Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Like the Failed Bush Agenda, Specter Belongs with the Democrats

Like the Failed Bush Agenda, Specter Belongs with the Democrats

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

In his recent article in Slate, historian David Greenberg shows a fundamental failure to understand the current situation in the Republican Party, taking the common viewpoint of many on the left that defectors like Arlen Specter have been driven from the Republican Party because of an intolerance of liberalism in the GOP. That interpretation may appeal to Democrats who want to portray Republicans as intolerant and dominated by the religious right, or who are still afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome, but it is a simplistic dismissal of Specter's own failures which led to his loss of support within the party and displays a profound ignorance of where the GOP is now and where it is going.

Greenberg does not understand the changes which are going on inside the Republican Party that made Specter increasingly incompatible, nor does he understand that hostility to Specter had very little to do with his rather flaccid liberalism and everything to do with his failure to adhere to any of the values which any of the still-diverse constituencies within the GOP believe in. What has turned other Republicans against Specter, and led to support for a primary challenge against him, is not his support for the arts or other "liberal" causes. It is his unwillingness to stand firm on fundamental Republican principles of smaller government and protection of individual liberty.

The GOP can be tolerant of someone who is somewhat socially liberal if they remain fiscally responsible. The problem with Specter is that while he was forgivably liberal on some social issues, he was unforgivably unreliable on issues of spending and responsible government. You can be a Republican and be a little bit socially liberal, and sadly you can be a Republican and get away with a bit of excess spending, but in the post-Bush environment you absolutely cannot remain a Republican and do both.

Critics on the left, like Greenberg, are misled by their outsider's view of the situation in the GOP. They keep on attacking the GOP as if it was the party of George W. Bush, but it hasn't been his party in a long time – if it ever was. They want to transfer blame for all of Bush's bad policies to the GOP as it now exists, choosing not to understand that most of the party only went along with him reluctantly in the first place and that the Bush’s failures and the Democrat win in 2008 have empowered elements within the party which have a very different agenda.

What Greenberg and others don't understand is the level of anger with Bush within the GOP and how widespread the desire to remake the party is. Bush's failures are why Obama is in the White House and Republicans are in the minority. Do you think Republicans like being out of power? Do you think they appreciate Bush for putting them there? Do you think those who survived this long don't realize their future survival depends on them being as un-Bush as humanly possible?

Specter sees this new environment and knows it is not going to be as tolerant of those who place politics above principle. His answer is to move to the Democratic Party, which is acting more like Bush and his politics of expediency every day. More principled Republicans realize it's time to institute reforms and move back to a more principled version of the party with a clear message that emphasizes broad policy differences with the Democrats on basics like taxes, spending, and personal liberty, rather than pandering to special interests, which went on under Bush, and which the Democrats have enshrined in their agenda.

Republican leaders who want to remain in office are finally listening to the grassroots of the party, and even if they find it to be unfamiliar territory, they're making an effort to at least appear concerned about the core values that were ignored during the Bush era. Specter placed personal power above the good of the party and the good of the nation. Large though the GOP tent is, it no longer has room for that attitude. You won't find a lot of Republicans crying over his departure. If we have a smaller party for now, it will be a better party and one with a stronger future.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

  • Baronius

    Spot-on analysis, Dave. The funny thing about Specter is that, in an era of nasty partisanship, he found a way to be nasty without being partisan.

  • zingzing

    that’s right, guys! you’re WINNING!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    What do you expect from natural-born losers?

    Sorry, Dave. You’re not included.

    At least Dave has a positive spin on this. But Baronius? If you disagree with his political views, you’re nasty.

    You’d better say ten Hail-Marys and hope for the best.

    God bless you, my son.

  • pablo

    yep just what the dems need ole single bullet theory Specter. I know that went over many of your heads. :)

    The new design and interface SUX on blogcritics.

  • Arch Conservative

    “At least Dave has a positive spin on this. But Baronius? If you disagree with his political views, you’re nasty. ”

    Maybe Baronius was referring to Sphincter penchant for referring to his constituents as racists rednecks.

    The ONLY reason Sphincter switched parties is because he had no shot in hell of getting re-elected in the GOP in 2010. So it was either go over to the dark side or call it a career. He should have took McCain, Snowe and Collins with him.

  • Baronius

    Thanks, Arch. I remember that Specter was hated in the GOP for attacking Robert Bork, so he tried to make up for it (pre-election) by attacking Anita Hill. Santorum backed Specter in a tight primary race, but Specter turned around and failed to support Santorum in the next general election. The only thing he’s good at is crossing people.

  • zingzing

    but santorum was… well, santorum. and you know what that means now.

  • Arch Conservative

    Speaking of the Supreme Court……Obama voted against both Alito and Roberts two very respected credentialed nominees and actually tried to filibuster Alito.

    But I garentee you that when the GOP expresses opposition to whatever character that Obama pulls from some slimy corner who makes Hugo Chavez look like Pat Buchannan in the harsh light of day to replace Souter, King Barry and his comrades will be up in arms and whining like the puerile little hypocrites they are.

    Oh and I have 1000 bucks that says when Chief Justice Roberts is administering the oath to whatever Republican ends our “long national nightmare” in 2013, he doesn’t flub it.

    I hope it’s Paul Ryan.

    PS: the new format sucks

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Arlen Specter is disloyal, self-interested scum. He’s a hack career politician. I think we can all agree on that.

    But let’s get real. The GOP will be in the wilderness for at least the next 3+ years. 2010 isn’t shaping up to be another 1994, unless the economy is still in free-fall (unlikely) or there is some foreign policy catastrophe or horrific terrorist attack (possible, but still not probable).

    The GOP is trying to find itself right now. Will it become the party of religious social conservatives? Big-government “compassionate” conservatives? Socially-moderate small-government libertarians? Anti-government conspiracy-mongers?

    I don’t know. No one does. The various GOP primary elections in 2010 will tell us a lot, though.

    But, right now, we do know one thing: The Left is in complete control of the US government for the first time since President BJ Clinton’s first two years. And that was a total failure. But Team 0bama seems to be much smarter than the Clintonistas, and the mass media is much more compliant.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    PS – The new format sucks.

    ;-)

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    RJ, I think you may underestimate how much motivation the damage Obama is doing will provide for the GOP to reinvent itself. People can’t remain dupes forever, and when threatened they will eventuallyw ark up and strike back.

    Dave

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    As for the Supreme Court, 0bama will probably nominate a homosexual Muslim black woman who is an illegal immigrant – and dare the GOP to say anything bad about her.

    It goes without saying that the nominee will be a left-wing radical. But identity politics in the Democrat Party means almost as much as ideology.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Dave,

    The damage 0bama is doing is primarily going to be felt by the next couple of generations. They can’t vote in 2010, since they aren’t born yet. (And some of them won’t ever be born, now that 0bama is making USSC appointments.)

    The average drone who has no clue about economics [read: probably 25 to 50 percent of the electorate] thinks it’s just great that taxes will rise on “evil rich” people, and that CEOs are being demonized and destroyed. They will praise The One for their 13 extra dollars a week, and vote accordingly.

    I think you overestimate the intelligence of the average voter. Watch this. But please grab a handkerchief and unload all firearms first. (You may not know whether to break down and cry or just end it all after viewing.)

  • Clavos

    Interesting, but depressing, video, RJ.

    I particularly enjoyed the part near the end when some of those dumb shits claimed they got their information from sources like PBS and the NYT.

  • Bliffle

    Dave unlimbers the old “that was then, this is now” argument to accomodate both frugality and the Bush Binge era:

    “The GOP can be tolerant of someone who is somewhat socially liberal if they remain fiscally responsible. The problem with Specter is that while he was forgivably liberal on some social issues, he was unforgivably unreliable on issues of spending and responsible government. You can be a Republican and be a little bit socially liberal, and sadly you can be a Republican and get away with a bit of excess spending, but in the post-Bush environment you absolutely cannot remain a Republican and do both.”

    (BTW, the new format is terrible.)

  • Baronius

    RJ, I love that video.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Gee, Dave, in looking at the recent contributors to this department, I notice that while I’ve contributed three articles in the last week or so, my name is not listed at all. I have nothing against the fine young lady, but I notice that Meg Toigo is listed. How many articles did she contribute since 23 April?

    Trying to shut out the voice from Samaria, Dave? This stinks from the specter of British duplicity.

    And yes, it does stink.

  • Clavos

    Here’s food for thought for Republicans to consider:

    1. Specter is an opportunist.

    2. Opportunists, lacking loyalty or principles, invariably gravitate toward the team they see as winning.

    3. Democrats are, for the time being at least, the winning team.

  • zingzing

    dave: “RJ, I think you may underestimate how much motivation the damage Obama is doing will provide for the GOP to reinvent itself. People can’t remain dupes forever, and when threatened they will eventuallyw ark up and strike back.”

    yeah, that’s what we just did. time to go to sleep for 8 years, dave, until your man comes in to fuck shit up again. now what’s this damage he’s doing? seriously. and don’t say “communism,” because that’s bullshit and you know it.

    rj: “The damage 0bama is doing is primarily going to be felt by the next couple of generations.”

    what exactly would that be, rj?

    clavos: “I particularly enjoyed the part near the end when some of those dumb shits claimed they got their information from sources like PBS and the NYT.”

    my god. how many videos have you seen just like that? do you think an even more funny video could be made about mccain voters? damn straight it could. have you ever heard of “editing?” it’s not hard to make people look stupid. watch this!

    clavos: “I particularly enjoyed the NYT.”

    now you’re a liberal! through the power of editing.

    baronius: “RJ, I love that video.”

    natch.

    you republicans go rub one off on each other. you’re pretty damn smug for people who couldn’t do anything while in power and are now powerless to get anything done at all. plus, you’re completely falling apart and probably have no chance of coming back in 4 years. you’ve been voted out of office and your political philosophy is dying. how does it feel?

  • Arch Conservative

    “my god. how many videos have you seen just like that? do you think an even more funny video could be made about mccain voters? damn straight it could. have you ever heard of “editing?” it’s not hard to make people look stupid. watch this!”

    The only editing done was going from person to person. There was no editing needed to make these people look stupid. The true question to ascretain just how dumb the average Obama voter is would be how many people the person filming spoke to that gave intelligent answers that were left out. If he only talked to twelve and he got these idiots right off that bat then that does not speak well of Obama’s supporters.

    To be fair I agree with you zing that with a little effort a filmmaker could just as eaisly find twelve idiots who voted for McCain. You’d probably get responses like “I don’t like that Barack Obama….no sir.no how. no am I gonna vote for an A-rab for president,” or “John McCain wants to secure the borders and that’s why I’m voting for him.”

    But statistically speaking more people voted for Obama so the likelihood there’s the likelihood that more idiots voted for him making him the idiot’s choice for president. Plus……”hope and change,” “yes we can,”…..c’mon….let’s not exhaust all our neurons at once trying to wrap our minds around King Barry’s solutions to the most pressing geopolitical issues of the day huh folks…..

    I didn’t vote for McCain or King Barry so you lemmings can all kiss my ass. I voted for Chuck Baldwin

    Oh and don’t be so fucking uppity zing. Blood WILL flow in the streets before the one world government leftist fucks are allowed to take over.

  • zingzing

    archie: “Oh and don’t be so fucking uppity zing. Blood WILL flow in the streets before the one world government leftist fucks are allowed to take over.”

    um, i thought that (according to you) we/they already have taken over…

  • Irene Wagner

    Martha and the Vandella’s right?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I know you’re apt to speak in code and I did look it up in the Wiki. I’m still in the dark.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Sorry. I didn’t realize it was another thread. Our geniuses.

  • Irene Wagner

    “There’ll be wingnuts prayin’ and liberals sprayin’ blood flow’n in the streets…”

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Shoot, Irene.

    That’s Gladys and the Knights, as best I can tell. I’ve always thought they were origin.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Are you perchance foretelling Armageddon?
    Because if you do, I thinks it’s going to come to that.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    In the end of times, I should add.

  • Irene Wagner

    Sign of a good song. Lots of covers.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Anyways, I’m not in charge and I’m glad it’s on somebody else’s shoulders.

    Meanwhile, I’m listening to “The Twilight of the Gods” from the Met – for the umpteenth time, I might add – and enjoying every moment.

    If life could only be so simple, like in a Wagner opera.

    I’m being moved here, I hope you understand, by my heroic, Germanic spirit.

  • Irene Wagner

    Blood flowin’ in the streets? It won’t be the first time it’s happened in America. Maybe we’re past due for a major earthquakes or killer influenza or two before then, though.

    Way back in antiquity it was written “the mystery of iniquity doth already work.”
    Who me, predicting the end of days? “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”

    I’m predicting Dancing in the Streets, which there will be, come what may, if there are still people marrying and being given in marriage til the end.

  • Irene Wagner

    Speaking of marriage, Roger, I’ve got a kitchen to clean… Maybe I’ll turn on classical radio while I’m doing it.
    What a wonderful resource.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    It will be so. It it’s written. But not just in America but worldwide.

    Till the very end, the wicked won’t see the error of their ways. And they’ll all perish.

    How else can you eradicate evil?

  • Clavos

    @#19:

    Heh.

    We’re gettin’ to ya, obviously.

    That comment probably could have been more lame, but not by much.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    The worst part – evil is banal for the most part. It’s not what we do but rather what we fail to do. In time, however, it corrupts the soul and takes it captive. And after a while, it seems you’ve reached a point of no return. And it’ll take nothing short of a miracle to turn you around.

    In absence of that, you’re lost.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Irene,

    Anyways, I’ll be watching a James Bond movie, “Quantum of Solace,” and it’ll take my mind of all earthly cares and nuisances.

    It’s been nice talking to you, as always.

    Look forward to soon-to-appear article where I draw the line. As of now, it’s the pinnacle of my thought.

    Stay well,

    Roger

  • Baronius

    Zing, that video’s been around for a while. I’m surprised you weren’t familiar with it. It’s part of a documentary, and if I recall correctly, it’s unedited footage of 12 random Obama supporters being asked a dozen questions on election day. The creator also commissioned a Gallup poll which backs up the results.

    It’s funny, the liberals on this site, who expect the GOP to quit, didn’t give up after 2000. Instead, they did what the GOP will probably do, nominate a fool next time around and lose, but eventually pick up the House, Senate, and presidency. There are still two viable parties in this country.

  • zingzing

    baronius: “It’s part of a documentary, and if I recall correctly, it’s unedited footage of 12 random Obama supporters being asked a dozen questions on election day.”

    if you think it’s unedited, you have no idea how to make a documentary.

    “It’s funny, the liberals on this site, who expect the GOP to quit, didn’t give up after 2000. Instead, they did what the GOP will probably do, nominate a fool next time around and lose, but eventually pick up the House, Senate, and presidency.”

    that’s true. although, y’all nominated a real fool last time and took it twice. i mean, really. bush? i dunno how you guys fell for him twice. who’s the moron in that situation? the republicans will get back in, eventually, but i think it might be as something somewhat different than what they are now. luckily, as those people born in the first half of last century die off, the character of the party ought to get a little… better? something.

  • Baronius

    Zing, I shouldn’t have said “unedited”. You caught me: I’ve never made a documentary. I meant that they stayed with the same people, and for the first 2/3 at least, they had each person respond to each answer. It wasn’t edited in the way that Jay Leno makes man-on-the-street interviewees look stupid. Maybe we can agree that a lot of morons voted for Obama, and I’m not a documentarian.

  • Clavos

    Maybe we can agree that a lot of morons voted for Obama…

    Some of us consider that everyone who voted for Obama is…

  • zingzing

    clavos, if you didn’t find yourself superior to all others, no one else would.

  • Baronius

    Clavos, I don’t believe that. A lot of people voted for a moderate Obama. (I can’t judge them too harshly, because I sure didn’t expect him to govern so far to the left.) Secondly, there were some intelligent people who actually wanted the Obama we got. They’re not stupid; they just have a different ideology from mine. And there are even further-out people who just want the system to be demolished, and saw Obama as the most likely person to do it.

  • Clavos

    clavos, if you didn’t find yourself superior to all others, no one else would.

    Zing, what other people think of me has never been a concern.

  • Clavos

    Clavos, I don’t believe that. A lot of people voted for a moderate Obama. (I can’t judge them too harshly, because I sure didn’t expect him to govern so far to the left.)

    I’m surprised at that, Bar. I never expected him to be anything BUT way to the left; this guy has been a left-winger all his life — why would he move to the center now that he’s reached the point where he really can implement his lifelong beliefs?

    I expect him to move even further left as time goes on. In light of the speed with which he’s moving, I believe he’s trying to make all his moves in this term, knowing that, by the time everyone wakes up, he won’t be able to garner more than the extreme left voters.

    “No one in this world, so far as I know … has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.”

    Henry Lewis Mencken
    Chicago Tribune,
    Sept. 19, 1926

    “Yes We Can”

    Barack Obama
    2008

  • Baronius

    Clavos, I didn’t expect a moderate. I never expected this level of economic intervention though.

  • Clavos

    I think we ain’t seen nothin’ yet, Bar, he still has 3 1/2 years (minimum) left.

    Wait until he puts in carbon cap & trade; the prices of everything you buy will go up — everything involves carbon one way or another — even if it’s only for the electricity at the factory.

    Meantime, the chinese will be putting new coal burning power plants online on an almost weekly basis for at least the next ten years, so global greenhouse gasses will continue to increase, regardless.

  • Clavos

    Bar,

    Here’s an interesting opinion piece very apropos to what we’ve just been discussing.

  • http://theglenblog.blogspot.com Glen Boyd

    Since I don’t get over here all that often, I figured I’d let y’all know that the definitive version of Dancing In The Streets is the one by Martha & The Vandellas.

    Bring on the apocalypse.

    Carry on, then…

    -Glen

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    I’ll take Van Halen’s cover, Glen.

    “Some of us consider that everyone who voted for Obama is…”

    That’s because some of you are morons.

    btw, John Zigler was a hack radio host who got run out of town in LA, so take anything he does with a grain of salt. But if it reflects your opinions, no need to question it, right? Where was his doc asking Bush voters questions? I’d lay money they weren’t all Mensa members.

  • Bliffle

    The new format is terrible. Here’s why:

    You can’t read the entire article without paging (slowly) through it. This makes it difficult to go back to a point that was made earlier.

    An interested reader is forced to page forward and back to find segments of the article or comments that he would like to address or quote. Slow and frustrating.

    The slightest hitch in communications inspires the reader to abandon the effort, as I have done many times.

    In the end, all that is presented is the headline, and since that is usually some kind of naive overstatement (perhaps contrived merely for incitement), BC as a whole decreases in interest and value.

    Too bad, since the original format presented the article and all comments as easily available in a single workspace. One could even save it in a text file.

    Nothing REQUIRES this new paging format. The amount of memory and bandwidth required for the simple ASCII text is trivial compared to all the HTML and other wrapping associated with any display. I suspect that some new advertising gimmick is being phased in. Why else change what was working well to this clumsy new format?

  • Baronius

    Bliffle, you sound like a conservative: “if it works, don’t change it”. (Teasing.)

    I agree with you. The site also seems unable to remember my name, there’s the 20x+1 problem, and the comments tally next to the articles on the Politics page is always out of date. I like the idea of a comments tally, though.

  • Baronius

    My biggest complaint is that they didn’t set up a comments/complaints page before they started the transition. Ideally, there should have been one when they were designing the new site, but at a minimum there should have been a thread to report bugs.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    In addition to what Bliffle said: I used to be able to use my browser’s ‘Edit/Find in page’ feature to quickly locate a comment I was familiar with and wanted to return to. Now, that is impossible.

    (Of course, I’ll write an e-mail. Rather than merely complaining here. When I get around to it.)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, if there are enough dissatisfied contributors, there is a perfect opportunity to set up a separate forum. The Internet is here to stay and so is blogging; getting the advertisers is a cinch. So all we need is a few enterprising minds and a bit of capital. The writers could be stockholders.

    Stranger things have happened when the parent company take they eye of the ball.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    To the BC owners:

    When both the hard-right conservatives AND the hard-left liberals (like me) agree on something, you should listen…

    …because this new format is flatly terrible.

    (‘terrible’ is the best I could do after discarding all the not-so-socially-acceptable (but oh-so-accurate) descriptives from twenty years of active duty)

    Please, go back to the old format. Prettier isn’t necessarily better.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dave –

    Y’know, I have yet to see ANY conservative state his support for Dubya now that he is out of office. Not one. Not a single one.

    But what Bush policies, exactly, do you oppose?

    Was it his opposition to stem-cell research?

    What about his opposition to abortion?

    What about his opposition to enforcing the EPA?

    How about his hands-off approach to enforcement by the IRS?

    And then there’s his administration’s lassaiz-faire attitude towards the economy…

    …and his refusal to allow states to enact their own banking rules to get the lending industry under control…

    Perhaps y’all were against his huge increases in the military budget?

    Or his desire to drastically cut taxes?

    Were you against Bush’s refusal to engage in diplomacy with ‘terrorist’ nations?

    Were you against Bush’s invasion of Iraq?

    Were you against Bush’s use of ‘enhanced interrogation’ a.k.a. ‘torture’?

    Sure, Bush made some really dumb mistakes (like Katrina), but which of his POLICIES did you really disagree with?

    And if you agreed with almost all of his policies…then you got PRECISELY what your Republican party voted into office…AND reelected, to boot.

    In other words, be careful what you wish for – ’cause you might get it.

  • Baronius

    Glenn, I generally approved of Bush’s policies. I oppose abortion and fetal stem-cell research. I favored the Iraq War and believe that its success speaks for itself. I wish he’d had a lassaiz-faire approach to the economy.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Baronius –

    Bush DID have a lassaiz-faire approach to the economy. That’s why he refused to enforce economic regulations, and that’s why – when states wanted to enact their own regulatory laws to get the lending industry under control, he used a Civil-War era law to prevent the states from passing any such laws…and to negate any such laws EVER passed by those states.

    If that’s not ‘lassaiz-faire’, then I can only wonder what your definition of it is….

  • Clavos

    Glenn,

    Y’know, I have yet to see ANY conservative state his support for Dubya now that he is out of office.

    After he began spending like a drunken liberal, very few fiscal conservatives supported him while he was in office.

  • Baronius

    Glenn, I’m not going to argue with you. I’m only saying that if you purged the name Paulson and all of his actions, Moses-style, from the Bush administration, I’d sign off on it in a heartbeat. You’ve met someone who would say that.

  • Baronius

    To phrase that better – Ignoring Paulson’s actions, for which Bush is responsible, I would acknowledge the Bush administration as a success.

  • Bliffle

    A lot of reps are having Buyers Remorse over Bush, so why submit to being fooled again and submit to the falsehood that Obama is a leftist?

    Clearly, Obama is a Corporate Statist, like most of his recent predecessors. That’s why he immediately aped the bank bailout initiated by the previous Corp Statist, GWB, even hiring a Paulson/Bush operative, Geithner as SecTreas.

    Obama even resurrected L Summers from the dead. Will Bob Rubin be joining soon?

    At the same time he has done little for trad liberal constituencies, even allowing the congress to squelch the puny little homeowner bailout that so offended the Corp statists for it’s “moral hazard” (I guess they want to reserve all the moral hazard opportunites for the financial industry, where they really know how to cash in on Moral Hazard!). They want to stand by and shake their fingers sanctimoniously at those vicious homeowners and credit card users and scornfully denounce THEIR modest little excesses.

    More of the same, as we surrender the USA and it’s promise to an ever more feudalist state devoted to preserving the power and privileges of the few.

    I suppose that leftists are hopeful that some scraps of bread fall off the table as the US government feeds luxurious meals to the financial establishment. Like the much discussed little favor to the unions in the Chrysler deal which gives them a piece of the action without involving any REAL money. The REAL money, of course, goes to coppering the bets and gambles of the financiers.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Then why is it, bliffle, that the right-wingers don’t see it that way? Because if they did, they should be delighted that the good old Military & Industrial complex will be alive and well – if not now, then very very soon.

  • rED gREEN

    If you voted for President Obama then you voted for Liberal Collectivism via the Fabian Socislist model advanced via the tactics of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”. Community Organizers is a cover term for “Active Social Revolutionary Cadres” President Obama deserves to be shown all respect due the office of the president. It does not mean we should not do everything we legally can to impeach him and remove him from office, or defeat him in the 2012 elections. He has done some good things so far, but the bad will outweigh this. Pray for Mr. Obama as that has to be the toughest job any human being can have on earth!