Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

May 14, 2009

DIMINISHING RETURNS.... Last month's "Tea Party" protests weren't especially consequential. Far-right activists, with a variety of messages and goals, got together; Fox News seemed awfully excited; and plenty of jokes were told about Tea Baggers. But I'm left with the same feeling a month after the events that I had on April 16: what was all that about?

There's apparently going to be some kind of sequel today.

Two prominent GOP governors will host a telephonic anti-tax tea party today, an effort organized by the Republican Governors Association to capitalize politically on the outrage expressed in last month's nationwide protests.

The call, which will be led by Govs. Rick Perry (Texas) and Mark Sanford (S.C.), will feature 30,000 participants in a sort-of virtual town hall, according to RGA spokesman Mike Schrimpf.

"I have never before seen this level of political energy," said Sanford yesterday in an interview with the Fix. The goal of today's town hall, added Sanford, is to figure out "how do you take that energy and continue building it toward a movement that accomplishes change."

Perry emphasized, "These aren't crazy people." Given the Texas governor's recent support for secession, he lacks a certain credibility on who is and isn't "crazy."

Nevertheless, I'm less inclined to be annoyed at Tea Party II (Electric Boogaloo), and more inclined to feel sorry for it. These folks have gone from a series of national events and the support of a major cable network and corporate lobbyists to a giant conference call with Sanford and Perry. Feel the "revolutionary" fervor? Not so much.

For that matter, according to conservative activists, the whole point of the "Tea Parties" was to witness a more-or-less spontaneous uprising, generated by organic right-wing outrage, in a bottom-up model. Today's "Tea Party 2.0," however, drops the pretense altogether -- it's organized by the Republican Governors Association, which is encouraging activists to help (read: raise money for) the GOP in this year's gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia.

It is, in other words, a shameless partisan stunt, from a party desperate for a few wins in November.

Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (76)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Two prominent GOP governors will host a telephonic anti-tax tea party today

I wonder if these two have heard of a new technology called the Internet or some such? I understand it's quite popular in the younger set.

Posted by: RSA on May 14, 2009 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINK

"I have never before seen this level of political energy" - I guess Sanford missed the Obama campaign last year.

Posted by: markg8 on May 14, 2009 at 9:30 AM | PERMALINK

"I have never before seen this level of political energy," said Sanford
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WTF is he talking about? During the height of the last Prez campaign Obama could have filled a stadium a day with 70,000 people for as many days as he wanted to do it. I saw some video and pictures of Teabag events in major metro areas that drew a couple hundred bedraggled looking losers shuffling about with misspelled signs and hokey costumes. Berlin barely had a venue big enough to hold the "political energy" generated by Obama. If you came late to that rally you got a seat about, oh, two miles from the podium. Sandford is smoking something.

Posted by: steve duncan on May 14, 2009 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK

While taking the stimulus money.

Posted by: Jim M on May 14, 2009 at 9:35 AM | PERMALINK

When you have to say that your people aren't crazy, then you've already lost the argument.

30,000 people on a nationwide conference call? Lol, Obama got over three times that many people at one rally in Oregon. Sanford needs to get out more, he doesn't know what excitement is.

Posted by: Allan Snyder on May 14, 2009 at 9:35 AM | PERMALINK

if you can't make your argument and promote your event without sounding like a complete boob, then at the very least, postpone the event until you CAN de-boobify yourself.

Posted by: slappy magoo on May 14, 2009 at 9:40 AM | PERMALINK

Telephonic tea party? What happened to twitter? Have they given up on that already?

Posted by: Danp on May 14, 2009 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINK

The first tea party protest was an absolute failure. With almost continuous coverage promoting the event on Fox and other news channels the total participation was less than 1% of the U.S. population and many of those attending were there for the entertainment and celebrities (Ted Nugent is sooo 30 years ago). This movement is more comedy than revolutionary.

Posted by: tiredofgreed on May 14, 2009 at 9:43 AM | PERMALINK

will host a telephonic anti-tax tea party today

"Dial 1-800-TELETEA, and tell us what we should do with all this freaking tea!"

Posted by: MissMudd on May 14, 2009 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK

The only difference is the Teabag events were peaceful while the liberal get-togethers usually result in large amounts of property damage and physical violence from unruly protesters.

:::puts daisy in McGoober's rifle barrel:::

Posted by: MissMudd on May 14, 2009 at 9:47 AM | PERMALINK

"Telephonic"? That's so 1880s...

"Governor Sanford, come here, I want to teabag you."

Posted by: Breezeblock on May 14, 2009 at 9:48 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, I dunno. Smells similar to when we canvassed my very conservative square of southern Ohio for Obama, were promised access to the large email database of progressives in my community we helped create and then were shut out of the process unless we wanted to join Organize America and be at the mercy and direction of the DNC. Down is up and up is down.

Posted by: Jeff In Ohio on May 14, 2009 at 9:49 AM | PERMALINK

McGruber has a point. Liberals get together and break windows and dent cars. Violence against property. Conservatives get together and break bones on people manacled at the hands and ankles. The fucking liberals are costing insurance companies lots of money. The only fallout from the conservative's actions are imprisoning for life a bunch of drooling, damaged souls. Or the cost of digging a few graves. So much more civilized, those conservatives.

Posted by: steve duncan on May 14, 2009 at 9:51 AM | PERMALINK

Why should anyone be surprised by this? It was clear from the outset that the GOP teabaggers had a chronic lack of "community organizers" that would make public events have some real punch.

But the entire trajectory of the teabaggers is iconic:

1. Conservative GOPers withdraw to their "special place" to contemplate how to deal with a historic electoral loss.

2. Their faces crunch up and get red as they concentrate, grunting noises are heard, and twittered.

3. There's a long drawn out sigh, as Conservative GOPers deliver a "movement", to their great relief and satisfaction.

4. Faux News, NRO and the usual groupies gather round to express their appreciation of the new "movement" (i.e. "Grover Norquist made a poopie!")

5. After an appropriate interval stinking up the place, there's a loud flushing sound and the movement vanishes from sight.

After a while, the entire process has to be repeated.

Posted by: Snarki, child of Loki on May 14, 2009 at 9:54 AM | PERMALINK

RantingTommy Says:

should be called:

The FOX/GOP Corporate Sore Loser Rallies

******************************************

McGruber, there IS a place where you're wanted afterall. You might even be elected presidunce. Go boy go! Have all the "Tea tantrums" you like, little man.

Posted by: In what respect, Charlie? on May 14, 2009 at 9:54 AM | PERMALINK

The internet? Nah, the RepuGs are so out of touch they have to go through Lily Tomlin's character saying "One ring-a-dingy, two ring-a-dingys".

Posted by: berttheclock on May 14, 2009 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINK

That highly orchestrated spontaneous teabagging model we saw last month could never be sustained. This way, the 'baggers have the peace of mind of getting unabashed and unobfuscated directions from the GOP leaders, and they get to stay in their dirty pajamas while they do it.

Posted by: shortstop on May 14, 2009 at 9:57 AM | PERMALINK

For that matter, according to conservative activists, the whole point of the "Tea Parties" was to witness a more-or-less spontaneous uprising, generated by organic right-wing outrage, in a bottom-up model. Today's "Tea Party 2.0," however, drops the pretense altogether -- it's organized by the Republican Governors Association, which is encouraging activists to help (read: raise money for) the GOP in this year's gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia.

It's the gift that keeps on giving. The more they align themselves with a failing business model, the easier it gets to keep marginalizing them and driving them from the field of play. This is the culmination of what was called "wingnut welfare" for so many years. The rank and file "activists" in the Republican Party demand payment and compensation for their valuable time whereas your average grass roots activist gives up time and money to make things happen in support of a cause. Here in DC, the conservative think tanks are flailing madly--another failing business model. Why does the conservative movement resemble a subscription-only newspaper right about now?

The tea parties are a way to spread some wingnut welfare around, and every dollar they spend on a phony grass roots effort is a dollar that won't be spent attacking health care reform or a Democratic candidate for the House or Senate.

I suspect they will shift tactics and go after GOP moderates. Charlie Crist should expect a tea party, and soonly.

Posted by: Warren Street on May 14, 2009 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINK
"I have never before seen this level of political energy" - I guess Sanford missed the Obama campaign last year.

I would say the energy level of "Teabag- The Sequel" is more in line with Fred Thompson's primary campaign.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne on May 14, 2009 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINK

It strikes me that when a party is exiled to the wilderness, they don't know they've been exiled into the wilderness. Instead, they fantasize that a comeback is "just around the corner."

The entire national teabag movement could get steamrolled beneath the attendees at a single Obama rally. You've got to do something to keep Republicans' hopes up over the next 12-16 years, I guess.

Posted by: Tyro on May 14, 2009 at 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

Perry emphasized, "These aren't crazy people."

Says the lunatic.

Posted by: ckelly on May 14, 2009 at 10:07 AM | PERMALINK

"this level of energy"

You mean, the 75,000 who were standing shoulder to shoulder in Tom McCall Park in Portland for Obama or the highly disputed 5,000 figure in Pioneer Square a'tea baggin'? Letters to the Oregonian were complaining "You didn't give us a fair count" Of course, it was hard to differentiate the pan handlers from the pan handlers.

Posted by: berttheclock on May 14, 2009 at 10:09 AM | PERMALINK

Teabagger extraordinaire Perry really needs a scrotum dangled in front of his face, maybe then he'd shut the fuck up.
(Sorry, haven't had enough coffee this morning)

Posted by: ckelly on May 14, 2009 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINK

The only difference is the Teabag events were attended by orders of magnitude fewer people.

Fixed it for you, McG.

Posted by: Gregory on May 14, 2009 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

OK, teabaggers, how many of you can answer YES to this:
Were the Republicans good stewards of a good economy? Take your time...What, the answer YES didn't immediately flow off your lips? OK, so now what you need to do is... attack Obama for having clean-up YOUR mess. Good thinking. Kind of like when 90% of the 9-11 murderers were from Saudi Arabia and ZERO were from Iraq, so you Repigs naturally decide to attack Iraq and sneak the bin Ladin family quietly out of the country. Brilliant! How you greedy, psychopathic, pathetic morons are ever taken seriously and not locked up in the nuthouse is amazing in and of itself. But please teabaggers, continue on with the show, by all means. More popcorn anyone?

Posted by: In what respect, Charlie? on May 14, 2009 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

What does it say about Perry when he needs to specifically say "These aren't crazy people."

Why Rick, is there a rumor afloat, or maybe you awoke in a cold sweat last night, why do you have to tell people that these people aren't crazy ?

"McGruber isn't crazy, he just appears to the rest of the world to be crazy and that is why I had to set the record straight."

Posted by: ScottW on May 14, 2009 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

No better or worse than the Democrats:

A Republican favorite. Get your ass kicked in an argument and save face with that line ;)

Don't bother to mention Frank and the Fannie and Freddie programs under his purview, or the CRA, which literally forced banks into bad loans.

Ahh... so your one of those that believes it's all the poor black people's fault. They brought the largest economy in the world to its knees.

BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAA

BWAHAHAAHHAAHAAAAAAAA


Somebody's been listening to Limbaugh a little too much.

Posted by: oh my on May 14, 2009 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

A National review article, really?

Your hilarious McGruff.

Posted by: ckelly on May 14, 2009 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

The CRA didn't apply to most of the institutions issuing sub-prime loans, and does not require anyone to make loans. It requires that those institutions SUBJECT TO CRA use consistent standards in making loans. Even a conservative Federal Reserve governor says so.

Posted by: Butch on May 14, 2009 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINK

Heh. OK, fair enough. The tea-ballers aren't crazy--I can't say the same for Perry and Sanford. Whatever. Big yawn.

Posted by: asiangrrlMN on May 14, 2009 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

I live in New Jersey. Having moved here from Massachusetts 2 years ago I hardly feel over-taxed, at least not more than I'm used to.

It both galls and amuses me that I'm getting robocalls from a Republican candidate for governor. It galls me because I'm on a no-call list (which hasn't saved me from offers of a car warranty that I don't want). It amuses me because I'm a registered Democrat.

Not much of a recommendation for efficiency and competence.

Posted by: jrosen on May 14, 2009 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, by all means, blame it all on Bush. Don't bother to mention Frank and the Fannie and Freddie programs under his purview, or the CRA, which literally forced banks into bad loans.

Jesus, are you guys still whining about the CRA loans, which have a lower default rate than non-CRA mortgages?

Since CRA mortgage holders default less often than non-CRA mortgage holders, one can't help but wonder if there's something else you're upset about with CRA loans. It's not the default rate since the default rate is lower for CRA mortgage holders than it is for non-CRA mortgage holders, so what is it that upsets you so much about the very idea that there are CRA mortgage holders out there?

Posted by: Mnemosyne on May 14, 2009 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

It should be noted for the record that Governor Perry has great hair. It's anyone's guess how this will play-out in the conference call, but I suspect it will be a big plus.

Seriously though, I can't believe that Perry is still my governor. He was only the fill-in guy after Bush used it as a launching pad for the presidency. That just goes to show how powerless the Governor is here in Texas, that a total moron like Perry could stay in office for so long. But he does have great hair, and I think that's made all the difference.

Posted by: Doctor Biobrain on May 14, 2009 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

If banks were allowed to set their own loans, this wouldn't have happened.

Nope. It's the subprime loans that the banks did set on their own that caused the problem. See my link above.

But, hey, why should you pay attention to the facts when you can spend your time blaming poor black people for the mess the banksters got us into?

Posted by: Mnemosyne on May 14, 2009 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

(1)"I have never before seen this level of political energy, said Sanford yesterday in an interview with the Fix. The goal of today's town hall, added Sanford, is to figure out (2)"how do you take that energy and continue building it toward (3)a movement that accomplishes change."

(1)I agree, in that I have never in my life seen an event that could muster only a tithe of the participation from the previous event of a mere four weeks earlier. Extinction events can sneak up on their intended species pretty darned quick, now can't they?. (2)I'm confused here, because this "building" looks a lot more like the implosion/demolition of a derelict casino. Maybe McG can explain how this fits into the GOPer's rendition of "political brilliance". (3)This particular rendition of GOPer "change" seems to be quite similar to that change in "movements" when one's bowels have been afflicted by a severe case of Crohn's Disease---which, of course, matches up quite nicely with the diarrhea-of-the-mouth rhetoric that Perry and Sanford seem to enjoy expectorating all over their precious teabagger minions....

Posted by: S. Waybright on May 14, 2009 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

It's amusing to see how clueless you all are. The next event will be on July 4 although there are some local events in California prior to the May 19 in which the phony initiatives will go down to defeat. This is spontaneous and the governors have nothing to do with it. They are hoping to figure out how to turn a spontaneous event to their advantage but that isn't what is happening.

The "teabagger" jokes amused you although 99% of the people attending the events had no idea what you were talking about being normal. We'll see how Obama is doing in the fall of 2010. That's what counts.

Posted by: Mike K on May 14, 2009 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

It both galls and amuses me that I'm getting robocalls from a Republican candidate for governor. It galls me because I'm on a no-call list (which hasn't saved me from offers of a car warranty that I don't want).

Political calls are exempt from the do-not-call list. So are sales calls from companies you've done business with in, I think, the last 18 months. Your car warranty offer probably falls into the latter category, but not necessarily -- illegal sales calls do still get made.

Posted by: shortstop on May 14, 2009 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

We'll see how Obama is doing in the fall of 2010. That's what counts.

Indeed.

Although, I suspect you mean how he is doing politically. That's all you dumbshit GOPers ever care about. Doesn't much matter if he's made Afghanistan/Pakistan more stable, or stabilized the economy, or moved our ridiculous health care system toward a workable model. No, no, it's about whether or not >10% of the population gets a 3% increase in taxes. And please don't give us that he's putting our children in debt bullshit. You never had tea parties whilst Bush was busy doubling our national debt.

Posted by: hopeful on May 14, 2009 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

No woman has ever put her mouth on my genitalia. That's not normal.

And having been married three times, I think I'm in a better position to recognize normal sexual response than you people are, hmmmm?

Posted by: Myke K on May 14, 2009 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

If Obama has made Pakistan/Afghanistan "more stable" in the fall of 2010 I'll pay you $100 cash. You all seem to know where my web site is from your lame attempts at ad hominem snarks so you will know how to collect.

I was very unhappy about Bush's spending and said so at the time but that was NOTHING like what Obama is trying to do. He won't do it because the bond markets will not let him. You should have stayed awake in the econ class.

The preview will be California's default. You can only make money of thin air for a short time.

You can brag about the crowds Obama attracted in the campaign but it resembled the Children's Crusade and, I fear, will end that way.

Posted by: Mike K on May 14, 2009 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

It's unfortunate that a glitch in the softwire (I think that's what you kids call it) here wiped out my many examples of criticizing Bush's spending.

I assure you lefties that I did this numerous times. You were probably so high on mary jane that you don't remember.

If you fools had ever made it through an econ or finance class, you'd know that the way out of this minority-created mess is eliminating capital gains taxes on stock purchases.

There's just no telling people who are too busy having deviant oral sex to listen.

Posted by: Myke K on May 14, 2009 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

Very cute "Myke" but you've lost Andrew Sullivan so the party's over.

Posted by: Mike K on May 14, 2009 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

30,000 nationwide? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

I work for a State Senator in Houston and we have these tele-town halls all the time.

We routinely get 5,000-10,000 people on calls in our district.

Posted by: buggy ding dong on May 14, 2009 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

I have no idea what we've "lost" Andrew Sullivan on, but we've got news for you, Mike K: despite the homoerotic fascination that plays out in many of your gay-baiting posts, Sullivan is not a leading light of the left. Or the right.

Only of your quiet time with lotion and tissues, apparently.

Posted by: Susan Johnson on May 14, 2009 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

Alas, I will admit Bush went across the aisle too often and worked with the Democrats

It's the same reason why the debt went down during the Clinton era: a Republican Congress fought him tooth-and-nail and reduced the budget deficit and debt.

Oh, I was unaware that Bush had a democratically controlled congress whilst running a budget deficit between 2001 and 2006.

I wasn't given the Republican recent history rewrite version of events like you and MikeK have.

Posted by: hopeful on May 14, 2009 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not so sure you are the one to be lecturing in Civics 101, McGruber, considering that yesterday you were arguing that courts ruling laws passed with majority support as unconstitutional was somehow against the "Rule of Law".

Here is some Reality 101 for you: the vast majority of Bush's time in office, including the passage of the Medicare drug bill, was with a Republican controlled Congress. Remember that? Not to mention, Bush had the power of the veto...

Posted by: GiggsisGod on May 14, 2009 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

In part. I'm more interested in Fannie and Freddie, and the damage they caused.

Yes, with their giant 24 percent of the market (down from 48 percent), Fannie and Freddie caused it all. Here's a little clip since you're clearly not following the links I'm providing you:

During those same explosive three years [2004-2006], private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

Seriously, have you researched any facts all about this, or do you only know the talking points that Rush and Hannity have been spouting? You really should look this stuff up before believing everything they say. Google is your friend.

Posted by: Mnemosyne on May 14, 2009 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

The budget was balanced and debt reduced under Clinton because of the 1993 budget passed without a single Republican vote, the ensuing slashing of interest rates and the burgeoning computer/internet revolution of the 90s.

By 1997, Clinton was getting virtually whatever he wanted out of Congress. Gingrich was doing so poorly that he was nearly ousted in a coup. Clinton was on his way to being an overwhelming force.

Why, Kenneth Starr announced that he would put his little Whitewater dog to bed and shuffle on off to Pepperdine. Outraged righties demanded he keep working and add the Paula Jones suit to his plate.

And then, five months after Clinton announced a balanced budget on the White House lawn, a story about Clinton, an intern and tapes of him urging said intern to lie under oath about their affair.

That is all that kept the GOP congress from coming completely unraveled in 1998-2000 and assuring a massive Al Gore victory in 2000.

So, no McGruber, the GOP Congress was not fighting Clinton on everything tooth and nail. After the government shutdown, Clinton cleary had hand in the relationship.

Posted by: buggy ding dong on May 14, 2009 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

Only of your quiet time with lotion and tissues, apparently.

Posted by: Susan Johnson

Susan, I don't seem to be the one obsessed. Remember that you folks were the ones using a gay joke to try to tarnish the image of genuine public rallies for common sense in public policy. We didn't get the joke. You told it. Who is using "quiet time" to make yourself feel better ?

Posted by: Mike K on May 14, 2009 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

You see, in the real world, banks that make shitty loans, or package shitty loans and sell them, go out of business. Problem solved.

Unless, of course, those banks become too big to fail and the failure of one of them sets off a worldwide panic that demonstrates that allowing Citibank or Bank of America to implode would have worse consequences than keeping them on life support.

If it had been only one or two or a dozen banks making these loans, I'd agree with you that we should let them fail. But just about every single bank in the country was making them. Washington Mutual basically did nothing but liar loans and they were one of the largest banks in the country.

Take a look at the FDIC Bank Failure list. We had zero failures in 2005, zero in 2006, 3 in 2007, 25 in 2008. We're not even halfway into 2009 and already 33 banks have failed. It took 4 years to reach that number between 2003 and 2007. Now we've reached it in less than 5 months.

Still think it's a great idea to just let banks fail and let the pieces fall where they may?

That's why conservatives like the free market and cringe when the government gets involved.

Too bad we don't have one, then. What, you think that a market where Bank of America or Citibank is allowed to buy up all of its rivals and create a virtual monopoly is a "free" market?

Posted by: Mnemosyne on May 14, 2009 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

Yes. It was all a big GOP plan.

Sorry, you thought that was in doubt? Try reading Fools for Scandal or The Hunting of the President if you're still confused on that point.

Posted by: Mnemosyne on May 14, 2009 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

We didn't get the joke.

Obviously. But being clueless isn't much of a virtue.

Posted by: g on May 14, 2009 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

Mike K, sit down on your fat ass and listen up. I know your friends, all fine, upstanding straight family men who inexplicably sneak out for a couple of hours around midnight every few nights and come home smelling saltily metallic, told you that teabagging is a specifically gay male practice.

They misinformed you, Mike. They wanted to say something derogatory about teh liberals, and implying that someone is gay is the worst thing that a Republican can think of to say about someone. But they misled you, Mike, and they were able to do this because you're as untutored in vanilla heterosexual sex as any man your age could possibly be.

Several people here have tried to relieve you of your insistence on constantly humiliating yourself by explaining to you that both gay men and straight male-female couples engage in mouth-to-scrotum contact, including teabagging. You couldn't bring yourself to believe it, which says quite a lot about your own lack of knowledge and experience in the bedroom. You don't have the faintest idea what the average straight couple gets up to, but you've now advertised your total unfamiliarity with oral sex.

So, yeah, we're making jokes. And they're all at your expense. You just can't stop walking into it.

Posted by: Susan Johnson on May 14, 2009 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

Well done, Susan Johnson!

I imagine Mike K is one of those ignorants that think AIDS/HIV is an exclusively gay disease.

Posted by: GiggsisGod on May 14, 2009 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, it was all part of a GOP plan.

At the very time they were impeaching the president for a consensual affair which had ended over a year earlier, Gingrich was busy doing the same to his staffer.

I pointed out the "tapes urging her to lie" out because that his how the original story was broken-- that the President of the United States was on tape commiting a felony.

It was complete and utter bullshit fed by Lucianne Goldberg to a sad sack, scandal hungry press corps that fell for it hook, line and sinker.

In the end, the president got a hummer e and stuck a cigar in her twat of a girl that was not his wife. Not the behavior of a good husband, but not remotely a crime and not even vaguely worthy of the circus that then ensued.

Posted by: buggy ding dong on May 14, 2009 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

Grubby,

"I'm more interested in Fannie and Freddie, and the damage they caused. I wonder why you won't talk about that?"

I'll "talk" about it.

* In 2000, as HUD revisited its affordable-housing goals. HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay.

* But by 2004, when HUD next revised the goals, Freddie and Fannie's purchases of subprime-backed securities had risen tenfold. Foreclosure rates also were rising.

That year, President Bush's HUD ratcheted up the main affordable-housing goal over the next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent. John C. Weicher, then an assistant HUD secretary, said the institutions lagged behind even the private market and "must do more."

"That was a huge, huge mistake," said Patricia McCoy, who teaches securities law at the University of Connecticut. "That just pumped more capital into a very unregulated market that has turned out to be a disaster."

LINK

To recap:

* The instructions from the Clinton administration to HUD, the regulator of Fannie & Freddie, was to "not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay".

* The instructions from the Chimpy administration to HUD, the regulator of Fannie & Freddie, was "must do more".

Posted by: Joe Friday on May 14, 2009 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

I'm more interested in Fannie and Freddie, and the damage they caused.

Shorter McGruber: Please don't confuse my GOP talking points with facts.

Posted by: Gregory on May 14, 2009 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

What you call "vanilla heterosexual sex" the normal world calls perversion. Leave it to a lefty to not know the difference.

I doubt more than a few women would touch their husbands' private parts with their mouths. You may think oral sex is common but there are a lot of us out here with higher standards of hygiene. We're called Republicans.

Posted by: Myke K on May 14, 2009 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

Myke K -

I know you refered to teabagging as "deviant", but you actually think oral sex is a "perversion"? Wow. I almost feel sorry for you and your partner.

Your ideas on the acceptance and practice of oral sex are way, way, way, WAY off the mark.

btw, we are all adults here. You don't need to say "private parts". Try "penis" or "vagina".

Posted by: GiggsisGod on May 14, 2009 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

"Myke K" is the parody. Mike K is the self-parody.

Posted by: Gregory on May 14, 2009 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for the clarification, Gregory.

It's hard to tell what is and isn't parody these days with the righties. I didn't think someone could believe that, but the right never fails to suprise me.

Posted by: GiggsisGod on May 14, 2009 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

How about Obama's sweetheart Chrysler deal - great for the unions and bad for the creditors who thought that the rules of financing would prevail.

No, the creditors thought that the government would never let Chrysler go into bankruptcy so they tried to blackmail them into a bailout. Those notorious Commie-symp pinkos at the Wall Street Journal have the whole story. Even the non-DFHs know that the creditors screwed themselves and then went running to the press to whine about it.

Funny how you keep talking about Letting the Market Decide and then whining when the government does what you want and lets the company go bankrupt instead of bailing them out. I'm starting to think you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Posted by: Mnemosyne on May 14, 2009 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

I didn't think someone could believe that

Oh, I'm pretty sure Mike K does believe that. It's been explained to him more than once that teabagging's not just a gay thing, and he simply refuses to believe that straight couples could do such a thing, so...draw your conclusions.

Posted by: Susan Johnson on May 14, 2009 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

I was very unhappy about Bush's spending and said so at the time

And then voted for him anyway against Gore and Kerry because you wanted your tax cuts. So piss off. Democrats aren't here to clean up Republican messes. We're here to do what Democrats got elected to do: pull out of Iraq, fix the health care system, put decent regulations on the financial sector, and create jobs.

Clinton put aside a lot of health care and infrastructure goals in an effort to become fiscally responsible. What was your response? You viciously attacked him, freaked out about Gore, and voted for Bush, whom you continue to love. Your opinions are null and void and reflect the belief system of an ideology of failures followed by moral cowards and ignoramuses.

You're statements are a bunch of disingenuous BS, which shouldn't be surprising coming from someone as mroally compromised as a Bush supporter like yourself would be. What makes you think your opinions are anything other than worthless blatherings? Republicans like yourself have a track record of dishonesty, hypocrisy, and destructiveness.

Posted by: Tyro on May 14, 2009 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

Here's a little quote from the Wall Street Journal story for you:

Many of the lenders believed the administration wouldn't let Chrysler file for bankruptcy. "The plan was to call the government's bluff. The game was to game the government," said a manager of a distressed-debt fund.

So by your standards, the lenders got exactly what they deserved when they miscalculated and pushed the negotiations too far: failure and bankruptcy. Why are you upset and claiming that they were wronged?

Posted by: Mnemosyne on May 14, 2009 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Macguber... Salon.com is calling you ...its where professional trolls hang out.

Posted by: John R on May 14, 2009 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Macguber... Salon.com is calling you ...its where professional trolls hang out.

Good Lord, no! Grub is definitely one of your more amateurish, garden-variety trolls. Based on his recitation of moldy rightwing talking points, I haven't ruled his being a computer running Windows for Workgroups.

Posted by: ckelly on May 14, 2009 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

McGruber citing Megan McArdle is possibly the funniest thing he/she/it has posted here yet.

Posted by: Gregory on May 14, 2009 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

If I cared about anything McGruber said I'd read WorldNet Daily.

Posted by: dr sardonicus on May 14, 2009 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

I didn't think someone could believe that

Oh, I'm pretty sure Mike K does believe that. It's been explained to him more than once that teabagging's not just a gay thing, and he simply refuses to believe that straight couples could do such a thing, so...draw your conclusions.

Posted by: Susan Johnson

Susan, you're obsessed with this. Is there something you'd like to share with us ? I am certainly not the authority on sexual terms that you are but the term (not the practice) was new to just about everyone I knew. I realize we don't get around like you do.

Thank God.

Posted by: Mike K on May 14, 2009 at 7:21 PM | PERMALINK

I was very unhappy about Bush's spending and said so at the time

And then voted for him anyway against Gore and Kerry because you wanted your tax cuts. So piss off.

Well, I was kind of neutral to Gore but he was so booooring ! Actually, he was pretty cool when VP but he has gone nuts since he lost the election.

Democrats aren't here to clean up Republican messes.

I'll say ! You are making Bush look amateurish in the spending department.

We're here to do what Democrats got elected to do: pull out of Iraq,

Good luck with that. Even Obama is too smart to lose a war that is already won.

fix the health care system,

I actually favor a universal plan on the model of the French system. I have a lengthy analysis of it on my blog. Unfortunately, left wing politics will try to make the same mistake Canada made. I think in the end he will not get much done because the horrific cost will scare away any Democrat that is not a left wing kook like Pelosi.

put decent regulations on the financial sector, and create jobs

Obama will kill the economy if the 2010 election does not return Republicans to control of one house. The 1994 election is what gave Clinton his bull market and balanced budget. The Republicans lost their way and became spenders like Democrats so I was not surprised to see the loss in 2006 (I think you could even find such a comment by me in the archives).

What is amazing is the fact that Democrats learned nothing from 1994.

As far as Kerry in 2004, I gag whenever I think of that treasonous phony as president. I know you folks hate Bush but Kerry is such an incredible liar that it amazes me that anyone votes for him. It says more about them than him. His actions in 1972 should have cost him his citizenship, let alone public office.

Posted by: Mike K on May 14, 2009 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

Susan, you're obsessed with this.

Mike, you brought this up, you silly old man, and now you're embarrassed, as well you should be. This is the third or fourth time that you've tried to gay-bait over your misunderstanding of the teabagging word, ignoring everyone's attempts to set you straight as you usually do. (Ever notice how you never make a mistake once? You get corrected, you keep blunderingly repeating it and only after you've been kindly helped several times do you notice that you don't know what's going on.)

If you're going to keep using other people's healthy comfort with sexuality and sex as a purported insult, expect us to keep making fun of you,,,but have the grace not to sob like a little girl about "ad hominems" when we answer your own AHs with hilarity at your expense. God, but you're a weak excuse for a man.

I realize we don't get around like you do.

Doesn't sound like you get around your own bed, if you're so easily shocked by unremarkable oral sex acts that married couples engage in all the time. How many times did you say you've been married? See mistakes, insistence on not learning from own, above.

Posted by: Susan Johnson on May 14, 2009 at 9:08 PM | PERMALINK

Mike,

"Obama will kill the economy if the 2010 election does not return Republicans to control of one house."

The RightWing was propping up the economy like a dead body in a "Weekend with Bernie's" movie for eight years before Obama was inaugurated.

How do you kill a dead body ?


"The 1994 election is what gave Clinton his bull market and balanced budget."

Nope.

The Republicans did not take office until January of 1995, and they did not get any major budget legislation signed until February of 1996, after shutting the federal government down twice.

The federal budget was already in net surplus by the Summer of 1994, as a result of the budget and tax legislation pushed through the Democratic Majority Congress in 1993.

Both the stock market and national economy started to skyrocket prior to Newtie and the Blowhards assuming office.

Posted by: Joe Friday on May 14, 2009 at 10:58 PM | PERMALINK

Joe, look at a Dow chart before you make a fool of yourself.

Posted by: Mike K on May 14, 2009 at 11:22 PM | PERMALINK

OK Susan, whatever you say. Look again at the thread title. You do seem obsessed, though.

Posted by: Mike K on May 14, 2009 at 11:24 PM | PERMALINK

Mike,

"Joe, look at a Dow chart before you make a fool of yourself."

I'll allow others to judge who is making a fool of themselves.

The DJIA went up at a 45 degree angle from December of 1994 forward, while Newtie and the Blowhards didn't take office until January of 1995.

I take it you DO comprehend chronology ?

Posted by: Joe Friday on May 15, 2009 at 12:11 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly