"Both parties have redistricted themselves such that they don't have to worry about a challenge across the aisle, but they have to have -- they worry about a challenge from their flanks, so the conservatives are less willing to move to the middle, and the liberals are less willing to move to the middle, and we've got to get over that, and we've got to understand that we're all in this together. Unless we have bipartisan legislation and bipartisan governing at the federal, state, and city level, we're just going to have one problem after another, and the future's not as bright as I think it should be for America."
That was on "Meet the Press" this morning. Here's the whole transcript.
A poll (you might want to read the transcript first):
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६९ टिप्पण्या:
Bipartisan governing: translation: bend over taxpayer.
I strongly disagree; bipartisanship leads the government to agree about trivial things and that leads to problems.
I saw Bloomberg on the show this morning. I thought he said nice meaningless things. He, like all talking heads, still has not mentioned the Community Reinvestment Act, which encouraged banks to loan to bad risks if they were minorities, as a major factor in the subprime "crisis" which some people, like the dreaded Bush and McCain, have been sounding the alarm about for years.
I want someone to name the problem. The rest of this talk is election year pablum.
Civility would be nice.
But when you've got a third of the country convinced we need me more gov't, a third convinced we need less, and the remainder wondering what's in it for them, all you get is more.
Which is why we always get is more gov't over time.
Bloomberg is a grade A purveyor f the sort of phony centrist pablum we heard from Unity 08 and (in the early days) Obama. It springs from the same basic unreality of the comment by Charlie Gibson I alluded to the other day: Gibson once asked, and not rhetorically, why it is that everyone agrees that current immigration policy doesn't work yet they can't agree on a bill. Such idiocy is infectious. 80% of Americans agree that we're going in the wrong direction. that does not mean that all those people agree on what the right direction is! Just because Hillary Clinton and I are both in the 80% doesn't mean we agree on a particular policy solution.
There's a lot to be said for bipartisanship when the obstacle is genuinely partisanship. The problem is that the obstacle is almost never partisanship. The obstacle is that people really disagree on what the problems are and what the policy response should be. McCain crystallized this point in his acceptance speech: he's right, of course, that it would be madness to reject an idea just because the other party thought of it first. But that never happens. Democrats didn't reject bill X because the GOP thought it up, they rejected it because they thought it was a rotten bill that would make a bad situation worse. Ditto Republicans vis-a-vis bill Y.
Bloomberg and those like him do us a grave disservice suggesting that there are universally-agreed platonic answers to questions, answers that could be enacted but for those pickering pols. As Buchanan & Tullock put it in The Calculus of Consent, it misconceives the political process to view it "as the means of arriving at some version of 'truth,' some rationalist absolute which remains to be discovered through reason or revelation, and which, once discovered, will attract all men to its support. The conceptions of rationalist democracy have been based on the assumption that individual conflicts of interest will, and should, vanish once the electorate becomes fully informed."
Mayor Mike is a billionaire and governs like a Dem so the media loves him. He is the ultimate buttinsky fixing all kinds of things that few even thought are problems (smoking in public places, eating fatty foods, etc). If he were a conservative,the media would call him the smoke Nazi.
I saw a CNN show this morning and Colin Powell and Madeline Albright were both lamenting campaign coverage of the "narrative"and not the issues. Then Christiane Amanpour was on and she was whining about "gotcha" journalism !! Bullshit- just last month the French Prez handed Amanpour her fat ass last month when she tried "gotcha" journalism on him.
So the Cnn show had three of the penultimate Beltway insiders and bigwigs complaining.
WTF why doesn't the media invite the building security guard to come on the show one Sunday morning and tell these asswipes something about the real world.
Yesterday I watched the CNN's top business reporter claim we are in a recession even though we have not had two straight quarters of negative growth. That is the traditional benchmark used to define a recession. But their so-called business reporter (who majored in religion in college) says otherwise using a big megaphone named CNN (the most trusted name in news).
Once Michael Bloomberg manages his government well enough to keep cranes from falling from the sky, keep first responders' radios working inside skyscrapers, and keep police from gunning down bridegrooms who are leaving their bachelor parties, then I would consider him as a candidate for Governor of New York.
He's got a ways to go to become Presidential material.
Anyone watch the last Yankee pre-game sendoff? They did a very nice job showing the old stars or their surviving family members.
Went to a game there one- saw them beat my Phils but Scott Rolen hit a homer into the black seats.
I'm still voting McCain/Palin in that poll - I think they are the closest thing to that statement we are going to get - BUT I do agree wholeheartedly with Bloomberg. I believe partisanship is going to destroy our system of government.
I also think that if our representatives are going to vote party line and nothing else, they don't even need to show up for work, On every issue we will just mark them in the D or R column - which will either mean yes or no, depending on the bill - and they can stay home - (with no paycheck).
I would like to see a new policy whereby the outgoing president stays on as an advisor to the new president. That would ensure some longevity of thought and policy and might go a long way towards ending the bitter party enmity. Also, once elected, no senator, congressman or president would be allowed to participate in any party activities caucuses or fundraising. Once elected, they represent us all.
Bloomberg doesn't have to worry about partisanship: the New York City Council is composed of, aside from 3 members, all Democrats. In other words, we could be "non-partisan" if we all just gave up our silly ideas and voted Democrat. This is also B.H. Obama's vision of unity.
People complaining about partisanship are non-Republicans who want Republicans to cave.
Can anyone tell me how much bigger government can get between local/state/federal? It's already sucking up 40% of GDP. Can we get to 50-60%? My guess is that for liberals it's never enough. More, more, more.
Alex:
I suggest you direct this kind of question to FLS. Ask him for help in determining what the fair tax rate should be, how much we should spend on schools, what % of GDP should be spent for govt spending and what is the maximum number of crane accidents he would tolerate from a NYC mayor?
I am sure he can give you a very specific and detailed answer.
If not him, maybe Michael is around.
aj:
It's just that whenever I talk to liberals, it's always the same thing. Confiscate the top 1% wealth and give it to everyone else. I guess they never heard of asset shelters.
Alex:
I was being a wise ass. To FLS not to you.
He will do the exact opposite when he answers.
keep police from gunning down bridegrooms who are leaving their bachelor parties, then I would consider him as a candidate for Governor of New York.
I do believe that those fine police officers were found NOT FUCKING GUILTY in a court of law. Something to do with the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. As one of your idols, Rosie, I’m a fat pig, O’donnell says; Google it.
(nto John Lynch)
Well, reviewing what I can of the bailout/takeover percolating this weekend, I'd say something real close to socialism and it's centralized planned economy is just about here. Damn, that was quick! I thought it would take a while and we'd have time to react. Guess not.
aj:
I know you were. I swear it's like we're all just talking past each other. One side believes in outright communism, and the other side believes in a libertarian approach. There is nothing in the middle. If this way continues, a civil war is brewing.
Confiscate the top 1% wealth and give it to everyone else.
Yeah, but that is the big lie. No one esle gets it except all those new government bureaucrats and social service agencies that they create. The poor stay poor.
Peter V. Bella said...
Confiscate the top 1% wealth and give it to everyone else.
Yeah, but that is the big lie. No one esle gets it except all those new government bureaucrats and social service agencies that they create. The poor stay poor.
9:08 PM
But the voters don't know the difference, they're so consumed with their envy/hate for that top 1% that they want to lash out at it.
Palin draws 25K in Florida:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/Palin_draws_largest_crowd_yet_for_GOP_.html
Nah we are all wrong. Just let Mayor Mike fix it. He can make it all better.
Kinda funny though now Nancy Pelosi wants to add stuff to the $700 Billion bailout. Think Mayor Mike will approve?
Unfortunately, we are bipartisan in this crisis, which means we are going to ignore the problem and instead bail out the 2% of the population who are too stupid or irresponsible to pay their mortgages.
That will destroy the faith in contracts that is one of the bases for our economy's success. God save us from any more bipartisanship.
Alex said...
"If this way continues, a civil war is brewing."
That would be the shortest civil war in history, would it not? One side has unilaterally disarmed, didn't learn how to use firearms, and are squeamish at the idea of using violence against our mutual enemies, let alone fellow countrymen.
Drudge reported the local fire chief estimated 60,000 for Palin in Florida.
blake said...
Civility would be nice.
Sure it would. Too bad it gets nothing done and doesn't put food on my table or a roof over my head.
Bloomberg talked a lot and said nothing but cliches.
He said he thinks Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is the right man to lead on reforming these financial issues for now.
I think President John McCain should keep Paulson in the job for a while.
Sorry Mitt and Carly.
Off-topic[k]: Althouse! Are you going to blog the Emmys? They just ran the death reel and Carlin got two mentions.
I guess I've blogged the Emmys in the past, but I don't care now. Glad they were good to Carlin.
Alex:
Not a civil war, a tipping point. Will the country go the way of California where high tax burden actually has high earners leaving even though it is the most beautiful state in the country?
Americans can't emigrate cause there is no better country IMO. That is ironic since most of us descended from immigrants who were world-class risktakers.
Too bad there are no planets ready. Wonder if many of us would choose to go if there were?
Paralysis?
Sounds like it's time to elect Roosevelt again.
And then there is partisanship that has not paralyzed the country.
There is good and bad partisanship. People disagree and the parties contain many of the opposing points of view. And some time they voice those disagreement out loud. That's not a bad thing, that's talking, debating, etc.
When it's partisanship before all else is where things go bad. Party before country. Like the Republican Party's record number of filibusters this term that have stymied progress in Congress.
But Bloomberg is practicing a kind of nonpartisan demagoguery to pretend that the real problem is partisanship. It's not.
what % of GDP should be spent for govt spending
Depends on how efficiently it's spent, of course. Right now the US is at 36%. Currently Japan offers the most bang for the tax buck, at 40% of GDP. Click on the first two pdfs at this site to see some country-country comparisons.
http://www.ecb.eu/events/conferences/html/ws_pubfinance.en.html
I do believe that those fine police officers were found NOT FUCKING GUILTY in a court of law.
They fucked up. Period. End of story. The punishment for going to a titty bar should not be death in this great land of ours.
How many cranes?
One is too many, but could be pardoned. Here, however, there is a pattern of malfeasance:
From the NYT July 4 2008
A city inspector facing charges that he lied about inspecting a crane shortly before it collapsed and killed seven people also filed false inspection reports for two other cranes, the Manhattan district attorney’s office said on Thursday.
The inspector, Edward J. Marquette, 47, was indicted on charges of tampering with public records, filing a false instrument, falsifying business records and official misconduct. He pleaded not guilty on Thursday in State Supreme Court in Manhattan.
I don't detect a passion for excellence here.
One side believes in outright communism, and the other side believes in a libertarian approach.
If only. One side believes in running full-throttle toward communism, and he other believes in slouching toward it.
>>Civility would be nice.
Sure it would. Too bad it gets nothing done and doesn't put food on my table or a roof over my head.
Neither does rancor.
AlphaLiberal said...
"When it's partisanship before all else is where things go bad. Party before country. Like the Republican Party's record number of filibusters this term that have stymied progress in Congress."
They've prevented legislation from passing that you might think represents progress but that many people - presumably including those GOP Senators - believe is bad policy. That isn't partisanship and it isn't party before country unless there is an allegation - tough to sustain though it might be - that the GOP has only partisan interests in stopping those bills, which is no more likely than that the Democratic party has only partisan interests in moving them forward. It does no one any good to pretend that the other side is motivated purely by a desire for personal gain.
FLS:
So you prefer at least 40% vs. the 36% you say we currently spend. You realize Japan spends almost nothing on its military? If you take that into account and normalize our govt spending to Japan's, you are probably proposing a 50% increase in our govt spending? You understand that right?
BTW, your link was to European Union conference. Last I checked Japan was not a member.
He, like all talking heads, still has not mentioned the Community Reinvestment Act, which encouraged banks to loan to bad risks if they were minorities, as a major factor in the subprime "crisis" which some people, like the dreaded Bush and McCain, have been sounding the alarm about for years.
what a joke. is this the new rightwing blog talking point?
what % of subprime failures were minority-owned debt issued b/c of this particular legislation? did this act force this debt to be securitized? did this act force ratings agencies to not correctly assess its risk? did this act force the ibanks to hold onto riskier tranches that included this debt?
please, get smarter.
WHEN YOUR NAME IS ALL CAPS, IT TIPS US OFF TO BELIEVE YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE.
and, bush and mccain have been sounding the alarm about subprime? on what planet?
"WHEN YOUR NAME IS ALL CAPS, IT TIPS US OFF TO BELIEVE YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE."
"please, get smarter."
I love when people write ungrammatical, poorly capitalized comments telling me to "get smarter". Maybe he used up all of his allotted capital letters in his name.
Actually ASHTON, this is an old right-wing blog. Nothing new here.
ASHTON said...and, bush and mccain have been sounding the alarm about subprime? on what planet?
EARTH.
Ann, according to the NYTimes you need to fix your poll.
If this were the presidential ballot, who would you vote for?
*Barack Obama
*Michael Bloomberg
*Obama Opponent.
Jeez, they really hate that little old fella don't they.
Jedripper:
"Obama Opponent" -that is actually very very funny when you think about it. The mask has slipped.
Methadras said...
blake said...
Civility would be nice.
Sure it would. Too bad it gets nothing done and doesn't put food on my table or a roof over my head.
Why are you expecting Congress to arrange those things for you?
What a total load. You know, for a billionaire, Bloomberg doesn't make sense when he speaks. Maybe he'd do better if he sat down and sorted it all then delivered it as a speech.
This is why I don't care to interpret English speakers in sign. He'd drive me nuts with his, "We've got two crises." See, in sign you would say that exactly --exceedingly graphically. You'd go #1, like you're making a category in space, a specific space in front of your body where the elements of that crisis go, as building a category. Then you'd go #2 right there in the air, next to where you put #1, in space, with the expectation of filling that space with items that describe crisis #2 as filling a second category.
But Bloomberg is all over the place with his descriptors mixed in with his category titles. He lacks a coherent outline. Listen to him.
Bloomberg tells Brokaw we have two problems. We must step back and see the two crises. Very well, do let's.
* steps back *
* scans imaginary problems*
Crises #1 :Crisis in the financial market (We get off with a good start. But then we alway do -- English speakers' organization unravels very quickly)
a) lack of confidence that almost closed down the financial system, it's up to the Treasury with the acquiescence of Congress must be done quickly.
b) nobody knows exactly what should be done, anything is better than nothing.
c) must restore public's belief and the market's belief that we will go on. (???? Oh well.)
d) not just American problem, but global
Problem #2 : (Guess it got demoted from a crisis to a mere problem)
a) up to Congress. (See? What's up to congress? I'm filling a category already without a title.)
b) much longer-term problem. (Good grief. more category filler. But still untitled)
c) may be the genesis of the problem we have today in financial markets (Well, is it or isn't it? This is your speech, give us something declarative. But really, please, do tell. I still need a category title)
d) PEOPLE ARE LOSING THEIR HOMES (Ah, finally. This must be crisis #2. The title to the crisis category, apparently. The thing he called a problem way up there. But wait, there's more. )
i) deserted homes are destroying neighborhoods
ii) people are losing their jobs. (This is unrelated to housing crisis does it go in the category or not? )
iii) Congress tried to protect industries ended up being less competitive ... (Ah, finally. Acknowledgement the road to hell paved with good intentions thing again. But does this go in the housing crisis category or not?)
...with new products ( ???? Guess it's a separate category)
iiii) education system not preparing for future. (Yet another category)
v) retirement system won't be there. (Yet another 'nuther category.)
Recap: So you got two things here. (I got a lot more than two. )
1) one must be done quickly
2) one needs Congress to debate but he doesn't know if there's time to debate. (Well, that gets you off the debating hook, then, doesn't it?)
OK got that? I don't know about you, but as it's spoken here, I'd have a hell of a time making sense of this. Deaf people speak much more clearly than this. Better to just wait for him to completely finish talking then take a stab at completely re-organizing his thoughts, taking care to leave out half the crap so that he'd appear 100 % smarter.
So, no. I do not vote for Bloomberg. Why? Well, odd as it may seem, because I can not interpret what he's saying rationally.
Don't even get me started about the partisanship thing. He's as partisan as they come, and I'm already on record as despising both these bastard political parties that separate us unnaturally and give us the language and the justification to go at one another's throats.
Bipartisanship is one thing, but the abuse of redistricting goes beyond the mere thwarting of bipartisanship. It puts the respective parties in charge of deciding who represents us, inasmuch as the choice for the dominant party's nominee is usually made behind closed doors and then presented the public as the only viable choice.
Who is behind those closed doors? Special interests and the politically engaged who tend toward extremism, tiptoeing just this side of the line of radicalism as a tactical matter in order to remain viable.
What you lose is much more than phony bipartisanship. You lose the possibility of elected officials who are anything but party hacks or bug-eyed loons. You diminish the possibility of elected officials who can think for themselves, who would fearless in the face of the special interests and the party activists, knowing that such activists can combine with the special interests to take away their jobs. You diminish the legislature, and empower the other two branches, both at the state and federal levels.
Does anyone wonder how come Bush has been able to govern with near-automony despite having both houses of congress against him? It's because Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the Democratic leadership are not respected. They are not seen as truly representative; they are seen as winners of a rigged game.
Fairer districts would make it more likely that the control of a given legislature would ebb and flow with public opinion. It would not necessarily foster the kind of mealy-mouth bipartisanship that some of you are concerned about.
In times past, you had party leaders who were rip-roaring partisans without necessarily being ideological extremists. I'm not saying the extremes and special interests won't exert significant influence, but not in the vacuum-sealed, airless, obsessive-compulsive controlling way they do now. There would be real debates, not the talking points wars we've gotten used to now.
I saw the rerun on MSNBC. I thought Bloomberg sounded much more liberal than I remember him to be, and much more arrogant.
Brokaw: "Senator Joe Biden, the Democrat VP candidate".
Bloomberg: "I know who he is!".
Yipes. His daughter Georgiana is nothing like him...
Cheers,
Victoria
Did anyone catch the 40th anniversary special of "60 Minutes"?
I saw the McCain part, which came first, then had to rush off to watch a movie.
I thought he was marvellous, albeit his choice of Andrew Cuomo is one of those 'maverick-y' choices that sometimes discomfit me.
AJ Lynch said...
Alex:
Not a civil war, a tipping point. Will the country go the way of California where high tax burden actually has high earners leaving even though it is the most beautiful state in the country?
Oh, California is indeed a state to behold. It's beautiful the weather is varied but generally good. I live in San Diego, so I have the extra privilege to be able to enjoy good weather for most of the year. However, the California is one of the shittiest run states in the union. The taxes here are horrible. San Diego alone has a long running corruption scanal with it's city council and past mayors that instituted public union employee retirement benefits the city could not afford. Electricity is high thanks to Gray 'lightbulb head' Davis. We have several blends of fuel that are mandated in this state. Our school system is in a shambles and every year teachers unions go on ad blitz begging the good people of California to pester their respective representatives and the governor to give them more money even though they are probably the most dangerous institution our children have to face. We have emergency centers closing or on the verge of collapse from the influx of illegals who can't go to a regular doctor but instead show up at an emergency room to get basic medical care for colds, flus, cut fingers, sore backs, aches, pains, and anything that isn't an emergency.
L.A. is a disaster. San Fransisco has completely collapsed and frankly, I'd like to see it's entirety get hit by a meteor. Although the sheer miasma of the homeless might create a sufficient shit-shield to block such an impact. This place is to huge to be run by one state government. The state needs to be broken up into three separate pieces with their own autonomy. Northern California, Central California, and Southern California that doesn't include L.A.
I'm amazed that there aren't signs on every entrance into the state that say, "Welcome to California, now get out." or signs as you leave the state that say "Thanks for staying, suckers." The cost of living here is mind-boggling in the face of what you get out of it. I just lump it all in as one large piece of sunshine tax. I love it here, but I seriously doubt I'll be here for another decade longer.
It really started with Al Gore not accepting the vote in Florida.
He tossed over the country for his personal gain.
If it's close and it says you lost, you lost, is the patriot's rule.
It's close so democracy doesn't care what the result is, but does care very much that that be the decision.
There's a lot to be said for bipartisanship when the obstacle is genuinely partisanship. The problem is that the obstacle is almost never partisanship. The obstacle is that people really disagree on what the problems are and what the policy response should be.
I think genuine disagreement can represent a profound obstacle to progress. However, I am not sure that the presence of conflict, alone, is what is turning most people off to the political/governing process. I believe it is the fashion in which each side goes about dealing with these legitimate conflicts that many of us find obnoxious at best and damaging at worst. The idealization of one's own position and the demonization of the other side infused with hypocrisy, corruption, mutual disrespect, missrepresentation, and irresponsibility seem to be particularly corrosive and damaging to the country. It's like a marriage, certainly legitimate differences can break a marriage up (and often does), however more often, it is the way in which the partners manage or mismanage their conflict that does the relationship in, i.e. the conduct of the partners that is often more malignant than the conflict itself. Obviously, it could be worse (the conflict could become increasingly abusive and violent). Conflict is natural, healthy, and inevitable....however, I think many folks are tired of how grown men and women on both sides of the ideological and political divides conduct themselves in their 'efforts' to work through their differences.
OT, heads up:
The Jawa Report posted an extensively researched piece on possible astroturfing shenanigans by David Axelrod. Obama's campaign is accused of using a professional PR firm to spread viral videos on Youtube, in order to defame and discredit Sarah Palin.
You can read Jawa Report post below:
Hope, Change, & Lies: Orchestrated "Grassroots" Smear Campaigns & the People that Run Them.
(A sickening turn-of-events -- RIP Hope and Change, if true)
vbspurs said...OT, heads up:
The Jawa Report posted an extensively researched piece on possible astroturfing shenanigans by David Axelrod.
He looks like and is a fucking rat!
He's a Chicago con artist and America needs to come to terms with this entire fraud that is Barack Obama.
Besides, we need McCain in there to make a little effort to restrain the Democrats in Congress who are drooling at the chance to control the entire show in Washington.
I hope Sarah Palin is a pain in the ass to McCain as well. I don't fully trust him. She needs to keep him in line.
shenanigans by David Axelrod
Karl Rove continually was smeared for his alleged tactics. No one is smearing Axelrod, other Obama minions, or even Obama himself.
If the Democrats use dity tactics it is supposed to be for some altruistic greater good. So it is OK. There lies the progressive hypocrisy.
Alexrod....isn't that name repetitious? Like being named Joe Tirewheel or Mary Skilletpan?
Axelrod, not Alexrod....
/more on Obama, not the man we thought he was:
"Given the facts turned up by The Jawa Report in this must read post, it seems fair to ask if the campaign of Barack Obama funded a malicious and deceptive web-based smear campaign against Republican Vice Presidential nominee, Governor Sarah Palin."A false and misleading video of professional quality attacking Palin was uploaded to the web from an account that appears to be linked to a high profile, primarily Democrat-linked media consulting firm - Winner and Associates.
...Politics aside, if this was the professional manipulation that it appears to be, it is not good for blogs, Left or Right. It undermines their credibility and makes them no better than a propaganda tool become smear merchant for whatever candidate they happen to support.
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2008/09/did-obama-fund.html
/I'm betting Jeralyn at TalkLeft is feeling a bit....used.
The new politics Team Obama promised?
ASTROTURF DIRTY TRICKS? Dr. Rusty Shackleford says that smear videos aimed at Sarah Palin look to come from a P.R. agency associated with the Obama Campaign. Dan Riehl comments: "Politics aside, if this was the professional manipulation that it appears to be, it is not good for blogs, Left or Right. It undermines their credibility and makes them no better than a propaganda tool become smear merchant for whatever candidate they happen to support." Stay tuned.
UPDATE: From the 2004 election, a warning about "black blog ops" that's seeming kinda prescient.
http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives2/024721.php
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/22/corporate-sockpuppetry-for-team-obama/
Stinger Assassin: Here's another one--Crew team.
Switching parties to get elected and governing like you are still back in the original place is NOT bipartisan.
Do we need any more proof that this has turned into a wingnut blog? Althouse readers prefer McCain over Obama even more than white Alabamans do.
Enough said.
downtownlad said...Do we need any more proof that this has turned into a wingnut blog? Althouse readers prefer McCain over Obama even more than white Alabamans do. Enough said.
No. It just means Althouse poll responders are more honest. They cling to the truth even more than to their bible and guns.
Palin/McCain are going to shock people by the margin of victory.
They will win the Republican states plus New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin and maybe Oregon and Washington. And it could be close in New York.
Obama/Axelrod are frauds and the polls are not accurate.
That's my biased take on things.
Electricity is high thanks to Gray 'lightbulb head' Davis
Au contraire, mon frere. Good ol' GOPster Gov. Pete Wilson was the one seduced by the electricity deregulators. They convinced him that competition would drive down the cost of electric power to peanuts, and that only deregulation would let Californians share in the bounty. The dregulatory bill was enacted under Wilson.
Only after Gray Davis took office did the Houston city slickers at Enron and Reliant manufacture summer power shortages ("Uh... can you take your plant offline for 'maintenance'? I knew that you could") and jack up the price of power. Gray didn't help matters, being a dim bulb whom nobody liked, even in his own party, but he didn't get California into the mess, Pete Wilson did.
I believe jdeeripper was also talking about the Republican landslide that was supposed to happen in 2006.
You've never spoken to a black or hispanic person in your life, which is why your whole worldview is skewed.
I have straight white male friends who are hedge fund owners, and even they are leaning towards Obama.
I still think the election will be close though, because most old people are racists.
downtownlad said...I believe jdeeripper was also talking about the Republican landslide that was supposed to happen in 2006.
No. Why? Totally different dynamic. Different players and this is the Big Time. People vote differently when it comes to Presidents versus Congress.
You've never spoken to a black or hispanic person in your life, which is why your whole worldview is skewed.
I've lived in disproportionately black urban America most of my adult life and have spoken often with black people about politics.
My next door neighbor is an older black woman who is in charge of my polling place.
You're right about the Hispanics though. Mainly Puerto Ricans here and now more Mexicans. I don't talk to them.
I have straight white male friends who are hedge fund owners, and even they are leaning towards Obama.
Don't believe them. They probably refer to you as a nig*** loving commie f** behind your back.
Typical two faced capitalist, honky breeders!
Nanny Bloomberg has run one of the most corrupt administrations in the city of New York since the days of Jimmy Walker. It’s a strange form of corruption where he gives out the money instead of taking money. What he basically does is buy off anyone who would protest or fight against many of his initiatives by donating to their “PAC’s” or charities or “Development Funds” or “Political Parities.” Everyone from Lenora Fulinari to Reverend Al to Reverend Daughtry to the Republican party has been bought off while his big time developer buddies grab everything in site. The Brooklyn land grab for the Nets, the development along the Williamsburg Waterfront, the eminent domain land grab by Willets Point near Shea Stadium are cases in point. But a lot more went on under the radar. This corrupt stuff will all come out when the players get busted for something else and start to give up the Mayor to save their ass. Just wait and see.
Of course he is way to rich for anything to happen to him.
Thanks to the posters who commented to ASHTON who, curiously, uses caps for himself and refuses caps for all others. What a strange admixture of arrogance and egalitarianism!
As for how many people "lost" (stopped paying for) their homes, I know of three who probably did probably manage to pay their mortgages: Jamie Gorelick, Jim Johnson, and Franklin Raines, who combined earned over $125 million in bonuses during this period. Money for Nothin' Kicks for Free
This is bread and circuses. Start the Victory Gardens, folks.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा