MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Is ANYONE Buying This?

We all know the leanings I share with the majority of commenters on this blog.
But is ANYONE actually buying the spin that the Republicans voted down the bailout becaause Nancy Pelosi blamed Bush for the state we are in when she gave a pre-vote speech today?
Is ANYONE buying John McCain trying to blame Obama for the Republicans not voting for the bailout?
I mean… really?

Be Sociable, Share!

46 Responses to “Is ANYONE Buying This?”

  1. IOIOIOI says:

    Uh… no.

  2. jeffmcm says:

    I personally am interested in seeing a metaphorical show of hands as to how many people still think Sarah Palin, regardless of what you may think of her as a political candidate, wouldn’t be a total disaster in office based on her obvious ignorance and buffoonery.

  3. Blackcloud says:

    Pelosi was at her screeching harpy best (worst?) today, but the Republican response showed them at their partisan, narrow-minded worst (best?). It was foolish of Pelosi to give that speech, but somehow I don’t think playing even bigger fools is the way to turn the tables. There’s plenty of blame to go around. Most Republicans didn’t vote for the bill, but so didn’t 95 Democrats, or 40% of that caucus. You have to wonder how much leadership Pelosi was exercising if she couldn’t get the majority party to vote for the bill and pass it via their majority standing. But instead of shifting the blame to the majority, the Republicans stood up wearing giant signs saying, “There are too many of us in Congress. It’s time to thin the herd. Vote November 4.” Except the signs are in all caps.

  4. christian says:

    What a cock-up on all sides.

  5. Tofu says:

    Harold Ford put it best today, saying that he was apart of congress for ten years, and he never heard a speech that wasn’t partisan. These are the last gasps of the Bush administration and McCain campaign all at once.

  6. mysteryperfecta says:

    Voting for the bill was the easy, politically expedient thing to do. Word was that the bill stank. Still, the bill had the support of the administration and the Democrat leadership. CRISIS! CRISIS! DO SOMETHING NOW! But a unified Dem party could have passed something last week (and the Senate is waiting until this Wednesday). Guess they didn’t want the ‘credit’ for the bill. So maybe it did stink, and maybe 95 Democrats had the nuts to buck their party leadership (or listen to their vocal constituents) and vote no.
    But Obama came out today and told the Congress to get a bill done, so NOW they have the impetus.

  7. IOIOIOI says:

    The bill according to some smart people was viable but crap. How about they try to pass a viable non-crappy fucking bill? They need to give it a try. If not… balls.

  8. cobhome says:

    yet to hear a Rep who voted against the bill say it was because of Pelosi- besides which – ahving read the Pelosi speech – it is not offensive – well – she does make the point that the Bush administration is to blame – but other than that –
    what I did hear was several Repubs claiming they could not vote for the bill because it did not include a reduction of the capital gains tax – oh yeah – reduce the capital gains tax – a tax which largely affects wealthy people – and try to pass that off as “populist”. Love it.
    But I would enjoy hearing just one Dem admit they all – both parties – let this mess develop.

  9. Blackcloud says:

    The transcript of her speech is worthless. She deviated considerably from the written remarks. All the stuff that irritated the Republicans was ad-libbed. It’s fairly obnoxious stuff, but Pelosi is a fool, so that’s about par for the course for her. But again, that’s no excuse for the Republicans to start braying like jackasses themselves. Leave that to the Donkeys. If this mania for cutting taxes is what finally destroys Congressional Republicans, it will be no less than what the deserve.
    IO has it right: crappy, but viable. Like he says, get a bill that’s viable and non-crappy. But balls, alas, are in very short supply in DC these days.

  10. jeffmcm says:

    It sounds to me like voting against the bill was the ‘politically expedient’ thing to do, on either side of the aisle, because liberals could say they voted against corporate welfare and conservatives could say they voted against government expansion.
    But I agree that Pelosi is kind of lame.

  11. LexG says:


  12. Martin S says:

    The Repubs backed out when they heard Pelosi gave a get-out-of-jail card to anyone up for re-election. Her screed then confirmed that they were going to try and pin the hold deal on the Repubs, bucking all her bipartisan bullshit.
    If she wants to pass it, she could and she can, but that’s leadership.
    Dave, seriously, honest-to-god, you are smarter than to just buy the us v them talking point.

  13. Mgmax says:

    “I personally am interested in seeing a metaphorical show of hands as to how many people still think Sarah Palin, regardless of what you may think of her as a political candidate, wouldn’t be a total disaster in office based on her obvious ignorance and buffoonery.”
    Compared to who, John Edwards? Nancy Pelosi?
    It’s foolish to keep harping on Palin supposedly being a disaster when real disaster is staring us in the face. The markets have decided that we’re going to have an all-Democratic government– and they’re tanking. That’s the important fact that has already decided what the next four years are going to be like here, not bullshit about a VP on the probably losing side.

  14. Stella's Boy says:

    Supposedly being a disaster? Sounds like someone hasn’t seen the Katie Couric interview.
    So that’s what the markets decided. When I talked to the markets last week they told me an entirely different story. I knew it.
    I agree that Pelosi is lame.

  15. Mgmax says:

    Remind me which part of the Constitution specifies that TV interviews are the sole standard for office in our democracy.
    Then make a serious case for why the markets tanking suggests that they’re enthused about the likely outcome of the election next month.
    I realize that it’s easy to be snarky toward the occasional (supposed) rightwinger when, as Dave admits, numbers are overwhelmingly on your side, but try to make a real argument in a real crisis.

  16. Mgmax says:

    Then again, why should you bother? Your party leaders certainly aren’t.

  17. Stella's Boy says:

    Remind me again how electing someone “who’s just like us” to be VP is good for America? Remind me again how a total lack of even basic knowledge concerning foreign policy and the economy means someone is ready to be VP or P? I realize it’s easy to defend someone like Sarah Palin because you’re a right-winger who wants Obama to lose, but try thinking for yourself and analyzing her objectively. Then again, why bother? Most of your party isn’t doing that and with a straight face they say she is qualified.

  18. christian says:

    I hope somebody gathers the collected media wisdom of the right-wingers who acted as if Palin was the second coming of Reagan: Rush Limbaugh, Bill Kristol, Jonah Goldberg, Dennis Prager, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham etc all, then ignores them forevermore.

  19. storymark says:

    Does anyone else find is hilarious that this: “try to make a real argument in a real crisis.”
    was immediately preceded by this: “Remind me which part of the Constitution specifies that TV interviews are the sole standard for office in our democracy.”
    and this:
    “Then make a serious case for why the markets tanking suggests that they’re enthused about the likely outcome of the election next month.”
    Ah, righties. You so funny.

  20. jeffmcm says:

    Gee, Mgmax, I think it’s pretty obvious the markets are tanking for a whole bunch of reasons primarily due to the condition of the credit markets, the failure of the bailout plan, etc. Your argument would make a glimmer of sense if the markets were in a vacuum and the only change from ‘not tanking’ to ‘tanking’ were Obama’s poll numbers, but since that’s not the case in reality I have to question your grip on it.
    Nancy Pelosi and John Edwards, so we’ve got a seemingly incompetent and divisive politican and a dishonest one on the other hand. Add those factors together, plus a near-total ignorance of the issues, and you’ve got Palin (and McCain picked her not even knowing what her positions were).

  21. frankbooth says:

    Just so we’re clear, Mgmax, do we all agree that the economy is not doing just fine? And if so, how did go from just fine to crisis in a couple of months?

  22. christian says:

    Ah, the old days of me and Mgmax going on about the tanking economy. Mgmax was always there to remind us that things aren’t as bad today as they were in 1933. Yet.

  23. Martin S says:

    Remind me again how electing someone “who’s just like us” to be VP is good for America?
    Windfall profit tax on Big Oil that’s resulted in a yearly return for Alaskans between 1-2k. The Dem/Obama position is to enact the windfall, then keep it. Not even the states would see a piece.

  24. Stella's Boy says:

    Oh well in that case Martin it is the best idea ever. Clearly only someone “just like us” and “pro-Joe Six Pack” could pull that off. She is ready to be president!

  25. Martin S says:

    What’s Obama done, Stella? Besides run his mouth, like you.
    Oh, now it makes.

  26. Stella's Boy says:

    I’m sorry Martin but that is a pretty damn weak defense of the assertion that electing someone “just like us” is not necessarily a good idea.

  27. jeffmcm says:

    Martin knows very well that the Alaska permanent fund dividend has existed since the early 1980s, back when Sarah Palin was in high school, and that it’s been paying especially large amounts lately because of high oil prices.

  28. christian says:

    Martin, I’ve yet to hear your take on Palin. Do you think her pick shows McCain somebody fit to thoughtfully govern this nation?

  29. IOIOIOI says:

    Run his mouth? You not wanting to pay more taxes motherfucker. Seriously; fuck your tax bracket. If you are as fucking stupid as Howard Stern and believe Obama is a “wind-bag”. You really need to be taxed until it’s difficult for you to use your beach house. There will at least be some new textbooks for schools from those taxes. You pitiful ass.
    That aside… [24 CLOCK NOISE]… EMBRACE IT, ACCEPT IT, AND LIVE WITH IT you sorry dogs.

  30. jeffmcm says:

    You’re hateful. As in, full of hate.

  31. IOIOIOI says:

    Hateful? Uh no you daft ass. Nice of you to think in your small-headed way, that you know how I feel. So choke on it. Choke on it. One more time for the zombies in the back… CHOKE ON IT!

  32. jeffmcm says:

    You’re right, IOI, I don’t know how you feel, except in the way you write. So therefore: you write like a hateful person would.

  33. Joe Leydon says:

    It all boils down to this: If John McCain wins the election, then in roughly 112 days, Sarah Palin be, literally, a heartbeat away from the Presidency. She will have to be ready, 24/7, to become Commander in Chief on a few minutes’ notice. Now, I respectfully ask Martin S and every other McCain/Palin supporter: Do you really believe that, in roughly 112 days, Gov. Palin could become leader of the free world? And please, before you answer that she could grow into the role with some VP experience under her belt: What if she doesn’t much of that experience? What if she gets next to none?

  34. IOIOIOI says:

    Jeff, to paraphase a song; “you don’t know what hate is… if you want to know… I’ll SHOW YOU!”
    Seriously son, I have no idea how you roll, but it’s most likely as warped as a mid-80s Subaru.

  35. Martin S says:

    I haven’t said much about Palin, because I want to see how she does tonight. Seriously. Her Gibson interview was alright, but Couric was a disaster. I don’t expect Poland to see it, but there was a markedly difference tone between the two, and I can’t figure out why. She wasn’t a loop machine with Charlie, now she says the same thing three different ways.
    The Repub short-hand is it’s all the ex-W handlers around here, and it does feel the same. But I can’t chalk her “what do you read” answer to that. The only thing I’m sure of is that she’s not being straight-up. Using the reading question for example, she should have just said her time is limited between work and family and that she doesn’t doggedly follow one outlet. That is how most people are. If Couric pressed on, then let the pundits argue over how Katie can’t see the tree for the forest. That her world is media first, family second.
    I get the “heartbeat” away argument, but it doesn’t hold as much weight with me because of Barack. He’s shown again and again that he’s indecisive, but it gets written up as thoughtful. His Georgia response I could excuse on vacation/exhaustion, but his reaction to the bailout has been to get as far away as possible, as long as possible, and take no position until after the polling comes in. This means he’s going to rely on the people around him, and Biden, Reid, Pelosi unnerve me more than Palin.

  36. Martin S says:

    Christian/Joe/Jeff – I appreciate the courtesy.

  37. Stella's Boy says:

    Martin I agree that the Gibson interview was aced compared to the Couric ones. I haven’t heard her Hugh Hewitt interview but apparently she did fine. She’s very good with friendly interviewers (Hewitt and Hannity). All others are a different story. Wasn’t the Palin roll out a huge mistake, hiding her from the press entirely and then granting very high-profile interviews w/ Gibson and Couric? Didn’t that put too much pressure on her, someone very untested with the national media and spotlight?

  38. Martin S says:

    …and Buffet’s investment in GE is for the financial end of the company. If anything, he’s going to make them shed more divisions like NBCUni once the market stabilizes.
    Massive inflation on the horizon, most likely within a year. Get rid of all frivolous debt and watch your expenses for the winter.

  39. Martin S says:

    tella – it was totally botched. It should have been Charlie Rose, Fox, CNBC, and some CNN like King and Cooper.
    She needs to be honest. I mean, if Obama can defer to Biden over foreign policy, why can’t she? And the McCain people…some pundit, I can’t remember who, said they will blow the election bounce because they’re getting cocky behind the scenes. Ta-Da.
    Look at the Ifill kerfuffle. The McCain response was “oh well”. But if you reverse the situation, like having Brit Hume anchor a debate, and the left would have rioted.
    Re: Jeff’s earlier comment over windfall. The law was in place, but she renegotiated it to favor the population.

  40. Stella's Boy says:

    Why was the McCain reaction “oh well” if it’s such a big deal? They love to blame anything and everything on the media. Is it because the truth is they knew about the book because she talked about it to Howard Kurtz in early August and approved of her as a moderator a long time ago?

  41. storymark says:

    The only reason there is any “kerfuffle” over Ifill is they need to establish their excuses now, for when Sarah blows it tonight.

  42. jeffmcm says:

    Martin ‘renegotiated it to favor the population’ is not the only way to look at what she did. You could also say she made a questionable decision given the looming nationwide financial instability that you earlier mentioned.
    “Get rid of all frivolous debt and watch your expenses for the winter.”
    HA! What debt counts as ‘frivolous’? I and everyone I know is in it up to our ears and not as a matter of whim.

  43. christian says:

    Well, Hugh Hewitt is truly the biggest GOP kiss-ass in the MSM, of which he is a member despite his complaints.
    And even in that 10 minute nerfball interview, she said she wanted to represent “Joe Six Pack America” a daft statement that seems to confirm her lack of political/intellectual curiosity.
    But now Rush Limbo is attacking “fake conservatives” for daring to have second thoughts about Palin. That includes George Will, Noonan and Kathleen Parker among growing others.
    Actually, since Palin was Limbaugh’s first pick for VP all along, he’s outraged that his terrible judgement is being called into question. Again.
    We shall see tonite.

  44. Martin S says:

    Jeff – These are rhetorical. Don’t feel the need to answer here.
    What’s your income/debt ratio? Are you still going to the theater? Buying DVD’s? How many times do you eat out? Do you own anything that can be sold on Ebay? What debt are you carrying that is based on survival, compared to debt based on want. Have you broken down your monthly expenses, all expenses? Can you work a deal out with certain debtors, like college loans.
    Think of it in Fight Club terms. Seriously. Be as spartan as you can. If your income/debt ratio is totally out of control, then you’re going to have to make drastic lifestyle changes.

  45. jeffmcm says:

    So the question is, should I go ahead and declare bankruptcy now, or is there some benefit to waiting for a while? My debt payments take about 45% of my income – in a month when I have income.

  46. Martin S says:

    If you can maintain for a month, then hold off. Not because of the election, but to see how the 700 Billion plays out. The credit card industry is standing on the edge of being enveloped, officially making this a credit bubble and not a mortgage bubble. Once that happens, the govt will step in and create a whole new bankruptcy system.
    Take comfort in knowing that it won’t matter who wins, because both are going to have to do it. The difference is in approach; Barack wants to hand everything to the judicial as an arbitrator, McCain wants to go in steps – kill interest first, then erase all back interest owed as the banks consolidate while govt works on new bankruptcy rules. If you’re in an interest sinkhole, that’s going to change in the coming months. Reality has set in for the card industry that they are not going to be able to collect the accrued apr. Now, they’re deciding what do they want, and that’s most likely going to be just to collect the initial loan. If they want more, the govt is going to tell them otherwise, as interest rates really are a major culprit in the banking implosion.
    As much as all this sucks, it’s the best thing for the country in the long run. We need to go back to the mid-80’s model of tight credit, 10-20% down and lay-away merchandise. The web should provide a new purchasing model which will make this easier.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon