[Rhodes22-list] Failure or success?

Wed Oct 1 11:10:59 EDT 2008

Ben,

This article (below) from the WaPo just crossed my radar screen. I
think both parties are in disarray and both need new leadership.  Eric
Cantor looks promising for the R's and I'll continue to root for Gene
Taylor (who mostly stays under the radar coverage) for the D's.

McCain never was much of a Republican which is why he was probably the
best (and lucky) choice for this election cycle.  Sarah is more
Libertarian in ideology than anything else and is just as likely to
mark a bullseye on an R as a D based on her previous history.

And Barack is what?  Are we evaluating the Barry of January 08 or the
Barry of Fall 08?  It's kind of hard to pin this guy down.  I think
I'll just stick with the Barry of 1995, polished race baiter,
unaccomplished lawyer and community organizer, friends of terrorists,
and financial benefactor of monies from convicted felons.

Brad

----------------------

Rescue Package Not the Only Loser In House's Vote

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 1, 2008; A04

There were no winners when the House voted down the economic rescue
package on Monday. The collective breakdown of leadership in
Washington left political wreckage rivaling that in the financial
markets -- and it spread across the spectrum.

Who were the losers from Monday's debacle? Certainly President Bush,
whose virtual lame-duck status does not fully describe the apparent
limits of his power to make things happen at this moment. The
Washington Post-ABC News poll taken Monday night showed another drop
in his approval rating, to its lowest point of his presidency -- 26
percent, with 70 percent disapproving.

The president was slow to sound the alarms to the public as the crisis
deepened, and he ceded most authority to Treasury Secretary Henry M.
Paulson Jr. When he finally stepped up, he was unable to rally either
public opinion or members of his own party behind a rescue package
that bore his stamp of approval.

His speech last week was notable for the clarity with which he
described the threat to the economy and equally notable for the lack
of impact it had on public opinion or Republicans in Congress. For all
he was able to do to put the crisis into understandable terms, he
could not convince enough Americans that the rescue package was aimed
as much at protecting their finances as it was at protecting greedy
financial firms and executives.

Next in line are the House Republicans, long the ideological outliers
in a political party that aspires to majority status. A veteran of a
past Republican administration could barely spit out his contempt
Monday at the actions of the House Republicans. "They would rather be
right in their views -- that ideology counts more, that ideology is
crucial in any decision -- rather than making incremental progress,"
he said.

The vote Monday underscored the political disarray within the party.
House Republicans reflect the ideological purity of the conservative
movement, but they are not by any means representative of a governing
majority in the country.

The party's nomination battle did nothing to resolve those divisions
and probably simply papered them over through the election. If John
McCain loses to Barack Obama in November, the party is in for a long
period of infighting and introspection. If McCain wins, he may be
confronted with many of the same problems Bush has faced through much
of his second term -- a president in serious disagreement with at
least part of his party.

The Republican Party is leaderless and lacking in cohesion. The
president is certainly not in charge. McCain sought to exert power
over the party to no avail, and in the process he raised more
questions about his own style of leadership. None of the congressional
leaders have stepped up.

House Republican leader John Boehner's performance has been truly
mystifying. Last Wednesday he issued a joint statement with Speaker
Nancy Pelosi touting the bipartisan progress being made on the
package. The next day, at the White House, he was promoting an
alternative plan in the name of House Republicans that caught
Democrats and Paulson totally by surprise.

On Monday, he and House Republican Whip Roy Blunt were confident they
had the votes needed to pass the rescue package, but they turned out
to be lousy vote counters. When the bill went down, he and Blunt and
Rep. Eric Cantor all blamed Pelosi for scaring off a dozen of his
colleagues with what he called an overly partisan speech.

Peter Wehner, a former Bush administration official, wrote Tuesday on
the National Review blog that the Republican leaders' excuse was
"foolish and irresponsible." "On one of the most important votes they
will ever cast, insisting 'the speech made me do it' is lame and
adolescent," he wrote.

Still, Pelosi deserves no praise for her leadership on Monday. Even
stipulating that we are in the closing weeks of one of the most
important political campaigns in a generation, her inability to rise
above the tendency to score political points was inexcusable. Monday's
vote was a moment to set aside those instincts and talk about the
package as an example of Washington's ability to work cooperatively in
a time of crisis.

Instead, Pelosi accused Bush of economic policies that create
"budgetary recklessness" and "an anything-goes mentality." And she
closed with a partisan call to arms. "In the new year, with a new
Congress and a new president," she said, "we will break free with a
failed past and take America in a new direction to a better future."

Pelosi's partisan rhetoric has been echoed, though less prominently,
by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid, who has sounded grudging in
his comments about the Democrats' willingness to participate in
finding a solution to a problem that he argues is wholly the fault of
Bush and the Republicans.

Obama may bear less of the blame for what happened Monday than others,
but largely because he put less on the line than McCain. Perhaps that
was the right posture to take for a presidential candidate who has at
best only limited authority to get into the thick of the negotiations.
But he will get less credit if and when anything finally passes.

The voters will sort out the blame on all this in November. Anger at
Washington will feed a hunger for change, and it's likely to fall
harder on the GOP as the party that holds the White House. But for the
next president and the next Congress, whatever its makeup, Monday's
performance should be looked at as an example of what it was, a
performance designed to undermine the public's confidence in its
elected leadership.

On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Benjamin Cittadino
<bigben65 at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/opinion/30brooks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/opinion/30brooks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
>
>
> Brad ,Robert;
>
> The above link is to my favorite NY Times main stream media columnist.  I
> like the way he thinks
> about the "bailout" issue.
>
> Ben C.
>
> Brad Haslett-2 wrote:
>>
>> Herb,
>>
>> It works both ways.  When we lost our dump truck in an accident JAN07
>> (a $30K loss after the lawsuits) the driver wanted me to pay for his
>> hospital bills (about $6K).  "Marvin, you wanted to be an independent
>> contractor, you are, you're 66, you have Medicare, I can't pay your
>> bill without violating the law".  "I'll sue".  "Really, go ahead, I'll
>> pay your bill and then send it to Medicare and the SS".  End of story.
>>
>> You and I disagree on the immigrant issue.  We don't use any anymore
>> because it isn't worth the risk, but, they work hard, they're honest,
>> and they demand and get almost three times the minimum wage. We'd
>> gladly hire locals but if you're living rent free in a FEMA trailer
>> and drawing a stipend, there ain't no way in hell you're going to give
>> that up for a job.
>>
>> People don't get it!  Come down here to the trenches and I'll show you
>> around folks.  Or, stick with your fantasies.  How's that working out?
>>
>> Unless anyone thinks I'm heartless, I share a substantial amount of my
>> earnings with family members who are less fortunate.  Ask the Big O
>> about his brother.
>>
>> Brad
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Brad,
>>>
>>> This is a true story. We are in the process of converting all of our
>>> paper documents to electronic format. Today, as I was scanning in some
>>> of the ex-employees (I've taken on theirs, because they're not pressing,
>>> and I can do them when I have spare time), and came across an email that
>>> was printed and saved, as a CYA.
>>>
>>> The employee has received a .50 an hour raise. Not much, but it wasn't
>>> even an eval raise, it was just a "You're doing a good job" thing. She
>>> was asking her supervisor to rescind it.
>>>
>>> Why? Because it put her in a different income bracket, and she would not
>>> longer be able to get lunch subsidies. That .50 an hour, $20 a week, was
>>> going to cos her $30 a week for her three kids (single mother).
>>>
>>> This was NOT a minimum wage employee we're talking about. She was making
>>> well over triple the minimum wage. She had also left the company and
>>> come back because her wages were higher here.
>>>
>>> However, she didn't see how turning down .50 an hour now costs her from
>>> now until she no longer holds this job, and likely beyond, since often
>>> the new job makes an offer based largely on what the old job paid. Not
>>> only that, but she effectively froze her wages to wherever she works to
>>> whatever this portion of the nanny state has dictated is her "limit"
>>> before cutting off the freebies.
>>>
>>> That's what the nannny-state does for us.
>>>
>>>
>>> Brad Haslett wrote:
>>>> Robert,
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you come down to the Gulf Coast and be our human resources
>>>> manager for a week for our little company.  We don't need one because
>>>> we don't need to hire anyone, but it would be fun to video you
>>>> answering the phone and listening to people who want to work for cash
>>>> because they're drawing disability.  WPA?  Doesn't the W stand for
>>>> work?  Ain't gonna happen buddy.  Welcome to the 21st Century in
>>>> America.  Maybe in China - not happening here.
>>>>
>>>> Brad
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Robert Skinner
>>>> <Robert at squirrelhaven.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Looks as if the neocon Republicans have
>>>>> failed to socialize Wall Street's losses.
>>>>>
>>>>> Democrats are standing fast to let the
>>>>> results of greed find their way back to
>>>>> those who promoted and profited from it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Success will be the failure of the
>>>>> companies who overextended their loan
>>>>> positions.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is going to be a rough ride, and we
>>>>> will have to help out our neighbors who
>>>>> made foolish borrowing decisions.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is truly conservative behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>> How curious it is that so many Democrats
>>>>> are joining with old-line Republicans to
>>>>> restrain the modern go-go neocons.
>>>>>
>>>>> The people are not willing to allow the
>>>>> nouveau rich CEOs to keep their
>>>>> multimillion bail-out packages - the
>>>>> packages designed to insulate them from
>>>>> the consequences of their decisions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps we will need another WPA/CCC to
>>>>> recover from this experiment in economic
>>>>> deregulation.
>>>>>
>>>>> What the Hell -- most of our really
>>>>> beautiful parkways and rural public
>>>>> structures cam from the last depression.
>>>>>
>>>>> Makes the head spin...
>>>>>
>>>>> /Robert
>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>> __________________________________________________
>>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Failure-or-success--tp19734295p19752964.html
> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>