As I predicted, both candidates did fine. They also did pretty much what I said they should do and looked strong overall.
Palin had a couple of comments that I completely agreed with. Much to the hyper consternation of the free market fundamentalists, she blamed predatory lenders and greed for our current situation and not the government. Good answer because it is the truth. She also seemed pretty honest on her position on gay marriage and showed tolerance as well as a desire to make sure that all Americans have equal rights.
She did seem weak on foreign affairs, though, and I don't think we need another person in such a high position of power that has such a low level of knowledge in the rest of the world. She did seem much stronger in this area than she has in the past few weeks but that's mostly because she repeated the party line.
Biden looked like he had just done a bong hit before the debate...which was a good thing because he was tres chill. His strong moments were in the foreign policy segment, when he talked about raising his family, and his closing statement. He was rough in the beginning, looking at Gwen Ifill while Governor Palin looked in the camera. When he started looking in the camera, he seemed stronger.
Now that the side show is over, we can get back to who this election is really about: Barack Obama and John McCain. Town hall format on Tuesday night. It should be fun!
Friday, October 03, 2008
Thursday, October 02, 2008
The Big V
Allow me to introduce myself. I am a traitor and an idiot. Also, my mother should have aborted me and left me in a dumpster, but since she didn't, I should "off" myself.
Sound familiar? It should because it sounds exactly like something I would write here on Notes From The Front demonstrating clearly and accurately the type of attitude I get every day from conservatives. It might surprise you to know that the person who wrote the above statement is none other than Kathleen Parker, CONSERVATIVE columnist for the National Review and Washington Post.
Ms. Parker recently wrote a piece in the National Review which called for Sarah Palin to quit the VP slot on the ticket due to her complete lack of experience and knowledge regarding...just about everything. "She's out of her league," wrote Parker last week week, "she doesn’t know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion." I urge you all to read it as she points out several quotes which demonstrate that Palin has no clue what she is talking about.
After the article went up, Ms. Parker received about 8000 emails. According to Parker, they had the general tone of the first paragraph of this post. She goes on...
Some of my usual readers feel betrayed because I previously have written favorably of Palin. By changing my mind and saying so, I am viewed as a traitor to the Republican Party -- not a "true" conservative.
The fierce reaction to my column has been both bracing and enlightening. After 20 years of column writing, I'm familiar with angry mail. But the past few days have produced responses of a different order. Not just angry, but vicious and threatening.
And she's surprised about this? It's what I have been saying all along about the right. It's not just the crazies, folks. That IS their base. Total vindication. The Big V, baby!
But what is a true conservative? One who doesn't think or question and who marches in lock step with The Party?
Anyvone who disobeys our vill will be liquidated. Seig Heil!
Some of Palin's interview responses can't even be critiqued on their merits because they're so nonsensical. But even that is someone else's fault, say Palin supporters. The media make her uncomfortable.
Someone on the right FINALLY recognizing the "non victim" victim culture just like me.
The picture is this: Anyone who dares express an opinion that runs counter to the party line will be silenced. That doesn't sound American to me, but Stalin would approve.Readers have every right to reject my opinion. But when we decide that a person is a traitor and should die for having an opinion different from one's own, we cross into territory that puts all freedoms at risk. (I hear you, Dixie Chicks)
OK, now I just love Kathleen Parker and want to read every one of her columns now forever and ever. Yes, she is a conservative. Yes, I disagree with her on many issues. But at least she is finally seeing the same insanity that I have been seeing for eight years: the Republican Party has been hijacked by lunatics.
I'm sure it is coincidence that, upon the Palin column's publication, a conservative organization canceled a speech I was scheduled to deliver in a few days. If I were as paranoid as the conspiracy theorists are, I might wonder whether I was being punished for speaking incorrectly.
Now, I hope all of you can see how ridiculous Jonah Goldberg (and Kool Aid drinkers) look right now.
As far as tonight's debate goes, look no further than the post below for my thoughts.
Sound familiar? It should because it sounds exactly like something I would write here on Notes From The Front demonstrating clearly and accurately the type of attitude I get every day from conservatives. It might surprise you to know that the person who wrote the above statement is none other than Kathleen Parker, CONSERVATIVE columnist for the National Review and Washington Post.
Ms. Parker recently wrote a piece in the National Review which called for Sarah Palin to quit the VP slot on the ticket due to her complete lack of experience and knowledge regarding...just about everything. "She's out of her league," wrote Parker last week week, "she doesn’t know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion." I urge you all to read it as she points out several quotes which demonstrate that Palin has no clue what she is talking about.
After the article went up, Ms. Parker received about 8000 emails. According to Parker, they had the general tone of the first paragraph of this post. She goes on...
Some of my usual readers feel betrayed because I previously have written favorably of Palin. By changing my mind and saying so, I am viewed as a traitor to the Republican Party -- not a "true" conservative.
The fierce reaction to my column has been both bracing and enlightening. After 20 years of column writing, I'm familiar with angry mail. But the past few days have produced responses of a different order. Not just angry, but vicious and threatening.
And she's surprised about this? It's what I have been saying all along about the right. It's not just the crazies, folks. That IS their base. Total vindication. The Big V, baby!
But what is a true conservative? One who doesn't think or question and who marches in lock step with The Party?
Anyvone who disobeys our vill will be liquidated. Seig Heil!
Some of Palin's interview responses can't even be critiqued on their merits because they're so nonsensical. But even that is someone else's fault, say Palin supporters. The media make her uncomfortable.
Someone on the right FINALLY recognizing the "non victim" victim culture just like me.
The picture is this: Anyone who dares express an opinion that runs counter to the party line will be silenced. That doesn't sound American to me, but Stalin would approve.Readers have every right to reject my opinion. But when we decide that a person is a traitor and should die for having an opinion different from one's own, we cross into territory that puts all freedoms at risk. (I hear you, Dixie Chicks)
OK, now I just love Kathleen Parker and want to read every one of her columns now forever and ever. Yes, she is a conservative. Yes, I disagree with her on many issues. But at least she is finally seeing the same insanity that I have been seeing for eight years: the Republican Party has been hijacked by lunatics.
I'm sure it is coincidence that, upon the Palin column's publication, a conservative organization canceled a speech I was scheduled to deliver in a few days. If I were as paranoid as the conspiracy theorists are, I might wonder whether I was being punished for speaking incorrectly.
Unfortunately, that's the way one begins to think when party loyalty is given a higher value than loyalty to bedrock principles.
And what do we call that, Ms. Parker?
Now, I hope all of you can see how ridiculous Jonah Goldberg (and Kool Aid drinkers) look right now.
As far as tonight's debate goes, look no further than the post below for my thoughts.
Tonight
The VP debate is tonight and, by all indications, it's going to be a dandy. The build up has been extraordinary with an enormous amount of pressure on Sarah Palin to....say something intelligible. There is also a lot of pressure on Biden to not look like he is beating up on a girl. Here's what should happen and what I think is going to happen with each candidate.
Every single time Biden opens his mouth to criticize Sarah Palin it should be prefaced with John McCain's name. So, if Palin says, "We need to stay in Iraq and get the job done," Biden says, "John McCain and Sarah Palin have the wrong policy in Iraq. We need to...blah blah blah." He will look like he is beating up on her or look like he is making her look stupid if he says anything intelligent...and we all know what happens when conservatives see someone smart saying smart things...they tap into their inner rage, make up something moronic, and get ten more eligible idiots to believe it. Election lost. So Biden should have one word on his mind at all times: McCain.
Sarah Palin needs to do what she did in the Alaskan gubernatorial debate: be herself. Speak from her heart and let the base know what her values are. If asked a question that she doesn't know the answer to, which may be many knowing Gwen Ifill, the highly respected journalists and moderator for tonight's debate, simply respond with a canned conservative answer. Continuing to drone on about various things that have been crammed into her head by the McCain team is not going to work. Biden will just get to sit back and win. She did a fine job in that debate in Alaska.
That being said, I think she will do just fine tonight now that expectations have been lowered so much. I think Biden will say one or two really stupid things but at the end of the night, it will be a draw and the polls won't move too much. People are thinking about the economy right now and this is just a side show.
Every single time Biden opens his mouth to criticize Sarah Palin it should be prefaced with John McCain's name. So, if Palin says, "We need to stay in Iraq and get the job done," Biden says, "John McCain and Sarah Palin have the wrong policy in Iraq. We need to...blah blah blah." He will look like he is beating up on her or look like he is making her look stupid if he says anything intelligent...and we all know what happens when conservatives see someone smart saying smart things...they tap into their inner rage, make up something moronic, and get ten more eligible idiots to believe it. Election lost. So Biden should have one word on his mind at all times: McCain.
Sarah Palin needs to do what she did in the Alaskan gubernatorial debate: be herself. Speak from her heart and let the base know what her values are. If asked a question that she doesn't know the answer to, which may be many knowing Gwen Ifill, the highly respected journalists and moderator for tonight's debate, simply respond with a canned conservative answer. Continuing to drone on about various things that have been crammed into her head by the McCain team is not going to work. Biden will just get to sit back and win. She did a fine job in that debate in Alaska.
That being said, I think she will do just fine tonight now that expectations have been lowered so much. I think Biden will say one or two really stupid things but at the end of the night, it will be a draw and the polls won't move too much. People are thinking about the economy right now and this is just a side show.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
The Usual Crap
I've gotten a flurry of emails and have engaged in pretty much the same debate, with conservatives, over the last week or so regarding the current financial crisis. There have also been a few posts in comments that were of the same general theme so I thought I would bring this out front to really chew on it.
The basic conservative line is that our current financial crisis was caused by the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and by government quotas, place on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to give loans to low income customers. Essentially, it's the fault of government, affirmative action, and poor people. All the people on Wall Street and the corporations in America were innocent and victims of "gubmint."
This is a complete load of shit.
The CRA was signed into law in 1977. How would a law 30 years old cause lending problems now? Yes, Clinton changed the law but that activity that resulted from those changes came to an end in 2001. The real thing they fail to see is that the CRA only applies to banks and thrifts. It's stated in the law.
The Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law that requires banks and thrifts to offer credit throughout their entire market area and prohibits them from targeting only wealthier neighborhoods with their services, a practice known as redlining. The purpose of the CRA is to provide credit, including home ownership opportunities to under served populations and commercial loans to small businesses.
The vast majority of the sub prime loans in the last 8 years did not originate from banks or thrifts. Half of them came from places beyond the reach of CRA. Another quarter came from subsidiaries. The final quarter of sub prime loans came from CRA and that kind of debt just doesn't seem to be enough to drive our economy off the cliff.
In regards to Fannie and Freddie, Freddie Mac Chairman and CEO Richard Syron recently said that the GSEs have been hit by a "100-year storm" in the housing market, accentuated by some higher-risk mortgages that they were forced to buy to meet government affordable-housing targets.
From Barrons.com
The latter contention is more than disingenuous. A substantial portion of Fannie's and Freddie's credit losses comes from $337 billion and $237 billion, respectively, of Alt-A mortgages that the agencies imprudently bought or guaranteed in recent years to boost their market share. These are mortgages for which little or no attempt was made to verify the borrowers' income or net worth. The principal balances were much higher than those of mortgages typically made to low-income borrowers. In short, Alt-A mortgages were a hallmark of real-estate speculation in the ex-urbs of Las Vegas or Los Angeles, not predatory lending to low-income folks in the inner cities.
Couple this with the fact that Rick Davies, McCain's campaign manager, was paid 30K a month by Fannie and Freddie , for five years, to remove government restrictions. Now either he did a terrible job (possible) or they are lying because they don't want everyone to know how much they fucked up (probable).
Bottom line? The government fell asleep on this one, winked and did nothing, or was completely incompetent at enforcing even the most basic of oversight. It was probably all three.
The information that I have listed above is completely ignored by the right and, hilariously, once again we see the "anti victim" culture behaving like victims. It's always someone else's fault...never the fault of any of their beliefs or actions because, of course, they are perfect and you are not allowed to question them nor is there any need for reflection.
Does anyone out there think it is possible to look at the actual causes of this crisis?
The basic conservative line is that our current financial crisis was caused by the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and by government quotas, place on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to give loans to low income customers. Essentially, it's the fault of government, affirmative action, and poor people. All the people on Wall Street and the corporations in America were innocent and victims of "gubmint."
This is a complete load of shit.
The CRA was signed into law in 1977. How would a law 30 years old cause lending problems now? Yes, Clinton changed the law but that activity that resulted from those changes came to an end in 2001. The real thing they fail to see is that the CRA only applies to banks and thrifts. It's stated in the law.
The Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law that requires banks and thrifts to offer credit throughout their entire market area and prohibits them from targeting only wealthier neighborhoods with their services, a practice known as redlining. The purpose of the CRA is to provide credit, including home ownership opportunities to under served populations and commercial loans to small businesses.
The vast majority of the sub prime loans in the last 8 years did not originate from banks or thrifts. Half of them came from places beyond the reach of CRA. Another quarter came from subsidiaries. The final quarter of sub prime loans came from CRA and that kind of debt just doesn't seem to be enough to drive our economy off the cliff.
In regards to Fannie and Freddie, Freddie Mac Chairman and CEO Richard Syron recently said that the GSEs have been hit by a "100-year storm" in the housing market, accentuated by some higher-risk mortgages that they were forced to buy to meet government affordable-housing targets.
From Barrons.com
The latter contention is more than disingenuous. A substantial portion of Fannie's and Freddie's credit losses comes from $337 billion and $237 billion, respectively, of Alt-A mortgages that the agencies imprudently bought or guaranteed in recent years to boost their market share. These are mortgages for which little or no attempt was made to verify the borrowers' income or net worth. The principal balances were much higher than those of mortgages typically made to low-income borrowers. In short, Alt-A mortgages were a hallmark of real-estate speculation in the ex-urbs of Las Vegas or Los Angeles, not predatory lending to low-income folks in the inner cities.
Couple this with the fact that Rick Davies, McCain's campaign manager, was paid 30K a month by Fannie and Freddie , for five years, to remove government restrictions. Now either he did a terrible job (possible) or they are lying because they don't want everyone to know how much they fucked up (probable).
Bottom line? The government fell asleep on this one, winked and did nothing, or was completely incompetent at enforcing even the most basic of oversight. It was probably all three.
The information that I have listed above is completely ignored by the right and, hilariously, once again we see the "anti victim" culture behaving like victims. It's always someone else's fault...never the fault of any of their beliefs or actions because, of course, they are perfect and you are not allowed to question them nor is there any need for reflection.
Does anyone out there think it is possible to look at the actual causes of this crisis?
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
777
We have definitely entered the Twilight Zone. I spent a lot of time watching the news last night and one thing really stood out at me. After the Dow dropped 777 points yesterday, our leadership in Washington (both parties) looked like a bunch of incompetents. Over the years, there have been so many things that President Bush has done that have embarrassed our country but there was no doubt that he was on the sidelines yesterday. In fact this morning, he looked like a beaten dog.
The embarrassment yesterday and today, though, lies with the US House of Representatives. All of them should be positively mortified at their unbelievable incompetence to get anything done. I heard a few lone voices, on both sides, saying a couple of slightly intelligent things but for the most part, they behaved like impotent buffoons.
I am not necessarily saying I supported the bill. In fact, those voices on both sides that I speak of in the above paragraph were ones that voted against the bill. Couldn't they have worked little smarter to make it better?
I guess not.
The embarrassment yesterday and today, though, lies with the US House of Representatives. All of them should be positively mortified at their unbelievable incompetence to get anything done. I heard a few lone voices, on both sides, saying a couple of slightly intelligent things but for the most part, they behaved like impotent buffoons.
I am not necessarily saying I supported the bill. In fact, those voices on both sides that I speak of in the above paragraph were ones that voted against the bill. Couldn't they have worked little smarter to make it better?
I guess not.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Every Picture Tells A Story
As I was driving to Wisconsin last Friday night, I tuned into WPR and listened to the debate. Aside from the disagreements with policy and his outright false statements, I thought John McCain did a good job. I thought Obama did a good job too and my wife and I looked at each other after it was over and ruled it a tie.
Then I checked out the debate re-run on TV later that night when we got to my mom's and there was no doubt in my mind that Obama won. Why? Because John McCain, throughout the entire debate, would not even look at Senator Obama. He would not even acknowledge his presence. And the look on his face basically told me that he believed that Barack Obama did not deserve to be on the same stage as him.
McCain looked pissed off that he even had to be there. In what had to be one of the most bizarre weeks in politics, John McCain gave Barack Obama the same attitude that conservatives have been giving liberals for the better part of a decade: you're weak and you're not good enough.
It's not acceptable to simply disagree with a liberal...you have to show that they are weak, irrational, and given to emotional hyperbole. In other words, how a male from the 1950s views a female.
Put into this context, the ideas that John McCain put forth on Friday night are relics of an age and of policies that have proven to be colossal failures. He offered nothing new on Friday night, even though he tried desperately to distance himself from President Bush, and I saw his candidacy for the farce that it is. As I drive around Minneapolis and see the "McCain-Palin" signs in people's yards, I wonder why people would continue to support failure.
Are they happy with what has gone on in the last eight years?
Then I checked out the debate re-run on TV later that night when we got to my mom's and there was no doubt in my mind that Obama won. Why? Because John McCain, throughout the entire debate, would not even look at Senator Obama. He would not even acknowledge his presence. And the look on his face basically told me that he believed that Barack Obama did not deserve to be on the same stage as him.
McCain looked pissed off that he even had to be there. In what had to be one of the most bizarre weeks in politics, John McCain gave Barack Obama the same attitude that conservatives have been giving liberals for the better part of a decade: you're weak and you're not good enough.
It's not acceptable to simply disagree with a liberal...you have to show that they are weak, irrational, and given to emotional hyperbole. In other words, how a male from the 1950s views a female.
Put into this context, the ideas that John McCain put forth on Friday night are relics of an age and of policies that have proven to be colossal failures. He offered nothing new on Friday night, even though he tried desperately to distance himself from President Bush, and I saw his candidacy for the farce that it is. As I drive around Minneapolis and see the "McCain-Palin" signs in people's yards, I wonder why people would continue to support failure.
Are they happy with what has gone on in the last eight years?
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Dave Still Has It!
Holy crap, this is the funniest fucking thing I have seen in a long time. Zoom forward to the 6 minute mark and watch from there.
Racing to the airport?
The First Gentlemen of Theater
In what has to be the finest example of acting I have seen in a long time, John McCain is trying to postpone Friday's debate in order to "fix the financial problems" of our country. In other words, he's seen the poll numbers, understands that the policies he supported in the last ten years have helped cause this problem, and is desperately trying to look like he is doing something.
I think Senator Obama said it best. "Presidents have to be able to do more than one thing at a time."
Maybe John McCain is incapable of doing that.
I think Senator Obama said it best. "Presidents have to be able to do more than one thing at a time."
Maybe John McCain is incapable of doing that.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Through The Looking Glass
Hey...guess what? The 2008 Official Republican Party Platform opposes bailouts of private companies.
We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself. We believe in the free market as the best tool to sustained prosperity and opportunity for all.
And yet John McCain is supporting Paulson's plan? A plan that has the blessing of the President? Help me out, here folks. What am I missing?
We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself. We believe in the free market as the best tool to sustained prosperity and opportunity for all.
And yet John McCain is supporting Paulson's plan? A plan that has the blessing of the President? Help me out, here folks. What am I missing?
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
From The Right
I started posting on Kevin Baker's blog again. It's been fun so far. We've been discussing the current financial crisis and I wanted to share with a comment that was recently made to me.
Now, THINK, AT LEAST FOR ONE FUCKING MINUTE, DUDE. The gubmint requires the mortgage companies to make what both sides know are very bad investments. Thus, the reason for making such investments is not the expectation of realizing a profit, and in fact the expectation is that many, if not most, of such investments will realize a loss. (Wait for it ...) This is not capitalism, dude, it is socialism. The investment is made for a social purpose that is mandated by the gubmint, is without regard to issues of profit and loss, and is not the free choice of the lending entity involved.
So basically, the cause of our current crisis is...the government? Wow. I find myself wishing more and more that I was on the right side of the aisle. Things would be so much simpler...having the same answer to everything.
Now, THINK, AT LEAST FOR ONE FUCKING MINUTE, DUDE. The gubmint requires the mortgage companies to make what both sides know are very bad investments. Thus, the reason for making such investments is not the expectation of realizing a profit, and in fact the expectation is that many, if not most, of such investments will realize a loss. (Wait for it ...) This is not capitalism, dude, it is socialism. The investment is made for a social purpose that is mandated by the gubmint, is without regard to issues of profit and loss, and is not the free choice of the lending entity involved.
So basically, the cause of our current crisis is...the government? Wow. I find myself wishing more and more that I was on the right side of the aisle. Things would be so much simpler...having the same answer to everything.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Thank You, Chas!
Many are wondering these days why there is so much attention paid to Sarah Palin. I think the main reason for this is John McCain is old and has a history of health issues. So, the question on many people's minds is...is she ready to lead?
Answering this question correctly brings a giant pile of conservative bull shit. Y'see, folks, conservatives, or most of the base anyway, don't like it when you question one of their own. To do so is wrong, evil, and unpatriotic. When some in the media began to question Sarah Palin's credentials after she was first picked, the right wing douche bag machine ramped up their shit and before you know it, it was Glory Glory Hallelujah 24-7 on all of the major media outlets.
It's a very effective way of controlling and manipulating the message. Sarah Palin is, in fact, the most under qualified person to ever run for office. As president, she would be a complete disaster in just about every area imaginable. But to conservatives, she feels like they feel so she's A-OK! Odd because, while they bemoan the left for being all about "feelings," they are actually infinitely more guilty of selecting their candidates based on their "guts" than the left is.
The selection of Palin was, however, a brilliant political move because the leaders of the party know that McCain won't win without the base. They know that, by selecting Palin, the left will make accusations of idiocy which will, in turn, rile up the idiots in the base (attacking one of their own) and get them out to vote...the propaganda working perfectly in shaping the erroneous perception of "elites" attacking a "common folk" which further degrades the intelligence level in this country (aka the plan all along).
Thankfully, though, some Republicans are starting to see the light. Chuck Hagel, Senator from Nebraska, said the following last Thursday.
She has no foreign policy credentials. You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don't know what you can say.
Well, you can say that she doesn't know dick about the world but if you did, the Republicans would pull out the victim card again (ah, the delicious irony) and shove it down your throat. Hagel went on.
I think it is a stretch to say that she's got the experience to be president.
No fucking shit. When Palin told Charlie Gibson that she had foreign policy qualifications because Russia is "our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska," Hagel lost it.
I think they ought to be just honest about it and stop the nonsense about 'I look out my window and see Russia so therefore I know something about Russia.' That kind of thing is insulting to the American people.
Thank you, Chas, for saying what no Democrat has the balls to say. It is a complete fucking insult to our country that this woman could possibly be president...and that people support it? President Bush looks like Abraham Lincoln next to her. Ask yourselves this question...can you imagine Sarah Palin dealing with an intricate situation in the Middle East? Or handling the current economic crisis? Good Lord...
So, the answer is no, she is not qualified and it's because she is an idiot. And that's not being partisan. That is a fact. I'm sorry to break the news to the conservative base of this country but the time of electing people based on the fact that they are stupid just like the rest of us isn't going to fly anymore. We have very serious problems that need to be addressed and I want to see someone who is much smarter than me take over in 2009.
I could give a rat's ass if they would be fun at a fucking barbecue.
Answering this question correctly brings a giant pile of conservative bull shit. Y'see, folks, conservatives, or most of the base anyway, don't like it when you question one of their own. To do so is wrong, evil, and unpatriotic. When some in the media began to question Sarah Palin's credentials after she was first picked, the right wing douche bag machine ramped up their shit and before you know it, it was Glory Glory Hallelujah 24-7 on all of the major media outlets.
It's a very effective way of controlling and manipulating the message. Sarah Palin is, in fact, the most under qualified person to ever run for office. As president, she would be a complete disaster in just about every area imaginable. But to conservatives, she feels like they feel so she's A-OK! Odd because, while they bemoan the left for being all about "feelings," they are actually infinitely more guilty of selecting their candidates based on their "guts" than the left is.
The selection of Palin was, however, a brilliant political move because the leaders of the party know that McCain won't win without the base. They know that, by selecting Palin, the left will make accusations of idiocy which will, in turn, rile up the idiots in the base (attacking one of their own) and get them out to vote...the propaganda working perfectly in shaping the erroneous perception of "elites" attacking a "common folk" which further degrades the intelligence level in this country (aka the plan all along).
Thankfully, though, some Republicans are starting to see the light. Chuck Hagel, Senator from Nebraska, said the following last Thursday.
She has no foreign policy credentials. You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don't know what you can say.
Well, you can say that she doesn't know dick about the world but if you did, the Republicans would pull out the victim card again (ah, the delicious irony) and shove it down your throat. Hagel went on.
I think it is a stretch to say that she's got the experience to be president.
No fucking shit. When Palin told Charlie Gibson that she had foreign policy qualifications because Russia is "our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska," Hagel lost it.
I think they ought to be just honest about it and stop the nonsense about 'I look out my window and see Russia so therefore I know something about Russia.' That kind of thing is insulting to the American people.
Thank you, Chas, for saying what no Democrat has the balls to say. It is a complete fucking insult to our country that this woman could possibly be president...and that people support it? President Bush looks like Abraham Lincoln next to her. Ask yourselves this question...can you imagine Sarah Palin dealing with an intricate situation in the Middle East? Or handling the current economic crisis? Good Lord...
So, the answer is no, she is not qualified and it's because she is an idiot. And that's not being partisan. That is a fact. I'm sorry to break the news to the conservative base of this country but the time of electing people based on the fact that they are stupid just like the rest of us isn't going to fly anymore. We have very serious problems that need to be addressed and I want to see someone who is much smarter than me take over in 2009.
I could give a rat's ass if they would be fun at a fucking barbecue.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Why Are Liberals So "Crazy" About Sarah Palin and John McCain
Someone just sent me this email. It sums things up quite nicely.
- If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're "exotic, different."
- Grow up in Alaska eating moose burgers, 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 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 two 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.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
A Short, Comic Break
Click on the image for better clarity.It really sums up the elitist bullshit argument, the complete and utter refusal to..um...evolve, their myopic ideology, the spineless turdishness of the Democrats, the FUBAR of Ohio and mother fucking Florida every year(groan), and the empty platform, which 47 percent of voters apparently want, of the Republican Party.
Love it...
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Obamanomics
A recent article in the New York Times fully and completely details, through a series of conversations on a plane, where Barack Obama stands on the economy. I was surprised to find out from the article that his 12 years spent as lecturer at the University of Chicago had quite an impact on him, economically speaking. As many of you may already know, the University of Chicago was the home of Milton Friedman, free market guru and one of the most influential economists of our time. Here is what he had to say about his time there.
During my formative years, there was still ideological competition between a social-democratic or even socialist agenda and a free-market, Milton Friedman agenda. I think it was natural for me to ask questions of both sides and maybe try to synthesize approaches.
Asking questions is something I always look for in a candidate. Someone who makes up his or her mind and sticks with it forever and ever...not so much. Are they being reflective enough to consider all the angles? Here's the first quote from him, though, that really jumped out at me.
Reagan’s central insight — that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly bureaucratic, with Democratic policy makers more obsessed with slicing the economic pie than with growing that pie — contained a good deal of truth.
I agree. And that's why it drives me nuts when people try to say he will create a nanny state. It's complete bullshit and the people that are saying it can't stand the fact, as they did with President Clinton, that a liberal quite possibly could adhere to some of their ideology. Or (gasp!) succeed with it. It simply isn't done! How dare he!
Some more interesting observations from David Leonhardt
Compared with many other Democrats, Obama simply is more comfortable with the apparent successes of laissez-faire economics.
He also says he believes that there are significant parts of Reaganism worth preserving. So his policies often involve setting up a government program to address a market failure but then trying to harness the power of the market within that program. This, at times, makes him look like a conservative Democrat.
By surrounding himself with economists, however, Obama was also making a decision with ideological consequences. Far more than many other policy advisers, economists believe in the power of markets.
What tends to distinguish Democratic economists is that they set out to uncover imperfections of the market and then come up with incremental, market-based solutions to these imperfections. This helps explain the Obama campaign’s interest in behavioral economics, a relatively new field that has pointed out many ways in which people make irrational, short-term decisions. To deal with one example of such myopia, Obama would require companies to automatically set aside a portion of their workers’ salary in a 401(k) plan. Any worker could override the decision — and save nothing at all or save even more — but the default would be to save.
Hmm..the socialist argument is really starting to look sub moronic now. But the best line comes from the man himself.
The market is the best mechanism ever invented for efficiently allocating resources to maximize production. And I also think that there is a connection between the freedom of the marketplace and freedom more generally. But there are certain things the market doesn’t automatically do.
There it is again. Balance. Level headiness. Connection between free markets and...freedom? Oh no...that sound you just heard is every single person on Kevin Baker's blog (and some here) recovering the pieces of their exploded head. Say it ain't so...Barack Obama is a...good capitalist.
So, when you here some folks on the right say Obama is a socialist, please kindly point this article out to them and tell them to peddle their idiocy elsewhere. Of course, they might not read it because they have brainwashed into believing that the New York Times is a traitorous newspaper but hey....you can at least try.
During my formative years, there was still ideological competition between a social-democratic or even socialist agenda and a free-market, Milton Friedman agenda. I think it was natural for me to ask questions of both sides and maybe try to synthesize approaches.
Asking questions is something I always look for in a candidate. Someone who makes up his or her mind and sticks with it forever and ever...not so much. Are they being reflective enough to consider all the angles? Here's the first quote from him, though, that really jumped out at me.
Reagan’s central insight — that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly bureaucratic, with Democratic policy makers more obsessed with slicing the economic pie than with growing that pie — contained a good deal of truth.
I agree. And that's why it drives me nuts when people try to say he will create a nanny state. It's complete bullshit and the people that are saying it can't stand the fact, as they did with President Clinton, that a liberal quite possibly could adhere to some of their ideology. Or (gasp!) succeed with it. It simply isn't done! How dare he!
Some more interesting observations from David Leonhardt
Compared with many other Democrats, Obama simply is more comfortable with the apparent successes of laissez-faire economics.
He also says he believes that there are significant parts of Reaganism worth preserving. So his policies often involve setting up a government program to address a market failure but then trying to harness the power of the market within that program. This, at times, makes him look like a conservative Democrat.
By surrounding himself with economists, however, Obama was also making a decision with ideological consequences. Far more than many other policy advisers, economists believe in the power of markets.
What tends to distinguish Democratic economists is that they set out to uncover imperfections of the market and then come up with incremental, market-based solutions to these imperfections. This helps explain the Obama campaign’s interest in behavioral economics, a relatively new field that has pointed out many ways in which people make irrational, short-term decisions. To deal with one example of such myopia, Obama would require companies to automatically set aside a portion of their workers’ salary in a 401(k) plan. Any worker could override the decision — and save nothing at all or save even more — but the default would be to save.
Hmm..the socialist argument is really starting to look sub moronic now. But the best line comes from the man himself.
The market is the best mechanism ever invented for efficiently allocating resources to maximize production. And I also think that there is a connection between the freedom of the marketplace and freedom more generally. But there are certain things the market doesn’t automatically do.
There it is again. Balance. Level headiness. Connection between free markets and...freedom? Oh no...that sound you just heard is every single person on Kevin Baker's blog (and some here) recovering the pieces of their exploded head. Say it ain't so...Barack Obama is a...good capitalist.
So, when you here some folks on the right say Obama is a socialist, please kindly point this article out to them and tell them to peddle their idiocy elsewhere. Of course, they might not read it because they have brainwashed into believing that the New York Times is a traitorous newspaper but hey....you can at least try.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Where They Stand
The economy is back as the top story of the election and thank God. It's about time. To put it simply, the American economy doesn't work anymore. I am going to spend the rest of the week talking about this and offering all of you what I think are the best solutions. We are going to revisit "Obamanomics" and that wonderful article in the New York Times Magazine from a few weeks ago. Read it again if you haven't yet.
To put it as simply as possible, the reason our economy is in full crisis mode is that the people who have run this country for the last eight years have been incompetent and misguided.And the board room has become filthy with greed. Both George Bush and John McCain have stated in the last few weeks that greed and corruption are what have caused our current crisis. As the President has said, "Wall Street got drunk and now they have the hangover."
What this proves is that corruption can happen anywhere and all of you free market fundamentalists are wrong about it being worse in the government. Sorry, it's something you are going to have to face. Your ideology is terribly flawed. In fact, if you look at when our major crises have occurred in this country (1929, 1987, 2001, 2007-8) they have all come during Republican rule. What does that say to you?
Now, I'll be the first to admit that over bearing government control is a bad thing. But no control at all is also equally disastrous. No regulation, which is what we have had for the better part of 30 years, is also bad. This inaction or sneaky winking from the Washington to Wall Street has put us into a crisis that shows no signs of letting up. Yesterday the market dropped 500 points with the news that Lehman Brothers is bankrupt and Merrill Lynch is being sold to Bank of America. AIG is also in danger.
This is all the result of what happens when you go off the deep end in regards to how our economy should be handled.
By the deep end, I mean people who make the claim that Barack Obama is a socialist. Barack Obama is not a socialist. Please keep your 9 year old girl hysterics out of the adult swim area. He is not going to make America a socialist state. He's not even going to go to an FDR style solution to solve our problems.
Take a look at his plan on taxes, for example:
Before all of you righties go apeshit, my source for this is...George Bush. The Bush Administration Treasury Department examined the economic effects of extending the capital gains and dividend tax cuts. Even under the Treasury’s most optimistic scenario about the economic effects of these tax cuts, the tax cuts would not generate anywhere close to enough added economic growth to pay for themselves — and would thus lose money. They estimate between 60 and 80 billion of lost revenue in other less optimistic scenarios.
So this would be an example of why we can't afford to spend another four years looking at only one side of the equation. This is what John McCain wants, sadly. If the majority of Americans aren't spending any money because the majority of wealth has been seized by a very tiny percentage of people, we will continue to see more and more of what happened yesterday.
Take a closer look at what Senator Obama is proposing. For more specifics on this plan, visit here. There are many sub sections and pdf files that go into extraordinary detail about how we can fix this mess. Look at the balance. This how America has always worked best.
It is my hope that some of you on the right will wake up and see that Senator Obama has the right amount of balance on this. It's terribly dangerous to be blinded by ideology and outright lies and that's just what's going on right now. Your pocketbook is going to begin to get hit and it is direct result of a flawed way of thinking that may ultimately be our ruin.
To put it as simply as possible, the reason our economy is in full crisis mode is that the people who have run this country for the last eight years have been incompetent and misguided.And the board room has become filthy with greed. Both George Bush and John McCain have stated in the last few weeks that greed and corruption are what have caused our current crisis. As the President has said, "Wall Street got drunk and now they have the hangover."
What this proves is that corruption can happen anywhere and all of you free market fundamentalists are wrong about it being worse in the government. Sorry, it's something you are going to have to face. Your ideology is terribly flawed. In fact, if you look at when our major crises have occurred in this country (1929, 1987, 2001, 2007-8) they have all come during Republican rule. What does that say to you?
Now, I'll be the first to admit that over bearing government control is a bad thing. But no control at all is also equally disastrous. No regulation, which is what we have had for the better part of 30 years, is also bad. This inaction or sneaky winking from the Washington to Wall Street has put us into a crisis that shows no signs of letting up. Yesterday the market dropped 500 points with the news that Lehman Brothers is bankrupt and Merrill Lynch is being sold to Bank of America. AIG is also in danger.
This is all the result of what happens when you go off the deep end in regards to how our economy should be handled.
By the deep end, I mean people who make the claim that Barack Obama is a socialist. Barack Obama is not a socialist. Please keep your 9 year old girl hysterics out of the adult swim area. He is not going to make America a socialist state. He's not even going to go to an FDR style solution to solve our problems.
Take a look at his plan on taxes, for example:
- Make many Bush Tax Cuts Permanent
- Make "work pay" tax credit
- Index the Alternative Minimum Tax
- Reduce Estate Tax
- Automatic 401K and IRA plans, large saver's credits
- Other Tax Cuts (for college students, seniors, low income filers)
- Permanent R & D and renewable energy credits
Before all of you righties go apeshit, my source for this is...George Bush. The Bush Administration Treasury Department examined the economic effects of extending the capital gains and dividend tax cuts. Even under the Treasury’s most optimistic scenario about the economic effects of these tax cuts, the tax cuts would not generate anywhere close to enough added economic growth to pay for themselves — and would thus lose money. They estimate between 60 and 80 billion of lost revenue in other less optimistic scenarios.
So this would be an example of why we can't afford to spend another four years looking at only one side of the equation. This is what John McCain wants, sadly. If the majority of Americans aren't spending any money because the majority of wealth has been seized by a very tiny percentage of people, we will continue to see more and more of what happened yesterday.
Take a closer look at what Senator Obama is proposing. For more specifics on this plan, visit here. There are many sub sections and pdf files that go into extraordinary detail about how we can fix this mess. Look at the balance. This how America has always worked best.
It is my hope that some of you on the right will wake up and see that Senator Obama has the right amount of balance on this. It's terribly dangerous to be blinded by ideology and outright lies and that's just what's going on right now. Your pocketbook is going to begin to get hit and it is direct result of a flawed way of thinking that may ultimately be our ruin.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Ohio Bullshit Beginning Early
Well, we knew it had to happen. The Republicans would be pulling their usual bullshit in Ohio. Apparently, the McCain campaign re-wrote the absentee ballot request form it sent out to a million people by adding an extra box on it. The box, which is completely unneeded on the form due to the fact that election judges check eligibility anyway, asks you to check it if you are an eligible voter. If you don't check it, under Ohio law, you would not be able to vote.
And, of course, the box is easy to miss. Hmm..I wonder who they sent out the request forms to?
Gee, let me think hard about this one.
And, of course, the box is easy to miss. Hmm..I wonder who they sent out the request forms to?
Gee, let me think hard about this one.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Not Many Words
Usually on this day I have plenty to say. This year, I don't. I've been checking out the news and watching the memorials and quite honestly feel pretty sad.
If you know someone who lost a loved one on 9-11 or someone who is serving in Afghanistan or Iraq, give them a call or drop them a note. Let them know how much you love them and that you are there for them on the other 364 days of the year.
If you know someone who lost a loved one on 9-11 or someone who is serving in Afghanistan or Iraq, give them a call or drop them a note. Let them know how much you love them and that you are there for them on the other 364 days of the year.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Six More Times
Remember that whole brouhaha we all had a while back about who supports the troops more-McCain or Obama? Check out this story from the AP. Apparently, the troops, particularly those serving overseas, support Obama more and have backed it up by giving more money to his campaign then the McCain campaign...six times more! McCain actually came in third, behind Obama and Ron Paul which, I have to say, is quite embarrassing.
I guess the troops figured out that McCain's GI bill was a load of shit and decided Obama actually had their interests in mind.
I guess the troops figured out that McCain's GI bill was a load of shit and decided Obama actually had their interests in mind.
Monday, September 08, 2008
A Music Review
One of my many passions in life is music. Actually it's a passion/obsession. As Fairuza Balk says in Almost Famous, "Any time you get sad or lonely, just go to the record store and all your friends are there in the racks.
Anyhoo, I am going to be a regular contributor to IckMusic, my friend Pete's much frequented music blog. Everyone who digs music should check it out. My post is about Todd Rundgren's new album, Arena. Click here to read the review and check in with Pete on a regular basis for all the latest and greatest tunes.
Anyhoo, I am going to be a regular contributor to IckMusic, my friend Pete's much frequented music blog. Everyone who digs music should check it out. My post is about Todd Rundgren's new album, Arena. Click here to read the review and check in with Pete on a regular basis for all the latest and greatest tunes.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
They Like Her...why again?
Someone sent me this link which we have been talking about in comments over the last few days and I thought I would bring it out front. It is a letter from someone who knows Sarah Palin pretty well. Among the highlights.
In her tenure as mayor she tried to have several books banned from the public library. When the librarian refused, Governor Palin tried to have her fired. Thankfully, the rest of the town did not support Palin in this endeavor and she was unsuccessful. I haven't been able to find a list of the books she supposedly wanted banned, due to religious reasons. There is a list out there but it may not be entirely accurate. I have to say I thought of Jonah Goldberg and chuckled when I read this part of the story.
Help me out here, folks. I thought conservatives were about less spending, lower taxes, and reduced government in people's lives. How does the information above jibe with any of those tenets?
Reading further in the article, the answer becomes clear.
She's not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas or compromise. As mayor, she fought ideas that weren't generated by her or her staff. Ideas weren't evaluated on their merits but on the basis of who proposed them.
Ah, now I know why they like her:)
- During her six years as mayor of Wasilla, she increased general government expenditures by more than 33 percent.
- During those same six years, the amount of taxes collected by the city increased by 38 percent.
- She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax, which taxed even food.
- The tax cuts that she promoted benefited large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents.
- The huge increases in tax revenue during her mayoral administration weren't enough to fund everything on her wish list, though — borrowed money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt but left it with indebtedness of more than $22 million.
In her tenure as mayor she tried to have several books banned from the public library. When the librarian refused, Governor Palin tried to have her fired. Thankfully, the rest of the town did not support Palin in this endeavor and she was unsuccessful. I haven't been able to find a list of the books she supposedly wanted banned, due to religious reasons. There is a list out there but it may not be entirely accurate. I have to say I thought of Jonah Goldberg and chuckled when I read this part of the story.
Help me out here, folks. I thought conservatives were about less spending, lower taxes, and reduced government in people's lives. How does the information above jibe with any of those tenets?
Reading further in the article, the answer becomes clear.
She's not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas or compromise. As mayor, she fought ideas that weren't generated by her or her staff. Ideas weren't evaluated on their merits but on the basis of who proposed them.
Ah, now I know why they like her:)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)