The worst one is our idiotic realtor-cum-gubner Mark Sanford. He's solidly against any bail-outs, and yes, doesn't seem to mind we are milliseconds from running out of unemployment check funds.

Fine by me, when the folks revolt, too fucking bad.

An excellent article, especially interesting for the LaHood angle.

How long the members of the GOP will feel comfortable with the self-inflicted image as intolerant, marginalized Southern whites representinng a Good (but Lost) Cause (sound familiar?) is beyond me. But it is indeed interesting that once the questions for which the electorate seeks answers move beyond the Rovian politics of exacerbating wedge issues the GOP simply has no answers. No doubt the Dems, granted sufficient success, will eventually fall into a similar predicament. (Although not identical because no matter how many times people who should know better say it, history does not repeat itself.) But for now it's the GOPiggies' turn in a barrel of their own making. If I was a Republican I'd be looking at some ways to start building a working, productive, constructive consensus that attracted more people into the collapsed tent. Opposing Obama won't be enough, nor will a Gingrich-like "Contract" approach. (Recall that statement about history and exact repetition.) People are scared and they're not interested in wild-eyed ideologues. Nor will the soporific miusings of a Mitch McConnell attract (any more than the ramblings of his fellow worshiper at the feet of Morpheus' image Harry Reid).

In other words, the GOP has some very heavy duty thinking ahead of itself if its members really do want to offer coherent, sensible, workable choices to the American people. Although I vote against them virtually every time---once was a Republican, though---I wish them good luck. We appear to be stuck with the two-party system (better than a one-party system but not preferable to a functioining multi-party set-up), and for that to work both parties have to be active, alive, and credible.

The worst one is our idiotic realtor-cum-gubner Mark Sanford. He's solidly against any bail-outs, and yes, doesn't seem to mind we are milliseconds from running out of unemployment check funds.

Fine by me, when the folks revolt, too fucking bad.

What would you have him do?

Ask the federal government to ask the Federal Reserce to print more money out of thin-fucking-air, digging a deeper hole for the national debt while enriching the private bankers who actually own the federal reserve?

As you asked a loaded question, I'll deliver a .357 answer:

Yes.

That work?

Why do libs think that bail-outs will help the economy. Wasting lots of New Deal money didn't help. These Southern Republicans are heros.

The huge bailouts were the WH's idea. Paulson had it drawn up months ago.

Man, you don't get out much (to news sites) do you?

BTW, oh uninformed one (FWTHOM)

Republicans and Democrats agree that a massive stimulus is needed. Bailouts are a whole 'nother subject, and were proposed by the White House.

"Wasting lots of New Deal money didn't help."

Funny!

Hoover dam and TVA to the contrary.

AMERICANURINATOR,

You libs spent eight years bashing Bush and now you are quoting him as some great prophet of bail-outs. That's why I love the DR, you guys are funnier than the three stooges.

Prophet of Bailouts?

Fuck no. I said the bailouts handed out to banks and Wall Street were the sole idea of the White House.

Bush deserves even MORE bashing. The guy was a disaster! If you can't acknowledge it, take a long hard look in the mirror and repeat your last post to yourself.

"Wasting lots of New Deal money didn't help."

Funny!

Hoover dam and TVA to the contrary.

#8 | Posted by Custer

And stringing electricity to rural areas - which Southern Rush Republicans now use to spout nonsense - not realizing that it was FDR who made it all possible for them to plug their computers in.

You libs spent eight years bashing Bush

Actually, only 6. I knew he was a dimwit, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt until he started talking about invading Iraq, and then did it with poor planning but rich with arrogance.

Not to worry, Barry has hired a bunch of retreads to help us get out of the mess that they helped us get into.

On the "Magic Negro" thread I questioned whether FWThom was a troll or a zealot or both. His #5 and #9 established him as a troll, pure and simple. His posts are a waste of time. I realize the worst thing you can do with trolls is to engage them so this will be the last time I ever read anything he posts.

I make the assumption he is male, in my experience people as destructive and stupid as he nearly always are. They usually masquerade as extreme right wingers but would be more correctly viewed as mentally ill exhibitionists.

True conservatives must sometimes despair that with the rise of Limbaugh and FOX their political philosophy has become inextricably entangled in the public mind with the ignorance, stupidity and pointlessly destructive rhetoric of such as FWThom and Joe the Plumber.

These Southern Republicans are heros.

#5 | Posted by fwthom

And then right after hell froze over, Lipzoidial actually agreed with Fwthom about something.

Stop the bail-outs!!! The so-called bail-out money is debt. More and more debt. debt on top of debt. we can't even afford to pay the interest on the debt already accumulated and people want more debt. WTF??

these bail-outs are the greatest ponzi scheme of them all.

As you asked a loaded question, I'll deliver a .357 answer:

Yes.

That work?

It is the answer I expected. The default answer of someone who seems to rely on the government for solutions to every problem they face.

Throw more money at it.

Has the past few months of bailouts without any oversight not opened your eyes to anything?

"That's why I love the DR, you guys are funnier than the three stooges.

#9 | Posted by fwthom "

Ok, Shemp.

I'm fascinated by the complete misapplication of the term "bail out" as well as the obfuscation of it wrt the Obama V Bush plans.

LMAO. Yes, a "misapplication".

It's a "loan", dammit!!! We just need a whole lot more loans!! Bridge loans!! Bridges to the future loans!!

Hysterical. If a tenth of a dumbasses who want to loan their tax money to Detroit would buy a car instead, GM would be flush with cash in no time. But no. Easier to have the government do it, and pass the bill along to everyone else.

And by the way, there is no Obama v Bush plans. It's the same plan. And to think, just a couple of months ago, the Republican candidate was derided as "McSame".

Too funny. After all your bitching and moaning about Bush--mostly justified--you've just signed up for four more years of it. And you're too stupid to tell the difference.

Why do libs think that bail-outs will help the economy.

#5 | Posted by fwthom

Didn't you know you can borrow your way back to good times? That's the 'easy button'.

It's the same plan.

Not even close.

"Bailouts" are what Paulson said we HAD to approve to save our financial system - facts he only shared at the 11th hour, 59th minute.

"Economic Stimulus" is what economists from across the political spectrum agree we'll need to get out economy back on track.

Bush was handed surpluses

Obama is being handed a 9/11 sized financial crisis.

See the difference there?

Shemp? How dare you! Fey Thommy is the Curly-Joe DeRita of posters.

Paulson was wrong. But Obama has just appointed Paulson Jr. to serve as his TreasSec. And who gives a damn what conditions Bush or Obama inherited, if their playbook is exactly the same?

Four more years! Four more years! Funny.

I voted third party, but was told that if I didn't vote for Obama, we would be getting four more years of Bush. And they we right. I didn't, and we dd.

Unity, just tell me four things you disagree about Obama about, that you believe he's just dead wrong on.

OK, RiR, here's the first one. I'll think about the others.

1. He may be naive to think Republicans will be interested in working together to right the American ship. They'll probably be plotting and planning how to regain power, rather than what's in the best interest of all Americans. That's been their MO since 1994, I hope I'm wrong. We have big problems that need big people. Time will tell.

The guy hasn't even taken office yet, yet you want answers on what I disagree with already? Crap, I didn't even hold Bush to that barometer when he was President-Elect, and for 2 more years into his Presidency. When he started gunning for Iraq in response to 9/11 he lost me. His actions since late 2002 have given me no reason to change my mind about him, but only made my opinion worse. I didn't start out with a beef against him. I hoped for the best. His best didn't make the grade to most rational minds.

RiR

I'm gonna get into the Titans game now.

Have a good day.

"After all your bitching and moaning about Bush--mostly justified--you've just signed up for four more years of it."

I can't wait for the Supreme Court nominations.

Hans

I will tell you one thing quickly:

Lots of 'progressives' are making a big whoopteedoo over Rick Warren being invited to give the invocation at the Inaugural. I don't agree with that view. Although Warren represents many views totally at odds with Obama's (and others) on certain issues, Warren has shown he will reach out to work with those he disagrees with ideologically to the Nth degree - such as his substantial donations and volunteerism for AIDS hospice.

While I don't agree with all his views, I respect Rick Warren a lot. Obama made a good decision to start off his Presidency by inviting Warren when he knew he'd get flack for doing so.

If we can't meet in the middle over a prayer to God for help for our country and President I can't think of any other area we could. I hope God can find a way to bring this country together some. The way things stand, we're exactly what Lincoln faced (albeit ideologically) "A Nation Divided". I don't remember it ever being this bad until the 90's. Heck, Reagan played cards with, and was friends with, Tip O'Neill. We got stuff done.

1. He may be naive to think Republicans will be interested in working together to right the American ship. They'll probably be plotting and planning how to regain power, rather than what's in the best interest of all Americans. That's been their MO since 1994, I hope I'm wrong. We have big problems that need big people. Time will tell.

* * *

Oh. So you think Obama might be wrong in that Republicans don't want to work with him. Not a policy difference, mind you--just that OLbama might be wrong about the degree to which Republicans are douchebags.

How unpartisan of you. You're right. Debate with you is impossible. Maybe when you take Barack's sack out of your mouth, I can understand you better.

"I voted third party, but was told that if I didn't vote for Obama, we would be getting four more years of Bush. And they we right. I didn't, and we dd.

#27 | Posted by rightisright "

Hey dumbshit, you think you might wait at least for Obama to be inaugurated before evaluating the first term of the Obama administration? Moron.

Are you drinking? You've mangled everything I've said to mean something I didn't say.

Since 1994 the goal of the GOP has seemed to only seek power for power's sake. They did not do what they promised. Did I miss the Utopia they promised?

Did we get 'compassionate conservatism', balanced budgets, fiscal responsibility, did Bush keep his promise to 'not send our military into harms way without a clear mission and a clear exit strategy'? Tell me which of those promises they kept. Did they reach out to work with Democrats when they were in power? Did they not send them to meet in the basement? Huh?

Excuse me for not coming back with an instant answer to your question that requires some thought before responding.

Fair enough. I'll wait for the balanced budgets, a withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, an end to the bailouts, the repeal of No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bill, the repeal of Bush's tax cuts, new windfall taxes on energy companies . . .

Oh, wait. Obama's said he not going to do any of those things now.

Four more years!

Was Bush a 'Unitor' as he promised?

RiR, if anyone refuses to see things the way they are from blind partisanship, it has to be you. You have an excuse for every egregious mistake and broken promise the GOP and Bush made but didn't keep.

Excuse me for not coming back with an instant answer to your question that requires some thought before responding.

#35 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY
* * * *

Staggers the imagination. Obama has been in the public eye nonstop for eighteen months. And you can't come up with one or two things you think he's wrong about, without "some thought"?

Whatever. Feel free to think for yourself sometime. It's liberating.

Wow. One minute we're talking about Republicans, and quicker than an Alabama boy can get drunk on a Saturday night, you refuse to respond and immediately change the subject.

Shows how weak you feel about the performance of the GOP and Bush.

Hypotheticals are for the birds. We can talk about Obama in a year - you know, AFTER he's been President long enough to attempt some of his ideas.

You have an excuse for every egregious mistake and broken promise the GOP and Bush made but didn't keep.

#37 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY
* * *

I excuse nothing. That's why none of them got my vote. I wanted balanced budgets, social security and Medicare reform, tax cuts, smaller government, a declaration of war before committing troops, tort reform, no bailouts of any kind, and term limits. I got one of those things. And one's not enough. The Republicans suck, and have acted just like Democrats. Can't blame American voters when, given the choice, to vote for the real thing.

So Washington will go on without me. But Obama's got to be happy to know that there are millions of people just like you, who will reflexively do anything he asks. And that no matter what he does, you'll still show up every day with the pom poms and kneepads.

Feel free to think for yourself sometime.

Pathetic schoolyard retort.

Fair enough. Obama's off limits for a year. Nice to know.

Pathetic schoolyard retort.

#41 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

* * *

I'll take it back when you can come up with four things. 'Til then, enjoy your pep rally.

In case you couldn't read my prior post, I'll talk about it when Obama's been President for a little while.

Gee, you must have been horribly disappointed Bush didn't do a single thing he promised. Well, unless you count tax cuts in a time of war - twice. Something that's never been done. Guess we should leave the paying for all his foibles to your kids. You got your instant gratification after all ....

The very last line of David Broder's smackdown is very revealing. It's from this last line that gives me hope for Congress and respect for the "Southern Republicans":

"Will congressional Republicans again sacrifice their political interest to satisfy their Southern-baked ideological imperatives?"

After all, it is the flaw of power and personal gain that infects our government. To have a handful of "Southern Republicans" stand on principal at the risk of losing power makes them men among men. Even if they may be on the wrong side of the pendulum swing, they are men of courage and should be honored and respected for their leadership.

RiR

If you're so upset by Bush, the GOP, the outcome of their leadership, then reason would dictate you'd want the opposite approach. Yet, you're bashing it before it's even had an hour in office. That's reason I can't understand as a thinking man.

"Will congressional Republicans again sacrifice their political interest to satisfy their Southern-baked ideological imperatives?"

I read this as Broder asking the question:

"Will the rest of the Republican Party commit suicide in order to bow to the will and agenda of Republicans elected in the South?" not "that the principled stand of the Southern Republicans will be the salvation of the Republican Party."

I have only rarely voted for a Republican candidate for anything and certainly not since 1994 so only care in the sense that any sound democracy needs a credible opposition party. But it seems to me that the attitudes pervasive among southern Republicans are the problem the GOP has, not its solution

The Republicans suck, and have acted just like Democrats. Can't blame American voters when, given the choice, to vote for the real thing.

So Washington will go on without me. But Obama's got to be happy to know that there are millions of people just like you, who will reflexively do anything he asks. And that no matter what he does, you'll still show up every day with the pom poms and kneepads.

#40 | Posted by rightisright at 2008-12-28 01:49 PM | Reply | Flag

Wow, RIR you made some sarcastic comment at AU when he made a degrading remark about party support and you come back doing the same thing.

If this is your version of reaching across the party line and trying to mutually reach a working consensus I see Obama is going to have a very difficult time and an impossible challange.

The fact that you are already trashing obama before he has made office to actually do anything brings loads to the table about blind party stubborn obtuseness.

As I see your posts, more and more AU is correct, your not interested in working to fix the problems in america, you're just interested in power.

The bailouts of Wall Street and Detroit will fail, and Republicans in the Midwest, the mountain states, and Northwest will be exonerated for voting against them. And it will soon become obvious to Democrats in those places too, whose taxes will be raised for all eternity to keep horribly managed companies in business, courtesy of some influential Democrats from Michigan and New York.

The fact that you are already trashing obama before he has made office to actually do anything brings loads to the table about blind party stubborn obtuseness.

As I see your posts, more and more AU is correct, your not interested in working to fix the problems in america, you're just interested in power.

#48 | Posted by moneywar
* * * *

When Obama stops acting like Bush on the economy, on spending, on Iraq, I'll stop criticizing him. He's even a tax-cuts-for-the-rich guy now.

Interested in power. Yes. I want to shut down the government almost completely, and get it out of our lives forever. If that's being "obsessed with power", mark me guilty.

#47 | Posted by BlueInBushland

You and I are reading it the same way. I left the Republican party long ago because, by and large, they stood for political power over principal. These few Southern Republicans have chosen the harder and higher road of standing for what they believe in and what they campaigned on over what they think will keep them in office longer.

Most voter's want a representative who represents them, not a representative who wiggles and squirms to stay on the payroll. Well, at least that's what I look for in a candidate. Precisely why I no longer support the Republican Party as a whole and have moved on.

The Democrats stand on what they believe. That's why they swept the election. That and because millions of people are always looking for a handout. The Democrats always promise a chest full of gold to everyone if they are elected. When times are tight, free money sounds pretty good.

"When times are tight, free money sounds pretty good..."

Ah, yes---And while the Republicans were in power, free money also seemed possible. At least, that's what they appeared to say to one another.

I've read George W. Bush's personal fortune is twenty-million dollars. Now, I know how he got about $800,000 of that, by taking illegal advantage of information availab;e to him as a corporate officer.

I'm just curious about where the other nineteen million came from. Anyone with me?

Of course southern Republicans are opposed to trying to mitigate the financial catastrophe they've helped foist on us. If what remains of American manufacturing -- located largely in the northern central states -- collapses, where will those people go? To the South. The "new South" was built by economic refugees from the rust belt. Embittered, they're easy pickings for the GOP's message of intolerance and anger.

Ax-

Apples vs oranges, comrade.

Oh, trust me, I'm angry as living shit at tossing money at these failed banks, and without anyone knowing who, where, what, how, etc. Aren't they the fuckers who created this fiasco? Yes. Why are we helping them? Because they lobby, and lobby means bribery. Get a fucking grip already.

Bailing out the Big 3? That's a bitter pill. I want them to clean up their act and start making neat cars and trucks, with scorching high fuel economy. I fully agree, we let them die, we end up with megamillions on the dole.

Now, to my point which got misconstrued: South Carolina is now one week shy of zero funds for our unemployment comp. One week and zero.

What do these folks do without it? There are no jobs, Ax. I've a friend who works for SCESC, and she tells me it's fucking dismal. What jobs?

Sanford could, yes, go to DC and ask for a loan. Same as Cally, other states. He's pissing and moaning over the whole thing, as asking for a "bailout" would fuck up his standing as a GOPig, capice?

I know, it's not an answer. More jobs and a calmer economy would be far better, but I do not like the idea of those without jobs...starving.

And read your history: This was part and parcel of what toggled the French Revolution into play. Hungry and desperate folks do crazy things.

Like revolt.

I dunno 'bout you, but I'd take the loan and start busting my ass to get jobs in this state, but with fuckwads like Sanford at the helm, we aren't going to see that anytime soon.

Oh, trust me, I'm angry as living shit at tossing money at these failed banks, and without anyone knowing who, where, what, how, etc. Aren't they the fuckers who created this fiasco?

These are banks, why would we toss them money at all.

The financial market is what causes all our problems, banks are the last enterprise to be bailed out, last. In fact, every asset, holding, and value should be taken and those running the banks should be forced to payback the debt owed.

It is clear or should be clear here, unregulation of our financial banking and market system will not benefit the people but ruin them.

Regulated markets look after the majority of the people, unregulated markets looks after the individual who runs the decisions of that market.

Unregulation on enhances greed toward few individuals, and this has been proven throughout history.

I think the word you're clawing for is deregulation.

Something can be unregulated, but you can't enact unregulation.

Unless you are submitting a new transitive verb to Merriam-Webster....

Deregulation would suggest that regulation was there.

And my God, can you actually focus on what the meaning is being said or is that just too tough for you.

It is alway humorous watching the idiocy of people focus of single forms of words without being able to grasp the meaning behide the entire collection of those words.

They focus so much upon the single tree that they are blind to the forest around them.

JESUS,

It's a profound statement to say that you can't unregulate/deregulate something unless it has already been regulated.

That's how I argue against rehabilitation of criminals. How can you rehabilitate people who were never habilitated in the first place?

it's not so much missing the grasp of the content of the word, it's just you made that word up.

I was merely pointing it out in a non-judgmental way. If you took offense, well then that's your issue. here's a tissue.

you also lose any credibility of content if you rely on fictional words so heavily. I'm sorry, but it just sounds dumb. It's comes out like word salad.

"Unregulation on enhances greed toward few individuals, and this has been proven throughout history."

This sentence is a prime example. You talk about idiocy when people focus on a 'single' word and not the collection of words. However, the above 'collection' I've quoted illustrates how this word salad obfuscates any real context.

I agree with you in principle, you just sound like a moron when you say it like that. no offense.

as for criminals, the justice system assumes that citizens are habilitated until convicted of a crime, thereafter requiring rehabilitation. innocent until proven otherwise, eh?

time to carve a chalice.

you could have said the lack of regulation in the banking industry...

unregulation... the Father is going to get a kick out of that one....

Why do libs think that bail-outs will help the economy. Wasting lots of New Deal money didn't help. These Southern Republicans are heros.

#5 | Posted by fwthom at 2008-12-28 10:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

Libs orchestrated of the bailout? Who new! Better tell Jowels McCain.....he was the hero who 'suspended' his campaign to make it happen (heh heh heh)

BTW, what's the difference between an auto bailout for US companies and offering massive tax breaks to foreign car manufacturers in Southern states?

BTW, what's the difference between an auto bailout for US companies and offering massive tax breaks to foreign car manufacturers in Southern states?

Easy. Nada. Any difference, if at all, is that Honda, Toyota, Nissan and Hyundai are all NON UNION. Repubs get a boner for that.

BTW, what's the difference between an auto bailout for US companies and offering massive tax breaks to foreign car manufacturers in Southern states?

let's seeeeeee....

states do not have the right to print their own money, apparently.

meanwhile...if the government wants to bailout a bank, corporation, what-have-you they don't raise more money, they just ask the Federal Reserve to print more out.

If you can't see the difference between the two, perhaps you are ill-suited for your moniker.

BTW, what's the difference between an auto bailout for US companies and offering massive tax breaks to foreign car manufacturers in Southern states?

Easy. Nada. Any difference, if at all, is that Honda, Toyota, Nissan and Hyundai are all NON UNION. Repubs get a boner for that.

Yeah baby, let's reduce our wages so no one can afford cars in America, that will keep those companies afloat!

I don't believe anything this XCON writes.

"BTW, what's the difference between an auto bailout for US companies and offering massive tax breaks to foreign car manufacturers in Southern states?"

Well, the main difference is that the "bailout" comes from money that has been paid in taxes from all taxpayers in the United States. The tax breaks offered by individual states to attract businesses and jobs just mean that the citizens in that particular state are affected. The state isn't TAKING tax money and giving it to a poorly producing company. Usually, the effect on the taxpayers in that state are positive.

"Well, the main difference is that the "bailout" comes from money that has been paid in taxes from all taxpayers in the United States. The tax breaks offered by individual states to attract businesses and jobs just mean that the citizens in that particular state are affected."

That would ONLY be true in states that actually are net payers of taxes to the federal government which none of the red states with auto factories are so....the truth is ALL US TAXPAYERS SUBSIDIZE FOREIGN AUTO MAKERS IN SEVERAL SOUTHERN STATES.

"Throw more money at it."

But it works for the public schools!

Thanks,
The left

Easy. Nada. Any difference, if at all, is that Honda, Toyota, Nissan and Hyundai are all NON UNION. Repubs get a boner for that.

Yeah baby, let's reduce our wages so no one can afford cars in America, that will keep those companies afloat!

#66 | Posted by roman at 2008-12-29 08:16 AM | Reply | Flag: Erect Republican, of course.

"BTW, what's the difference between an auto bailout for US companies and offering massive tax breaks to foreign car manufacturers in Southern states?"

Well, the main difference is that the "bailout" comes from money that has been paid in taxes from all taxpayers in the United States. The tax breaks offered by individual states to attract businesses and jobs just mean that the citizens in that particular state are affected. The state isn't TAKING tax money and giving it to a poorly producing company. Usually, the effect on the taxpayers in that state are positive.

#68 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2008-12-29 08:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

So, then according to you, the only difference is WHEN the money is paid?

You're right, the state isn't taking money, they're simply not collecting it.....so, it comes down to WHEN.