Tuesday Open Thread
Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia University after the school's president rebuked him.
24 die from a bomb blast at Iraq peace meeting.
Protests continue both in Myanmar (formerly Burma) and at various GM plants
across the US.
A military appeals court advanced military trials for Gitmo detainees.
Tuesday Open Thread. Use it wisely.
Submitted by Specter on Tue, 2007-09-25 08:21
Tags:
Comments :
In other news
Buy a house now (or better yet, wait for the bottom to drop out).
Housing prices dropped the fastest
since the elder Bush was in the White House.
That dang Federal Reserve again ...
They kept interest rates so high for so long that it created a crisis in the ARM loan market that is now precipitating a mountain of foreclosures and thus depressing the entire real estate market.
Bast***s.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Interest rates "so high"???
Couldn't be farther from the truth.
First of all, the Fed doesn't set the interest rates on mortgages. And mortgage rates are still near historic lows-- around 6% on a 30 year fixed.
Let's look at a chart covering the last few decades, shall we?
The problem in the housing market is NOT high interest rates. If housing were simply a function of interest rates, all of these people who were defaulting now would simply refinance into a very reasonable 6% fixed rate 30 year mortgage.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Like arguing with a goldfish.
(1) Here is a reminder ...
Speaking of interest rates ...
(2) The home market is tanking because of a high rate of foreclosures. These are due to the fact that the rates on ARM loans are going UP. Most ARMs are indexed to the prime rate which IS set by the fed. (Note that fixed rate mortgages are not even a factor here.)
(3) Most of the ARMs that are causing trouble will have been taken out 3 to 5 years ago since most ARMs have an initial period in that range where the interest rate is frozen. If you look at the graph provided, note where the prime rate (used to index the ARM rates) was at 3 to 5 years ago relative to where it is now. Hmmm.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Why would a lender
suggest to a buyer an ARM rate? Did they think interest rates were going to stay low forever?
Greenspan actually spoke to the National Association of Creditors, and suggested that for some ARM loans work well, because they let homeowners keep more money, and inject more liquidity into the consumer market. If interest rates stay low. Some say he was pushing the ARMs, some say he wasn't. But Greenspan brought it up before the creditors as a viable option for folks willing to take risk and keep more of their money.
It is the economy, stupid.
It comes down to who takes the risk of rate fluctuation ...
With a fixed rate mortgage the consumer is protected from such fluctuations so, generally speaking, the consumer pays a higher rate for a fixed rate mortgage than the comparable ARMs at the time. This is because the banks take all of the risk.
With ARMs the risk is shared because the rates can float (within certain constraints). As a result the banks will usually offer better rates on ARMs.
For people who can afford the fluctuations in home payments the consumer can, conceivably, save some money in interest but at the risk that the rates may go up. The problem is that people who barely qualify for a home loan may be able to get an ARM but not a fixed rate loan (because of the higher interest rate and payment requirement). These are the people most likely to get caught if the interest rate rises as it has since 2002 or so, because that pushes the ARM rate up into the levels where they wouldn't qualify for a fixed rate loan in the first place.
General rule of thumb, the lower your income the more important it is to have a fixed rate loan. If you can't qualify for a fixed rate home loan you should think twice before buying.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I agree with all of this
So then the question becomes Why Why Why did lenders encourage borrowers in the sub-prime and prime markets to go with ARM's. Why? Doesn't a lender have the responsibility to inform the customer of risk? Yes the borrower has responsibility to, we know, so please don't harp on that.
It is clear that some of these lenders were like used car salesman trying to make the sale in an irresponsibile fashion. And it is clear that some were fraudulant. It is also clear that proper documentation of income was not required in some cases. And what were these folks up to? They were trying to make a killing in the housing market. They were out for profits made without ethical evaluation of the consequences.
Now these lenders have sold their loans, the loans have been bundled and rebundled and bundled again, and are floating around the world as liquidity. But the liquidity is base on air, because the loans are not being paid.
It is the economy, stupid.
Sorry, gave you the wrong graph.
The graph above is actually the Federal Funds rate or the rate charged for banks to borrow money. ARMs are indexed (among other things) to the Prime Rate which is just the Federal Funds rate with a market in interest for the bank to skim off the top. Here is the correct chart for the prime rate (note that the two track each other closely):
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Wrong graph-- and missed point.
The whole idea behind these ARMs is to allow people to be able to afford a little more house than they would with a fixed rate loan. ARMs aren't meant to be held for the lenghth of the loan. The whole advantage to getting an ARM is that lower initial interest rate. You're supposed to refinance when the interest rate resets!
And what enables you to refinance to a fixed rate loan at the best interest rates? Higher wages, a good personal balance sheet, equity in your home, and paying your bills on time.
Used to be, way back under Clinton, a yourg family just starting out could get an ARM and there was a pretty good chance that they'd be earning higher wages 3 or 4 years down the line when their rates reset. Why? The economy was humming-- jobs were being created, and wages at existing jobs were increasing. Plus, as a young person going along in your career, you would expect that you might get promoted. The point is, you could expect to be in good financial shape by the time your ARM reset. At that point, you're either 1) ready to sell and upgrade to a bigger house, or 2) you refinanced.
Fast forward to today. Houses are far more expensive with respect to people's wages, and worse, real wages aren't increasing much. A young family starts out and gets an ARM now, and they are really stretched just to make the teaser payments. Their wages don't increase much during the teaser period, so they don't build up savings, and since their house payments are large with respect to their income already, they might miss a few payments because of the revolving debt they put on their credit card to get that plasma screen and the bedroom set and so forth. When their ARM resets, they're in worse financial shape than when they bought the house, so they can't refinance into a loan with good terms. And selling is out, because every other house on the block has a For Sale sign planted out by the curb, and besides, since you were on an interest-only ARM, you didn't put any money down, and prices are starting to fall in your hood, you might have negative equity in your home at the price at which someone will make an offer.
So you see, the problem is higher housing prices and stagnant wages, not interest rates. A person who had a 5% teaser rate which has jumped up to 9% would be fine if they could refinance into a 30 year fixed at 6%-- but they just aren't in a circumstance whereby they can refinance into that loan, whereas they traditionally would have been able to refi, no prob.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Well a couple of points here ...
Anyone taking on a loan, especially an adjustable rate loan, under these circumstances is a moron and deserves what they get based on their stupidity factor alone.
As I said, the lower you income the more important it is for you to wait until you can qualify for a fixed rate loan. That way you never find yourself in these circumstances. Worst case is that you interest rate stays where it was from the get go. Best case is that fixed loan rates drop sufficient to make it worth your while to refinance and you ratchet it down to the lower rate at that time.
The bottom line for the scenario that you discribed is the the hypothetical family bought more than they could afford with no view towards the future. They would be better off renting and socking money away until they can afford the fixed rate loan the the costs of maintenance on the home.
And just why are the housing prices high? Because people have been taking advantage of the lower ARM interest rates to buy more than they could afford during a period where the interest rates were at relatively low point. Increased therefore demand generated higher housing prices in all price categories.
And if the hypothetical families take my advice and wait until they can afford the fixed rate loan, especially if they CAN'T afford to have an interest rate hike on the ARM. It's not like this is rocket science, it's just that people do stupid things.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Agreed
Fine, agreed-- I think a lot of people were pretty dumb in buying houses at bubble prices with high leverage and no savings, during a time when the Bush economy was developing some pretty obvious cracks in its foundation.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
I wish.
Maybe if you're independently wealthy. The problem with the bottom dropping out is nobody wants to float you a mortgage.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Hey Specter
It's good to hear from you. I assume you have been very busy with all the hats you wear.
It is the economy, stupid.
Thanks
I've been around. I'm still the 5th highest contributor for this week (though it was mostly in 1 diary).
I have been busy. I'm teaching two literature classes I never taught before (20th C. Lit.), so I spend a lot of time prepping, reading, and researching. Then all the other stuff, of course, and I barely have time to read here.
I gladly spend most of my free-time with my kids (you know, family values) instead of commenting on every seemingly inaccurate use of words I see here (i.e. rebuke)--just kidding, GR. :-)
Anyhow, it is good to see you all, and nice to see the site functioning again properly.
Oh come on.
It's just good fun. You used the word properly, I just found a nit pick.
But hey, if I am in any way responsible for you spending more time with your kids, then I'm proud to do it! :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
who is trying to block
the military tribunals for the Gitmo detainees? Which is why this whole thing is dragging. It's about time they ruled on this.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Columbia's President didn't rebuke Ahmadinejad ...
he invited him to speak there.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Wrong
Yeah, no rebukes there.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I heard the audio on a clip where
he said there were no homosexuals in Iran, that Iranians don't have that issue to confront.....The audience knew better and let him know it.
He and dubya have a lot in common. Both apparently like to hang out with only their own kind and wear blinders to everything else going on in the world.
Yea, launching a gobal war on terror is wearing blinders.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Yea, like Iraq had anything at all to do with
terrorism prior to dubya invading Iraq.
HELLO!!!! Osama was in Afghanistan & now he's in Pakistan.
So why did dubya decide to kill over 3700 US GI's to invading and occupying Iraq? Maybe it was what Alan Greenspan so lovingly let out of the bag in his new book...OIL
.
Well, GoRight says that we shouldn't go after Bin Laden.
He says that that would make him a martyr. Just FYI.
I didn't ask him on what date he flip-flopped on that, because I can only assume that he was on board for hunting Bin Laden down after 9/11. Of course I could be wrong about that, but I just can't picture GoRight reading his morning paper on 9/12/2001 over his bacon and eggs, shaking his head and saying "No no no, this is all wrong-- we don't want to go after Bin Laden and make a martyr out of him."
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
For skymutt -- more "wiped off the map"
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
See ...
Thanks for the references.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Had missed that, thanks
Noted.
I think in light of the controversy over that particular statement anyone in the West who wishes to appear even-handed would do well to avoid referencing it.
I'm quite sure Ahmadinejad would love to help Israel "vanish" and that's part of why Iran supports Hezbollah and Hamas. I don't think he's intending to threaten direct action against Israel when he speaks.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
As a general question
Don't you think that Iran is more interested in protecting itself from invasion by the US than what goes on in Israel.
Israel is not Iran's problem. Hasn't that kind of been their point all along. The fear is that Israel (and by extension the US) will expand with a land grab aided by the US, and not respect the soveirgnty ot the nations in the Middle East.
And isn't it true that Israel and Iran have co-operated in the past. Also isn't there a small population of Persian Jews in Iran.
If you want to go crazy about Iran aiding the Iraqi's and insisting that the US must fight Iran, then what about the Saudi's helping the Sunni's in Iraq with the IED's. Why not go after the Saudi's too.
Isn't it clear that this war is all about sea ports, protecting shipping lanes, oil and resources.
I am not saying that Iran is an innocent nation, but neither is the US. And what is a small country to do to resist a land grab by a super power that clearly has more fire power, if not guerilla warfare.
And isn't the US saying that they want Iran and Iraq to vanish, when they promote US puppet govt's that prop up corporate interests, with no respect for the Iraqi or Iranian culture, especially when they turn a fairly weak leader like Achmedinijad into a cartoon that is supposed to symbolize the evil that is supposedly muslim.
It is the economy, stupid.
Nobody wants Iran's territory
A lot of people would like to see a more moderate government within Iran, though. Including more than a few Iranians.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
just want you to answer about some completely
nonsensical claims:
1. What land is Israel interested in grabbing, and any evidence for that?
2. When have Israel and Iran co-operated in the past?
There is a tiny amount of jews left in Iran (those who didn't flee) but they are forbidden to be zionist (supportive of Israel). I have not seen a single article or heard anything whatsoever about some fear of Israel doing a land grab. Is this something you dreamt up because of what you think of Israel? Again, evidence?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Okay
1. It is just a fear that Arabs have, founded or unfounded, since Israel was first made a Jewish state.
2. Israel shipped weapons to Iran during Iran-Contra
There are other instances of an alliance
You have the wrong impression of what I think of Israel, just like you have the wrong impression of what I think of the US. I don't like the war mongering hardliners in either country and I choose to associate myself with the more liberal elements in America and in Israel.
Because I said the word liberal does not mean that I hate capitalism or am a socialist. I love the Jewish sense for justice and democracy that is loud, noisy and promotes a continuous exchange of ideas.
It is the economy, stupid.
Lying.
I did not say that capturing him would make him a martyr, becase, well, that wouldn't be true by the definition of martyr.
What I said was that Bin Laden is no longer the highest priority target.
If we happen to capture him and bring him in, great. If he gets killed in any such attempt, bad. He is marginalized right now so there are bigger issues to deal with in repsect to safe-guarding US national security.
Priorities evolve as things develop.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
So I have a few questions for you then.
I will warn you-- some of these are "tough questions" like the questions that Scott Pelley asked Ahmadinejad ;-)
1.) Name one individual who should be a higher priority target than Bin Laden.
2.) Explain why this individual is more dangerous than a person who has proven the will and ability to kill 3000+ innocent people on American soil.
3.) Describe the strategy that we are currently employing to capture/kill this higher priority target.
4.) What date did you
flipflop"evolve" on Bin Laden from wanting him killed, to wanting him kept alive so that he's not a martyr?5.) What event caused your flipflop to a soft position on Bin Laden?
6.) A recent poll shows that Bin Laden is more popular in Pakistan than our ally in the GWOT, President Musharraf.
How does Bin Laden's popularity in this key nuclear state fit in with your statement that Bin Laden is "marginalized"?
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
RE: So I have a few questions for you then.
Strawman. This assumes that only single individuals are legitimate targets. This is a falsehood.
In this case the target is the al Qaeda fighters and operational leaders of the organization since they are the ones actually killing people. Bin Laden sitting in a cave isn't killing anyone. He is nothing more than a figure head at this point.
Because they are the one's actually operationalizing the current plans and hence will be the ones actually killing people. Bin Laden is enhancing his acting career by making video tapes.
We have stationed our troops inside of Iraq with the intent of drawing al Qaeda into the area where we can dispatch them for as long as they continue to show up.
The day that he went into hiding and became a lower priority than killing his operatives in the field.
He went into hiding and became a lower priority than his operatives in the field.
He is marginalized because he has to keep his head buried and can only come out once or twice year. This makes him about as dangerous as Punxsutawney Phil
. :)
That and the fact that the people he is popular with don't have access to the Nukes.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Dangerous complacency
So, since he went into hiding in 1996, he couldn't possibly have been a threat to anyone after that, right?
Oh, wait-- the 9/11 attacks were planned by Bin Laden and executed after 1996-- maybe during one of those "Punxutawney Phil" moments...
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
And who was President then?
Regardless, he wasn't hiding in Afghanistan if everyone knew where he was ... which we seemed to know pretty well (ask Richard Clark
).
And Bin Laden ISN'T the one who planned the 9/11 attacks
, that was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 
. You know, like those other in the field operatives that we are actually engaging in Iraq now.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Bin Laden was involved in the planning of the 9/11 attacks:
I never said he was the sole planner...
And as far as hiding-- it is certainly possible to be hiding and have your cover blown-- see Saddam Hussein / spiderhole.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Did I even get a chuckle with the groundhog day reference?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I actually preferred
...the line about Bin Laden enhancing his acting career ;-)
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Even if he was wrong ...
which I am not saying he was, the actions he took are not consistent with a charge of "wearing blinders".
So, that would make your statement false.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
No, launching a global war on terror
is having vital parts of one's brain missing.
Sic semper tyrannis
An not launching it would be like having no brain at all.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Yup
That's why Cheney had to do it instead of GWB.
Sic semper tyrannis
Here I found another quote today that the Iraq war was
all about oil. This time the quote comes from Norman Podhoretz's wife Midge
.
Terrorism had nothing to do with it. And this from the wife of the guy now pushing bush to invade Iran.
Is that really going to help the American people? Or just the oil boys?
Doesn't matter who said it.
We did not go because of oil.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Why did we go then?
Let's stroll down memory lane and see the reasons bush43 has used so far:
1) Because he had weapons of mass destruction and he was going to use them on the US.
-in reality, he had nothing.
2) Because he was going to have mushroom clouds rising over American cities.
-in reality, see answer to #1.
3) Because we wanted to foster peace and democracy in Iraq.
-in reality, WE got nothing.
4) Because he was a brutal dictator and deserved to go.
-in reality, he was a two bit brutal dictator and nothing he had or said would be worth what we've brought upon ourselves now.
5) Because Saddam was a prime force behind the 9/11 attacks.
-in reality, that's a bold faced lie.
6) Because Iraq has the second largest proven oil reserves in the world.
-in reality, bushco never used this one publicly. They only laugh about that one behind closed doors with large glasses of expensive Scotch and big expensive cigars.
Oil, domino theory, ego. That's why we are now in that cesspool GR.
Can you give anyone here a GOOD reason why we screwed up all the goodwill we once had after the tragedy of 9/11?
Why would you care
about the goodwill if you're milking US taxpayers out of billions of dollars? And the best part of this deal is - you're gonna own the mindless dolts for generations to come. Sweet.
It's good to be a have more.
Sic semper tyrannis
Feel better now?
I hope so because this is all BS.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
You said we had reasons to go in.
I listed all the reasons dubya has given so far, along with the corresponding later facts that came out.
The only one that hasn't been discounted was the last.
I notice you haven't given reasons for the invasion of Iraq. Why? Probably because you still think some of the reasons that have been shown to have been Administration lies are true. Whatever.
Your condescention is apparent, but it doesn't hurt me. Just makes you look dumb.
I guess it depends on your definition of rebuke.
Ahmadinejad spoke at the university by invitation from the school's president, did he not? An invitation to speak at the university does not sound like a rebuke to me. It sounds, well, rather like inviting him.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
What's wrong with him speaking anywhere in the US?
Or are you one of THOSE who only thinks that people you agree with should be given public podiums to speak from.
Hmmm.....why that's very UNdemocratic and NOT freedom loving of you. Your hallmark open mindedness is something we can all point to (for different reasons no doubt).
Who said I have a problem with him speaking in the US?
I am just saying that inviting him to speak at your college doesn't sound like a rebuke. Nothing more. Noting less.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
What's your point GR?
He was invited to speak, so what?
It is the economy, stupid.
My point is that is not a rebuke.
A rebuke in my mind would have been Ahmadinejad asking to speak and the college saying go jump in a lake. That's all.
In this case the college invited him to speak, which is fine, just don't call it a rebuke.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Nobody called the invitation a rebuke
C'mon now... he can rebuke him after having invited him.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
What's your definiton?
Rebuke: an act or expression of criticism
If I were to say (hypothetically, of course), "Hey, GoRight, come here." And when you came over said, "You're a jackass." I guess you would say that I have not criticized you, since I invited you over first?
[edit: This is meant in good fun of course. Trying to be a little humorous is all. I hope that is obvious!]
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
RE: What's your definiton?
See My point is that is not a rebuke.
My definition?
While it is true that the college president had some harsh words for Ahmadinejad, that was only after he had invited him to come speak and he started taking public heat for doing so.
The college president's initial interaction was an invitation to come speak which hardly seems like an expression of disapproval or criticism. That's my only point.
So I take issue with Specter's phraseology in the story for this open thread because it makes it sound like the college president was rebuking Ahmadinejad from the very beginning which was clearly not the case.
It is a minor point.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Can't he do both?
It takes a limited mind to not be able to contain both thoughts
at the same time.
Does it give you a headache to think a bit?
I guess he can do both ...
but the two are clearly contradictory. My position is summarized here:
Extending an invitation for someone to come and speak at a prestigious college is a sign of respect, not a rebuke.
So I guess we have a case of Bollinger showing Ahmadinejad respect, before he didn't. Sort of like Kerry and supporting the war, before he didn't.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
"Centrist" beltway writers like Broder and
David Brooks get taken to the woodshed by Glenn Greenwald for making claims that their pro war views are what real middle america believes in.
They really do believe the adage that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.
Did the bush43 Adminstration tell Congress
that they and America were under imminent attack by terrorists, knowing that the intel was bogus? Apparently if you want to believe what Jane Harmon is saying, yes they did.
On August 2nd, just prior to Congress leaving for their summer recess, the Administration gave Congress intel the Administration knew was bogus showing that Congress and America was about to be attacked
. They did this in hopes that they could get Congress to pass the FISA bill that they wanted. Man did they come up flush with that one. Now America is no longer the home of the free, nor do we have the liberty we did just 8 years ago. Thanks bush43. Thanks Congress.
Dems in Congress need to grow cajones & a spine. They should know that something brought to them at the 11th hour almost certainly is a lie. But these numbnuts fell for it again, just like they have since dubya took over.
PS- Bonus points in the video linked to for having the Reagan Administration Justice official saying how bush43 is now effectively a dictator.
WSJ defends NYT
In Defense of the New York Times
A headline I never expected to see.
______and on a related note
About that ad this video clip says all you need to know about what is and is not important to Republicans.
Republican Talking Points
Marsha Blackburn gets called to task for knowing more about an ad in a newspaper than the name of the last soldier in her district who was killed in Iraq.
It is the economy, stupid.
what do you think
about Marsha Blackburn?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I think she's cute as a button
and wholly supports the current Republican position. She is one of the true believers, but she seems sincere.
Did you watch the video clip?
It is the economy, stupid.
I almost felt sorry for her
in the video. She only came prepared to parrot the Republican Talking Points, not to actually discuss the matter.
Now as far as knowing the name of the last person from your district killed....eh! I doubt any 1 elected representative would. But on the other aspects of the interview, she really showed she didn't do homework beyond wanting to bash the NYT & MoveOn. I especially thought it galling that she thought Rush L saying the Senator was Betrayus was nothing but MoveOn calling the General Betrayus was a crime. At that point, her performance was just that, a theatrical showing that she did a crappy job on.
IN this case I have no empathy
at all. She is harping on and on about how much she is concerned with and helping those troops. Well how about focusing on the g*damed policy. Stop making excuses for failed strategiies and fake numbers and Blackwater being paid more than soldiers and all the rest of the republican hogwash..
My favorite part. The look on her face in the last frame of the video.
It is the economy, stupid.
agreed.
Schuster's demands may be a little lofty but I think it's sheds light on the pettiness of these posers in DC who know what to say when it comes to politicking and bad mouthing opponents but are so disconnected from the real tragedies that occur to real people.
I'm sure she supports this war. And that's fine, I suppose, but you'd think she'd be fully aware of the consequences it DIRECTLY causes to her constituents. She bears some of that on her shoulders. But MoveOn and the NYT are what she's up to speed with.
Like her "distinguished colleagues", she's all mouth and sanctimony. And her fumble is a reflection of what really occupies politicos....and what doesn't.
a little bit
very busy at work today.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Does anyone know how the Kyl/Leiberman "let's bomb
Iran" bill is going? I don't have access to CSPAN at work.
The House approves
the children's health insurance program.
This is going to look bad when Bush vetoes
this one.