DescentBB

You are wrong on two fronts Will.

1. Factually: Democrats, the people --not the politicians --, are for regulation. It is one of our core values. It comes from the idea that no regulation is the pathway to Kings in the market place. Republicans tend to be against regulation, \"the free market will correct itself\", this is why they are taking the hit on this issue.

It doesn't matter what politician did what, it is the republican philosophy that is hurting them currently. Just like how if this bailout doesn't work it will hurt the democrates -- even though it was so heavily supported by Bush and McCain.

Democrats, read: liberals, have just as much loyalty to their politicians misrepresenting their positions and lining their pocket books as conservatives do with republican politicians.

2. Historically: Lets take Bush's immigration position. You can find a thread, started by yours truly, in this forum (2004), where I supported Bush's immigration position. I didn't trust Bush to actually do it, but I supported the position he was articulating. Michael Moore has a letter supporting Bush when it comes to immigration. Many liberals, locally, DBB'ally, and nationally, were vocal in saying, \"HEY, WE AGREE WITH HIM HERE!!!\".

Your contention that Democrats -- again the people, I've already executed all the politicians remember -- would not listen if Bush held a national press conference--similar to how he did when we invaded Iraq--articulating one of our own core beliefs, is wrong both factually and historically.

The contention that we wouldn't of listened to Bush just because he is Bush, while he was articulating one of our own core beliefs: is uninformed, blind-partisanship, naive, or idiotic. Don't feel too bad, I'm going with number two.

Bush did have the power to do something. He is the President of the United States, don't trivialize that position. And if you do then give us Obama, because we sure as hell don't. Again, listen to that O'reilly clip in my post to Woodchip. He is a blow-hard, but some of his random shots do come out straight.

(Not going to go into 'Why Obama' now, but I'd bet money on which of these paragraphs you will cut or respond too, which will lead into that post )

On point #1, I understand the long standing belief that democrats are regulators and republicans are deregulators but on the actual current financial mess you have to be in complete denial to say it was repub deregulation that caused it! And you are equally in denial if you think democrats didn't fight/stop/ignore and ridicule the regulator who warned of the current crisis! Show me the regulations the repubs wanted to eliminate regarding Freddie and Fannie....
On the other hand I've shown you the ones the democrats did it to! With video and even President Clinton backing up my assertions!!

You said it doesn't matter what different congressmen did, well it should matter very much if you want to eliminate the mechanism that gave us this crisis!
So how should something like this flesh out in our system? The free press would be objective and report the truth! They would even say \"Although it is usually the democrats who fight for regulation in this case it was democrats fighting to ignore the regulation that allowed Freddie and Fannie to accumulate and spread all the poison paper that sunk the portfolio of so many institutions that we now see a real financial meltdown!

That would be the truth and it would be just but somewhere along the way the press decided electing Obama trumps justice and truth. How you try to rationalize that to feel better about ignoring it is your burden to bear...

On #2 Describe to me how back in 2003, 2004 2005 when Bush was trying to get something done about this how he could have stopped the democrats from killing the legislation he offered to solve the problem! Or how he otherwise could have fixed the problem! Don't just proclaim him to be all powerful and then blame him for not using this magic power...Describe how he could have done it!!

Here, this blog has chronicled a lot of what I find to be important and truthful regarding this mess: You wont like it but so what, sometimes the truth hurts!

Will…the constitution clearly states that the President is the Commander of the armed forces, therefore he could have marched the army into wall street and fried all those pricks. But short of that…

BTW How to “speak Democrat” is a great link on that blog page…

Will Robinson wrote:...on the actual current financial mess you have to be in complete denial to say it was repub deregulation that caused it! And you are equally in denial if you think democrats didn't fight/stop/ignore and ridicule the regulator who warned of the current crisis! Show me the regulations the repubs wanted to eliminate regarding Freddie and Fannie....On the other hand I've shown you the ones the democrats did it to! With video and even President Clinton backing up my assertions!!

Gooberman wrote:I thought saying that all of them need to get voted out and I wouldn't care if one of them was executed was pretty strong language to show my discontent with my parties involvement, but amazingly you missed that point. So please provide me feedback on the language I can use to better get my points into your head.

Will Robinson wrote:On #2 Describe to me how back in 2003, 2004 2005 when Bush was trying to get something done about this how he could have stopped the democrats from killing the legislation he offered to solve the problem! Or how he otherwise could have fixed the problem! Don't just proclaim him to be all powerful and then blame him for not using this magic power...Describe how he could have done it!!

Gooberman wrote:Your contention that Democrats -- again the people, I've already executed all the politicians remember -- would not listen if Bush held a national press conference--similar to how he did when we invaded Iraq--articulating one of our own core beliefs, is wrong both factually and historically.

The contention that we wouldn't of listened to Bush just because he is Bush, while he was articulating one of our own core beliefs: is uninformed, blind-partisanship, naive, or idiotic. Don't feel too bad, I'm going with number two.

Cyclical threads are boring.

Gooberman wrote:Cyclical threads are boring.

1) You make the assertion that Bush had some power that I don't believe he had. I asked you to describe it and you won't. That's no cycle it's a dead end.

2) You dodged my point that to vote them all out would require not voting for Obama. Another dead end

Will Robinson wrote:...to get the democrats to vote ...

Will Robinson wrote:... implanting integrity in the democrats! You have to be kidding…

Will Robinson wrote:...the democrats try to bully a…

Will Robinson wrote:...democrats killing the regulation…

Will Robinson wrote:...the democrats killed it!! …

Will Robinson wrote:...being able to get democrats to cause their…

Will Robinson wrote:...help him fight against the democrats and neither…

Will Robinson wrote:...belief that democrats are regulators…

Will Robinson wrote:...in denial if you think democrats did…

Will Robinson wrote:...you the ones the democrats did it to…

Will Robinson wrote:...case it was democrats fighting to ignore…

Will Robinson wrote:...stopped the democrats from killing the leg...

Oh! So you were talking about Obama this whole time!! My apologies I completely missed that, I didn't know the man could be plural!

Wow, he really must be “The One.” (To be fair, for one man to get his law degree, go to two amazing schools, teach constitutional law for 12 years, become a state senator for eight years, and a united states senator for four years.......by the age of 48.......and also have time for all the horrid associations and activities in both this country and now Kenya the republicans claim he has had....well, you would have to think he was at least 10 people.)

I told you exactly what Bush could do. Get the democratic voters to pay attention like he did with Immigration. It worked then. The president of the united states can set a national dialogue. You haven’t said that wouldn't work because of x,y,z. You have just repeatedly asked for me to…..repeat myself. That is cyclical.

Regarding ObamaS, of course he (they?) has(have?) more contributors. He is running for President of the United States. In case you haven’t noticed, that tends to increase ones donations. And Obama did not receive money from F&F, federal law forbids any candidate from receiving money directly from companies. He was given donations by employees! And you have to really fudge some numbers to make McCain look so innocent!

Federal law forbids candidates from receiving money directly from companies. The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics tracks donations from employees of various companies. The center's list of contributions from Fannie and Freddie employees places Obama second. Ahead of him is Sen. Chris Dodd,

Democratic chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

The total listed for Obama is $126,349 — a tiny fraction of the approximately $390 million his campaign has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The list shows McCain has received a total of $21,550 from Fannie and Freddie employees. The list includes donations of at least $200 from those who receive paychecks from Fannie and Freddie. It also includes donations from political action committees — pooled contributions from employees. Obama decided early in his presidential run not to accept PAC contributions, but the Center for Responsive Politics' list includes all contributions for members of Congress dating back to 1989 — including Obama and McCain's Senate campaigns.

The New York Times has published a separate list looking at contributions from "directors, officers, and lobbyists for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" for the 2008 campaign cycle. That list — using figures from the Federal Election Commission — shows McCain receiving $169,000, while Obama received only $16,000.

Explaining the difference, the Center for Responsive Politics said on its Web site that it does not include members of the board of directors because they could serve on boards of various companies. Their contributions are listed along with other employees of the companies they work for. And the center says lobbyists usually represent multiple clients as well, so their contributions are listed under their lobbying firms — except in-house lobbyists, who are included in the center's list.

CNN

At the end of the day, we are left with two choices to solve a complicated economic crisis whom they both profited from:

A war hero Hockey Mom Combo, who both barely passed their classes...

Or a Constitutional law professor who was Magna cum laude at one of the top schools in the nation and president of the Harvard Law review.

This really isn’t hard.

Your superbrain dude made a major mistake during that last debate, when he said the government invented the computer to communicate with, which I believe he confused with the internet, because the first computer was used to calculate ballistics.

Anyway, I still don’t see how a law degree helps with the economy. As well as the fact that I have heard some actual ideas from McCain, which I like, and the ones from Obama, well frankly…stink! IMHO

Gooberman you are really trying cloud the issue. It was really simple, I challenged your assertion that Bush could have rallied the country to help him pass regulation to clean up Fannie and Freddie and you first implied it could be done the way he addressed the country prior to invading Iraq and now you've suggested he have a press conference like he did during the national debate on immigration.
Neither is analogous to the need for more regulation regarding Fannie and Freddie.

In the wake of the horrendous attack of 9-11, and in the build up to a major war invading a foreign country an act he can execute without congress..hell yes people listen then! And both houses and all sides of the political spectrum were fully involved in the debate as well as the whole country screaming for some payback! It's kind of easy to get the countries attention when the crater that was once the twin towers is still smoldering, the country is still plenty pissed off at brown people who wear towels on their heads and the President is about to invade one of their countries!!

The immigration example also fails because there was already public outcry for action! He didn't need to get people to notice the immigration problem the people were the ones who pushed the issue to the forefront of congress' agenda from the grass roots level up until the leadership was forced to take a position. Both sides of the political spectrum completely jumped on board of the immigration issue not because Bush held a press conference but because their constituents were screaming for action Once it became a hot issue then Bush explained his plan.

Show me where Franklin Reins and Jim Johnson fraudulently changing the books to get paid their bonuses and subsequently causing other financial companies to believe the bundled mortgages were still of value....show me where that even caught the public's attention!
So you think in light of the lack of anyone in the public ever being aware of what the hell Fannie and Freddie were, let alone understand the way mortgages are bundled and sold as long term investments to brokerage firms and banks, they would believe Bush was announcing a national crisis on the scale of a major war or the potential to arrest and deport 20 million mexicans living and working in America!! You have to be kidding me!
Then don't forget Bush did make the claim that Fannie and Freddie were a problem to the few people who would not only understand it but they were also the people on the congressional committee charged with the responsibilty to oversee the operation but they were telling us everything is fine!

So in Goobermans world Bush calls this press conference to announce this potential disaster and all the democrats call him racist for trying to lynch Franklin Reins and keep black people from getting a house and you expect me to believe the public will rally to his side!!!

Bull!!Crap!!

If the topic has gone in circles it's because evertime I point the bow toward a landmark you shove the tiller off course to avoid the discussion hitting the mark!

See, this is why this particular thread no longer holds any interest for me.

Gooberman wrote:At the end of the day, we are left with two choices to solve a complicated economic crisis whom they both profited from:

A war hero Hockey Mom Combo, who both barely passed their classes...

Or a Constitutional law professor who was Magna cum laude at one of the top schools in the nation and president of the Harvard Law review.

This really isn’t hard.

Except that often enough history shows that the apparent winning team on paper is not the winning team in practice.

During the Civil War, the Union Army, on paper, might have seemed to have most of the advantage. Yet it failed for years to get the upper hand on Lee's armies. McClellan was wiz-bang at building his blue-coats up and drilling them to precision, but much less capable when it came to using them for what armies are supposed to be used for; winning battles. Other higher qualified West Point grads were also more or less equally not up to the task. In the end Lincoln turned to a hard drinking man of numerous business failures (Grant) and the rest, as they say, is history.

Another example is Herbert Hoover; a brilliant mining engineer, government administrator and Commerce Secretary. Nevertheless, many of his economic policies as President have been blamed for exacerbating the economic problems of 1929 into the Great Depression.

So just having smart guys at the helm is no guarantee of success. I'm not trying to denigrate knowledge here. All I'm saying is that the role of the executive is at least as much, if not more, an issue of being able to find good people and put them into the right jobs, to make potentially unpopular decisions and stick by them, if they are the right decisions, and to admit to, and correct, mistakes when they are made. In other words, it's also largely about character and guts.

The executive branch can promulgate any plans or policies it wants, but the executive branch does not make law, the legislative branch does. The candidate can say their plan this and their plan that, but it's all just a lot of hot air until legislation is written and passed.

I don't doubt that Obama is educated, but that doesn't close the sale for me. I think that McCain has important life experience and reference that Obama lacks. I'm not a big fan of either ticket, just less a fan of Obama's.

Good post dissent, for me it kinda goes along those Thinkers vs. Doers lines or Intelectual vs. Craftman. (kinda)

Sorry for chopping up your post.

dissent wrote:Except that often enough history shows that the apparent winning team on paper is not the winning team in practice.

During the Civil War, the Union Army, on paper, might have seemed to have most of the advantage. Yet it failed for years to get the upper hand on Lee's armies. McClellan was wiz-bang at building his blue-coats up and drilling them to precision, but much less capable when it came to using them for what armies are supposed to be used for; winning battles. Other higher qualified West Point grads were also more or less equally not up to the task. In the end Lincoln turned to a hard drinking man of numerous business failures (Grant) and the rest, as they say, is history.

Another example is Herbert Hoover; a brilliant mining engineer, government administrator and Commerce Secretary. Nevertheless, many of his economic policies as President have been blamed for exacerbating the economic problems of 1929 into the Great Depression.
....

I don't doubt that Obama is educated, but that doesn't close the sale for me. I think that McCain has important life experience and reference that Obama lacks. I'm not a big fan of either ticket, just less a fan of Obama's.

There is nothing I can argue with. Only to add that I view voting for the president alot like an interview process. Sure, the world is full of counter-examples where the worst resume's turn out to be the best employees. But that doesn't diminish their importance. In the end its just a betting game.

Just like in interviews, the resume is a good place to start placing your bet. The bigger the contrast, the safer the bet. On the academic side, the contrast is vast.

dissent wrote:....The executive branch can promulgate any plans or policies it wants, but the executive branch does not make law, the legislative branch does. The candidate can say their plan this and their plan that, but it's all just a lot of hot air until legislation is written and passed.....

Yes, but the hot air comes with a mighty pen. And that pen does have alot of influence on what makes it into these bills and what does not.

dissent wrote:....All I'm saying is that the role of the executive is at least as much, if not more, an issue of being able to find good people and put them into the right jobs, to make potentially unpopular decisions and stick by them, if they are the right decisions, and to admit to, and correct, mistakes when they are made. In other words, it's also largely about character and guts.
.....

Yeah, and McCain has that. I was born in Arizona. John McCain has been "my representative" since I was four years old starting in the House and I have voted for him in every election I could. (Which is only twice )

I think having a politician in ones life, throughout your life, gives you a little bit of an edge on underestanding who the guy really is. That being said, I don't think there is a more honorable man in the senate. I think McCain's campaign has failed him miserably. His campaign has allowed people like me to forget why we liked him so much. I loved the McCain video in Jesus_Freak's post in this forum, where did that McCain go?

The problem is he tried to go with the proven Karl Rove strategy, but it just proved to be an awkward disconnect with who he really was/is. The problem is McCain is unable to stand by his campaign's attacks if he feels they are dishonest, and so he appeares dishonest when he is questioned about them on various talk shows and looks so uncomfortable.

I liked Bill Kristol's Op-ed in the nytimes this morning.

Bill Kristol wrote:The bad news, of course, is that right now Obama’s approval/disapproval rating is better than McCain’s. Indeed, Obama’s is a bit higher than it was a month ago. That suggests the failure of the McCain campaign’s attacks on Obama.

So drop them.

Not because they’re illegitimate. I think many of them are reasonable. Obama’s relationship to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is, I believe, a legitimate issue. But McCain ruled it out of bounds, and he’s sticking to that. And for whatever reason — the public mood, campaign ineptness, McCain’s alternation between hesitancy and harshness, which reflects the fact that he’s uncomfortable in the attack role — the other attacks on Obama just aren’t working. There’s no reason to think they’re suddenly going to.

There are still enough doubts about Obama to allow McCain to win. But McCain needs to make his case, and do so as a serious but cheerful candidate for times that need a serious but upbeat leader.

I think McCain needs to do that.

This is my first election in California, so I'm not sure if you vote like you do in Arizona with a black pen and a paper ballot. But if McCain can run the end of his campaign like the politician he was throughout my entire life, I may just blot out Sarah Palins name, write in Chuck Hagel or Joe Lieberman, and finish the streak off.

It's not like I'm in a swing state; and I still think Obama would make a better president.