Tag Archives: senate

SNL ‘Presidents’ Reunite For Video Pushing Wall Street Reform

Vodpod videos no longer available.


Leave a comment

Filed under Humor and Satire, Politics

Passage of Power!










Barack Obama has yet to take office but his early favorable ratings are off the charts according to a new NBC/WSJ poll.  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28163452/  He is also putting together quite an impressive team to hit the ground running on January 20, 2009.  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27343359/

On Monday, December 15, 2008 the Electoral College will meet to officially cast their votes for President of the United States of America.  The vote will stand at 365 votes for President-Elect Obama and 173 votes for Senator John McCain.  These votes will be counted by the new Congress which convenes on January 3, on January 6, 2009 officially making Obama the 44th president.  That is the extent of my civics knowledge on the subject, so if I left anything out, feel free to correct me.


Just when you think that everything is running along smoothly comes this idiot governor from Illinois trying to auction off Obama’s now vacant senate seat.  Rod Blagojevitch or Blago for short has been caught on tape by the FBI and this moron can probably count on spending a few years in the pokeyafter he is impeached and put on trial.  George W. Bush can take solace in the fact that the one politician in America with a lower approval rating is that of Blago.  Right now, his approval rating stands at just 8%.  But at least that is better than the hooker in Amsterdam that gave me the Clap in 1982, her rating still stands at 0%.

January 20, 2009 can’t get here soon enough for me.  With our current president being attacked with size ten shoes, we need respectability back in the White House.  The mere fact that the president of the United States of America can suffer one of the greatest insults in the Muslim world is a testament to his criminal and buffoon behavior.  But you have to give it to  Bush, he ducked those shoes like a question from the press corps.

Barack Obama will inherit enormous problems when he takes the oath of office unless ptfan1 can prove that Obama was born in Africa.  I wish him well.  We are all going to need for him to be successful to restore America’s place in the world and to fix the problems we have here at home.  And when it’s all said and done, I doubt that anyone will be throwing shoes at President Barack Hussein Obama!


Filed under Politics










Nearly three decades of Republican dominance may be coming to an end.

The Republican-led defeat of President Bush’s Wall Street bailout plan caused an immediate financial catastrophe: The stock market fell an unprecedented 777.68 points, wiping out, by one estimate, $1.2 trillion in wealth. But the greater and more lasting damage may be to the Republican Party itself.

Percentagewise, the Sept. 29 crash was one-third the size of Black Monday, the stock-market crash of Oct. 19, 1987. As I write, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen more than halfway back up (though stock prices remain volatile). It’s still possible to believe that the economy will return to normal in a year or two. For Republicans, though, the events of Sept. 29 could well be remembered as the start of a decadeslong exile from power—much as Democrats remember Nov. 4, 1980.

That’s not to say that John McCain is certain to lose this year’s election to Barack Obama. As I’ve noted before, this race has experienced so many abrupt reversals that we’re all starting to suffer from “game-changer” fatigue. At the moment, though, things seem to be going the Democrats’ way, with Obama up five or six points in national polls and swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Missouri trending toward him. Meanwhile, the GOP has virtually no hope of retaking Congress; indeed, it’s projected to lose seats in both the House and the Senate. Even if McCain wins, his past record of unpredictability combined with the likely imperative of working with a Democratic Congress suggest he’ll spend much of his time fighting with members of his own party. That would seem especially likely given the current banking crisis, which has forced the Bush administration, the House and Senate leadership of both parties, and McCain himself to practice lemon socialism.

The central con of the political coalition assembled by Ronald Reagan and maintained by his successors was that government was a common enemy. Middle-class social conservatives loathed the government for legalizing abortion, forbidding prayer in schools, and coddling minorities through welfare and affirmative action. Upper-class libertarian conservatives loathed the government for soaking the rich through the income tax and weakening businesses through burdensome regulation. The only useful function of the federal government was to provide for the common defense. This was a con for two reasons. First, the middle and upper classes were both dependent on the federal government for a variety of benefits, including Social Security, trade protection, scientific research, and assorted localized spending (termed “pork barrel” by those who don’t receive it and “economic development” by those who do). Second, the distribution of this government largesse greatly favored the rich. In the April 1992 Atlantic, Neil Howe and Philip Longman, citing unpublished data from the Congressional Budget Office, reported that U.S. households with incomes above $100,000 received, on average, slightly more in federal cash and in-kind benefits ($5,690) than households with incomes below $10,000 ($5,560). This was four years before the Clinton administration eliminated Aid to Families With Dependent Children, the principal income-support program for the poor. When tax breaks were added to the tally, households with incomes above $100,000 received considerably more ($9,280) than households with incomes below $10,000 ($5,690). Clinton subsequently expanded tax subsidies to the poor through the Earned Income Tax Credit, but not enough to undo this disparity. “[I]f the federal government wanted to flatten the nation’s income distribution,” Howe and Longman concluded, “it would do better to mail all its checks to random addresses.”

The Reagan coalition survived because nobody wanted to believe this and because both upper and middle classes were bought off with President George W. Bush’s tax cuts. (That the tax cuts favored the wealthy didn’t seem to matter.) But the proposed $700 billion bank bailout made it hard for Republicans to cling to their cherished illusion that government exists only to indulge spendthrift widows and orphans. Moreover, the $700 billion was needed to save the very beau idéal of conservatism, the free market. It was needed so badly that (after a few alterations to protect the taxpayers’ investment) liberal House Democrats like Barney Frank made common cause with conservative House Republicans like John Boehner to urge its passage. To a Republican Party that had come to believe its own propaganda, this simply didn’t compute. So, House Republicans voted against their standard-bearer’s own bailout by a margin of 2 to 1, a dose of free-market principles that sent the Dow into the crapper.

It should be remembered that a fundamentalist belief in untrammeled capitalism is not the first but, rather, the second pillar of Reagan-style Republicanism to fall. The first was the belief that the United States should extend military power wherever enemies lurk, regardless of what our allies do. Reagan didn’t actually practice this doctrine, except to overthrow a teensy regime in Grenada and to deploy (and, after a deadly terrorist bombing, withdraw) U.S. Marines in Lebanon; he preferred to level stern rhetoric against the Soviets (“Evil Empire”) while subsidizing proxy wars abroad, not always in accordance with the law. That the Soviet Union started to disintegrate on Reagan’s watch is mistaken by many for proof that it’s possible to defeat a powerful enemy by calling it names and spending a lot of money on (but never actually using) military weapons. President Bush, alas, took Reagan at his saber-rattling word, waging a war against Saddam Hussein so unilateral that, except for a few Kurds, there was no indigenous fighting force to prop up the way we propped up the ARVN in South Vietnam. The result was and remains, even after violence in Iraq has been greatly reduced, a lingering feeling even among Republicans that the Iraq war was at best a distraction from the more necessary fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban.

This is not, I’ll confess, the first time I’ve believed that the Republican ascendancy has ended. In 1994, I felt sure that the warmed-over Reaganite nostrums of Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America” spelled defeat in the midterm elections. Instead, the Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress for the first time in four decades. I also thought the GOP was cracking up in 2000, when, desperate to find fault with every last aspect of the Clinton administration, it started bad-mouthing prosperity. I got that wrong, too. So maybe the GOP isn’t really dead.

It sure looks dead, though.


Filed under Politics