McCain Fails to Deliver
By Don | October 8, 2008
John McCain had a great opportunity to regain the ground he has lost to Barack Obama in the last month and muffed it.
From the Politico.
Watching John McCain and Barack Obama at their second presidential debate was like watching two fighters circling each other, throwing a jab here, landing a blow there, but neither one ever delivering a knockout punch.
The trouble for John McCain, however, is that he needed one.
So if you had to say somebody lost Tuesday night, it was McCain. Because he had to win and he did not. He is the one who has to change the current trajectory of the campaign, and he did not do that.
McCain is behind in the national polls and way behind in the Electoral College vote projections. His party is lagging in voter registration in key state after key state, and in voter enthusiasm in general.
If this is how McCain is going to play the debate game he might as well just call for Obama to take office by acclimation.
32 Comments | Post a Comment
Last night, it was painfully obvious that John McCain is too old, too worn-out and too old-worldish in his persona and perspective to be President.
I would have preferred Huckabee for president and - - MAYBE - - McCain as the V-P candidate.
I was a McCainite in 2000 - - but, after last night’s so-called “debate” , I feel embarrassed for him! He’s now like the old Braves pitcher Warren Spahn - - hanging on and hanging on and hanging on - - way after his time was up and his talents and abilities had completely left him!
And Palin? She’s gone W-A-Y too far in Florida in particular - - sounding in her rallies like she’s been taking lessons from some white power militiaman on how to incite a crowd of rambunctious rednecks to rise to “action”. Also very embarrassing.
scholarsearch,
Your point #1 was right on target, and it is part of the immigration discussion that is often left out.
The Immigration Reform Act of 1965 was a self-destructive, idiotic piece of junk legislation.
It’s main intention was the changing of the demographics of this once great republic in only allowing 15% all legal immigration to be white Europeans, and the rest from third world countries.
Forget about the Democrats, but there’s been no Republican president, since its passing, that had the guts or desire to address it. We were already in deep trouble before Reagan stupidly granted amnesty back in the Eighties.
As far as your point #2 in mentioning a President McCain having to bear the consequences of massive illegal immigration because of Bush’s blunder - McCain was fully complicit in this blunder. He and Bush are one and the same in this matter.
Pizcaj,
You have it right, McCain has been pro illegal all along. He co sponsored the last amnesty bill. He won’t pay the price - we will.
The people guiding President Bush knew the illegals would not vote republican. They know exactly what they are doing.
It is not a dem/rep thing - they both are working hand in glove to destroy this nation as we know it - so it can be brought to it’s knees and then into the global community.
I think President’s Bush’s agenda was to get a Western Hemisphere Union in place. His father spoke of his desire for that. I believe he thought he could get amnesty in place right after his election and his union was a shoo in.
Despite calling us bigots, his amnesty didn’t take wings and I believe Chavez put a halt to his plans for his union.
He is putting it in place, piece by piece, though.
Re: Ladytexan, Post #4;
I agree with all you say in your post.
Personally, I believe it all goes back over a hundred years to The Big Business Robber Barons of the 1890s Industrial Revolution whose stated goal was to establish a New World Order - - i.e., a one-world economy ruled by international financiers and Big Business leaders for their own benefit.
And, within that concept, the worker, i.e., “labor”, is nothing more than a commodity to be used and/or discarded as necessary. The illegal Mexicans (willingly) seem to be the first step in this significant diminishment of the interests and status of American workers and destruction of the middle class.
(???)
Yeah, McCain put me to sleep also - he needs Geritol - but Obama was a sleeper, too. Should have watched a movie.
I believe Sen. McCain still may win. It’s beyond me how anyone can think that Sen. Obama is better than Sen. McCain, even with all his faults. We just won’t know until it’s over.
I agree Jean White. Look at 2000 and 2004, and you will see that the polls nationally and in individual states were similar to right now, and Bush was losing. In fact, by polls he was behind both times all the way up to election day, yet won. The difference is that Bush was NEVER ahead like McCain was until 2 weeks ago and the financial mess started. Also a difference is that Obama really has not gone up that much, but rather McCain has gone down. So Obama hasn’t won that many more, the difference are those that said they were for McCain have now gone into the undecided position.
McCain getting all the punishment for the financial mess has to run its course soon, if Americans are allowed to become educated into the real causes? The MSM of course are not cooperating, as they work for the Obama campaign, but a month is a long time to KEEP the truth from the people.
But Americans are not all stupid, and those with brains will see that having this upstart with no track record of leading anything but a campaign and election fraud outfits, is NOT the person to put in charge of a sick economy.
Maybe given the economic situation he’s in, he can’t be aggressive and deliver a “knock out.” I mean, what is he going to be aggressive about? If he starts harping on the success of the surge, he’ll look out of touch with the concerns of the average American. And of course when he starts talking economics, he draws people back to an issue that Obama has an advantage over. Wedge cultural issues are completely out this election. I really don’t see what he could be doing differently to help himself. He’s completely backed into a corner because of circumstances.
It almost looks like the Republican Party doesn’t want to win. They surely knew that we wouldn’t want McCain. So far it seems as if he is just playing around. Personally I feel that he is almost as socialist as Obama.
RazzWV,
Kind of reminds me of how Bob Dole sleepwalked his way through the ‘96 campaign and H.W. Bush looking at his watch during the ‘92 debates.
It’s as if winning their party’s nomination was their end-goal.
All I know is you die-hard, neocon republicans need to buy your liquor prior to election day because you will need to be drunk to vote for mcBain. Vote 3rd Party for spite.
MIke, if we have to be drunk to vote for McCain, then you have to be insane to vote for that Hitler re-creation - Osama Obama. I’d rather be drunk than a loony.
Jack, drink up because mcBain said on c-span during the bailout sessions that he “aspires” to be a dictator. So who is the Hitler wannabe now?
Obama doesn’t need and will not receive my vote this election. Maybe the gop will give us somebody to vote for in 2012. Vote 3rd Party for spite.
Mike, If you are not worried that Obama will be elected you would not be trying to get people on this site to vote 3rd party. I know what the Osama talking points are right now, and that is to try and get the right to not vote for McCain. I may have to plug my nose big time to vote for him, but it is either that or have the socialist communist fuhrer Osama Obama in there. And however much I dislike McCain, it is no decision - I will gladly vote for McCain to keep Obama and his indoctrinated minions (thats you Mike) from destroying what is left they haven’t destroyed of America.
Besides I recognize what many on this site do not. If Obama wins, we lose our America and our freedom, and that means Civil War, because I and good Americans will not allow that and we will have to take action.
This is just the tip of the iceberg but here goes:
During the bush administration, Americans have seen nationalization of the financial system (socialist), largest expansion of government ever (socialist), quadrupling national debt (socialist), capitalism for profits and socialism for losses (FASCISM), the patriot Act (Orwellien), abuse of FISA, torture, 2 unCongressional wars and the mythic war on terror. Stop me if you disagree on any of these.
It seems this country has already been hijacked despite your so-called patriotic posturing so start your civil war against the a-holes that started this. They would be the neocon congress and executive branch.
As for voting 3rd Party, it is only a gesture to show a vote of no confidence in both front runners. When you examine the top contributors to Obama and mcBain, you will find the same people so regardless of who “wins” they get their guy. So, start drinkin’, Jack.
Mike, you now actually said something I can agree with - Great!
And I mostly agreed with everything you said. The latest dose of socialism DID start with a Republican Congress and President, and if McCain is elected, I have always expected he would be slightly worse than Bush, though I am now hoping with Palin it might tone McCain down a bit. But I also know with Obama and a Democrat Congress, especially if they get a filibuster proof Senate, and that is possible, it will go fast down the s**thole - faster than it has.
Perhaps that is why I have more hope with McCain, as I do not want to see Civil War, but expect it is on its way, and with Obama it will be here soon, with McCain, maybe I will be son old and senile, that I won’t have to worry so much.
But overthrowing a government that has gone so far beyond what the Constitution allows has been something I feared for the better part of 20 to 30 years, and between Republicans in Congress and Republican Presidents mostly, and Republicans in Congress kept Clinton at bay, it has kept the spread of socialism-fascism at a slower pace.
And then we got Bush and he was mostly livable until he was re-elected and we saw his really true socialistic colors, and at the same time the disease that Democrats have had for 100 years, also spread to the Republican Congress - spending like drunken sailors. So now it is only my hope that we can slow it. I see slowing it with McCain (MAYBE), and not at all, but speeding it up - big time - with Osama Obama.
But you are right, Mike, it seems the two parties are more and more, cut from the same cloth. But it was a clear majority of Republicans that voted against the socialist takeover of the economy - and that brings a little hope. The liberal Republicans have controlled the party all along, but the conservative base had kept them in check, and that changed in Bush’s second term especially, and it is why we are stuck with McCain as the candidate, the liberals running the party and MSM assisting them. But McCain was smart to realize that he better get the base on board and that is the only reason he picked Palin. He knows the base is on the edge of revolt, and he does not have a snowballs chance without us, and that the party has taken advantage of us one time to many, and he in particular has poked us in the eye one time to many.
So I still have hope that if he squeks by and wins he will covern not as a liberal Republican but at least as a moderate. He is known for wanting massive spending cuts and a faqr smaller federal government and a balanced budget and hates earmarks. If he can achieve that change in the way things are in his four years, I will be happy with the change. So I still see hope. Perhaps I should not have some optimism there, but I am going to hold of drinking till after Nov 4th, and see what happens. lol
To Mike, Post 16;
It would also seem to me, to one degree or another, our system of free public education, publicly-supported community colleges, land grant colleges, free public libraries, national and public parks of all kinds, publicly-owned beaches, public hospitals, the federal prison system, the Amtrak railroad system, the Tennessee Valley Authority and other organizations like it, tax subsidies to various industries (including big oil), tax subsidies to agriculture and, of course, federal worker’s compensation, social security, medicare, medicaid, aid to dependent families, federal job training programs, federal education grants, VA mortgages, and any and all federal assistance programs based on income - - are all “socialism” according to one or another definition of the term ???
Twenty years ago, I happened to be living in a beach town of some 15,000-18,000 where most of the residents were, for lack of a better term, “retired millionaires”, occupying multi-million-dollar beachfront and waterfront mansions, McMansions, and mini-mansions, and where I never met nor heard of a single person being a Democrat (I lived there some 6 years). Yet, on a certain couple days of each month, you couldn’t transact any routine business in the town’s main bank in the middle of the business district because of the lines of retired millionaires waiting to deposit their social security checks. (I happened to know one very wealthy retired individual (in his early 80s) who was dragging down over $650,000 per year ($55,000 per month) in unearned income, yet, there he was, every month, rushing to be first in line to cash his $1,020 per month social security check.)
Most Americans were seemingly long ago completely habituated to “socialism”. Without it in some fashion or form and to some degree, the alternative would seem to be “survival of the financially-fittest” only.
???
TK, when you put it like that, I guess we have been closet socialists since the Roosevelt new deal. Unfortunately, the powers that were didn’t put time limits on the welfare or common sense caps on who received benefits. Still, it is shocking to hear so-called conservatives crying, “No socialized medicine!!!” yet in the same breath praise the nationalization of banks and investment brokers.
MIKE, Conservatives did not nationalize the banks and investment brokers, RINOs and liberals did. In fact all the noted Conservatives in the House and Senate voted against that socialist power grab. And I might add that noted Blue Dog Conservative Democrats also voted against it. Your power grab to nationalize was from your ilk Mike, but then you knew that.
You plain a** LIED again on this site - but then that is what you liberals are all about - lying. Can’t you tell the truth just ONCE in your life?
RazwwvPizcaj,
My opinion,
Obama was supposed to win - that was pretty evident when he made his first speech and the media began promoting him as ‘presidential material’. They pushed him all along, while making sure very little was known about him.
Then we have a slate of Republicans, with McCain almost a joke, suddenly he is the front runner - how did that happen? Then they put Gov. Palin on the ticket. She brought nothing to the ticket.
Yes, it does remind me of the time they brought out ‘embalmed Bob Dole’, propped him up to run .
Then Al Gore, who can’t walk and chew gum at the same time, and John Kerry to run against Pres. Bush.
Mike,
You are absolutely right - both men are owned by the same. They have the election fixed for Obama, but just in case, they own the other candidate as well. They are not about to leave something as important as the presidency up to the voters.
The things that are so destructive to this country has been moving along for the last 5 decades, anyway.
Just look at how our trade deals have gone, outsourcing, our involvement in war after war, our meddling in other countries’ business, illegal immigration, the blurring of our sovereignty, the power grabs under the guise of education, gun control, welfare, civil rights, national security, war on drugs, etc.
Then realize that these things have rolled along regardless of the makeup in Washington. We’ve had every conceivable mix of so called parties and the agenda keeps moving along.
The only difference is the rhetoric -
LadyTexan - well written, and pretty much agree with everything you said.
Jack, you drinkin’ again? What part of I’m voting 3rd Party don’t you understand? I am not caught up in the celebrity of Obama and WILL NOT BE VOTING FOR HIM this coming election. I am a liberal minded person and that is based in realism and not some democratic Party mantra. If my “liberal” statements about the right loving the bailout offend you, TOUGH ####. Grow a pair and wakeup to the deception spoonfed to the masses. Your own Captain Earmark voted for both versions of the bailout and probably would have endorsed the original 3-page paulson Plan. We are letting the arsonists put out the fire.
Bob Barr on the News Hour recently brought up the observation, where is the Attorney General and why hasn’t he been seen enforcing the laws already on the books to instill some sort of confidence in the financial system? That may have been more productive then the $850 Billion transfer of wealth (reverse spread the wealth) proposed and implemented by scaredycat Congress. I’m starting to believe Mike Mukasey was nominated (by bush) simply because he awarded millions to Larry silverstein in the WTC insurance collection case. Look it up. There are no coincidences.
Lady Texan, spot-on assessment of our current and past situations. Nothing changes the agenda. McBain was meant to fail. Our cia has been caught meddling in Iran, Iraq and Central America for decades yet many still believe we NEED to be there to protect Democracy. It is a shame we couldn’t protect the democratic REPUBLIC the Founder’s aspired this country to be.
Mike - F**K YOU, Don Irvine get these a**holes off this board. Someone should be able to same something here without always getting beat on. And then when you beat back, it just escalates, BUT they (Sullivan, TK, dave, Mike, RIN TIN TIN, the aliases are so numerous) always are the first ones that slam, and it builds from there.
Don Irvine you have allowed these felons to absolutely ruin this once good site. Suggestion - just close down all comments period. Maybe a few months from now when these snakes have crawled under the rocks they slithered from, you can try and re-introduce comments again. BUT THESE A Holes are just never going to go away unless dragged.
THEY OWN YOUR SITE, and Conservatives are NOT ALLOWED. I am so F**king tired of being slammed on absolutely everything said here by these felons.
Jack, you took two bullets in ‘Nam and this exchange of observations pisses you off. Truth hurts when you don’t want to hear it.
AIM is supposed to be an alternative for those seeking more than the MSM 60-second sound byte. Read both sides of the story, then find your own truth somewhere in the middle. You might just learn something in the process. Closing the comments will only lead to higher anxiety for you because it is obvious you need to be heard.
Mike, I am tired of being dissed PERIOD. I have no problem with hearing both sides.
BUT those that do not like what I say ALWAYS dis me rather than just state their opinion, and it escalates from there - ON absolutely everything I say. ALWAYS the left cannot just state their opinion for us to discuss, and they have to diss you and say very hurtful things.
When the left first came on this site, I ignored their nastiness and turned the other cheek, then I tried to get them to understand that they do not have to put down others, just say what they want to say. BUT it is impossible, in fact the left is NOT here to state their opinion, that has become obvious. They are here solely to beat on the other side and create a problem and a hassle and a fight.
I am tired of it, I have been slammed so many times, even the slightest slam now gets me fighting mad, and it always starts with them, and I dump it right back.
If you do not want to hear my mouth, it is really simple, don’t open your mouth first to put down my opinion. I never start it, but I refuse to turn the other cheek at all any more. I had tolerance and the left took any tolerance I had away from me.
Maybe you can not understand Mike. But we spend more time discussing arguments and fights on this site, and arguing and yelling at each other rather than discussing the article we are supposed to be commenting on, or other political discourse. It never used to be that way. Brian Sullivan created the intolerance, and TK and dave, and the zillion manifestations that they post under, then added to it.
Most Conservatives have left this Conservative leaning site, and this has really become just another leftist liberal hate site. Any conservative that says anything the left does not like, the immediate response is hate and bashing.
I do believe that AIM should shut off the comments completely. I myself, would like our site back from the hate of liberals, and maybe in a few months, they can then restart comments, and the hate speech from the left might be gone and we can go back to the discussion that was always so good here. This used to be a good site.
I stay (probably stupidly) because I hope we can get a once good site back.
I am a very poor man, I have an old operating system on my computer, and can not afford a newer computer or an operating system upgrade, and most commenting sites have upgraded beyond my computers capacity to interface. The few other sites I can interface with, the comments section is either boring to tears or there are hardly any people commenting. This site I loved, and there were a lot of commenters and we had built relationships, and then the hater Sullivan came on and over a few months now, the site has gone down to just another mostly liberal hate site.
I know, I should just leave, and should not try to resurrect what was. But like you, I like to state my opinion, but am also open to others opinions, but I can not hear others opinions when they state how it really is (as they KNOW it is) while putting me down. That is not discussion, that is the liberal way of shutting up those they do not agree with.
I may say that AIM should just shut the comments off, but they do not have the balls to stand up to those that have beaugarded their site and turned it into a liberal hate site (with only one Conservative - me - giving them the hate in return). AIM is like RINOs, always kowtowing to the left, while the left rewards them by stabbing them in the back. I have never commented on a site that allows this hate to go on, and does not ban the people that actually started it. If Sullivan had just been banned early on it would have never escalated to what it is now.
I used to post at GOPUSA and Ann Coulter, they cut off commenters for far less than what this site has now become. But my computer can not interface with either any longer. AIM has basicly lost this site anyway, it isn’t worth anyone’s trouble to come on here any longer - the left owns it, they and their HATE. And I HATE them for doing that.
Wow Jack, thanks for the book! But I hope to understand you better and be more in tune with your needs as a person and an individual. We should all learn to practice restraint and respect for differing views in this forum and the real (notMTV) world. I only started paying attention last year after reading about Dr. Ron Paul and his brand of Republicanism(in fact I’m card-carrying). I had no idea Republicans used to campaign for Liberty, smaller government, NO NATION BUILDING(bushhhhhhed), and to be fiscally responsible. Stumbling across this site was a real treat as it appeared to really be investigating behind the scenes action most never see on MSTV(I gave up on cable a long time ago so I use rabbit ears, the BOX and Netflix). C-SPAN online is another good source for the dirt on the true felons. But why would you watch that when VH1 has Flavor of Love 2 or Alice reruns on the SuperStation?
Your comment about the gop and coulter SUPPRESSING the comments for some should tell you something about that brand of journalism. It is a form of control. Control in what you see and read and ,God forbid, ask others to read. Subtle, yet still control. But the intraweb is a wonderful thing (right now)and should be used for more than porn and shopping but for information people would have given a first-born for only a few generations ago. We must use it wisely. And you should go support the Chinese economy by strolling into WalMart and buying any 2G laptop for about 400-500 worthless FRN’s. Don’t believe the hype about Vista, you will be amazed at what new computers can do. Good luck, Jack.
To Mike, Post 19;
Many of the traditionally American things that I listed that could be considered “socialistic” via various definitions and political ideologies go W-A-Y back beyond the time of FDR.
The truth is, our governmental form has been uniquely successful over 228 years because the founders and the leadership and the legislation along the way, to one degree or another, has evidenced some level of “The Golden Rule”; of the development of a certain level of a social conscience and social responsibility; consideration of and for others; some compassion for the least among us; the promotion of the general betterment of society; the promotion of the health, safety and general welfare of the society; assistance to those in dire need; and a whole bunch of other things, agencies, organizations and institutions which, for me at least, were most often the “right” and the “Christian” things to do.
I believe many (if not most) partisans ranting and raving and spewing and spouting the GOP or conservative talking points about “socialism” have no real idea of what the political science definition of socialism really is.
Right now, Mr. Bush’s and Mr. Paulson’s taking over of various formerly private enterprises and requiring others to sell their stock to the government is a helluva lot more socialistic than is the CCC, the WPA, or the Social Security or Medicare programs - - or any other socially-conscious and responsible government programs and institutions we have traditionally supported.
???
TK,
I do have to agree that we are no longer a republic, not even a democracy. That doesn’t, however, mean that it is what the people wanted or what was needed.
The social programs have been disastrous for this country and it’s people. It has made people dependent on the government. It has raised the cost of things like healthcare, food, education, etc. tremendously.
I don’t know if it is socialism, I do know it is government control, it is waste of human potential, it is more corporatism than socialism .
It has been incremental - most coming in the last half of this century.
But the real problem is not whether we have publicly funded libraries, schools, hospitals, prisons, etc.
The problem is they are no longer created, and controlled by the states, as most once were and as intended by the constitution - where people would have some kind of control - but by the federal government - where we have none.
These programs are not operated under the Golden Rule - not by any means. Today they are put in place and operated for the good of big corporations - everything from No (Every) Child Left Behind, to For-Profit prisons, to the ‘farm subsidies’, food stamps, medicare, Medicaid, and on and on and on.
Your assessment of the fact we have become something other than a republic or democracy is true. To assume because we have it, it is some kind of benevolent thing, or something the people actually wanted, or needed, is not true.
The idea it was what the framers intended for the federal government, I think, is wrong. I think they left that to the individual states to decide.
The idea that it has anything to do with the Golden Rule is not true - evidenced by the way they are administered, the harm they do and who actually gets the money.
To Ladytexan, Post 29;
According to your paragraphs, one at a time:
1. Whether you call it a republic or a democracy isn’t really that important; what is important is that the majority rules (dependent, of course, in the activism or apathy of the citizenry). Note: I do believe the president should be elected by popular vote.
2. I don’t agree that ALL social programs have been disastrous for the country. Medicaid, Aid to Dependent Children, and programs to provide assistance to the disabled have certainly provided real benefits to many - - and are, to me, examples of The Golden Rule in action.
3. With the advent of totally laissez-faire capitalism over the last 25 years, I certainly agree that the problem is corporatism, not socialism.
4. I agree most social programs have come into being in the latter half of the last century.
5. I’ve always been a states’ rightist. And, again, if the citizens “have no control” at any step along the way, it’s entirely due to their own apathy. (In most presidential elections, barely half of all eligible to vote citizens actually vote; often LESS in state and local elelctions.)
6. In most of my lifetime, I believe the government has been socially conscious and socially responsible in many and varied ways - and I believe that is an extension of The Golden Rule - treat others as you would like to be treated. Obviously, an example would include all the legislation and programs promoting equality for all and discrimination against none.
7. Again, whether someone uses the word ‘republic’ or ‘democracy’ (or even ‘socialism’) to describe our government is immaterial to me - - as long as the concept of “majority rule” remains intact and in place. And I do think there are many examples of the benevolence of government over the years. For example, grants and financial aid to college students is, in my opinion, greatly beneficial to both the individuals involved and the society as a whole.
8. Regarding the framers, as I recall, they were pretty evenly split: the Jeffersonian wing was for states rights; the Hamiltonian wing was for a more powerful central government and, especially, “central banking”.
9. I think it’s simply tunnel vision when one believes that EVERY government program is poorly administered, that EVERY government program does harm, and that ALL the money spent goes to corrupt individuals or entities. To me, that’s the attitude of the oldtime hillbilly Hatfields and McCoys regarding their own distaste for the “revenooers” and all they stood for.
A huge population of very diverse people living together in a complex social, cultural, educational and economic system definitely needs some kind of government to insure order while offering some level of providing for the public’s health, safety and general welfare.
Personally, I would probably prefer to see a very large society and its governance to be broken down into “smaller groups”, e.g., regions, states, etc., governed accordingly and in accordance with the majority sentiments of the citizenry thereof. Personally, currently, I believe that many of our communities and institutions, e.g., from certain “big” cities down to the size of schools, may have simply gotten too big to be governed efficiently and effectively.
We’re already divided along “Red” and “Blue” states, or regionally from the northeast to the midwest to the south to the southwest to the west or economically between wealthy and poor states, etc. So ... ???
To Ladytexan, post 31;
I agree with you on:
Illegal immigration
Greed and corporations rule
The bailout is wrong
Business benefits from many social programs
And, I agree that almost anyone can find something “wrong” or “bad” in almost anything.
I do diasgree with some of your perceptions and perspectives on the government provision of certain kinds of programs on a general personal philosophical basis. In spite of some shortcomings, I find there are various governmental programs that are significantly beneficial to many people - two of which (among many) would be GI benefits and VA/FHA home loan guarantees.
Laissez-faire capitalism essentially means free market, completely unregulated, capitalism. I am for a “fair” market and “fair” trade and the regulation of those big businesses critical to the citizenry and the general economy, e.g., financial services. (Totally “unregulated” Credit Default Swaps, totalling some $54 trillion in face value (equal to the entire gross product of the world), are probably the single most contributory cause of the current Wall Street meltdown. Had they been disallowed or scrupuously regulated, we may not have had this problem. Alan Greenspan was one of their most devoted protectors!)
October 8 at 10:19 am | #1 | Link
It is instructive to look at some “events” that have taken place, which actually are leading to the erosion of the Founder’s America:
1)Since 1965 DELIBERATE uncontrolled illegal immigration.One rationale was for a future “borderless corridor” of trade,effectively diminsihing the Nation-State,and patterning itself on the EU model.
2)Millions of immigrants, since they rely heavily on the Government’s largess(i.e.welfare,public schools,medical care)vote historically for Democrats,since the Dem Party continually pushed LARGER Gov’T SOCIAL WELFARE,“JUSTICE” you-name-it programs.Therefore,Mistakenly,Pres Bush assumed these millions would support the GOP;Nope! John McCain has to bear the consequences of this blunder;what an irony!
The Leftist Press will support Obama’s Socialism,and we see the trickle down effects with these huge Socialist Bail-outs of people that KNEW they would not/could not pay back their mortgages.Blame the Democratics as well for pushing this agenda-in THICK.
Dr.Paul,where are you?