Hear today's Radio or Not episode by clicking here (runtime 24:22)
Yesterday, we watched the Dow drop over 500 points following the news that Lehman Brothers is dead, and Merrill Lynch is not part of Bank of America. Today, we await the fate of one of the nation's largest insurance companies, AIG... and wait for more shoes to drop.
Some of us are too young to remember (or just weren't paying very close attention back then), but we had some bank failures back in the late 80's-early 90's... a little crisis that involved Savings & Loan institutions. Right at the heart of it was a group of Senators who came to be known as The Keating Five, because they "improperly aided" Charles Keating, Chairman of the failed Lincoln Savings and Loan.
Senator John McCain was one of the Five. Today, I dug back and found an editorial that appeared in the Phoenix New Times in November 1989, entitled McCain: The Most Reprehensible of the Keating Five. Just click on the link to read it yourself, or listen to today's program, as I share it with you... along with some other goodies, including a listener phone call, and the "McCain Stupid Montage!"
The song "Stupid" comes courtesy of Toad the Wet Sprocket...
Hear today's Radio or Not episode by clicking here (runtime 24:22)
Sunday 'No Such Agreement' Toons
57 minutes ago
Posts
19 comments:
Thanks for taking my phone call today. I wanted to react to something you mentioned in our conversation.
I have to say I disagree with trying to tie Sarah Palin as Pork Queen with the lipstick on a pig comment. In my opinion, it would just give McCain's camp an excuse to say, "Look! Obama WAS talking about Sarah when he made the pig comment!"
I think it would be better to go after the disingenuousness of making earmarks an issue in the first place, because they are a tiny speck of the government's spending.
To put it another way: One year of earmarks is about 45 days in Iraq.
Thanks again to South Florida's progressive voice.
Hi Nichole
The show was so well suited for today but for me it was a shocking reminder just a few short months ago we worried if he had the ability to conduct foreign affairs. With his pick of Sarah Palin we stopped asking that question about him so we could ask it about her.
Mike in Ft Lauderdale
John McCain's new ad disclaimer
"My name is John McCain and I approve any damn thing Karl Rove tells me to."
I spend 1.5 hours driving to Miami from the Keys each morning. Pod casts don't fill that time slot. We need to get you back on the air.
BA
“Here is a concerned citizen that couldn't find his way to say a word about the illegal wars the continuation in Iraq…”-mikeemm. It didn’t take long for the babble, INDEED, mike. According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama was trying to convince the Iraqi government NOT to end this “illegal” war, you moron.
Let see how intellectually honest you really are, here. If Obama becomes president, and we have another terrorist attack on US soil, do you guarantee that you will make the same “on his watch” argument against him? Or will you just blame Bush. Try reading UN resolutions 678, 687, and 1441 before you accuse the leaders of our country of engaging in illegal war. As usual for you credulous liberal simpletons: You either oversimplify, or have an elaborate conspiracy theory to make your case.
What do you say? Will you hold Obama responsible for any terrorist attack on US soil during his (God forbid) presidency? I didn’t think so, mike.
By the way, it’s spelled “their” not “thier”. Also, I don’t watch FOX. This only proves to me that you make statements on things you know nothing about.
Funny, you don't watch Fox, but you know all about a BS story broken by a newspaper OWNED by the same guy that owns FOX.
It's hilarious that the McCain campaign would cling so tightly to Hoshyar Zebari's story, given that he's been so unwilling to listen to nyone in Iraqi government up to now.
But I guess any port in a storm, for a big fat LIAR like John McCain.
Just a quick note to the anonymous person, who appears to be quite angry and intellectually challenged (AIC). AIC, if President Obama had belonged to PNAC, continuously ignored for almost the first eight months of his presidency the numerous warnings about an attack being imminent, knew about the first plane hitting the Twin Towers before he entered the school in Florida and then sat in the classroom for any more than 30 seconds - let alone the way to many awkward minutes he did - after being told about the second Twin Tower being hit by another plane; had a "Dick Cheney," who, according to former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, was already in the Presidential Emergency Operations Central bunker, along with his wife Lynn, at 9:25 a.m. and not the 9:58 a.m. that is in the 9/11 Commission Report -- AND if I knew that this same "Dick Cheney" had ordered NORAD to stand down, even though two or three hijacked planes were still in the air -- Yes. I would absolutely want to know how this could have happened on President Barack Obama's watch. AIC, the Republican party has become nothing more than a party of obstructionists and liars, who will do and say anything to stay in power to accomplish their PNAC agenda. The plain and simple truth is out there, but you have to want to know it. D.R
Well I dont often feed the trolls but well damit smack me later ok.
As for my spelling forgive me I am not a typist by trade and though I have been beating at keyboards a number of years and my proofreading isn't what it should be and not even going to address the grammar...
Now lets get to the part where Disingenuous, for lack of any name, starts spouting resolutions from the UN and how that was an authorization for an attack. See there is a flaw, the UN never approved an attack, Bush never returned to the UN for a vote as required and the foundation of the war was built on a series of lies that you must not have seen yet. They forged documents and as Dick Armey said yesterday in the LA Times told lies in private meetings about Iraq to get Congress to vote for them to go to war.
If we had a terrorist attack...no we had a terrorist attack. No need to assume or wonder. We know what a republican leader does. One sits in a classroom and reads My Pet Goat, the copy arrived for the presidential library thank god, and then gets in AF1 and hides for 2 hours and the other started the day missing with no contact. That is what your leaders did.
As far as Obama wanting to stay in Iraq do you have a source I could read?
Here are the sources.
Original story:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm?page=0
Obama’s response:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hi9TDNHvuBZpFsO8ZbiFYsnbIl3A
Rebuttal by Amir Taheri:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09172008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_objects_129453.htm
Story reporting McCain’s view on original story:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/16/did-obama-just-confirm-taheri/
My son is 7 and not a typist either, and he knows how to spell "their".
So your answer is, "no". You wouldn't use the same "on his watch" argument. I didn't think so. LOL.
So it is your contention that Obama wanted to continue the war? That is what you got out of what you read there?
Mikey, when are you going to answer the question? LOL. I love the way liberals never commit to any level of consistency in their bullshit. Harry Frankfurt is a great modern philosopher who wrote a book titled, “On Bullshit”. I recommended it for all of Nicole’s listeners (yes, all 5 of you). It shows how much worse bullshit is from lying. I have found it invaluable in keeping myself from committing blatant acts of bullshit when involved in an argument and spotting such rhetoric from people with passionate desire to convince others, like yourself.
What I got from those articles was that Barack Obama told Iraqi leaders that they should NOT make any agreement involving a troop withdrawal timetable with the Bush administration. He didn’t try to convince them to withdraw troops ASAP, as he so eagerly wants people to believe. He wants things in Iraq to “stay the course” until Bush leaves office. He isn't denying it either. I guess he doesn’t really care about the soldiers that are killed from now to January, so long as he could take credit for “rescuing” the ones that make it until he is presumably sworn in.
In addition, he threatened to engage American military power, including (but not limited to) nuclear warfare, against Pakistan. How naïve, can he be? Calling Iraq the wrong war, yet justifying war against a fellow atomic nation, which, happens to be in conflict with India, another atomic nation. Can anyone say NUCLEAR QUAGMIRE?
As Christopher Hitchens puts it in Slate Magazine, “American liberals can't quite face the fact that if their man does win in November, and if he has meant a single serious word he's ever said, it means more war, and more bitter and protracted war at that—not less.”
The people here can read your source and see how you evaluated Obama's concerns. It also gives them a clear idea about you and your manipulations.
You know I said exactly what the article implies and hope that people will be lazy and simply take your word that I manipulated ANYTHING. I challenge you to point out how I manipulated anything I have said and encourage all readers to read the sources I cited and make up their own minds. Mike, I have given you evidence for everything I have written and even posted links to the sources. Please do the same, if truth is on your side. Back your BS up with some citations and links. I’m waiting. LOL.
Here’s the Slate Magazine article for all you truth seekers:
http://www.slate.com/id/2200134/
I'm still waiting for your EVIDENCE, Mike!
I think all politicians are only interested in themselves. I will agree with the anonymous Obama hater on the inconsistency of Democrats. I remember all the pundits saying that Kerry was a better choice for president because his experience in Vietnam made him better qualified as Commander in Chief than George W. Bush’s experience in the National Guard. Now, all of the sudden, Obama’s lack of military service makes him better qualified. I also remember Randi Rhodes and Ed Schultz saying that people should vote for a Democratic House of Rep and Senate because the president was a republican, for the sake of checks and balances. Now that there is a Democratic congress, that idea is out the window as well. I love election years. The hypocrisy makes me crack up.
In January 2007 Senate Minority Leader, Republican Senator Mith McConnell, announced that legislaation would now be passed by a 60 vote super majority rather than the 50 vote simple majority. Since January 2007 the 110th so-called Democratic controlled congress has had the highest number of threatened and/or actual filibusters by the Republican minority. They are very successful in their obstruct-blame game strategy. Quit comparing apples with oranges. We are talking about this election. Look at what Obama and Biden have stood for and done in their adult lives compared to McCain and Palin. Look at who is very much involved in the McCain/Palin campaign, such as Phil Gramm - (more on him in a later posting). We've had the C student, with the controversial background regarding his National Guard Service. We've had the lying, secretive shadow presidency of Dick Cheney. We've had the hundreds if not thousands of "signing statements" of President Bush when putting his signature on legislation. We've had eight years of this administration's governance. Their policies, foreign and domestic, are absolute failures. Yes, more than ever, at this point in our history we need a Barack Obama and Joe Biden, with their background and credentials, as our next president and vice president, and an overwhelming Democratic congress to get us out of this mess. D.R.
I think it would be ignorant to say that all of America’s problems are all caused solely by Republicans or Democrats. If you listen to Obama, that is exactly what he says. He blames everything on Republicans. If you listen to McCain, you will hear him blaming to both Republicans and Democrats. That’s the change we need in Washington. He may have voted 90% (which the Obama campaign lied about when they said 95%) with a Republican President. Obama has voted 100% with the Democrats. 10% is a start. Partisan politics have to go!
Democrats have historically been the proponents of legislation that help the middle class and poor, which includes cutting taxes for the vast majority of Americans. Republicans are proponents of legislation supporting deregulation, corporate bailouts at taxpayers expense, tax breaks for the very wealthy. They are against most kinds of assistance other than to the wealthy in the way of tax loopholes and corporate welfare. I know I put it in a very simplified manner, but that's it in a nutshell. Senator Obama has been trying to point out, on the campaign trail, that this country is at a very crucial stage of our short history and it is time to look at what is better for the country, versus Republican/Democratic partisan type thinking. Again, please look at what legislation the Democrats have been trying to pass since January 2007 and how the Minority Republicans have used the "filibuster" rules to obtruct and/or stop it. Look at John McCain's record as far as what he initially went against his party on, legislation-wise, but then voted in favor of it down the road. He is no maverick. He is no reformer. He is a Republican, through and through. The Neocon-Republican policies, domestic and foreign, are absolute failures. We are witnessing the results of it daily. Alarmingly, we are more and more resembling a country based on fascist/theocratic principles versus democratic principles. A very good website, www.theocracywatch.com, has very thoroughly detailed how the PNAC-driven Neocon-Republicans have used the more extremist type religious groups of our country in their endeavor to "win" elections. Numerous websites, Blackbox Voting, Democracy Now, Gregg Palast, etc., have detailed how the Republicans continue to literally steal elections. John McCain and the RNC are now doing their caging voting tatics - even though in the 1980s, according to the Thom Hartmann show yesterday, there was a law put into place to stop the Republicans from doing this. Obviously, our very Republican partisan Department of Justice has done nothing to stop these practices. If you truly want change, it is time to stop voting a straight Republican ticket and vote Democratic. As an aside, even though the news agencies have been banned from Galveston, Texas, word is leaking out that bodies are everywhere and, again, FEMA is having its problems. To use a modified version of a slogan of Ronald Reagan's - Are you happier now than you were eight years ago? If you feel secure in your beliefs that the direction this country is heading in is the right one, then vote for McCain/Palin. But if you want true, real change, vote for Obama/Biden - and any other Democrat on the ticket. At this late stage, that is the only way true change will be able to be accomplished. Otherwise, at the mid-term elections we will be hearing the same old Republican "obstruct-blame game strategy" mantra regarding the "ineffective President Obama" and how he hasn't been able to accomplish any of his campaign promises. D.R.
MAJOR CORRECTION. The website is www.theocracywatch.org - NOT COM. D.R.
Post a Comment