There’s campaign rhetoric, and there’s reality. The campaign rhetoric was “change you can believe in”. The reality looks something like this:
Simply, 3 of the 7 states that have clear Republican majorities on the national level are in the Top 10 biggest pork losers. Nancy Pelosi controls the House, who sets the budgets ( appropriations ). Petty partisan politics at work? Pelosi said those days were over. You decide.
Stuart Rothenberg over at Real Clear Politics ponders Chris Dodd’s future. He points out a lot of issues that have created a PR nightmare for Dodd. ( My favorite personally was Dodd moving his family to Iowa. I’ll bet people in Connecticut consider someone who ditched them for Iowa not election-worthy. ) Rothenberg rifles a bunch of issues Dodd will have to overcome in the coming year to hold on to his seat. I’ll just add one more to the scenario that Rothenberg totally omits. Dodd is doing horribly with independents. A lot of that has to do with the issues Dodd has created over the last several years. But, some of that will have to do with the fact a lot of independents love a divided house. Now that the Senate has gone Democrat, some people will vote Republican. By 2010, I expect that attitude to be an issue to deal with especially since Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are such lightning rods for the liberal left. So, add a national trend to balance the house as a factor Dodd will most likely have to overcome as well.
The gall and stupidity of Nancy Pelosi never ceases to amaze me. Today, with arguably the economic welfare of the United States on the line, and for that matter, several other countries of the world, Nancy Pelosi assured the world an agreement to bail out the struggling spec market was at hand. She’d have it ready by vote time Monday morning. Apparently she was assured by someone the votes were in line to get it done. With the world spotlight shining directly on her, she gathered her wits to deliver the speech that would most likely define her time as House Speaker. This is what she had to offer those nervous and anxious legislators worried sick about whether their voters would understand what was going on and whether or not their opponents at home would use this as a political nuke:
Madam Speaker, when was the last time someone asked you for $700 billion? It is a number that is staggering, but tells us only the costs of the Bush Administration’s failed economic policies — policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system. Democrats believe in the free market, which can and does create jobs, wealth, and capital, but left to its own devices it has created chaos.
The second sentence alone assured all those antsy legislators who have to answer for their actions in votes in one month that yes, this will be a political ploy to be used against them if they were Republican.
That sentence also is what amazes so many people. Even when presented the facts, that most people already know, she looks you in the eye and denies ANY responsibility other than Bush. Hell, she even denied Clinton was President in 1999. And, she completely ignores what most finance people accept as fact, it was Jimmy Carter’s 1977 Community Reinvestment Act that set this failure in motion. According to her, this whole thing started in 2001. Let’s go on a little more.
That chaos is the dismal picture painted by Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke a week and a half ago in the Capitol. As they pointed out, we confront a crisis of historic magnitude that has the ability to do serious injury not simply to our economy, but to the American people: not just to Wall Street, but to everyday Americans on Main Street. It is our responsibility today, to help avert that catastrophic outcome. Let us be clear: This is a crisis caused on Wall Street. But it is a crisis that reaches to Main Street in every city and town of the United States.
This is not a crisis caused on Wall Street, it is a crisis caused by Washington DC that forced lenders to ignore common banking principals. In other words, if Wall Street had been left alone in 1977 and 1999, Wall Street would be just fine today.
It is a crisis that freezes credit, causes families to lose their homes, cripples small businesses, and makes it harder to find jobs.
It is a crisis that never had to happen. It is now the duty of every Member of this body to recognize that the failure to act responsibly, with full protections for the American taxpayer, would compound the damage already done to the financial security of millions of American families.
That part everyone agrees on. If Jimmy Carter hadn’t forced lenders to make sub-prime loans, then the sub-prime market would never have existed.
Over the past several days, we have worked with our Republican colleagues to fashion an alternative to the original plan of the Bush Administration.
I must recognize the outstanding leadership provided by Chairman Barney Frank, whose enormous intellectual and strategic abilities have never before been so urgently needed, or so widely admired.
I also want to recognize Rahm Emanuel, who combined his deep knowledge of financial institutions with his pragmatic policy experience, to resolve key disagreements.
Barney Frank was also one of the “blame only Bush” peeps. As it is obvious now, Frank’s “outstanding leadership” produced one of the most shocking failures of Congress in my lifetime.
Secretary Paulson deserves credit for working day and night to help reach an agreement and for his flexibility in negotiating changes to his original proposal.
It can be argued that his originaly bill, that did not have a lot of the political time bombs such as the ACORN funding request at the very worst would have suffered the same fate. However, it would have happened a week ago giving legislators a chance to iron out the differences.
Democrats insisted that legislation responding to this crisis must protect the American people and Main Street from the meltdown on Wall Street.
As did Republicans. Once again, she has made this her political agenda. If Republicans weren’t going to get any credit and all the blame, why bother making her look good? A lot of them had reservations in the first place. It was her job to convince them to go against their gut instinct. Cutting them out of getting any credit certainly didn’t make the bitter pill any easier to swallow.
The American people did not decide to dangerously weaken our regulatory and oversight policies. They did not make unwise and risky financial deals. They did not jeopardize the economic security of the nation. And they must not pay the cost of this emergency recovery and stabilization bill.
This is where she completely jumps the shark with reality. The fact is, it was people who never should have had loans defaulting on those loans that caused this. Sure, some blame exists on Wall Street for allowing them to get those loans, but, it was the Community Reinvestment Act ( a Democrat baby ), that enabled them to do so. So, in my opinion, some blame is shared by pretty much everyone who participated in this situation, Wall Street, DC, AND Main Street.
So we insisted that this bill contain several key provisions:
This legislation must contain independent and ongoing oversight to ensure that the recovery program is managed with full transparency and strict accountability.
The problem we have today was because Bush did just that in 2005. It was the sudden transparency of shady bookkeeping that started the collapse of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, and others. It was also done over the protestations of, you guessed it, Barney Frank.
The legislation must do everything possible to allow as many people to stay in their homes rather than face foreclosure.
Sounds like she prefers the Community Reinvestment Act take precedance over common lending practices. Where have we heard that before?
The corporate CEOs whose companies will benefit from the public’s participation in this recovery must not benefit by exorbitant salaries and golden parachute retirement bonuses.
Our message to Wall Street is this: the party is over. The era of golden parachutes for high-flying Wall Street operators is over. No longer will the U.S. taxpayer bailout the recklessness of Wall Street.
The taxpayers who bear the risk in this recovery must share in the upside as the economy recovers.
And should this program not pay for itself, the financial institutions that benefited, not the taxpayers, must bear responsibility for making up the difference.
These were the Democratic demands to safeguard the American taxpayer, to help the economy recover, and to impose tough accountability as a central component of this recovery effort.
Where is the responsibility or consequences for those who borrowed money knowing full well they were scamming the lending institutions? Clue here, once again, Nancy, THEY ARE THE MAIN PROBLEM. No matter what form of lending you put in place, if people intend to rip it off, and she blames the lenders, we’ll be right back where we are now. The solution would be simple for the corporation, don’t lend to anyone. The way things are now, people filing bankruptcy can stall the system for years. They get a primary residence for free. The company is forced to lend to a certain amount to these people or get prosecuted by the feds for discrimination. If those bad loans stay on their books too long, the feds prosecute them by forcing them into insolvency. And now, if they do it right, and make some money, Nancy wants to punish the executives for making money. Communism is sweet compared to Nancy Pelosi’s utopia.
This legislation is not the end of congressional activity on this crisis. Over the course of the next few weeks, we will continue to hold investigative and oversight hearings to find out how the crisis developed, where mistakes were made, and how the recovery must be managed to protect the middle class and the American taxpayer.
She is absolutely clueless. A bazillion blog posts and news reports have investigated this to death. The whole country at this point knows what caused this. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were directed to accept almost any risk if a person was a minority or in an underserved location. Entire companies sprung up to do nothing but process loans and sell the risk to Fannie and Freddie. After a point, Fannie and Freddie were no longer solvent under normal business rules. Their management cooked the books to make them look better. ( Hey Nancy, their board and management were almost ALL Democrats! ) In 2005, seeing what was going on at Fannie and Freddie, Bush changed the rules to make them much more transparent in they had to report their financial situation much more frequently. That led to both collapsing. Their collapse started a chain reaction throughout the finance industry as credit tightened up. Now, traditional banks, which never relied that much on Freddie and Fannie, are eating up those companies at huge discounts. How you protect the taxpayer and middle class is very simple, THE LOWER CLASS USUALLY CAN’T AFFORD DECENT HOMES. This however, runs smack in the face of the directives of, you guessed it, the Community Reinvestment Act. So, the answer is simple. In order to protect middle class and American taxpayers, author a bill to undo the damage Jimmy Carter ( a Democrat ) caused.
With passage of this legislation today, we can begin the difficult job of turning our economy around, of helping those who depend on a growing economy and stable financial institutions for a secure retirement, for the education of their children, for jobs and small business credit.
Today we must act for those Americans, for Main Street, and we must act now, with the bipartisan spirit of cooperation which allowed us to fashion this legislation.
Is she really that oblivious, stupid, or what? Attack the Republicans by blaming it all on a Republican while actually denying any Democrat ever had anything to do with it, and then demand bipartisan spirit? Sheezus.
This not enough. We are also working to restore our nation’s economic strength by passing a new economic recovery stimulus package — a robust, job creating bill — that will help Americans struggling with high prices, get our economy back on track, and renew the American Dream.
Now, there were some who were nervous over the price tag. Her economic recovery stimulus package came with a $60 BILLION price. Needless to say, it died as well. It wasn’t even close.
Today, we will act to avert this crisis, but informed by our experience of the past eight years with the failed economic leadership that has left us less capable of meeting the challenges of the future. We choose a different path. In the new year, with a new Congress and a new president, we will break free with a failed past and take America in a new direction to a better future.
She of course has to go out with a partisan bang.
Clue here Nancy, although this might assure an Obama victory, which I am quite certain that was her only goal with this speech, economically Obama will be so crippled by this situation if it’s not dealt with honestly now, he will most likely be a one-termer with the reputation of, well, Jimmy Carter.
Now, I do think Nancy Pelosi is stupid as mud. However, I also think she had no intentions of this passing. She is by far less concerned with the economy of the world than she is dogging President Bush. In her mind, I truly do believe she thought she could put all the blame on Bush while currying “bipartisan” support. She did put her neck on the line pretty much assuring its passage this morning. So, I don’t think she meant for it to fail. She however, failed to convince a huge chunk of her own party to vote for it.
And that’s where it gets even more fun to watch. I don’t think it was her plan to lose 60 of her own members. Although she may be winning the race for Obama, I am going to bet, if Obama does win, she won’t be the Speaker come January. Something about a single digit popularity rating, before this all happened, that sort of tells me something’s gotta give. Reid hasn’t faired any better. If Obama does win, look for Hillary to be Majority Leader in the Senate, and someone else as House Speaker. Although Nancy’s been toxic for the Dems in the House, she’s not really dragging down anyone. If anything, she’s probably helped Bush keep what little popularity rating he has. If Obama thinks she’ll drag him down with leadership like she displayed tody, she’ll go under that bus faster than a preacher.
Just when I thought it was safe to assume Keith Olbermann was completely nuts, he tops himself. This is what the pride of the left wing had to say about John McCain’s recent ad featuring two hot young celebs:
KEITH OLBERMANN: What about when it backfires? Because it seems like the celebrity ad continues to echo. And Bob Herbert of the New York Times was on this network pointing out something I don’t know that anybody noticed before this morning. That not only in that McCain ad where there two underdressed blondes mixed with the black guy in the ad, but there were also images of the Leaning Tower of Pisa, the Washington Monument, and the Victory Column in Berlin — as Bob Herbert put it, “phallic symbols.” Three phallic symbols, two blondes and Barack Obama. So this is not just a sexist ad anymore. This is what they used to called “miscegenation,” isn’t it? This is what they used against Harold Ford.
JONATHAN ALTER, NEWSWEEK: Well, to suggest that somehow, you know, Obama’s going to-
OLBERMANN: He’s going to wind up dating those women-
ALTER: Yeah.
OLBERMANN: That’s the idea.
ALTER: That’s the oldest and deepest racist, you know, canard in American history, really, is that, you know, the slave is going to come after the wife of the plantation owner. I can’t, sort of, dissect and decode these ads that way. I just, somehow maybe my media literacy is lacking. I didn’t read that out of those ads, but I can see how some people would. And the larger issue, I think, is clear, which is they’re trying to portray him as being uppity. Now, is that racist? I’m not sure, you know.
Wow.
Simply, WOW.
That folks, is beyond nuts. That’s certifiable. There is a word for people who go around seeing a penis in every pointed object. The word is not racist, it’s delusionary. Ithyphallophobia to be more exact. Then, to take Paris Hilton and the Washington Monument and turn it into a black man with a large penis doing plantation owners’ wives that look like Paris Hilton is just amazing. ( Clue here, most plantation owners’ wives never looked like Paris Hilton. )
Now, this is where it gets political instead of space ( as in psychology ). This ad did not really do much for me. I never had any interest in watching it. Now, to say the least, I do. I want to try to follow the imagery that would morph my focus of a boring aging white guy into a black man with a large penis doing plantation owners’ wives that look like Paris Hilton. I really do. So, this ad I’m sure will get a LOT more airplay than it originally did thanks to Keith Olbermann’s fixation with penises.
26
Nov
Mike Huckabee had this to say in what I think is a response to the gang-rape victim in Saudi Arabia:
Ten years? This I gotta see. I think I’m gonna vote for Huckabee now just to see how he pulls this off. Now, I chastised John Edwars for making what appeared to be a purely election minded announcement to open the federal reserve. There was nothing to support his statement. However, this is what Huckabee has had to say in the past on energy policy:
Seems fairly consistent. Not sure I’m willing to write this one off as purely rhetoric.
However, it ain’t gonna happen in ten years. We do have the resources to do it, we just don’t have the resolve to do what it takes. That’s not Huckabee’s fault. However, it is Huckabee’s reality.
I pretty much figured this would happen a lot sooner than I did find it. Jeff Fecke at Shakesville ponders:
That was the setup, a writer responds with:
…I can understand a certain amount of glee that yet another Republican has been caught out on his hypocrisy. But I think the incident, as described in MB’s post, is entrapment and pretty ridiculous, considering that nothing sexual happened. And yes, it’s blatantly homophobic.
I don’t really consider this a homophobic issue in the least. If he had been busted soliciting a female prostitute for public sex I’d have the same opinion. US Senators and Cognressman merit a different level of legal scrutiny in my opinion because these are the people that make the laws we all have to live by. If they have no respect for those laws, why should anyone else? And, I see the inverse happening as well, if people have no respect for those laws, why should a Senator? My guess is Craig is waiting this out right now to see if it just blows over as so many other indescretions have. If the media fight turns into a homophobe issue as opposed to a Craig-breaking-the-law issue, he will have won and proven my point. A lot of people are also curious as to why there was even a cop in the bathroom in the first place. According to another answer there, and the one I expected, was apparently this was a problem in that particular bathroom. Now, I’m all for individual rights and stuff, but I have a four year old boy. Do I need to say more? All I ask, whether straight or gay, or even if you’ve got a thing doing it yourself, is keep it where it’s appropriate. That’s all. Public restrooms mean all kinds of people will be there. That includes kids.
Bottom line, this ain’t a homophobe issue. It’s an issue of stupidity and disrespect for anyone else who might have wondered in there. That’s the very last qualities I think Idaho expects from their Senator.
NOTES:
- Shakesville seems to be a good read. I like Fecke’s style. He seems to do as I do and look at things from more than one angle at the same time. My article here implies Fecke might be making the case for the homophobe card, he’s not. Not at all. But, he acknowledges those issues could be raised. And, that is a very valid point. )
- H/T James Joyner again. I’m sure that makes his day.
I’m not going to try to interpret James’s post, just read it.
27
Aug
Alberto Gonzales was one of the architects of The Patriot Act. He was also the legal mastermind in keeping it afloat. He did this initially more or less discretely. However, in November 2004 Bush nominated him to be the next Attorney General. That’s when his work with The Patriot Act came front and center. And, several Democrats took aim at him because of that. For the next nearly three years, they would not stop. Simple acts such as firing staff became political witch hunts. No matter the issue, Gonzales sat right squarely in front of the media and partisan firing squads and took the hits. I could someone tiring of that pretty quick considering the money he could make in the private sector. When Karl Rove left, I could see that pretty much leaving Gonzales as the only target left for those that so resented The Patriot Act and Bush in general. This is a smart move on Gonzales’ part. Logical timing as well. He’ll make millions in the private sector without having to deal with idiot politicians and biased media. And, since the next Attorney General won’t have the Patriot Act hanging around their neck, those Democrats won’t have an easy label to hang the next person with.
But, I’m sure they’ll think of something.
Quickie update:
Nancy Pelosi didn’t waste any time chiming in:
From Harry Reid:
From Pat Leahy:
Under this Attorney General and this President, the Department of Justice suffered a severe crisis of leadership that allowed our justice system to be corrupted by political influence. It is a shame, and it is the Justice Department, the American people and the dedicated professionals of our law enforcement community who have suffered most from it.
The obligations of the Justice Department and its leaders are to the Constitution, the rule of law and the American people, not to the political considerations of this or any White House. The Attorney General’s resignation reinforces what Congress and the American people already know — that no Justice Department should be allowed to become a political arm of the White House, whether occupied by a Republican or a Democrat.
The troubling evidence revealed about this massive breach is a lesson to those in the future who hold these high offices, so that law enforcement is never subverted in this way again. I hope the Attorney General’s decision will be a step toward getting to the truth about the level of political influence this White House wields over the Department of Justice and toward reconstituting its leadership so that the American people can renew their faith in its role as our leading law enforcement agency.
So far, those are just the Democrats who have seen fit to publicly trash Gonzales BEFORE he’s even officially resigned. I thought they’d have the tact to at least wait till after it was official. I bet Leahy’s particulay po’d. He never could prove Gonzales did anything wrong, and now he’ll never get the chance.
Just gotta wonder tho how the Democrats’ ceaseless trashing of the US’s most visible Latin-American will play out. My guess is not too well.
YET ANOTHER QUICKIE UPDATE:
The best discussions so far regarding Gonzales and the AG position I think are at Captain’s Quarters and Volokh. Both mention Michael Chertoff replacing Gonzales, CQ dismisses it with Paul Clement the likely successor. The reason I like CQ is because we seem to think a lot alike on a lot of issues. This is yet another. Realistically whoever takes Gonzales’s position will be there barely enough time to get their policies and procedures in place. But, they be under fierce scrutiny and personal attacks from Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi from day one. I see this as a lose-lose situation for whoever takes it. Unless, of course, they’ve already been under that gun. Paul Clement has. He has nothing to lose and nothing really to gain by being the acting Attorney General until next November except a place in the history books. From what I have read, he has endeared himself to the forces that have persecuted Gonzales so I don’t see him taking the heat Gonzales did. My bet is with CQ, my bet is on Clement to “act” for a year and lay low in the spotlight. If a Republican wins next November, then take the nomination. If not, quietly step aside at the appropriate time. Just my two cents, but it does sound logical. ( This is our government, logic has nothing to do with it, I know. )
In 2000, George W. Bush won the electoral college. He however, lost the popular vote. The election was so close that Al Gore challenged one state in an effort to change the outcome of the election. The only reason it was that close was because Gore focused on a hand full of huge electoral prizes and won most of them. Bush carried about 70% of the states, but that didn’t matter, most were small electoral prizes. Gore’s strategy I felt cheated most of America. It was smart mathematically, but nevertheless allows a candidate to ignore most of America and focus primarily on California, New York, and Texas. One vote more than the other candidate in those states and you got the whole prize. The entire representation of that state. That just ain’t right. Now, Republicans are sponsoring a change to the California electoral college that will dole out electoral votes based on the percentage of votes received. This is a win-win for all of America in my opinion. First of all, it forces Democrat candidates to work California as hard, if not harder, than they ever had to before. Most popular Democrat candidates could take California for granted, it’s just that urban, and that Democrat because of it. Now, taking Los Angeles will not guarantee 55 electoral votes. They’ll have to work all of California. It’s a win for the smaller states in the rest of the country as well. If the Democrat candidate knows they’re not going to get a 20 something electoral vote bonus for one extra vote in California, they’ll attempt to make up those votes elsewhere. That will force them to recognize the Idaho’s and Alaska’s.
I like this plan a lot. I have argued that the electoral college was designed with a purpose. A purpose I agree with. However, the sheer size and disproportionate population shifts have kind of undermined the college’s intent. Proportional college allotments will return it to it’s original intent. How a state assigns their college is up to them. So, it’s all within the intent of the Founding Fathers. This is a good plan California, I hope you all take it seriously. And, I think all states should follow their lead.
This is precious. Since Joyner published this very publicly, and I’m sure doesn’t want it kept secret, I’m just gonna post the whole thing here:
Matt Stoler is leading the charge for the Netroots to root out the “Bush Dogs” from the Democratic Party, purging it of the impure traitors who do not buy into every jot and tittle of the Progressive Agenda.
We’ve been working to identify the group of conservative Democrats in the House who are holding back progressives from being able to effectively govern. These are concentrated in two main caucuses, the Blue Dog Caucus and the New Democrat caucuses. Blue Dogs consider themselves heirs to the Southern conservative wing of the party, and tend to vote for socially restrictive policies and a hawkish foreign policy. The New Democrats tend to be more partisan, but often are key to passing important pieces of right-wing legislation, such as the Bankruptcy Bill. In the last few years, these two caucuses have expanded their numbers, and the Blue Dogs have become the swing vote in the House allowing for effective conservative control of the Congress. We want to put a stop to the embrace of conservative values among House Democrats, and make sure that when Democrats are elected, they act like Democrats.
[…]
The first step in stopping this behavior is to identify the people engaging in it and offer up criticism. There are a few reasons for this. One, many of these members feel no pressure to vote correctly or uphold progressive values. Criticism is the signal they are relying on to let them know when they err. Two, some of these members may need to face a primary challenge, and it’s useful for potential primary challengers to know that there is criticism of these members. Three, other members considering joining the Bush Dog caucus may be dissuaded if they know there will be criticism. Four, candidates running for office will finally have a signal on how they should talk about being good Democrats that are willing to take tough votes.
He has identified 38 House Democrats who must conform to the Netroots Agenda . . . or else: Jason Altmire, PA-04; Brian Baird, WA-03 (he didn’t vote for FISA, but he just switched his position and now supports the surge); John Barrow, GA-12; Melissa Bean, IL-08; Dan Boren, OK-02; Leonard Boswell, IA-03; Alan Boyd, FL-02; Chris Carney, PA-10; Ben Chandler, KY-06; Jim Cooper, TN-05; Jim Costa, CA-20; Bud Cramer, AL-05; Henry Cuellar, TX-28; Lamar Davis, TN-04; Joe Donnelly, IN-02; Chet Edwards, TX-17; Brad Ellsworth, IN-08; Bob Etheridge, NC-02; Bart Gordon, TN-06; Stephanie Herseth, SD-AL; Baron Hill, IN-09; Nick Lampson, TX-22; Dan Lipinski, IL-03; Jim Marshall, GA-08; Jim Matheson, UT-02; Mike McIntyre, NC-07; Charlie Melancon, LA-03; Colin Peterson, MN-07; Earl Pomeroy, ND-AL
Ciro Rodriguez, TX-23; Mike Ross, AR-04; John Salazar, CO-03; Heath Shuler, NC-11; Vic Snyder, AR-02; Zack Space, OH-18; John Tanner, TN-08; Gene Taylor, MS-04; Tim Walz, MN-01; and Charlie Wilson, OH-06.
FireDogLake, DailyKos, Glenn Greenwald, and MyDD have joined this fine movement. I’m sure, before long, the list of Traitors to the Cause will expand well beyond this original 38.This “scares the hell” out of some moderate-left folks like Michael van der Galien, who worry about chilling effects on free speech and free thought.
And some on the Right are giddy about this idea, too. For example, Michael Goldfarb is crowing at the Weekly Standard about how the Netroots are “doing the work of the NRCC” (National Republican Congressional Committee) for them.
While the numbers are constantly in flux because of deaths, retirements, prison sentences and whatnot, the Democrats won 233 seats last November, to 202 for the Republicans. That means the Republicans need to hold all their current seats plus gain 16 of the Democratic seats to retake the majority next year. That’s an uphill fight, given the party’s current popularity, but not inconceivable.
It would sure help, though, if the 38 most moderate Members were replaced by True Blue, Netroots Approved Progressives. What better way to stem to tide than have Al Franken-style liberals running in places like Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Florida, Utah, North Carolina, Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana?
So, sure, Republicans love this idea. But getting distracted by that sort of thing is short-sighted thinking.
Look, what’s the point of winning a majority if your party’s most ideological members aren’t one hundred percent happy, one hundred percent of the time? It’s far better to lose the majority by insisting on ideological purity and then building from there with Pure Progressives. It’s worked nicely for the Libertarians, why not the Democrats?
So, march on brave Netroots soldiers. March on in your quest for the Holy Grail.
I’m just gonna sum this one up quickly and simply since it’s a Saturday. When the Progressives take over, it will last two years and the Republicans will have the majority. The 38 identified as traitors and interfering with Joyner’s quest for the Holy Grail are the only hope they’ve got in staying in control. Here’s a reality check for Joyner, Nancy Pelosi is not a traitor according to him. She has led according to his Netroots agenda, according to them. What part of 18% favorable rating does he not understand? How many Libertarians are in office? What has Al Franken ever won?
I have said it before, and it’s proven here again. Either the Progressives have one hell of a sense of humor or they are Nutroots totally disattached with reality.
I tend to usually believe the latter.
Mark Levin over at The Corner on NRO had this comment:
Now, being as this is the first time I’ve ever seen a need to actually quote National Review here, I thought it must be pretty clever. Biased, sure, but clever. However, Dr. Steven Taylor over at Poliblog apparently differs in his opinion, labeling it:
By Dr. Steven Taylor
One of his readers backs him up by pointing out they HAVE raised minimum wage. I just gotta wonder WHY Dr. Taylor considers this the dumbest quote of the day? All he does is give a lead to The Daily Dish, which labels it:
Malkin Award Nominee
One post makes an observation. The combined text between the two posts responding to it is a total of zero words. You know how dumb a post with zero words sounds to me?
OK, so to tackle the question pondered, which seems to draw scorn but no ability to reciprocate, the Democrat Congress HAS raised minimum wage, and HAVE decided to allow the tax incentives to expire, and HAS funded the Iraqi war they say they oppose. So, the net effect is they have raised your taxes, given you nothing since most states had higher minimum wages anyway, and sent billions more dollars to Iraq.
There ya go Mark, Steven, and Andrew Sullivan. I really haven’t kept up with the Iraqi governmen, but I know OUR Democrat Congress has done all kinds of stuff. And if they keep at it, every Iraqi citizen will have free health care and higher standard of living than the US.
