Sunday, September 21, 2008

What the Shower-Nuts Think Can Happen

We have been wondering why there were shower-nuts outside the Giant last weekend collecting signatures to relegalize discrimination against transgender people. The court had already ruled that there would be no referendum, all the deadlines were long past, it just didn't make any sense.

Here we can see what kind of thinking had them standing out in the hot sun lying to Giant customers and trying to get signatures. DC50TV invited Michelle Turner, one of the leaders of the Citizens for a Responsible Whatever, to appear on Chris Core's show.

Most of the interview is about Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter and what her condition says about abstinence education, but around the 4:40 mark we have this exchange.
CC: ... your group has been behind trying to overturn or eliminate the transgender discrimination law in Montgomery County. The Supreme Court of Maryland said okay, you can't put that up for referendum, you didn't meet the criteria, is that issue dead now?

MT: It's not dead, and actually it's Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government that is challenging this. It's not dead. The court ruled that we needed additional signatures on these petitions and there are many many volunteers working very hard right now as we speak.

CC: To get it on in time for November?

MT: Yea, yes.

CC: What are the chance that --

MT: You know, the chances might be slim but we had twenty five thousand citizens of Montgomery County sign the petition, that's twenty five thousand voices that need to be heard. Prior to the County Council voting on this legislation, they were overwhelmed with phone calls, emails and letters in opposition, and yet the Council, Duchy Trachtenberg in particular, turned their backs on their constituents, the individuals that they are elected to represent.

CC: For what it's worth, I totally agree with you. I believe in referendums, I believe it's great when an issue is taken directly to the people and they have an opportunity to have their say, so I agree with you, good luck in that.

MT: Yes, thank you very much.

CC:Thank you, good to talk to you.

Let me point out, the court did not rule that they needed additional signatures. The circuit court ruled that they did not have enough signatures, and the appeals court ruled that there would be no referendum. Nobody said there would be a referendum if only they had more signatures, this is pure wishful thinking.

Thanks to Cynthia for linking to this in the comments.

81 Comments:

Blogger David S. Fishback said...

For everyone who lived through the CRC attack on MCPS and the Montgomery County Board of Education, listening to the first part of the interview will be breathtaking.

Listen to how Michelle now defines Abstinence-Only education, asserting that it does not exclude the teachng of information on contraception and asserting that such programs, while urging chastity until marriage, focus principally on delaying sexual activity until the participants are emotionally mature enough. Gee, this sounds a lot like the MCPS Abstinence-Plus program, which CRC so vocally railed against.

Michelle's answers to questions about the Palin family situation are equally breathtaking -- asserting that perhaps without the Abstinence-Only education that their teenage daughter had received, perhaps she would have gotten pregnant at the age of 14!

This seems to be a full-throated defense of family values where the three words most often immediately preceding marriage proposals are "I am pregnant." These are the family values (along with Senator McCain's sordid history in deserting his terribly injured first wife for a much younger and infinitely richer mate) that the GOP ticket seeks to present to the American people? Surely, we can do better than that, and that is what MCPS has always sought to do.

September 21, 2008 7:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Let me point out, the court did not rule that they needed additional signatures. The circuit court ruled that they did not have enough signatures, and the appeals court ruled that there would be no referendum. Nobody said there would be a referendum if only they had more signatures, this is pure wishful thinking."

Thanks, Jim "Clarence Darrow" K.

Michelle said the chances are slim but y'all seem worried.

Think a judge may decide fair is fair?

"Surely, we can do better than that,"

You might have been able to.

Instead, you nominated B. Obama.

September 21, 2008 7:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks is due to Dana, Jim. I just read her post and did "the Google."

Peace,

Cynthia

September 21, 2008 8:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with you, David.

I was one of those attacked by crazy sex nuts. They seem to think that everything in MC should be their way or the highway. That's not too democratic now, is it?

September 21, 2008 9:29 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Wyatt, what do you know from "worry"? The High Court said nothing other than there would be no referendum, that it was overturning the Circuit Court decision. There will be no opinion before the election, so you are not entitled to just make up that opinion.

I have little doubt that you will do your best to cost the county some more money by filing suit against some agency. Unless you find some other issue to which you can now pivot since you've lost this one.

September 21, 2008 10:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bizarre

September 21, 2008 10:26 PM  
Blogger Lisa Harney said...

The denial is impressive. "No, really, we can still win this!" Just how many do-overs does CRW think they're entitled to?

September 22, 2008 6:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The denial is impressive."

Perhaps, but the interesting question is why so many TTF minions seem so apoplectic about CRG collecting a few signatures?

If TTF has won such an impressive victory, why are they so insecure?

Could it be they realize that the ruling was unjust and they worry that there is someone with authority who will see this and find a way to do what's right?

If so, their fears are well founded.

September 22, 2008 8:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Think a judge may decide fair is fair?

No.

This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Questions Wingnuts Think Are Complicated, But Really Aren't.

September 22, 2008 8:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Could it be they realize that the ruling was unjust and they worry that there is someone with authority who will see this and find a way to do what's right?

No, and no.

Thank you once again for tuning in to another exciting episode of Questions Wingnuts Think Are Complicated, But Really Aren't. We'll be right back after these messages.

And before you go all apoplectic, I'll answer the unstated question I'm sure is coming.

Yes, I do know more than you. Which in this case, really isn't saying all that much, but there it is.

September 22, 2008 8:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Yes, I do know more than you."

Great.

Then you can answer a question.

What do you more than me about?

September 22, 2008 8:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Yes, I do know more than you."

Good.

Can you tell me why TTF is going apoplectic over CRG getting their remaining needed signatures if they think it's all over anyway?

September 22, 2008 8:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Yes, I do know more than you."

Fantastic.

Can you tell me why Democrats nominated a guy with three years experience in the Senate to be President?

Also, if homosexuality is not a choice, why is it not a mental illness? Isn't it a mental illness to not be able to function normally in society?

And, if homosexuals aren't much more promiscuous than the normal members of society, why are HIV rates so much higher among homosexuals?

If TTF considers ab-only sex ed inappropriate in schools because they say it isn't effective, why don't they say the same about comp sex-ed which seems to coincide with higher teen pregnancy rates?

Further, if MC residents all love 23-07 so much, why dooesn't TTF want them to vote on it?

September 22, 2008 8:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

While we're at it:

if the law says we can't discriminate between a guy wearing a dress and a woman, why couldn't a sexual predator use that as a loophole to force business owners to let them lurk in women's rooms?

September 22, 2008 8:39 AM  
Blogger Tish said...

Bingo. Question answered.

I am fed up with showerheads accosting me at the grocery store so that they can slander people about whom they know nothing. The depth and breadth of the ignorance you display used to be breathtaking, but now is simply blog pollution. When that pollution decorates the parking lots of local stores it causes long-term harm to the people you are slandering.

September 22, 2008 8:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

George Will thinks McCain is Un-Presidential. Will said, McCain "Once again substituted vehemence for coherence."

No wonder the CRW likes him. They have likewise substituted vehemence for coherence. Go get those signatures, waste your volunteers' time on another futile effort. Sane people understand that per Mayland law, in order to get a referendum on the ballot this November, you had to turn in valid signatures from 5% of MoCo's registered voters in February, not September.

Collect all the signatures you want, it won't make a difference. Waste your volunteers' time, make fools of yourselves, we don't care. If anybody's "apoplectic" about anything, it's the stupidity of this futile CRW action.

September 22, 2008 8:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But, why do you keep bringing it up, CTBS?

"I am fed up"

Oh, that's right.

It's because your stuffed.

Unfortunately, free speech is generally considered more valuable than your desire to avoid satiation.

September 22, 2008 8:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I didn't bring it up. I was responding to your comments at

September 21, 2008 7:47 PM

and

September 22, 2008 8:01 AM

and

September 22, 2008 8:13 AM

and

September 22, 2008 8:16 AM

and

September 22, 2008 8:29 AM

and

September 22, 2008 8:39 AM

Who's got apoplexy, AH?

September 22, 2008 9:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've never said a thing about it that wasn't a response to a TTFer.

September 22, 2008 9:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Go get those signatures, waste your volunteers' time on another futile effort. Sane people understand that per Mayland law, in order to get a referendum on the ballot this November, you had to turn in valid signatures from 5% of MoCo's registered voters in February, not September.

Collect all the signatures you want, it won't make a difference. Waste your volunteers' time, make fools of yourselves, we don't care."

Yes, we can tell.

You're just scared of the new 10- day window.

September 22, 2008 9:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did you guys hear that Joe Biden last Thursday told a group of union supporters in Pa. that Obama's tax policy are based on biblical principles of helping the least among you?

Unfortunately for him, he forgot that he recently released his tax returns that show he gave an average of $380 a year to charity.

That old Democratic hypocrisy.

You can always count on it.

Meanwhile, Dinesh D'Souza is raising funds to help out George Obama, Barack's brother who lives in destitution in Kenya, whom Barack has ignored:

"So isn't it interesting that we keep hearing about Sarah Palin's peccadilloes--most lately, that she used her private email account to conduct government business--while the major media continues to ignore the George Obama scandal? Here is a guy living in Third World destitution and his half-brother is the leading candidate to become the next president of the United States! How can we be blind to this national disgrace? Are the networks and major newspapers so exhilarated at the prospect of an African American president that they have become cheerleaders and cover-up specialists for the Obama campaign?

My modest campaign to help out George Obama has been coming nicely. Sean Hannity mentioned it on his show on the Fox News Channel, and I appeared on a handful of radio shows to talk about the idea. Interestingly the George Obama Compassion Fund was reported on by Kenya's leading newspaper "The Nation." So far I have received more than $1,000 in small contributions. With my kickoff contribution of $1,000, that's upwards of $2,000 for George Obama.

This is not a huge sum, but I specifically asked people to send gifts of $5, $10 and $25. The reason is that even a relatively modest sum by American standards is a considerable sum by Kenyan standards. George Obama has said that he is living on a dollar a month. This seems an impossibly small sum to survive on, so I checked the poverty line in Kenya. That is around $100 a year. By this measure, our little fund has provided for George for 20 years. Alternatively, George can move out of his 6 foot-by-10-foot hut and into a more comfortable dwelling. He can also get the training he needs to become a mechanic.

The reporter for "The Nation" thought he had me cornered when he asked, "Are you doing this to embarrass Barack Obama?" To which I answered, "Absolutely. He deserves to be embarrassed." The reporter went on to ask me since when I had developed this great interest in African poverty. I responded that I had only a slight and distant interest in African poverty. I happen to come from a very poor country, India, and my philanthropic work is directed there. In fact, I only took up the George Obama cause when I heard what a jerk and a hypocrite Barack Obama is being about his sibling. One Obamoron emailed me to say, "Why don't you use your money to help your own impoverished relatives in India?" The answer is that my relatives don't live in huts!

The George Obama Compassion Fund elicited some interesting comments from donors, which I'll be forwarding to George along with the funds. "This is for the poor brother long forgotten." "A brother is a terrible thing to waste." "I wish I had a brother, or even a step-brother. George is not my relative and not my race or religion but I still want to contribute to his welfare." "When Obama said that not taking care of the least of our brothers is our greatest moral failure, who knew that he was talking literally about the least of his brothers?" "I never thought I'd be writing a check to anyone named Obama, but I do want to be a true Christian and help this man in this shameful situation." "I'd send more, but I make $9.10 per hour." "I'm unemployed, but I can spare $5 for the Obama Compassion Fund."

Not one of the atheists who regularly appears on this blog contributed a penny. (This is very much in line with sociologist Arthur Brooks' data showing that the most secular people are much less generous both with money and time than their religious counterparts.) As Brooks might have predicted, most of my donations came from self-identified Christians, some of them in difficult circumstances themselves. Thanks to this generosity, Barack Obama's half-brother can look forward to the prospect of a better life. George Obama, start packing!"

September 22, 2008 9:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous" - What new 10-day window? And...btw...you still haven't revealed who your employer is - who is paying you to hijack the TTF website. It's either that or you are overcome with your sick obsession to troll here and spout your nonsense and lies.
Get a life!

September 22, 2008 9:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

that's what I mean by apoplectic

September 22, 2008 9:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Question: For those of us who read this blog, could somebody be so kind as to reveal who this "Wyatt" is? Is he real or is he a cartoon-character something along the lines of "Where's Waldo"?
Whichever...I am incredibly amazed by his prolific rantings on just about any subject under the sun. Perhaps he is a McCain campaign insider...he seems to know so much about the inner workings of that endeavor. Or... is he a hired shill; an apologist for the decidedly unqualified Ms. Palin? Or, in terms of local politics, is he that man who "Heil Hitlered" at the County Council meeting?
Just who is this mysterious "Wyatt"?
Wondering

September 22, 2008 9:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're just scared of the new 10- day window.

Pssst. A little secret: After 10 days, while you're looking out the window at the beautiful, transgender-protected scenery of Montgomery County, that window will, without warning, fall on your hand in very painful fashion.

Seriously, now, let me try to help you. Yes, CRG can file some signatures. They are late. They were due on February 4 and February 19, 2008. The BOE will make a determination saying that the September signatures were late.

Presumably, based on your thinking, CRG will say, "AHA! Now I have a ten day window to file a new court case."

True enough. But it doesn't change the indisputable fact that the SIGNATURES ARE SEVEN MONTHS LATE. So when CRG and its ADF brownshirts head off to Circuit Court to challenge the new BOE determination, the hearing will be very, very short.

Judge: When were these signatures due?

BOE attorney: February 4 and February 19.

Judge: Is that right, Mr. ADF attorney?

ADF attorney: Um, well, yes, Judge, but uh, you see, we collected these other signatures in September and, uh, y'know, it just wouldn't be fair that . . . . .

Judge: Case dismissed. Next case.


Getting a "new 10-day window" is not a magic bullet to get a do-over for everything that came before. It only allows you to appeal from the particular decision that triggered the new window -- namely, that the September signatures are seven months late. And that's beyond dispute.

So no, I'm not worried about the new signatures or about the shiny new window. I am, however, concerned about the sanity of people such as you that waste everyone's time with this nonsense.

September 22, 2008 10:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"waste everyone's time with this nonsense"

takes two to tango, my friend

September 22, 2008 10:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It only takes one to waste everyone's time.

Wondering, "Wyatt" is a MC resident who has long been an Anonymous troll on this blog. "Wyatt" is not Adol Owens-Williams who uttered "Zeig Heil" at the County Council meeting last November. "Wyatt" is apparently not brave enough to show his face in public or take credit for his trolling here.

September 22, 2008 11:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For some reason someone thinks that we're interested in what Distort D'Newza has to say. If I were interested, I'd read his blog. It's a waste of good electrons to post his blather here. Distort gives the lie to his 'christian' beliefs by using peoples charitable instincts to forward his own political agenda. Seems a little Pharisaic to me. Perhaps Dinesh will set up a money-changing table in the temple next.

Our Troll Anon seems to think that bloggers here bring up CRG's lurking at Giants because they fear that the petition will be accepted by the BOE; not true.

The real objection to CRG and their actions (and website) at this point is they are focused on increasing fear of and prejudice against Trans men and women. This is the essence of Transphobia, and yes, hate speech.

CRG's actions should be labelled for what they are.

rrjr

Derrick, I also was personally attacked by CRW, and PFOX. They seem to be equal-opportunity haters.

I have no interest in anything any trolls have to say about this post or anyone elses. Down with Trolls!

rrjr

September 22, 2008 12:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So you don't care if Obama ignores the fact that his brother lives in poverty?

September 22, 2008 12:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"For everyone who lived through the CRC attack on MCPS and the Montgomery County Board of Education"

What does everyone think of this opening bit of deception by David?

Makes the CRC protest against the irresponsible MC sex curriculum sound like a nuclear blast?

To your knowledge, did anyone not live through the "attack", David?

September 22, 2008 2:03 PM  
Blogger Hazumu Osaragi said...

Anonymous said...

So you don't care if Obama ignores the fact that his brother lives in poverty?

Let's see, it's almost a non-sequitur;

It's a statement phrased in the form of a question ("I'll take showernuts for $2,000, Alex...")

It's an ambush question akin to "Is it true you've stopped beating your wife?"

BTW, is there a link to this interview mentioned in the main post?

September 22, 2008 2:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Contrary to D'Loser's spin about George Obama, CNN reports:

Behind the Scenes: Meet George Obama

By David McKenzie
CNN
In our Behind the Scenes series, CNN correspondents share their experiences in covering news and analyze the stories behind the events.

HURUMA, Kenya (CNN) -- We found Barack Obama's half-brother living in a Nairobi slum.

George Obama, whose birth certificate shows that he is Barack Obama's half-brother, lives in a small house in Huruma that he shares with his mother's extended family, far away from the presidential campaign circus.

In his memoir, "Dreams for my Father," the Democratic presidential candidate describes meeting George as a "painful affair." Barack Obama's trip to Kenya meant meeting family he had never known.

In the book, which is popular in Nairobi and can be found in almost any supermarket, Obama looks back at his personal story and his struggles to reconcile with a Kenyan father who left him and his mother when he was just a child.

Barack Obama Sr. died in a car accident when George was just 6 months old. And like his half-brother, George hardly knew his father. George was his father's last child and had not been aware of his famous half-brother.

"I think I wanted to learn about my father the same way he did," George Obama told me about why he read the book. "He came here searching for his roots, and I was also trying to find my roots." Watch George Obama talk about meeting his half-brother for the first time [and more].

Unlike his grandmother in Kogela, in Western Kenya, George Obama had received little attention from the media.

But reports surfaced in the past few days, springing from an Italian Vanity Fair article saying George Obama is living in a shack and "earning less than a dollar a day."

The reports left him angry.

"I was brought up well. I live well even now," he said. "The magazines, they have exaggerated everything.

"I think I kind of like it here. There are some challenges, but maybe it is just like where you come from, there are the same challenges," Obama said.


Obama, who is in his mid-20s, is learning to become a mechanic and is active in youth groups in Huruma. He said he tries to help the community as much as he can.

At least one of his neighbors feels that perhaps the candidate should help the brother.

"I would like Obama to visit his brother to see how he is living, to improve his way of life," said Emelda Negei, who runs a small dispensary near Obama's house.

But George Obama will have none of it. He draws inspiration from his famous half-brother. He acknowledges that he is biased but said he knows that his half-brother will be the next president.

"Because he wants to be [president]," he said. "I think in life, what you want is what you are supposed to get."

September 22, 2008 2:15 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

A prominent conservative writer and right wing luminary has seen the light, rejected Mccain and endorsed Obama. Wick Allison, former publisher of the National Review has said:

"But today it is so-called conservatives who are cemented to political programs when they clearly don't work. The Bush tax cuts--a solution for which there was no real problem and which he refused to end even when the nation went to war--led to huge deficit spending and a $3 trillion growth in the federal debt. Facing this, John McCain pumps his "conservative" credentials by proposing even bigger tax cuts. Meanwhile, a movement that once fought for limited government has presided over the greatest growth of government in our history. That is not conservatism; it is profligacy using conservatism as a mask.

Today it is conservatives, not liberals, who talk with alarming bellicosity about making the world "safe for democracy." It is John McCain who says America's job is to "defeat evil," a theological expansion of the nation's mission that would make George Washington cough out his wooden teeth.
This kind of conservatism, which is not conservative at all, has produced financial mismanagement, the waste of human lives, the loss of moral authority, and the wreckage of our economy that McCain now threatens to make worse.


Barack Obama is not my ideal candidate for president. (In fact, I made the maximum donation to John McCain during the primaries, when there was still hope he might come to his senses.) But I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history. I disagree with him on many issues. But those don't matter as much as what Obama offers, which is a deeply conservative view of the world. Nobody can read Obama's books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers.
Most important, Obama will be a realist. I doubt he will taunt Russia, as McCain has, at the very moment when our national interest requires it as an ally. The crucial distinction in my mind is that, unlike John McCain, I am convinced he will not impulsively take us into another war unless American national interests are directly threatened.

"Every great cause," Eric Hoffer wrote, "begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." As a cause, conservatism may be dead. But as a stance, as a way of making judgments in a complex and difficult world, I believe it is very much alive in the instincts and predispositions of a liberal named Barack Obama."

September 22, 2008 2:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sounds like D'souza's got it right to me.

How can we trust Obama with the country when he can't be trusted to help out his own brother?

The CNN report was discussed by Dinesh several weeks ago:

"So why aren't the networks covering the fact that Barack Obama's half-brother George lives in a 6 by 10 foot hut in the slums of Kenya? It took a reporter for the Italian edition of Vanity Fair to locate George Obama. Obama noted that when he met his famous half-brother in 2006 it was only for a few minutes and like talking to a complete stranger. George Obama also told the magazine that when people ask him whether he is related to Barack Obama he denies it because he is ashamed. Obama has done absolutely nothing to help his unfortunate half-brother.

Apparently alarmed that this report could hurt Obama, CNN dispatched one of its reporters to do cover-up work for the Obama campaign. This is a hopeless enterprise; anyone who sees pictures of Geroge Obama's dwelling place knows that they reveal the worst images of African poverty. Moreover, for all its propagandistic intent, the CNN report is unintentionally damaging to Obama. The reporter cannot hide the fact that George Obama comes from a "ramshackled slum." A neighbor tells CNN that Barack Obama really should connect with his half-brother and "see how he's living" and do what he can to "improve our way of life."

CNN attempts to portray George Obama as a self-reliant fellow who doesn't want any help. The network quotes him saying, "I was brought up well. I live well even now." Notice that George speaks in a halting voice; he is trying to maintain his self-image. George also says, "I'm Kenyan...I would love to live in Kenya." Presumably George gave this answer to a question asking whether he'd like to move to the United States with Barack Obama's help. These answers, however, in no way suggest that George doesn't want Barack Obama's intervention to relieve his grinding poverty. A man's effort to maintain his dignity should not be exploited to pretend that he doesn't want a helping hand."







It's unanimous. The economy is not good.

A new poll from American Research Group shows that zero percent of Americans believe the economy is improving

September 22, 2008 2:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"As a cause, conservatism may be dead. But as a stance, as a way of making judgments in a complex and difficult world, I believe it is very much alive in the instincts and predispositions of a liberal named Barack Obama."

How about providing us with an example?

September 22, 2008 2:42 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Fiscal conservatism. Its supposedly promoted by Republicans but the reality is that its been liberals who've been fiscally conservative and Republicans who've been fiscally irresponsible. Clinton left the U.S. with a surplus, Bush has run up a monstrous deficit of trillions of dollars during his stay in office. Mccain will recklessly cut taxes and continue the war in Iraq for 100 years while starting a war in Iran (remember "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"). Obama will continue the fiscal responsibilty of clinton, extracate the U.S. from the Iraq war, avoid recklessly starting another war, implement modest tax cuts for the middle class only, and pay down the debt Bush has run up.

September 22, 2008 3:05 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Monday's Gallup Poll: Obama holds steady lead

By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist

Now that the convention bounces are over, Barack Obama is back to holding a steady lead over John McCain. It's 48-44 percent on Monday, similar to the 49-45 percent lead of Sunday.

Obama has withstood the Sarah Palin bounce that temporarily lifted McCain into a decent lead 10 days ago in the Gallup Poll.

Now, Obama and McCain are trading ideas about what the congressional bailout of the U.S. financial industry ought to look like.

But face it: Neither candidate saw this coming, and neither has a great idea how to solve things.

Obama will continue to keep up the pressure, as he should, on Congress to make sure it protects individual taxpayers with the bailout. Let the CEOs of the failed financial firms pay a bigger price.

McCain will continue his recent conversion to more regulation. But that change doesn't fit well with his decades of support for deregulation -- which helped get America into its current financial crisis.

How this will play out in the polls? Should help Obama, since Americans think he's generally better attuned to helping regular folks with their economic concerns.

September 22, 2008 3:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Clinton left the U.S. with a surplus"

Thanks for the chuckle, Priya.

Clinton only balanced the budget after being forced into it by the Gingrich revolution in Congress.

He did it by slashing welfare and military spending.

The latter weakened our military and emboldened fanatics to attack us, resulting in our current wars which have been a major contributor to the current deficit.

Of course, his VP, Albert, invented the internet in his spare time. This set off a boom and the resulting capital gains also helped balance the budget.

Problem is the internet boom was a bubble which crashed and led to the need for tax cuts in the Bush administration to stabilize the economy. Despite several shocks to our economic system as the result of the Clinton years, Bush managed to keep the ecinomy booming until late 2007 when there was a decline in GDP. It was temporary, however, and the economy grew again in the last two quarters.

btw, surpluses in government spending aren't a good thing. They just mean the government is taking more money from it's citizens than it needs and weakening the economy.

September 22, 2008 3:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"How this will play out in the polls? Should help Obama, since Americans think he's generally better attuned to helping regular folks with their economic concerns."

Well, that's what you see now.

The events of last week were extraordinary and ordinary citizens don't quite understand what's going on.

They need to sort things out and are being influenced by media hyperbole right now.

Friday night at Ole Miss, America will be watching and judging.

I think you can get it up north on CNN.

It's the first quarter of the Super Bowl.

Don't miss it!

September 22, 2008 3:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Like Hillary said, No Way, No How, No McCain, No Palin

September 22, 2008 4:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bea, McCain/Palin is the likely victor. Obama has no experience and we've go some big problems.

That's what Hillary wants.

If Obama loses, she gets to run again in twelve.

btw, look for some media soon about the role Barney Frank, gay legislator extraordinaire and head of the Senate Financial Services committee had to do with last week's events.

Bush has been trying to pass more regulation for F Mae and F Mac for years and Frank has been blocking it. Frank was accusing Bush of trying to reform these institutions just to hurt poor people.

Obama votes the Frank line and must be held accountable for trying to turn this problem into a class warfare political football.

It's the kind of thing that would be common in an Obama administration.

Here's a preview:

"In 2003, Frank opposed Bush administration and Congressional Republican efforts for the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis. Under the plan a new agency would have been created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. "These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis," Frank said. He added, "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Just the facts before you vote, Bea.

September 22, 2008 6:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here are just the facts, AnonBigot:

CNN.COM:

Two-thirds say economy is not fundamentally sound, poll found

Nearly half of those polled blame Republicans for current financial crisis

Obama leading McCain 51-46 percent, according to CNN poll out Monday

Majority of respondents viewed Obama as better on economic issues

September 22, 2008 6:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is it just me, or do the wingnuts around here have a bad case of ADD? Every time they throw around some BS theory about 10-day windows or Obama's half brother, someone debunks their crap.

Then the subject mysteriously changes. Or, my personal favorite, they say something like this nugget, which had me chuckling all day:

The events of last week were extraordinary and ordinary citizens don't quite understand what's going on.

They need to sort things out and are being influenced by media hyperbole right now.


Translation from the High Wingnut: if the polls are for us, democracy is a great and wonderful thing. But if not, the people are sadly confused and "need to sort things out."

It just doesn't occur to the Wyatts of the world that, hey, maybe America has figured out who got us into this mess, and that Republicans just aren't that popular anymore. :-(

September 22, 2008 7:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The pictures in the Hillary piece were from the Alaska Women Reject Palin rally in Anchorage. Mudflats reported about the rallys the day Palin returned to Alaska after being nominated to run with McSame.

‘Alaska Women Reject Palin’ Rally is HUGE!

09-14-08

I attended the Welcome Home rally for Sarah Palin this morning. Hooo. It was an experience. About a thousand (maybe) hard-core Palin supporters showed up to hear her speak at the new Dena’ina Convention Center in downtown Anchorage.

After shaking it off with a good double shot of espresso, and a brisk walk back to my car, it was time to head to the Alaska Women Reject Palin rally. It was to be held outside on the lawn in front of the Loussac Library in midtown Anchorage. Home made signs were encouraged, and the idea was to make a statement that Sarah Palin does not speak for all Alaska women, or men. I had no idea what to expect.

The rally was organized by a small group of women, talking over coffee. It made me wonder what other things have started with small groups of women talking over coffee. It’s probably an impressive list. These women hatched the plan, printed up flyers, posted them around town, and sent notices to local media outlets. One of those media outlets was KBYR radio, home of Eddie Burke, a long-time uber-conservative Anchorage talk show host. Turns out that Eddie Burke not only announced the rally, but called the people who planned to attend the rally “a bunch of socialist baby-killing maggots”, and read the home phone numbers of the organizers aloud over the air, urging listeners to call and tell them what they thought. The women, of course, received many nasty, harassing and threatening messages.

So, as I jettisoned myself from the jaws of the ‘Drill Baby Drill’ crowd and toward the mystery rally at the library, I felt a bit apprehensive. I’d been disappointed before by the turnout at other rallies. Basically, in Anchorage, if you can get 25 people to show up at an event, it’s a success. So, I thought to myself, if we can actually get 100 people there that aren’t sent by Eddie Burke, we’ll be doing good. A real statement will have been made. I confess, I still had a mental image of 15 demonstrators surrounded by hundreds of menacing “socialist baby-killing maggot” haters.

It’s a good thing I wasn’t tailgating when I saw the crowd in front of the library or I would have ended up in somebody’s trunk. When I got there, about 20 minutes early, the line of sign wavers stretched the full length of the library grounds, along the edge of the road, 6 or 7 people deep! I could hardly find a place to park. I nabbed one of the last spots in the library lot, and as I got out of the car and started walking, people seemed to join in from every direction, carrying signs.

Never, have I seen anything like it in my 17 and a half years living in Anchorage. The organizers had someone walk the rally with a counter, and they clicked off well over 1400 people (not including the 90 counter-demonstrators). This was the biggest political rally ever, in the history of the state. I was absolutely stunned. The second most amazing thing is how many people honked and gave the thumbs up as they drove by. And even those that didn’t honk looked wide-eyed and awe-struck at the huge crowd that was growing by the minute. This just doesn’t happen here.

Then, the infamous Eddie Burke showed up. He tried to talk to the media, and was instantly surrounded by a group of 20 people who started shouting O-BA-MA so loud he couldn’t be heard. Then passing cars started honking in a rhythmic pattern of 3, like the Obama chant, while the crowd cheered, hooted and waved their signs high.

So, if you’ve been doing the math… Yes. The Alaska Women Reject Palin rally was significantly bigger than Palin’s rally that got all the national media coverage! So take heart, sit back, and enjoy the photo gallery. Feel free to spread the pictures around (links are appreciated) to anyone who needs to know that Sarah Palin most definitely does not speak for all Alaskans. The citizens of Alaska, who know her best, have things to say.

September 22, 2008 8:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Is it just me, or do the wingnuts around here have a bad case of ADD?"

Just you. And they have medication for your condition.

"Every time they throw around some BS theory about 10-day windows"

Granted, it's a long-shot but you guys asked. Don't blame me for telling you. As long as what they're doing is right, I have a feeling CRG will keep fighting.

Clearly, in the case of the referendum, CRG's cause was treated unjustly by the government. They'll continue to seek a remedy.

And TTF will continue to go apoplectic at the very mention of the idea.

"or Obama's half brother, someone debunks their crap."

No one debunked anything, my friend. Obama is a class-A1 hypocrite and this story will develop throughout October.

"Then the subject mysteriously changes."

Is there some point at which we're allowed to stop discussing a topic? I thought it was when I had said what I wanted. Apparently, you want me to keep going until some unspecified point in time when TTF will briefly appear to have the better of the argument.

That could take forever.

"Or, my personal favorite, they say something like this nugget, which had me chuckling all day:

The events of last week were extraordinary and ordinary citizens don't quite understand what's going on.

They need to sort things out and are being influenced by media hyperbole right now.

Translation from the High Wingnut: if the polls are for us, democracy is a great and wonderful thing. But if not, the people are sadly confused and "need to sort things out.""

Well, it won't take long. Stories are already starting to come out about how the head of the homosexuals in America, Barney Frank, used his position as chair of the Senate Financial Services committee to undermine the Bush administration plans to regulate Fannie and Freddie.

If you really like that nugget, google Barney and read the history of his "service" on the committee.

September 22, 2008 9:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ladies and gentlemen, once again, back by popular demand, moments with Barney Frank:

"These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis," Frank said. He added, "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

September 22, 2008 9:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And Barney ain't no Log Cabin boy, either.

He's a gay Democrat.

September 22, 2008 9:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm reminded of Watergate:

"WASHINGTON (Sept. 22) - The FBI searched the residence of the son of a Democratic state lawmaker and fervent Obama supporter in Tennessee over the weekend looking for evidence linking the young man to the hacking of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's personal e-mail account, two law enforcement officials told The Associated Press on Monday."

September 22, 2008 9:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

--"These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis," Frank said.

Anon, is it possible that in 2003, when Barney Frank said this, there was no financial crisis for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Or is this further proof that all gay people are mentally ill and have bad judgment?

September 22, 2008 10:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gee, I don't know, Bea.

For the last week, you have been blaming Bush for the deregulation of the banking industry that happened in the 1980s and, now, you hear Bush favored regulating F Mae and Mac but met resistance from Frank and you say, well, maybe things have changed.

The point is your mantra was: regulation good, deregulation bad.

Now you find that Barney the Frank, patron saint of American Gaeity, was against regulation five years ago and we should keep an open mind.

Might have been a good idea from the beginning when you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

September 22, 2008 11:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stock market crashed today because the Democrats were stalling on the bailout plan, trying to throw in a bunch of extra stuff.

Here's what the scene is like in Washington:

"President Bush prodded Congress during the day to pass the rescue plan quickly, declaring, "The whole world is watching."

Rep. Barney Frank, Democratic Financial Services Committee chairman in the House of Representatives, said the administration essentially had forced Congress to the negotiating table by creating an expectation in financial markets that a massive bailout was on the way.

"By the declaration that they made, by sending this proposal, I think we have to recognize the reality that we don't have a choice now of debating whether this is a good or a bad thing," said Frank, who was leading negotiations with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson."

I think Frank's statement sums it up pretty well. The president "forced" Democrats to the table to discuss what to do.

As usual, the Democrats were planning to go with their signature strategy:

nothing.

As you remember, the Dems were given a majority with a mandate to enact certain items and have, instead, employed their signature strategy:

nothing.

Things are coming into focus.

September 22, 2008 11:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, there is a now a conservative and theologically-motivated push throught the country, to repeal at any cost, the most basic human and civl rights laws, for the very people that are the most vulnerable to discrimination, violence, hatred, and unwarranted social judgement, and constant denigration or humiliation on a daily basis.

This must be questioned and talked about openly in every forum where people of all walks of life can discuss and exchange dialogue that is not based in a variety of biases, falsehoods, and distortions about any person that differs from so called "acceptable" "normal" societal standards of gender and sexuality.

In the lack of real compassion, lack of judgement, and understanding of these human issues, there is a constant pressure of hatred and bias that is now taking the form of lies, falsehood, and ruthlessly criminal fearmongering, even to the extent of completely hijacking the very democracy that so many espouse to wish to protect by such righteous moral and "ethical" standards.

In fact, i have personally and repeatedly seen these groups and their supporters go to any length possible, including the most disgustingly and completely dishonest practices, combined with distorted misrepresentations of the laws themselves to incite fear and mob mentality behaviors in more potentially influenced demographic segments of the voting public (which, they should actually be enraged and insulted by, for being used as such tools for bigotry and discrimination), as well as how the laws have been passed, and specifically the very nature of the people those laws are designed to protect.

This has all been done here in my home State and county, and is still being done now, in order to win legislative issues on the subject of LGBT rights.

This must not stand as acceptable or reasonable standards of social ethics, and the hatred disguised as truth must be unmasked once and for all so that people can clearly see the real evil that is being created here.

I call it "Theophilosophic Social Structures" and it is one of the most dangerously undemocratic concepts that this entire nation has ever faced.

More specifically, because this threat to our most basic freedoms and civil liberties is a blossoming and deeply insidious threat from within the borders of our own land - not outside of it.

Most respectfully,

Maryanne A. Arnow

September 23, 2008 12:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Unfortunately, there is a now a conservative and theologically-motivated push throught the country, to repeal at any cost, the most basic human and civl rights laws,"

Maryanne

Conservatives have always opposed the gay agenda. There is no onew push now, nothing remarkable at all except that there seems a little fatigue among pro-family groups.

No one, however, has suggested the "repeal" of any "basic human rights laws". You're apparently confused.

Perhaps we could help you if you'll tell us what right you think someone is trying to take away from who.

September 23, 2008 6:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

First, Al Gore's running mate endorses John McCain and, now, even Obama's running mate is having doubts about him.
Echoing the remarks of Ruth Marcus in yesterday's Post, Joe Biden is complaining about the TV attack ads put out by Barack Obama:

"WASHINGTON (Sept. 23) - Barack Obama's running mate says a campaign ad that mocked Republican presidential candidate John McCain as an out-of-touch, out-of-date computer illiterate was "terrible" and would not have been done had he known about it.

Obama, McCain's Democratic rival, launched the ad earlier this month, part of an aggressive push to slow McCain's rise in the polls after he chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate. It included unflattering footage of Sen. McCain at a hearing in the early '80s, wearing giant glasses and an out-of-style suit, interspersed with shots of a disco ball, a clunky phone, an outdated computer and a Rubik's Cube.
"He admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer, can't send an e-mail, still doesn't understand the economy, and favors $200 billion in new tax cuts for corporations, but almost nothing for the middle class," the ad says.

Asked about the negative tone of the campaign, and this ad in particular, during an interview broadcast Monday by the "CBS Evening News," Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, said he disapproved of it.

"I thought that was terrible, by the way," Biden said.

Asked why it was done, he said: "I didn't know we did it, and if I had anything to do with it, we'd have never done it.""

When it comes to campaign decisions, Biden apparently does not have "anything to do with it."

I think we see a campaign unraveling before our eyes.

And this should have been the year of the Democrats.

What happened?

September 23, 2008 8:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now you find that Barney the Frank, patron saint of American Gaeity, was against regulation five years ago and we should keep an open mind.

Five years ago Barney Frank was the ranking minority House finance committee member (not the Senate). From 2001-2006 the GOP did exactly what it wanted to in Congress, from passing the Patriot Act without letting most members of Congress read it to excluding Democrats from Conference Committees when differing House and Senate bills were brought forth, necessitating compromise. They domintated Congress and did little to regulate our financial markets and banks, except when they had to because Bush's buddy "Kenny Boy" let his house of cards collapse.

Frank's only in the House, so I guess that means the "patron saint of American Gaeity" would be GOP Senator Craig. After all, he's the highest ranking elected gay official in America. He's closeted, which is right in line with GOP "family values."

And tell us, after his feigned and meager 2003 attempt to create a new government agency to oversee Freddie and Fannie, did Bush ever try to regulate them again or has he ignored the problem since? The GOP controlled both chambers of Congress in 2003 and if he really tried, he could have gotten it approved.

We can all thank the GOP-controlled Congress for 6 years of inactivity on regulating our financial markets, Bush for 5 years, and the Dems for 2.

What a brilliant idea for you to compare Nixon ordering White House staffers to break-in to Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate with a kid hacking Palin's email account. You doing that reminds us all that Bush is less popular today than Nixon was back then.

As to your apoplexy over Joe Biden's honesty, I think it says a lot that Obama hasn't muzzled and scripted Biden the way McBush's Rovian campaign has with Palin. They're keeping the self-described pitt bull on a short leash and won't let her speak her mind because she's too scary.

More good news for you Wyatt. Time Magazine reports:

Latest Battleground Numbers

Various Media
From Quinnipiac University/washingtonpost.com/Wall Street Journal polls:

COLORADO: Obama 49 – McCain 45
MICHIGAN: Obama 48 - McCain 44
MINNESOTA: Obama 47 - McCain 45
WISCONSIN: Obama 49 - McCain 42
Dates conducted: September 14-21; Error margin: Ranges from 2.6-2.7 points.

September 23, 2008 9:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Battleground national poll through Sept 22, which is currently the most recent poll out, has McCain in the lead by 2 points.

"From 2001-2006 the GOP did exactly what it wanted to in Congress,"

Well, apparently not, because Bush wanted to reform F M&M but Frank got his way. The reason the Democrats gave the President whatever he wanted on national security was because they feared the public reaction. On finances, they assumed no one understood or cared. The top minority member of a committee could indeed find ways to block legislation.

Bush was right, Democrats were wrong.

Again.

Get over it.

"You doing that reminds us all that Bush is less popular today than Nixon was back then."

Actually, Nixon was pretty popular when he was playing the same kind of dirty tricks on McGovern that Obama's campaign is apparently playing on Palin. In November, Nixon carried every state in the Union save Massachusetts.

Nixon became unpopular after the election when the public starting focusing on the details.

The same could easily happen if Obama was elected.

"As to your apoplexy over Joe Biden's honesty,"

So is Biden honestly thinks Obama is dishonest, that proves that Obama is honest?

Sound like a new adventure in post-modernist thinking.

Man, do I feel apoplectic.

September 23, 2008 9:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Latest Battleground Numbers"

Cherry picking again.

Minnesota and Wisconsin aren't battleground states. Obama will win them.

Michigan is and, actually, Colorado is. The others are Ohio, Virginia, Florida and Pennsylvania.

September 23, 2008 9:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There you go again, putting words in someone else's mouth. That's called lying. Here's what Biden said:

Asked about the negative tone of the campaign, and this ad in particular, during an interview broadcast Monday by the "CBS Evening News," Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, said he disapproved of it.

"I thought that was terrible, by the way," Biden said...

Late Monday, Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton issued a statement from Biden. In it, Biden said he "was asked about an ad I'd never seen" and was "reacting merely to press reports."

Biden said that, as he said in the interview, there was nothing "intentionally personal" in the criticism of McCain's views.

"Having now reviewed the ad, it is even more clear to me that given the disgraceful tenor of Sen. McCain's ads and their persistent falsehoods, his campaign is in no position to criticize, especially when they continue to distort Barack's votes on an issue as personal as keeping kids safe from sexual predators," Biden said.

Biden was referring to a McCain ad that said Obama supported sex education for kindergartners, based on a bill he voted for as an Illinois state senator. Obama's campaign said the ad was a "shameful" distortion of his record because the bill's language meant young children would have been taught about sexual predators and concepts such as "good touch and bad touch."

September 23, 2008 11:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That's called lying."

Like when Biden said "I thought that was terrible" and later says "I bnever saw the ad".

We probably shouldn't elect a guy like that, huh?

September 23, 2008 11:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He was reacting to press reports, unlike Palin in her Rovian cocoon.

It was news last week when Palin took her first question from the national press after weeks of lessons from her Rovian trainers.

Before that, as Fox News reported, Palin was kept "far from prying eyes and reporters' questions."

What are they so afraid of thath she might say?

September 23, 2008 11:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

look what happened to Biden

answering gotcha questions from the press doesn't really contribute to the election process

Palin should stick to substance instead of the petty concerns of Chris Matthews

September 23, 2008 11:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"He was reacting to press reports"

Yes, and first he pretended to have seen the ads and not liked them.

Then, after he got yelled at by his boss, Obama, he changed his story and said he hadn't seen the ads.

He was lying at some point, we're just not sure when.

It's not OK to lie when you are "reacting to press reports".

No, no, not at all.

Joe's got some explaining to do.

September 23, 2008 12:27 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Anon freak said "Clinton only balanced the budget after being forced into it by the Gingrich revolution in Congress"

LOL, not even close. If that was the case Bush wouldn't have run up a monstrous deficit because the Republicans in congress would have forced him to balance the budget.

Anonfreak said "Despite several shocks to our economic system as the result of the Clinton years, Bush managed to keep the ecinomy booming until late 2007".

LOL, Clinton presided over the longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history, which included a balanced budget and a surplus of $559 billion.:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton

Clinton left office with an approval rating at 65%, the highest end of office rating of any President since World War II. What's Bush's approval rating? About 25%, not surprising given that the economy is the number one concern of U.S. citizens and George has been a disaster for the economy.

Since Bush took over the economy is in turmoil and trillions of dollars in deficits will cripple the U.S. economy for a long time to come. The situation is exactly the opposite of what you describe. You don't like reality so you lie. The fact is that the Democrats are fiscally conservative and the Republicans are big government spenders.

September 23, 2008 2:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon freak said "Clinton only balanced the budget after being forced into it by the Gingrich revolution in Congress"

LOL, not even close. If that was the case Bush wouldn't have run up a monstrous deficit because the Republicans in congress would have forced him to balance the budget."

Let's go one at a time.

Clinton didn't balance a budget until 1998. Gingrich pushed him into it.

Total debt as a % of GDP is actually lower now, after 7 years of the Bush administration, than it was during most of the 90s.

Preya, you're ignorant.

September 23, 2008 2:54 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

LOL, anon freak you're a laugh riot. Obviously the Republicans had nothing to do with Clinton balancing the budget or they'd have done the same thing once
Bush was in power.

When Clinton left office there was a surplus of 559 billion. Obviously there is no way in hell that debt as a percentage of GDP is better with the multi-trillion dollar bush deficit than it was with the Clinton surplus. You can't accept the bitter reality - Republicans are big-government money wasters and Democrats like Obama are fiscal conservatives who rule responsibly.

September 23, 2008 3:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Obviously there is no way in hell that debt as a percentage of GDP is better with the multi-trillion dollar bush deficit than it was with the Clinton surplus"

Facts are facts, Preya. Look it up. The CBO and OMB have the data.

A dollar ain't what it used to be.

September 23, 2008 3:17 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Anon-freak, obviously you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the rear.

September 23, 2008 3:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

answering gotcha questions from the press doesn't really contribute to the election process

Maybe not, but facing the press is an important job for a leader. Biden is not afraid to face the press, but of course he is not under investigation for illegally firing a public servant. Palin has flipflopped and now refuses to answer those nagging Trooper-gate questions.

On September 19, KTVA reported

McCain folks say the governor is more than willing to participate in an investigation by the Personnel Board that she initiated. One of those board members was appointed by Palin, the others are holdovers from the Murkowski administration. All of them serve at the pleasure of the governor, but the McCain camp assures us that a Personnel Board investigation would be independent and without bias.

eye roll

Show of hands please, who else thinks all those GOP appointees would be "independent and without bias?"

Not me! A bipartisan group would be better, as originally agreed.

Sarah Palin initially welcomed the bipartisan investigation into accusations that she dismissed the state's public safety commissioner because he refused to fire her ex-brother-in-law, a state trooper. "Hold me accountable," she said.

But she has increasingly opposed it since Republican presidential candidate John McCain tapped her as his running mate. The [Rovian] McCain campaign dispatched a legal team to Alaska including O'Callaghan, a former top U.S. terrorism prosecutor from New York to bolster Palin's local lawyer.


"Hold me accountable" fell by the wayside the moment she came under the control of the Rovian professional campaigners working for McBush.

Joe's got some explaining to do.

He's not alone, but his explanation is only about a campaign ad. Palin's is about not being "accountable" and about firing a public employee who refused to do her "family values" dirty work for her.

Sarah Palin has a lot of explaining to do.

So tell us AH, when is McShame going face the press and release his medical records to more than a select few for a few hours, photocopying prohibited? What is he hiding? The public has a right to know about the health of a 72 year old man who has had 4 bouts of cancer, including 3 bouts of melanoma. Now it's true a dead man can win office (Mel Carhanan beat incumbent Senator John Ashcroft) But since McShame selected a VP with less experience than any Montgomery County Executive, who if elected, will stand a heartbeat away from the Presidency, American voters have the right to know the details of this man's health. Releasing them for a few hours to a few select journalists doesn't cut it. What is he hiding?

September 23, 2008 4:00 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Here's the problem with anon-freak:

A new study out of Yale University confirms what argumentative liberals have long-known: Offering reality-based rebuttals to conservative lies only makes conservatives cling to those lies even harder. In essence, schooling conservatives makes them more stupid.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-sweeney/theres-no-arguing-with-co_b_126805.html

September 23, 2008 5:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I gave you two facts, Preya, and you've denied them. Your argument is "why, that can't be!"

Has this "schooling" made you stupider?

Try a little adventure: look it up and see for yourself.

Here's the two facts you're denying:

"Clinton didn't balance a budget until 1998. Gingrich pushed him into it.

Total debt as a % of GDP is actually lower now, after 7 years of the Bush administration, than it was during most of the 90s."

Let's see you refute either fact.

September 23, 2008 6:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bea

If Palin tried to fire the trooper, she was right to do so. Americans are with her on it.

If McCain doesn't want to release his medical records, I don't care. If you do, go ahead and vote for the healthiest guy you can find.

Worst came to worst, I'd be tickled pink to see Sarah Palin in the Oval Office.

btw, please encourage all your friends to write-in Ike Leggett's name on the ballot

September 23, 2008 6:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Palin tried to fire the trooper, she was right to do so. Americans are with her on it.

Palin tried to get someone else to fire her ex-brother-in-law the trooper and when he didn't do it, she fired him. She said she'd be accountable, but now she's under Rovian orders to memorize the script and stick to it. She must be a slow memorizer; they still wanted her under media lockdown in NYC yesterday, until the media revolted and her Rovian handlers relented.

Not everyone is "with her." Alaska's KTVA conducted a poll of their listeners and found that 85% of respondents believe Palin lied.

How about Cheney's attempted strong-arming on the Hill yesterday? Seems he's lost that old death grip he used to have, back in the day when the GOP controlled both Houses of Congress, shut Democrats out of the legislative process almost completely, deregulated everything in sight, and lowered taxes to try to drowned our government in the bathtub, leading us to this crisis we're in today.

And what were they revolting agsinst? This administration's attempt to bail out Wall Street while protecting CEO's golden parachutes and screwing the rest of us by NOT allowing foreclosure judges to rewrite mortgages so Americans can stay in their homes. Bush/Cheney want to protect the CEO's and screw homeowners, again.

Enough!

No more breaks for fat cats while the rest of us get the back of the hand!

Amd before you bellyache again, I am not alone in being FED UP with GOP leaders these days. Remember George Will, Wick Allison, and who knows who's next agree with me.

Now is the time up roll up our sleeves and get some real serious work done and McCain/Palin don't get it. They'd rather avoid talking about the Alaskan "CEO" using her office to settle personal scores.

Who's next? Uh, the American people that's who:

Economic Fears Give Obama Clear Lead Over McCain in Poll

By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 24, 2008; Page A01

Turmoil in the financial industry and growing pessimism about the economy have altered the shape of the presidential race, giving Democratic nominee Barack Obama the first clear lead of the general-election campaign over Republican John McCain, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News national poll.

...More voters trust Obama to deal with the economy, and he currently has a big edge as the candidate who is more in tune with the economic problems Americans now face. He also has a double-digit advantage on handling the current problems on Wall Street, and as a result, there has been a rise in his overall support. The poll found that, among likely voters, Obama now leads McCain by 52 percent to 43 percent. Two weeks ago, in the days immediately following the Republican National Convention, the race was essentially even, with McCain at 49 percent and Obama at 47 percent.

As a point of comparison, neither of the last two Democratic nominees -- John F. Kerry in 2004 or Al Gore in 2000 -- recorded support above 50 percent in a pre-election poll by the Post and ABC News.


The trend is clear, Americans agree Obama is the change we need.

September 24, 2008 7:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous"
You said:"...I'd be tickled pink to see Sarah Palin in the Oval Office."
Is that as in: embarrassed beyond description?

September 24, 2008 9:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Latest Real Clear Politics polls

Obama is up by 2.9% overall and ahead in 5 of 7 polls, McCain in one, and a tie in the last.

September 24, 2008 9:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The trend is clear, Americans agree Obama is the change we need."

Unfortunately, you can't really say that.

They are simply starting to conclude that he's the lesser of the deficients.

September 24, 2008 11:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"Unfortunately, there is a now a conservative and theologically-motivated push throught the country, to repeal at any cost, the most basic human and civl rights laws,"

Maryanne

""Conservatives have always opposed the gay agenda.""

I have heard this terminology for years. I still have no idea what a "gay agenda" is, or what it looks like. Since i was never a part of the "gay community" at any time in my life, nor was i ever a gay person, i wish you, or someone of notable position could send me a copy of this so- called "agenda" so that i can actually see what it is or what it looks like.

Can you please answer this question with quantifiable data, documents which outline such an agenda, and how specifically it would relate to me, not being a member of this "community", as well as specific sources, or references please ?

""There is no onew push now, nothing remarkable at all except that there seems a little fatigue among pro-family groups.""

I will give you some ground on that one and isolate my comments to "it seems to ME as though".

This, simply because i have very acutely become aware of and been subjected to, being lied about, denigrated, discriminated against, and generally humiliated in every possible social and professional context, for the better part of 5 years since openly changing my gender in this society.

Therefore, the "prevalence" of these kinds of highly predjudicial and openly discriminatory behaviors, apparently based on some sort of "theological" and/or "traditional morals and values" basis, seems rather obvious. I cannot figure what "moral" system promotes the kinds of lies and false witness that i have personally seen and heard members of these groups telling my fellow community members in order to accomplish legislative goals.

In my case, this has noticeably increased within the last years, at least locally, as a result of increases in fearmongering and distortionist tactics being used by opposition groups here in Maryland and others that have linked with them from other states to support these lies and distortions, blatant lies, and unfair conflations of transgender people, with entirely unrelated criminal elements of this society.

"No one, however, has suggested the "repeal" of any "basic human rights laws". You're apparently confused."

Hmmm... Just tried to spewcifically do just that by referendum, here in MoCo, similar groups are trying it in Gainesville Florida right now, Colorado, and as well as California about marriage rights, which i personally consider to be basic human rights.

""Perhaps we could help you if you'll tell us what right you think someone is trying to take away from who.""



Perhaps if you would use your real name, you would lend some intelligent creedence to your input other than seeming as another citizen that is unafraid to speak on this forum, yet for whatever reason, you have something to hide by hiding yourself as an anon ? Not only this can you please specifically explain what or who you mean by the use of the word "we" in this context ? that is a very important poiny by the way. You offered this in a supportive, almost clinical manner, and VERY clearly said WE and US - so you are not just speaking for yourself, which is also another important point of distinction. Please share with me who are you representing specifically ?

This is also misleading to the extent that unless you YOU are willing to reveal SPECIFICALLY who WE or US are, then you cannot lend creedence or validity to your offer of help as a GROUP, no matter how disignenuous it may actually be in this case. Another smoke sceeen behind the name "anonymous",, whereas i use my real name, speak largely only for myself in most cases, and am not hiding from you - see the difference ???

September 24, 2008 12:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"Unfortunately, there is a now a conservative and theologically-motivated push throught the country, to repeal at any cost, the most basic human and civl rights laws,"

Maryanne

""Conservatives have always opposed the gay agenda.""

I have heard this terminology for years. I still have no idea what a "gay agenda" is, or what it looks like. Since i was never a part of the "gay community" at any time in my life, nor was i ever a gay person, i wish you, or someone of notable position could send me a copy of this so- called "agenda" so that i can actually see what it is or what it looks like.

Can you please answer this question with quantifiable data, documents which outline such an agenda, and how specifically it would relate to me, not being a member of this "community", as well as specific sources, or references please ?

""There is no onew push now, nothing remarkable at all except that there seems a little fatigue among pro-family groups.""

I will give you some ground on that one and isolate my comments to "it seems to ME as though".

This, simply because i have very acutely become aware of and been subjected to, being lied about, denigrated, discriminated against, and generally humiliated in every possible social and professional context, for the better part of 5 years since openly changing my gender in this society.

Therefore, the "prevalence" of these kinds of highly predjudicial and openly discriminatory behaviors, apparently based on some sort of "theological" and/or "traditional morals and values" basis, seems rather obvious. I cannot figure what "moral" system promotes the kinds of lies and false witness that i have personally seen and heard members of these groups telling my fellow community members in order to accomplish legislative goals.

In my case, this has noticeably increased within the last years, at least locally, as a result of increases in fearmongering and distortionist tactics being used by opposition groups here in Maryland and others that have linked with them from other states to support these lies and distortions, blatant lies, and unfair conflations of transgender people, with entirely unrelated criminal elements of this society.

"No one, however, has suggested the "repeal" of any "basic human rights laws". You're apparently confused."

Hmmm... Just tried to spewcifically do just that by referendum, here in MoCo, similar groups are trying it in Gainesville Florida right now, Colorado, and as well as California about marriage rights, which i personally consider to be basic human rights.

""Perhaps we could help you if you'll tell us what right you think someone is trying to take away from who.""



Perhaps if you would use your real name, you would lend some intelligent creedence to your input other than seeming as another citizen that is unafraid to speak on this forum, yet for whatever reason, you have something to hide by hiding yourself as an anon ? Not only this can you please specifically explain what or who you mean by the use of the word "we" in this context ? that is a very important poiny by the way. You offered this in a supportive, almost clinical manner, and VERY clearly said WE and US - so you are not just speaking for yourself, which is also another important point of distinction. Please share with me who are you representing specifically ?

This is also misleading to the extent that unless you YOU are willing to reveal SPECIFICALLY who WE or US are, then you cannot lend creedence or validity to your offer of help as a GROUP, no matter how disignenuous it may actually be in this case. Another smoke sceeen behind the name "anonymous",, whereas i use my real name, speak largely only for myself in most cases, and am not hiding from you - see the difference ???

September 24, 2008 12:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"about marriage rights, which i personally consider to be basic human rights"

That's not really a right. You have the right to pursue it but you have to find an agreeable partner and meet society's standards (not related; age appropriate, etc).

No one is stopping anyone from this pursuit. The big controversy is that a group of deviants have decided they want to change the definition of marriage and then try to bully the rest of society into endorsing their definition by claiming they have a right to define marriage any way they like. If anyone doesn't go along, they're hateful and bigoted.

It's all part of the gay agenda.

September 24, 2008 3:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous Said:

""No one is stopping anyone from this pursuit"".

Incorrect. Many people which may share similar viewpoints to yourself are trying to legislatively stop many other people that love one another from getting married based primarily on interpretations of biblical or other theological texts within various cultures.

These interpretations also apparently give the right of those that share these views the position of judge, jury, and executioner, to "justifiably" FORCE this interpretation on the entire rest of humanity.

This, even though if you actually follow the word, you are prevented from judging others in this manner by the very basis of that word from it's puported source, Jesus Christ himself.

Here is a perfect example:

"""The big controversy is that a group of deviants"""

Exactly who or what gave you the authority to judge someone else as a "deviant", thereby justifying whatever deprivation of happinness or equal human and civl rights, based on that self quantified definition made by yourself due to whatever belief system you ascribe to account for this definition ?

Not only this, but since you have likely never personally met most, if not all of the people you are defining to judge in this instance, some of which may be civil servants or even possibly military, doctors, Chefs, lawyers, emt's, cops, - everyday people that breathe the same air, love and hate, cry and laugh, and bleed just as you yourself do.

Yet, your beliefs excuse you, except you, and allow you to make such blanket judgments and use such abusively negative and denigrating language towards people you havent even ever met nor witnessed the actual content of their heart or minds.

AND - not even willing to use your own name and have the GUTS to claim your own beliefs - YOU are a disgusting and entirely hypocritical coward in that regard alone, and shopuld shut your mouth unless you have the guts to stand up all the way on what you say you believe in stead of taking shots from the shadows of anonymity.
I would call THAT deviant, if nothing else.

You might be a nice person, and well regarded in your life, but you dont display that in THIS kind of expression.

AND - you did not definitievly answer one single one of my questions to the level of specificty requyired to give creedence to your arguments as requested. You are low hanging fruit that is too easy to pick, and everyone here has just seen you get picked.

Take it elsewhere if you cant back it up, or have the guts to stand up on your so-called acclaimed "beliefs" which are also supposed to include the courage given by God himself, not some pathetic shadow that can't even use their real name while insulting others from a dark little hole in cyberspace.


Most respectfully,

I am,


Maryanne A. Arnow
Germantown, Maryland.

September 24, 2008 10:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr./Mrs./Ms./Dr. Anonymous:
That one special moment when self-recognition finally registers! You said: "If anyone doesn't go along, they're hateful and bigoted."
BINGO!!
Maybe now we can see some evidence of contriteness and change in your evil ways?
Encouraged

September 25, 2008 11:10 AM  
Blogger Lisa Harney said...

Anonymous,

Could it be they realize that the ruling was unjust and they worry that there is someone with authority who will see this and find a way to do what's right?

How many do-overs are you entitled to?

And no - no one realizes that the ruling was unjust because the ruling wasn't unjust. Someone in authority has done what's right, and you people spent all your time trying to sell a filthy lie because the truth wouldn't net you real support.

September 26, 2008 7:33 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home