Memo to McCain: There are no saints in America, not even St. Ronnie
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
Memo to McCain: There are no saints in America, not even St. Ronnie
The former president is certainly a suitable subject for public debate. His supporters credit him with forcing down the Iron Curtain, so it is odd that some of them have helped create the Soviet-style chill embedded in the idea that we, as a nation, will not allow critical portrayals of one of our own recent leaders.
-- New York Times editorial, Nov. 5, 2003.
Anyone feeling a cold blast tonight? I am, and it's coming courtesy of Sen. John McCain, the man who might have been sitting in the Oval Office tonight as the 44th president -- if the economy had only waited two months longer to tank, and had Sarah Palin not made the acquaintance of one Katie Couric. In his race for the White House, McCain's effort to prove to the GOP's right wing that he wasn't really a moderate-to-conservative-to-liberal-to-conservative-again flip flopper led him to grab the Ronald Reagan mantle so hard he practically ripped it right out the fireplace.
He said he'd been a foot soldier in the "Reagan Revolution" and made a fantastical claim about celebrating Reagan's political ascent from his Hanoi prison cell -- while ignoring the reality that as a center-right newcomer to Congress in the 1980s, he frequently criticized the Gipper and opposed him as often as one-third of the time. Whatever..it was politics, and it still didn't get him to the White House.
But the election is over now, and I find this pretty disturbing. McCain is saying that he may vote against an Obama appointee for the sole reason that the nominee made what strikes me as a fairly tepid criticism of the 40th president, in a comment that was really aimed at George W. Bush. Check this out:
Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain today denounced as “highly offensive” remarks about Ronald Reagan made by President Barack Obama’s nominee for the number two spot at the Department of the Interior.
At a nomination hearing for David Hayes for deputy secretary of Interior, the former Republican presidential candidate read aloud from an article that Hayes wrote in April 2006 which drew unfavorable comparisons between former President George W. Bush and Reagan.
When the headline came over in a Google news alert today and I read the first paragraph, I prepared to cringe -- what Hayes said about Reagan, who died on 2004 and whose widow Nancy is still alive -- must have been truly awful, right? But here's what Hayes wrote in 2006:
“Like Ronald Reagan before him, President Bush has embraced the Western stereotype to the point of adopting some of its affectations—the boots, brush-clearing, and get-the-government-off-our-backs bravado.”
Where's the blasphemy? Reagan and much more so Bush really were urban cowboys with a strange obsession for brush clearing that seemed to evaporate the same hour their presidencies expired, when the Reagans headed for a tony, supporter-built mansion in the L.A. hills while Bush abandoned Crawford for the mall district of Dallas. "Bravado" can be a politically loaded word, to be sure, but...."highly offensive"? Really, John McCain (who once told this joke about Chelsea Clinton, but I disgress...)? McCain actually said he may not vote for Hayes because of the Reagan remark.
Last time I checked, this is America, not the Vatican. We are a nation with heroes by the boatloads, but no civic saint. No public figure, living or dead, should be immune from legitimate criticism -- to seek to block a person from a political office for making such a relatively innocuous public writing is chilling indeed. That such an anti-speech move would come from the man who almost placed his right hand on the Bible to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution..." is appalling. America will never solve its problems of the present without honest appraisals of past leaders like Reagan, warts and all.
As a quick footnote tonight, on the same subject of tearing down myths, kudos to a Republican state senator from California named Roy Ashburn, who voted for a budget that included tax increases to keep the Golden State from plunging into the abyss. Ashburn staved off a recall drive by noting he was just following the example of Reagan, who enacted the largest tax increase in U.S. state history as California governor in 1967. I guess facts really are stubborn things, after all.
(Photo at top from Buzzflash)
Comments (126)
In 1983 Reagan had a committee on Social Security{ see p. 60 of your book]which cut in half the Social Security Benefits for Civil Service workers who earned both Social Security and a Government Pension.— relene
Comment removed.- I am constantly amazed by the comments on this site. Every article is not a partisan call to arms. He made a very valid and middle of the road point. I was surprised when I didnt see McCain in cowboy boots during the campaign. A large section of the population really buys into that. I wish we could have intelligent discussions in the comments, instead of hate, apathy, and racism.— syrdude
Wil's novel on Reagan-Amazon.com Sales Rank: #3,249 in Books. In spite of his trying to goose sales but stupid blog posts, it continues to PLUNGE.— georgel- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Memo to Willy: The first step in your recovery of your unhealthy obsession of Reagan is admitting you have a problem.....you can do this!— camtheman
- As long as the GOP continues to worship Reagan, the closer they get to being a third party. Do let the door hit you on the way out.— WDRussell
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- ----}}} ... biggest lier ....---{{{ Say, Fisher - you don't happen to know anyone named "Arn," do you?— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} TPS and Plebanista's utopian wet dream. {{{--- Brilliant analysis, Dom. You read me like a book. I would just love to live in a country where there is no freedom of speech and almost everyone's dirt poor. In fact, I'd move tomorrow - but I hear that you can't get American Idol there, and as a patriot, I must watch any show that has "American" in the title. It really is amazing how ARTs are willing to suspend any semblance of logic in order to red-bait "libz."— Talking point sleuth
- Talking point sleuth: not one dime has been release in the stimulus package and Obama earlier in the week took credit that the course for policeman was because of the stimulus package. Get real. Look yourself in the mirror and realize you are the biggest lier in Philadelphia.— Fisher
- Poor Gipper. Dead all these years and his supporters still worship him. Bill Clinton lied during a deposition about a BJ and the yahoos cry for his head. Their sainted Reagan, several times under oath, couldn't remember or didn't know if he let Ollie North violate the law by selling arms to the contras to pay off mid-East terrorists. God forbid a president has sex, but it's okay to violate the laws defending our country. Their saint countered the deaths of 280 Marines in Beirut by attacking that power Grenada. And why do republican presidents always invade weak countries to show how tough they are? Maybe McCain should think about that comparison of Reagan with bush. If bush was really serious about stopping a dictator who killed thousands of his own people, why didn't he attack N. Korea or China. Oh right, they DO have WMDs. Poor righties, must be tough believing in heroes with feet of clay.— mike l
- Will, seriously, did Reagan kick you in the nuts in college during your class field trip to DC? This is scary, man. McCain can't have an opinion? Oh wait, we're moving towards becoming more like Cuba, okay. TPS and Plebanista's utopian wet dream.— Domenic
- "it seems reasonable that it would take at least a year for him to do so. If he fails to demonstrate a serious intent to reform the process over one year, he should be held accountable." Agreed. I would hope that you would agree that we would be less skeptical if he didn't just sign a budget that incleded earmarks co-sponsored by a certain Senator Obama last yeat worth $7.7 million for a pet project for Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational Institutions. He got his name removed as a sponsor last week...rather than removing the entire earmark as a sign of his resolve. Also, there were $38.4 million of earmarks co-sponsored by President Obama’s labor secretary, Hilda Solis; $109 million Hillary Clinton which signed on to; and $31.2 million in earmarks sought by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.— legatus
By the way, there is at least one "civic saint" in this country, at least out here in flyover country. It's Elvis.- ---}}} ---}} I don't think that he has yet accomplished this promise, has he? {{{--- Not yet, no. But fact is, frightwingers are spreading lies, such as batboy just did. It does seem unfair to saddle him with responsibility for previous bills, and after being in office for so short a time and given the current economic situation, it would seem reasonable to assess his promise after next year's budget process. If he is intending to live up to his promises to reform the earmarks process, it seems reasonable that it would take at least a year for him to do so. If he fails to demonstrate a serious intent to reform the process over one year, he should be held accountable.— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- "and general upheaval in the country" . . . . Really? I thought it was just malaise. Carter's main problem was a lack of effective communication skills, especially compared to Reagan. His attempt to boost morale (his infamous malaise speech) ended up being a downer. He really inherited much of the economic mess from an even less effectual President Ford, but couldn't fix it in time for re-election. I was a poli sci student at the time, doing a research paper on "elite power" theory, arguing that his administration - despite the campaign rhetoric of being a simple farmer and a Washington outsider - was just more of the same military-industrial establishment in control. However, the only upheaval (psychological) for me was having to run down to the post office (Wildwood NJ, 1980) to register for the draft after the Russians invaded Afghanistan. That was a scary summer, salvaged only by the Phils winning the series.
- "The truth is, our earmark system in Washington is fraught with abuse. It badly needs reform — which is why I didn't request a single earmark last year, why I've released all my previous requests for the public to see, and why I've pledged to slash earmarks by more than half when I am president of the United States of America." Barack Obama, September 22, 2008. I don't think that he has yet accomplished this promise, has he? The omnibus bill spends $12.8B in earmarks. The spending bills that were already passed spends $16.1B in earmarks. Where I come from, $28.9 billion is not exactly chump change.— legatus
- I don't know if anyone watch the Daily Show last night but Stewart ripped Cramer a new a-hole. How sad is it when a comdey cable channel has a better grasp of the failing economy and it's causes than our financial news organizatiions! Booya!— chasing history
- ---}}} This new TPS blog sucks. {{{--- So says Attytood's equivalent of Todd (Aligator Arms) Pinkston - as he awaits the next Brian Dawkins-like body slam of another of his dearly held fallacies.— Talking point sleuth
This new TPS blog sucks.— ocjones- You know, batboy, you really should check out what you hear from Hannity, et al., before you make such a fool of yourself by repeating false statements.— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} Your boy promised it would be 0%. {{{--- Really? Or did he agree that earmarks are a problem - even as he correctly pointed out that they are a relatively small part of the budget - and say that he would examine earmarks to eliminate those that are wasteful? I mean, he must have said he would cut them to 0% - right? Because you wouldn't say he said so if he actually hadn't, right? I mean it's not like you aren't always 100% factual in your posts, right? Lol!— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- con't... But the Enron loophole was small potatoes compared to the devastation that unregulated swaps would unleash. Credit default swaps are essentially insurance policies covering the losses on securities in the event of a default. Financial institutions buy them to protect themselves if an investment they hold goes south. It's like bookies trading bets, with banks and hedge funds gambling on whether an investment (say, a pile of subprime mortgages bundled into a security) will succeed or fail. Because of the swap-related provisions of Gramm's bill—which were supported by Fed chairman Alan Greenspan and Treasury secretary Larry Summers—a $62 trillion market (nearly four times the size of the entire US stock market) remained utterly unregulated, meaning no one made sure the banks and hedge funds had the assets to cover the losses they guaranteed. In essence, Wall Street's biggest players (which, thanks to Gramm's earlier banking deregulation efforts, now incorporated everything from your checking account to your pension fund) ran a secret casino. "Tens of trillions of dollars of transactions were done in the dark," says University of San Diego law professor Frank Partnoy, an expert on financial markets and derivatives. "No one had a picture of where the risks were flowing." Betting on the risk of any given transaction became more important—and more lucrative—than the transactions themselves, Partnoy notes: "So there was more betting on the riskiest subprime mortgages than there were actual mortgages." Banks and hedge funds, notes Michael Greenberger, who directed the cftc's division of trading and markets in the late 1990s, "were betting the subprimes would pay off and they would not need the capital to support their bets."— Talking point sleuth
- con't. It's not exactly like Gramm hid his handiwork—far from it. The balding and bespectacled Texan strode onto the Senate floor to hail the act's inclusion into the must-pass budget package. But only an expert, or a lobbyist, could have followed what Gramm was saying. The act, he declared, would ensure that neither the sec nor the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (cftc) got into the business of regulating newfangled financial products called swaps—and would thus "protect financial institutions from overregulation" and "position our financial services industries to be world leaders into the new century." It didn't quite work out that way. For starters, the legislation contained a provision—lobbied for by Enron, a generous contributor to Gramm—that exempted energy trading from regulatory oversight, allowing Enron to run rampant, wreck the California electricity market, and cost consumers billions before it collapsed. (For Gramm, Enron was a family affair. Eight years earlier, his wife, Wendy Gramm, as cftc chairwoman, had pushed through a rule excluding Enron's energy futures contracts from government oversight. Wendy later joined the Houston-based company's board, and in the following years her Enron salary and stock income brought between $915,000 and $1.8 million into the Gramm household.)— Talking point sleuth
- --snip-- Gramm's long been a handmaiden to Big Finance. In the 1990s, as chairman of the Senate banking committee, he routinely turned down Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Arthur Levitt's requests for more money to police Wall Street; during this period, the sec's workload shot up 80 percent, but its staff grew only 20 percent. Gramm also opposed an sec rule that would have prohibited accounting firms from getting too close to the companies they audited—at one point, according to Levitt's memoir, he warned the sec chairman that if the commission adopted the rule, its funding would be cut. And in 1999, Gramm pushed through a historic banking deregulation bill that decimated Depression-era firewalls between commercial banks, investment banks, insurance companies, and securities firms—setting off a wave of merger mania. But Gramm's most cunning coup on behalf of his friends in the financial services industry—friends who gave him millions over his 24-year congressional career—came on December 15, 2000. It was an especially tense time in Washington. Only two days earlier, the Supreme Court had issued its decision on Bush v. Gore. President Bill Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress were locked in a budget showdown. It was the perfect moment for a wily senator to game the system. As Congress and the White House were hurriedly hammering out a $384-billion omnibus spending bill, Gramm slipped in a 262-page measure called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Written with the help of financial industry lobbyists and cosponsored by Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the chairman of the agriculture committee, the measure had been considered dead—even by Gramm. Few lawmakers had either the opportunity or inclination to read the version of the bill Gramm inserted. "Nobody in either chamber had any knowledge of what was going on or what was in it," says a congressional aide familiar with the bill's history.— Talking point sleuth
- Actually, my memory of Phil Graham is limited to the Graham-Ruddman (sp?) act which sought to force the government to have a balanced budget, which I thought was an AMAZINGLY fabulous idea!! I never read through the bill, nor understood why the Supreme Court ruled it as unconstitutional.— IggleFan68
- hedgerowira83222: HAHAHAHA!! You call Reagan a "figurehead", baselessly accuse him of getting into office through back-doors with Iran (because Iran voted in the US elections??), you call Bush the "worst president in history" and you say I'M REGURGITATING?? You must have confused me making fun of you with your own lack of ability to research facts and make intelligent debate. Please enlighten me on exactly what Carter did that makes him not "the worst President in US history"?? Here's what I remember: double digit interest rates, inflation, lack of will to save Americans, gas lines, and general upheaval in the country.— IggleFan68
- Say, anyone ever hear of Phil Graham? Did that dude have anything to do with deregulating the financial sector? I'm sure, Iggy, that McCain wouldn't ever have anything to do with Graham if he had, right? I mean if McCain was allied with Graham, then you wouldn't have such confidence in what McCain would have done with the economy if he'd been elected. Right, Iggy?— Talking point sleuth
- "Could this be dubbed the Airport to Nowhere?" . . . . Don't assume its for the poor villagers there. This is more coprorate welfare for a seafood conglomerate (Trident) that has fishing operations there.
- Commodity Futures Modernization Act anyone? Which president signed off on that one? Does anyone know if that act had any relationship to the credit crisis?— Talking point sleuth
- Gee - who might have said this?: ""I will take an ink pen and I will veto every pork barrel earmark spending bill that comes across my desk."— Talking point sleuth
- "Reagan took responsibility because one of his staff did something" . . . Not to quibble about this, but Reagan's own memoirs indicate that the Israelis sought out his approval for the arms sales (tow missiles, I think) which he eventually gave. What Reagan denied was knowledge of North's diversion of funds to the Contras, but for which he assumed "responsibility" because, well, what else could he say? He was the President, and should have had control of his advisers.
- BTW - anyone have any idea what percentage of the omnibus apropriations bill comprises earmarks? Is it 50%? 90%? 15%? Less than 2%? Anyone have any idea? And while you're looking that up, check on how much of the earmarks were requested by Republicans, will you? You know, because it must be close to 0%, mustn't it? Otherwise, our Attytood Republican friends, who are such "fiscal conservatives" would never be such loyal Republicans, would they?— Talking point sleuth
- Oh yeah, but McCain's pick for vice-president was an anti-earmark activist. Lol! --snip-- Alaska will receive more money, per capita, from the bill's earmarks than any other state. (Alaska will pocket $209.71 for each state resident.) One hundred earmarks in the bill, worth a total of $143.9 million, are tagged for Palin's state.....The earmarks that Palin apparently will accept could also be ridiculed in a McCain-ish fashion. They include $475,000 to construct a "heritage center" in the Chilkat Indian Village; $150,000 to support private industry participation in two international fishery groups; $200,000 for investigating and prosecuting bootlegging; $200,000 for researching the king crab; and $855,000 for building fairgrounds. The Alaska earmarks also include $1.2 million for construction work on an airport on Akutan, a tiny island that relies on seaplane for contact with the Alaskan mainland. (The Coast Guard handles medical emergencies.) The island has roughly 800 residents. Could this be dubbed the Airport to Nowhere?— Talking point sleuth
- Not only have I criticized Clinton's administration in terms of it's economic policies, I've called out Summers, in particular, as the architect of many of those policies under Clinton - and criticized Obama for placing a proven failure such as Summers in an instrumental player in his administration. Even after his laughable claims that he can misquote me and justify the misquotes by using "single-quotation marks," bp never ceases to impress with his total lack of credibility. Fact is, however, that deregulation of the banking sector, along with attacking the very idea of government playing a regulatory and oversight role in economic matters, has been a fundamental plank of the Republican platform for decades. Check out McCain's decades of policy statements on those issues if you need any proof. So much for Iggy's confidence in what policies McCain would have implemented had he not catered to the angry Republican base and picked Palin as his attack dog/running mate and given himself an actual chance to win the election.— Talking point sleuth
- iggle, can't speak for Zues, but again I would refer you to Bob Dornan. Now Dornan may be full of it (you be the judge), but just to show you that its not a hate-filled leftist who's been outspoken in criticizing McCain as a political opportunist and liar about his POW years.
- ---}}} I think he would have picked a better Treasury Secretary. {{{--- Lol! Iggy, check out who McCain said he'd tap to head the SEC, and then get back to me.— Talking point sleuth
- Very classy Zues. You are probably right. The guy broke his own arms and legs so bad he cant lift him arms and he walks with a shuffling limp. You are just another hate filled liberal.— jwad56
- Zues -- are you really trying to say that McCain's years as a POW "weren't all that bad"??? **WoW*** "News", I would imagine, would come in from new POWs, as well as propaganda from the Viet Cong. Could you please detail the sacrifices that you and Will have made for our country that compare with what John McCain did? I mean, there are legitimate points to attack McCain on... Questioning whether being held prisoner away from your family and friends for 6+ years was really as bad as it sounds is hardly one of them...— IggleFan68
- igglefan68: just like a republican, can not think of anything on your own so you vomit what you read and hear. Bush baby had 8 years to make your utopia , so why didn't he? It was him and his buddies like Paulson who looked the other way , the finger pointing falls squarely on Bush the worst president in US history.— hejira33312
- ET, those that fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat the failures! As for the article, I think Will is trying to get you GOP'ers to question the legitimacy of Mr. McCain's words. How does one follow American politics in a Hanoi prison? He tells stories of how bad prison was and how he was tortured...What none of you gop shells question is how bad did he really have it? when your the son of a major Admiral, even as a pow, you are treated fairly well. How else could he get news from America. torture at 9am, then its CNN and the NYT's until lunch, then more torture. McCain can't have it both ways. He is a liar. And bunch calls him on it.— Zues
- "Obama is a puppet, a figure head with nothing but name recognition and the ability to hold a crowds attention. He got into office thru back office deals with the liberal Democrats and he bankrupted thousands with his bungling of the economy. He was no saint!" Fixed.— IggleFan68
- Reagan was a puppet , a figure head with nothing but name recognition and the ability to hold a crowds attention. He got into office thru back office deals with the Iranians and he killed thousands with his denial of the aids epidemic. He was no saint!— hejira33312
- Chasing - here is an area where you can clearly see the difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives hated Clinton, and do not like Obama (though Obama may be infinitely more dangerous then Clinton). Conservatives thought that Clinton was morally bereft (he is)and unfit for the Presidency (all hypocrisy aside, apparently you can be morally bereft and still be a Senator, Governor, and congressman, just not president). Liberals HATED 'W' with every fiber of their being, and called him every name in the book -- nazi, fascist, idiot, liar, murderer, criminal (whereas, the only criminal to date is Clinton, the one who admitted to lying under oath). You do not see real conservatives "hate" with anywhere near the same invective. The criticisms are based on either policy, PROVEN moral failings, and are less based on name-calling. This is outside of Hannity, who really just repeats the same thing every day, but somehow gets ratings.— IggleFan68
- Comment removed.
- " Bush continued the deregulation and made the situation so much worse." What was deregulated under Bush II?— Fisher
- Oh the meltdown on the current GOP is a joy to behold. They don't know whether to sh*t or wind their wrist watch. lol— chasing history
- James TL -- I agree with your point that Obama is not to blame for the overall mess that the economy is in (credit crisis, mortgage crisis, unemployment). He does, however, have responsibility for driving down the stock market past where it should have gone, and now has the full responsibility to fix the mess he has inherited. He can always say, "I didn't cause it", but if he doesn't fix it, we will have a new President in 2013. Employers hire high quality people to fix tough problems -- the President needs to be able to fix the toughest problems that exist.— IggleFan68
- Ronnie Rocks!!!— jjfalcon35
- Clinton had a hand in it but his involvement was just the beginning. Bush continued the deregulation and made the situation so much worse. It was inevidable that the system would fail. If Bush/Cheney didn't agree with what Clinton did then why didn't they change it? They had 6 years of congressional majorities (albeit small ones). Obama is totally blameless in this. Fifty-something days is not enough time to fix what the republicans left him.— James TL
- MSL -- Reagan took responsibility because one of his staff did something, and good leaders don't pass the buck. The Woodward book lays it all out -- Reagan had explicitly said that he did not think that any weapons of any signficance or quantity were sold to Iran, and he did not authorize any such transaction. The Woodward book talks about it in the context of how every President since Nixon was impacted by Watergate and the special prosecutors. Woodward commented that by Reagan coming directly to the country, he pretty much defused the issue, in sharp contrast to what Nixon and Bill Clinton did during their scandals.— IggleFan68
- BP, you've got selective memory than, because I'm fairly certain I've read TPS say that Clinton aided and abetted in the deregulation frenzy. There are lots of liberals than saw Clinton as a DINO. Not really grumpy, just tired of being nice to stupid people who can't defend or flesh out their own statements, and instead just spit vitrol at "libz".— RG
- Comment removed.
- "REAGAN did not sell weapons to Iran." . . . . No, Israel did the selling with Reagan's explicit approval. Ollie was directing the proceeds to illegally fund the Contras. Reagan later told the nation (after months of hiding in the White House) that, aw shucks, he did wrong and took full responsibility.
- Thats great, bp. Thanks for another wonderful round of "Clinton did it too". Now remind me when any of us stated the Clinton made the right decision there.— RG
- Batty, we know you're just a fan of bunch. Admit it, you'll feel alot better about yourself.
- Comment removed.
- "Again, with the stomping of the feet and the name-calling" If I remember correctly, you kicked things off by calling Will a whiner, iapparently n defense of McCain. All while completely confusing the issue of Hayes' opinion and McCain's rationale for potentially voting against his appointment.— RG
- Chasing... Again, you expose your own idiocy. REAGAN did not sell weapons to Iran. Slick Ollie North did, going against Reagan's expressed position that no weapons of any significance should be sold to Iran (See Bob Woodward's book "Shadow" as the source for this info). Facts can INDEED be stubborn things. That's probably why Chasing can never be bothered to use any.— IggleFan68
- Archimedes -- unintentionally, you raise an interesting point -- where would we be under McCain/Palin right now? I would actually venture a guess that we would be better off, because he would have had the stones to veto a stimulus bill that had as much ridiculous stuff thrown in there as this one did. I think he would have picked a better Treasury Secretary. Remember -- Johnny Mac has a LOT of years of experience in Washington, and has lots of friends on both sides of the aisle. Your (and the loonie libs) lumping of Palin in there is to try to say that Sarah would ruin the government. Really? What's "Foot in Mouth" Joe been up to? Obama has pretty much banished him from the spotlight -- I saw a Today show excerpt which said that they've even gone so far as to make it clear to the press that anything Joe says is his own personal opinion, not even close to representing a government position on anything (which is ABSOLUTELY the right thing to do). So see!! I, as a conservative, agree with something Obama did.— IggleFan68
- Comment removed.
- "Hey MSL would that be the same Bob Dornan you lefties vilified and tried to discredit every time he spoke on any issue?" . . . Yep, every last issue except McCain, lol!
- What's the matter batty, Dornan is right about McCain?
- Sayings from the book of St. Ronnie: "History teaches that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap"; "The bombing begins in five minutes".
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Talking point sleuth Also based on information gathered from business leaders and constant beating from the market, he is meeting with his advisors today to attempt to right the ship. His lip service didn't work. He broke trust w 9000 earmarks and lobbist, so Wall st thinks he is unstable.— Fisher
- Talking point sleuth start reading NY Times, WSJ, and the Washington post. They have attacked Obama for his inability to calm the markets and bring about direction. when Wall st has no direction it sells quickly. How many Ivy League Wall St brokers does it take to state he's a failure. Oh wait you do not trust smart Ivy League types, but you election one. BTW Do you notice U of chicago and Harvard both attach is budget and stimulus package as worthless. why, he aint that smart and didnt get the msg.— Fisher
- "Batty, if you think that's bad, find out what Bob Dornan (wing-nut extraordinaire whose lips are permanently grafted to the military's behind), thinks about McCain's recollections."........Hey MSL would that be the same Bob Dornan you lefties vilified and tried to discredit every time he spoke on any issue?— ocjones
- Comment removed.
- "And if that wasn't bad enough, bunch feels the need to throw in some random hate questioning the recollections of a POW while he was incarcerated." . . . . Batty, if you think that's bad, find out what Bob Dornan (wing-nut extraordinaire whose lips are permanently grafted to the military's behind), thinks about McCain's recollections.
- bill.a, are your feelings hurt? Seems like you might be having a "sensitive" day. Bad liberals!— RG
- "but your added McCain quote does nothing to support your initial tantrum(s)." 'Cause you are too dumb to realize what it means. It means that during a hearing on an appointee, McCain felt it necessary to dredge up an old quote about Reagan and harangue Hayes about it. He could of been professional, and focused solely on policy/experience issues, but instead chose to bring up a grudge, 'cause he was oh so offended by Hayes' innocuous remarks. Thats flat out embarrassing.— RG
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- No, Dutchie, here's McCain's actual quote: "“So you had to throw Reagan in there?” McCain continued." I hope for his sake, he does have other reasons, otherwise he embarrassed himself in front of his colleagues by defending Reagan like a preteen would defend the Jonas Brothers.— RG
- Comment removed.
- "an indication of Obama's "failures" rather than (1) an indication that the stocks were unsustainable overvalued," I brought up this line of thinking to bryanc a few days ago. I was told I was incorrect. Interestingly enough, current P/E ratios are now within historical ranges, maybe slightly below. sicne th market tends to overshoot both ways, one would think this validated my point. But when you have a neat little preconceived narrative to espouse, why care about facts?— RG
- Apparently they don't realize that the laughable assertion that the stock market dropping is, somehow, an indication of Obama's "failures" rather than (1) an indication that the stocks were unsustainable overvalued, (2) reflective of much larger problems that have their origins in factors that were in place before Obama even started running for president, let alone won the election, and (3) inevitable given free-for-all created by the deregulation zealots in the Republican Party -- only further shows that they haven't learned anything from past mistakes.— Talking point sleuth
- What I find most intersting, RG, is that after years and years of believing that you should do a macro-level assessment of the economy on short-term metrics, and seeing how such "analysis" manifests in bubbles that collapse, the whining "it's all Obama's fault" schoolgirls still haven't learned from their past failures. For all their boasting about "real-world" understanding of the private sector, they sure seem awfully naive. You'd think that they'd realize that a 50% drop in the market might indicate that stock values were predicated upon unsustainable metrics, and that stock prices dropping could be an indicator that part of stabilizing the economy would necessitate more prudent PE valuations. You'd think that they'd realize that well on a year ago, a long-term view predicted stock values dropping significantly because of the ramifications of the sub-prime crises created by completely irresponsible behavior by the supposedly "self-regulating" free-market system. But no.— Talking point sleuth
- "So Hayes is entitled to his opinion -- with which you agree -- but McCain isn't -- because you don't like it? You really are a whiner." . . . . Hmmm, so by that standard, Democrats could have refused to vote for every single Bush appointee that had once said something derogatory about Clinton or Carter. My, how the political rules have changed, lol.
- Dutchie, read the friggin article, McCain's behavior is more suited for a reality TV show than the Halls of Congress. And yes, you are stupid, not because you disagree with me, but because you can't understand the difference between Hayes expressing his opinion and McCain's faux outrage at said opinion.— RG
- "Your act is getting old quickly." . . . . But yours is always fresh as a daisy?
- Comment removed.
- "for bunch being a bad person is "um, well, eh, YOU DID IT FIRST!"" so you're admitting you are a filthy scumbag willing to trash a serviceman's record when it suits your agenda? Good to know.— RG
- "I mean Obama caused the stock market to tank, and suddenly with nothing changing in his policies, the Dow rises by 9.5% in a week." It's amazing , isn't it? These are the same people who believe in the invisible hand and free markets, yet can now confidently blame the stock market collapse on 52 days of Obama. Whilst simultaneously denying that W had any affect on our current predicament.— RG
- Once again, OBSESSED. It's becoming SCARILY OBSESSED.— Bud Fox
- Comment removed.
- ---}}} ...Obama singlehandedly ruined it in 52 days. {{{--- Interesting, isn't it? I mean Obama caused the stock market to tank, and suddenly with nothing changing in his policies, the Dow rises by 9.5% in a week.— Talking point sleuth
- "So Hayes is entitled to his opinion -- with which you agree -- but McCain isn't --" What the f?!??!??! Do we have to draw you people a road map? McCain is an elected official who may vote against an appointee for an important position FOR NO OTHER REASON then he once dared criticize St. Ronnie. McCain sounds like a teenage girl by calling those remarks "highly offensive". The fact that you can't see the difference shows that you are either extremely stupid or extremely partisan.— RG
- Comment removed.
- "Why? Because they disagree with them politically. That's why they are the lunatic fringe." True, they also firmly believe that America is so weak that Obama singlehandedly ruined it in 52 days.— RG
- That's purple hearts, RG. as in multiple. Not to mention the Silver Star. There are no limits for the Hate Americans First crowd. They want the country to fail. They want their fellow Americans to suffer. They want them to lose their jobs. They want them to die. Why? Because they disagree with them politically. That's why they are the lunatic fringe. It's truly tragic... and sad. Not to mention pathetic.— E.Plebnista
- That's purple hearts, RG. as in multiple. Not to mention the Silver Star. There are no limits for the Hate Americans First crowd. They want the country to fail. They want their fellow Americans to suffer. They want them to lose their jobs. They want them to die. Why? Because they disagree with them politically. That's why they are the lunatic fringe. It's truly tragic... and sad. Not to mention pathetic.— E.Plebnista
- And you can always count on bill.a (batty) to be a cowardly partisan hack. Attacks on Kerry=OK, Attacks on McCain=Mommy they are being meanies again!— RG
- Comment removed.
- "There is something fundamentally wrong with a person who would stoop to that level of filth." I agree, but lets add those who would question someone's purple heart to the list of "filth".— RG
- Comment removed.
- Reagan was a traitor. He and his administration sold weapons to Iran illegally. And the neococonuts are crying because Obama wants to dialogue with Tehran. lol— chasing history
- Hey Will, why don't i see you writing about the umpteenth scandal in the Obama admin as you attacked the Bush admin. From yesterdays Washington Post, brings us this story which is conveniently swept under the carpet,,President Barack Obama's pick for federal chief information officer is on leave from his position following a raid by federal agents of his former offices and the arrest of two men in connection with a D.C. government corruption scandal. Speaking on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing, a White House official said Vivek Kundra is on leave from his post "until further details become known." Mr. Kundra served as D.C. Chief Technology Officer from 2007 until this year, when Mr. Obama selected him for the newly-created position. FBI agents raided the Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO) Thursday. Yusuf Acar, an OCTO employee, and Sushil Bansal, the chief executive officer of a D.C.-based information technology consulting company, have been arrested and appeared in U.S. District Court Thursday on charges of conspiracy to commit bribery and money laundering.— blombard
- "For you liberals, the cost of everything will be going up and our taxes as well. Until America takes the step to do without, we will be bleeding ourselves out." Fisher, its getting tiresome, but once again, check the rise of the debt to GDP ratios under Reagan and Bush II. They preached small gov, but practiced "don't tax and spend". The national debt DOUBLED under W. Throughtout the history of our Republic, we accumulated ~$5 tril in debt. In 8 short years, 2000-2008, we acucmulated another $5 tril. What did we get for that money? Small tax cuts and subsidized elections in Iraq. Whoopee. The Dems are no day at the beach, but at least they are willing to admit they'll raise taxes.— RG
- When you can't respond with a well thought out rebuttal a) resort to ad homenim attacks on the messanger, b) change the topic, c) wish death on someone. Must hurt an awful lot to watch the continued unravelling of the conservative movement. Maybe if guys weren't so prone to hyperbolic, hypocritical rants, and instead focused on coming up with fresh ideas for a changing world, the downward spiral would stop.— RG
- ---}}} Please die an ugly death. {{{--- Wow!— Talking point sleuth
- China’s Premier Wen Jiabao said he’s concerned about the safety of U.S. government debt. China, the U.S. government’s largest creditor, is asking “the U.S. to maintain its good credit, to honor its promises and to guarantee the safety of China’s assets,” Wen said. “The government has to issue a lot of bonds for the Obama fiscal-stimulus plan,” Jolly said. “At some point we’ll see greater market indigestion, which means they’ll have to offer higher long-term yields to investors to entice them. At the same time the Fed will hold a low federal funds rate so shorter yields will stay low. We’ll see a sizeable re-steepening.” For you liberals, the cost of everything will be going up and our taxes as well. Until America takes the step to do without, we will be bleeding ourselves out. Will Yes I forgot St K Drexel and about 5 others.— Fisher
mccain = pathetic— potus
"No public figure, living or dead, should be immune from legitimate criticism." This as Newsweek runs a cover of Rush Libmaugh, with a black bar covering his mouth, along with the caption 'ENOUGH'. Whatever you say, Will.— jmc- All of you fans of the Gipper, relax. Once in public office always a target or hero. He'd be the first to acknowledge. Bunch is just doing what writers do...making his observation, right or wrong. He makes a point which facts don't deny, the Gipper and Georgie both exited the "brush" immediately when time in office ended. Criticism is essential to democracy..relax and don't be so thin skinned.— stoneman
- Comment removed.
- My God, Will actually knows a saint! I'll keep saying a rosary for you, Will, in hope that you may someday see the light. Only this time, the light is not visible from one ear through the other.— JingoGuy
- This article falls under the extreme "who cares" department. McCain thinks highly of the gipper. Maybe he bought into a myth, maybe not, but so what. The fact is that McCain is still kicking after losing the election and you know why. He has issues that go beyond simple ego. Of budget responsibility that has put both republicans and democrats to shame. That is why McCain will be revered in the future as imperfect a man as he is.— cberger42970
- Comment removed.
- Wil, your book is at 1461 on amazon. No matter how much you flog this thing it ain't gone help your 401K. You're screwed!You are stalking a dead man. Very sad.— georgel
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- I pray every day to Saint Barack that you get RIF'ed.— BlairW
- Here is a headline not covered in INJY "Between 40 and 45 percent of the world's wealth has been destroyed in little less than a year and a half," Schwarzman told an audience at the Japan Society. "This is absolutely unprecedented in our lifetime." Now why did so much of the world's wealth disappear? What were the bad deals, how interconnected are the banks and insurance companies?— Fisher
- Comment removed.
- I meant in the civic arena, but I changed the wording because it was confusing as written. You didn't even mention Philly's own Katharine Drexel!— will
- "Last time I checked, this is America, not the Vatican. We are a nation with heroes by the boatloads, but not a single saint." How about Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton was the first native born American saint? St. John Neumann and Saint Francis Xavier Cabrini are considered US saints as well? You may have read or seen the college. Again do not let facts get in the way of the liberal medieval way.— Fisher
Nearly every day I think about the ruin our nation would be in had McCain-Palin actually been elected. For example, it is clear that today the government would be shut down because McCain would have vetoed the budget. And think who might be Treasury Secretary instead of timid Tim!
1
Popular Posts
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: