Angry W. House meeting roils Wall St bailout talks

Angry White House meeting roils Wall Street bailout talks

Politicians being politicians: the economic crisis is bad for everyone, but lately it seems it is not as bad for the Democrats. According to Dems, including leaders of finance oversight leaders, they had nothing to do with it. How is that? Didn't they have a president back a few years back who signed some bills? Blame is the first response when one cannot handle responsibility. Perhaps they cannot handle responsibility. Perhaps none of them can handle being in charge - Dem or GOP. Maybe it is time for a real change. Imagine ...

History museum, 2138 A.D.:

Sept 2008 A.D. news report
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Negotiations in the U.S. Congress toward a massive bailout for Wall Street fell into disarray on Thursday night after a contentious White House meeting, with lawmakers later offering conflicting reports about the position of presidential candidate Sen. John McCain.

The White House meeting -- attended by McCain, Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama, President George W. Bush and lawmakers from both parties -- "devolved into a contentious shouting match," according to a statement from the McCain campaign.

"At today's cabinet meeting, John McCain did not attack any proposal or endorse any plan," the statement said.

This is how people used to run the country until we shot all the politicians and let the monkeys run things according to basic, instinctual training with bananas for rewards and touch screens for making the decisions, son.

- The Popper

Powered by ScribeFire.

Obama + cake + Quaaludes?

Oh My Gawd! Like, I am so much a fan of Obama! Like, for sure! People! Come on and join the Obama Fan Club!

You have to listen to Adam Ruben's voice. CLEARLY, this is the voice of a man who grew up in a working class town, and understands the needs for "real change" in Washington.

Obama, cake ... I suspect Mr. Ruben left out the Quaaludes he takes to stay in focus.

From: "Adam Ruben, MoveOn.org Political Action" <moveon-help@list.moveon.org>

Date: September 19, 2008 11:31:24 am EDT

To: "------" <----->

Subject: Obama + cake in Casselberry

Dear MoveOn member,

I'm so excited about our big MoveOn for Obama Parties this Sunday to help Barack, I recorded a special "voicemail" message about it for you. Click here to listen to message and find out more about the party closest to you: Listen to the voice mail message

Hope you can join us, and thanks again for all you do.

–Adam

Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 3.5 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.

---

PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. ....To change your email address or update your contact info, click here. To remove yourself from this list, click here.

Person Jon Osterholm

Right click for SmartMenu shortcuts

MSNBC struggles with political coverage reality and loses

'Olbermonotony' crisis has been significantly reduced, according to MSNBC report

The place: MSNBC.
The item: major election and political news anchoring.
The jilted babblers: Chris "I do not act just like that guy on SNL" Matthews and Keith "I used to be on ESPN just like Craig Kilborn!" Olbermann.

Yes, in a disturbingly conscientious move that can only be categorized as FUNNY for all conservatives and respectable journalists, these two bigmouths have been tossed from the political landscape: One is an egotistical and demented blusterer of extreme liberal bias and wagon-circling who seems to be OK with publicly obsessing over Bill O'Reilly, the other is a likeable and less embarrassing candle bearer for Democrats who is recently being dragged down to the first one's level.

Thus, two of the most important opinion-shapers ever to put on makeup, fiddle with earpieces, get a little too friendly with Ariana Huffington during an interview, and make millions per year while shoving their childish opinions in viewers' faces, have been displaced. That these two were ever put behind the same huge desk is comparable to Hepburn and Tracy, or Dumb and Dumber, depending on your criteria.

If your criteria is journalism, then MSNBC made the right move.

If your criteria is entertainment, then you are sorely disappointed by this move. You consolement can be found on Internet replays of his "best" stuff.

If you are Keith Olbermann's significant other or his dog, you are in for a very rough week of paranoid ranting coming from the bed, shower, hall closet, and kitchen pantry.

This could be a promising boost Chris Matthews. Considered a respectable though liberally biased newsman until he was given the seat next to his now-former co-anchor, he has begun to speak like a junior high "Most Popular" candidate trying to win over his shinier-faced pal when he's with the glassy-eyed Olbermann. I hope Matthews has enough sense to count his blessings, despite his inability to act like a man around Olbermann's pathologically confident perfect-hair personage.

Aside from when Fox News Channel launched -- touting its fair and balanced claims though they are generally leaning right -- this unselfish act by MSNBC of admitting bias and slightly downgrading its cause may be the most notable thing to happen since CNN first put out a signal that said "look out major networks, it's a 24-hour news world out there, and we're going to give you at least three hours of it!"


On the other hand, Microsoft just launched a major new advertising campaign, and the MS in MSNBC of course means Microsoft. So this could be all part of Microsoft's master plan to become a more likable, affable and tolerable provider of consumer and business technology.

"I am a PC, and I think Olbermann sucks."

Powered by ScribeFire.

Finance, credit cards and capitalism: Free trade or a free-for-all?

Is this what we call free trade, or is it just a free-for-all?

That credit cards, and the whole gamut of lenders, can do the things they have been doing, to everyone's ruin, is wrong. It is not merely unfortunate, nor unfair, but immoral, amoral, and capitalism in its crudest, egregious form. How such behavior can possibly be considered a free market is euphemistic at best.

A free market could be mistakenly defined, in finer print, as one that takes advantage of the poorest and [those who are] the hardest working for the lowest wages: that is capitalism at its worst. If that is free trade, then give me something BETTER than that. A free market would be one that considers all the rational and positive facets of the word "free": free to trade, free to live, free from illicit deception, etc. Free market ought not be defined as one party is free to do any damned thing they please no matter the result on others (including, as in the recent financial disaster, the results that impact all others).

Powered by ScribeFire.

Missing Minds | Obama's Fannie Mae 'Connection' (Wash. Post - The Fact Checker)

Minds are missing, but no one at the Washington Post seems to notice.

This is from our "get over it, you silly PC dum-dum" file:

Washington Post's "The Fact Checker" cannot even get past pointing out skin color of people in an ad that regards economics by a presidential campaign. What is the point to giving credence to their fact checks, then? I put a comment under the piece at the site, but the idiocy of the piece goes beyond that one item. Going deeper into the uselessness of this fact check by the Post, says the super-brilliant Fact Checker: "The latest McCain attack is particularly dubious." Particularly dubious? How about the dubiousness of the fact check? Here's the first example from this Post "fact check" that makes my head ache:

The McCain video attempts to link Obama to Franklin Raines, the former CEO of ... Fannie Mae, who also happens to be African-American. It then shows a photograph of an elderly white woman taxpayer who has supposedly been 'stuck with the bill' as a result of the 'extensive financial fraud' at Fannie Mae."

My comment, taunting and crass, but not racist (except it would be, to irrational, knee-jerk PC liberals) seeing the context, was this:

Did you forget that Obama is half-white in his ethnic lineage? Or has he disavowed his, umm, whiteness? Curious that you point out the black and white skin color of the people in this video. Really, I suggest that the woman might be Hispanic. Oh, now that would be shocking! If you are so sure to offer the facts, try keeping to RELEVANT facts, too, Skippy.

This beautiful example of poor journalism only starts with pointing out the skin color of people, as if that is relevant. It then stumbles over its claim that McCain's camp is lying with a statement that shows Obama's troupe might be lying about the facts in the ad, and that Franklin Raines is definitely lying, within 100 words!

So what part is incorrect in the McCain camp's video? That they suggest Raines an adviser to the campaign? That's not accurate, but it is not an outright lie! The Post neglects to point out that the Obama campaign likely has -- and Raines definitely has -- lied in the matter, while the paper (seemingly by accident) actually demonstrates the lie:

Obama spokesman Bill Burton went a little further, telling me in an e-mail that the campaign had "neither sought nor received" advice from Raines "on any matter."

The piece then notes that Raines himself told a Post writer "that he had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign. I asked him about what, and he said 'oh, general housing, economy issues.' "

So, how is it that Raines and the Obama camp are not lying, which is worse than stretching the truth, which is what McCain's ad does? Raines said that he got calls from the Obama team! Where is the "dubious" adjective attached to the Obama/Raines side? After the ad runs Raines says he is not an adviser, the BO club says the same thing, but Raines had said he did get calls for advice. OK, so Raines isn't flying to events with Obama, but the he did get calls. It's not an official role with the campaign, but it goes against the Obama campaign statement that "the campaign had 'neither sought nor received' advice from Raines 'on any matter.' " It would appear that they had.

Washinton Post, your bias is showing. Yet again! That, or you really need to start training your writers to see facts, and add them up.

Powered by ScribeFire.