Tuesday, March 10 2009 @ 11:15 AM GMT+4 Contributed by: SJD
Recently a reporter asked Obama if he was a socialist. Obama initially gave a flip answer but after thinking about it, later called reporters back from the Oval Office.
"It was hard for me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question," Obama said.
Then Obama said, in effect, don’t blame me. Blame Bush.
"It wasn’t under me that we started buying a bunch of shares of banks. It wasn’t on my watch. And it wasn’t on my watch that we passed a massive new entitlement -– the prescription drug plan -- without a source of funding…. We’ve actually been operating in a way that has been entirely consistent with free-market principles and that some of the same folks who are throwing the word 'socialist' around can’t say the same.".
And at 1:40, Obama makes this unbelievable statement -- "You know, I have more than enough to do without having to worry about the financial system."
No wonder the markets can't get any clear direction from this administration.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 11 2009 @ 04:53 AM GMT+4
I believe TARP received bi-partisan support,
including Senator Obama's. This may explain why,
as president, he
keeps it going, and for lack of a better plan from
Timmy 'tax cheat' Geithner.
Authored by: Maus Anon E on Tuesday, March 10 2009 @ 02:58 PM GMT+4
Really? You think he was blaming Bush for socialist policies? I think he was pointing out how intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt the whining Republican phonies and their grand wizard, Rush Limbaugh, are. Where was this outcry about "socialism" when Bush was giving the country away to billionaire... Oh. Never mind. Just answered my own question.
Authored by: SJD on Tuesday, March 10 2009 @ 04:32 PM GMT+4
A little to much caffeine today, M? But seriously a once in a century convergence of financial conditions can hardly be orchestrated by one individual and an entertainer. I know you think he personally manifested hurricanes, floods, WMD and hijacked airlines... -certainly could make water into wine and all that. But this one is a bit more complex then a bumper sticker.
---
"Government's view of the economy: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
Authored by: Maus Anon E on Tuesday, March 10 2009 @ 05:36 PM GMT+4
That's it? You're pointing out that he had a cabinet of hand-picked, rubber-stamped accomplices and six years of Republican control in all three branches of government to help him destroy the country and implement his socialism for the wealthy?
Golly, that's some... deep... point.
Authored by: mr.mike on Tuesday, March 10 2009 @ 06:18 PM GMT+4
Why is Barack ashamed and on the defense after being called a socialist. After all he's further to the left than our own Comrade Sanders and he's an avoud socialist.
Obama has shown his true colors more in the last few weeks than he has in his entire political career.
We Rock alright. Some of us will be living under rocks when Obama's done.
---
Rainy Day Funds : Vermont's taxpayer funded savings account for the sole purpose of keeping a good bond rating. Nothing else.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 11 2009 @ 04:23 AM GMT+4
You continually fail to include Chris Dodd, Barney
Frank and the Democrats role in thwarting
Republican initiatives to increase regulations on a
sector they identified as being out of control. Looks
like Chris Dodd is now behind in CT polls to a
Republican challenger.
Authored by: Maus Anon E on Wednesday, March 11 2009 @ 06:03 AM GMT+4
That's because I don't subscribe to republican fables. I mean, the idea that even when republicans controlled all three branches of government the Dems were actually pulling the strings, or that the republicans were desperately and earnestly trying to fix their miserable financial failures after they lost it all in 2006 but were thwarted by Democrats, is cute, but absurd.
It's an undeniable fact that this crisis, and the moral and ethical morass that precipitated it have republican stank all over it.
It was Phil "Americans are whiners" Gramm who pushed through legislation created by Wall Street financial institutions that eliminated regulation on derivatives in 2000.
In 2004, the Bush administration eliminated regulations requiring banks keep a certain amount of cash on hand to cover risk. The rule also had the effect of limiting the amount of investment banks could be involved in - it was tied to cash on hand.
With derivatives unregulated and investment limits deregulated, banks were encouraged to make "risky" investments (the risk was no longer theirs), including risky sub-prime mortgages. Sub-prime lending was originally intended to be limited - limited by risk. But when the risk was removed, banks charged full speed ahead, with predatory lending practices, writing mortgages they knew couldn't be repaid. They didn't care, because they were going to break up those mortgages, sell them as mortgage-based derivatives, and pass the risk on to others.
You'd think there could have been some kind of incentive for Wall Street to control their greed - some kind of consequence, but Republicans were sure to grease the skids for them. Bob Ney introduced and passed legislation preventing victims of predatory lending from suing the people who profited from those predatory lending practices. The Bush administration and Bush regulators blocked states from regulating predatory lending practices.
But I'll grant you this: neither party did much of anything to help or protect regular working Americans.
Authored by: SJD on Wednesday, March 11 2009 @ 06:54 AM GMT+4
Remember the "Community Reinvestment Act" ...
Back to Carter, when government officials, pushed activists, accusing mortgage lenders of racism because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than whites.
Lenders didn't wake up one day deciding to junk their standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so - or else.
If you really want to blame a current player you should look at Barney Frank. There is a lot of documented statements by him over the last 5 years stating that Fannie and Freddie were just peachy and not in any sort of financial ills as questioned while he blocked any type of additional over sight and regulation.. Why is he still in Congress?
I think your election propaganda of always blaming the incumbent is on thin ice here, again more of a convergence of long standing policy and clearly complex then the old blame Bush (for everything) bumper sticker of the left.
---
"Government's view of the economy: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
Authored by: Maus Anon E on Wednesday, March 11 2009 @ 08:34 AM GMT+4
***Remember the "Community Reinvestment Act"***
Remember it? Well I remember contstant post-finanicial meltdown references to it, pretending THAT was what has created this whole mess, and not Wall Street greed and regulatory laissez-faire.
The community reinvestment act was intended to increase availability of loans to a small number of borrowers. Sub-prime mortgages were held in check, as it was intended, by regulation and risk until Bush-era deregulation turned them into a money mine to fuel Wall Street greed and decadence.
Whether Barney Frank is, or is not, an idiot, is neither the cause nor the point no matter how hard you try to make it so.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 11 2009 @ 10:51 AM GMT+4
Perhaps your inability to accept the facts is due to
your unabashed hatred for Bush and
conservatives.
So to set the record straight, would you please
identify the specific legislation Bush signed
deregulating the financial industry and the specific
policies he and his Administration enacted.
Authored by: Maus Anon E on Wednesday, March 11 2009 @ 04:15 PM GMT+4
Specifically: Because of deregulation (Gramm, Leach, Bliley), or bad lawmaking (whatever you like to call it) by republicans in the republican-controlled congress in 2000, Bush's SEC chairman instituted a "voluntary program" (meaning financial institutions could volunteer to comply) called the "Consolidated Supervised Entities Program" in 2004, which, among other things, allowed "too big to fail" companies like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley to increase their debt-to-capital ratio to ludicrous levels - as high as 40 to 1. That was compounded by risk in off-balance sheet mortgage-based derivatives
Then, in September 2008, with the wheels coming off the cart in all directions, Bush's SEC chairman, Michael Cox, reversed course in a last desperate attempt to do something. Anything.
Here is part of what he said:
"The last six months have made it abundantly clear that voluntary regulation does not work. When Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, it created a significant regulatory gap by failing to give to the SEC or any agency the authority to regulate large investment bank holding companies, like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, and Bear Stearns.
Because of the lack of explicit statutory authority for the Commission to require these investment bank holding companies to report their capital, maintain liquidity, or submit to leverage requirements, the Commission in 2004 created a voluntary program, the Consolidated Supervised Entities program, in an effort to fill this regulatory gap.
As I have reported to the Congress multiple times in recent months, the CSE program was fundamentally flawed from the beginning, because investment banks could opt in or out of supervision voluntarily. The fact that investment bank holding companies could withdraw from this voluntary supervision at their discretion diminished the perceived mandate of the CSE program, and weakened its effectiveness."
And there you have it - as told by a republican, no less. Oh, I'm sure Barney Frank was still behind it all somehow - pulling the strings that caused republicans like Phill Gramm, Jim Leach, and Tom Bliley to pass bad legislation for their bank buddies.
And then there's this, just for kicks:
"The SEC modification in 2004 is the primary reason for all of the losses that have occurred," Mr. Pickard, who is now a senior partner at the Washington, D.C.-based law firm Pickard & Djinis, said.
The director of equity research at Fusion IQ and an influential Web logger, Barry Ritholtz, called the 2004 rule change "a hornets nest" that "proves the importance of having stringent rules in place."
I think we've all agreed that there's plenty of blame to go around. I criticize Democrats for not getting hold of the reins in 2006 and changing the disastrous course set by the republicans for the last decade and more. I also criticize the Clinton administration for their love affair with republican, neo-con, free-market, free-trade bullshit economics.
But for anyone to believe that the "poor widdle ol' 'publicans" tried and tried to do the right thing but couldn't fix all their mistakes because of the "big bad ol' Democwats" takes a pretty twisted view of reality. I suppose, after you've basically destroyed the economic infrastructure of a nation and half the world, maybe you have to tell yourself it was somebody else's fault.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 12 2009 @ 05:34 AM GMT+4
Why would I want the Manchurian Candidate to
fail? I'm very excited about shoring up the ability of
labor unions to spread their goodness throughout
small business, by doing away with secret ballot
voting. I was also very encougage by how the
Omnibus bill did away with school vouchers in
Washington DC. Got to keep the teachers union
happy in spite of the DC school system being one of
the worst in the country. And how cool is this...the
rich ($250K+) only get to deduct 28% of their
charitable gifts. That might seem counter productive
for those who depend on charity, but so what. Got to
squeeze the rich anyway we can.
I'm also impressed with the Cap&Trade program
where we penalize producers who use carbon
producing energy. We need to set the example on
this one because China is bound to follow suit, oh in
a hundred years or so. Meanwhile our workers will
benefit because good ole American ingenuity will find
a way to overcome these hurdles (including higher
taxes on businesses) and still be competitive thus
creating more high paying, unionized jobs. It's
worked so well before.
I just loved the way our new Democratic leaders
were able to push through colassal 'wish list'
spending bill packaged and sold as a stimulous bill.
What a coup. Among other noteable aspects, it will
funnel money to ACORN so they can do more
community organizing to help ensure the Dems are
re-elected which will keep the money flowing their
way. Nothing more sweet than having your income
paid from tax dollars. God bless 'em. I'm loving the
fact that our new government can't spend our grand
childrens' money fast enough.
I am so pleased to learn of so many Democrats
with tax cheating problems. It's nice to know they
can make mistakes too, and be forgiven no less.
Man, this is the kind of Change I was hoping for.
It's also very impressive how our new President
is taking lots of time filling 18 key position in the
Treasury Department. With the economy in
shambles, you must be certain to pick the right
people to lead us out of this mess. You have to
admit, Tim Geithner was a solid pick. We need more
ethical public servants like Tim, but since they are so
far and few between it will take time to find them.
Nobody wanted the previous administration to
fail more the Harry and Nancy, for how else could
they have conspired to bring about all these
wonderful changes we are currently experiencing.
Ultimately, failure is not an option. That's why we
have
elections.
Authored by: paulgardner on Friday, March 13 2009 @ 04:29 AM GMT+4
The Manchurian candidate got the name because of a hidden foreign influence over him.
What hidden foreign influence over Obama are you suggesting?
if you want to be serious about the "Manchurian Candidate" angle you might start by looking at who holds our national debt. When the film "Manchurian Candidate" was made no one could have forseen a day when Communist China would hold over a $trillion of our national debt. If that is not a large (but not hidden) influence on the USA and it's policies I don't know what is - of course it cuts both ways and the Chinese are particularly carefull not to lose the market share we represent for the sale of their goods.
You could also look at Saudi Arabia, in which case the Manchurian Candidate would be the Saudi Arabian Candidate: George W. Bush.
S.A. owns a huge chunk of Manhattan as well as a chunk of our national debt. And when it comes to the Bush family, forget about the Texas oil man stuff, that's wallpaper so you can't see that they are in fact investment bankers. George Herbert Walker, source of the W in George W. Bush? Investment banker. Prescott Bush, grandfather of George W. Bush? Investment banker who received a slap on the wrist for funding the Nazi war effort (up to 1/3 of all Nazi steel and war materials was funded by Bush related banks). So no big surprise that the recent generations of Bushs are in bed with the Bin Ladens.
So if you want Manchurian/Saudi Arabian candidates - look to 41 & 43, not 44.
On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."
Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.
--- "Government's view of the economy: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
Authored by: Maus Anon E on Thursday, March 12 2009 @ 06:54 AM GMT+4
I love Carville. But I love him because he's a cartoon character, fun to watch, but of no real consequence.
There are oceans of difference between wanting the president to fail, and hoping he doesn't succeed. I mean, sure, who among us really wanted Bush to succeed in his plan to transfer wealth from the working and middle class to the wealthy? Only the wealthy, the masochistic, and the insane. But I don't think anyone really wanted Bush to be the overwhelming social and economic failure that he became.
Of course, if Carville had said that after the terrorist attacks, it would be another thing. Sort of like the philosophical chief of the republican party hoping, in the midst of a worsening economic depression, that the president fails.
Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Tuesday, March 10 2009 @ 06:51 PM GMT+4
Who do you find to represent your failing, loser party when your black
leader of the RNC, Steele, gets attacked by the fat drug abuser radio
slob, Limburger?
Answer: A White Elephant.
Calling Obama "socialist" for putting back some of the tax structure
that Eisenhower put on the wealthy (taken away by Reagan and
Bushes) is pretty desperate. These neo-cons who are trying to hold on
to a gilded age of robber baron trusts are fighting a losing battle.
They'd be ranting and raving about Teddy Roosevelt too if they lived
100+ years ago, calling TR a "socialist" for busting the trusts. Time
marches on, blacks and women get the right to vote, and public policy
voted in democratically moves toward a more fair, level playing field
where more are allowed the opportunity to get ahead. The dinosaurs
in opposition may whine and gripe, but in the end they will be swept
aside, into the dustbin of history.
"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization." -Oliver Wendall Holmes,
speaking in defense of the Federal Income Tax, which helped pave the
way for our modern nation
"These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece
the people." --Abraham Lincoln, speaking of war profiteers who put
private profit over ethical behavior
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 11 2009 @ 04:43 AM GMT+4
"No wonder the markets can't get any clear direction
from this administration"
Actually I think they have enough clear information
on this president's direction to understand that he
has basically declared war on the business
coummunity, the entities that provides jobs. His
policies will make it more difficult for USA employers
to be competitive in the global markets.
Authored by: HowardP on Wednesday, March 11 2009 @ 05:43 AM GMT+4
"Competitive in the global markets" "Level playing field" I keep hearing
all these coded words that mean the same thing,American workers will
have to get ready to work for 5-10$ a day like there Indian or Chinese
counterparts. Is this where we really want to go? Is it a race to the
bottom?
Authored by: SJD on Wednesday, March 11 2009 @ 06:20 AM GMT+4
Is that what you want? Equalize the playing field so we all live like a third world banana republic, then life is fair. Oh wait, then you be all over anyone that has a bigger vegetable garden and wasn't sharing with the folks with none or smaller garden.
---
"Government's view of the economy: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Wednesday, March 11 2009 @ 06:31 AM GMT+4
>>Is that what you want? Equalize the playing field so we all live like
a third world banana republic, then life is fair. Oh wait, then you be
all over anyone that has a bigger vegetable garden and wasn't sharing
with the folks with none or smaller garden. <<
No, I would like to see American workers paid more, and jobs stay
here. Sending every bit of production overseas guts the American
lifestyle and we end up with a race to the bottom with our wages
competing with every emerging overpopulated nation's. THAT, my
friend, is your equalization of the playing field for American workers.
Everyone should have a few things to compete in America:
-Equal access to a decent education in public schools paid for by
taxes;
-Equal access to the same laws, no matter how rich or royal your
blood is or the color of your skin (that was put in by Democrats in
1965);
-Equal access to health care and preventive care, just like education in
the first 12 years;
And a progressive tax structure that doesn't let robber barons hoard
too much of the wealth, thus as Teddy Roosevelt warned "upsetting
the very democracy we so cherish because they destroy competition if
not regulated and kept from conglomerating too much."
Authored by: Maus Anon E on Wednesday, March 11 2009 @ 08:50 AM GMT+4
Hell no! Haven't you been paying attention at all? That's what's happening! That's what your republican policies are leading us to! That's what your union-bashing, no-minimum-wage, corporations-are-always-right, shop-at-Walmart, blame-the-poor, freemarket-capitalism gets us!
If that isn't what you want, why do you constantly defend the bastards?
Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Wednesday, March 11 2009 @ 06:22 AM GMT+4
>>Actually I think they have enough clear information on this
president's direction to understand that he has basically declared war
on the business coummunity, the entities that provides jobs. His
policies will make it more difficult for USA employers to be
competitive in the global markets.<<
Yeah, companies like ENRON and Worldcom won't be given the special
privileges they got under Bush. GM may go under, but not after trying
to suck the taxpayers for all the bailouts they can grab, after they
refused to build the competitive cars people demanded. And how can
the small businessman even begin to provide jobs that pay well here
when we've opened up to the world markets with the lowest bidder for
wages? Not to mention the fact that workers in the USA don't get
health care at the same efficient low cost that workers in all of the
other industrialized nations get. GM for example had to go to Ontario
to expand their plants, because Canadian workers had health care and
so it was cheaper for them there (they didn't have to shell out health
care as part of the pay package). Obama is trying to correct the US
system from flaws that Bush left him with. It's going to take some
time to correct this, NO THANKS to the GOP and Bush.
Authored by: SJD on Wednesday, March 11 2009 @ 10:07 AM GMT+4
What do ya all think of the teleprompter president giving up spending moral high ground with the recent $400 billion supplemental spending bill, larded as it was with 9,000 earmarks. What was that, it's 40% republican and last year's stuff... yea but I thought the veto power was on his watch!
---
"Government's view of the economy: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Wednesday, March 11 2009 @ 10:28 AM GMT+4
Here's what I think: I think you need to go back and do some basic
fact checking, SJD. Earmarks constitute only 2% of the stimulus bill,
and some of that 2% was written in by Republicans. The right wing
media (FOX, Drudge, Limbaugh, Beck, and others) are
misrepresenting the stimulus package, trying to smear it so it won't
pass. They know that if it passes and the economic recovery starts to
work, Obama and the Democrats will hold on to power longer. Then
most of what the neoCons tried to put in over the eight years of Bush
will start to disappear. They have a vested interest in spreading fear
and smear to try to halt Obama's progress.
Authored by: SJD on Wednesday, March 11 2009 @ 11:11 AM GMT+4
It's only 2%, so how hard would it be to veto and pull 2% out and then pass.. 2% of 410 billion is 8.2 billion. Bigger then my budget. While we all here at home pull back our spending habits the only thing getting bigger is the government. Someday your all going to wish we had a small government because we should be afraid of this growing monster that will have to be fed by folks yet to be born! Media and entertainer critics of the administration should be applauded for speaking out against authority, but now they're demonized by the very same media that destroyed Bush for his authority. Hypocritical I dare say. Lets just hope BO uses his rescission powers by midnight to cut the 2%... There is a huge difference between progress and motion and I think this fellow is being pushed to do much more then he should. The old saying is, you can do everything, but you likely will never get good at anything.
---
"Government's view of the economy: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Wednesday, March 11 2009 @ 11:38 AM GMT+4
Because when it's only 2% of something but you spend 50% of your
time trying to weed it all out, you're a nitpicker micromanager and
not an effective leader is why. Also, if Obama stops the stimulus to
dither over this, banks and businesses and citizens who have
investments will continue to suffer. What he has done is demand that
these earmarks, less than 2% of the stimulus, be tagged publicly and
that the citizens know who put which earmark in, from which
Congressional district, etc.
From the Washington Post today:
"President Obama said today he would sign an "imperfect" spending
bill to keep the government running even though it contains thousands
of lawmakers' pet projects, but he called for more rigorous review of
future projects, known as earmarks, that are designated by individual
legislators for their states or districts.
Obama called on Congress to enact a series of guidelines that he said
would not eliminate earmarks but would force lawmakers to be more
transparent about them and would crack down on those that benefit
private companies. He said it "should go without saying that an
earmark must never be traded for political favors." The guidelines are
aimed at curbing the number of pet projects in appropriations bills,
setting up a potential battle with lawmakers who have clung to the
spending items."
Authored by: pjmelton on Wednesday, March 11 2009 @ 11:56 AM GMT+4
I am confused.
Are we talking about the stimulus bill or the omnibus spending bill?
The latter was negotiated while Bush was still in office. I think Obama will be giving a speech on earmark reform today. You can't shut down the government over something stupid like earmarks. They have never been that big a deal and never will be. Sure, we could reform this system, and I think we should reform this system. But it's penny wise and pound foolish to hold up this year's entire budget in order to do so. This wasn't the time to have that debate. Earmarks are pennies compared with the overall budget. Which is why McCain lost the earmark debate and the election.
---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR
Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Thursday, March 12 2009 @ 07:30 AM GMT+4
Most Americans support Obama:
President Obama Job Approval
RCP Average
Approve60.8
Disapprove30.2
Spread +30.6
Meanwhile, approval of Congress (controlled by the Dems) is inching
up as well:
Congressional Approval Jumps Again
Gallup Poll: "Americans' job approval rating of Congress is up an
additional 8 points this month, after a 12-point increase last month,
and now stands at 39% -- the most positive assessment of Congress
since February 2005."
It seems most Americans are happy with the new administration and
are growing happier with Congress. The gripers and whiners are in the
MINORITY. Change is good. Keep it coming, Democrats!
BREAKING NEWS - FBI RAIDS FORMER WORKPLACE OF BO APPOINTEE
Authored by: pjmelton on Thursday, March 12 2009 @ 10:43 AM GMT+4
"Late Update: It looks like Kundra may not be the focus of the probe after all. The Washington Post reports that an employee in the office, Yusuf Acar, who serves as the information systems security officer for the city, has been arrested as part of a federal bribery sting.
"A spokesman for the US Attorneys office said the case is 'is under seal.'"
MORE BREAKING NEWS - Huckabee Catfight with Steele at RNC
Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Thursday, March 12 2009 @ 11:14 AM GMT+4
Uh oh...Mike Huckabee just threw himself into the catfight over at the
RNC. HA HA HA---This is amusing as he-L!
From the CQ Political Wire:
Huckabee Rips Steele
In a statement, Mike Huckabee says the recent comments RNC
Chairman Michael Steele made about abortion "are very troubling and
despite his clarification today the party stands to lose many of its
members and a great deal of its support in the trenches of grassroots
politics."
MORE BREAKING NEWS - I hope they don't get rid of Steele.
Authored by: Maus Anon E on Thursday, March 12 2009 @ 11:23 AM GMT+4
This guy is basically the wrong guy for this job, to put it as nicely as possible. He's just not doing what he should be doing, and that's working on the 50-state strategy for republicans. Instead, he's out showing off and trying to be the head of the republican Party instead of the RNC.
I hope they don't get rid of him, because he's going to drag republicans down even further, if that's even possible.
But here's what I think is achingly funny:
Republicans are beating on Steele for his mainstream opinions on issues that matter to voters. He might even be able to bring some centrists into the party if he could end, or at least pare down, the party's militant stance on abortion and homosexuality.
Instead the guy's doing the one thing might help republicans - showing that not every republican believes "gay is a choice" and that the government must control women's bodies, and they castigate him!
Do you think he'll have to apologize to the republican's ideological commander-in-chief Rush Limbaugh again?
Republicans - Defenders of Traditional American Values & Culture.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 13 2009 @ 03:25 AM GMT+4
Maybe Steele knows exactly what he's doing. I
believe there are many in the Republican party who
believe in a woman's right to control her own body,
although Obama's stance on the matter is over the
top. I also believe there are many in the Republican
party who have no problem with homosexuals being
homosexuals, although they find it morally
disgusting, they are willing to let them have their civil
unions. Just leave it at that.
However the Republican Party re-defines itself
over the next four years, it will still be the
alternative to the Obama, Harry and Nancy Show. I
wouldn't be too cocky about the efficacy of this
administration.
Republicans - Defenders of Traditional American Values
Authored by: Maus Anon E on Friday, March 13 2009 @ 05:05 AM GMT+4
Yes, I think Steele has a plan to bring the party back to the mainstream, and I think he really is fairly moderate. I just don't think the extreme right, which has had the party in a stranglehold for 25 years, has any intention of letting him succeed.
If there's really any significant number of moderates left in the republican Party, they need to get control and stop letting the extremists run the party. They have to stop letting Limbaugh be the spokesman for the republican brand.
And they have to offer a real alternative. It isn't enough just to not be Obama. If the republicans really think they can win by waiting for the Democrats to fail, they're not only lazy, ideologically bereft, and morally bankrupt, they're mistaken.
For years, Democrats failed because they thought they could win by not being republicans. They didn't offer any alternative vision. How ironic it would be if republicans fell into the same trap.
Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Friday, March 13 2009 @ 12:21 PM GMT+4
From that great cartoonist, Mike Peters, who draws both Mother Goose &
Grimm, which the Reformer stupidly dropped, and a political cartoon,
here's his latest work: http://www.grimmy.com/editorials.php
Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Friday, March 13 2009 @ 09:46 AM GMT+4
CQ has an interesting story on how the Republicans themselves are
guilty of earmark attachments in the House. It's kind of amusing that
the party out of power that is criticizing the Dems for earmark
spending is guilty of the exact same thing!
Here's the intro to the story, but to read the whole thing go to: www.cqpolitics.com
"GOP Faces Obstacle in Earmark Fight: Themselves
By Bennett Roth, CQ Staff
Congressional Republican leaders hope to win back the public’s trust
with opposition to earmark-laden spending pushed by Democrats.
But they face a significant obstacle: GOP members who want funding
for their own pet projects as well.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, is one of those who
eschews earmarks such as those in the fiscal 2009 omnibus (HR 1105)
the Senate cleared Tuesday. He called on President Obama to veto
the bill.
“This legislation is loaded with 9,000 unscrutinized earmarks – the
kind of secretive spending the president promised to oppose – and
includes the largest non-emergency discretionary spending increase
since the Carter years,” Boehner said in a statement.
But his message, which Obama was likely to ignore, was muddied by
the fact that many of those pet projects were for Republicans.
Of the 178 Republican House members, only 39 did not have
earmarks in the omnibus, according to the watchdog group Taxpayers
for Common Sense. Three Democrats did not accept earmarks, which
are funding attached to appropriations bills for specific projects sought
by lawmakers."
Authored by: javanyet on Saturday, March 14 2009 @ 04:31 PM GMT+4
Why does anyone even give that "socialist" drivel the time of day? People who rant on about that clearly (by their individual statements) indicate they have no idea what they're talking about.
Obama was perfectly right to treat the question as ridiculous, and express disbelief that it was serious.
