Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In Bush's first address I was simply amazed his solution was to pour money on the fire as fast as possible. The mere idiocy of such an idea was simply unfathomable , and a tribute to just how inept he is. Thank god for the Democrats AND Republicans alike that thought it wise to sit down and take some time to work on the solution instead of just rushing it through.

Yesterday when the House voted this down I was again pleased to see that the incumbents were listening to their base, a real milestone if you asked me in recent times of Bush basically doing whatever he wanted and claiming either executive privilege or that it had something to do with terrorism.

I have little doubt that in the future we will see something happen on this legislature due to the fact too many Americans retirement and savings is intertwined with Wall Street, and the fact that unemployment could skyrocket in already trying times. I am not happy about it but the more I research this the more I grudgingly come to the same conclusion, we gave them way too much slack and now we will pay for our lack of oversight and trust in government to do the right thing. There is plenty of blame to spread around on this one, I just hope we learn from it and never get into this position again.

Posted by mythoughts (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My thoughts exactly! It's the "Let them eat cake" attitude--off with their heads! (metaphorically speaking)

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 4:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Beautifully written, Janet. I certainly agree with you. Of course it's too soon to tell what has happened to pension plans, etc. all over this country, but even today, despite the House refusing to give their stamp of approval, the market still began to recover a little bit as people looked for bargains. Let the market take care of itself. Let the greedy barons go down.

Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 5:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Everyone realizes that this is not the first time "we" have bought up debt? Sometimes "we" turn a tidy profit on it. If this was not an election year, this would already be well on its way.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 6:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The market will not recover for a long long time without intervention, Mrs. Brassert was commending the politicians for not acting hastily the way I read it. Make no mistake as more people get their 3rd quarter statements and see what happens to the retirements and pensions the resistance against this will fade and this will pass. This is not just the fault of the greedy, its the fault of government for not evolving to regulate Wall Street in a global age. Its the fault the fault of the American citizen who bought into the sub prime mortgages without thinking, its the fault of the lenders for offering them as well. Theres is blame everywhere, to pin it all on Wall Street is not feasible, much as I would like to.

Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 6:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Seems like real estate is always mixed into the stew, these days. I wonder if shows like "Flip this house" and the like glorifying the profit of inflated real estate prices and showing the newly rich "agents" helped fuel this thing. I am asking because I honestly wonder.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now if we could only get Nancy Pelosi to put the people ahead of politics. How she gets elected is beyond me. But then I look at the mayor that was elected by the same people that voted for her and I understand. Sort of.

Along with blaming the lenders for offering them, I would also blame the organizations like ACORN (the one Obama worked as a community organizer for) that pressured the lenders into making loans to uncreditworthy people. The Community Reinvestment Act was a well-intentioned thing, but groups like ACORN used it to push things beyond their limits. Pelosi had 20 Billion $$ of the bailout bill going into ACORN until they were forced to drop it.

For those interested, do some research on ACORN. It ain't pretty.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 7:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Please explain the Pelosi comment? I can only assume you are referring to her speech, which is just that a speech. If people change their vote because their feelings were hurt then they should not be in the house due to the fact they cannot handle their emotions.

And since you like to tie Obama to ACORN I will go ahead and tie some of the blame to John McCain himself for spearheading legislation in earlier this decade that deregulated Wall Street and helped bring about this whole mess. Like I said, plenty of blame to go around.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 7:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

USNretired,

Real estate prices are in crapper right now based on the fact that there is an overabundance of houses on the market for sale. Basic principals of supply and demand have taken over thus too much supply drops the price, this is why a great many people saw their equity evaporate.

To be fair I suppose their is a chance if foot the bill for these toxic mortgages that the taxpayer could turn a nice profit. But that is hardly a comforting thought when you consider the money at stake. At least we have something tangible for all our money.

Real estate is a great way to make money if you have the money to acquire the properties and credit to take out loans to remodel and resale at a profit. I think shows that you refer to focus more on the extreme buy at low price and professionally recondition a home for max profit. A profit that now is not going to be there for a good while regardless of if this bill passes. Make no mistake it will be perhaps the best time in history to buy property at all time low prices if one can afford to hold onto them till the value begins to return.

Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 8:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The prices were too overinflated to stay where they were. Now they are getting closer to where they should be. Supply and demand is not how huge profits are made in real estate, it is the screwed up mortgage laws that allow the transactions to get twisted by the "agents" while not allowing borrowers a fair shot at challenging any of the "fees" that rip them off and add nothing to the transaction but another line item on the bill. Compare most other consumer loans to mortgages and look at the differences. This also hurts insurance companies when they have to cover pumped up values on real estate. A bubble of this nature has to burst sooner or later, and apparently, will repeat the cycle. I was only wondering if TV "advertising" could make it worse.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 8:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm not referring to Pelosi's speech. The Repubs themselves that voted against it said it made no difference, regardless of the one fellow that said it may have swayed some. I'm referring to the fact that despite 95 Democrats voting against it, she blamed only the Republicans for shooting down the bill. I'm referring to the fact that Pelosi told 16 of the freshmen Democrats NOT to vote for the bill so that their seats would be safe in the general election, since she knew the bailout is unpopular with the people. And then blamed the Repubs. THAT is putting personal politics ahead of the people.
Actually, I would argue that is was OVERregulation that brought this about. Rules that put banks & lending institutions in jeopardy if they did NOT lend to non-creditworthy people. Well intentioned, but ultimately fatal.
I've never said that there wasn't plenty of blame to go around. The Repubs have been in power in Congress for 12 years and let this go on. I'm just sick of the self-proclaimed-over-and-over-most-powerful-woman-in-America Pelosi putting politics ahead of the best interests of the country. And McCain did warn about the Fannie & Freddie coming crisis:

http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2008/...

From other sources:

"In 2005, [Sen. John McCain] joined a small group of Republican Senators to cosponsor the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act, the strongest legislation introduced up to that time to control Fannie and Freddie. In a statement, he noted that “For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac…and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market…If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie and Freddie pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."

As far as me "tying" Obama to ACORN, well, he did work for them for several years...... so people can make their own call as to whether he should be "tied" to them or not. I take it you haven't looked into ACORN at all, including all their numerous voter fraud convictions, in addition to other things.

Posted by shoehorn (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 8:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you all want some information on the series of events that contributed the most to this mess, here is a link.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/series11.as...

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 9:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EXACTLY, shoehorn. Same things I've been ranting about. Some of these laws WERE good-intentioned, but between lack of oversight on one side, and forced bad practices (over-regulation) on the other, there is plenty of blame to be shared all around. Unless your last name is Pelosi, then, of course, it's just another opportunity to put politics ahead of everything.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 9:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Could you please post where you read all this information about Pelosi? Really too tied to debate the rest of this tonight, will be sure to reply more in depth tomorrow.

Posted by momus (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 9:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Both sides are playing politics with this issue, which is what's done during campaign season. Or, does suspending a campaign in order to get a deal done, only to restart a campaign without a deal not qualify as playing politics?

Posted by shoehorn (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 9:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnyyAKn-I...

Posted by shoehorn (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 9:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It wasn't the speech. It was the twisted facts in the speech. This problem goes clear back to 1977. It didn't sneak up on anybody, it was legislated into being, by Congress.

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Janet;
I for one am glad that the Patriot Act was enacted quickly. The fact is that there has been zero major acts of terrorism in the USA since the Patriot Act became law. None! Not even one!
I thank President Bush and the law makers that have protected us with this law. I did not lose any civil liberty due to the enactment of that law. I regret that you feel that you now have less civil liberty. What were you up to anyway?
As for the invasion of Iraq, I am also thankful to the lawmakers and President Bush. I think if you were to tell the Kurds that Sadam had no weapons of mass destruction, they could point to some large graveyards and would beg to differ with you. There are other weapons of mass destruction besides nuclear weapons. I am certainly glad that we were able to eliminate Sadam. Perhaps if FDR would have had the foresight and courage to do the right thing as President Bush has, Hitler would have been eliminated before he cooked 6 million Jews and countless other innocent people. FDR could have probably prevented WW2 had he pulled his head out of the sand.
Guess what Janet? I agree with you on the issue of the economy. We need to be accountable for our own decisions. If we took out loans that we could not repay we deserve the consequences of our actions. If we have gambled our life’s earnings on Wall Street and Wall Street falls in a pile, we should be allowed to feel the lumps of our decision to go there. If we have made good financial decisions and are not affected by the housing market or Wall Street we should be allowed to reap the rewards of those decisions. We should not be called upon to bail out those who have not used their heads.
Oh, and I do plan to remind, Moran, and Roberts that they are doing good work by giving them my votes. Have a nice day.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 9:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hint: You won't see it on MSNBC. It's pretty public knowledge that 95 democrats voted against it. Look it up anywhere and everywhere. Fox was reporting all morning about Pelosi telling the freshmen democrats who were in re-election races to vote their districts. If you put words together like "Pelosi freshmen democrats against bailout" and Google it, you will find plenty. 1/3 of Barney Franks OWN committee democrats voted against the bill.

"Given the fact that the legislation was in fact a negotiated, bipartisan compromise, the first duty of the majority party is to line up its members to support the majority’s bill. But evidence is growing that the Democrats did no such thing.

As of yesterday, the Democrats’ House whip, Jim Clyburn said that he hadn’t even begun “whipping” Democratic representatives, and wouldn’t do so unless and until he got orders from Nancy Pelosi. Today, Democratic Congressman Peter DeFazio told NPR that he never was “whipped” on the bill. So Pelosi evidently left Democrats to vote their consciences--which is to say, vote against the bill if they thought it was politically necessary--while counting on Republicans to put the bill over the top- Power Line."

It is looking like, the more I dig into it, that the entire bill vote was a setup. Why would the House be rushed to vote on it first thing Monday morning, while the Senate was given until Wednesday? Personally, I'm glad it did not pass - it seems to be an improved bill with each iteration. At least they got the earmarks for ACORN removed with the last rejection.

Again, I repeat myself - there is plenty of blame to go around. At least, this evening, some of the democrats who are on the YouTube videos circulating of their 2004 denials that there was anything wrong with Fannie & Freddie are admitting they made a mistake. Good. And plenty of Repubs made mistakes too. Just put all the finger-pointing and blame aside, Pelosi, and work for the good of the country, not for the good of your party and their re-election chances.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 9:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I might add, that last statement goes for ALL politicians (yes, I know, when donkeys fly :). But Pelosi, if you WEREN'T to politicize everything so much, and worked in a more bipartisan manner, you might just get your approval rating, up to, say, at least in the neighborhood of President Bush's..... LOL

Posted by pizza (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 9:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms. Brassart,

Nobody got "stuck" with subprime mortagages. Those borrowers had poor credit in the first place from not paying their bills so they could not qualify for regularly priced mortgages. In banker talk, the lenders "priced the risk" and their risk was greater so their rates were higher. They were lucky they got any loan at all and really should not have gotten any loan at all as they already had a record that they couldn't pay the debt they had. Much of this came about as a result of the Community Reinvestment Act which required lenders to make some of these poor loans. Then, many times, those loans were sold to Fannie or Freddie and the original lender got his money back to lend again.
As far as interest rates increasing, these borrowers knew full well what they were doing. The cheap "teaser rates" or variable rates were used to help the borrower qualify for a loan since he couldn't qualify at market rates. Then when the rate adjustment came along the borrower was in trouble. These people did not deserve to own a home at all and now they are whining Poor Me. And now many think the poor homeowners need a bail out too. Why should those of us, who waited and saved to buy a home and then made all the payments as agreed, be required to help pay for those other homes as well. Nobody owes these people a home of their own. Certainly nobody helped me buy mine.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 10:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

G.W. Bush is a very good spin doctor and spinner of doom and gloom, just to get what he wants, but his failed domestic economic policies, the Greed and Corruption that has been allowed in Corporate America and Federal Government, especially these last 8 years, has risen up and bitten G.W. Bush, Greedy, Corrupt Politicians, Wall Street and Greedy, Corrupt Corporate America and the sad part of the whole thing, it is going to end up biting everyone in mainstream America, worse than anyone else. Even the candidates now running for the presidency and vice presidency, as well as both major political parties are going to feel the bite of this one.

Posted by CAFEmporia (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 12:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The problem is hardly a matter of satisfying ideological grievances, it is patching up a system that is failing now to deliver stability and security within the financial markets. Credit has dried up including the short term transactions which allow our economy to run smoothly.

The government does need to step in in this case simply because the markets are unable to overcome the failure of confidence brought about by these zero valued assets that threaten to undermine seemingly almost all large financial houses. To be sure, the markets are self correcting and will eventually sort out the winners and losers. Such extreme market corrections create many victims, though. Most of us believe we should enact a patch for the system and then pass new regulatory laws (loosening and tightening rules as appropriate) to ensure as much as possible that such lack of responsibility does not repeat again.

It is good that Congress did deny the first bill presented. It failed in numerous ways. Now, though, the SEC has eased Market to Market Valuation restrictions which may help some in the short run but will likely decrease confidence in the financial markets even more, bringing about a repeat of the banking crisis of the late 80's. Congress must therefore act decisively and in the near future to ensure that this crisis is snuffed before it spreads even further.

Hopefully, our Representatives and Senators will now devise a more thoughtful bailout bill which includes more oversight, more participation of the private sector and, therefore, less federal money, and an insistence upon failed institutions actually failing rather than profiting from their mistakes.

Posted by kcfan (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

from a circulating email:

"I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG. Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a 'We Deserve it Dividend'.

To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bona fide U.S. Citizens 18+. Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18
and up. So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00.

My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a We Deserve It Dividend. Of course, it would NOT be tax free. So let's assume a tax rate of 30%.

Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes. That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam. But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket. A husband and wife have $595,000.00. What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?

-Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved.
-Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads
-Put away money for college - it'll be there
-Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs.
-Buy a new car - create jobs
-Invest in the market - capital drives growth
-Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves
-Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean - or else

If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of trickling out a puny $1000.00 ( 'vote buy' ) economic incentive. If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+!

As for AIG. Liquidated it. Sell off its parts. Let American General go back to being American General. Sell off the real estate. Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.

Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't. Sure it's a crazy idea that can 'never work.' But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!

How do you spell Economic Boom? I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion We Deserve It Dividend more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in Washington DC .And remember, The plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam."

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I guess the GOP can't call Obama a socialist anymore. Unless they plan on calling the president one as well. Because in the simplest terms and most convenient definitions, whether or not you agree with the bailout or not, it cannot be denied that has a strong easily identified socialist bend to it.

Posted by crackinsack (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

kcfan,
I don't think your math is correct... Wouldn't it have to be $85,000,000,000,000? This is 85 trillion not billion. Maybe I'm missing something...

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's see.... $700 Billion, divided by roughly 200 million adult Americans..... that comes out to roughly.....

$3,500 per person....

Let me know if my math is wrong:

700,000,000,000 = 700 Billion
--------------------------------------------
200,000,000 = 200 Million

Right?

Posted by CAFEmporia (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

crackinsack is correct about that math being all wrong in kcfan's example. That email which has been widely distributed on the internet has it that if we take $85 billion and distribute it among a possible 200 million adult Americans, everyone will get $425,000.

Nope. That's a thousand times higher than is correct.

Everyone would get $425 (that's four hundred and twenty five dollars) which is enough to have a nice weekend in Kansas City but not much more. It wouldn't even cover most people's monthly credit card spending.

If we end up spending $3 trillion to patch up our financial markets so that we can then rewrite our regulatory laws in a better way, the cost to each of 300 million Americans would be about $10,000 per person. That's enough for a pretty nice European vacation for two.

That's still a lot of money, but it is hardly that 425K which is so grossly exaggerated.

Seriously, we need to get liquidity injected into the financial system. This is not just a local problem or a national one; it is becoming a global problem with primarily American causes.

A global recession, similar to what occurred in the 1920s and 30s, would be a disaster beyond reckoning and it would last many years. That is not an acceptable outcome. Congress needs to act with alacrity, but also with sagacity to patch and then fix these problems.

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's $425 before taxes.
It is a good example of what got us into our current economic mess however. Pie in the sky! A free lunch! Robin Hood lives in Obama!

Posted by kcfan (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Obviously the math was not checked. This was just in an email I received and thought the IDEA was interesting. As always, you can't necessarily believe everything you hear, read or see online - including email. Take it for what it was - just an idea. No credit can be taken by me, just an anonymous email :)

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In a 1999 NY Times article, Peter Wallison of the non-partisan American Interprise Institute, predicted the Clinton policies would eventually lead to the mess we are currently in. This is a link to the 1999 article:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht...

Bush proposed sweeping changes and tightened regulation and oversight to Freddie & Fannie in 2003:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht...

And, along with John McCain, attempted to do it again in 2005:

http://bellalu0.wordpress.com/2008/09/17...

and in March of this year:

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/29/...

To find out why none of these proposals passed, read the articles yourselves and draw your own conclusions....

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well what an interesting news day of items BESIDES the bailout bill.

First, we find that the moderator for Thursdays VP debate between Biden & Palin has a Pro-Obama book coming out in January. The book is titled "Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama". Anyone besides me think she should excuse herself from the debate?

Next, (and I love this one), one of the Marines who was found completely innocent of charges in the Iraq Haditha incident is suing Rep Murtha for slander. 'Bout time.....

Posted by create (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Gwen Ilfill is indeed writing a book by that title, but it isn't entirely about Obama. It has ONE CHAPTER on Obama. Spin, spin, spin.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Her political views are well known on NPR. So, if a conservative were to moderate the debate, and it happened to be someone who had a book titled "Breakthrough: Politics and Gender in the Age of Palin" - that was scheduled to be released on Inauguration Day - and it had a favorable chapter on Palin - would you not question the appropriatness of that person to moderate the debate?

Or, to put it a different way, if this was a trial between Biden & Palin, would Ifill have passed the qualifications to be a juror? Or would she have been excused from jury duty due to her book?

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't know much about Gwen's politics.

While I sense that we wouldn't share political points of view, she has always seemed to me to be a fair minded person to me.

I think this could actually work in Sarah Palin's favor. As moderator, with her possible support for Barack Obama now made public, I trust that she will be especially careful to both candidates. The last thing she would want would be perceived to be a political partisan tossing fluff at one candidate and high inside sliders to the other.

As I said, I believe Gwen is a fair minded person and I believe she'll conduct herself well in the debate. I believe the lines of questioning will be tough, but fair.

Posted by create (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 9:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Whenever I get called for jury duty, I always reveal that my brother is a police detective because they ask about that kind of information during voir dire. In return, I always get asked, "Do you believe this will prevent you from making an objective...yada yada yada." With that in mind, I don't believe Gwen Ilfil or anyone who wrote a book with a chapter on Sarah Palin should have to step aside as moderator.

Is it just because Ilfil is on PBS? What about Tom Brokaw? Wolf Blitzer? Hey, I got one for you...Bill O'Reilly.

Let's watch closely tonight to see if Ilfil gives Biden any edges. Let's check to see if she gives him even one second too much on the clock. Let's also watch closely tonight to see how Ilfil handles Palin when she starts shooting herself in the foot with BS by talking non-stop on and on non-thesis. The clock is there. 2 minutes. Let's see if Ilfil asks her to qualify her jibberish or whether she just lets her go. If she does, that gives Palin extra time and Biden should get the same amount to be fair.

You gonna blame Gwen Ilfil for Palin's great ability to hang herself with circular yakkity yak?

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think I'll wait till the debate is over before I decide who the winner is.

Myself, I would blame Gwen if either candidate shoots off. I think Joe Biden has as remarkable a gift for doing that as Sarah Palin.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I wasn't aware that Bill O'Reilly or Wolf Blitzer were moderating any national debates. Maybe we should let Keith Olbermann do it? - LOL

Yes, let's watch closely. Let's see if Ifill corrects Biden when he talks about the wrong President being on TV before TV had even invented. Let's watch closely to see how Ilfill handles Biden when he starts shooting himself in the foot with BS by talking non-stop on and on non-thesis. Let's see if ilfil asks him to qualify his jibberish or whether she just lets him go. If she does, that gives Biden extra time and Palin should get the same amount to be fair.
I'm not gonna blame Gwen Ilfil for Biden's great ability to hang himself with circular yakkity yak.

You made excellent points. To be fair, just showing you how it looks from another perspective. Biden has a long, well-known history of being a gaff-master, and the king of prattling on and on with long, circular non-thesis yakkity yak speeches. Actually, could you name me one politician that doesn't? LOL But I haven't brought that up until I see the same pointed at Palin. Maybe, just maybe, as we have just been discussing, the fingers should be pointed both ways.

I sincerely hope that the debate is fair and balanced. But, any questions that either candidate stumbles on, or outdoes the other on, are going to be pointed at by both sides as being unfair. Such is politics. I just don't trust journalists any more in this day and age to claim their impartiality any more than I trusted Patrick Kelley's famous "I report fairly and impartially" editorial not long ago..... .LOL

Posted by create (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that Wolf Blitzer, etc. were indeed moderating any debates. I was merely asking how they MIGHT work as moderators since they too are journalists, just as IIfil is. Perhaps you have a moderator in mind that would work better.

Yes, I agree, Biden does run off at the mouth at times, but not as bad as Palin has done since she hit the national scene. Some of those interviews are downright painful and embarassing to watch. I found it very interesting how she made a snide remark about Biden's age (he's been a senator since I was in the second grade), then when questioned about her suggestion, she backed down immediately to say she was MERELY expressing how much admiration she had for his experience. Please!

I'll wait until the debate tonight then I'll be interested to hear excuses, IF ANY, that people make for her tomorrow, or for Joe Biden for that matter.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I was just saying that I don't think any of those listed would be good choices as moderators. Although I certainly hope that they would be capable of being a fair and impartial moderator. Which is what I certainly hope of Ilfil. But you've gotta admit, having a book coming out would definitely at the very least raise one's eyebrows.
I'll agree that Palin has not done as good as expected in some of her interviews. But, then again, step on the other side and look at some of the questions. Did you know what the "Bush Doctrine" was? As one commentator put it, "which Bush Doctrine"? One could say that he has several. If I were to out of the blue ask Biden what the "Clinton doctrine" is, what would he say? Does he know Obama's regulatory history in detail? Has Biden ever been asked any of those questions? I'm not excusing her - we already know Biden, nobody knows Palin - so she needs to stand up to some very close scrutiny. And no, I don't mean her Miss Alaska pageant videos.... LOL

Posted by create (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 12:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree that the Bush doctrine question was a "stump the candidate" low blow, dirty pool one. I don't like it when reporters do that either because it's cheap. They're trying to make themselves look triumphant when in reality, they're really making themselves look small. Ask good meaty questions.

But if someone was familiar with the Bush Doctrine, she should say, "There has been more than one; however, the current Bush Doctrine is..." Instead she copped out by skirting the issue and providing too much information and it came out sounding like fodder for the comedy channel. I just hope she doesn't revert to the cute act when she is unable to provide an answer. That is disgusting! That kind of thing is what some women of beauty are accustomed to doing. I hate it. My own grown up daughter does it sometimes and I get so damn mad at her because she is denigrating herself. I just tell her, "Rely on your brain!"

Posted by lycomu (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dont blame the moderator in advance for Palin being complety out of her league. And to the "That kind of thing is what some women of beauty are accustomed to doing" comment...really...are you serious? The time is long since over due to put our country first, without regard to politics. mccain/paline is not only more of the same, but, if its even possible, they could be worse that what we have now.

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think it will be an interesting debate. Sarah Palin may be able to hold her own, maybe not,. We'll see.

I don't think Gwen is the type of moderator who has any interest in cute questions. Those are the types best left to Charles Gibson.

I suspect a lot of us will go into this assuming that our candidate will be the winner, no matter what. Most of us will say we intend to listen with an open mind. I tend to doubt that.

In the end I think style is every bit as important as substance. Both matter. In the first debate between Mondale and Reagan, Reagan stumbled over one "fact" after another. He looked lost. Then, in the second debate the moderator asked about Reagan's age. Reagan responded "I will not use my opponent's youth and inexperience against him." Spontaneous laughter erupted in the room. Even Mondale let out a real belly laugh. The reports following the debate mentioned little about policy issues. Reagan's one liner won the night. Charm and wit won out over substance.

If it had been up to the expert debate judges Reagan would have lost on policy issues. But blue collar America loved Ronald Reagan and that one liner did more to win him the election than any of his answers about nuclear weapons. It's also interesting that experts painted Reagan as an empty headed nuclear explosion in a suit looking for a target. I think that little throw away answer told blue collar American otherwise. In the end, blue collar America was right and the experts wrong. There was no nuclear war, unless a lot of us missed it, and Ronald Reagan was far from being an empty head.

Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would prefer Larry King or Greta Van Sustren (sp?) as moderator. Let Palin debate Obama, they could both talk about experience they lack. I think they would make equally qualified VPs. :)

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think many of these last comments are pretty good and hit the spot in one way or another.
Yes, some women of beauty are used to using it as a cop-out - just as some people are used to playing the race card as a cop-out. Some people view it as just that, while others might look at it as just being humorous. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say....
And, to netloafers comment, I might add, that I suspect a lot of us people will COME OUT of this debate assuming that their candidate was the winner, no matter what. The stats always show that in general the taller opponent is almost always given more favorable views after the debate regardless of how the debate went. Maybe they should make a new rule where the shorter opponent gets to stand on a pedestal to bring them to equal height? - LOL

But, then again, none of this matters to many who vote. Anyone catch the news this morning? They had reporters at the early voting thing in Ohio, expecting to see busloads of college students. Instead, what they were seeing were busloads of homeless people. In once case, they said 15 drunks got off the bus - they had to basically herd them back and forth they were so intoxicated. And the comments from them afterwards, as to why they had voted for ----------- (take a wild guess here and fill in the blanks) - the ones that you could at least make out what they were saying were... I guess.... hilarious.....

Posted by create (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Charm and wit, yes, netloafer, but what Reagan said is far and away from the little cute actions Palin pulls. You've seen them and so have I. They're not even quips, and they're certainly not charming. C'mon you've seen it. You mentioned Charles Gibson asking cute questions. No, that's not what I meant. I meant Palin acting like a cute little girl to avoid providing a correct answer to a serious question. Then there's the rambling answers that seek to refocus the question to something completely off topic. I used to get that off of college freshman when I was teaching comp classes. You know, when I would grade essay answers on tests, I could always tell if students did not know the answer. They would fill the entire space with nothing but rambling that didn't even relate to the answer in any way, shape or form.

I agree, lycomu, we need to put our country first, but clearly, the cute act has been pulled several times now. I know you've seen it. Glittering generalities and attempts to refocus do not a presidential campaign win.

To her credit, I saw her debating an issue in 2006. She appeared very intelligent and right on target with answers. I saw none of the cute stuff. We'll see what the evening brings.

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I honestly haven't seen much of Sarah Palin, so I don't know how she'll fare in a debate. She may lose on substance and win on style. She may lose on both style and substance. I think a lot of people have concluded that she could never win on substance. We''ll see.

A lot of people, particularly "experts," were convinced that Ronald Reagan was nothing more than an amiable dunce.

Well, to paraphrase Bob Dylan referring to Lenny Bruce, "He just showed the wise men of his day to be nothing more than fools."

It would certainly be like Camelot if the candidates we have to choose from were as in tune with the times, wise, intelligent, generous, caring, and charming, as we are. We do get them once in a while and we usually crucify them.

Posted by create (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sorry (and surprised) that you've missed so much of Sarah Palin, net. To allude to Lloyd Bentsen's zing to Dan Quayle here, I know Bob Dylan; I've studied his work. Sarah Palin is no Bob Dylan. She's certainly no Lenny Bruce.

I don't call what she does "style." I call it manipulating gauche.

Touche on your reference to Camelot. Perhaps we will one day experience the last scene of the 1967 movie, "Prior to the battle, however, Arthur stumbles across a young boy named Tom, who wishes to become a Knight of the Round Table. Arthur is skeptical at first, but Tom espouses his commitment to Arthur's original ideal of "Not might makes right, but might for right." Arthur realizes that, although most of his plans have fallen through, the ideals of Camelot still live on in this simple boy. Arthur knights Tom and gives him his orders—to run behind the lines and survive the battle, so he can tell future generations about the legend of Camelot. Watching Tom leave, Arthur regains his hope for the future."

Run, boy, run!

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I've been busy painting, making raised beds for the spring and such. You know, the little, unimportant things.

I'm sure that any candidate would gladly embrace the ideals of Camelot, even a dolt like Sarah Palin.

Bentsen did get the best of Quayle, but George H.W. got the last laugh in the general election. He of course got the boot in large part because of his pledge ("Read my lips, no new taxes").

Speaking of zingers. A woman who absolutely detested Winston Churchill once told him that if she were his wife she would poison him. Churchill replied "Madam, if I were your husband I would gladly take it."

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How do you tell the difference between a dead dog and a dead politician lying in the middle of the road?

There are skid marks in front of the dog..... :)

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 7:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

create, I have a question regarding your scenario about jury duty.

If Obama wins the election, do you think that Ifill's book will sell better than if he does not? Personally, I think it will.

So, if you were a juror, and had a book coming out, that had even 1 chapter about the trial you were involved with, and your book had a much higher chance of selling well if a guilty verdict were reached than it would if a not guilty verdict were found, regardless of your personal feelings and assurances to the judge, do you think it would be fair that others might view that a a conflict of interest, and think that you should excuse yourself from jury duty?

Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on October 3, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Time to move:

http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/ope...