The Note, 12/08/08: To Play, or Not to Play
EmailBy Rick Klein with Arnab Datta
Welcome back to the mix (again), Mr. President-elect. We’ve missed you. Your nation has missed you. Your economy has missed you.
Are you sure you missed all of them?
As the latest push in the push-pull of President-elect Barack Obama’s involvement in the economic crisis plays out, it is increasingly clear that we are talking about more than just a bailout or two.
This is a major rethinking of government’s role and interactions with the economy. What happens before Jan. 20 depends more on the president we will have than the one we now have. No decisions made before Jan. 20 won’t have to be revisited afterward.
(And if all of this doesn’t work, will it be Obama’s — and his party’s — fault?)
Obama’s involvement dance plays out by the day — some prodding here, some pulling back there, but still not the taking-over-of-the-reins many in both parties are looking for.
If Obama is right and the economy is going to get worse before it gets better (and who will say that he’s wrong?) — who’s going to be left to back him up when he argues (as he will again at some point) that it’s not yet his time or place?
After an active weekend, your word of the day is “tension”:
“Obama has been careful not to overstep his authority before his swearing-in Jan. 20, but his comments, made two days after the government announced that more than half a million jobs were lost last month, suggested that he is willing to play a somewhat larger role in managing the economy in the interim,” The Washington Post’s Anne Kornblut writes.
“In a transition that has emphasized continuity and harmony with the outgoing president, there were glimmers of tension yesterday, as Obama not only criticized the administration’s efforts on mortgages but also tapped for his Cabinet retired Army Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, who had sparred with President Bush’s top Pentagon officials over the Iraq war strategy,” Kornblut reports.
Sunday’s refrain: “Things are going to get worse before they get better,” Obama said, per ABC’s Matt Jaffe.
Which calls will he answer?
The Wall Street Journal’s Jonathan Weisman and Deborah Solomon see Obama preserving his political capital: “Barack Obama’s transition team is resisting Bush administration overtures to coordinate more on the financial-sector rescue, convinced that neither the lame-duck President George W. Bush nor the president-elect has the clout to win a smooth congressional release of more bailout funds. . . . Tension is growing: Treasury officials believe Obama aides are being short-sighted in their refusal to offer more policy and lobbying assistance, while the transition team sees an administration looking to be rescued from its own miscues.”
“Congressional Democrats were drafting legislation Sunday for tight government control of the crippled American auto industry, including the possible creation of an oversight board made up of five cabinet secretaries and the head of the Environmental Protection Agency and led by an independent chairman or ‘car czar,’ ” David M. Herszenhorn and Jackie Calmes report in The New York Times. “A main factor complicating the deliberations was the imminent transition between the Bush and Obama administrations.”
Obama is trying to appear “on the case, even if he’s not yet on the job,” ABC’s Jake Tapper reported on “Good Morning America” Monday. “He’s now talking more like the man in charge. . . . Obama wants to be seen as a leader, and also to avoid owning the bad economy for as long as possible.”
“Criticized for staying on the sidelines until now, Obama for the first time voiced support for auto industry bailout legislation being drafted in Congress,” John McCormick and Peter Wallsten write in the Los Angeles Times. “He said it would be unacceptable to allow the U.S. auto industry to fail during a time of growing unemployment, although he was less definitive on whether some auto executives should lose their jobs.”
Think this won’t fall to him? “Though Bush would have the opportunity to establish the board, his administration would have little chance to exercise its power. Under the Democratic proposal, the board would develop broad restructuring goals for the companies, but it could not compel them to act. The board also would be prohibited from revoking the short-term loans to the auto companies until February, when the board would be in the hands of Obama appointees,” Lori Montgomery reports in The Washington Post.
Hints of more involvement to come? “President-elect Barack Obama said yesterday that top executives at the nation’s three automakers should be replaced if they don’t use pending government loans to make major changes — including taking immediate steps to produce energy-efficient vehicles — in a clear signal that he expects a bailout to be predicated on a wholesale restructuring of the industry,” The Boston Globe’s Bryan Bender writes.
More questions soon: “An estimated $15 billion emergency loan package for the auto industry — now taking shape in Congress — leaves open the door for the incoming Obama administration to add more money if needed this winter by tapping into the Treasury’s financial rescue package,” Politico’s David Rogers reports.
Few new answers Monday. The transition schedule, from the always-hard-working Nick Shapiro: “The President-elect and Vice President-elect will both be hosting private meetings, there are no public events scheduled. President-elect Obama will be in Chicago while Vice President-elect Biden will be in Washington D.C.”
Watch your left, Mr. President-elect: Eric Shinseki plus Susan Rice do not balance out the Clinton/Gates/Jones triumvirate. (But the Shinseki appointment does send more of a message than a president normally gets to send at Veterans Affairs.)
“It’s no surprise that many progressives are — depending on whom you ask — disappointed, irritated or fit to be tied,” David Corn writes in a Washington Post op-ed. “It remains a mystery to me why Obama would want to bring into his Big Tent the Clinton circus, which frequently features excessive spin, backstabbing, leaking and messy melodrama. . . . My hunch is that Obama has made a calculation. In constructing his administration, he has decided not to create a (liberal) Washington counter-establishment. Instead, he’s fashioning a bipartisan, centrist-loaded version of the Washington establishment to carry out his policies, which do tilt to the left.”
“Liberals are growing increasingly nervous – and some just flat-out angry – that President-elect Barack Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices,” Politico’s Carol E. Lee and Nia-Malika Henderson write.
Frank Rich, in his Sunday New York Times column: “It’s the economic team that evokes trace memories of our dark best-and-brightest past,” Rich writes. “I keep wondering why the honeymoon hagiography about the best and the brightest has been so over the top. Washington’s cheerleading for our new New Frontier cabinet superstars has seldom been interrupted by tough questions about Summers’s Harvard career or Geithner’s record at the Fed.”
Steve Hildebrand tells liberals to chill: “This is not a time for the left wing of our Party to draw conclusions about the Cabinet and White House appointments that President-Elect Obama is making,” he writes for Huffington Post.
The ad that never was . . . ABC’s Brian Ross and his team have the details of the McCain campaign ad featuring the Rev. Jeremiah Wright — fully produced, with footage of McCain as POW played off of Wright saying “God damn America.” It includes the “I’m John McCain, and I approved this message” tagline — but, of course, on McCain’s direction, it never aired.
Pep talk from the outgoing president, from National Review’s Rich Lowry and Byron York: “ ‘Conservatives will rebound,’ President Bush said during an Oval Office interview Friday, but only with ‘new blood,’ ‘new ideas,’ and a ‘new wave’ of leadership. In a candid exchange during an hour-long session with National Review editors and writers, the president conceded that his eight years in office have sometimes been tough for conservatives, but said his philosophy of ‘compassionate conservatism’ is still the guiding belief of a majority of Americans.”
More from that article: “On Iraq, we brought up Karl Rove’s recent statement that, ‘absent weapons of mass destruction, no, I don’t think there would have been an invasion.’ Bush wouldn’t engage the question, saying only that a president doesn’t ‘get an opportunity to redo a decision.’ Instead, he brought up the counter-factual if Saddam had been left in power: ‘You put in the middle of the Middle East a man rich with oil who sponsored terror, who had the capacity to make a nuclear weapon, combined with Iran — it’s conceivable you’d have a nuclear arms race in the Middle East now, causing nations to say, wait a minute, where’s the United States, where do we land, how do we protect our own interests; a state sponsor of terror trying to compete with another state sponsor of terror. I argue vociferously that the Middle East is better off without Saddam Hussein.’ ”
Coaching his troops, Bill Kristol lays out a roadmap for the GOP: “Conservatives should think twice before charging into battle against Obama under the banner of ‘small-government conservatism,’ ” Kristol writes in his New York Times column. “Talk of small government may be music to conservative ears, but it’s not to the public as a whole. This isn’t to say the public is fond of big-government liberalism. It’s just that what’s politically vulnerable about big-government liberalism is more the liberalism than the big government.”
Matthew Dowd takes on Karl Rove’s post-election dissection:
“Paid media buys have little impact on the outcome. The only advertising that matters are the spots that get taken up by the media and repeated in a news context over and over again. Think to yourself about which spots you remember in this campaign. They are likely the ones that aired very little (Clinton 3 am ad, McCain Paris Hilton ad, etc), and these ads had as much recall in places they were never bought as in places they were,” Dowd writes in his ABCNews.com blog. “Pundits and press and consultants constantly repeat the refrain that spending largely determines Presidential race results and that ad buys have a significant impact on results. This is simply not born out by the facts.”
Rough weekend for Democrats in Louisiana, with defeats in two House seats. In votes that have taken place after Election Day, toss in the Georgia Senate run-off and the GOP is 3-0.
“In the three Congressional races decided since Barack Obama defeated John McCain on November 4, the president-elect has kept his distance from the Democratic candidates,” Politico’s Andy Barr reports.
From the memo House Minority Leader John Boehner circulated Sunday (subject line: “The Future is Cao”): “While Washington Democrats are busy spinning the Jefferson debacle as an aberration, they are in the process of trading it in for a new debacle with greater implications for national policy. Just days before the Cao win, Speaker Pelosi declared she ‘does not foresee’ a change in the current leadership of the Ways & Means Committee, whose chairman faces questions about potential abuses of tax laws and House rules,” Boehner writes. “The Cao victory is a symbol of our future.”
Helped by cold, hard cash, but making history on his own: “Few in New Orleans were betting on him in the days before the election. Now, Joseph Cao, as he is known here (his last name is pronounced ‘gow’), has become the first Vietnamese-American elected to Congress,” The New York Times’ Adam Nossiter writes.
Making the DCCC smile: “Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy won a tight House race in central Ohio, decided only after elections officials tallied provisional ballots. Kilroy defeated Republican Steve Stivers on Sunday by more than 2,300 votes, enough to avoid an automatic recount. She will replace retiring Republican Deborah Pryce in representing the state’s 15th Congressional District,” per the AP.
Caroline watch: “Caroline Kennedy still needs convincing on whether to push to be appointed to Hillary Clinton’s soon-to-be-vacant Senate seat, a source with ties to the Kennedy family said Sunday,” the New York Daily News’ Kenneth Lovett reports. “Right now, it’s more of a family push than her own,” the source said.
She hasn’t asked for it . . . yet. “I have enough qualified candidates that I don’t think I have to draft anybody,” Paterson told The New York Times’ Danny Hakim Sunday night. “Part of the consideration is how willing people are to serve, so I would figure if they were willing, they would make the request. I haven’t really taken anyone in hand and asked them.” Ms. Kennedy, he added, is “thinking about it.”
Mike Lupica, in the New York Daily News: “This isn’t just about the Kennedys and Cuomos, by the way. You must wonder what Hillary Clinton herself thinks about all this, especially after the way Caroline Kennedy endorsed Obama against her. And you ought to know that it bothered her husband even more, because Bill Clinton was going through life under the impression that the Kennedys somehow owed him something.”
His name: Number Two. The Cheney mold is out, no matter how long Vice-president-elect Joe Biden has been having lunch on Tuesdays with Democratic senators.
“He can come by once and a while, but he’s not going to sit in on our lunches,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told Lisa Mascaro of the Las Vegas Sun. “He’s not a senator. He’s the vice president.”
“Biden spokesperson Elizabeth Alexander notes that Biden had ‘no intention’ of going to the meetings anyway and there is no conflict at all between him and Reid,” per ABC’s Jake Tapper and Matt Jaffe.
As for what he will be doing: Biden “made the decision to be a voice for workers as vice president after union officials called him to complain that their interests aren’t represented by President- elect Obama’s economic advisers, according to two members of the transition team,” Bloomberg’s Heidi Przybyla reports. “Biden’s focus on labor may help define his agenda. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he had a pivotal role in shaping U.S. foreign policy. In the Obama administration, he will have to cede some of that ground to Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state nominee.”
To the surprise of approximately no one . . . “Republican Mitt Romney is laying the groundwork for a possible White House campaign in 2012, hiring a team of staff members and consultants with money from a fund-raising committee he established with the ostensible purpose of supporting other GOP candidates,” Frank Phillips reports in The Boston Globe. “In essence, Romney is financing a political enterprise that he can use to remain a national GOP leader and use as a springboard should he decide to launch another presidential bid for 2012.”
“Qualifying for a donation from the committee did not necessarily depend on a candidate’s need for financial assistance,” Phillips continues. “US Representative Rodney Alexander of Louisiana got $4,600 and his GOP colleague Lamar S. Smith of Texas received a $2,300 donation, although both had no opponents. They each had endorsed Romney in his presidential bid.”
George Stephanopoulos welcomes David Gregory to the Sunday-morning game, with some friendly advice.
And Stephanopoulos has landed two straight exclusives for the next two Sundays on ABC’s “This Week”: John McCain, then Joe Biden.
Tracy Sefl has a new job. From the press release: “Navigators, LLC and Roberti Associates, Inc. announced today that the two firms have merged to create Navigators Global, a bipartisan, full-service government relations and issues management firm with offices in Washington, DC, New York, Los Angeles, London, and the state capitals of Sacramento, Albany, and Tallahassee. Tracy Sefl, a leading Democratic communications consultant and former vice president of public affairs at Glover Park Group, is also joining Navigators Global as a senior vice president. Sefl is a senior advisor to Terry McAullife, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and a possible candidate for governor in the state of Virginia.”
The Kicker:
“What I would say is that I have done a terrific job under the circumstances of making myself much healthier. You will not see any violations of these rules in the White House.” — Barack Obama, vowing not to smoke in the White House.
Bookmark the link below to get The Note’s daily morning analysis:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/the_note/index.html
And for up-to-the-minute political updates check out The Note’s new blog . . . all day every day:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
He should stay out of it, except for being kept informed of decisions made, until he is President.
Posted by: MadeInUSA | December 8, 2008, 9:18 am 9:18 am
Hey, Barry Obama…do you want to ask the UAW GM workers t give back the Performance Bonus that they just received in Oct. 2008???? while you are at it….ask the UAW to forfeit all Bonuses that were agreed to on Sept. 27,2007..Sept. 26,2007 GM- UAW agreement states…” UAW workers will receive an up-front settlement BONUS of $3,000. Workers on pre-retirement leave, in pretected status, on temporary layoff, on Family & Medical Leave or various other leaves of absence of not more than 90 days, are also eligible, as are workers with retirements processed for an effective day of Oct. 1. THREE add’l BONUSES will be paid. 10/2008 UAW GM workers with seniority will recieve a LUMB-SUM PERFORMANCE BONUS equal to 3% of qualified earnings ( including base wages, COLA, overtime, shift & 7 day operator permiums, call-in pay, vacation, holiday & other paid time OFF). Oct, 2009 worker with seniority will receive a lump-sum BONUS equal to 4% of qualified earnings. A FINAL PERFORMANCE BONUS equal 3% of qualified earnings, will be paid in Oct. 2010″. I bet that UAW Pres. GETTLEFINGER says NO
Posted by: camp50 | December 8, 2008, 9:21 am 9:21 am
Mr. Obama, did you know that the UAW workers get 12 paid holidays a year? But I bet you didn’t know that during the SHUT DOWN period that occurs during the 4th of JULY week, the UAW workers get add’l 4 days paid to do nothing.. This comes to an average of $950 per UAW worker per year. $950 X 150,000 workers = $142,500,000.00 That is right $143 MILLION DOLLARS to do nothing. Is the UAW workers ready to give up this BONUS? NEW HIRES….GM will contribute $1 per compensated hour into ALL new hires 401k plan…IS the UAW ready to GIVE UP THIS PERK?
Posted by: camp50 | December 8, 2008, 9:23 am 9:23 am
Isn’t it true that the more people you get involved in a decision the more time it takes to make a decision. Is this another one of those consensus processes where everybody may say “No” but nobody can say “Yes.” One other thing – exactly what do the people who are considering whether or not to provide this
bailout loan know about making cars? What is their bottom line for Return On Investment and payback period?
Posted by: Wisdom | December 8, 2008, 9:28 am 9:28 am
OBAMA IS NOT PRESIDENT YET! Plain and simple, it is Bush who should be dealing with this instead of sitting on his hands…of course Bush will do nothing, as usual, unless it benefits his rich cronies at Halliburton and the Carlyle Group.
Posted by: capnmike | December 8, 2008, 9:38 am 9:38 am
Mr President elect and the Democratic congress: We the people understand that the easiest way to get elected is to buy people’s votes. It is clear the bailout of the financial industry was opposed by the people who elected you. The bailout of the BIG 3 is likewise opposed by the people who elected you. We elected you to do our will. You will be remembered at the polls when our economy has tanked and you have spent hundreds of billions against our will in the interest of buying votes, knowing fully well that your efforts to save a failed economy are in vain. We do understand that the nation is in trouble. We do accept the fact that hard times are ahead. We do wish someone could stop the slide down the slippery slope, but we don’t think throwing money at one problem after another will accomplish anything more than an increased national debt, our debt, so stop throwing our money at the problems and let the good businesses survive and the bad businesses fail. The new economy that survives will have a solid foundation. Thank you in advance for listening.
Posted by: mmonroeliveson | December 8, 2008, 9:44 am 9:44 am
As he is not yet the President, then it is right and proper that he stay out of the issue. Once he becomes President then it would be proper for him to get involved. At this point all he can and should do is to express his opinion which he has done.
Posted by: Brian, Decatur, GA | December 8, 2008, 9:48 am 9:48 am
The UAW chief used to think that he was the President of USA. He could dictate the terms under which the workers of the three auto companies would work and year after year they would enrich themselves at the cost of the stockholders, and, of course, expect to sell lousy and junk cars to the public. UAW members have no pride in their workmanship, excepting how to blackmail and extort more money from their companies. They have no shame that they have brought the downfall of their companies. It is like killing the goose that was laying golden eggs.
Posted by: narumanchi | December 8, 2008, 9:52 am 9:52 am
This comment is to camp50 and out to others. The Autoworkers have shut down for two weeks in July not getting paid for the second week. Only getting 1/4 salary for the four days of the July including the holiday. Remember if the Autoworkers fail and have to announce bankruptucy it affects all. Not only the main companies, also the suppliers also the Japs for there cars have parts made here. It is not fair for Congress to “GRILL” the automakers, when they handed over money to AIG, and the financial institution. The auto workers are telling congress this is only a loan they will get there money back with interest, the others that got the money already didn’t say loan they just took the money, and partyed.
Posted by: Gail FAmelio | December 8, 2008, 9:57 am 9:57 am
You KNOW that he would be criticized for “overstepping” if he did get involved. Bush has senioritis, but he needs to be the president in this moment.
Posted by: Ivy | December 8, 2008, 9:58 am 9:58 am
We are fed up with a government that treats us like we don’t have enough sense to take care of ourselves. What we’re tired of at this point is a congress that has allowed the economy to fail and now is trying desperately to cover its tracks by taking us deeper and deeper into debt. WE the people do not advocate the bailouts you propose. Let bad business fail. Let the economy find bottom. Then the great strength of America, its workforce, will rebuild the economy. Have some faith in us for a change. Stop thinking you can legislate away our problems. More legislation and more government intervention in the private sector will only slow down the inevitable while it makes recovery harder down the road.
Posted by: mmonroeliveson | December 8, 2008, 9:58 am 9:58 am
If he gets involved he will be criticized. If he doesn’t get involved he will be critized. As Lincoln said, you can please some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time.
Unfortunately, Mr. Bush is in the charge so HE should do something! But as we know he will sit on his hands and smirk….
Since Mr. Bush is supposedly President, Obama is doing the right thing.
Like David Letterman said, Can’t he start now?
Posted by: Barb | December 8, 2008, 10:08 am 10:08 am
He is NOT President yet. He’s not even President Elect yet.
Let’s get the simple things straight first shall we.
Posted by: trey | December 8, 2008, 10:11 am 10:11 am
I wonder if this much critique would be upon McCain if he was elected? I highly doubt that McCain would have been a swift with choosing his cabinet member, let along a team of financial advisors for advice within and on the outside. I still feel very good about President-elect Obama because he has shown more calmness and care about what is going on right now more than the current President, who is basically just counting his time down. I agree with the above after Christmas can we just give ol’ George his pink slip.
Mr. Obama has 4 years to deal with the Bush Administrations created mess and I think he deserves the time he has because it will not be an easy job.
Posted by: ok | December 8, 2008, 10:13 am 10:13 am
Obama isn’t going to do anything which can be seen as a drastic move for or against (any issue). He doesn’t have the smarts or the experience to be proactive and do something to fix the economy. He’ll just stay middle-of-the-road for fear of being criticized and he’s already looking ahead to a second term. He’s very insecure, but that’s what you expect from a junior senator who’s background was working as a community organizer.
You elected an empty suit. Now live with it.
Posted by: NoExpectations | December 8, 2008, 10:13 am 10:13 am
noexpectations: Your name says volumes about you. I guess if you don’t expect anything you won’t have to worry about receiving anything.
Posted by: hmmmmmm | December 8, 2008, 10:17 am 10:17 am
What people do not understand is Obama is not the President of USA only, he is for the entire world.
After he spoke about spending during the weekend, the stock went up sharply today from Asia to Europe and at the moment it is looking good in US.
He should not stay out. We really need him.
Posted by: FM | December 8, 2008, 10:20 am 10:20 am
Technically he’s still a senator with one vote. He can give his opinion and vote his vote on bills until January 20th. What’s all this talk about stepping forward? And do what?
Posted by: LongT | December 8, 2008, 10:22 am 10:22 am
Monroe – How are you? I totally agree with you that we need to stop the bailout madness now. I still don’t know what is happening with the first $800B+ bailout. It sure hasn’t eased the credit crunch or helped the average Joe stay employed. We need to fire the corrupt DC politicians starting with Dodd, Pelosi, Reid, Kerry and Franks and get some people with perspective in our gov’t. to stop the “BAILOUTS GONE WILD” madness.
Posted by: grumpyoldmanintown | December 8, 2008, 10:23 am 10:23 am
hmmmmm; sounds like you do expect to receive something. God bless your pointy little head. All you’re going to receive is disappointment.
Posted by: mmonroeliveson | December 8, 2008, 10:24 am 10:24 am
No expectations: I assume you think what we have in the white house now is intelligent? Look at the mess they created!!!!
Obama is very smart, you don’t get to go to Harvard if you are an idiot. And if you listen to him speak, you can tell he has smarts and he knows what he’s doing. I have faith in him, much more than what we have now! Look at the mess! with a Republican congress for 6 years to boot!
Posted by: Barb | December 8, 2008, 10:24 am 10:24 am
LongT; He’s resigned his senate seat. He’s not a senator, not a president or president elect, not even a community organizer, just a citizen at this point.
Posted by: mmonroeliveson | December 8, 2008, 10:26 am 10:26 am
Yeah, and the economy is going to get worse before it implodes! BO is not even in office and he is feeding us a load! The U.S. government is virtually bankrupt and its solution is to bail out corporations that have been run into the ground, and in the case of the automakers, have been producing overpriced crap for years! How is throwing good money after bad going to help?! Let them fail and let new blood with fresh and innovative ideas fill the void. An interesting fact, all those currently receiving social security benefits are owed $52 trillion!!! Where is the government going to get that money?! The Federal Reserve can keep printing money until the cows come home and make toilet paper worth more than the dollar. How will that help us? — but that seems to be what they are counting on! We could get rid of a gargantuan amount of debt just by abolishing the FED which charges the face value of the money they print and then interest upon that. The Treasury by the U.S. Constitution can do this without the cost! Abolish the FED! We have already reached a point with the bailout money where we could pay off the national debt and that would help everyone greatly!!
Posted by: Ford Fairlane | December 8, 2008, 10:27 am 10:27 am
Monroe – oops, sorry I forgot to change my moniker. It’s been a while since I’ve posted, but this latest automaker bailout is really over the top.
Posted by: fairelection2008 | December 8, 2008, 10:29 am 10:29 am
To all those who are commenting here that he isn’t president yet… Don’t you WANT him to act? Didn’t you vote for him to act? Don’t you want him to take control? Would it not be easier since his party controls everything for him to get involved? All he has to do is state EXACTLY what he would do if he were president and it would be done. Why is this difficult? Those asking for Bush to act? Why do you want him to act if he has screwed everything up for 8 years? You can’t have it both ways.
Posted by: jchilman | December 8, 2008, 10:36 am 10:36 am
This is Bush’s mess. He helped create it. He’s on the hook to solve it, until January 20. Obama will take charge when he’s giving BOTH the responsibility AND the power to change things. He’d be a fool to get involved before then.
Posted by: Average Joe | December 8, 2008, 10:38 am 10:38 am
Fm; Every time the stock market goes down it goes back up. Pay no attention to what the stock market is doing. Think of it as volatile. Profit taking by the day traders continues. Following a day or two of increase the market will fall again. Something’s got to be done about that, too. Too much gambling going on with stocks. The purchase of stocks should be a long term investment with the intention of earning dividends as well as seeing shares increase in value or split. What happens with our markets is followed by the other markets because it’s the US economy that drives the world. Positive words from authoritative figures like Obama do help just as negativity hurts. Every time Bernanke and Paulson give us a dose of doom and gloom the market tanks.
Posted by: mmonroeliveson | December 8, 2008, 10:40 am 10:40 am
Mr. Obama isn’t the President — yet. He has spoken out about the current economic crisis more than any previous president-elect. He has been in constant touch with Congressional Democrats since before the precipitous and haphazard $700 billion TARP bailout of Wall St. engineered by Bush’s Treasury secretary which Congress had no part in executing. As Mr. Obama has frequently stated, “The United States has only one president at a time,” and until after Jan. 20, 2009, that is President George W. Bush, whose failure to act during the current crisis is yet another failure to act responsibly in the history of his presidency. It appears that his failure to act decisively to deal with our economic crisis is a deliberate abrogation of his responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief that could be viewed as an act of spite — leaving this latest mess which developed on his watch to make the incoming new administration’s job as difficult as he can.
Posted by: nanameow | December 8, 2008, 10:40 am 10:40 am
Average Joe: You are right on!
Imagine if he got involved? I can just hear people criticizing.
Posted by: Barb | December 8, 2008, 10:43 am 10:43 am
Obama, don’t have a silver bullet, can’t be evolved in all situations the “Blacknight on a White Horse”? No pun intended..
Bush got us into this mess and he will walk away from the financial meltdown.
Maybe, Bush will study this from his Retirement retreat?
Posted by: Lookup | December 8, 2008, 10:45 am 10:45 am
Does anyone find it crazy that Barry O (through his ties with ACORN), Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Harry Reid are the clowns who caused most of this mess, but yet America is looking to them as the answer?
When will liberals learn that making the gov’t bigger, taxes higher, and entitlements more abundant only hurts out economy?
My guess is that liberals will learn to love capitalism the day they begin to love America (neither is going to happen in my lifetime)!
Posted by: liberalsaresocialists | December 8, 2008, 10:46 am 10:46 am
Monroe – You are right about the market. Every time the talking cueball Paulson goes on TV the market tanks. He needs to hand over the reigns as soon as possible. BTW, do you know where I can go online to find information regarding the disbursements of the Paulson bailout?? Who is the bailout oversight guru and how can we get information about who is getting their hands on our taxpayer money…Anyone????
Posted by: fairelection2008 | December 8, 2008, 10:51 am 10:51 am
Liberalsare socialists:
BUSH AND HIS Cronies were in charge for Eight years, SIX of which he had a REPUBLICAN congress.
Explain how this was not their fault? You know this just didn’t happen in the last two years….and he should have had some spine, stood up and taken control….he had a republican congress
Posted by: Barb | December 8, 2008, 10:51 am 10:51 am
why cant big oil bail out the auto ind. Where would they be with out each other.
Posted by: Bear | December 8, 2008, 10:58 am 10:58 am
I do believe the Big 3 should be given a bridge loan to survive until next year, and then the issue should be revisited once Obama becomes President. However, if these automakers want federal money, then all 3 CEO’s should be fired, and a strict oversight board should be instituted to compel and insist on restructuring the way in which they do business. The auto industry has to remodel their product line to more fuel efficient cars and ultimately hybrid and electric models (which may take years to bring to market). That process should start now. If they want the money, then their feet have to be held to the fire. It’s that simple. I also recommend this strategy to any financial institution as well. From now on, any business looking for taxpayer funds has to agree to strict oversight and compliance.
Posted by: Laura Brown | December 8, 2008, 11:01 am 11:01 am
Obama is not president, he is president-elect. He doesn’t take over until Jan. 20th. I don’t know what Bush, or anyone else for that matter, can do at this point with this economic mess. The govt. has always band aided stuff and it never seems to heal or remain stable. I think the only thing Bush can do at this point is wait till Obama takes over. Why put into place something that someone else may reverse or change. Plus, Bush has put an economic stimulus package in place to help the finance industry. The auto industry problem came later and congress is trying to use the economic stimulus money to fix that and threatening Bush to agree or else. If I were Bush I would just sit there and do nothing with threats like that from Nancy Bologny.
Posted by: newamerica1 | December 8, 2008, 11:04 am 11:04 am
Good morning and Merry Christmas to you and yours Fairelection2008. We did our job in Georgia. When will the rest of the nation see the light? Will it take four more years of empty promises to those who keep waiting for the government to do something for them? Our government can’t take on any more commitments. Can’t keep our current commitments. Lots of people are going to be disappointed unless our nation dies trying. Too much greed coupled with lack of initiative and common sense at the top and bottom in my opinion.
Posted by: mmonroeliveson | December 8, 2008, 11:17 am 11:17 am
Barb; What we’re experiencing right now is the result of the government trying to help people who are perfectly willing to let the government help them, coupled with creative thinking people who are greed oriented running the show in the financial markets, and our reliance on foreign oil driven by environmentalists. The problems have roots in the ’60s and ’70s. Basically we have been greedy, unscrupulous, spoiled rotten, unrealistically idealistic and now it’s all coming back to bite us. Both parties were involved in that the Democrats tried to accomplish unrealistic goals and the Republicans didn’t do enough to control the effects of the Democrats efforts. At the same time, monied people of both parties harvested the benefits of mismanagement at the ultimate expense of the little people and our country. You’re mad. I’m mad and we both should be mad, but to single out any political party as the single culprit would be in err. Fact is the congress appropriated all that’s been spent, passed all the bad legislatioin that allowed the corruption and then failed to oversee and regulate the follie that resulted. It took a bipartisan effort to get things this screwed up.
Posted by: mmonroeliveson | December 8, 2008, 11:35 am 11:35 am
mmonroeliveson: Yes you are right, we are spoiled and I know people that make $30,000 a year and have a house they bought for half a million…But is has gotten so much worse and what gets me is that Bush and McCain both said our economy was structurely sound around the beginning of Oct. Bush was in charge…he didn’t see this? Yes both parties have blame but he was in charge and it gets me angry….and the war also cost us plenty. If this was so bad, why did he just sit there?
I’m tired of the bailouts too…and if we don’t help the auto industry 300 million people will be out of work and we’ll have a Depression. You don’t know who to believe and quite honestly they should fire the whole bunch and start over but I do have faith in Obama that he will do the right thing…He himself said people have to take responsibility for their own actions and he can’t make this better overnight…we all must do our part…and so many peole live way beyond their means and were allowed to!!! we have become very spoiled.
Posted by: Barb | December 8, 2008, 11:41 am 11:41 am
Fairelection2008; As I understand the situation, about $350 billion hasn’t been spent. Obama asked for it to be held back so he can spend it. I think he intends to use it to start up his version of WPA and do another economic stimulus package. The other $350 billion just vaporized. Nobody seems to be able to account for it beyond saying it was donated to the financial sector. It got lost in the panic of we must do something immediately. Didn’t do much apparent good, did it? The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Posted by: mmonroeliveson | December 8, 2008, 11:45 am 11:45 am
The problem with housing began with Carter and the Community Reinvestment Act. That legislation eventually led to the gov’t forcing banks to hand out loans to people who could never pay them back. As for Bush not speaking out louder against the robin-hood democrats, you know what their response would have been….”you just hate poor people”.
Posted by: liberalsaresocialists | December 8, 2008, 12:18 pm 12:18 pm
Mmonroe
McCain said the FUNDAMENTALS of our economy ARE strong. Despite what the anti-American, pro-socialism, Obamamania media would have you believe, America has the stongest and most innovative workforce in the history of mankind. The avg American lives 10 times better then even the wealthiest did just 50 years ago (our trailer parks and ghettos have people 500lb+ people…imagine going to India or Africa and trying to explain to a starving person that this 500lb+ person is America’s poorest person).
Our capitalist society has produced more wealth for one country then in the history of mankind. However, it begins to lose it’s strength with every vote cast for liberal dems like barney frank, chris dodd, chuck schumer, and the ultimate socialist barry O.
Posted by: liberalsaresocialists | December 8, 2008, 12:29 pm 12:29 pm
This comment is to camp50 who questions the congressmen knowledge of making cars. Did you know that the chairman of Chrysler, was with GE, then Home Depot (whih he ran into the ground) and now with Chrysler.
What does he know about making cars? Absolutely nothing!!!
Posted by: vera | December 8, 2008, 12:43 pm 12:43 pm
This comment is to camp50 who questions the congressmen knowledge of making cars. Did you know that the chairman of Chrysler, was with GE, then Home Depot (whih he ran into the ground) and now with Chrysler.
What does he know about making cars? Absolutely nothing!!!
Posted by: vera | December 8, 2008, 12:43 pm 12:43 pm
Barb; Election rhetoric skewed the meaning of what McCain said. He said the fundamentals of our economy are strong, meaning only that we have a workforce (the fundamentals) that is ready, willing, and capable of doing the work necessary to keep the economy strong. The problem is not at he workforce level. The problem is at the top and in our congress. There aren’t enough employers in solvent enough condition to employ our workforce. That’s the problem. The reason we don’t have enough solvent employers is that we can’t compete with third world countries for cost of finished products. We can’t compete here because of free trade agreements, EPA requirements, taxation, fuel costs, labor costs, upper eschelon management costs.
Posted by: mmonroeliveson | December 8, 2008, 1:02 pm 1:02 pm
I’d like to make three points. The first is concerning the Big 3. The CEOs stated it would take eight years to put a good electric vehicle in the dealer showrooms and even then the vehicles would be expensive. Are we to bail them out for the next eight years only to have them then introduce a product without a market? Second point…Even if they trimmed all the fat out of manufacturing costs and put out an inexpensive vehicle immediately there’s no market. No one can afford to buy a new car in this economy. Third point…we wouldn’t be in this mess if fuel costs hadn’t caused so many people to be in financial trouble. As long as we rely on foreign fuel sources we have no control over the basic expenses the consumer faces. Fuel is cheap right now because there’s no demand. Fuel costs will again be a problem if our economy starts to recover. We better be prepared by supplying our own fuel needs from our own resources. It’s the only route to fuel cost stability. Now is the time to compromise our pie in the sky dreams of clean green fuel and drill baby drill while building coal power generation plants. We need jobs and we won’t have jobs without cheap finished product to sell. We can control cost of fuel and we must do so and the sooner the better.
Posted by: mmonroeliveson | December 8, 2008, 1:19 pm 1:19 pm
I feel for the auto workers and their families but dumping billions of dollars into companies that can not compete is just wrong.Bail me out, all I need is 30,000.00 that will set me free, bail out the people that voted so that we will vote for you again.Give a real stimulus package and the economy will take off like a jet,cars, homes and everything else will fly off the shelf
Posted by: G-MR. DO GOOD | December 8, 2008, 1:38 pm 1:38 pm
The hounds are barking at the door of American families, we need help, real help the big 3 are in trouble and so are the working families of this great country.You guys are concentrating on the wrong thing.Free up the people from their debt and the economy will boom again.The bail out is freeing up big business with our money so that they can live a little while longer, well wake up people if the people do not have they can build all that they want autos will be stockpiled and backed up to the assembly lines.We the people need a stimulus package, a real stimulus package, the minimum should be 25,000.00 per married couple (a man and a women)Credit and load companies will be paid what is owed to them autos will be purchased homes will be caught up. We need to get our pride back, there is no loyalty. This is the greatest country on the face of this planet, we need to buy American and American only
Posted by: G-MR. DO GOOD | December 8, 2008, 1:53 pm 1:53 pm
Wouldn’t “car commissar” be a more accurate description than “car czar”?
Posted by: vancav | December 8, 2008, 2:03 pm 2:03 pm
UAW ENDORSED OBAMA…Pay back time Barry………CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN..
Posted by: CW | December 8, 2008, 2:13 pm 2:13 pm
Someone said we should buy American cars. Well the Big 3 just said they goofed, they did not make good cars..so why would I spend my hardearned money to buy a car that’s not good? Perhaps they should all be fired and let some competent workers make better cars. All I know is I had 280 SX Nissan for thirteen years with no problems…I now have another Nissan for 6 years..no problems to date. I had 3 Fords prior to that and all of them needed brakes every 20,000 miles or so and by 50,000 I had to sell them..transmission fell out of one of them. And we should buy American? Let them wake up and stop bailing out people that aren’t doing a good job and are just greedy! You don’t see Nissan, Toyota or Honda begging for money.
Posted by: Barb | December 8, 2008, 3:21 pm 3:21 pm
While Mr. O is building his cabinet, having news conferences, planning his administration, Mr. B is having parties and house shopping. Mr. O cannot take over as president until Mr. B is out. Mr. B isn’t going to resign – that would make Mr. C (the real president anyway) president for a month. No real change there. Can we hold off on criticism of Mr. O until he actually becomes president and can do something? just a suggestion…
Posted by: NatFrankie | December 8, 2008, 3:40 pm 3:40 pm
NatFrankie: Do we have your permission to criticize Mr. O for the years he was in the U.S. Senate and failed to discuss, let alone, introduce any legislation addressing these problems?
Posted by: vancav | December 8, 2008, 3:49 pm 3:49 pm
Natfrankie
I am just preparing to give barry O the same level of respect the media and other “open-minded” liberals have given President Bush over the past 8 years.
Oh, and the fact that barry is an anti-American, socialist, racist sweet-talker also helps to speed up our premature criticism of him.
Posted by: keepthechange | December 8, 2008, 3:58 pm 3:58 pm
Lookup, are you a moron or just trying to be funny. How could the current mess be attributed to ACORN? Get your head out of FOX news and use your common sense will you?
Posted by: Mark | December 8, 2008, 5:15 pm 5:15 pm
To Play, or Not to Play——
Why do think PEBO resigned from the Senate so quickly?! He didn’t want his fingerprints on any of this stuff going down. Not the TARP bailout, not the BEG3 bailout. This is typical Obama—- simply vote “present”. Don’t kid your self; he has every opportunity to be as involved as he would like to be. The fact is he wants to be able to claim “It wasn’t me”! He has no desire to be responsible for anything at this point. Wait and see, after Jan. 20, anything that happens that’s not good, “wasn’t me” ! He won’t hesitate for a second to throw any of his staff under the bus, as long as he can keep his empty suit clean. It is simply not appropriate or acceptable for him to sit silent, in the background and claim to have no responsibility. Obama, in fact has every right and responsibility to promote what he believes to be in the best interests of the country. But why should he change his approach to government and leadership at this point in time? After all, he has achieved his personal goal of being elected President through a political philosophy of staying out of the path of conflict. At this point in time, he doesn’t even have to vote “present”. He can simply sit back and do nothing! Wow, what a great leader we have!
Posted by: roscoe02 | December 8, 2008, 5:25 pm 5:25 pm
As for mmonroeliveson,
You’re even more ignorant than Lookup. To imply that Carter is responsible for the current mess is even more absurd than implying ACORN is. You right wing wackos are scarier than any liberal I’ve met.
Posted by: Mark | December 8, 2008, 5:28 pm 5:28 pm
Mark,
Since you are a liberal no doubt, that is not very “open-minded” of you calling people “morons”.
As for ACORN and the current housing crisis, of course the 2 are related. ACORN staged sit-ins at banks in Chicago that were purely meant to intimidate the CEO’s/shareholders into repealing some of their lending standards in order to achive “affordable housing”. They were reportedly following the CEO’s kids to school, harassing the CEO’s outside of the banks, ect.
Have you not heard barry O when he said, and I quote, “get in their face and make them listen to you”.
Groups like ACORN, tied with people like the robin hood democrats, have nearly bankrupted this country, which is probably what liberals want since they don’t like America anyways.
Posted by: keepthechange | December 8, 2008, 5:29 pm 5:29 pm
I must humbly and factually state, the obvious; the venom and highly questionable assertions you ‘hate mongers’ hide behind (in disparaging Pres. – Elect Barack Obama) is a ‘bit more than’ ignorance and/or stupidity? (Think about it…..) Anyone with basic intelligence can see through your “smoke screens.” Get over it!!! Or does your patriotism give you the right to be disrespectful of the office of the U. S. President?
Posted by: bobj72 | December 8, 2008, 5:29 pm 5:29 pm
Sorry that’s liberalsaresocialists not
mmonroeliveson
Posted by: mark | December 8, 2008, 5:29 pm 5:29 pm
keepthechange, you’re a moron too. And no I’m not a “liberal”. Get off your high-horse about loving this country and the liberals hating it. It’s getting old. The fact is that greed put us where we are today. Republican, Democratic, liberal, conservative, put any name you want on it, greed has no distinction. I would hope that you had enough intelligence to know that no organization (see:ACORN) can force banks to make bad loans with no income verification or qualification. This has been going on since 2000 (not since Carter for God sakes as some other idiot proposed). Get your facts straight, then post.
Posted by: mark | December 8, 2008, 5:36 pm 5:36 pm
Mark
The Reinvestment act, brought about by one the WORST presidents in history, is directly responsible for this mess. It opened the door to give robinhood liberals full power to FORCE banks into wiping away their lending standards. If they didn’t comply, you know what LIBERALS like BARNEY FRANK,ACORN, BARRY O, CHUCK SCHUMER, HARRY REID,WOULD SAY??? “YOU REPUBLICANS JUST DON’T LIKE POOR PEOPLE”. Of course there was greedy people at the top, both dems and repubs, which should be dealt with through prison sentences. However, this whole entitlement mentallity is directly related to… you guessed it, the liberals!
Did you happen to catch Barney Frank on Larry kind the other day? he was spouting about “income equality”. The man, along with his liberal friends, are socialists.
As for liberals not liking America… sorry but the truth hurts. Did I mention they are traitors as well?
Posted by: keepthechange | December 8, 2008, 6:05 pm 6:05 pm
mark: You said no one can make banks make bad loans? Have you not heard of redlining suits, where banks are sued for discriminatory lending practices? Most of the suits have nothing to do with racial discrimination. Instead, the neighborhoods where the banks do not want to do business are generally inhabited with high risk borrowers, who in many cases happen to be black, latino or some other protected minority. In short, the banks are given the choice to either make bad loans or no loans at all. Jackson, Sharpton, and ACORN are knee deep in this shake down business, and in fact, Jackson wanted Congress to tie the bank bailouts to tougher anti-redlining laws. One of Obama’s rare court appearances was a redlining case back in 1995.
Posted by: vancav | December 8, 2008, 6:13 pm 6:13 pm
To both keepthechange and vancav,
You two, and your irrational positions on the cause of the current economic mess are annoying to say the least. One of you (keepthechange)point to policies of an administration that was in existence over 30 years ago as the cause of the current crisis. This absurdity isn’t even worth my comment. The other (vancav), while a little more current in your current events, is still off the deep end by assuming power with which a small group, ACORN, can have on the banking industry. Instead of looking for data to fit your viewpoints, why not look for valid data to fit the cause???
Posted by: Mark | December 8, 2008, 6:23 pm 6:23 pm
Mark
ACORN received over $500 million from a democratic congress. This is not some obscure group we are talking about. This is a group that had some major pull over the legislative process, and with the socialists chanting for them in washington, got a lot done in the way of “affordable housing” (aka forcing banks to give loans to people who could NEVER pay them back).
You really are not a arguing facts here, just the same old anti-capitalist attitude that plagues most liberals. GREED GREED GREED!
I’m pretty sure that was Karl Marx’s reasoning for the need to “spread the wealth around” too.
Posted by: keepthechange | December 8, 2008, 6:35 pm 6:35 pm
Keepthechange,
Listen to yourself. “ACORN received $500M from a democratic congress”. I assume you’re referring to 2006?, 2007? Because we had a Republican congress since 1994. And all the weight of the current economic crises falls on what happened since 2006 or 2007, because of the lending practices of the banks that were “forced” upon them by the democrats? In fact, the current problem has been years and years in the making with a lack of oversight and regulation in the lending industry. I’m not what you so quickly call a “liberal”, but it is fairly obvious that you are digging for data to fit your twisted political views. You would better serve yourself and this country you so gloriously say that you like by looking for a solution rather than a near-sighted causation.
Posted by: Mark | December 8, 2008, 6:59 pm 6:59 pm
One more point, Mr. Keepthechange,
Not to grant your comments one bit of validity whatsoever, but $500M is small potatoes in the big scheme of things. The only merit in finding the CORRECT cause (as if there’s one and only one) of the current economic crisis is to make sure it doesn’t happen again for the same set of reasons. Going around spewing nonsense about liberal this and liberal that doesn’t help. You can see how well the ‘hate mongoring’ did in getting McCain elected.
Posted by: Mark | December 8, 2008, 7:50 pm 7:50 pm
Liberals are socialist and Keep the change! LOL, your posts are Great!
Posted by: RespectfulandFrightenedCitizen | December 8, 2008, 7:57 pm 7:57 pm
RespectfulandFrightenedCitizen,
If you’re truly frightened, try turning off FOX news. I’m sure everything will be just fine for you after that.
Posted by: Mark | December 8, 2008, 8:00 pm 8:00 pm
Mark
When will you spit out the kool-aid?
The lending industry for YEARS operated smoothly. Why? Because those in it did not give loans easily to those with shady employment histories, those with an inability to afford a downpayment, and those with no good credit history. In other words, they “regulated” themselves pretty well. Guess who changed all that- the robinhood liberals.Barry O, along with ACORN, Community Reinvestment Act, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer…the list goes on.
Have you listened to some of the hearings the senate held as recently as 2years ago when the democrats are screamining from the rooftops that any pressure on Fannie and Freddie to tighten up their lending practices will only decrease affordable housing (that is a direct quote from barney frank)
As someone pointed out to you earlier, the redlining suits were also very instrumental in this crisis, where the banks were sued for supposed discriminatory lending practices (and your dear leader lead the charge in that dept, too, being the community AGITATOR that he was).
Posted by: keepthechange | December 8, 2008, 9:01 pm 9:01 pm
Mark
I blame everything on liberals because it usually always their fault. Our founding fathers were conservatives…
small gov’t
small taxes
large military
self reliance for citizens
Liberals are the direct opposite of EVERYTHING just listed.
The days of democrats talking sensibly are over. “Ask not what your country can do for you but what can you do for your country” has somehow turned into “spread the wealth around”.
Shoving entitlements down people’s throats is a modern form of slavery and the democrats have mastered it perfectly.
Posted by: keepthechange | December 8, 2008, 9:29 pm 9:29 pm
jchilman: “take control”? Are you suggesting that Obama stage some sort of coup one month before inauguration? By the way, when you are offered a new job, do you just barge in the day after your interview and insist on sharing the cubicle with the person you’re replacing throughout their 2 weeks notice?
Posted by: 1bluestocking | December 8, 2008, 10:14 pm 10:14 pm
Keepthechange, your senseless rambling is getting old. I’ve heard this argument a million times and a million times if falls on its face. Do you happen to know the laws, and I mean how they are written, that govern lending practices? Probably not, in fact, you’re probably just spewing out garbage heard on the Fox News channel. Educate yourself, keep your slanted political views out of it, and make a level-headed, fair analysis. Other than that, you and you ultra right wing wackos can always leave if you don’t like what you perceive as the future.
Posted by: Mark | December 8, 2008, 10:17 pm 10:17 pm
Amen Keepthechange! Our founding fathers were conservatives…
small gov’t
small taxes
large military
self reliance for citizens
May I add, The framers of the Constitution expected a limited federal government. They viewed the Constitution as a contract between citizens and government, designed to restrain the fed from undue intrusion into our bedrooms and our wallets. For example, the father of the Constitution, James Madison, vehemently objected to a 1792 congressional appropriation of $15,000 to assist some French refugees. Madison wrote, I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
Posted by: RespectfulandFrightenedCitizen | December 8, 2008, 10:49 pm 10:49 pm
Hey Mark, FYI-Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn’t even get the Senate to vote on the matter. That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then.”
Posted by: RespectfulandFrightenedCitizen | December 8, 2008, 10:57 pm 10:57 pm
Mr. RespectfulandFrightenedCitizen,
Thank god we have advanced/evolved/improved since the 1700′s. Are you living in a time warp or something? Wake up, it’s 2008! Are you part of the 20% that approve of Bush? Probably.
Posted by: Mark | December 8, 2008, 11:00 pm 11:00 pm
Mark
Are you part of the 20% of liberals who actually like America?
To answer your question, Yes! I am giving my stamp of approval on GW Bush’s presidency. The man has kept this country safe despite liberals best efforts to hault EVERY piece of anti-terror legislation he proposed.
-they have praised chavev for calling Bush satan.
-they make anti-American war “documentaries” when America is in the middle of a war! Redacted and Farenhiet 911 are comparable to joe goebelles propaganda for the levels of truth they contain.
-they have called Bush a sponsor of torture for reportedly dropping water down terrorists noses.
-they have called Bush to be impeached for the Patriot Act (which has thwarted numerous terrorist plans to hit the broolyn brige, sears tower)
-they invite holocaust denying, American soldier murdering tyrants to speak at their colleges.
Has Bush been perfect-no. Has he kept this country safe- yes.
Posted by: keepthechange | December 9, 2008, 12:26 am 12:26 am
If, like me, you oppose all the bailouts, then vote against the politicians who have supported them. This goes beyond party lines. You can vote against the Big Three with your pocketbook. I have already contacted them to say that they will not receive any more sales dollars if they take my tax dollars in a bailout. We are at 8.5 trillion in bailouts now, which is about $60,000 per household. Enough is enough already.
Posted by: James R | December 9, 2008, 3:07 am 3:07 am
Congress is selling the Auto bailout, like, we American people should be backing this,I say Not.Behind every Company no matter how big it is, has a owner.So handing billions of dollars over to these 3 Company’s is really giving their owners Billions of dollars.Now dont you all think these owners are allready Billion’ers.And the Employee’s are making around what 60 dollars + per hour.I make 8.50 per hour, I need to be bailed out, not some company who is allready a Billion’er, or not even its employee’s who make 7-8 times more per hour then I do.
Posted by: Demo Rules | December 9, 2008, 7:40 am 7:40 am
KeeptheChange,
Since you are part of the 20% of Americans that support Bush (see:Moron) I suppose you are also part of that crowd that thinks just because people oppose the war in IRAQ that they are anti-american? You have been brainwashed beyond all belief. In case you didn’t know, the real war is in Afganistan as that region is the true threat to us and the rest of the civilized world. Spending billions in the wrong war, just to have a presence for oil is WRONG. When we get a president with an IQ above 20, then we will begin to make progress.
Posted by: Mark | December 9, 2008, 11:35 am 11:35 am
Keepthechange,
You should learn how to spell also. It’s Fahrenheit. And yes, that movie was slanted left with underlying truths to expose the insanity.
Posted by: Mark | December 9, 2008, 11:40 am 11:40 am
KeeptheChange,
Truthfully, I can’t understand how even 20% of Americans can approve of Bush. It is painfully obvious that the country was lied to with the whole WMD fiasco. He was simply carrying out what he felt his father failed to finish under the pretext of “terrorism” and 9/11 retribution. Not to mention the obvious interest in the OIL. Next time somebody acts out violently against you our one of your friends/relatives, make sure you go kick your dog in retaliation, because he has a lot to do with it.
Posted by: Mark | December 9, 2008, 12:01 pm 12:01 pm