BlogHer - democrat - Comments

It's getting redundant

Jaime Lafond — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 11:02:27 -0500

I've enjoyed your posts and the debates that they spark, but they are starting to sound all the same. The Dems are hypocrites, I get it! And just an FYI, so are Republicans. You could go back and forth all day with examples of the hypocrisy. So...can we do something new? Maybe? Huh?

I Made No Such Promise - Wrong Is Wrong

Gena Haskett — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:32:59 -0500

Obama made a bad joke about the Special Olympics - go get him, let him know and the reason behind why you were offended. I can live with it. If that is what was most important item that conservative folks picked up on in the Leno appearance yak it up.

It was not. It was when earlier he said that it was necessary to support AIG because it was interlinked many banking and financial institutions that if AIG had crashed the whole banking infrastructure would have gone down with it.

I dunno, that was a radical statement to be investigated, examined, followed up on or utter a "WTF haven't we been told?" But you pick you battles.

I don't care about political party affiliation; if I have a concern or I believe it is wrong I will state my beliefs. I hope that I consistently point to facts to back up my beliefs.

I've seen Dubya cartoons, video and performance pieces. Most were on administration policy but there were some that attacked the man physically or intellectually. I looked but didn't laugh. Just shook my head and moved on.

Presidents learn it comes with the job. It might even be essential to a democracy that we can respond in humor or sarcasm.

What some conservatives/Republicans need to get through their heads is that you cannot do it just because of Obama's race or ethnic background. You can't use foul stereotypes to make your point.

Because even African-American Republicans are having to speak out on the insensitivity of what seems to pass for conservative humor and commentary. It ain't funny. It is exclusionary and painful. Maybe that is why the do it, to rally the non-POC troops to hold together until 2010.

Now according to what you said about Reagan they should not do this; they should have kept quiet about the e-mails, talks shows and blog posts that they have witness and kept it to themselves?

No, they should not. No, they can't. How can they deliver the message of conservative values if others in your party are spitting in my face?

How can I hear what you have to say when certain aspects of the conservative movement that sum up my life and other lives as nothing more than a hand out affirmative action existence, no matter who we are, what we do or achieve?

There are extremists on both sides of the spectrum. They can be ignored or corrected. But it is harder to discern what is acceptable within the mainstream conservative/Republican sphere when it comes to issues about disagreement, dialog and disrespect.

They got the disrespect part down pat.

Gena - Out On The Stoop

What I like About Frum

Nordette — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:52:21 -0500

Before I even get to his ideologies, what I like about Frum is that he doesn't waste time creating drama by defending people on the right who use hate speech with "Well, Joe Lefty did it too!" like we're all six year olds or as though by pointing out one of your opponents said something offensive too that makes your guy/girl's nonsense o.k.

Nordette: BlogHer CE. Blogs @ WSATA & UMBOP. @Twitter

My issue is the other double standard

Erin Kotecki Vest — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:19:00 -0500

The one that didn't allow nearly this much sanity or leway when a Daily Kos blogger wrote about Palin's family. The entire Left was vilified.

Now this is just one random blogger guy on the Right? That's exactly what we all said about the one random blogger guy on the Left before. Apparently that didn't really count.

And why was it so much easier to defend Palin and get up in arms about "feminism" but there is no outrage on the right when the First Lady is attacked?

Just as lefty bloggers like Feministe and Shakespeare's Sister called out sexism against Palin, it would be nice to see the same done by bloggers on the right for Michelle Obama.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

New Majority.com

BarbD — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 06:52:44 -0500

Have you ventured over to David Frum's new website? I think you'll appreciate it.

I am neither a conservative nor a Republican, but I'm hungry for common ground. Frum and his friends are part of a movement to remake the Republican Party into a more moderate, inclusive organization. I may disagree with a lot of what he says, but I also agree with a fair bit as well.

I don't know if we'll ever get back to more civil discourse. And yet, I'm not sure how we can resolve the problems we face unless we re-learn how to work together, in our larger interest.

We can't have it all, whichever side of the conservative/progressive divide. But we can resolve to talk about our differences civilly, and learn how to compromise again. This "my way at all costs" approach just isn't working.

One word: Hellzyeah.

NOfreelunch — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:35:06 -0500

"People were up in arms over this column, after retiring their "Bush is Hitler" and "F*ck Bush" placards first, of course." "Forgive me if I've somehow missed it, but it seems that respect for the office of the presidency is a new phenomena for some." Yep.

"If only there had been an equal reaction to edit out the soundbite of our president cracking a joke about the Special Olympics." Yeah. Obama apologists stuttering out ridiculous justifications on that one--even supposedly activist special needs parents! WTF?

"I'm all for vehement disagreement but I'm tired of spending the time
crafting a thoughtful message only to see or hear someone make some
idiotic "Obama go back to Africa" remark." I know. I KNOW.

"That being said, I'm equally tired of the double-standards. I'm tired
of the remarks like those in my first paragraph distracting attention
away from more important matters like our newly-quadrupled deficit.
It seems like so many of us are more embroiled in winning an argument
as opposed to winning the best future for our country, thus the
hen-pecking, the name-calling, the ridiculousness. People are going to
slip up in remarks. People are going to say ignorant things. Everyone should meet the same, single standard."

Thank you. For once I feel like someone just climbed inside my brain and put my thoughts into print.

I do wish ...

PunditMom — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:21:10 -0500

... this whole thing would stop. And to suggest that talking about people's weight is a Democrat thing? Come on. You know better than that.

Maybe the conservatives are afraid of Meghan McCain because her views aren't as extreme as they'd like. She's not a lock-step kind of girl and that never plays well with the right. And she's clearly got more on the ball than Ann Coulter ever will.

PunditMom
Politics & News Contributing Editor

Also at The Huffington Post

OK, the short version of my 'take' on all this...

evilslutopia — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:59:47 -0500

1. I hate Ann Coulter, but I think Meghan McCain's criticism of her was sort of pointless. Even if she's right, it's like "oooh Coulter is too extreme? Shocker!"

2. I don't really want to defend Meghan McCain, but she's doing a pretty good job of using that last name to her advantage. So I guess you have to at least give her credit for that. Even if she doesn't have anything useful to say.

3. Meghan McCain is not plus-sized and Ingraham is an idiot for jumping to "oh yeah? well you're fat" which is just evidence that she has nothing of substance to offer to the discussion.

4. I think that Rush Limbaugh has said so many offensive things about women - particularly about their appearances, that at this point, I don't care who calls him fat. (And yes, he actually is fat, unlike McCain, who is probably the size of your average American woman).

5. Speaking of Rush Limbaugh... a week or two ago, you wrote about him and said you would respond to the alleged quotes provided by Erin if someone could offer you PROOF that they were real... We gave you audio, so are you ever going to keep your word and finally respond, or not?

~Lilith

The Evil Slut Clique

EvilSlutopia

Well...

Whatzit — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:57:08 -0500

Why, yes, excellent point. I've even seen our esteemed author poke fun at Nancy Pelosi's dress in Twitter. Maybe not her weight, but certainly her dress.

I guess if we don't have something of substance to criticize, we turn straight to snark.

"Until this point, making

evilslutopia — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 01:33:15 -0500

"Until this point, making fun of people's weight was a tactic employed
exclusively by the Democrats who invoked this tactic with Rush
Limbaugh, the Palin family, the Bush twins, Cindy McCain, etc."

Ah yes, unlike Republicans, who have never ever ever made any nasty comments about the appearance of women like Hillary Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, Janet Reno, Nancy Pelosi, etc. Please.

And hey, the great thing about Twitter is that you don't have to follow anyone you don't want to follow, which means that Meghan's "umpteen-frillion" Twitter updates shouldn't be any bother for you at all.

~Jezebel

The Evil Slut Clique

EvilSlutopia

I know that plays well...

nelle2nelle — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:43:34 -0500

but it ignores fundamental elements.

First, getting loans to low income people in no way shape or form came with a mandate to lower underwriting standards (by the way, I am quite familiar with insurance underwriting standards, but in this case, I talk loan standards.)

We all saw the endless barrage of mail from sub-prime lenders begging people to refinance through them. What made that possible was lax underwriting, because risk could be shifted downstream to the big players, who then disseminated the risk around the world - and why the world is so damn ticked at us now.

Keep in mind that in 2003, the chairman of the financial services committee was Bachus, not Frank.

The problem isn't there, Norma. It just sounds good, but it doesn't wash.

An industry focused on immediate profit at the expense of long term prudent underwriting, coupled with a lack of government oversight, got us here.

There are low income borrowers who would meet underwriting standards, but what we buy has to be contingent and relative to our earnings - it has to be sustainable.

Barney Frank did not create adjustable rate mortgages and balloon payments. He didn't market the loans and overlook and mislead. He didn't create no verification loans - surely someone had to see red flags when we reached that point?

I've been through the p&c cycle a couple of times, and can pretty much lay out how it works, the inevitable expansion, the inevitable contraction, and the hurts that go along with this. It wasn't Barney; the failure reaches across parties, to everyone, some with more involvement, some with less.

If this collapse came on the left's watch and the country was shooting at the left, I would probably scramble for something to seek my teeth into to say 'see, look at what the right did!' That is human nature, we all probably do this to some extent...

but really, solutions are the way to go, and that means some of us, enough of us, have to find a way to cooperate, and not blame.

llhaesa

The differences narrow...

nelle2nelle — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:56:52 -0500

and that is good, when we talk. There is inevitably common ground, somwhere.

With conservative principles, as with liberal principles, there is shifting. You mention size of government and lower taxes, but what is the size advocated at any one time? What things does government do and not do? Those things are fluid, and they change with time.

In the run up to WWII, conservatives were dead set against involvement in the European war. Contrast that with how conservatives view the world now and our military's place in it.

And even on taxes, look at old rates compared to now, there is fluidity there, just as their is on the left. All of this, as with language, is inevitably fluid, not rigid. We might think rigidity in terms of say... a five or ten year period, but when we start moving out across decades and such, the differences on any given side appear.

llhaesa

Please read this, llhaesa.

Norma156 — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:55:47 -0500

Please read this, llhaesa. Yes, it's from Investors Business Daily, but it explains what happened. There is no disagreement with this...just people ignoring it in favor of their own political agendas.

" For Frank, perhaps more than any single individual in private or
public life, is responsible for both the housing market mess and
subsequent bank disaster. And no, this isn't partisan hyperbole or
historical exaggeration.

But first, a little trip down memory lane.

It was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two so-called Government
Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), that lay behind the crisis. After
regulatory changes made to the Community Reinvestment Act by President
Clinton in 1995, Fannie and Freddie went into hyper-drive, channeling
literally trillions of dollars into the housing markets, using leverage
and implicit taxpayers' guarantees.

In November 2000, President Clinton's Housing and Urban Development
Department would trumpet "new regulations to provide $2.4 trillion in
mortgages for affordable housing for 28.1 million families." The
vehicles for this were Fannie and Freddie. It was the largest expansion
in housing aid ever.

Still, from the early 1990s on, many people both inside and outside
Washington were alarmed by what they saw at Fannie and Freddie.

Not Barney Frank: Starting in the early 1990s, he (and other
Democrats) stood athwart efforts by regulators, Congress and the White
House to get the runaway housing market under control.

He opposed reform as early as 1992. And, in response to another
attempt bring Fannie-Freddie to heel in 2000, Frank responded it wasn't
needed because there was "no federal liability there whatsoever."

In 2002, Frank nixed reforms again. See a pattern here?

Even after federal regulators discovered in 2003 that Fannie and
Freddie executives had overstated earnings by as much as $10.6 billion
in order to boost bonuses, Frank didn't miss a beat.

President Bush pushed for what the New York Times then called "the
most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry
since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."

If it had passed, the housing crisis likely would have never boiled
over, at least not the extent it did, taking the economy with it.
Instead, led by Frank, Democrats stood as a bloc against any changes.

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial
crisis," Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services
Committee, said. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more
pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of
affordable housing."

It's hard to say why Frank did all this. It could be his close ties
to the Neighborhood Assistance Corp., a powerful housing activist group
based in Boston, which controls billions in loans. Or that he received
some $40,100 in campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie from 1989 to
2008. Or that he has been romantically linked to a one-time executive
at Fannie during the 1990s.

Whatever the case, his conflicts are obvious and outrageous, and his
refusal to countenance reforms of Fannie and Freddie contributed
mightily to today's meltdown. If you're looking for a culprit in the
meltdown to prosecute, no one fits the bill better than Frank."

Deregulation was indeed the problem. The regulations were opposed by Dems, not by the GOP.

I didn't see this comment

Norma156 — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:46:48 -0500

I didn't see this comment when I responded below.

I think I may be a month or so older than you, but I, too, have closely followed politcs my entire life.

I disagree with you to the extent that I don't think conservative principles change...first and foremost they include limited government and lower taxes. (In fact, it always amazes me, having been in college during the Vietname era, that the people who protested most vociforously against the war are many of the same people that today trust the government. My takeaway was not to trust it.)

However, I do agree with you on a couple of points. Politicians claiming to be conservatives are fluid with regard to their principles. We don't need to look far back to see that. Also, I believe the marriage of conservatives with religion is folly. I am not at all socially conservative. I believe in a woman's right to choose. I actually believe in gay marriage. (Maybe once it's granted, they'll mobilize around the marriage penalty tax. I'd love to see that.)

Pols bend with the wind. Principles don't.

I hope you're right...that the center will pull the current administration back from the left. I'm not so sure this time around.

Anyway, I missed seeing this post before responding below. As always, you are thoughtful and informed.

Actually...

nelle2nelle — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:42:44 -0500

I cannot agree she is a nitwit, any more than I was willing to accept that judgement of Sarah Palin by the left last fall.

As for the global financial meltdown, there is certain plenty of room to see errors on both sides along the way, but is the right ready to acknowledge the error in its own advocacy?

I just mentioned to someone elsewhere I'll concede a Dodd and maybe even a Frank (no love lost between me and Barney, for very lgbt reasons, but I will not sell him under because I dislike his actions in lgbt issues) but I wish to see the right start realising that deregulation was over the top and excessive, that it encouraged small government and free movement of capital such that risk taking took place with precious little reserving in what amounted to things that bordered on insurance.

My first loan in 1984 was through a bank that employed a loan officer who evaluated everything to do with us financially. The loan stayed with that bank. By the 1990s, we have loan originators, brokers, and bundling of mortgages that in effect became speculative instruments.

I see some like to call this out as the left encouraging loans to lower income folk. Nope, that won't sell, because it is not accurate.

The left and the right are not perfect. Errors are made on both sides. What is an essential in running a company, in managing a department, etc? It isn't enough to put policy in place, it has to be monitored, it has to be adjusted where necessary, and if it doesn't work, then another plan has to be put in place.

Well, the left didn't do this when it had its long Congressional run, and the right didn't do it when it had its 14 years of fame.

If we let this become an exclusively ideological debate, not a damn thing of consequence will get done in finding solution.

Back to running a company or managing a department... your staff is meeting, and two employees are having at it over differing philosophies, which one cause whatever to happen when, and you as the person in charge, is it the history and blame that interests you - or is it getting them to focus on presenting solutions?

We are in the 'we need solutions, folks' stage. Yet all too often, what I see is left and right ready to rip each other's throats out. Please don't set it on that road again.

llhaesa

BlogHer - democrat - Comments

It's getting redundant

I Made No Such Promise - Wrong Is Wrong

What I like About Frum

My issue is the *other* double standard

New Majority.com

One word: Hellzyeah.

I do wish ...

OK, the short version of my 'take' on all this...

Well...

"Until this point, making

I know that plays well...

The differences narrow...

Please read this, llhaesa.

I didn't see this comment

Actually...

My issue is the other double standard