Obama's Organizing Army Finally Targets Republicans

In an unusually aggressive move, Organizing for America announced Wednesday that it is mobilizing its volunteer army to confront the 32 Republican legislators who voted against health care reform -- despite representing districts that voted for Obama.

The pressure campaign is designed "to remind these members that voters in their districts voted for change last year," explain OFA officials, "and urge them to reconsider their position when the House votes again on a final bill later this year."

The program calls on OFA activists to visit the district offices of their members. OFA officials say the effort will begin "as early as" Thursday and continue through next week. At the height of the presidential campaign, OFA's supporter list topped 13 million, making it the largest political network of its kind.

OFA Director Mitch Stewart describes the effort as the more confrontational side of bipartisan promise in the Obama era.

"The message was clear in these districts: Americans want change, and they expect their Representatives to work with President Obama and reach across the aisle to help deliver it," he said. Last weekend's GOP opposition to health care reform shows that these members are standing "with the insurance companies and right wing pundits to put politics above doing the right thing," he added.

That's unusually sharp language from OFA, which has prioritized positive lobbying appeals and "thank you" messages to Congress thus far. (OFA's homepage currently features fireworks and splashy invitations to "thank your member of Congress," which is the topline message for people who don't live in one of the 32 districts.) For some time, there has been rumbling among Obama supporters and the political digeratti about OFA holding back too much, and asking supporters to take "actions" that were purely symbolic.

Back in May, actually, I argued that OFA should be more aggressive, more willing to target Republicans by geography, and more careful with soliciting symbolism:

...asking millions of Obama's strongest supporters to simply sign petitions, regardless of their location, ambition and ability, is surely redundant and probably wasteful. Take an activist in a Democratic House district in a Blue state -- why should she be pressuring Congress if her representatives are already backing Obama's plan? (If anything, those members would be willing to go further towards single-payer.) A blanket national petition drive is redundant for many supporters, and it fails to target people in the areas where more visible pressure is desperately needed.

Imagine, for example, if OFA specifically rallied its Republican and independent voters in the [34] G.O.P. districts that Obama won last year -- areas that endorsed his platform but are still represented by Republican incumbents. Imagine a Pennsylvania-focused campaign to make health care a bigger issue for Arlen Specter...

Still a good idea, I think, and in politics, timing can be everything.

The entire OFA email text for these targeted districts is below.

Friend --

A little over a year ago, the congressional district you live in voted to send Barack Obama to the White House and Rep. to Congress. The message was clear: Rep. 's constituents want change, and expect Rep. to work with President Obama and reach across the aisle to help deliver it.

Last weekend, Rep. was called upon to do just that, in the historic vote on health reform. The vote offered a clear choice: Support a bill which draws upon ideas from both parties to guarantee 's district residents secure, affordable health coverage without adding a cent to the deficit, or stand with the insurance companies and right wing pundits to put politics above doing the right thing and stand in the way of history. Unfortunately, Rep. made the wrong choice.

Insurance company lobbyists are constantly visiting congressional offices in Washington, and Rep. may be starting to forget the voters back home. There's one last upcoming vote in the House of Representatives before health reform can become law, so there's still time to remind Rep. what your district wants by arranging a visit of your own.

Can you stop by Rep. 's local office, in ? You can use our simple tool to find the office closest to you, and sign up for a time in the next few days to drop by and let someone on Rep. 's staff know that you are counting on Rep. to support health reform in the final vote. Drop by a local office

(If our records are incorrect, and you don't live in 's district, click here to update your address.)

Your voice is especially powerful in a district like yours where the voters support President Obama and want reform. Rep. must understand that caving to the well-heeled lobbyists in D.C. has consequences at the ballot box back home. And if Rep. stands up, reaches out, and supports the change district residents need, the voters will see that, too.

If you've never visited a local congressional office before, don't worry. No experience is necessary -- we'll give you all the materials you'll need to prepare. This is not about confrontation -- it's simply about expressing your opinion and being heard.

Over 65,000 fellow OFA supporters made office visits like this last August, and we know they can make a tremendous impact. While insurance company lobbyists can swarm the offices in D.C., back in the district ordinary citizens have the loudest voice. When folks like you take the time to show up in person, tell your story, and ask for change, elected officials take notice.

There's still time for Rep. to decide where to stand before the final vote, but not much.

Please sign up for an office visit in , and pass this on to your neighbors so they can join you:

http://my.barackobama.com/OfficeDropBy

Democracy is not a spectator sport. And, right now, we need you in the game.

Thanks for making it happen,

Mitch

Mitch Stewart Director Organizing for America

P.S. -- Please note: our online tool will help you find and plan a time to go to the office, but it can't automatically contact Rep. 's staff or let them know you're coming. You don't need an official appointment to stop by your representative's office and voice your opinion, but if you want to set one up you must call ahead or contact them separately.

Comments (119)

1. good...now how about bought-and-paid-for baucus and his cronies?

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/12/2009 @ 1:24pm

2. Some leftists have a sense of arrogance that is utterly breathtaking!

   Residents in some Congressional districts are being told, apparently, through the "letter" from Mitch Stewart, that:

   "..Hey, your district voted for Obama last year and so now your representative in Congress has the obligation to do whatever Obama wants!!..."

   Somehow, people such as Mitch Stewart never gain the understanding that people are NOT stupid, and if they are dissatisfied with their local representative, they will make that dissatisfaction known on Election Day next year (if the representative runs for re-election).

   People are well able to manage their own affairs without being told by leftists what they are supposed to do, whether it be members of Congress or whether it be the voters.

   Amazing!

   Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2009 @ 1:34pm

3. "Organizing for America is finally dialing up the pressure on Republicans in districts that voted for change last year"

   well, they may have voted for change, but goldman PAID FOR cash.

   change? what a joke.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/12/2009 @ 1:44pm

4. Somehow, people such as Mitch Stewart never gain the understanding that people are NOT stupid, and if they are dissatisfied with their local representative, they will make that dissatisfaction known on Election Day next year (if the representative runs for re-election).

   People are well able to manage their own affairs without being told by leftists what they are supposed to do, whether it be members of Congress or whether it be the voters.

   Amazing!

   Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2009 @ 1:34pm

   SJC,

   Does it ever get into that thick brain of yours that perhaps the Representative got elected BECAUSE the people in the District thought he would work across the aisle and support Obama on some things?

   Reps are elected every 2 years, meaning that the people (who I agree with you, aren't stupid), elected that Representative AT THE SAME TIME AND ON THE SAME BALLOT they elected Obama. Perhaps they actually expected their reps to support the "change" they were voting for with Obama's election, instead of the party line opposition the Republicans have offered from the very beginning.

   Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/12/2009 @ 2:33pm

5. The mask has finally started to slip from the faces of the 'hope and change' Democrats, in the form of the proposed takeover of the health care system - and the message to the American people is, do what we want you to do, buy what we tell you to buy, or go to jail. Most people should realize that this is only a start in how the liberals and their leftist allies intend to take away your liberty and freedom.

   It's time for real Americans to wake up and destroy the leftists in the next election.

   Posted by pontificus at 11/12/2009 @ 2:36pm

6. It's time for an impeachment movement.

   Impeach Barack Hoo-VER Obama -- for bald faced lies and high treason i.e. selling the country down the river to the highest bidder.

   And then let's remove our troops (and "contractors", read war profiteers/capital criminals) from Iraq and Afghanistan, downsize our military by at least an order of magnitude, smash the TBTF banks into tiny bits, usher in aggressive campaign finance reform, and institute a Manhattan Project for clean, renewable energy and a decentralized energy grid.

   And then I woke up in Obama's torture chamber.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/12/2009 @ 2:41pm

7. Jeez Frosty, dispirited much? And pontihead get a life.

   Posted by Denise29 at 11/12/2009 @ 2:42pm

8. Hi b_kool, well it seems by what I've read today that everyone is in a rotten mood, not that I expect a whole lot more, but wow.

   Posted by Denise29 at 11/12/2009 @ 2:44pm

9. Change only chumps believe in-is that the new Obama motto?

   <Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House - a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, We are not enemies, but friends...though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn - I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too.>

   Nov 4, 2008 victory speech.

   Inauguration Speech

   <On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics. We remain a young nation. But in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.>

   I guess he just had a different definition of change?

   Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 2:56pm

10. Stephen_Carver1,

    I am the one with the thick brain?

    Despite the fact that these representatives in question were elected "....AT THE SAME TIME AND ON THE SAME BALLOT...." as Obama, they were also Republicans most likely running against a Democrat. (I say that because it is possible, not likely, but possible that in a given contest there may have been no opponents)

    Thus, if the electorate in these districts had wanted a representative that was a more sure bet to march in lockstep with Obama, they would have elected the Democrat to begin with.

    Thus the choice of these representatives by their constituents was most likely due (on a case by case basis, district by district) on the preference in that district for that candidate over the other one, and not anything to due with Obama.

    Logic (missing from you postings) would dictate that if the only concern the voters had was representatives who cooperated some or all of the time with Obama policy the Democrats in those districts would have been elected instead.

    To get back to MY original post, I can understand (not agree with, but understand) why a leftist may want to lobby for socialist medicine, but to portray that a Republican representative is almost obligated to follow Obama policy because that representatives district voted for Obama is so riduculous it is amusing and hilarious.

    It is beyond absurd, certainly not wrong, but absurd and asinine, and yet you debate me on this practice!

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2009 @ 2:59pm

11. Posted by Denise29 at 11/12/2009 @ 2:42pm

    "Jeez Frosty, dispirited much? And pontihead get a life."

    You are a fool, Denise.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/12/2009 @ 3:14pm

12. antisocialist,

    I just realized something here. This is off the topic of the thread, and I will be cited by the discourse police for vering from the topic, but I noticed something.

    You posted an excerpt from President Obama's inauguration speech up above.

    Two snippets caught my attention:

    "......But in the words of Scripture...."

    "..... the God-given promise......."

    Scripture?

    God-given?

    We are told that when it comes to government and public activities, etc., that God is not to be involved in any way!

    But here we have the President of the United States of America, a totally secular nation (we are frequently told) invoking God at his Inaugration! An offical government function where he is speaking in his official capacity as an officer of our secular, God-free government.

    And this after all the hard work our independent judges have done to scour clean all semblance of religion from public life.

    President Obama has clearly committed high crimes and misdemeanors here, a clear impeachable offense!

    President Obama violated the absolute iron-clad separation of Church and State!

    His administration has been invalid and in a state of misdemeanor and wrong from the very moment it began.

    Articles of impeachment need to be drawn up ASAP (Don't rely on Dennis Kucinich or Ramsey Clark to do this), for this offense against the people.

    (I may be sarcastic and a wise ass at times, but on the other hand many on the left are hypocrites)

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2009 @ 3:15pm

13. We need to clean out the Democratic Party !

    Posted by pjcasey at 11/12/2009 @ 3:18pm

14. Takes one to know one Pointi.

    Posted by Denise29 at 11/12/2009 @ 3:19pm

15. I want to thank OFA in advance! It aims to remind the voters in those 32 districts that the GOP reps actually voted for how most Americans feel, most likely, just like what their districts feel!

    Voting against Magicare is a winner in all but the hopelessly BLUE or dirt poor (and stupid) areas!

    Posted by Happy at 11/12/2009 @ 3:22pm

16. Jeez Frosty, dispirited much?

    Posted by Denise29 at 11/12/2009 @ 2:42pm

    time for some reading, sister.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/

    http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/

    http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/

    http://market-ticker.denninger.net/

    http://baselinescenario.com/

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/12/2009 @ 3:27pm

17. Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2009 @ 3:15pm

    SJ, what do you care?....you don't believe in the Bible?

    Posted by Mask at 11/12/2009 @ 3:35pm

18. Hey, Happy.....Google this up-

    "The Party Of Medicare - Forbes.com"

    Posted by Mask at 11/12/2009 @ 3:48pm

19. OFA is targeting Republicans who have absolutely NO CONTROL whether the psychotic/marxist health-care bill passes. It's juvenile, silly, and par for the course for the cradle-to-grave, nipple-to-gov't, inept, incompetent, and fully dependant left! Embarrassing human beings that can't function without their gov't pacifiers placed permanently between thier twerpish lips!!! LOL

    Posted by barry25 at 11/12/2009 @ 3:56pm

20. And this after all the hard work our independent judges have done to scour clean all semblance of religion from public life.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2009 @ 3:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Lemme see.

    You got Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and sometimes whatshisface/mrfencesitter...

    ...and you're bitching about the judicial system. THAT VERY SAME jacked-up judicial system, so utterly lamented by the neocons, in which you entrust the power to lethally inject people?

    Absurd.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/12/2009 @ 4:06pm

21. Assclowns!

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/12/2009 @ 4:07pm

22. b_kool_66

    I enthusiastically agree with everything you wrote except for impeaching Obama. You are right on the money with the war, campaign finance reform, the banks and clean energy.

    Posted by coleenea at 11/12/2009 @ 4:19pm

23. I notice that the leftists are still ignoring Obama's hypocrisy which I noted in an earlier post. that's because it doesn't line up with their leftist agenda and thus must be ignored, rather than confronting Obama's dishonesty.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 4:25pm

24. I find that 2 of the claims of OFA are hilarious

    "Support a bill which draws upon ideas from both parties to guarantee 's district residents secure, affordable health coverage without adding a cent to the deficit, "

    The american people are not stupid .Even the lefties know that the right had NO part in the crafting of this bill, and they also know (though none especially the ones here that comment ,will have the guts to admit it) that this bill wont add one red cent to the defecit. What a joke . Any one with any common sense will send the e mail right where it belongs in the trash bin .

    As for the OFA and Acorn et al , its so typical for them to strong arm ,lie,cheat and distort their way to get what they want. Because is they just ran on their ideas they wouldnt stand a chance .

    Posted by limoman at 11/12/2009 @ 4:50pm

25. OK Frosty, I read some but not all of what you sent me and I must say that it is extremely depressing. I realize we need to know, and I also realize that knowing is enough to send me to the edge. So I have to balance the knowing with other things or go batty, and if I may, maybe you need to do a little something enjoyable or some such to balance yourself. Now if you want to tell me to go f#@k myself I will understand, but you did call me sister, thanks.

    Posted by Denise29 at 11/12/2009 @ 4:56pm

26. It is long overdue, to bring pressure to bear on status-quo'ers of both parties.

    Joe Liberman, anyone? Baucus takes amongst the most money from health insurers, then his bill leaves out public option. What a joke these defenders of the wealthiest, are.

    Or the Fox-duped Tea Baggers for example. What part of the total failure of the Reagan/Bush agenda, don't they understand. The cut taxes part, or the cut government part?

    It's not hard. Progressives need to sharpen and amplify these plain and simple discreditations, of the unyielding and intellectually bankrupt GOP --- saw a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth

    Posted by reg373 at 11/12/2009 @ 5:26pm

27. In an unusually aggressive move, Organizing for America announced Wednesday that it is mobilizing its volunteer army to confront the 32 Republican legislators who voted against health care reform -- despite representing districts that voted for Obama. ---

    Are any of these districts in VA or NJ? I they are, these ass clowns can send a letter to voters in those states chastizing the voters for not voting for the governor that President Obama instructed them to vote for.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/12/2009 @ 5:32pm

28. And then let's remove our troops (and "contractors", read war profiteers/capital criminals) from Iraq and Afghanistan, ... And then I woke up in Obama's torture chamber. Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/12/2009 @ 2:41pm

    Hey, where did you think they were going... (j/k) ?

    But really folks, we all need to be thinking a lot harder about possible out comes in a clearer and more humane fashion.

    Yes, I want the perpetual war to end, but we also need a nation that can absorb our vets into a functioning productive society. Left to the new con repub party of niet, we're looking at more of a dysfunctional unproductive anti-society.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/12/2009 @ 5:39pm

29. Senator Tom Coburn, the K-street idiot, in the cult of K-street, is holding up a bill that would help our vets and their caretakers, can't anyone take that creep down? He's a doctor too, tell me thats not scarey!

    Posted by Denise29 at 11/12/2009 @ 5:49pm

30. (I may be sarcastic and a wise ass at times, but on the other hand many on the left are hypocrites)

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2009 @ 3:15pm

    And so are just as many on the right.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 5:54pm

31. I notice that the leftists are still ignoring Obama's hypocrisy which I noted in an earlier post. that's because it doesn't line up with their leftist agenda and thus must be ignored, rather than confronting Obama's dishonesty.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 4:25pm

    No they are ignoring you and your off topic sniping.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 5:55pm

32. I notice that the leftists are still ignoring Obama's hypocrisy which I noted in an earlier post. that's because it doesn't line up with their leftist agenda and thus must be ignored, rather than confronting Obama's dishonesty.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 4:25pm

    This type of petty thing makes you sound childish and distracts from a useful discussion. I suppose you don't bring the same argument against Bush who claimed he want to end partisanship and brought it in even larger doses than before. No you only note the conflicting statements of the opposite side and put your head int he sand when people remind you that your side is just as full of hypocrites as any other.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 5:59pm

33. That's the problem with you Larry. You sit here and rant and rave about the short comings of Democrats but never once have you said anything negative about your party unless it was that they were being too liberal too much like Democrats. You have never once admitted to any wrongfulness on the part of a conservative initiative. You can't even admit that your party may have at one time made a mistake in taking a hard right position instead of a center or even (gasp) liberal perspective. So your notation of hypocrites is about as useful as plumber telling me how to fix my car.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 6:06pm

34. Cccomfo1,

    To correct you - you in the post up above "cited" antisocialist for "off topic sniping".

    I am the one who conducted the "off topic sniping" when I mentioned how Obama (right from the start of his Presidency) violated the ABSOLUTE wall of separation of Church and State that has been concocted by the left.

    Here you are, the policeperson patrolling the information superhighway issuing tickets to Conservatives who you decide commit discourse violations, and you have cited the wrong person.

    The violation, or summons, or citation belongs to me and I want it so I can plead guilty in court!!

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2009 @ 6:11pm

35. Here you are, the policeperson patrolling the information superhighway issuing tickets to Conservatives who you decide commit discourse violations, and you have cited the wrong person.

    The violation, or summons, or citation belongs to me and I want it so I can plead guilty in court!!

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2009 @ 6:11p

    No I was talking to Larry not you and I was intentionally commenting on what he said not your post which I also read. I didn't much care about your post because it's tripe either way. It's an inane point and was not even worth commenting on.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 6:16pm

36. If any of you think that your vote will in any way help in your reelection to congress, you are badly mistaken. The american people voted for change not so you could stand in the way of progress. Wise up and assure the american people you care about heqalth care and put your prejudices aside. Wise up.

    Posted by tompkinsjustustd@comcast.net at 11/12/2009 @ 6:30pm

37. Not smart posting your email.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 6:35pm

38. That's the problem with you Larry. You sit here and rant and rave about the short comings of Democrats but never once have you said anything negative about your party unless it was that they were being too liberal too much like Democrats. You have never once admitted to any wrongfulness on the part of a conservative initiative. You can't even admit that your party may have at one time made a mistake in taking a hard right position instead of a center or even (gasp) liberal perspective. So your notation of hypocrites is about as useful as plumber telling me how to fix my car.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 6:06pm

    That is just complete BS...

    Again, it's not my party. I'm not a Republican

    But YOU CAN'T ADMIT THAT OBAMA IS JUST ANOTHER HYPOCRITE POLITICIAN WHO WILL SAY ANYTHING TO BE ELECTED.

    And I've posted dozens of criticisms of Republicans just in the past few days and many times more than that over the past 3 years.

    You're letting your partisan love of the left force you into lying

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 6:54pm

39. Are any of these districts in VA or NJ? I they are, these ass clowns can send a letter to voters in those states chastizing the voters for not voting for the governor that President Obama instructed them to vote for.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/12/2009 @ 5:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Now that was truely funny for such an astute observation on the foolhardy efforts of the Obamanation team to try to turn attention away from his abject failure as leader of the most free nation that used to be a beacon for the world!

    Its almost as funny as how he has increased the esteem of the U.S.A. in the world by shafting our allies and coddling up to S. American marxist every enemy nation that hates freedom!

    The Obamanation and Democrats are so funny you could almost cry and probably will for other reasons!

    Posted by BigPasture at 11/12/2009 @ 7:02pm

40. That is just complete BS...

    Again, it's not my party. I'm not a Republican

    But YOU CAN'T ADMIT THAT OBAMA IS JUST ANOTHER HYPOCRITE POLITICIAN WHO WILL SAY ANYTHING TO BE ELECTED.

    And I've posted dozens of criticisms of Republicans just in the past few days and many times more than that over the past 3 years.

    You're letting your partisan love of the left force you into lying

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 6:54pm

    I blatantly asked you what has your party done wrong and you have never once said anything. I am not lying in any way you are the one being patently dishonest. Like I said you will never admit to conservative wrongdoing unless it is to say they are being too liberal. Do I need to repeat it a third time?

    Also if you would have read my post carefully you would note that I agreed with you that it is hypocritical but it is the same thing that Bush did and you are not leveling charges against him. So this has nothing to do with partisanship on my part. Although you have shown yourself to be one of the most partisan and hypocritical people here.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 7:14pm

41. Big Pissture-What do you read?You need far more information son.I think you could step up your reading list and include Readers Digest for the heavy part and the Onion for the light part of your reading list.

    Posted by whatozz at 11/12/2009 @ 7:16pm

42. You're letting your partisan love of the left force you into lying

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 6:54pm

    This is a staggeringly inane statement. Does that mean that partisan love of the right that you display on an almost minute by minute basis forces you to lie?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 7:17pm

43. (I may be sarcastic and a wise ass at times, but on the other hand many on the left are hypocrites)

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2009 @ 3:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Oh, you mean hypocrites like David Vitter and Larry Craig?

    Posted by jarshadow at 11/12/2009 @ 7:17pm

44. They are pals of John Ensign and Mark Sanford. Did they stay at the religious compound too?

    Posted by whatozz at 11/12/2009 @ 7:36pm

45. I blatantly asked you what has your party done wrong and you have never once said anything. I am not lying in any way you are the one being patently dishonest. Like I said you will never admit to conservative wrongdoing unless it is to say they are being too liberal. Do I need to repeat it a third time?

    Also if you would have read my post carefully you would note that I agreed with you that it is hypocritical but it is the same thing that Bush did and you are not leveling charges against him. So this has nothing to do with partisanship on my part. Although you have shown yourself to be one of the most partisan and hypocritical people here.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 7:14pm

    you'r like the little child that is so anxious to answer that they never hear what you're saying.

    I'M NOT A REPUBLICAN-THEY ARE NOT MY PARTY.

    I've stated many, many times that the Republicans in Congress did little right over the last 8 years. they spent too much and acted like liberals.

    Along with Bush, they passed the Medicare drug bill.

    They were wrong to oppose Bush on amnesty for illegals.

    McCain, Bush and others who were for the Bank bailout were wrong.

    The No child left behind legislation was wrong.

    the Republicans who were exposed as values hypocrites like Sanford and Ensign should have resigned from office.

    The Republicans were wrong on their tactic against Sotomayor. I disagree with her views but would have voted to confirm her.

    That's a few to start. Don't ever say again that I never criticize Republicans.

    And btw, why wouldn't I say that Republicans are wrong when they do something liberal? I'm a conservative.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 7:36pm

46. They are pals of John Ensign and Mark Sanford. Did they stay at the religious compound too?

    Posted by whatozz at 11/12/2009 @ 7:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    definitely...and the hypocrisy goes on!!

    Posted by jarshadow at 11/12/2009 @ 7:44pm

47. Oh and by the way Larry. More evidence of hypocrisy. Yesterday we were discussing Reagans inhereted recession versus Obama's and you gloated that Reagan created 16 million jobs. You have forgotten that the unemployment rate continued to increase under Reagan until 1982 when it topped out at 10.8%. So Obama still has some leeway before you can start saying he has fallen short of Reagan. And what if he does pull us out of an even worse recession than Reagan inhereted? Will you praise him as you praise Reagan?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 7:45pm

48. You're letting your partisan love of the left force you into lying

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 6:54pm

    This is a staggeringly inane statement. Does that mean that partisan love of the right that you display on an almost minute by minute basis forces you to lie?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 7:17pm

    it's different when it comes to lying as you were. We've had this conversation before and I presented you with criticisms of Bush and the Republicans.

    And my biggest way of showing my disagreement is by not voting Republican which is the case in most elections.

    I didn't vote for McCain or Obama in 2008. My wife and I cast write in votes for Alan Keyes as a protest.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 7:46pm

49. And btw, why wouldn't I say that Republicans are wrong when they do something liberal? I'm a conservative.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 7:36pm

    My point is that you don't admit to the occasional short comings of a conservative view point on an issue. Conservative isn't always right just like liberalism isn't always right. Sometimes the viewpoints are mistaken on an issue. Once again you said you disagreed with Republicans because they acted like liberals. I want to see you point to a viewpoint that is conservative and point out why it's wrong based on current evidence. Or has the conservative viewpoint always been right?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 7:48pm

50. This is rich. The left wants to remind people the Republicans voted to kill the worst bill in history and save them from an authoritarian government. I will take those odds any day. It's like free advertising.

    Of course most people want to fix healthcare, but they don't want to replace it with something far far worse - something oppresive and anti-freedom which is what the democrats barfed up.

    Posted by pyeatte at 11/12/2009 @ 7:50pm

51. "it's different when it comes to lying as you were. We've had this conversation before and I presented you with criticisms of Bush and the Republicans. "

    So lying for the left is different than lying for the right? I thought all lying was supposed to be the same Larry. And you have not shown me to be a liar. I was very careful about what I said. I said you never criticize conservatives except to say they are acting like liberals. You have never taken a stance of disagreeance after evidence has shown the conservative viewpoint to be flawed. So no I have not in any way lied I picked my words carefully and you have not read them carefully enoguh to understand them.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 7:52pm

52. Also if Obama keeps the federal deficit below 3 Trillion he will also have done better than Reagan.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 7:57pm

53. My point is that you don't admit to the occasional short comings of a conservative view point on an issue. Conservative isn't always right just like liberalism isn't always right. Sometimes the viewpoints are mistaken on an issue. Once again you said you disagreed with Republicans because they acted like liberals. I want to see you point to a viewpoint that is conservative and point out why it's wrong based on current evidence. Or has the conservative viewpoint always been right?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 7:48pm

    I already gave you one. I said that the conservatives were wrong on the amnesty for illegals.

    However, as a general rule it is illogical to say that I could find fault with a conservative viewpoint since my agreement with conservativism is why I'm a conservative.

    Other than the immigration issue, I cannot think of an issue where conservatives were wrong.

    The Republicans (not conservatives) who were isolationists pre-WWII were wrong. But again, they weren't conservatives. They were the North East liberal Republican establishment, which I have no agreement with.

    there is a reason why I'm not a Republican and mostly vote 3rd party. The Republicans tend to advance socialism slowly while the Democrats want to rush headlong into socialism.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 8:08pm

54. Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 8:08pm

    How about the stance on drug laws?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 8:26pm

55. Or the promotion of some foreign policy acts that have been against even American law like the Iran-Contra policy or the support of the Mujahideen?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 8:27pm

56. Or how about conservative support of Prop 13 which means that taxes can neither be raised OR lowered in California and is part of the major problem with California financial politics because it has aided to the inflexibility and unrealistically large hurdles to past ANY kind of legislation to change California fiscal policy be it conservative or liberal.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 8:31pm

57. Oh and while you may stubbornly uphold that I am far left I disagree with many things that liberals have to say or at least modify them to some degree. I am not liberal I am a pragmatist. I am in support of what works.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 8:33pm

58. Only on issues of morality do I argue one way or another.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 8:34pm

59. Also if Obama keeps the federal deficit below 3 Trillion he will also have done better than Reagan.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 7:57pm

    I'd love to hear an explanation for that remark.

    The 1989 budget deficit was 152 billion and was 2.1% of GDP

    in 2009, the CBO says the deficit is 10% of GDP and that is at 1.4 trillion deficit.

    "The Obama Administration's claims of fiscal responsibility are both hypocritical .... [a]nd laughable," Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who served as director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) from 2003 through 2005

    "Despite repeated attempts to blame all fiscal woes on the previous administration, the facts show that under Republicans the deficit never exceeded 3.6 percent of GDP and at the close of fiscal year 2008 the debt-to-GDP ratio was 40 percent," he wrote.

    "The CBO indicates that under the administration's plans, the deficit will never fall below 4 percent of GDP and the debt-to-GDP ratio will be 82 percent and spiraling upward," wrote Holtz-Eakin.

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55498

    From some economists, I've seen estimates that the US would have to see positive GDP growth beginning next year that is 3 times greater than even the Obama administration is projecting. And Obama's people have already downgraded their GDP growth projection for next year to just over 2%

    It will be impossible to cut this deficit without a major tax increase on not only the middle class, but lower income Americans will also be hit.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 8:42pm

60. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 7:45pm

    By a FAIR standard, the Right should give Obama until atleast Winter 2011 to fix the economy.

    From the signing of the tax cuts in August 1981 to the break in unemployment after Spring 1983...nearly two years before "Reaganomics" "fixed the economy"....even if you don't dispute that.

    Obama stimulus passed in March 2009....means the Right SHOULD give him until 2011....yes?

    Posted by Mask at 11/12/2009 @ 9:01pm

61. Posted by Denise29 at 11/12/2009 @ 4:56pm

    oh, that's o.k.

    i'm very happy -- i love my family, this planet and my work.

    be safe.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/12/2009 @ 9:26pm

62. ....happy -- i love my family, this planet and my work.

    be safe.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/12/2009 @ 9:26pm

    You just don't love STUPID HUMANS, other than your family.

    Posted by Happy at 11/12/2009 @ 9:40pm

63. <Oily health bill fails to build trust

    Americans remain wary of the plan, according to polling, because they don't trust it will do the things President Barack Obama claims it will do, and won't do the things he promises it won't.

    Despite the president's "Don't worry, trust me" assurances that the reforms will deliver universal coverage with superior care and at a lower cost without disrupting current coverage, more than half of Americans aren't buying -- and it's not because they're frightened by Republican hainty tales. They know what snake oil smells like.

    They don't trust the cost estimates, and for good reason. Taxpayers are being asked to swallow the incredible claim that the cost of the bill will be offset by savings gained from efficiencies and taxes on the wealthy. But as the Wall Street Journal notes, even confiscating 100 percent of the income of the truly rich won't raise enough revenue to pay for this bill. And the New York Times reports most analysts say the savings estimates are unachievable.

    Big shock. Americans know this drill. In 1965, Medicare Part A was estimated to cost the nation $9 billion by 1990. Actual cost: $67 billion, according to the Cato Institute.

    Similarly, in 1988, when a home health care benefit was added to Medicare, the cost was pegged at $4 billion. Actual: $10 billion. And the Medicare Part D drug benefit doubled in cost in the time it took to move from Congress to the president's desk.>

    http://tinyurl.com/yfkbhh3

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 10:11pm

64. By a FAIR standard, the Right should give Obama until atleast Winter 2011 to fix the economy. Posted by Mask at 11/12/2009 @ 9:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Sorry, he has already had the 8 months you leftwingnuts gave Bush! The party is over.

    Posted by BigPasture at 11/12/2009 @ 11:33pm

65. Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 8:42pm

    You're judging by the end of Reagans term. During Reagans term the deficit swelled to 2.6 trillion. That's why I said if he keeps it below 3 trillion he will be doing well. Then his job as he has said he will and I hope he will is to reduce the deficit over the next 4 or maybe 8 years. You seem to paint a rosy picture of Regeanism but you aren't giving the same courtesy to everyone else. You are judging Reagan only on what he achieved by the end of an 8 year stint in office but you are judging Obama by the same standards after only being in office a year. If we judge them for the same time then you will see that Obama is actually doing fiscally better than Reagan did in the same time AND the recession he inhereted was worse than Reagans.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 11:46pm

66. Posted by Mask at 11/12/2009 @ 9:01pm

    Rarely is the standard applied equally to both sides. It seems our local right wing friends believe Reagan took office and that day the economy turned around. It seems they forget that it took a lot of time and patience. The same time and patience they don't want to give Obama. They expect Obama to turn the economy around over night and then they call liberals the Kool Aid drinkers. Even when their idol Reagan was allowed to perform his miracles in 8 years.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 11:50pm

67. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 11:50pm

    "They expect Obama to turn the economy around over night and then they call liberals the Kool Aid drinkers. Even when their idol Reagan was allowed to perform his miracles in 8 years."

    It took a lot less than eight years. More like four.

    And we didn't have to put up with absurd statements like 'we have to spend more money or we will go bankrupt'. You liberal jackasses will never get it, I guess. Unemployment will continue to climb this year, as the Democratic Congress and President continue to spend money like there's no tomorrow. It's just unfortunate that the country will have to suffer for your delusions, just as we did under Carter. The unemployment rate will be 12+ percent by the time of the 2010 elections, at which time the Dems will lose 20+ seats in the House and 5+ seats in the Senate. This country will continue to suffer the stupidity of the Democrats, and we'll need the Republicans to sort it out again.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/13/2009 @ 01:06am

68. "Gov. Rick Perry had some pretty strong comments about the Obama administration on Wednesday in Midland, saying, "This is an administration hell-bent on taking America towards a socialist country.""

    Hey, dissent is the highest form of patriotism, right liberals? Let's all celebrate here at the Nation the highest form of patriotism of Gov. Rick Perry, shall we?

    Of course, none of you ever read Nichols' column 'what's wrong with socialism', did you?

    Posted by pontificus at 11/13/2009 @ 01:11am

69. "Gov. Rick Perry ... Hey, dissent is the highest form of patriotism, right liberals? Posted by pontificus at 11/13/2009 @ 01:11am

    Er, mostly only if you're not a dumb-ass that's usually way wrong with overly good hair...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/13/2009 @ 06:02am

70. Sorry, he has already had the 8 months you leftwingnuts gave Bush! The party is over.----Posted by BigPasture at 11/12/2009 @ 11:33pm

    I was talking the economy, not terrorist attacks, Rio.

    And the fact remains, it took nearly or atleast TWO YEARS before (again accepting the premise) Reagan's tax cuts turned the economy around.

    You guys won't give Obama even a year. Why is that?

    Posted by Mask at 11/13/2009 @ 07:28am

71. Posted by Mask at 11/13/2009 @ 07:28am

    "You guys won't give Obama even a year. Why is that?"

    Gee, MASK, you really haven't a clue why? Are you really that stupid?

    Why don't you tell me how spending trillions we don't have, running the printing presses on triple shifts, debasing the currency and devaluing the dollar, driving the price of gold sky high, sucking money out of the economy that should have been used for private sector jobs, saying 'we have to spend money to keep going bankrupt'.....none of that raises any common sense flags with you? What kind of job or life do you have where common sense is not needed?

    I read an article by Paul Krugman today where he states that the government needs to spend money to create jobs - the most absurd plan I've ever heard, and this guy is an economist? It's idiotic on its face - if the government could create jobs by spending money, why not just eliminate the private sector all together and have everyone work for the government. Oh wait...we already tried that, didn't we? In the Soviet Union? How'd that work out? How's it working out in Cuba? North Korea?

    Not only that, this kind of patent stupidity is being proposed by one of the leading luminaries of the self-regarded 'intellectual elite'? Today's liberals are the most amazingly deluded cult of idiots since that group of UFO cultists out in California.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/13/2009 @ 08:17am

72. Posted by hsuBfools at 11/13/2009 @ 06:02am

    "Er, mostly only if you're not a dumb-ass that's usually way wrong with overly good hair..."

    Oh, yeah, I see. You mean 'dissent is the highest form of patriotism' only when you agree with the dissenter. You're fucking brilliant.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/13/2009 @ 08:25am

73. Today's liberals are the most amazingly deluded cult of idiots since that group of UFO cultists out in California.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/13/2009 @ 08:17am

    Now, don't be THAT hard on the "cult"....

    In the long, long, long term, I'll bet with the "cult" being right than "Today's liberals" in, like, forever....LOL!

    Posted by Happy at 11/13/2009 @ 09:40am

74. Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/12/2009 @ 2:41pm

    b_kool-66, You have my vote!

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/13/2009 @ 09:47am

75. Now if you want to tell me to go f#@k myself I will understand, but you did call me sister, thanks.

    Posted by Denise29 at 11/12/2009 @ 4:56pm

    Denise, Frosty is a good guy. People in this country are so indoctrinated into the two party system that they don't really look at what is happening around them. In reality, the Canadians are the best ally we've got.

    We all tend to believe what our chosen party tells us to believe. In short, we're niave about what is going on. Look closely at what Obama has done as president. Granted he hasn't gone off the deep end into Afghanistan, but the fact that he's considering sending more American soldiers into an area that isn't U.S. turf and a country we aren't at war with should be some sign of problems to anyone calling themself a democrat.

    We're all programmed to believe that our government means to do well in other countries and that our military basically has God on it's side. None of this, of course, is true, but there are a lot of folks out there who actually believe this.

    Obama hasn't pulled us out of Iraq, he put neocons in charge of the banking sector...Geithner, Bernanke, Larry Summers etc. Nobody has been held accountable for the oil speculation that took place and evidently is still taking place, nobody has been held accountable for the banking industry fiasco nor has anything been done to reinstate some of the controls that would keep another economical meltdown from taking place.

    I voted for Obama myself, but up to now, he's pretty much been sitting on the fence watching the show and letting the small fry take the heat and do the fighting. That is not what he was elected to do. He is no longer running for president, he is the president and it's high time he started acting like it.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/13/2009 @ 10:04am

76. Obama's Organizing Army Finally Targets Republicans

    Which republicans are you referring too? The GOP republicans or the blue dog republicans posing as democrats. Rahm Emanuel is so caught up in playing politics and keeping majorities that he's become a more benign version of Karl Rove....putting politics in front of running the country. They are in power, now it's time to use it. Quit playing politics Rahm and Obama!

    Go after the bluedog turncoats.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/13/2009 @ 10:14am

77. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/13/2009 @ 10:04am

    "I voted for Obama myself, but up to now, he's pretty much been sitting on the fence watching the show and letting the small fry take the heat and do the fighting. That is not what he was elected to do. He is no longer running for president, he is the president and it's high time he started acting like it."

    He IS acting like a President, my friend. And to the extent he is NOT acting like President and is acting like Santa Claus istead, he is screwing up big time.

    The reason why he's not doing all the things you think he should be doing - closing Gitmo, pulling out of Iraq, giving up on Afghanistan, is because these ideas never made any sense in the first place. And if he did them, he'd take a fast track to disaster, and he knows it. He wants a second term, you see. You should wake up, because all this is called 'reality hitting you in the face'.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/13/2009 @ 10:15am

78. You're judging by the end of Reagans term. During Reagans term the deficit swelled to 2.6 trillion. That's why I said if he keeps it below 3 trillion he will be doing well. Then his job as he has said he will and I hope he will is to reduce the deficit over the next 4 or maybe 8 years. You seem to paint a rosy picture of Regeanism but you aren't giving the same courtesy to everyone else. You are judging Reagan only on what he achieved by the end of an 8 year stint in office but you are judging Obama by the same standards after only being in office a year. If we judge them for the same time then you will see that Obama is actually doing fiscally better than Reagan did in the same time AND the recession he inhereted was worse than Reagans.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 11:46pm

    Why do you make this stuff up?

    the highest level of deficit in the Reagan years was 1986 when it hit 221 Billion.

    I'm giving Obama the same level of respect that HIS OWN PROJECTIONS AND THAT OF CONGRESS merit.

    You say Obama is doing better at the same time in office?

    In Reagan's first year in office, the deficit climbed just over 6%.

    In Obama's first year in office, the deficit climbed over 300%.

    the following link from San Jose State University Economics Professor Thayer Watkins not only shows the much greater economic problems that Reagan faced, but what occurred as he corrected the terrible results of bad domestic policy that began with LBJ and continued with Nixon, Ford, and Carter.

    http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/resume2.htm

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 10:16am

79. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/13/2009 @ 10:04am

    It's actually kinda funny to watch your confusion, Wolfgang. Obama is more than happy to indulge your delusions to get your vote, but he hasn't really figured out how to tell you and your ilk yet that all the things you want aren't actually very good ideas. It really is kind of amusing. Now you're calling Rahm Emanuel some kind of Karl Rove? LOL

    Posted by pontificus at 11/13/2009 @ 10:20am

80. Gold hit $1,123 today - and it's going a lot higher. Please remember to save all that paper money in your bank account, you're going to need it to wipe your ass with by the time Obama and the Congress get through. Of course, you'll have to ask their permission first.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/13/2009 @ 10:25am

81. Oh and while you may stubbornly uphold that I am far left I disagree with many things that liberals have to say or at least modify them to some degree. I am not liberal I am a pragmatist. I am in support of what works.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 8:33pm

    You're not a liberal?

    So, you oppose higher taxes on the wealthy?

    You oppose single payer or UHC?

    You oppose increasing union strength and the card check bill?

    You oppose abortion?

    You oppose homosexual marriage?

    You oppose repealing the marxist estate tax laws?

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 10:30am

82. Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 8:08pm

    <How about the stance on drug laws? Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 8:26pm |>

    As a libertarian, I believe conservatives are wrong on strict drug laws and they should be repealed

    <Or the promotion of some foreign policy acts that have been against even American law like the Iran-Contra policy or the support of the Mujahideen?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 8:27pm |>

    I have mixed feelings on Iran-Contra. I would not have made the arms deal with Iran. However, the President was completely right in arming the Contra's despite the unconstitutional and treasonous attempt by Congress to prevent the President from defending our national security against the communists in Nicaragua.

    <Or how about conservative support of Prop 13 which means that taxes can neither be raised OR lowered in California and is part of the major problem with California financial politics because it has aided to the inflexibility and unrealistically large hurdles to past ANY kind of legislation to change California fiscal policy be it conservative or liberal.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 8:31pm>

    Prop 13 is one of the prouder moments I hold as a conservative. I voted enthusiastically for prop 13 and remain grateful that it has put at least a small hurdle in front of the marxist CA legislature. It hasn't stopped them from spending like drunken sailors. The CA legislature cares nothing about tax payers

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 10:36am

83. Posted by pontificus at 11/13/2009 @ 08:17am

    Aside from saying "It's stupid....stupid...STUPID!"

    can you answer my question?

    Why is it we had to give "Reaganomics" TWO YEARS to succeed....but you guys won't give Obama even a year?

    Posted by Mask at 11/13/2009 @ 10:37am

84. "I have mixed feelings on Iran-Contra."----Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 10:36am

    The fact that Larry is even capable of "mixed feelings" still remains debatable. No doubt he quite easily set aside his anti-Muslim/Israel-Right-or-Wrong attitude about selling weapons to Iran....since it was Reagan and it was "stopping the Commies from marching across the Rio Grande".

    Posted by Mask at 11/13/2009 @ 10:59am

85. Posted by Mask at 11/13/2009 @ 10:37am

    "Why is it we had to give "Reaganomics" TWO YEARS to succeed....but you guys won't give Obama even a year?"

    Because Reaganomics made SENSE MASK - cut taxes and the private sector will create jobs and wealth. Reagan said it during the campaign and followed through with it. It made sense when he proposed it and it worked great, so much so that the liberals by the end of the 80's were crying about 'the decade of greed' and complaining, as they always do, that people were getting rich. What about that do you NOT understand?

    And on the other hand, we have Obama, Botox Nancy, Punchdrunk Harry, and his minions saying 'we have to spend more money to avoid bankruptcy'....does that make any kind of sense to you? Of course it's going to lead to an economic train wreck. When has it ever NOT?

    Posted by pontificus at 11/13/2009 @ 11:09am

86. Posted by Happy at 11/13/2009 @ 09:40am

    Hey Hap, how are you playing the dollar collapse? I bought $10,000 worth of gold two days after Obama was elected, it's gone up about 35 percent. I've had an order in for a month for silver, I won't get it till Christmas, if then. Everyone with any money is dumping their dollars.

    Stupid me, I should have bought gold mining stocks. They're up 300 percent since last year.

    I figure near term gold will go at least to $2,500, the inflation adjusted 1980 high. In 5-10 years, I figure at least $10,000 per ounce. At least when Carter was President, we didn't have the impending Social Security collapse. No relief in sight until at least next November, people should be fed up enough by then to at least paralyze the Congress into not doing any more damage. But the next 3 years, at least, and probably 4 after that, do not look good at all.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/13/2009 @ 11:30am

87. Posted by pontificus at 11/13/2009 @ 11:09am

    So, your only reason for not giving "Obamanomics" the SAME benefit of the doubt as we were supposed to give Reagan is...

    YOU don't think it "makes sense."

    BTW, again, you DO know that in 1983 as unemployment was still bad, Reagan signed a highway works bill that not only raised taxes on gasoline, but the money was to go to "make-work projects" for highway building and repair?

    Posted by Mask at 11/13/2009 @ 11:51am

88. Posted by Mask at 11/13/2009 @ 11:51am

    "So, your only reason for not giving "Obamanomics" the SAME benefit of the doubt as we were supposed to give Reagan is... YOU don't think it "makes sense."

    No, I don't, because it obviously doesn't. We lived through this movie before, in the late '70s. It seems like every generation has to learn the same lessons over and over again - no, you can't spend your way to prosperity. This is not Costco, the more you spend the more you save. And as I've asked you three times, at least, by now, do you think 'we need to spend more money to keep from going bankrupt' makes sense? When has an economic problem like this EVER been solved by spending more money? Even Morgenthau said that trying to spend their way out of the Depression failed. Churchill said trying to spend your way out of difficulties was like trying to lift yourself up by your shoelaces. And if spending more money keeps you from going bankrupt, why don't we all do it? Don't you learn ANYTHING from the past?

    "BTW, again, you DO know that in 1983 as unemployment was still bad, Reagan signed a highway works bill that not only raised taxes on gasoline, but the money was to go to "make-work projects" for highway building and repair?"

    Was the bill his idea? You do know, of course, that bills originate in the House, don't you? Did Tip O'Neil, who gloried in running the Congress and rejecting Reagan's proposed budgets, create the bill? It's a classic for you liberals to blame Reagan for all the bad stuff that came out of the Democratic Congresses he had to deal with.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/13/2009 @ 12:01pm

89. "BTW, again, you DO know that in 1983 as unemployment was still bad, Reagan signed a highway works bill that not only raised taxes on gasoline, but the money was to go to "make-work projects" for highway building and repair?"

    Posted by pontificus at 11/13/2009 @ 12:01pm

    I assume from the quotation marks you are quoting another blogger.

    I happen to agree with Reagan that a USER tax like the fuel tax was a proper constitional means of maintaining the infrastructure. It is certainly preferable to the Democrat method of using the marxist progressive income tax.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 12:17pm

90. Was the bill his idea? ---Posted by pontificus at 11/13/2009 @ 12:01pm

    "Was the bill his idea?"!??!?!?!?......What does that have to do with it, Ponti?

    HE SIGNED IT. If he didn't agree with it, he could have vetoed it....he didn't.

    Posted by Mask at 11/13/2009 @ 12:24pm

91. Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 12:17pm

    Larry's got me on Ignore for a while, Ponti. Or pretending to.

    Posted by Mask at 11/13/2009 @ 12:26pm

92. Wolfgang1, Frosty is one of my favorite posters here, I know he is very even handed and I respect that about him. Same goes for me as far as Obama goes, I really feel he needs to s#@t or get off the pot, so to speak, but thank you for your words, they make a lot of sense, of which we seem to be in very short supply. I also learn from frosty, and the whole nation blog clan, so I should say thanks. Thanks.

    Posted by Denise29 at 11/13/2009 @ 1:02pm

93. The Tea Party will be targeting anyone who voted for HC reform with the public option and especially if any abortion capability is included.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/13/2009 @ 1:15pm

94. Posted by Mask at 11/13/2009 @ 12:24pm

    "HE SIGNED IT. If he didn't agree with it, he could have vetoed it....he didn't."

    Uh huh. Boy are you naive. Presidents have to sign lots of things they don't necessarily agree with. For example, Tip O'Neill regularly presented Reagan with a budget-busting spending plan called the Omnibus Spending Bill - sign it or shut down the government. It's not practical to veto such a Bill - the media would have pinned the blame on Reagan for being too obstinate - and the public would have believed them. In practice, every Bill tendered is a compromise. The fact that he signed it doesn't necessarily prove anything - he may have agreed to sign it in exchange for something else that was more important to his agenda. This is why statements of philosophy are so important. It's why it's so absurd for liberals to call Reagan a big spender. Everyone knows liberals are the tax and spenders while Republicans are - or should be, if they are true Republicans - for limited taxes and government.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/13/2009 @ 1:41pm

95. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/13/2009 @ 10:04am

    You're a good candidate for becoming an independent.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/13/2009 @ 1:55pm

96. 'You oppose homosexual marriage?' -- antisocialist

    I could be wrong, but wasn't this the position of the 'liberal' President Obama?

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 11/13/2009 @ 2:11pm

97. Posted by Denise29 at 11/13/2009 @ 1:02pm

    For what it's worth, you also put out some pretty good ideas out there yourself. I like to read what people have to say that can actually reason for themselves. You are definitely one that can. I don't rent space in my head to idiots like Barry and the others, I put them on ignore. Life is too short. I think these blogs are great.

    People of different backgrounds get to bounce ideas off one another and also find out quite a bit of info that isn't published or put out there in the general media format.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/13/2009 @ 2:53pm

98. "Presidents have to sign lots of things they don't necessarily agree with."----Posted by pontificus at 11/13/2009 @ 1:41pm

    What if he AGREED with it, Ponti?

    "That's why I'm pleased today to sign House resolution 6211, the Surface Transportation Assistance Act for 1982. It will help America enter a brighter and a more prosperous decade ahead. And so saying, and before the bridges fall down, I'll get this bill signed. [Laughter]

    [At this point, the President began to sign the bill.]

    I don't know why it takes so much more to do the bill than it does for me to talk about it. [Laughter]

    It is law."

    Note: The President spoke at 9:53 a.m. at the signing ceremony in the State Dining Room at the White House.

    As enacted, H.R. 6211 is Public Law 97 - 424, approved January 6.

    January 6, 1983---"On this day in 1983, President Ronald Reagan gave the green light to one of his pet proposals, a gas tax hike designed to raise funds for the nation's roads and bridges. That the bill made it to the Oval Office was something of a minor miracle, as the nationÝs legislators spent a good part of the fall embroiled in a nasty partisan debate over the relative merits of the tax hike. However, the Senate finally passed the bill on December 23, 1982, paving the way for the Federal gas tax to be increased by a nickel.

    The heftier tax rate in turn promised to raise $5.5 billion a year for highway repairs and general transportation maintenance. And, though the president was not one for using public funds to stimulate employment, some legislators estimated that the tax increase would help create roughly 320,000 jobs."

    www.history.com

    Posted by Mask at 11/13/2009 @ 3:10pm

99. Thanks Wolfgang for the heads up, everyone needs that occasionally.

    Posted by Denise29 at 11/13/2009 @ 3:37pm

100. Hey Hap, how are you playing the dollar collapse?...

     Posted by pontificus at 11/13/2009 @ 11:30am

     I didn't move into gold until May, when I became convinced that Magic is hopelessly ignorant and advised by fools. The Pork Bill and his first very own first Budget....and CBO's $10 Trillion more (deficits) to come.

     But I bought far more gold mining stock mutual fund than physical gold. Mining stocks have much higher Beta and good for trading.

     The Recession will worsen next year; possibly a lot worse if Pork II (or whatever it's called) involves more printing of dough. Magic doesn't get it.....the flip side of "It's the Economy, Stupid" is "It's the Deficits".

     We've lost 2~3 years' worth of normal business start-ups and as most informed investors know, it's the newest businesses that create the most jobs....and it just ain't there and I don't see that changing. Sure, some will `start', like ibble's, that rely on subsidies.....bad, inefficient use of capital.

     I am making money, quite a bit actually......but I have a bad feeling for America as a whole.

     Posted by Happy at 11/13/2009 @ 3:57pm

101. Posted by Denise29 at 11/13/2009 @ 1:02pm

     "Wolfgang1, Frosty is one of my favorite posters here, I know he is very even handed and I respect that about him. "

     FROSTY is a dickhead, Denise. He's got no job, his wife supports him, and he spends all day on the internet. He once told me that people in Cuba aren't slaves, because they don't want to leave. Considering he is black, I find that highly ironic because that's exactly what the slaveowners in the Old South used to say about their slaves. He also said that the people who try to escape Cuba are 'greedy' and intimated that those who die trying to escape pretty much get what they deserve. All in all, he's a fine representation of the type of person that reads The Nation without laughing.

     Posted by pontificus at 11/13/2009 @ 5:25pm

102. Posted by Mask at 11/13/2009 @ 3:10pm

     "The heftier tax rate in turn promised to raise $5.5 billion a year for highway repairs and general transportation maintenance. And, though the president was not one for using public funds to stimulate employment, some legislators estimated that the tax increase would help create roughly 320,000 jobs."

     I'm not sure what latest tangent you're going off on here, MASK, but there's nothing 'liberal' about spending money to build and maintain roads. Construction of roads was recognized as integral to the government's function in Jefferson's time, it's hardly a new idea. And as was made clear in the article you cited, Reagan did not consider this to be a job creation idea per se - because it isn't. He signed the bill in order to increase funding for transportation, not to create jobs. And I would not be surprised in the least to find that the funds from the increased gas tax he signed were diverted to some big government boondoggle in the middle of the night (as they were in my then home state of Maryland several years back).

     Actually, this confusion that liberals have - that the multiplier for government boondoggles is greater than 1 (that the money spent somehow causes a net creation of wealth) - is the root of the problem in the Porkulus Bill. Most of the money taken out of private hands and spent by the government is simply frittered away and wasted, instead of being reinvested by private companies to create new jobs and new wealth.

     Posted by pontificus at 11/13/2009 @ 5:38pm

103. You're not a liberal?

     So, you oppose higher taxes on the wealthy?

     You oppose single payer or UHC?

     You oppose increasing union strength and the card check bill?

     You oppose abortion?

     You oppose homosexual marriage?

     You oppose repealing the marxist estate tax laws?

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 10:30am

     Funny how you think you get to define what a liberal is.

     Abortion has nothing to do with liberal or conservative for one. Same with homosexual marriage. Before homosexual marriage wouldn't have even been an issue politically. Conservatives like Ronald Reagan are the ones who started the belief that government should determine peoples morals for them.

     I don't oppose increasing union strength because I don't think the government should have any place in unions. People have the right to organize as they see fit. Let the companies decide if they want to deal with unions and if they don't then let them deal with the consequences.

     I am not for or against UHC or Single Payer. I am for what works. If it is shown to be flawed then I will join you in saying it was flawed. As of now it seems like the only workable alternative because the road we are currently on is not economically sustainable.

     I don't fundamentally oppose higher taxes on anyone. I am opposed to creating a budget that you are not going to actually pay for as Bush did. While Obama right now is creating debt to combat the downfall of the economy he says he has a plan to pay for it. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt to prove otherwise. Bush proved he had no plan to pay for his wars and never thought that far ahead I guess.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/13/2009 @ 6:32pm

104. Prop 13 is one of the prouder moments I hold as a conservative. I voted enthusiastically for prop 13 and remain grateful that it has put at least a small hurdle in front of the marxist CA legislature. It hasn't stopped them from spending like drunken sailors. The CA legislature cares nothing about tax payers

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 10:36am

     Prop 13 was the most short sighted moronic method to stop CA legislator from raising taxes. You know how you stop insane spending? You vote them out. You don't put a roadblock in the middle of the legislative process. The problem with prop 13 is that it doesn't stop spending it inhibits the raising of taxes to pay for said spending. Maybe if you contend that the tax payers actually don't want them spending all this money you should have never voted for prop 13 so that the legislator COULD raise taxes and piss the tax payers in order to spur them into voting for someone else.

     However the taxpayers are the ones who want all this spending. So yes they do care about the tax payers because if they cut all these programs the people would be pissed.

     Instead a bunch of morons got together and said let's cripple the state legislator so that they have spend money they don't have because they can't get the money because people who had no sight of the future voted for selfishness instead of intelligence. If they were intelligent they would have let the legislator continue their runaway spending until voters decided they didn't want it anymore. Instead they chose to let the legislator continue to provide all the programs people are asking for and zero cost to the people. Until the state sinks.

     Even Reagan raised taxes in California in order to balance the budget.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/13/2009 @ 6:39pm

105. "I have mixed feelings on Iran-Contra. I would not have made the arms deal with Iran. However, the President was completely right in arming the Contra's despite the unconstitutional and treasonous attempt by Congress to prevent the President from defending our national security against the communists in Nicaragua. "

     It was AGAINST US law. It's not UnConstitutional nor was it treasonous. Congress was upholding the law that the administration had flouted. Or do you agree with Nixon that when the President does it it isn't against the law? REAGAN was the one who created the commission to investigate the illegal activities. Again this was an action of short sightedness. Not looking to the future as the administration is supposed to.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/13/2009 @ 6:48pm

106. "As a libertarian, I believe conservatives are wrong on strict drug laws and they should be repealed "

     Theres one. Ding Ding.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/13/2009 @ 6:49pm

107. I don't fundamentally oppose higher taxes on anyone. I am opposed to creating a budget that you are not going to actually pay for as Bush did. While Obama right now is creating debt to combat the downfall of the economy he says he has a plan to pay for it. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt to prove otherwise. Bush proved he had no plan to pay for his wars and never thought that far ahead I guess.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/13/2009 @ 6:32pm

     Nonsense, the Bush budgets were headed for surplus by 2011 until the recession hit and the Dems retook Congress. All without raising taxes.

     Bush could have still held the line if he would have vetoed some of those Dem budgets in 2007 and 2008

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 8:17pm

108. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/13/2009 @ 6:39pm

     Thankfully, most Californians continue to disagree with your views on Prop 13.

     As it is, the marxist CA legislature has pretty much bankrupted CA and a recent poll shows little confidence by Californians that it will ever recover.

     I continue to look to move out of this state as it has long lost it's appeal to anyone who loves liberty.

     If you had lived here in the 50's, you muight feel differently.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 8:23pm

109. Nonsense, the Bush budgets were headed for surplus by 2011 until the recession hit and the Dems retook Congress. All without raising taxes.

     Bush could have still held the line if he would have vetoed some of those Dem budgets in 2007 and 2008

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 8:17pm

     BS. The bush budget wouldn't have hit surplus as long as he had two wars being fought on the credit card. you can't continually being racking up debt and say that that will lead to surplus. he was still gaining debt even before the recession hit. How can you possibly believe that even though Bush continued to rack up more and more debt that that equation was going to somehow lead to surplus?

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/13/2009 @ 11:08pm

110. Thankfully, most Californians continue to disagree with your views on Prop 13.

     As it is, the marxist CA legislature has pretty much bankrupted CA and a recent poll shows little confidence by Californians that it will ever recover.

     I continue to look to move out of this state as it has long lost it's appeal to anyone who loves liberty.

     If you had lived here in the 50's, you muight feel differently.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 8:23pm

     Most Californians still want the programs they just don't want to pay the cost. Which tells me most Californians don't know basic accounting. That's why people got so pissed when they started slashing budget to try to balance. The problem is Californians are living on a credit card that is fast running out. You blame the "Marxist Legislator" but I blame the people. I the people didn't like the programs the government was giving them they would have voted them out a long time ago. They have had a plethora of time. The people want all of the programs. All Prop 13 has done is thrown a mask over their eyes so they don't actually have to pay for the programs they ask for out of pocket. Which is why even if you uphold your theory that the people would vote the legislator out Prop 13 is still monumentally stupid because if the taxpayers had to pay for the programs maybe they would have stopped asking for them and or voted out the people creating them.

     I would contend that the legislator has done nothing that the majority of Californians didn't want. And I think the continued voting for said legislator is proof of that.

     "If you had lived here in the 50's, you muight feel differently."

     I think the budget would have been the least of my worries in the 50s considering my skin tone. But maybe I would have.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/13/2009 @ 11:14pm

111. There is amazingly too much commentary posted herein by wannabe Rush Limbaughs, especially by the hateful, spite-filled 'sjchermak' and the rabidly-antigovernment 'antisocial*ist'. I am surprised they are even on The Nation site, given their hatred of 'liberals' and the 'left', whom they seem to wish to kill. I suppose they just get kicks vilifying people who actually agree with the writers of The Nation. Because they sure don't.

     But it makes me sad that even after the UTTER disaster for the US and the world of the last eight years of 'conservative' and Republican roughshod rule, and the COMPLETE world failure of capitalism and Friedmanism, a failure that had to have the financial system be saved by government socialism, these types of people still hang on to their misguided beliefs and their pure hatred of the 'left'.

     Of course, THEIR coservative philosophy did not fail, could not fail; it was the 'left' that underminded everything, just like Hitler said. And sure, it was not the bankster-run Federal Reserve that 'printed-created' literally multi-Trillions of dollars to give to bankers (only) to prop up the over-leverage in housing and the economy that has lead to devaluation and debt-crisis, it was the relatively powerless 'liberals' and 'Acorn' and the 'left' in Congress that were terrorized into giving bankers hundreds of billions from the taxpayer, as well. That is some socialism, that is.

     For these right-wingers, the conservative, capitalist, self-serving, anti-social hedge-fund operators that super-leveraged power in the 'free'-market to create over a Quadrillion dollars worth of Debt, without ANY political consideration of people AT ALL, are totally righteous and are paragons of virtue.

     Learn something from the left- from The Nation, or just shut up.

     Posted by neosocialist at 11/14/2009 @ 01:50am

112. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/13/2009 @ 11:14pm |

     Why raise taxes when you can pass another 'bond measure' and line some coffers instead!

     "In the 50s"...back when 2/3 of the CA population lived somewhere other than CA...and what ended that blissful Beach Boy's utopia anyway?

     ...Lockheed, Martin-Marietta, Raytheon...

     Hey Anti...when did YOU move to CA and why?

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/14/2009 @ 07:34am

113. Hey Anti...when did YOU move to CA and why?

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/14/2009 @ 07:34am

     I was born here-in East LA

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/14/2009 @ 09:38am

114. Neosocialist, that about sums up the righties here at the nation, but we keep hoping that we can show them the error of their ways, oh well, that will never happen but it has been fun.

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/14/2009 @ 10:12am

115. Neosocialist, that about sums up the righties here at the nation, but we keep hoping that we can show them the error of their ways, oh well, that will never happen but it has been fun.

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/14/2009 @ 10:12am

     Denise, I can't imagine ever surrendering my freedom, individuality, and sense of personal responsibility to become a liberal.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/14/2009 @ 10:14am

116. antisocialist-You don't have to be a liberal in order to give up liberty,individuality,and avoid taking personal responsibility.You guys on the right do that,too.You define yourself by labels that apply to billions.That isn't being an individual.You blame the left for everything.That is avoiding responsibility.You tell everyone how to live.That isn't freedom.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 11/14/2009 @ 12:41pm

117. Posted by neosocialist at 11/14/2009 @ 01:50am

     "Learn something from the left- from The Nation, or just shut up."

     Learn something from socialists? Like what, how to destroy an economy, or how to build a system that never worked in the first place? How does socialism work in Cuba? North Korea? How did it work out in the Soviet Union?

     Oh yeah, I know your answer. Those aren't and werent actually socialist, because they failed. And we all know that socialism is successful, it just hasn't actually worked anywhere yet.

     This is the type of moronic thinking spouted by people who don't have jobs, or if they do, work in some field where they don't actually have to do anything. It is the credo of losers who want other people to provide for them, in the name of 'fairness'.

     Learn from you? The only thing I learn from you is how people can live in an utter fantasy.

     If you think socialism actually works, my advice to you is get a real job and a real life, because you obviously have neither.

     Posted by pontificus at 11/14/2009 @ 1:12pm

118. My advice to you ficus is allow your brain to work for itself.You think people who post here don't have real jobs?A guy doesn't have to be unemployed to empathize with someone who is.A guy can be a supervisor of a hundred people and be concerned with their welfare.That would be considered socialist thinking because I wasn't concerned about the owners having enough to eat.So what fantasy are you talking about,one you dreamed up or your role as Me-Me?

     Posted by whatozz at 11/14/2009 @ 2:23pm

119. I see some really ignorant posts on here, and am surprised that there are still so many trolls out there writing from the pockets of the big banks and Insurance Companies. Evidently 8 years of the worst governing process in American history did nothing to wake up the American people.

     I happen to live in a blue area so I can't do anything about this, but I certainly hope people in those areas who can do something will get off their duffs and do it.

     I feel, as I have for years now, that the entire Republican Party should be tried for treason, and all of the trolls should be deported to Iran, where they could enjoy the fun and games of living in a real religious democracy, er, dictatorship.

     Posted by webmaker02 at 11/15/2009 @ 9:42pm