Monday Open Thread

“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.”

–Samuel Adams

117 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. dwyer says:

    Could any of the newly arrived Republican bloggers point out where the Republican platform listed the reforms and changes which McCain/Palin insisted on?

    For example:  Does it say anyone who was an elected official would have to wait four years before hiring on as a lobbyist?What about, no one registered as a lobbyist could be a paid member of any Republican campaign staff?

    I am waiting.

    • Laughing Boy says:

      How much money that Obama has now taken from PACs did he originally say he wouldn’t?

      C’mon, Dwyer.  It’s the same animal.

      McCain has infuriated the party on several documented occasions.  Obama’s big claim to bipartisan fame was the Lugar bill, which was a joke.  It called for a report on weapons, and it was supported by everyone anyway.

      What’s the difference between lobbyist money and union PAC money?

      Nothing.  

      • Libertad says:

        V.E.B.A.s: Union Slush Funds

        Union bosses have found a new way to fund their operations.

        In V.E.B.A.s: Union Slush Funds for the 21st Century, the Capital Research Center (CRC) writes, “Labor unions have been searching for a revenue enhancer … and they’ve found it in V.E.B.A.s, the acronym for a heretofore obscure entity called a ‘voluntary employee benefit association.'”

        Major U.S. employers have found union bosses will grant major concessions in return for billions of dollars in cash earmarked to fund employee benefit trusts.

        For union bosses these multi billion-dollar concessions are a “golden ticket to power” and are protected from the U.S. Department of Labor’s transparency regulations.

        In 2007, the UAW assumed responsibility for the health care trust General Motors owes its retirees, totaling $35 billion. The deal was similar to the 1998 UAW/Caterpillar deal in which the union took over a $32.3 million trust to fund payments for better health care coverage. Little oversight was provided, and within six years the trust fund ran out of money.

        The UAW/GM deal likewise includes little oversight and gives the union an out if it again proves to be a bad manager. If the fund runs short, GM will infuse more funds and lobby for a federal takeover. Nobody knows what will become of the $35 billion if the UAW passes its retiree obligations onto the feds.

        GM’s move was incredibly irresponsible because it “endangers the fiscal well-being of its retirees and hurts the public interest by thwarting the progress the Labor Department has been making in trying to more closely monitor union finances,” wrote CRC.



        The coalition for sole source dealers: Denver’s big money corporate “citizen’s”; who fund their association, the Denver Chamber/EDC; who support their government tax raising partners, Ritter & Hickenlooper; who hand over government employees to their labor union partners.

      • dwyer says:

        Are there or are there not reform planks in the Republican Party Platform?  Yes or No. If yes, what are they?

        My guess LB, is that you don’t have a clue.  So, you throw out a lot of non-relevant crap….I asked a question. You don’t know the answer.  

        • Laughing Boy says:

          So aggressive – it’s not about issues for you, it’s about acting like a little shit, and trying to make people feel bad.

          Is there an issue you want to discuss? Or are you just looking for a semantic ‘gotcha’ so you can spout the same caustic crap you do on every post?  

          Here’s McCain’s wepage on ethics reform.

          Read up.

          • BlueCat says:

            McCain is and has always been every bit as involved with lobbyists as anyone.  His whole anti-lobbyist thing is and always has been a sham.  Just his lame attempt to erase  the Keating 5 thing.  He is not now nor has he ever been one iota less of a lobbyist pet than any other pol.  Not a real reformer.   Maverick only when it suits him.  Just an old pol who  wants to be president. Nothing more, nothing less. Except for a complete lack of executive or diplomatic skills and no clue about economic issues.

            • Laughing Boy says:

              Who in politics isn’t involved with lobbyists?  Especially at that level?

              Obama has just as much contact with people that want to donate money in order to gain influence as McCain does.

              • redstateblues says:

                we (bloggers) had lobbyists cozying up to us. I could go for a nice steak dinner.

              • Nancy L Baldwin says:

                LB.  You don’t see a pattern here?  First McCain helped ruin our economy in the 80’s with his fraudulent S&L deals and now he is involved in recking our economy through the Fannie and Freddi bailouts.

                • Laughing Boy says:

                  convicted of in the S&L crisis?

                  • Nancy L Baldwin says:

                    He was intimately involved in the Keating 5.  You know it and I know it.  If you have forgotten about that you are either too young or ignorant.

                    • Laughing Boy says:

                      Yes?

                    • redstateblues says:

                      Since when did being convicted of something matter in politics?

                      The only court that matters is that of public opinion.

                    • Nancy L Baldwin says:

                      He wasn’t convicted because he used his high powered connections to get out of it.  But you know he was involved in it.

                      The threat to the prosecutors was too great.  Would you try and convict a guy who has no qualms about killing his fellow man?

                    • Unless you have any evidence that there were threats to would-be prosecutors, or even to the (toothless) Senate Ethics Committee, the kind of response you give here is not helpful to your own cause.

                      The truth of the Keating 5 scandal is bad enough; even without convictions, his close ties are enough to forever associate him with the S&L scandal and to lobbyist activity.

                      Quoting Wikipedia:

                      McCain and Keating had become personal friends following their initial contacts in 1981.[8] Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and his associates.[14] In addition, McCain’s wife Cindy McCain and her father Jim Hensley had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators. McCain, his family, and their baby-sitter had made nine trips at Keating’s expense, sometimes aboard Keating’s jet. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating’s opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay. McCain did not pay Keating (in the amount of $13,433) for some of the trips until years after they were taken, when he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln.[6][15]

                    • redstateblues says:

                      is why Rezko is not being touted more by the McCain camp against Obama. The two scenarios are somewhat similar.

                    • Stringer says:

                      McCain did not pay Keating (in the amount of $13,433) for some of the trips until years after they were taken,

                      Because the Senate rules at the time did not require repayment or prohibit taking trips on private aircraft.  The laws and senate rules have changed a lot since then.

                      After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings. Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly…

                    • Just because it was legal doesn’t mean it was right.

                      McCain: married to lobbyists for 20 years.  Now that’s commitment!

                    • Sir Robin says:

                      FIGHT against the lies, the obfuscation, the self-serving…the greedy.

                    • in the court of opinion of being inextricably attached to lobbyists and other power-brokers.

                      McCain’s “maverick” reformer schtick is a facade.  He’s up to his eyebrows in lobbyists for this campaign, and taking advice and help from every single person or organization that’s given the Republican Party a bad name.

                    • Laughing Boy says:

                      Are you being serious?

                    • redstateblues says:

                      nobody in the real non-blogging, non-political insider, non-political junkie world has any idea about this.

                    • Laughing Boy says:

                      among people that would never vote for any Republican ticket.

                      This election will be all about the middle.  Maybe more than any other since 1980.

                    • Nancy L Baldwin says:

                      You are right about the middle.  As a card carrying member of the middle I will be voting for Obama.

                    • Laughing Boy says:

                      You’re about as middle as Pat Buchanan.

                      I encourage you to vote your conscience. And to read up on your history.



                      I only repeat 40-year-old slogans that cherrypick one small piece of an Eisenhower speech!

                      Oh yeah – STICK IT TO THE MAN!

                    • Nancy L Baldwin says:

                      Is Buchanan supporting Obama too?

                    • Libertad says:

                      Are you forced to carry that card or do you affiliate by choice … you know … is your membership self-determined?

                    • redstateblues says:

                      now that was funny.

                    • dwyer says:

                      There was a question about reform planks in the Republican Party platform….were there any?  

                      Round and round the blog goes goes …spinning away from a legitimate question…..a question which is not that hard to address…

                      Somebody needs to put on their big boy pants…and answer up….

                    • Laughing Boy says:

                      I posted the link.  Enjoy.  Go pick a slap fight with somebody else.

                    • Sir Robin says:

                      You’re more stupid than I thought.

              • BlueCat says:

                But McCain is the one beating his chest about being the great big lobbyist slayer. That and reform are the entire basis of his claim to being something different, a maverick and it’s total bull.  

                Of course the main problem with McCain isn’t his hypocrisy or pandering.  It’s that he’s so wrong on all the important issues. But he still IS an enormous hypocrite and panderer.  And you still haven’t answered the question about actual reform planks in the platform.  It really is the same old same old, no way around it.

                And if McCain can’t pull off the reformer maverick crap, all he has left is all those positions he shares so completely with the popular Mr. Bush and a side kick who is going to look exciting for maybe the next ten minutes until all but the lunatic fringe realize what a crackpot she really is.

          • dwyer says:

            I did read the link. See, a political party has a platform, which summarizing what the party’s policies are and what the candidates will support.  It is an honorable political institution.  McCain is the leader of the Republican party, and has had since last February the opportunity to put his ethics reform into the party platform which the party would have accepted at the party convention.  I see no evidence that he bothered to do that.  I personally feel the man has nothing but contempt for republicans.  

            And, of course, judging by the serious intellectual content of your posts, I certainly share that opinion.

  2. parsingreality says:

    Here we are again, the public getting hosed while perps, at worst, are let go.

    FNMA was a child of the New Deal, created in 1938. (How many of you righties have or have had a home funded by that liberal commie program?) Obstensibly in order to remove FNMA from the government accounting books, it was made a private corporation in 1968.  Was FNMA being “on the books for over 30 years now a problem, or was there an opportunity for many “in the loop” to make a killing?  I surmise, you decide.

    What that did was remove most of the oversight that should have been in place for the last, here we are again, 30+ years.  Those who ran Fannie and Freddie were allowed to play fast and loose with what is ultimately, the taxpayer’s money.  

    The S&L bailout cost $135 B-Billion dollars.  I just heard on the radio that this one will cost $100 B-Billion EACH! And we know that these estimates are always high, right?

    Then there is the Bank-Failure-A-Week program.  Let’s say that’s another $15 B-Billion just to round things off when all the dust has settled.  That’s $350 B-Billion in taxpayer funded rescues of the deregulated banking and mortgage industries.  That’s let’s call it, $17 B-Billion dollars a year in invisible costs to the taxpayer. That makes the Iraq war cost look like change on the sidewalk.

    Time to reign these bastards back in.  

    (And please note that the FDIC was another New Deal child, saving mostly wealthy Republicans.  They haven’t even stuck to the $100K max, always a work around.)

    • redstateblues says:

      any of the free market Republicans calling foul on the decision to take over Frannie and Freddie. Shouldn’t this be considered economic heresy?

      • Car 31 says:

        F&F are in big trouble and can’t be allowed to drag down the economy worse than they have.

        The keys will be:

        – break up F&F and return them to the private sector. The government should not hold on to these companies longer than they need to.

        – DO NOT allow F&F to lobby for what they feel should be included in the plan.  F&F are now government owned and all lobbying perks for these two giants should be suspended.  

        • redstateblues says:

          do the R’s make sense economically? It’s the GOP policies that have taken us to this point, it would only be natural for them to criticize it as “interventionist”.

        • parsingreality says:

          That’s what put us here today.  Should we bail them out again in 20-30 years and consider this repetition just part of the cost of doing business?  They worked just fine as 100% gummint agencies. Here’s a concept: If they are able to be profitable, let them make money for the treasury.

          If they go back to the private sector, they need to pay off the costs to the taxpayer, just like Chrysler and NY did and the auto companies are currently proposing.  Let the new stock holders ante up, up front. Oh, the market wouldn’t like that?  Tough shit. Live in your ideological bed.

          And why do we have this duplication of what the agencies do?  I was in the mortgage business for ten years and I know that there are nuances of what and how they fund, but mostly it’s the same stuff.  Collapse them into one unit.

          • Car 31 says:

            These two giants were allowed to grow and control trillions of dollars worth of mortgages and use that wealth to protect their growth.

            Some of my concerns are allayed after reading an article in The Economist:

            The two chief executives will leave. Fannie and Freddie, whose unparalleled political connections helped them to keep regulation toothless and expand on threadbare capital cushions, will no longer be allowed to lobby lawmakers.

            While the short-term goal is to stabilise Fannie and Freddie, thereby bringing down mortgage rates, the longer-term aim should be to avoid an expensive repeat. Mr Paulson stressed that the seizure of the agencies is merely a “time out”; it will be for the next administration and Congress to determine their future form. He is clearly in favour of scrapping their hybrid business model, which delivers profits to shareholders but leaves the public to shoulder life-threatening losses. Both presidential candidates have joined the criticism, with Barack Obama calling the agencies “a weird blend”.

            Winding them down is not yet an option. With private mortgage finance barely registering a pulse, Fannie and Freddie have become crucial cogs in the market. Acknowledging this, the Treasury’s plan envisages allowing them to increase the size of their portfolios modestly by the end of next year. But from 2010 they will be forced to shrink by 10% a year until they reach an undefined “less risky size”. Once markets recover, pressure to dismantle the firms-and nurture alternatives, such as covered bonds-will grow. Until then, conservatorship will have to do.

            http://www.economist.com/finan

          • what tha duce says:

            Is the ongoing repayment to the treasury/tax payer. Did the deal include a process that, given a turn-around, will provide compensation first to the tax payers, then to the stock holders?

            I’m glad they’ve asked current management to step down, but there is still a need for corporate responsibility that hasn’t been fulfilled.

    • BlueCat says:

      for making huge profits by taking irresponsible risks.  When things fall apart and it’s time to pay for the  massive failure then they are suddenly all for socialism and big government and getting us to collectively bail their asses out.  And they know we have to or they’re taking us down with them.  Great system: Profit for the elite, cost of risk shouldered by the rest of us.

      The answer is a return to rational regulatory measures to restrain these capitalism for profit, socialism for loss clowns from putting us in this position over and over.

  3. Nancy L Baldwin says:

    The failure of these companyies is specifically due to the government regulations which require Fannie and Fredie to loan based on affirmative action.

    What I mean is that in order to accomodate the Fair Lending Practices act which requires lenders to make loans to people based on skin color rather then their ability to pay back the loans.

    I don’t want to rain on anyones parade here.  But it is a fact.

    I am afraid in this case that our good government was part of the cause and not so sure it will provide the best solution.

    They need to get back to lending to financially viable people rather then making some kind of political statement.

    • redstateblues says:

      It’s all because of affirmative action. Way to go, you just figured out the entire housing/banking crisis. You will surely win the nobel prize for economics for this.

    • Ralphie says:

      None of this would have happened if we only loaned money to decent, God-fearing white folks.

      Do you have a link to some statistics about the ethnicity of those homeowners in default on their mortgages?  I’d like to verify your contention, but you have presented no facts.

      And did you REALLY register on Pols just to post this racist crap?

      • Nancy L Baldwin says:

        No.  You are missing the point.  It is just that the mortgage industry was forced to apply affirmative action to people who may not qualify by financial merit alone.

        Believe me we need to help people of other races get a leg up but do you honestly believe they were helped when they were given loans that they could not pay?

        You obviously don’t know anything about the mortgage market.  

        • Ralphie says:

          You have presented no facts to back your argument.

          Present facts from a reputable source and I’ll listen.

        • redstateblues says:

          millions of white applicants who received loans without the ability to pay either. This is not a race issue, and you shouldn’t be trying to make it one.

          Do you think Weld County would have the highest foreclosure rate in the nation if minorities were the only risky borrowers to whom banks gave loans?

      • Nancy L Baldwin says:

        I think it is racist to assume that these people are defaulting because of their race.  Race had nothing to do with it.  

        Financial ability to service the debt had everything to do with it.  If anything the financial crisis points out that we need to increase the financial aid to the oppressed minorities.

        I just don’t see how you can think that foreclosure on predominantly minority people helps their plight.

        • redstateblues says:

          So the fact that they foreclosed had nothing to do with their race, but the fact that they were unqualified was? You’re not making one iota of sense.

          • Nancy L Baldwin says:

            The point is that lending should be fair and color blind.  You either qualify or you don’t.  When you force business to lend to people that do not financially qualify simply because they are not white – then you have created a recipe for disaster.

            We are talking about lending standards that were not equally applied.

            I think it is a terrible travisty that minority people were given loans when they didn’t qualify to pay for them.  

            In fact I am not so sure that the Bush administration didn’t set this up in order to make the minority class fail to pay their house payments.  

            It should be investigated for sure.  

        • Ralphie says:

          Your own words:

          “What I mean is that in order to accomodate the Fair Lending Practices act which requires lenders to make loans to people based on skin color rather then their ability to pay back the loans.”

          I’m not going to be called a racist by a freakin’ racist.  This is a stupid thread, totally devoid of facts to verify your assertions, and I’m not posting responses to it anymore.

          At first I thought it was mere ignorance.  Now I’m convinced it’s a troll.  Looking at your registration date, I’m absolutely sure of it.  I don’t feed trolls.

          • Nancy L Baldwin says:

            You got it wrong.  I am a fellow traveler in a journey to right what is wrong.  

            I just think that it was racist to force companies to loan to people based on skin color.  Stats show that foreclosure rates of minorities have spiked.

            We need to give these people aid instead of taking their homes away.  And we never should have lent them money based on color unless we as taxpayers were willing to step up to the plate and make sure they get aid to pay their homes as well.

            Minorities who were unable to qualify on their financial merit should have also been given a backup plan in case they couldn’t make the payment.

    • Fidel's dirt nap says:

      Now our housing and economic meltdown is because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lent money to minorities ?

      And I’m guessing unscrupulous mortgage brokers, rising costs and rising unemployment, mortgage backed securities, as well as overdevelopment bear no responsibility for the current crisis.  You know, like the stuff we READ IN THE NEWS.

      Your theory is crackpot crazy – and you have no proof of your assertion.  

    • parsingreality says:

      Nancy is essentially correct but ill-phrased.  The Fair Lending Act is NOT the bulk of the reason for the failure of the mortgage giants, which I read to be so in her statement. However, it did pile some more foreclosures onto the burden.

      Once upon a time lenders used to Red Line, we all know that.  In those days, however, the default rate for minority homeowners was virtually the same as for white homeowners.  The Red Line was not so much race based as economic.  But yeah, guess what, they are pretty much the same.  It was a quick and nasty way of avoiding problems.

      There is no reason modern banks wouldn’t lend to anyone qualified.  It’s money in the, er, bank. A black person out of the hood hasn’t had problems getting a loan for many years. Prejudice cost the banks a lot of money back when.

      But here’s what happened.

      With both elements of carrot and stick, monies were lent to people who should never have gotten those loans.  It really didn’t matter what their color is, but again, a high correlation of lower income and being black or Hispanic.  

      Those loans were OK until the economy and inflated housing prices hit the fan.  Because of the looser standards that were used to qualify for the loans, the Banking 101 house of cards collapsed.  Hell, my brother got a loan then! When he did, I knew the day of reckoning would come, and it has. He is in foreclosure, just like many minorities. (At least he had to pay higher interest and other costs, thus having some corelation between risk and cost.)

      There is nothing racist in noting factual differences between us. And often, if not always, it is not the genetics that cause the variation as the cultures and/or general demographics.

      And that’s OK.

      • Nancy L Baldwin says:

        I was just trying to point out that lower standards based on skin instead of financial viability is what caused defaults in the minority population.  This is not a good thing and now many minorities have been set up for failure.

        No doubt that this is the consequences are intentional and orchestrated by the Republicans.

        Sometimes you have to hand it to them.  The Repukes knew that minorities who couldn’t qualify for loans would eventually default.

        This was clearly the agenda of McCain and Bush.

        And the sad part is that now banks are tightening standards making it virtually impossible for minorities who have lost their homes to ever own again.

        Instead of bailing out corporate america we should bail out the people who cannot afford their homes.

        • parsingreality says:

          “No doubt that this is the consequences are intentional and orchestrated by the Republicans.”

          I have no proof of the history here, but my gut sense it was pushed by the Dems or libs.  One of those things that sounds good in the interestes of justice and equality, but like gravity, the rules of economics can’t be twarted.

          While I was never high up in the mortgage business I spent ten years in, mostly wholesaling what we called B & C paper.  Those were loans for bad credit risks and one paid accordingly.  When people obviously uncreditworthy (see note about bro’)were getting loans left and right I was amazed.

          I also spent some of those years as a broker, an underwriter, and consultant to brokers.  

        • parsingreality says:

          You sure set off a firestorm for your first post!  

          • Nancy L Baldwin says:

            It is interesting how race has played so much a part of politics in our party.  As soon as you bring facts into the picture people like Ralphie attack you.  It is too easy to cry racist as was the case when Bill Clinton was attacked.  Nobody really believes Bill is a racist – but as soon as his wife is running against a black man – he is a racist.

            I sure didn’t mean to sound racist – instead I believe minorities are victims of the laws put in place to equalize the lending process.  Call it unintended consequences.

            But, I would rather believe it was Repubs racist attitudes that prevented minorities from getting additional protection in the case of a default.

            • Laughing Boy says:

              But, I would rather believe it was Repubs racist attitudes that prevented minorities from getting additional protection in the case of a default.

              I’m sure you would, but it’s not what happened.

              Funny you don’t like Ralphie, you guys would probably share many views.

              Most folks are pretty rational around here.  Even some of us evil Republicans.

    • BlueCat says:

      Call from the cleaners; your sheets and hoods are ready.

      • parsingreality says:

        Too bad you aren’t as fast with your intellect as your accusations.

        I’m sorry if the realities don’t fit your preconceived ideas.  

        • BlueCat says:

          Show me one scrap of evidence that this is due to affirmative action?

          • parsingreality says:

            I know that science, mathematics, and gravity are sometimes real annoying to the extremists on both sides of the spectrum, but wishing some things were otherwise won’t change the realities.

            I’ve explained the defaulat statistics both before and after the Fair Lending Act took effect. Acknowledged that race and income are often corelated.  

            I know a lot about the industry, credit reporting and interpretation, and how borrowers who would never qualify for an A loan suddenly were doing so.  Lowered lending standards – surprise! – led to more foreclosures. My statistical guess is that you don’t have the same background.

            I’m not going to repeat myself in an attempt to convert a believer in his/her own truth to the real world.

            • redstateblues says:

              FHA loans? Cause I thought that they had lower standards than private lenders.

              • parsingreality says:

                Not really.

                It’s not just the loan to value but income.

                Many of the new crop of loan types were called “Liar Loans”, or just show a few months of bank statements instead of a year’s worth.  

                The FHA program is an unqualified success with foreclosure rates just a bit worse than standard 80% loans, pre current mortgage disasters.  

                Something I’ve not seen mentioned even once in all the mortgage crisis is how much the lenders collect on Private Mortgage Insurance.  The borrower pays for it, the lender is covered. So maybe the losses aren’t as great as complained of.  

            • Laughing Boy says:

              Is just a wealth-transference program in the guise of a scientific theory.

              Wait.  Was that gravity or something else?

  4. what tha duce says:

    The BBC published a nice little piece from the author of “Dear Hunting with Jesus” about how the rednecks will decide the election this year, and Sarah Palin is the perfect political redneck.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi

  5. One Queer Dude says:

    …the man who will be the 44th POTUS will be having lunch with the 42nd POTUS!  B.O. and B.C. will be breaking bread.

      This should symbolize the end of the PUMA movement.

  6. This morning I received my first-ever rude gesture for having a political bumper-sticker.

    Didn’t get one during the ’04 election, nor for my Ref. C sticker…  But today I got a honk, a thumbs-down, and a middle finger (all from the same guy); he also decided to pull a road-rage maneuver and cut way too close in front of me doing 65 in traffic down the highway.

    Hopefully none of you on this blog are so rude; it’s politics, not personal vendetta.

    PS – I’ll be a less-frequent poster here for a bit as I rush to take care of things IRL.

  7. bob ewegen says:

    Christine Arguello, Phillip Brimmer will get hearings before Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow.  Goldberg won’t.  So, its two out of three ain’t bad for our overworked federal court.

    http://blogs.denverpost.com/op

  8. Laughing Boy says:

    Pretty funny… From Mere Rhetoric.

    1. Denial – This was probably the most surreal stage, with Obama campaign eventually elevating unblinking denial into a campaign smear. The Atlantic ran an article entitled “the Eagleton Scenario” and the NYT published an op-ed gently and kingly suggesting that Palin “should withdraw” to avoid humiliation. InTrade shares on Palin being replaced spiked to almost 15. When that didn’t work, the left seamlessly transitioned to a different wishful denial.

    2. Anger – Jeffrey Bell has suggested that the left’s hateful anger toward Palin has to do with the ideological grip that social issues have on the movement. That’s not entirely false. But there’s certainly a more sympathetic reading: they’re just trying to cope. Still – DU threads like this one are insanely venomous even by the left’s usual standards.

    3. Bargaining – The Obama campaign is quickly learning that “our Presidential pick is slightly more experienced than your Vice Presidential pick” is an unhappy argumentative place to be. So – how about Palin/McCain? What about Palin vs. Clinton? Anything but a veteran Senator for President with an energetic and galvanizing – but still inexperienced – governor as his running mate.

    4. Depression – Last night’s 54-44 Gallup poll has forced liberals to move into this next stage. Under the headline “shattered”, TNR is declaring that “the Palin pick is disheartening on so many levels.” Josh Marshall, having posted the Gallup poll, has become noticeably despondent. Again – it’s sad, but it’s all part of the natural coping process.

    5. Acceptance – From this political community? Yeah, not so much.

  9. Sir Robin says:

    http://blog.wired.com/defense/

    Why can’t people see truth when it’staring them in the face?

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.