Post Tools: 
PrintThis
Related Posts: Palin is Going to Win Tonight’s Debate, The Almanac Debate, CD3 Debate - August 21, 2008, Madia Holding Debate Watching Party, CD 3 Debate Tonight,
PrintThis
Related Posts: Palin is Going to Win Tonight’s Debate, The Almanac Debate, CD3 Debate - August 21, 2008, Madia Holding Debate Watching Party, CD 3 Debate Tonight,
McCain was unable to look at Obama one single time during the entire event. Pathetic.
If my memory serves me correctly, I believe McCain followed Obama’s slam up with a pretty good clarification of his own. It was to the effect of “Senator Obama, the next President won’t need to figure out if we should go into Iraq. The next President will need to determine how to get us out, successfully.”
I thought that was an effective line, at least to me. What’s done is done. Good for Obama for not voting for the war and standing up against it when he was in the Illnois StateHouse in Springfield. But this discussion is about what to do NOW.
Obama came across better in the debate, but McCain held his own. Still, I’m expecting a couple point bounce in favor of Obama simply because he is a more eloquent communicator.
McCain said Pakistan was a failed state — WRONG.
McCain did not know the difference between STRATEGY and TACTICS — - WRONG.
And where is McCain’s flag pin?! Didn’t the republicans make a very big deal about that not too long ago when Obama did not wear one?
DantheMan: I agree that the McCain line was a good one, but the fact remains that it was a lack of judgment on McCain’s part that helped lead us into the war, and completely underestimating the war. It’s important to look at what people have done because of the indication of things they may do in the future. McCain has proven himself in lacking judgment in the past, how can we expect him to have it in the future?
Danno -
Good point. I agree that everyone who voted for the war, Republican and Democrat, shares culpability for what went wrong.
But my point is this: The fact that Obama can safely distance from and wash his hands of any responsibility for Iraq doesn’t instill confidence that he will have a good, workable plan for getting out of there and leaving Iraq a better place.
He keeps looking backward on the issue of Iraq, when what I’m really worried about is what happens from here.
Good judgement in the past suggests good judgement in the future. Obama has shown a consistency of measured response to everything in his life… this is a thoughtful and intelligent man who in human terms “measures twice, cuts once.” Compare that to the rash and risky decision making of McCain and tell me who you would prefer to have lead us out of Iraq responsibly.
Winning this war has long past been discredited, because of the cost in treasure and blood, because we Americans need to think of our country first before some misguided expensive effort to install Democracy in other countries, because we should have never gone there in the first place. McCain trying to further Bush goals in Iraq is looking backward into the future. Obama leading us out responsibly is what we need now more than ever.
Dan you want to continue on Bush’s misadventure in Iraq, go right ahead. The rest of America wants to move into the future and solve American problems with American solutions without foreign entanglements caused by a disgraced Republican administration.
I see what you are saying, but I’m not sure if you are getting my point.
The fact that Obama opposed the war and opposed the surge and generally has been anti-war doesn’t mean that as commander-in-chief, he would do a more effective job of getting troops out safely and setting Iraq up for success.
Say that someone misread a map and took a wrong turn into a snowdrift. Shame on them for taking the wrong turn. But now, we need the person in charge who can get this vehicle unstuck. The best driver.
The fact that Obama read the original map better doesn’t tell me alot about how he can get this car out of a snowdrift.
Oh, and to continue on the above analogy, the map (our intelligence) was flawed, and McCain wasn’t driving. He was riding shotgun saying “George, you’re doing this wrong”. He is on the record going back to 2003 being highly critical of Bush’s approach and being a lone advocate for the surge when it was politically unpopular.
If there is one thing that I’ve observed about Obama that is very Clinton-esque, he doesn’t do things that are politically unpopular. I wish he were a bit more of a maverick, but in the same respect, those who like to do things that are politically safe tend to push Centrist policies.
Serious question — as the most liberal Senator in DC, will a President Obama push a left wing agenda or as someone who has always been very, very politically cautious, will he push one that the middle will be OK with?
DtM, “The Surge” is simply a label that people like you fall for.
It wasn’t the number of boots that turned it around; it was the change in tactics that changed it. The very first casualty - a fatality - was the result of an unconventional attack.
As then-Major General, Petraeus noted this insurgency immediately - he commanded the 101st in the drive to Baghdad, and then in Mosul after Boy Blunder infamously declared “Mission Accomplished.”
You people need to get “The Surge” out of your minds, and replace it with “The Time That Boy Blunder Actually Started Listening To His Commanders On The Ground”, or “Dumbya Quit Lying (about this)” for short.
Here’s what bothers me about Bushy McSame, last night: “Well, that great General Petraeus says…”
Say, McSame? We have CIVILIAN CONTROL of the military; while General Petraeus is certainly supposed to answer questions about the Area Of Operations, geopolitics is NOT his job.
Oh, and BTW - it’s the JCS job to advise the president on military strategy, BY LAW.
Then again, this misAdministration has never been too concerned with legalities.
And that’s why Obama needs to be elected - we simply cannot afford four more years like the past eight.
People in the middle are okay with a left wing agenda.
Centrists are willing to pay more taxes for needed services.
Centrists support freedom for women to decide their health care decisions.
Centrists support legal parity for gays and lesbians.
Centrists support universal health care.
All these things are labeled as part of the “left wing agenda”
Also, ahem….
“We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” (1/22/03)
“There’s no doubt in my mind, once these people are gone, that we will be welcomed as liberators.” (3/24/03)
“It’s clear that the end is very much in sight.” [ABC, 4/9/03]
“There’s not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shiahs. So I think they can probably get along.” [MSNBC, 4/23/03]
“This is a mission accomplished. They know how much influence Saddam Hussein had on the Iraqi people, how much more difficult it made to get their cooperation.” [This Week, ABC, 12/14/03]
“I’m confident we’re on the right course.” [ABC News, 3/7/04]
“I do think that progress is being made in a lot of Iraq. Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course. If I thought we weren’t making progress, I’d be despondent.” [The Hill, 12/8/05]
Lojasmo, I was fully expecting that answer, and I couldn’t disagree more.
In 2000, when Bush took over, Republicans had the illusion that centrists supported their agenda. When he was re-elected in 2004, they made the mistake again. They were wrong.
Centrists do not support a left-wing agenda. The question is how much of it will they tolerate in order to have a fresh face in office.
You Say:
“Centrists are willing to pay more taxes for needed services”. Depends on how much more tax, and what the services are.
“Centrists support freedom for women to decide their health care decisions.” I agree on this one, yes.
“Centrists support legal parity for gays and lesbians.” I support equal opportunity, yes. But does this mean pushing gay marriage recognition?
“Centrists support universal health care.” The type that has a safety net for those who can’t afford insurance, or the type that creates a Bureau of Health that could become our nation’s largest Agency in DC behind the Pentagon? Yeah on one, nay on the other.
That was no doubt the worst performance I have ever seen in a debate by John McCain.
McCain seemed tired, crabby, UNenthusiastic, and relied heavily on established right wing talking points. At the very least, Bush, or Reagan, at least showed some form of charm or charisma. I saw none in McCain.
McCain also failed to make the connection between earmarks and Wall Streets failure, the foundation of his campaign. He needs to teach people what the connection is, rather than simply inferring there is one.
If McCain is making the claim that he can work with people who disagree with him, he failed to show it. Instead, Obama’s constant search for common ground gives America a good taste of his style that encourages PRODUCTIVE, “look someone in the eye” debate.
Obama was logical, brilliant, and was too much of a gentleman to McCain, a man who doesn’t deserve, considering his recent actions, to be treated that way. He showed a common sense approach to politics that has been missing for a long time. He talks to the American people like they are adults, rather than a gullible, moldable children.
Obama is more willing to attempt to find the things both sides of Americans agree on, rather than relying on tearing down people he disagrees with. This may not be the way to win an election, but I do admire the personality he has that encourages more of a dialog.
I find McCain to be quite representative of the talking point driven politics of the trolls, who shout their talking points at you, and discourage any constructive debate beyond “I’m right and you’re wrong”.
McCain played to his base……the trolls.
DtM: You are free to disagree, but you are incorrect.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/washington/02poll.html < Taxes to pay for universal health care
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1988/09/07/08370035.h08.html < Taxes for schools
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marp.htm <64 percent support equal parity OR marriage for gays. 43% support gay marriage.
As far as McCain being on the record opposing Bush in Iraq, soundly debunked above with multiple cheerleading quotes from McCain in 2003 and 2004. Also, please note that words are different from actions, and in McCain’s case, often polar opposites.
First off, your Taxes for Schools link is from 1988. Surely you can find something from after the Reagan administration.
On the Universal Healthcare point, they say that half of Americans are willing to pay an extra $500 to ensure everyone has health insurance. Let’s assume that most of the 30% of liberals are for it, and most of the 30% of conservatives are against it. That leaves 40% in the middle, who are split right down the middle on if it is a good thing or not. Those are the Centrists, split evenly. That means that the idea needs to be prudent and rational. A liberal administration would have to move toward the middle to get buy-in… this isn’t a case of Americans yearning for a liberal agenda. If it was, Obama would be getting 60% of the vote… right now, he leads McCain by a small 3 points.
Bottom line — American Centrists don’t buy in to the left wing or the right wing agendas. They want one that is smart, practical, and restrained, and a candidate who can make that happen.
DTM - Jon McCain is willing to stay parked in that snowdrift for a hundred years, still thinks driving into the snowbank is a good idea, and is willing to pass on the reins to SARAH PALIN in his own worst case scenario. Nuff said.
Perhaps you could add a post about how the Democrats are teaming up with Bush to loot $700 billion from the middle class and give it to the richest in our country.
Pretty “Fly” For A White Guy,
Perhaps a post about how the Republicans have teamed up with Bush for 8 years to loot trillions of dollars from the middle class and give it to the richest in our country.
The wealthy class have been sucking at the government teat for years now. The division between the richest among us and the poorest has not happened overnight, you know, pal.
What do you think we are, stupid?
Judging from your comments, yes.
Pretty whiny for a white guy.
How did the rich become rich?
DtM:
You didn’t say “yearning for a liberal agenda” YOU SAID an agenda which Americans are okay with. I presented ample evidence that a majority of Americans are “okay with” items which common wisdom lumps in with the so-called “liberal agenda” Common wisdom, however, is wrong. The “liberal agenda” is simply American values such as egalitarianism, community, and justice, which have been demonized by stingy, homophobic, right wing idealogues.
http://www.publicagenda.org/charts/majority-voters-are-willing-pay-more-taxes-education-and-health-care-would-cut-funding < Question: Would you rather pay more taxes or cut funding for various issues.
Fair enough. I did say “Okay” with.
I was OK with Bill Clinton’s agenda. I especially thought that the Bill Clinton agenda when “checked” by the Newt Gingrich-led House agenda was particularly effective. It created the last known budget surplus. It is one time when I felt that two parties were working together.
Then came the Monica-gate. Shame on both sides for how they acted. Then came Terri Schaivo. Shame on the GOP for what they did there. Then came Iraq. I think both sides are very culpable for politicizing the war to their liking.
My point is, I could live with another Clinton admin. But Obama has shown me very little to go on, and what he has shown me indicates that he is well left of the mainstream. Centrists are mainstream.
I disagree that Obama is well left of the mainstream. I see him as very much a centrist.
What I came here to say, however, is that anybody who watched that debate and is still planning on voting for McCain is a waste of oxygen.
“What I came here to say, however, is that anybody who watched that debate and is still planning on voting for McCain is a waste of oxygen.”
But you are assuming that we would only vote on style and polish. In terms of delivery, Obama killed McCain. He came across as more prepared, more articulate, and overall with better command of how to debate.
But what if maybe, just maybe, I vote based on the content that comes out of their mouths? For the (relatively few) times that the two candidates really differentiated themselves last night, I sided with McCain nearly every time in my political philosophy.
Does that make me a “waste of oxygen”? If so, you better hope that you win veto-proof majorities all around in November, because there are a whole lot of guys who fall about where I do in Congress and you’ll need their votes to pass any meaningful legislation.
I can see why a Republican who supports McCain would like to continue to campaign against Barack Obama with the “most Liberal Senator” talking point that is so popular right now.
That is one of the few talking points left that some people will easily believe without question.
SO he’s more Liberal than Ted Kennedy?….Russ Feingold?….or John Kerry, who was “most Liberal” in 2004 (for some reason)?
Fact is, every Democrat (except maybe Lieberman) could be broad-brushed as the “far left” as the Republicans are currently defining it, no matter how much they reach out to the center.
The talking point has become meaningless to most people, I think.
What are the significant foreign policy differences between Obama and Mccain? I know there must be many but only a few stand out in my mind.
-How fast and how far to draw down troops in Iraq- I agree with Obama there are better uses for these troops and dollars and Iraq needs to take greater responibility starting now.
-Whether or not talk to Iranian leaders without having preconditions met. It seems to me not talking is the more dangerous course.
-What region poses greatest threat to US. I vote Afghanistan/Pakistan.
-increasing border and port security seem very important for security and preventing loose nukes from getting in. Is this a Mccain strong focus too?
Anyhow I trust Obama’s judgement more on all these issues and find Mccains temperment and decision making frightening. He has a quote about being a risk taker from his book that scares me, because we would all need to live with the impulsive decesions of President Mccain (i.e. Palin as VP)
“I don’t torture myself over decisions, I make them as quickly as I can, quicker than the other fellow, if I can. Often my hast is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaining.”
Also I find it highly disturbing that Mccain couldn’t find time to read a 3 page proposal for spending 700 Billion on the bailout over the course of several days. This is gross negligence and way to similar to the knowledge lacking management style of GWB.
Nitro — the “most liberal” title doesn’t come from anecdote. It comes from vote compilations at the National Journal. http://www.nationaljournal.com
We can argue if Obama will be the lefty as President, but the fact he has been the furthest left in the Senate is fact, not talking point. Using fact instead of innuendo or rumor is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Columnists agree with me about Mccain.
N. Kristof:
“As Mr. McCain demonstrated in Friday evening’s debate, he is a serious foreign policy thinker who has traveled widely, and he certainly showed vision and bipartisanship in helping to repair relations with Vietnam. But it’s equally clear that in recent years Mr. McCain has become impish cubed — impulsive, impetuous and impatient — and those are perilous qualities in a commander in chief.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/opinion/28kristof.html?ref=opinion
F Rich:
“WHAT we learned last week is that the man who always puts his “country first” will take the country down with him if that’s what it takes to get to the White House.
For all the focus on Friday night’s deadlocked debate, it still can’t” obscure what preceded it: When John McCain gratuitously parachuted into Washington on Thursday, he didn’t care if his grandstanding might precipitate an even deeper economic collapse. All he cared about was whether he might save his campaign.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/opinion/28rich.html?ref=opinion
Some may dismiss these views because of the alledged bias of NYT, but their arguments re: the dangers of a mccain adminsitration have much support. (Isn’t it unusual for so much of the press to be so critical of one of the major party pres.candidates?)
Within the political spectrum it is your standpoint that matters. The fact is that John McCain is the most Fascistic Senator in the history of the Senate… I’m certain I can find a website to prove that.
Spin is spin… lies are lies… and Republicans seem to have the corner on both.
I think we need to define our terms here. What, exactly does “far left” mean? I believe the, so called, “center” has moved to the right since Raygun and so anyone “far left” can be considered centrist once we throw out the toxic definitions Raygun has foisted upon us. Does “far left” mean protecting the environment? Does it mean strengthening workers rights? Does “far left” mean insisting that our country has a foreign policy that we all can be proud of? Does “far left” mean insisting that we hold the criminals presently in office, pay for their crimes? If so, color me far left.
DtM-
Passing the idea that Obama is the most liberal senator as “fact” shows your bias.
Coincidentally, Kerry was ranked as the “most liberal” senator by the journal in 2004. Obama is ranked “more liberal” than actual socialist Bernie Sanders, and despite differing from Clinton on only ten of around 175 votes, Clinton was ranked sixteenth most liberal (how does that work, Dan?)
Foolish. Now it is okay for you to say “National Journal ranked Obama and that’s a fact” but it is not a “fact” that Obama is the most liberal senator. It is simply the opinion of the National Journal’s editorial board.
Look at a more sophisticated algorithm if you want to find something approaching fact. http://voteview.com/sen110.htm
So…DTM says Obama is the “most far-left liberal” and McInsane has gone with the RW talking points 90% of the time, yet McInsane is the “maverick” capable of leading in his own irratic, petulant, and vindictive style. You have to admit Obama doesn’t work from that set of personality flaws.
A couple points:
I was going to look up the term for the Iraq coup de tet between the mullahs which occurred prior to the surge and was probably the only reason the “surge” gave the appearance of working. I figure it won’t matter- look it up if you want.
According to European sources, there is a serious epidemic in Iraq of Cholera effecting 1 in 3, and compounded by not having medicine/doctors/hospitals enough to handle it.
Other sources say the “surge” appeared to work because the ethnic cleansing is pretty much accomplished.
OT- I just wish the language of the bail-out bill were made public. I think 60% of the population is better informed, maybe smarted in general, than Congress.
Obama is centrist, BTW.
If you want to see the real reason that the Surge worked look at two things: 1. Follow the bribe money, which moved to the tribal elements who previously were the worst in attacking Americans and 2. The effect of a few years of ethnic cleansing is that Shia and Sunni areas are settled by one group or the other without too much overlap… hard to be killing your neighbors once they are all dead or moved.
The bribery issue is an important one because we paid off the worst and after making this deal with the devils pointed to the lowering of violence against the troops as success. Even the military questioned the payments to known insurgent groups. What happens once we stop the bribes?
“What happens once we stop the bribes?”
The civil war resumes.
But, you hit upon the dirty little secret GOPers refuse to acknowledge: we are paying off those that used to shoot at, and kill, our soldiers.
Unfortunately, that is part of unconventional warfare.
But the “GOPer Party Faithful” (you regular readers know what I really mean by that) would go ballistic if they knew their tax dollars were going to pay off the killers of American soldiers.
So the payoffs continue, but that inconvenient truth is ignored.
DTM: What is your position on allowing gays to serve openly in the military? The general public supports it. McCain opposes it - and so do current top military brass.
Openly gay people serving in other military services - England, Israel etc. has not hurt “unit cohesion” despite the sky is falling claims from the usual suspects.
Both Obama and McCain oppose gay marriage. Obama supports equality in benefits (Civil Unions), and supports repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage act for that reason. McCain opposes a Federal Marriage Amendment, but supports constitutional amendments in various states.
I love how republicans (oh,sorry, dtm, did I blow your cover again?) continue to try to claim the credit for Clinton’s balanced budgets and resulting surplus. Newt Gingrich had nothing to do with it. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 passed without a single republican vote. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d103:1:./temp/~bdthtg:@@@L&summ2=m&|/bss/d103query.html|
Sure thing, Downtown Chet. Give full responsibility for the balanced budget to Clinton. Then he has to take full responsibilty for the stock market bubble and subsequent burst that we’ve never fully recovered from.
Boy it’s all about absolutes with you Republicans, isn’t it DantheMan?
“Then he has to take full responsibilty for the stock market bubble and subsequent burst that we’ve never fully recovered from.”
Yes, 8 years of Bush’s Whitehouse and 4 years of a Republican majority in the House, Senate, and White House could do NOTHING to stop the bubble…and burst. That’s how insidious Clinton was.
Maybe you should just pick up your talking point spin (or marbles), your half truths (or jacks), and your misrepresentations of people who you disagree with (or your rubber balls) and storm off angry.
I know of a website that has some pretty good right wing spin (or teddy bears) that might comfort you. Maybe you should comment there (snuggle) for a while.
Good grief Dan I am so tired of Republicans refusing to take responsibility for their actions and policy. What are you guys like seven? Bill Clinton has not had a single thing to do with the Economy in close to 8 years… when he left the economy in pretty good shape. We are now facing the biggest threat to our economic well-being since the Depression and you stupid fucks are unwilling to man up and admit that you have any responsability at all. Deregulation of the Financial Markets is STILL in the 2008 Republican Platform… as it has been since before Reagan. Of course you don’t want to point to the platform right now.
Jesus Christ on a bicycle quit trying to find “any” body else to blame and simply admit that deregulation has not worked and that trickle down theory has been discredited. We are in this mess because of exotic mortgage derivatives traded on Wall Street without any connection to reality, because regulations were not in place to control capitalist greed. Do you honestly think that a local bank would have written these loans on their own funds, without there being a fantasy market to get the risk off their books.
Do you think we would be in this mess if every time these derivatives of bundled bullshit didn’t make a commission along the way on their journey away from risk and reality? Bill Clinton had little to nothing to do with this… George Bush, John McCain and every Republican screaming for deregulation did.
And people wonder why I have no respect for lying pussy Republicans?
“Boy it’s all about absolutes with you Republicans, isn’t it DantheMan?”
No, actually, the opposite. I was responding to a post that implied that Clinton “absolutely” had everything to do with the last balanced budget. I was begging to differ. And by the way, I was referring to the stock market bubble which burst in January 2000, I wasn’t trying to completely pin today’s crisis on Clinton.
In fact, amuse and nitro, if anyone is hung up on absolutes, it is you all. This is what you are saying: “Deregulation is bad. We need to end deregulation. Republicans include deregulation in their platform, so they are bad. Reaganomics has proven that it doesn’t work.” That is pretty absolute, wouldn’t you say?
Let’s look at what is going on now. There are three major drivers of this… it is not at all absolute. People so badly want to say “if we would have just done this” or “if we would have just not done this” that we wouldn’t be in this mess. Those people are oversimplifying this issue.
The three things that have combined to put us where we are today are:
1) Repeal of Glass-Steagall Act. An example of deregulation. Pushed by the GOP and signed by Clinton in 1999.
2) Introduction of the Mark-to-Market accounting in the Sarbanes Oxley act. An example of regulation. I’m not saying the whole Act is bad, but this principle is contributing heavily to the need for a bailout. Supported by both sides of the aisle and signed by Bush in 2002.
3) The 1995 “beefing up” of the Community Reinvestment Act requiring more lower-income loans and giving more lending power to Fannie and Freddie. An example of regulation. A major Clinton win in 1995, coinciding with the beginning of our hot housing market.
So we have two moves that were toward more regulation, and one toward deregulation that caused all this. The moral of this story is that regulation is not evil, and deregulation is not evil. You just have to get the balance right, and we didn’t on this one.
Poor DTM, I know it’s hard to excuse Reagan’s trickle down economic failure, Bush/Cheney’s criminal 8 year reign of complete and utter failure, and McCain/Palin’s terrible, terrible campaign thus far. You are doing the best you can. I know it’s not the Conservative’s fault that conservatism is such a complete failure for you and me and everyone reading here. Unless we have any multi billionaire, oil executive, bigot, War profiteers reading? I don’t think so. Don’t worry though, the GOP has screwed their kids and grandkids as well as the rest of ours. So we can someday all be in this mess together. But you are doing a pretty good job here on Publius. You are swaying us all. Reality be damned. That Palin shotgun wedding this fall should be a real boon for the McCain campaign, which has ran impeccably thus far. I can’t wait!
Wait one goddamn minute here… it was not the poor who could not afford their homes, it was the rich, who had to build mega-mansions they could not afford. The rise in false real estate values wasn’t for cheap little urban boxes it was those big houses, big SUVs and big-screen TVs. The “rich” pseudo-Republicans over-extended themselves, and now the chips have been called in.
The biggest problem was greedy brokers and money managers that took advantage of people and either stole money or talked people into taking high-risk loans. They divorced the value, risk and hometown oversight on mortgages for bundled bullshit. Now all of us will suffer and pay for it for years to come.
As for blaming the Democrats, even if this were true - and it’s not - we had a strong economy while Clinton was in. It has been Bush’s miserable failures that have brought us to this point. If the Democrats had created this mess, Bush has had eight years to fix it. Instead, he made it worse. I notice all of a sudden its lets work together and why play the blame fame… now.
Letting Republican greed-heads run an economy, is like letting Sarah Palin run your foreign policy. Not smart.
DantheMan,
” This is what you are saying: “Deregulation is bad. We need to end deregulation. Republicans include deregulation in their platform, so they are bad. Reaganomics has proven that it doesn’t work.”
I have never said that. You mis-represented my views again.
Deregulation, or regulation, should both be used wisely, with oversight, and show results, or be scrapped.
Period.
How is that “absolute”, DantheMan?
What you showed me was, again for the umpteenth time, your skill at mischaracterizing people you disagree with.
Have you ever thought to yourself that we Democrats or Liberals don’t enjoy being mischaracterized?
We’ve gone through 8+ years of that crap sandwich.
The truth is, only DE-regulation was broad brushed as a cure-all by large numbers of Republicans as “smaller government”, with no specifics of what that entails other than deregulation and lower taxes. Bush ran on it and won. Reagan taught it. Untold Republicans won seats because of it. Government regulation was blamed for so many things by you people, and your partys solution has always been de-regulate and cut taxes. We’ve heard it a million times (probably literally). That sounds kinda “absolute” to me.
Just because we didn’t enjoy being on the receiving end of your “wedge issue” doesn’t mean we have to be against what you yell at us 100%. Only a rabid right wing talking point repeater thinks that.
Nitro.
You are an absolutist because you require oversight and results…duh.
Like, you know, supply side economics, the Iraq war and the “star wars” missile shield. If those things had oversight and were required to show results, it would be just TERRIBLE! TERRIBLE!
I am amazed you libtards just don’t get it.
DtM 42% of mortgages in the last four years were non-residence (speculation or vacation homes) Conversely, only 5% of mortgages were sub prime.
The consumer aspect of this crash was caused not by the poor, but by upper quintile earners.
DtM 42% of mortgages in the last four years were non-residence (speculation or vacation homes) Conversely, only 5% of mortgages were sub prime.
The consumer aspect of this crash was caused not by the poor, but by upper quintile earners.
Lojasmo, Amuse, Zach, Nitro - It took some digging, but I found something that makes sense in your posts. It was in one by Nitro. “Deregulation, or regulation, should both be used wisely, with oversight, and show results, or be scrapped.” I completely agree. We need to step up Government accountability. That is actually a major reason I’m voting for McCain. And for as rough as Palin is on a press interview, she has a record of Govt accountability as well.
You can say that this all was just Wall Street’s fault and the consumers were victims. You can say that a high number of mortgages were for speculators (I think your numbers are suspect, lojasmo). I’m sure that when you all talk amongst yourselves you like to envision villians who are at weekend homes in the Hamptons that they purchased with dirty, swindled mortgage money. It would put such a nice bow on what you try to believe.
The fact is that Government hardly ever gets anything right, and we should always be weary of excess regulation. Your natural gas bills are lower, your airline fares are lower, and your telephone and cell phone bills are WAY lower than they would have been prior to deregulation. Is it perfect? No. It is an ongoing refinement process.
Oh, and Amuseinc. Your post that begins with “wait a goddamn minute” is full of vigor but empty of fact. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, the foreclosure rate on a prime (good) mortgage is about 1 in 400. The foreclosure rate on a subprime mortgage is about 1 in 41. You better believe that the regulations in in 1995 Community Reinv. Act had alot to do with this.
just a little thought- Remember Tom Delay, Abramoff, the entire Republican fake out-rage, disrespect, and the word ‘spin’, and the complete act these presumed adult Republican senators and pundits performed daily for the media reminding me of peewee herman’s little nonsensical sayings. Remember the sudden connection of Republicans to evangelicals whose career is to perform and act-out outrage, disrespect, condescension…
I’ve had enough. Bush. Cheney. Rumsfeld. Libby. Rove. Limbaugh. add a couple hundred other names and Lindsey Graham.
I’m truly tired of you right wing nutjobs.
(I apologize that I’m writing poorly- I think we’re all tired as a nation of what the nutjobs have done to the country.
I’m not disrespectful ordinarily but I’ve taken enough abuse. Righties could watch, for one example, Saddam’s hanging and feel something entirely different from what I felt.)
DantheMan,
“Your natural gas bills are lower your airline fares are lower, and your telephone and cell phone bills are WAY lower than they would have been prior to deregulation.”
Those are some carefully picked examples, aren’t they, DantheMan? You make it sound like the de-regulation of everything Bush had his hands on has made American life cheaper. Nothing could be further from the truth.
What else is less expensive then?……or let me guess, anything else that’s more expensive is not the fault of deregulation, or the Republican ideology that favors big business.
It is amazing that the Republican party, who have always maintained since Reagan that Government can’t do anything right, have gone out and proved to everyone how badly it can be run. Even more ironic, the “CEO President” was in charge of it.
At the root of this meltdown is average everyday people have less disposable income, are maxed out on credit, and are seeing no big increase in their salaries. They are struggling. The Republican’s answer to this is…….cracking down on earmarks? (the ones Republicans disagree with)
McCain better spell out the connection there, and teach us is some understandable manner why earmarks are responsible for the average Americans less disposable income, maxed out credit, and lack of salary increase. So far he hasn’t done that.
31% speculative properties, 13% vacation homes, Dan.
As far as Palin’s Govt accountability: Are you talking about the $50K she used to spiff up the mayoral offices immediately after election, or the $20 million in debt with which she saddled her town of 6,000 people? We need specifics, Dan. Perhaps you’re referring to the list of 31 proposed federal earmarks or requests for funding, totaling $197 million Palin handed to indicted Senator Ted Stevens.
Inquiring minds want to know.
This whole bullshit mess started with the libtard socialists ordering Freddie and Fannie to make loans to people who could not afford to make the payments without a drastically and artificially inflated economy. “Affordable housing” by giving the property to people who could not afford to repay. When other people saw what was going on, everyone jumped on the bandwagon. I guess those nothing down and decreased collateral loans were only for the “disadvantaged” right? Perhaps the “government” should have specified that these welfare loans were only for some, not for all, right?
“The Truth” how about you stop being “The Stupid”. Simply because anonymity of the internet gives you the e-balls you wouldn’t have in real life to say incendiary shit, doesn’t mean you should use them. We expect to have a little more thoughtful dialogue here than you’d find on say, MDE, so, stop it with the name calling, or I’ll delete your comments. Sean
Would someone explain to me how exotic mortgage derivatives of bundled fantasy have anything to do with “poor people”? At the point you cut off the connection between the instrument and the mortgage… whatever the original risk was thought to be… you end up with this mess. Deregulation without sense caused this and Republicans did it.
Republicans are to blame for this mess… as you can see every time George Bush stands up to talk about it. Remember just a few months ago, Bush and his ilk were telling us everything was great. The economy was sound and good on the fundamentals… Hell that old fool McCain was telling everyone the same thing just a week ago. Seems the Republicans didn’t include him in on the real economic meetings.
Don’t be surprised if the electorate takes their pound of flesh from the Republican hide this November. Picking Governor Palin is just one example of John McCain’s bad leadership abilities.
Just an observation… If everyone would spend less time in a pissing match about which party screwed up, and more time on which ideas have worked and which have not, we’d all be alot further ahead. That goes for blogs, cable networks, and the politicians themselves.
I’ve offered my theory with some backup… this all is the fault of a series of events stemming from both GOP deregulation initiatives as well as Democrat regulatory mistakes. All I’ve gotten in response is, essentially, “Republicans suck! Republicans are crooks!” Until someone offers an intelligent argument not based in the latest Keith Olbermann monologue, I can only presume I’m correct.
We need a real 3rd party in this country.
the jury is out
“We need to step up Government accountability.”
What does this mean? Does it include reducing the influence of lobbyists? Mccain has deep ties to lobbyists and policies that favor corp. and the super rich. http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/24/on-davis-s-ties-to-freddie-mac-mccain-gets-boomeranged.aspx
“McCain’s campaign is swarming with 26 advisers or fundraisers who have lobbied or are currently lobbying for Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac — including campaign manager Rick Davis.”
“Since 2006, the federally sponsored mortgage giant Freddie Mac has paid at least $345,000 to the lobbying and consulting firm of John McCain’s campaign manager Rick Davis..”
Davis’ firm has continued getting $15,000/month in recent years for nothing more than potential access to candidate/president mccain. That represents several months real work for me. I gave my small donation to Obama, who shows much more concern for issues of the struggling middle class, like how to come up with college tuition for my kids. Just who is mccain accountable to anyhow?
If it all comes down to decreasing the size of the deficit, analysis shows Mccain would increase the deficit more than obama.
“Keeping to the pattern of Bush-era Republicans, McCain would also go deeper into the red than Obama. Including interest, he’d increase the national debt by $4.5 trillion over a decade.” (compared to 3.3 trillion for Obama)
http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2008/6/11/3739543.html
I trust Obama to be more accountable to the people, with a more responsible budget and policies that will strengthen the middle class (which will benefit the country as well)
The Truth:
As noted upthread, only 5% of mortgages were sub-prime, while 42% were non-homestead (second properties) This is not the fault of the poor, but rather speculating and over-reaching upper middle class (top quintile earners) getting in over their heads.
But lojasmo, I would argue that the crux of the issue here isn’t who takes out the mortgage, but rather if the mortgage is paid back. And the material link here is that a subprime loan is statistically 10 times more likely to go into foreclosure than a non-subprime loan.
The Truth
You sound like a very typical troll.
Explain what track record of success the Republican party has had that validates your partisan, spin room arguments.
You know folks, you can talk to these conservatives who visit here till you’re as blue in the face as you are in your hearts. You can lay out facts, links and footnotes galore, you can insult them, agree with them, ask them to go someplace else but you’ll never change their minds. There’s only one way these righties are going to see the light. The effects of conservative government are going to have to bite these poor souls right in their own butts.
When they lose their healthcare, then they’ll see.
When they lose their job, then they’ll see.
When a healthcare crisis looms and they need to declare bankruptcy, then they’ll see.
When their home goes into foreclosure, then they’ll see.
When the bridge collapses under their commute, then they’ll see.
When their sons or daughters need a same sex civil union, then they’ll see.
When they are disenfranchised, then they’ll see.
When they are sickened by tainted food, then they’ll see.
When they get hurt at work in a way that could have been prevented, then they’ll see.
When their favorite outdoor getaway is polluted, then they’ll see.
When they need to unionize, then they’ll see.
When they have to explain the extinction of a species to their child, then they’ll see.
When it’s their son, beaten and left to hang alone on a fence, then they’ll see.
When their daughters face an unwanted pregnancy, then they’ll see.
When their sons are killed on foreign soil, then they’ll see.
Who am I kidding?…
I fully expect my format here in this comment to be tossed back in my face. A laundry list of items that liberals cherish that will cost too much money. Conservatives don’t see the American Dream as something that if strengthened, can GIVE us all more opportunity. They only seem to see the opportunities to keep anyone else from TAKING what they already have. That’s another thing conservatives never get. It’s just money. We’ll make more…
The funny thing is: Most of the conservatives who post here are not wealthy to be immune from the problems their policies have caused for most Americans. They truly are fools, voting against their own self-interest. It’s actually pretty interesting to watch…in a train-wrecky sort of way.
Lojasmo, it reminds me of the comment that the greatest achievement of the Devil was to convince Modern Man that he did not exist.
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
Thomas Jefferson
Venerable Bede, what an awesome comment. Unfortunately, things will have to get much much worse for some people to see the light, if ever. There are too many people for the party of “personal responsibility” and “ownership society” to blame, so some may never get the logs out.
Your comment is written like the lyrics to an anthemic song. Very nice.
“If I paid you to think, you could cash your check at the penny arcade.”
-George Jefferson
Now that the Senate has passed the 700 billon bailout has Obamas destiny been sealed?