was on the right path you much rather see him fail even if he was on the right path for the good of the country at large.


This game is played by both Democrats and Republicans....this "Civil" Civil War were both parties fight harder to be right.... when they are wrong....than fighting for what is right for America is harming this nation more than any foreign nation or enemy. We are not only witnessing the failure and collapsing of our financial economy....we are and have been witnessing the total failure of our government to work in the best interest of the American people....putting their political parties first!

Catocony-

I guess Obama had breakfast with the Black Caucus this morning.....

The House vote marked a sharp change from Monday, when an earlier measure was sent down to defeat, largely at the hands of angry conservative Republicans.

On Friday, 91 Republicans joined 172 Democrats to support the bill, while 108 Republicans and 68 Democrats opposed it. Twenty-five Republicans and 33 Democrats switched their votes from "no" to "yes." One Democrat who supported Monday's version, Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington, opposed the bill Friday. One Republican who didn't vote Monday, Rep. Jerry Weller of Illinois, voted "yes" on Friday.

Several of the Democrats who switched were members of the Congressional Black Caucus who said presidential candidate Barack Obama had pledged to support legislation easing the burden on consumers if he wins the White House.

Now that I know Obama had breakfast with the Congressional Black Caucus (and not only that, but a few of the Democrats who switched their votes were actually members of the Congressional Black Caucus!) I am going to have to reconsider whether to vote for him.

Thanks for the heads up, Beachman.

A serious question to the board. (Beachman maybe you can educate me) Gov Palin called McCain a Maverick about 6 times during the debates, she repeated that word over and over again.

Now I know McCain went against his rep party to push for the surge. But besides that one incident, what else has he done that constitutes him being labeled a MAVERICK!! The overwhelming majority of his votes, have been right in step with George Bush. So how radical can McCain be?

Well, two come immediately to mind: his work on the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance bill (which arguably was his mea culpa for his involvement as one of the Keating 5) and his opposition to the Bush tax cuts. However, looking at his present positions and closeness to Bush's positions, those examples are ancient history.

By the way (and perhaps someone posted this earlier) one of the most interesting and comprehensive websites that examines the polls is IMHO www.fivethirtyeight.com. If you are interested in this sort of thing, it is worth a look.

We've seen three huge swings in this election so far.

1. After Obama's international trip he opened up a pretty good lead. This continued through the convention.

2. After McCain's choice of Pain and his convention, McCain looked to be in a pretty commanding position.

3. Now with McCain's missteps and erratic behavior along with the economic meltdown, there is a huge swing back to Obama.

Now McCain is going to go insanely negative. My only hope is that it backfires on him like the "I'm going to Washington" stunt. But if he can somehow pull a rabbit out his hat, he wins. With a month left there is probably not enough time for a fifth big swing.

(Message edited by xenono on October 05, 2008)

Xen, never underestimate the power of the idiocy of the average US voter. Anybody looking back and thinking W. was in ANY way a better candidate than Gore or Kerry is a fucking M-O-R-O-N. Yet he's still the prez, and repub's have won all but 3 elections in my lifetime. They got some serious mojo working.

one of the most interesting and comprehensive websites that examines the polls is IMHO www.fivethirtyeight.com. If you are interested in this sort of thing, it is worth a look.

LAGuy, thanks for the link. Nate Silver is one of the greatest baseball writers on the planet, and dabbles in political stuff for fun. I HOPE he's RIGHT about Obama's landslide lead, but see above comment...