politics http://www.dregston.com/boards/list.php?18 Wed, 08 Sep 2010 04:52:33 -0600 Phorum 5.2.7 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,32703,32703#msg-32703 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,32703,32703#msg-32703
Washington has just switched to a "top two" primary -- the two candidates with the most votes go on the ballot regardless of party affiliation. This was a ballot initiative that passed last year in response to the Surpreme Court striking down our open primary. For added entertainment value there's the slight possibility of one party or the other getting shut out in some races or, if a candidate gets more than 50% of the primary vote, an unopposed race.

Cheryl]]> Cheryl Lobby Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:13:33 -0600 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,32563,32563#msg-32563 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,32563,32563#msg-32563 www.cnn.com]

will this be a test case for the responsibility of bloogers? I am just interested if in amongst the testimony we will find out if Fox reporters called the USDA to warn them that this story was going to air and ask for their comment as Fox news et al is resting their non responsibility in following events on the timeline of when it actually aired]]> Diane Margaret Lobby Fri, 30 Jul 2010 05:26:53 -0600 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,32399,32399#msg-32399 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,32399,32399#msg-32399
If you know of any young Australians, or other people who might not be enrolled to vote including those overseas, they have until 8pm Monday (that's Canberra time) to enrol. And it's possible to do it online, and then fax or e-mail it through

Here's the link
[www.aec.gov.au]]]> Linden Lobby Tue, 07 Sep 2010 15:58:31 -0600 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,32274,32274#msg-32274 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,32274,32274#msg-32274
[www.theglobeandmail.com]]]> Margaret S Lobby Thu, 01 Jul 2010 16:38:57 -0600 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,32211,32211#msg-32211 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,32211,32211#msg-32211 Narelle Lobby Sun, 04 Jul 2010 10:56:40 -0600 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,31992,31992#msg-31992 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,31992,31992#msg-31992
I may have mentioned it in another topic, in our current system, we have Flemish political parties and Walloon parties. Flemings can only vote for the Flemish parties, Walloons only for Walloon parties. Yet, the two sides have to form a coalition government. Last time, the Christian Democrats won in the Flemish side, based on their promise for major reforms. On the Walloon sides, the parties that promised nothing would change won. See the problem?

Now, finally, a few parties on the Walloon side have come to realise that some reforms are necessary, that the system in its current form isn't working. But there's no way they'll ever agree to the type of reforms that the majority of Flemings are in favour of. Reforms that are vital. Walloon press (and foreign media usually quotes from the French speaking press because it's easier) loves to portray us as selfish people who're dropping a poor region, but it's more complicated than that.

Put simply: the current system works as follows: we have a federal government that raises taxes. We have three regions with their own governments. Social security money is raised on a federal level, then divided to the regions according to need.
So while in a normal country, a government that is working hard to keep unemployment low is rewarded by getting a higher tax revenue, the opposite is the case here. The worse off they are, the more money they get. And it's been like that for decades. There's no incentive to improve the situation as that would mean they'd get a smaller part of the pie. On the Walloon side, the PS (Partie Socialiste) is promising hand-outs again, as usual. They want to raise unemployment fees, raise pensions, etc.
On the Flemish side, all parties are aware that we need to save, that there's no money for hand-outs. Yet, we're footing the bill for the Walloon hand-outs.

So that's why pretty much all Flemish parties (with the exception of the socialist party and greens) are in favour or a major reform that would put an end to the above. Either, everthing is organised on a federal level, but that wouldn't really work very well since the regions are so different and require different approaches, or we go towards a confederational state, similar to Switzerland.

And so it looks like the NVA, Flemish nationalists are headed for a landslide victory. I know a lot of people who usually vote for other parties who'll vote for NVA this time because they hope they'll be the ones to finally get the reforms through. The Christian democrats had promised the same thing last time, said it required only 5 minutes of political courage, yet they failed miserably.
Note that the majority doesn't want the country to split up, we simply feel that the country isn't working in its current state.

So what parties do we have and what do they stand for:

NVA: Flemish nationalists. Right, but not extreme. They want evolution, not revolution. They dream of a confederational state, or ideally, a Europe of different regions. With a European government and regional governments, why have a Belgian government?
They're very similar to the lib dems on other issues: economic right, encourage business, not too much state intrusion. On social issues they're progressive.
The party leader is a soft spoken intelligent man with a wry sense of humour that appeals to a lot of people.

Open VLD: lib dems: liberal on both economical as well as social issues: so lower taxes, less state intrusion, working should be awarded, not discouraged by overtaxing, want to put a time limit on unemployment (now you can receive unemployment benefits your whole life basically), want to keep the nuclear power plants running (this is an issue that's very important to me. The previous government decided that in a couple of years, all our nuclear plants should close. There's no alternative so we'll basically end up buying nuclear energy from France at a higher cost. It's downright stupid. Until there's an alternative, we should continue with nuclear energy). Pro gay marriage, etc.

CD&V: Christian Democrats: they've always had a huge stronghold on politics in Flanders (in Wallonia, it's the PS, the socialists that have such a stronghold).
Especially locally, in town politics, they're very strong. If you know the right people, you can get things done that others can't...that kind of stronghold.
They're moderate right on economical issues, conservative on social issues.

SPA: socialists. Economic left, progressive. Keep coming up with the same thing, get the money from the rich (until they've run out of rich people, I suppose) and hand it to the unemployed so that they're discouraged from working and remain in poverty. Nuclear plants should close.

Green: Too much of a tree hugger mentality. Nuclear plants should close. Extreme left on economical issues and therefore not an option for me. They all mean well, but are a bit naive.

Vlaams Belang: Extreme right. Racists. Use slogans such as "our own people first", "Flemings first". I don't think we should come first. I think we're all equal, shouldn't delegate others to second class citizens simply because of where they were born of what language they speak. They'll never be in a government since all other parties have made a pact never to form a coalition with them because of their racist views. As a result, they've been getting a lot of protest votes from people who don't want to vote for any party that's in government.

LDD: a one man party basically, a man with a big mouth who got thrown out of other political parties so started his own to protest against pretty much everything. Very similar to Vlaams Belang, but sans the racism.

On the Walloon side, you have the same parties with different names, but e.g. Flemish socialists and Walloon socialists don't necessarily work together. They're all different parties.

I'm torn between NVA and Open VLD. Until now, I've always voted lib dems, I would normally vote for them again if it wasn't for the fact that there are a few people on the NVA list that I quite like and sort of know (via the internet).

But one vote isn't going to make a difference.]]> Tine Lobby Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:57:51 -0600 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,31959,31959#msg-31959 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,31959,31959#msg-31959
Apparently social scientists are scratching their heads at the lack of rise in property crimes despite the recession.

Cheryl]]> Cheryl Lobby Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:19:19 -0600 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,31761,31761#msg-31761 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,31761,31761#msg-31761
As a candidate, Obama gave the impression that he would be more accessible--and if I remember correctly he held several press conferences early on--but it's been 10 months since his last. There have been rumblings in the media about how even with major things on the table like healthcare reform and the oil spill he's not been accessible except in highly controlled formats. I don't think this has done him any favors with the press, as the tone was very, very different from those earlier press conferences. The journalists were actually acting like journalists instead of his faithful followers. One--I think it might have been ABC's Jake Tapper--asked if the oil spill was his Katrina, then followed up with a pretty tough charge.

I didn't catch the beginning but I heard some unsettling answers to several questions. Why wouldn't he have known about the circumstances of yesterday's firing/resignation of the head of the Minerals & Management Service? And what does is mean that they will issue an official response about allegations that the White House offered a senatorial candidate a federal job in exchange for dropping out of the race? If my kids were to give me a "we'll explain it later" I'm pretty sure they would be collaborating their stories. 8-)
[www.politico.com]

On the topic of immigration reform he commented on how those who are here illegally need to get right with the law--pay the fine, pay back taxes, and learn English. I'm not very informed in this area--is that how the immigration laws really work? Just confess and pay the bill and it's okay? ::o]]> LisaRS Lobby Fri, 28 May 2010 10:15:34 -0600 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,31617,31617#msg-31617 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,31617,31617#msg-31617 www.nytimes.com]

"She was ... the literature lover who reread Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice” every year."

Eminently qualified on that basis alone. :)]]> Yiyi Lobby Wed, 19 May 2010 07:21:45 -0600 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,31571,31571#msg-31571 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,31571,31571#msg-31571
Why now? Well, things are in flux for the first time in years. I saw an article about how there was a huge surge in membership following the election and how a lot of those new members were liberals of a relatively left wing and radical disposition who were so apalled at the Condemmed (that is the offical new name of the Conservative, Liberal-Democrat coaliton btw, the Con-Dem coalition but better in the past tense, as Condemmed) that they had decamped for Labour.

There is going to be a leadership contest and that will mean a period of deciding what the Labour Party is about. And those Libs joining are bound to be nearer to me on issues like civil liberties and human rights.

So I figured that whilst moaning about them from the sidelines is fun and rewarding, it was worth joining up and at least trying to influence the party in what I think would be a positive direction.

And if that doesn't work I can always go back to moaning from the sidelines!

Mind you it was more expensive than I anticipated. I guess the last time I was a concession because I was on the dole.

Oh well, done now.]]> Spencer Lobby Wed, 19 May 2010 09:23:43 -0600 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,31521,31521#msg-31521 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,31521,31521#msg-31521
Labour and the Lib Dems don't have enough between them and would need more or less everybody else, 1 Green, 3 SDLP (Northern Ireland) the Scots Nats etc, apart from the Unionists (also Northern Ireland) who are Tory allies. So this is the option being referred to as The Rainbow Coalition.

The Lib Dems have a terrible dillema. They have been getting a free ride for years, picking up protest votes from both Labour and Tory voters, presenting themselves as an alternative left wing party to Labour voters in some places whilst as an alternative right or centre party to Tory voters in others. More progressive people no doubt voted for them in the election, often to try to keep the Tories out, and these people will be spitting horse feathers if they do form a coalition or make a deal with the Tories. A smaller group will be equally livid if they do a deal with Labour. And a lot of dim people who don't understand the system will be bamboozled into thinking there is something wrong with the Tories (who got the most seats and the biggest share of the vote) not being in power, by the Murdoch and rest of the Tory press.

So my analysis is that they are pretty much in the brown stuff whatever they do. Probably the least worst bet for them is to keep the Tories in power by a minimalist pact but not actually go into government with them, and hope that the Tories get the blame for the cuts they are going to make.

On the other hand the one thing that could save their bacon politically is PR (proportional representation) which the Libs have been after for years. The Tories are dead set against it. Labour are making accomodating noises. It won't matter so much if they lose all their fairweather and tactical voters if they get PR because they are currently massively underepresented in the commons relative to their share of the vote.

Anyway, in the middle of the Libs negotiations with the Tories, Gordon Brown just lobbed a hand grenade, announcing that he was going to resign. This seems to have blown everybody sideways. I am not sure why because he is saying he will go before the conference (i.e. before September) which still gives him nearly six months and I could not really envisage any scenario in which he was still in power in six months.

Pretty much the only way the Libs would have gone into a coalition with Labour was if they ditched Brown. So he has cleared a big obstacle.

It is all fascinating and strangely wonderful. An online aquaintaince on CIF (Comment is Free on the Guardian website) made a brilliant post today, pointing out that the electorate had somehow managed to produce a result that punished everyone.

As the overwhelming feeling here at the moment is that of being sick of politicians he is definately right. How much it was luck and how much it was the result of an almost insanely brilliant example of the wisdom of crowds may be debated. But it is certain that no one is happy. Labour lost their majority and untrammeled power. The Libs got far less MPs than they were expecting, had a hugely disapointing election night and now face having to sell their political soul for a mess of pottage. The Tories did not get the clear victory that they were expecting and the process of negotiating with the Libs has sent their more unhinged and unreconstructed elements conker-bonkers already. I fully expect both the Liberals and the Tories to tear themselves to bits before this over.

Oh, and the Tories contain a large group who are ferociously and irreconcilably hostile to Europe and the Lib Dems are by far the most Eurocentric party.

And the nazi BNP did terribly. The Eurosceptic UKIP did terribly. The Greens got their first MP but lost lots of councillors and generally had a very disappointing night. It is pretty incredible but there really does seem to have been a lose, lose, lose, result all round.

As a Labour voter who is actually considering rejoining the party I am inclined towards hoping that what transpires is a full on Tory/Liberal coalition. This is looking less likely but it would mire both parties in non too stable power while they made massive and unpopular cuts, whilst both parties dissolved into infighting and recrimination.

Labour can then sort itself out - it would be nice to think we could get rid of the Blairites but that is probably wishful thinking - and decimate them both at the next election in a year or two.

Or however long it takes them to introduce the mad plan they announced in the election to bribe me with £20,000 of equity in my publicly owned flat, before we toss them out on their fat Tory arses again.

It is a fetching prospect, but unfortunately I think it is likely to be a lot messier than that.

Fun though!]]> Spencer Lobby Fri, 14 May 2010 10:02:26 -0600 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,31396,31396#msg-31396 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,31396,31396#msg-31396
[www.theglobeandmail.com]

[www.conservative.ca]]]> Margaret S Lobby Thu, 06 May 2010 10:56:43 -0600 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,31339,31339#msg-31339 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,31339,31339#msg-31339
[www.cnn.com]]]> Gina Lobby Thu, 06 May 2010 12:15:56 -0600 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,31318,31318#msg-31318 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,31318,31318#msg-31318
8-)]]> Gina Lobby Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:48:42 -0600 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,31131,31131#msg-31131 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,31131,31131#msg-31131
So we have thirty days of over-excited media coverage to endure. And nothing to hope for as New Labour are Tories and Tories are just as much neo-liberals as New Labour.

There is a general disdain for politics and politicians after all the MP's expenses scandals, but underlying that is the fact that there is no meaningful choice to be made. Almost no one seems to have any actual enthusiasm for the either of the main two parties, unless they are being paid to express it.

The Tories can say what they like but they would not have regulated the City (bankers etc) any more tightly than Labour who were just carrying on with Thatcherite deregulation. They would have followed the US into Iraq just as enthusiastically.

So Old Etonian Cameron going on about time for change and coming up with all sorts of vacuous slogans about it cannot actually say what he would have done differently.

It is all immensely depressing.]]> Spencer Lobby Sat, 08 May 2010 18:49:11 -0600 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,30934,30934#msg-30934 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,30934,30934#msg-30934
(Emoticonflute2champ.gif)

My mom called with the news earlier today...

We told our kids at dinner that they needed to remember this day...a great day for America.]]> JaneGS Lobby Tue, 20 Apr 2010 09:27:29 -0600 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,30908,30908#msg-30908 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,30908,30908#msg-30908
And the delay will give us time to make up another codename:

[www.theaustralian.com.au]

THE codename chosen for a secret policing operation to protect US President Barack Obama during his visit to Australia sounds innocuous enough.

But calling it Operation Blue Gum, after Australia's iconic native trees, almost caused an international embarrassment.

US consular officials were aghast when briefed by their counterparts in the NSW Police Force about the title, Blue Gum. In America, a "bluegum" is offensive slang for a lazy African-American who refuses to work.

Well how were we supposed to know that?]]> louise c Lobby Wed, 31 Mar 2010 05:03:02 -0600 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,30873,30873#msg-30873 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,30873,30873#msg-30873
While checking the census website to see what to do about wrong addresses, I discovered that the US government is spending $1.2 million to sponsor a NASCAR (racecar) the purpose of which is: To increase awareness and encourage participation among hard-to-count populations living in rural parts of the country in the upcoming 2010 Census, the three-race sponsorship schedule lines up with key census mail-out and mail-back dates." I suppose the thought behind it is encouraging people to send it in in the first place is cheaper than tracking them down later, but in my case they didn't exactly do a stellar job on their end.

You can friend the US Census on facebook and even follow them on twitter, although I can't imagine why anyone would want to do so.

Oh, and I decided to ignore the address situation as they messed up half the town. Anyone who lives on a driving postal route as opposed to a walking route was wrong and they were told to deliver it anyway.]]> LisaRS Lobby Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:51:38 -0600 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,30627,30627#msg-30627 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,30627,30627#msg-30627
It would be nice to see some actual jobs coming out of the "stimulus/bailout" plans. It would be even nicer if the Democrats as a party got on board with energy independence and updating and decentralizing the grid.

Or am I being naive?

Cheryl]]> Cheryl Lobby Tue, 16 Mar 2010 11:22:17 -0600 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,30452,30452#msg-30452 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,30452,30452#msg-30452
Currently in the governor's office is Gov. Quinn, who took over for Gov. Blagovich when Blago was impeached. Blago's predecessor, George Ryan, is currently serving time for corruption in prison. Gov Quinn won his primary so he'll be on the ticket in November. Running mates aren't chosen here by the candidate, but are elected through the primaries, and then the two appear together on the November ballot.

Scott Cohen, the man who won the primary for the Lt. Governor has "a history". He said he was open about the alleged knife to the throat of his girlfriend who he didn't know was a prostitute and other issues, but couldn't get the press to listen. But it was front page headlines on the Chicago papers the day after he won.

Here the lt gov office doesn't hold much power, but is second in succession to the governor.

[www.chicagotribune.com]

It's been a strange primary. The Republican gubernatorial candidate isn't settled yet, as only 406 votes separate the top two.]]> LisaRS Lobby Mon, 08 Feb 2010 05:28:23 -0700 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,30397,30397#msg-30397 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,30397,30397#msg-30397
It's highly irritating.(taz) I'm getting better at identifying them and am now at the point where I can usually hang up before they spit out their name. Although one tricked me yesterday by sounding real so I answered him...and he just continued on with the spiel.

Has anyone else had a deluge this time around?]]> LisaRS Lobby Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:58:46 -0700 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,30239,30239#msg-30239 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,30239,30239#msg-30239
[www.nytimes.com]

Cheryl]]> Cheryl Lobby Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:50:07 -0700 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,30204,30204#msg-30204 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,30204,30204#msg-30204
It is also probably a time when many lose their faith in God out of anger at the event.

My hope that the people of Haiti can rebound from this devastation. One of my co-workers is intimatley involved with a girls school there. Her husband was scheduled to go there before the quake. I am hoping to give him a donation for relief at that particular school. It is rare to be so close to the event. Their school escaped major destruction but still things are desperate.]]> Patti Lobby Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:08:18 -0700 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,30124,30124#msg-30124 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,30124,30124#msg-30124
[www.msnbc.msn.com]]]> Gina Lobby Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:20:37 -0700 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,30082,30082#msg-30082 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,30082,30082#msg-30082 moveyourmoney.info]

This is dear to my heart because my husband works at a local community bank. I wonder if it will have any influence on the big banks.]]> Patti Lobby Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:32:25 -0700 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,29875,29875#msg-29875 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,29875,29875#msg-29875
Those portions that didn’t work or “failed miserably” as Napolitano was forced to concede, included the State Department’s failure to revoke the man’s visa after receiving credible intelligence that he was involved in a terrorist training cell, failure of the DHS to put him on the no-fly list, failure of the CIA to maintain adequate surveillance of the two former Gitmo detainees involved in the training/bombmaking cell and failure of airline personnel and airport security to keep a man with a one-way ticket, no luggage and apparently stoned to near-paralysis off the flight.

What worked “perfectly” was the after-incident system which, in Napolitano’s mind anyway seem to consist of TSA workers getting on the horn and letting everyone know that maybe some planes were going to blow up. Of course they didn’t have any real information. Being Christmas day and all it took several hours to get the bomber properly lawyered up for questioning.

She also stated that it would be “inappropriate” to speculate on whether a terrorist who claimed to be a member of Al Qaida and was confirmed to be a member by Al Qaida was in fact Al Qaida. Oops, what I meant to say was that it was inappropriate to speculate on whether the alleged man who allegedly tried to set off an alleged bomb on an alleged flight was a member of an alleged organization allegedly called Al Qaida that allegedly conducts terror attacks.

I guess we'll have to wait for the President's poll numbers to find out how much safer we're all feeling under the administration's "criminal matter" response to terrorism.

Cheryl]]> Cheryl Lobby Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:57:41 -0700 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,29778,29778#msg-29778 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,29778,29778#msg-29778
He has been looking increasingly ineffectual on health care, but I don't follow US internal politics nearly closely enough to tell how much is dither and how much is just inescapable political reality.

Then there was the indecision on Afghanistan that went on and on. I was being charitable about that and hoping that something really clever was being worked out, but in the end it just was a pointless surge. Pointless because the dimwit actually told the Taliban how long they had to hold out against it for... doh!

And now this. Flies in, waffles, fails to come up with anything to get things working and then tries to spin the failure as some sort of success. Like the CO2 is going to be impressed by the spin! (rofl)


On the whole he is working out pretty well as US presidents go. At least he hasnt invaded any new countries (unless you count all those drones blowing up villages in Pakistan, but then Bush was already doing that) and isn't actively trying to speed up the rate at which we destroy the planet or zealously working to wreck the US and thus the world economy. Nor does he seem to be a mad evangelical Christian who would actively welcome armageddon. So big improvements there to be fair.

And I can't say that I am suprised that he is increasingly looking like a ideas free windbag whose principle talent is striking statesman like poses and giving speeches in pseudo-wisdom mode, Bruce pointed out the vacuity of his prose long ago, and alerted by that post I actually listened to a bit of some of his speeches and they were indeed great strings of windy clichés strung together without any sort of discernible meaning in them. The Audacity of Hope, just about sums it up.

So no surprises. Well, there was the chance that he might hire some people to have ideas for him once he got to power. But I guess that was a longshot. And anyway, that sort of thing shouldn't really be encouraged. Look at the last one, who had The Project for the New American Century providing his ideas. Mind you I suppose that that was more a case of them hiring Bush than the other way around.

Still, it is a bit of a pity that "The Leader of The Free World" apparantly isn't going to do very much about the threat of the world turning into an overheated hell. Let's just hope no hostile aliens turn up!]]> Spencer Lobby Sat, 26 Dec 2009 08:31:30 -0700 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,29253,29253#msg-29253 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,29253,29253#msg-29253
[www.newyorker.com]

Here's the highlight:


Quote:
"Since we do live in an Oprahcentric world, it was only a little surprising that Winfrey started the conversation by asking Palin whether she felt snubbed by not being asked to be on Winfrey’s show last year. “For the first time in my life, as you know, I decided to publicly support a candidate, uh, as a private citizen,” Winfrey said. It didn’t seem to occur to her that that stab at modesty at the end of the sentence was, as they say on the Internet, an epic fail: Oprah as a private citizen is not even possible to imagine at this point. Because of her public support for Obama, she said, she decided not to have any of the candidates on the show. Not to worry, Oprah. Palin was pretty busy last year, and said that Oprah’s non-snub “didn’t register—no offense to you, but it wasn’t the center of my universe.”


I like Palin's all-too-obvious response, "no offense to you." Classic!]]> Bruce Lobby Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:59:35 -0700 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,29178,29178#msg-29178 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,29178,29178#msg-29178
Be that as it may, I'm more concerned about the practicality of this plan. Specifically whether or not the administration has put any more thought into it than they did the plan to close Gitmo within a year. The administration has bounced from embarrassment to embarrassment because of its inability to make accurate real-world assessments of, well, just about anything. From the Gitmo closure to Chicago's chances with the IOC to unemployment figures, deficit growth and tax revenues.

The second issue is the failure of the administration to get the basics accomplished. The US went into the G20 summit with only, what was it, 2 or 4 of the top 21 appointees in place? And the appointees it has put in have been so poorly vetted that shock jocks like Glenn Beck can take them down. Cash for Clunkers, the no-jobs "stimulus", the Chrysler and GM takeovers, the home-buyers credit, all high-profile failures in execution.

I realize that these things may seem somewhat minor but the problem is that if the current administration is incapable a realistic assessment of how its own party will vote, how realistic is their assessment of the security risks of this plan? If they can't get the Treasury or State Department fully manned with competent people, what's happening in the Justice Department? We're not talking about people being unemployed for an extra year or wasting tax money we're talking about putting 10 million lives at risk during the trial.

And for what? Does anyone seriously believe that any outcome short of KSM walking free with a groveling apology from the US is going to be seen as anything except a kangaroo court with a foregone conclusion? KSM and bin Laden took credit for 9/11 immediately yet millions believe whatever insane conspiracy theory comes down the pike.

For NYC's sake I hope the President isn't what he appears to me to be: unprepared, inexperienced, none too bright, and in way over his head.

Cheryl]]> Cheryl Lobby Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:20:44 -0700 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,29093,29093#msg-29093 http://www.dregston.com/boards/read.php?18,29093,29093#msg-29093
Well, I'm so glad to have had that cleared up. Without that clarification, I'd have been tempted to go on believing that Wall Street is composed almost entirely profiteering jacka$$es without moral vision and without any concept of paying consequences for their actions. But now that I know that God is behind it all, I will sleep really well from now on. 8-)]]> Gina Lobby Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:01:33 -0700