FDR is first.........come rescue this place..and teach Democrats how to be Democrats again.......

Dean is always first at the bfa.

3.

Susan -

Echo that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/22/AR2008012202614.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Whose Stimulus Makes the Grade?

Wednesday, January 23, 2008; Page A19

...

My grading

...

Barack Obama: A-minus. I criticized his previous tax plan, but Obama is at the head of the class with an intelligently designed, $120 billion stimulus plan. He would speed a $250 tax credit to most workers, followed by another $250, triggered automatically, if the economy continues on its sour path. Obama would direct a similar rebate to low- and middle-income seniors, who are also apt to spend and could get checks quickly. One demerit: Obama omits any increase in food stamp benefits, which Moody's estimates would have the greatest bang for the buck, $1.73 for every dollar spent.

John Edwards: B-minus. Edwards gets points for handing in his paper early -- in December, he issued a $25 billion stimulus proposal (plus $75 billion more if needed), including important help to states to avoid cutting Medicaid rolls. But like Hillary Clinton (see below), he would spend too much money on programs -- investing in "green collar" jobs, for instance -- with too long a lag time to make them an effective stimulus. Edwards's grade goes down because he also hasn't explained how the $75 billion would be spent.

Hillary Clinton: C-plus. Clinton, too, raised the issue early, then turned in a faulty first draft with a $70 billion stimulus plan that didn't provide much immediate stimulation. It included a $25 billion increase in the program to help low-income Americans with heating costs -- an excessive amount (the current program is under $3 billion) that probably wouldn't kick in until next winter. Even worse was her housing plan, including a five-year freeze on subprime mortgage rates that could produce higher interest rates and reduce liquidity.

Four days later, Clinton said she would immediately implement a $40 billion tax rebate plan she had put in reserve in her first draft. Fine, but overall, the Obama plan devotes a far greater percentage to spending that is more likely to jump-start the economy.

...

Nobody's Stimulus package is any good. It's all meaningless posturing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/23/bloomberg-dismisses-stimu_n_82974.html

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Wednesday the White House and Congress are negotiating a shortsighted economic stimulus package and should focus instead on encouraging immigration and helping strapped homeowners.

"We can't borrow our way out of this. The jig is up," Bloomberg said during a speech to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, which honored his environmental efforts.

The metropolitan mayor used a farming analogy to heap scorn on the current crop of Washington leaders.

"They spent most of this past decade when things were good running up bills with reckless abandon, and when the economy started heading for the ditch, the special interest giveaways got even bigger. I think they ate the seed corn without worrying about the next year's crop. Here we are, the seed corn is gone, and all we've got is a barn full of IOU's," he said.

If he stays on this course and runs, he's gonna get a lot of votes in November

10:05am

 http://thephoenix.com/printerfriendlyB.aspx?id=55013

Can Obama lasso the Bay State?

Once considered sure Clinton country, the Massachusetts primary is now a shootout

By DAVID S. BERNSTEIN

January 23, 2008 3:05:50 PM

...

Thanks to its heavy Democratic leanings, Massachusetts is the fifth-richest delegate prize on Super Tuesday for that party’s candidates, with a total of 121 — 93 of whom will be chosen by the voters that day. (The others are un-pledged “superdelegates.”)

And given Clinton’s home-field advantage in New York and New Jersey, and Obama’s in Illinois, Massachusetts can be viewed as second only to California among February 5 battleground states for the Democratic contenders.

...

The state is supposed to be locked down tight for Clinton; local political observers say she’s a heavy favorite to win. The former first couple is enormously popular here, both among the rank-and-file Democrats who still pine for the Golden ’90s, and among the elite FOBs (Friends of Bill) who have spent many a summer afternoon sipping chardonnay with the Clintons on Martha’s Vineyard.

But there is something strangely familiar about the situation. Almost the entire state’s Democratic establishment is on one side. Polls have long shown Clinton well ahead of her competition, including a recent State House News poll showing Clinton leading Obama 37 percent to 25 percent, and a WBZ/SurveyUSA poll showing an even wider margin, with Clinton ahead 56 to 23.

Running against this establishment candidate is a relative unknown, a black man touting a message of hope and change, calling on young idealists to rise up in a grassroots effort.

Nobody around here forgets that Deval Patrick swiped the gubernatorial nomination from the establishment-backed Tom Reilly. And given the stakes, Obama can hardly afford to lose the Bay State. As a result, few are discounting the possibility of Obama snatching Massachusetts from the Clinton machine.

...

Recently, as attested by the Patrick win, Massachusetts Democrats have certainly seemed eager to vote for the unknown challenger over the well-known establishment figure. And despite the polls, there is still plenty of time for a local Obama surge.

...

DISMAL DEBATE

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080123_that_dismal_democratic_debate/

Supporters of one Democratic candidate or another may insist that their man or woman won last Monday’s debate in South Carolina, but in their hearts most viewers could only have been disappointed by its childish tenor and puerile content. Unless those viewers happened to be Republicans, of course—in which case they could only have been delighted.

With a worried nation edging toward financial panic and dragging down the world economy, the Democrats seem strangely preoccupied with petty “snarking.” A debate is supposed to be a discussion of policy, but this last one was nothing more than a blather of insults. It diminished both Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, while former Sen. John Edwards only emphasized his irrelevance with glancing blows at both contenders.

10:08 am

CALIFORNIA FOR EDWARDS 

We're working hard out here people, come on and join the party!

ANOTHER "SENATOR FROM ISRAEL"

Dear Ambassador Khalilzad,

I understand that today the UN Security Council met regarding the situation in Gaza, and that a resolution or statement could be forthcoming from the Council in short order.

I urge you to ensure that the Security Council issue no statement and pass no resolution on this matter that does not fully condenm the rocket assault Hamas has been conducting on civilians in southern Israel...

All of us are concerned about the impact of closed border crossings on Palestinian families. However, we have to understand why Israel is forced to do this... Israel has the right to respond while seeking to minimize any impact on civilians.

The Security Council should clearly and unequivocally condemn the rocket attacks... If it cannot bring itself to make these common sense points, I urge you to ensure that it does not speak at all.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama
United States Senator

being ABB didn't work in the 2004 election and won't this time either (good luck with trying though)

From the end of the last thread.


118.

Susan Rowe
Thu, 01/24/08

Good morning.

What happened? Around 5:30pm est the blog and the whole DFA website went down and was down all night. I hope folks got all their all star votes made. I wanted to make a contribution but couldn't.

---

Why Al Gore Is Not President

When I think of the qualities of a president and try to relate those qualities to anyone alive, I always return to Al. But we know why he didn't run. The day he'd have heeded the call to serve as president, he'd have been brought down. Rather than lauding a leader, the pundits and his "friends" would have asked about his shoe color or his speech patterns. Who needs it? While I think Al Gore would be one of the best presidents in modern history -- a combination of JFK and FDR at a time when we need both -- the political system in this country, ruled as it is by a punditocracy and consultantocracy, would have been threatened by someone who owes them nothing. They'd have spent night and day sharpening their knives to keep him out. ...full post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-jacob...

est s/b pst

BAR

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=501&Itemid=1

This site is not called Be Nice to Prominent Black People Report. Obama supporters in particular should keep this fact in mind. Recently many of them have taken BAR to task for critical coverage of his campaign.

The dangers presented by an Obama presidency are becoming clearer every day, and that is no reason for celebration.  

In an editorial board meeting with the Reno Gazette-Journal, Obama said the following about Ronald Reagan:

"I do think that for example the 1980 election was different.  I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.  He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it.  I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating."

Not only did Obama praise Reagan, but he used racist, conservative code words from the GOP play book to do it. Obama's supporters should be the first to ask him what he believes to be the "excesses of the 60s and 70s." Does he think the Voting Rights Act was an excess? What about the Civil Rights Act? Were the protests against the Vietnam War excessive? What about Fair Housing legislation, was it all too much for the Republic to handle? Was abortion legalization an excess? 

If Hillary Clinton or John Edwards uttered those same words they would be quite rightly taken to task. At his worst, in the nadir of his Sister Souljah moment, Bill Clinton did not dare to make such statements. Even Slick Willie was not slick enough to think he could praise Ronald Reagan and still get votes from black people.

High praise for Reagan was not the end of Obama's slide into right wing demagoguery. "I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10-15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."  One day Obama channels Ronald Reagan, the next he channels Newt Gingrich. It is too frightening to ask how much lower he will fall.

10.  A tired refrain. I'm not ABB. I prefer him to Hillary or any Republican.

 I prefer Bloomberg to him.

MORE FROM BAR

(Same link as 13)

Hillary Clinton and Obama are political twins, candidates bought off by corporate interests, ready to defend the American empire by killing people in far away places or tossing black people and the rest of the Democratic base under a bus if they think it is expedient to do so. BAR will closely scrutinize both of them during this primary season.

A presidential election year is always difficult. The Democratic party is run by people who don't want it to be a political party at all. They actively search for ways to squelch activism and deny victory to Democrats who are unafraid to be Democrats. The game is rigged against true democracy, forcing us to make difficult choices and compromises instead of working for what we really want. These contradictions will not be easier to deal with if Barack Obama supporters continue to give him a free political ride.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080124/ap_on_el_pr/present_votes_fact_check_1

Fact Check: Obama's 'present' votes

Thu Jan 24, 3:21 AM ET

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - Barack Obama's rivals in the Democratic presidential race contend he sometimes voted "present" on tough issues rather than take a firm stand.

"In the Illinois state Senate, Senator Obama voted 130 times 'present.' That's not yes, that's not no. That's maybe," Hillary Rodham Clinton said in a debate Monday.

Obama responds that Clinton is cherry-picking a handful of votes from a long legislative career and then distorting them.

THE SPIN: Obama portrays himself as someone voters can trust to tell the truth and skip the usual political games. Clinton and John Edwards are using his "present" votes to offer a different picture — one of Obama ducking tough issues or refusing to support common-sense legislation.

THE FACTS: Obama acknowledges that over nearly eight years in the Illinois Senate, he voted "present" 129 times. That was out of roughly 4,000 votes he cast, so those "presents" amounted to about one of every 31 votes in his legislative career.

Illinois legislators often vote "present" and for a wide variety of reasons. Sometimes blocs of lawmakers do it as a protest in some dispute over rules and procedures. Obama was often joined in his "present" votes by 10 or 20 other senators.

In other cases, lawmakers do it to signal objections to the details of a measure that they support in principle. They also use "present" votes as strategic moves to defeat legislation or, of course, simply to avoid taking a firm position.

Clinton highlights several of Obama's "present" votes that she considers questionable.

Several involve abortion — a ban on certain late-pregnancy abortions, a requirement that a minor's parents be notified and restrictions on a type of abortion where the fetus sometimes survives for short periods.

"A woman's right to choose ... demands a leader who will stand up and protect it," said one Clinton campaign mailer.

But the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council says Obama's "present" votes were actually part of a careful strategy to prevent those restrictions from passing.

President Pam Sutherland said the group feared several senators were going to vote "yes" on the legislation because of attacks from Republicans over their past opposition. Sutherland says she approached Obama and convinced him to vote "present" so that the wavering senators would do the same. For their purposes, a "present" was as good as an outright "no" because it kept the bills from reaching the majority needed to pass.

Clinton also points out that Obama was the lone "present" vote on legislation allowing the victims of rape and other sex crimes to have their court records sealed. Obama explains now that he had questions about its constitutionality, although the law has never been struck down by the courts.

Neither the Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault nor the House sponsor of the legislation faults Obama for his vote. Former state representative Lauren Beth Gash, who supports Obama for president, said she ultimately disagreed with his constitutional concerns but that Obama raised legitimate questions and was acting on principle.

...

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0122phxhispanicobama0123.html

Eugene Scott
The Arizona Republic
Jan. 22, 2008 04:09 PM

Dodd shows real Courage

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Senator_Dodd_renews_call_against_Telecom_0123.html

Senator Dodd threatened to filibuster a bill that would give immunity to the Telecommunications companies that broke FISA wiretap laws.

Continuing his battle against retroactive immunity for telecommunication companies, Senator Dodd gave an impassioned speech against what he referred to as a "5-year concerted effort contrary to the law of the land."

Senator Dodd also had high praise for the "brave whistleblower" who came forward with the wiretapping information, and said without that information the practice might have remained hidden.

Dodd ended the session calling for his collegues to support him when he returns to the issue at 9:30am EST Thursday morning, when he promises to continue to fight against telcom immunity with every means at his disposal.

Will Clinto or Obama be there to support him?

10.44 am

Nadler is blocking impeachment.....

A meeting was held yesterday with Wexler and Judiciary comm. members and others. Conyers staff, Appelbaum, pushed for non-impeachment hearings, and Conyers said he would have to get permission from Pelosi.

Non-impeachment investigation? That would mean that nobody would have to come to testify, a means to run the clock out, and pretend they are doing something.

It seems Nadler is the main obstacle to impeachment hearings. Nadler is a strong Hillary supporter. Since it has become evident that impeachment is being fought so hard by Pelosi, and other Hillary supporters, maybe it isn't only that they think it would be bad for Dems election, but that it would be bad for a particular Dems election to drag up the ghost of impeachment.

Anyway, Nadler is the one to get after.
Democraticunderground.com

clinton and obama ought to be there. and edwards. outside with a bullhorn

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/23/213221/309/346/442059

Wow. Lorna Brett Howard, who apparently used to be the President of the Chicago chapter of NOW, has taped a pretty devastating account of why she recently switched from supporting Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama.

...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs

21.

Lorna Brett Howard, former President of the Chicago chapter of NOW:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/23/213221/309/346/442059

...

I'll try to summarize:

The woman in the video is the past president of the Chicago chapter of NOW, has done extensive work with NARAL and Planned Parenthood, and currently works for some unnamed major pro-choice organization in New York (thus she has heavy connections in both IL and NY, appropriately enough).

She says that she was supporting Hillary up through Iowa and New Hampshire; in Iowa she personally witnessed Hillary's people lying flat-out to young women about Obama's record on choice issues, telling them that Obama was "weak" on choice issues.

She says she worked closely with Obama in Illinois while he was a state Senator in the '90's, and knows for a fact that he had a 100% record with every pro-choice organization there is.

She then says that even after the Iowa incidents, she stuck with Hillary through New Hampshire--where she saw the flyer being passed around by the Hillary camp once again accusing Obama of being "weak" on choice; this was the final straw for her, so she switched over to supporting Obama.

Her final statement was what really cuts to the core: She said that she's supporting Obama now because he's 100% pro-choice AND 100% honest.

...

It's fast, easy and free!  Call your senators!  Stand up and be counted:

From Firedoglake

Numbers for Senators are here.  Numbers for House members are here.  Toll-free numbers for Congress from Katymine:

1 (800) 828 - 0498
1 (800) 459 - 1887
1 (800) 614 - 2803
1 (866) 340 - 9281
1 (866) 338 - 1015
1 (877) 851 - 6437

We should also focus on the 14 Senators who promised to help Sens. Dodd and Feingold last December, and who pushed for removal of retroactive immunity. Here are their fax and phone numbers:

Name                    Fax                      Phone
Feingold (202) 224-2725           (202) 224-5323
Dodd (202) 224-1083           (202) 224-2823
Obama (202) 228-4260           (202) 224-2854
Sanders (202) 228-0776           (202) 224-5141
Menendez (202) 228-2197   (202) 224-4744
Biden (202) 224-0139           (202) 224-5042
Brown (202) 228-6321           (202) 224-2315
Harkin (202) 224-9369           (202) 224-3254
Cardin (202) 224-1651           (202) 224-4524
Clinton (202) 228-0282           (202) 224-4451
Akaka (202) 224-2126           (202) 224-6361
Webb (202) 228-6363           (202) 224-4024
Kennedy (202) 224-2417           (202) 224-4543
Boxer (415) 956-6701            (202) 224-3553

I would particularly focus on Clinton and Obama...I emailed, but they damn well better be there to help Dodd filibuster.

Welcome to ROONEY country. And I really thought you had cured yourself of Obamaspamming.

Just saw a down and dirty ad from Obama. He's climbed in the mud ring with the Clintons. It remains to be seen who it will help. But he can't be expected to stand by while stuff like this is going around.......

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Democrat Barack Obama stepped up his efforts Tuesday to battle back against e-mails that falsely label him a Muslim, telling an interviewer the ongoing rumors were part of a "systematic political strategy."

...
It seems Nadler is the main obstacle to impeachment hearings. Nadler is a strong Hillary supporter.+++audrey.nc -I never heard of Nadler before.  What state does he represent in Congress ?

He from NY and endorsed Dean in 2004. 

26.

oh, ok, thanks for the info

and here comes Kucinich, in the lead again....

On Jan. 28th, Dennis Kucinich will bring Articles of Impeachment, once again, to the floor of the House. Only this time they will be for George Bush.

Maybe, by pushing Impeachment of Bush, and Wexlers "real" impeachment hearings, (not the non-impeachment hearings that Conyers wants), we can stop Hillary.

The excuse that impeachment would interfere with Congressional business always was laughable. But, maybe the reason most Dems don't want to even talk about it, is the Hillary factor.

Stop Hillary, Impeach Cheney and Bush now.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ALGoreandObama/?e

The excuse that impeachment would interfere with Congressional business always was laughable

Especially since their only business is rubberstamping the demands of a 20% lame duck. 

23.  I think Nadler is from Long Island in New York.

Anyway, for the record, I still think the "choice" verbiage is counter-productive.  Makes it all sound like a cut of meat at the butcher's.  Medical/surgical procedures aren't proper legislative fodder.

An objective reading of Obama's comments on Reagan does not lead to an interpretation of praise.  Moreover, the characterization of what many people felt and thought in supporting the overt Reagan agenda is accurate.  It does not, however, equate support.  It's quite possible to represent another's position accurately without being a proponent.  Indeed, that's what university professors are supposed to do all the time.

Of course, it's also true that politicians quite frequently "represent" positions which they do not support with their vote.  Perhaps that's a consequence of the fact that many are trained as lawyers who can afford to be strong advocates because they don't make the final decisions (judges and juries do). 

31.

Once again, your thoughtful analysis lends itself greatly to this blog.

Thanks for stating that.

Just heard the whole Obama radio ad.

Here's the transcipt:

Obama: I'm Barack Obama, running for President and I approve this message.

Announcer: It's what's wrong with politics today. Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected.
Now she's making false attacks on Barack Obama.

The Washington Post says Clinton isn't telling the truth. Obama did not say that he liked the ideas of Republicans.
In fact, Obama's led the fight to raise the minimum wage, close corporate tax loopholes and cut taxes for the middle class.

But it was Hillary Clinton, in an interview with Tom Brokaw, who quote "paid tribute" to Ronald Reagan's economic and foreign policy.

She championed NAFTA - even though it has cost South Carolina thousands of jobs.

And worst of all, it was Hillary Clinton who voted for George Bush's war in Iraq.

Hillary Clinton. She'll say anything, and change nothing.

It's time to turn the page.

It's looks accurate enough to me, and is in response to this ad from the Clintons: 

Narrator: “Listen to Barack Obama last week talking about Republicans.

Obama: “The Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years.”

Narrator: “Really? Aren’t those the ideas that got us into the economic mess we’re in today? Ideas like special tax breaks for Wall Street. Running up a $9 trillion debt. Refusing to raise the minimum wage or deal with the housing crisis. Are those the ideas Barack Obama’s talking about?”

Obama: “The Republicans were the party of ideas.”

Stop Hillary....start impeachment hearings on Cheney. Make impeachment the issue. The Repubs will do it in the General. They will bring up the blue dress etc. because they don't fear we will impeach Bush.

Have any of you read the main post on this thread?  I do not know what to make of it.  I did go to the story in the link and the fact that a woman's murder is unsolved and that a man was wrongly imprisoned and that homelessness is suddenly supposed to be a crime are all very sad realities.

But, it is a fact that fully thirty percent of murders in America remain unsolved.  That number would probably be higher if a significant number of murders, especially of women, weren't being committed by males who are offended by a failure to demonstrate proper obedience.

Someone posted a diary on KOS this morning about the Rape of America by Bush and Cheney and I was very tempted to leave a comment to the effect that the use of force to gain compliance with one's desires is pervasive throughout our society.  I didn't because I simply didn't have the stomach for it.

What looking at pictures of naked people has to do with anything is beyond me.  It's fairly well known that rape and/or murder have nothing to do with sexual interest or gratification. 

33.

Sitka
Thu, 01/24/08


Here's the transcipt:

...Clinton isn't telling the truth. Obama did not say that he liked the ideas of Republicans.
----------

He should of...lol, at least SOME of the ideas.

That's what he ACTUALLY DID say (within context).
Anyone who read/listened his words carefully could find such a context..., particularly Regan's "discovery" about governmental failures and absence of its accountability.

The entire World, thanks to Reagan, already KNOWS that:
"Government is a problem, not a solution"..., lol...., entire World...EXCEPT...our lovely "profi".

They, the "profi" ONLY, STILL DON'T KNOW....which is…understandable, lol, what will they do otherwise?

Have any of you read the main post on this thread?

I don't read many of the fronts past the first couple of sentences these days. And this is one I wish I hadn't.

33.  Yes, Republicans were the party of ideas and no action.   Indeed, the Bush/Cheney administration has been the administration of "NO"

No weapons of mass destruction in Saddam's Iraq

No interception of the hijackers on 9/11

No help for New Orleans

No agreement between Israel and Palestine

No increase in average family income

No comprehensive energy policy

No universal health care

No qualifications for Justice Department hires

No justification for firing U.S. Attorneys

No progress on dealing with nuclear waste

And, when you come right down to it, the Clinton years weren't a whole lot better.  No wonder the Clintons prefer talking about clips from an Obama interview instead of the record of "achievements" Hill and Bill can credit to themselves. 

WASHINGTON - Democratic and Republican congressional leaders reached a tentative deal Thursday on tax rebates of $300 to $1,200 per household and business tax cuts to jolt the slumping economy.

Congressional officials close to the negotiations said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio reached agreement in principle in a telephone call Thursday morning.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the two wanted key members of their parties to sign off on the accord before any announcement.

WE GET SOME OUR MONEY BACK!!! Now that's what I'm talkin bout!!

This is a letter I just wrote to Howard, in his capacity as DNC Chair, via this site's link:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/566752872

Dear Chair Howard Dean, MD -

My wife and I wholeheartedly supported your campaign for President, starting in mid 2003, and were devastated with the results of the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary.  My wife and I both had seen you speak in Peterborough, NH in early Jan 2004 and were simply awed and uplifted with your words of "You have the power!".

Well, now my wife and I are supporting Barack Obama for president, very much along the same lines as to why we supported you four years earlier.

Unfortunately, just like then, there's the forces of status quo that are trying to strangle the forces of change.

We don't want to be devasted again and, thus, are asking you to please find a impartial way for yourself to send a public statement to both Hillary and Bill Clinton to strongly urge them to stop their unfair and unsubstantiated allegations against Barack Obama.

Thank you for whatever you can do (and give our regards to your wife, Dr. Judy Steinberg).

Sincerely and respectfully -

I've  criticized Obama's remarks, but not for the bogus reason the Clintons have attacked him for. The fact is, the DCDems have been and remain bereft of ideas and overwhelmingly simply go along with GOP agenda. 

He's also quite right to point out the hypocrisy of the clinton attack considering her own words of praise for Reagan.

As for who likes what ideas, they've both kissed up to the right too much for my tastes. But Hillary (along with Edwards) is the one who has actually voted for the worst of Bush's agenda.

"Under the tentative plan, families with children would receive an additional $300 per child, subject to an overall cap of perhaps $1,200, according to a senior House aide who outlined the deal on condition of anonymity in advance of formal adoption of the whole package. Rebates would go to people earning below a certain income cap, likely individuals earning $75,000 or less and couples with incomes of $150,000 or less.

Workers would have to have earned at least $3,000 in 2007 to receive the rebates, the officials said."

So those paying no federal income tax get $300 per kid, and those paying $50,000 in federal tax get nothing.  Except your contempt.  Sounds like government.

39.  Government can only be the problem in a democracy for people who don't want to be the agents of a popular government.

Granted, if you're an elitist, then the idea that the "great unwashed" ought to be determinative is really upsetting.  But, there it is.  That's the system to which those who support our Constitution subscribe.  That it hasn't been fully realized is another matter.  As is the fact that equality is not a principle that's appreciated universally.

It seems pretty obvious that a nation that's truly committed to equality would not have to make a fetish of liberty.  The normal order rarely needs to be promoted. 

At least you now know, when they are talking about taxing the rich, it starts at $150,000 by a couple, like a firefighter and his wife the school principal.  They are the rich by this definition.  It happens everytime.  You think rich a Buffett and Gates.  Problem is there are not enough of them to get anything meaningful into the treasury.  They need to get into the bigger part of the income curve. 

Democratic and Republican congressional leaders reached a tentative deal Thursday on tax rebates of $300 to $1,200 per household and business tax cuts to jolt the slumping economy.

As I was just saying...... 

The fact is, the DCDems have been and remain bereft of ideas and overwhelmingly simply go along with GOP agenda.

Just tack it onto the existing deficit. Fiscal irresponsibilty is another bipartisan issue. 

* rdorgan
Thu, 01/24/08
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sure..you agreed with her. If it were the reverse youd be stomping off the blog again........

43.  People who reproduce and rear the next generation are providing a social service.  You may not like other people's children and even prefer to think that children are an unnecessary luxury like a flat screen TV.  However, it is a fact that society's claim to immortality evaporates if people don't reproduce and sustain its principles.  Just take a gander at Africa to see how that works.  Societies are evaporating right and left as orphans are left to fend for themselves.

The question is not whether someone liked Reagan's ideas or not, the question is why would a Dem candidate for Pres. even bring up the name of one of the most unloved Rep. as opposed to say FDR, unless they were fishing for a few Rep. votes. I can see the statement on a Repub. campaign commercial.

45.  Considering that the spouse retired after forty years of teaching on the university level with a top salary of $45,000, you can't expect a lot of sympathy from me. I will grant you that the firefighter and his school principal spouse are in a pickle because they have neither the time or the skills to do anything much for themselves--no gardening, no sewing, little cooking, few home repairs--and when the economy collapses they will be hard pressed to manage.

But, the creation of a generation of incompetents is a recent development and, as our immigrants from southern climes clearly demonstrate, basic life skills are rather easily acquired. 

Ed Schultz says Bill Clinton is lying:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-X9tEOp19o

42.

Sitka
Thu, 01/24/08

Reply to this
36. former

I've criticized Obama's remarks, but not for the bogus reason the Clintons have attacked him for. The fact is, the DCDems have been and remain bereft of ideas and overwhelmingly simply go along with GOP agenda.
------

Everyone can criticize everyone else for whatever reasons..., lol, it is a "free country".

My critique targets exactly his (not only his, of course,) AMBIGUITY! The worse possible quality of a LEADER!

If you have courage to name Regan as having big ideas you MUST have courage to explain WHAT YOU MEAN instead of running for cover.
Shame on you Mr. Obama!
Shame on us who believe in his “audacity of hope”!

Support Ron Paul, this guy never running for hiding!

49.

audrey.nc
Thu, 01/24/08


The question is not whether someone liked Reagan's ideas or not, the question is why would a Dem candidate for Pres. even bring up the name of one of the most unloved Rep. as opposed to say FDR,
-------------
???

The answer is above.
FDR never said "Government is a problem..." like Regan did.
FDR never said "Solution is a self-Government" like Regan did.

And, btw, Republicans are people too..., they ARE EVEN(!!!) Americans..., lol.

The question is not whether someone liked Reagan's ideas or not, the question is why would a Dem candidate for Pres. even bring up the name of one of the most unloved Rep

That's an easy question to answer. He wanted to impress Reaganoids like Dog Soldier -- who went from criticizing Obama before the remark to praising him afterward. And it might get him quite a few votes in the CA primary.

What is also easy is spotting the Clintons' blatant hypocrisy in light of Bill's rotten deals with the GOP and Hillary's own praise of Reagan and pro-Bush voting record (Edwards too). 

49.  Well, it's probably useful to consider that the catastrophic situation we are now in is not the result of a mere seven years of Bush Two but has been developing for decades.  Indeed, all of the strategies recently employed by the federal government to manipulate elections and provide advantages to supporters (both individual and corporate) were well under way in the '80s.

The Clintons would, no doubt, prefer the focus to remain on Bush Two, but the fact is that Bush Two was just a continuation.  Indeed, I feel pretty certain that if Clinton is the nominee there will be documentary leakes outlining in great specifics that the planning for the assault on Iraq was well under way during Bill's tenure and he merely lacked the will to make the necessary commitment.  You know, wanting to have it both ways. 

And, btw, Republicans are people too..., they ARE EVEN(!!!) Americans..., lol.

It's too bad they rarely grant that status to those who aren't Republicans. 

52.

former -

In all due respects, I'm not ashamed one bit about my support for Barack Obama and my non-support for Ron Paul.  Ditto for my wife.

As for you using the term "Shame on you", come on, that's not that very original -- you simply just heard yesterday Bill Clinton use that term in an angry exchange with a CNN female reporter who had a question for Bill.

Word of caution , IMO you're walking the fine line of plagarism and Bill might not appreciate you not giving him credit for that "shame on you !" line.

Support Ron Paul,

I'm all for him making as much mischief as possible in the GOP. 

52.

boy, with all those !s and words in caps, someone here sounds like he is shouting, sounds shrill

Let me give you my thoughts on the Obama Reagan praise, from who was a loyal Democrat since 1976........................

Coming to the blog soon........stay tuned

51.

Ed Schultz used to support Hillary for president.

Not anymore.

Holding our collective breath...

How Obama lost me.....................

Coming to the blog......soon..stay tuned

Stop Hillary......Start Cheney Impeachment.

Hillary and the DLc Dems have Impeachment under lock and key, and that's where they want the blue dress too. You can bet that the Repubs will bring it all out, if Hillary is the nominee. Now is the time to talk about it.

63.

Michael -

Will it come out in movie form too ?  I just can't wait to see your name up on that big screen -- producer ? director ? gaffer ?

fyi - new Front thread

and business tax cuts to jolt the slumping economy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

and why is it slumping?

answer that question before you compound the error

we haven't made the perpetrators pay for their crimes yet and we reward them?

Senate is voting to table the BETTER Judiciary Bill which doesn't grant amnesty to telcom cos. or spying on US citizens w/out a warrant. Watch the vote; identify the DINOs.

http://www.cspan.org/watch/cs_cspan_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS

Call your Senator NOW!

Not only do I agree with the main post on this thread; all employers think about now is ways to get girls like me to "put out!"  Click here to see what it is like in the work place now: http://messages.yahoo.com/Cultures_%26_Community/Issues_and_Causes/threadview?m=tm&bn=18067484&tid=2484&mid=2493&tof=25&rt=2&frt=2&off=1