Unsold memoribilia, maybe?
Posted by aogWednesday, 07 October 2009 at 11:09 TrackBack Ping URL

I was reminded reading some comments of the Presidential Library Act and left to wonder, what exactly will ex-President Obama put in there, given the huge blank that his “life and career” has been made?

Comments — Formatting by Textile
erp Wednesday, 07 October 2009 at 12:04

All the secrets he’s kept from the public starting with his birth certificate.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Friday, 09 October 2009 at 03:37

On the 4th of August, 1961, a son was born to a Mr. & Mrs. Barack H. Obama of 6085 Kalanlanaole Hwy., Honolulu, Hawai’i, as reported AT THE TIME in the Birth Announcements of the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.

Now, it ain’t impossible that the current POTUS’ wily Kenyan father, knowing that his son would have a shot at the White House forty years later, called some friends in Hawai’i and had ‘em slip that item into an American paper, so as to provide some supporting evidence for a forged birth certificate.

But that’s not a theory that I’d care to hang my hat on.

Further, there’s no question that Barack Obama is a) a native American citizen and b) culturally an American. So the whole “natural born” thing is essentially pedantic trivia, much like the non-ratification of the 16th Amendment - it just doesn’t matter.

joe shropshire Friday, 09 October 2009 at 08:18

You’ve got better comic timing than Harry.

erp Friday, 09 October 2009 at 08:42

Rough,

I also believe he was born in Hawaii, so why has Obama has not produced an official birth certificate? There must be some information he doesn’t want known. Perhaps his parents marriage is illegal because his father was already married (he had a wife in Kenya) and that may also be the reason Harvard didn’t include Stanley and little Barrack when they gave Obama, Sr a scholarship.

There’s so much we don’t know. Aren’t you curious as to why Obama’s grandmother was never contacted by the media. Dozens of reporters went to Alaska to rummage through Palin’s garbage looking for dirt on her yet no investigative reporter went to Hawaii to find out the dirt on the prodigy’s childhood — like who paid for the expensive private school, the communist pervert long-term house guest who lived with him during his childhood. His mother’s bizarre behavior — why did she leave her son in Hawaii while she stayed in Indonesia after her divorce from husband #2. There are so many questions and practically no one asking them. Now granny is dead and all documents are sealed. His half-sister and her husband have been brought to the White House and given government jobs, so it’s unlikely she’ll talk.

Obviously there’s a good reason Obama spent upwards of a million dollars to keep everything in his past secret.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 09 October 2009 at 10:29

AVRRA;

I don’t see how the circumstances of Barak Obama’s birth change the fact that he’s gone to no small effort to restrict access to most of his personal life, including his birth certificate. Try addressing the actual point, not a red herring.

Brian Friday, 09 October 2009 at 11:38

erp: I suspect that Obama was listed as a dual citizen at birth. It’s really not a big deal. It would be shocking if that were not true, actually. Children born to parents of different nationality are essentially always so listed. But I think that HE thinks that enough people would be upset by it that he doesn’t want it known. And the secrecy that he keeps about himself (and that the media keeps for him, which is more outrageous) IS a big deal.

My understanding is that he was miserable in Indonesia and wanted to move to Hawaii for school. I thought I read something like that, back when he was in the news for slandering his poor grandmother who helped raise him during that time. As for the cost of Punahou, surely they gave him a scholarship. “Diversity” and all that jazz. Wouldn’t be tough for him, considering that Hawaii has a vanishingly small number of non-military blacks (and those in the military don’t send their kids to elite private prep schools).

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Friday, 09 October 2009 at 15:16

Try addressing the actual point, not a red herring.

Well, I didn’t understand that “given the huge blank that his ‘life and career’ has been made” meant “he’s gone to no small effort to restrict access to most of his personal life”.

What was specifically addressed was the matter of his birth certificate, about which situation I have knowledge. Further, to many that’s not a red herring, that’s the crux of the issue - they believe that if it can somehow be proven that O-dog was not born in the U.S., then he will be removed from office. (And then we’ll be treated to the beneficence of President Biden. O joy.)

There’s so much we don’t know. Aren’t you curious as to why [etc.]

Obviously there’s a good reason Obama spent upwards of a million dollars to keep everything in his past secret.

Yes, I’d like to know about all of that, I just don’t think that us not knowing disqualifies him from serving. After all, the electorate KNEW about all of those curiosities BEFORE choosing him as President, and about his racist and anti-American friends.

If, after full disclosure, (which in this instance means knowing full well that Obama isn’t disclosing all), the American people still want him to be their leader…1

Plenty of thugs, criminals, ruffians, venalities and incompetents have occupied the Oval Office, e.g. JFK (in your opinion) and the three Presidents between Reagan and Obama (IMO). In fact, the list of Presidents who’d fall into one or more of those categories is FAR longer than the list of those who were none of those things.

1 Which may indicate more about the general unpopularity and incompetence of the GOP than it does about O-dog’s “universal appeal”.

erp Friday, 09 October 2009 at 15:48

Who are the they of which you speak?

All previous presidents have been vetted to some extent and all except Clinton have voluntarily revealed their medical records. None have gone to such lengths to deliberately conceal their past.

You can’t be so naive as to think any of Obama’s adoring multitudes know anything at all about the stuff we discuss on this blog or others like it — and that includes the media.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 09 October 2009 at 16:15

Hmmm, well, my use of the term “life and career” rather than “birth” was not an accident. Also, the only one who has brought up eligibility is you, so I am not clear on why you think that’s a key point here. It may be the crux to others, but not to us here.

P.S. I have come to the conclusion that Obama spent $1M - $2M on securing his CLOB because it was a way of laundering campaign contributions for his cronies. Spending huge wads of cash on futile projects that only enrich his fellow thugs at other people’s expense isn’t an aberration, it’s the story of his life.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Friday, 09 October 2009 at 16:51

All previous presidents have been vetted to some extent…

And so has Obama. Do you think that the GOP didn’t spend millions of dollars and thousands of hours looking for dirt on Obama?!?

That which hasn’t been revealed is very likely only trivialities and embarrassments. So he has a kooky family. Many Presidents have come from strange backrounds, and I have too.

He’s not the Manchurian Candidate.

You can’t be so naive as to think any of Obama’s adoring multitudes know anything at all about the stuff we discuss on this blog…

What I think is that Obama convinced 53% of American voters to cast their ballot for him, and only about half of them were “Obama adorers”. We live in a democracy where there’s no requirement that voters know ANYTHING, other than how to register to vote, and how & where to cast their ballot.

In addition, you do both yourself and the American electorate a disservice if you assume that 53% of American voters are uneducated and presumably ineducable. Or perhaps that’s true, but what’s false is the assumption that such bumpkins didn’t split their vote between the City Slicker and the Noble Man. Both sides had plenty of silly people and idiots as boosters.

Anyway, the case of Obama’s mysterious past was well-dissected, considered, and discarded. Remember also that Bush the Younger was elected despite wide-spread questions about his military service and corporate past. It’s a matter of public record that a person who wasn’t as well-connected as was Bush may well have faced criminal charges of insider trading and corporate malfeasance with regard to stock sales and other decisions at some of the companies where he was an executive.

But the voters chose to overlook Bush’s peccadillos, and did so again with Obama’s.

Also, the only one who has brought up eligibility is you, so I am not clear on why you think that’s a key point here.

I don’t.

However, since the only thing that I initially had to work with was “secrets” and “birth certificate”, I necessarily had to make some assumptions about what that might mean to the original commenter. (As is necessary with almost every comment, eh, not to mention post, since mostly we don’t iterate all of the backround thinking that went into the final verbiage - we don’t “show our work”.)

erp Friday, 09 October 2009 at 17:18

1. No I don’t think Republicans spent millions of dollars checking into Obama’s past because if they had, it would have been plastered across the media.

2. I didn’t mention a Manchurian Candidate.

3. I never said voters are uneducated. I said they didn’t know about the things we discuss here because they didn’t take the time to understand the scam that was being pulled on them. Also not to be too repetitious, I think ACORN had a lot to do with Obama being nominated and enough to do with his election to make a difference.

4. I’ve made no assumptions about city slickers, so I don’t know what that’s all about.

You’re about the only person I’ve ever “spoke” with who thinks my comments aren’t wordy enough. As AOG says, you don’t speak to the words in the comment, i.e., who are the they of which you spoke.

Bush is about the only public figure who I believe is totally without guile. Disagree with his politics, but please stop repeating ridiculous canards about his reputation. You may recall his alleged military service misconduct was totally debunked.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 09 October 2009 at 17:48

Obama was absolutely not vetted, it’s a laughable suggestion. Consider school transcripts for instance — where are Obama’s? Where are stories involving people he met at college? What did he do with all the money for the Annenberg Challenge? Did he really write Dreams of my Father? How did an unknown person like him get a $150K advance on that book? When did he first meet Bill Ayers? How did that house purchase and relationship with Rezko work? What about Blagojevich?

No, basically his entire life before he shows up in the Illinois legislature (and plenty after that) is terra incognito.

Anyway, the case of Obama’s mysterious past was well-dissected, considered, and discarded.

Not that I noticed. Tell me where to find answer from this “dissection” to the above questions.

Bret Friday, 09 October 2009 at 18:40

He was vetted to some degree.

I knew about Reverend Wright, his connection with Ayers, his connections with left wing groups, etc. so somebody did some level of vetting to the point where I could read about it.

There were a number of reasons this information wasn’t widespread:

1. Anything even vaguely bad was immediately dismissed with a charge of !!!RACIST!!!2

2. McCain decided to not put much effort in bringing these things to everybody’s attention.

3. Many people were so enthralled with Obama that they would’ve ignored it anyway.

Some of the things on your list are rather unknowable. The publisher probably isn’t interested in disclosing their perspective on the book deal, for example.

2 At this point “racist” has lost its meaning in my circle and has become a jovial snub as in responding to “I forgot to buy the beer at the store” with “You racist!”

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 09 October 2009 at 21:11

I will stick with “least vetted Presidential candidate since WWII”. Even all the stuff that was concealed about JFK doesn’t approach the level of obscuration for Obama.

erp Friday, 09 October 2009 at 22:05

Bret,

What you knew about Obama wasn’t from reading the papers, news magazines or watching network news. You learned it from blogs and internet web pages.

AOG,

In the 60’s there were still some non-totally-liberal papers and the network news wasn’t totally unreliable, so quite a bit about JFK was reported even his taking pain killers for his back was known.

Gradually as Joe Kennedy and the Irish mafia went into the land, criticism stopped and he became the matinee idol most people remember. Of course, after his death, he became a sainted martyr.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Monday, 12 October 2009 at 12:10

They.

[S]top repeating ridiculous canards about [Bush the Younger’s] reputation.

Here are PDF files containing the documents related to the SEC’s investigation of Bush’s sales of Harken Energy stock.

Here and here are explanations of how companies that employed W. while Bush the Elder was President benefitted from unusual investment and business deals.

These things are not canards, they’re public records, EASILY available to anyone who has curiousity and a desire to know. But I understand why any person might not want to know that their hero is merely human, with feet of clay.

I’ve just never thought that the white hats had to be Galahads, pure as the driven snow.

Finally, I don’t find it at all unusual or reprehensible that a person would trade off of their family name and/or connections. That’s what people DO. I’d find it odd if a person didn’t behave in such a way, if they could.

It’s just that such behavior can lead to ethical questions, should one run for high office.

erp Monday, 12 October 2009 at 15:30

Has Bush been indicted or convicted of wrong doing (other than AG Holder’s feverish mind)?

I didn’t think so.

The issue of Obama’s birth certificate has already been fully discussed here. The crux of the matter is, he has not produced it. Why?

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Monday, 12 October 2009 at 22:00

If the standard is to be “not indicted or convicted of wrongdoing”, then Obama scores just as highly as does Bush - by YOUR OWN STATED STANDARD, there is no difference between “the only public figure who is totally without guile” and The City Slicker.

If the crux of the matter IS Obama’s birth certificate, then what do you expect would be revealed, and what will happen when it is revealed?

Let us suppose that Obama WAS born in Kenya, for instance, or that the certificate indicates dual citizenship. What do you think would be the repercussion of that? (Or I could just tell you now what will happen if that were to be revealed, if you prefer.)

Or, if we are to say that the crux of the matter isn’t Obama’s birth certificate itself, but rather O-dog’s behavior - the refusal to release - then we’ve already concluded that the American people knew that he wasn’t going to produce the document, and elected him anyway. So, unless the public changes its mind and decides that being secretive is a deal-breaker, the “birth certificate” issue is a dead end.

erp Tuesday, 13 October 2009 at 08:03

It’s not the standard, it’s the double standard. They, and when I say they, I mean the entire left — media, politicians, academe, the arts, etc. have been gunning for Bush. If there was anything to all the accusations and snide allegations, he would have been frog-marched to jail in a twinkling.

OTOH, wrong doing by Obama & pals, Rangel, Kennedy, Reid, Pelosi, Clinton, Biden*, etc. is given a pass even when all the details are known.

You keep asking the same question about Obama’s birth certificate and I don’t want to repeat my answers. I don’t know why he’s not making it and all the rest of his past public. I also answered that the voting public who relied on the media for their information about Obama, doesn’t know that he’s spent millions to keep his past secret, i.e., both he and his wife have lost their licenses to practice law in Illinois. Pretty astonishing. Ask the man on the street if he knows about that.

*Biden’s daughter was caught with drugs. What happened? Nothing. Bush’s daughters were drinking in a Texas college town bar. What happened? Media mania for weeks and weeks. Reporters following them around… Clinton’s daughter was falling down drunk many times. What happened? Everyone got mad that it was reported and everything got hushed up. Lots more like this.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Tuesday, 13 October 2009 at 22:28

If there was anything to all the accusations and snide allegations, [Bush] would have been frog-marched to jail in a twinkling.

Um, no. Not when your father is the POTUS - ask Neil Bush about that. Or when your brother is POTUS - ask Roger Clinton.

You say that “the entire left” has been gunning for W., and that’s true, but the entire left isn’t all of society, it’s (at best) 30% of society. That provides plenty of company and support on the other side.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but in reading your post I get the distinct impression that you regard W.’s lack of indictment as proof that he’s innocent of any wrongdoing ever, but the lack of indictment of Obama simply proves that powerful people have been covering for him. Now THAT is a “double standard”.

You keep asking the same question about Obama’s birth certificate and I don’t want to repeat my answers.

All you’ve previously said about the issue is that “perhaps [Obama’s] parents’ marriage is illegal because his father was already married (he had a wife in Kenya)” and (several times) that Obama has spent considerable time and money to obscure certain points about his past.

You’ve written NOTHING AT ALL about what you think might happen if said document were to be made public. Maybe that’s slipped your mind.

In any case, being illegitimate is irrelevant to the question of whether or not one is a “natural born” American citizen, and so whether his parents were legally married or not is moot. And you agree that Obama was most likely born in Hawai’i.

But you’ve also written that “the crux of the matter is, [Obama] has not produced [that birth certificate]. Why?”, which leads me to believe that you think that there IS something there that would affect Obama at this late stage, having already been elected - but something other than that which you’ve already mentioned.

It’s a bit confusing.

Unless it’s merely that you think that the general public will for some reason start caring that they don’t know much about Obama if more stuff about his past surfaced.

I don’t think that they will, unless something REALLY juicy came to light - “a dead girl or a live boy”, to quote former Louisiana governor and current felon Edwin Washington Edwards.

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 08:08

AVRRA;

There’s an asymmetry in prosecution at high political levels depending on one’s party affiliation — one need only look back at the Plame affair for a classic example. So lack of indictment is indicative but not determinative.

Also, what I would expect from making Obama’s CLOB public isa demonstration that Constitutional requirements are to be enforced and a blow against the exact effect of political insulation that you describe. The government won’t let me say “well, I don’t think he’s an illegal alien” when I hire someone, I have to check. Let the the chief executive officer suffer the same, unless we’re really accepted a ruling class.

erp Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 08:31

Rough, for last time. The question, stated several times, isn’t that Obama may be illegitimate, but WHY he doesn’t want his birth certificate made public.

Your contention that Democrats and Republicans are treated equally is silly.

I’ve already given the example of reporters scrabbling all over Palin’s past to uncover dirt and/or wrong doing (didn’t find anything other than she didn’t have an abortion when she learned her baby had Down Syndrome) while totally ignoring Obama’s many questionable associations. Many of the links I had gathered about him prior to the media blackout have mysteriously gone missing.

A Republican congressman was hounded out of office for writing questionable emails while Rangel is still lording it over the congress with a rap sheet miles long.

Neil Bush wasn’t indicted because his father was vice-president? Hardly. it’s more likely that’s the reason he was targeted.

BTW neither Keating nor his five senator pals were indicted either. I can’t remember that any of them had a father who was POTUS, but if you recall, Clinton appointed one of them, DeConcini to the Board of Directors of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. Democrats have a long history of putting a fox in to control the hen house, (see current scandal with Barney Frank continuing to demand special mortgage handling for poor folks).

Brian Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 13:30

AVRRA: “But you’ve also written that “the crux of the matter is, [Obama] has not produced [that birth certificate]. Why?”, which leads me to believe that you think that there IS something there that would affect Obama at this late stage”

While erp’s perfectly capable of speaking for herself, and you’re just not listening, I’ll just say that I don’t think she’s implied that there is necessarily anything significant there at all. Her question is really about why Obama is so secretive? People can be hysterically paranoid with no reason, even if they’re famous and powerful. Personally, I think during the campaign he was trying to cover up (for no real good reason, really) that he was listed as a dual-citizen at birth because he was afraid that it would hurt his election chances—and for evidence he worried about that sort of “foreign” label look at the way anyone who used his middle name was attacked, and look at the idiotic fracas over the New Yorker cover that was actually supporting him! And now he can’t back down and release it because it would reveal what an unserious, paranoid, and controlling guy he is. “He covered up THAT? How pathetic. What a bizarre thing to do. Is that really the sort of guy I voted for?”

erp Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 14:40

Brian, thanks for your support, but I believe Rough is quoting from one of my comments, not expressing his own view.

Here IMO is Rough’s take on Obama — a well informed electorate chose him by a large margin.

Buyer remorse coming right up.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 21:43

So lack of indictment is indicative but not determinative.

Sure. My point is that W.’s publicly-documented behavior before he ran for Governor of Texas heavily substantiates a claim that he sometimes acted in ways which were at best borderline-legal. If we are to say that only indictments count, then both W. and Obama are as pure as Montanan snow.

But we KNOW that neither of them are anything of the sort.

Really, I’m just curious as to whether erp will admit that we’re talking about two HEAVILY flawed men, who both also have strong points, and that she simply likes one of them much better.

Also, what I would expect from making Obama’s CLOB public isa demonstration that Constitutional requirements are to be enforced and a blow against the exact effect of political insulation that you describe.

What I would expect, should it be revealed that he was born outside of the U.S., is that after a lot of legal wrangling America would ditch the technical and never-tested requirement that the POTUS have been born on American soil. There’s evidence that the Founders didn’t mean to exclude American citizens, born abroad to American parents, from running for the highest office, e.g. the Naturalization Act of 1790.

But the Constitutional question might have come up anyway with a President McCain, since the circumstances of his birth are open to “natural born” interpretation as well.

And after all, at least three Hawai’ian state gov’t officials have addressed the Obama birth certificate issue, and those are the people who could be expected to testify about the authenticity of that document should it come to a court case. Other than the specific question about whether or not his American birth certificate is genuine, there’s no Constitutional requirement for any Presidential candidate to release any documents, including medical records or tax returns.

The question, stated several times, isn’t that Obama may be illegitimate, but WHY he doesn’t want his birth certificate made public.

Yes, you’ve asked that numerous times, which is why I keep asking you “what do you expect to find?” Really, what could one find in such a document?

I was wondering if you would respond with a specific thesis, as did Brian on October 9th at 11:38 and October 14th at 13:30, or AOG on October 9th at 16:15.

Otherwise it’s just a fishing expedition, and as I’ve endeavored to show, there’s no monopoly on bad behavior by any party or part of the political spectrum. Personally I’d LOVE it if every questionable or outright bad action, decision or choice by any public official became widespread public knowledge; but based on your comments over the past few months, it seems as though you might be quite shocked by who has done what.

A Republican congressman was hounded out of office for writing questionable emails while Rangel is still lording it over the congress with a rap sheet miles long.

“Hounded out of office” by whom? By adverse public opinion - the voters. If the electorate is fine with Rangel, then until such time as the Ethics Committee bounces him we HAVE TO respect the decision of the voters. That’s how a democracy works.

The Republicans would have a lot less trouble with the voters if they’d just stop being hypocrites. There’s a VERY GOOD REASON that voters gave Congress to the Dems in 2006, and then did the same with the White House in 2008.

“Duke” Cunningham, Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, Richard Pombo, Bob Ney, Curt Weldon, Mark Foley - any of those ring a bell?

Now, I’ll agree that it isn’t fair that voters expect Dem politicians to be a little shady and/or nutty, while perhaps punishing GOP politicians disproportionately for their moral and ethical lapses, but there’s an easy fix for that: Go after the same voters that the Dems do, and leave the hard Right for the Natural Law and Constitution parties.

Or, y’know, practice what they preach. It’s a very simple concept.

BTW neither Keating nor his five senator pals were indicted either [and] Clinton appointed one of them, DeConcini to the Board of Directors of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. Democrats have a long history of putting a fox in to control the hen house…

While the Republicans made one of them, McCain, their candidate for President of the United States. Talk about putting the fox in charge of the henhouse…1

Further, three of those Senators chose not to run for re-election, due to the damage done to their reputations through their participation in the affair.

Here IMO is Rough’s take on Obama — a well informed electorate chose him by a large margin.

The electorate did choose him by a large margin, and they were as informed as they ever are - which is to say, to a modest extent; to exactly the extent that they cared to be. The truth was out there.

If that standard falls far short of the situation as you or I might wish it to be… Well, welcome to reality.

1 Yeah, McCain’s no villain, in fact he acquitted himself pretty well vis-à-vis the rest of the Keating Senators - nonetheless…

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 22:14

There’s evidence that the Founders didn’t mean to exclude American citizens, born abroad to American parents, from running for the highest office

Yes, but I also think that the Founders were also concerned about the formation of citizens, as citizen rulers were an essential part of their political outlook. This is a problem for naturalized citizens, particularly those raised elsewhere who then come back just for the election.

But the Constitutional question might have come up anyway with a President McCain

No, those points already came up which, not a bit oddly, was not something at issue for Obama despite McCain fulling release his birth records.

at least three Hawai’ian state gov’t officials have addressed the Obama birth certificate issue

Not very well. Passably one might argue, but in a highly parsed manner and not cross consistent manner. However, doesn’t this just makes it more difficult to understand not doing a full release?

Yes, you’ve asked that numerous times, which is why I keep asking you “what do you expect to find?”

No, the question is “what does Obama expect us to find?”. After all, it’s Obama who is keeping it under wraps, not erp. That’s just a irrelevant deflection. My suggestion answers this question, not yours.

The Republicans would have a lot less trouble with the voters if they’d just stop being hypocrites.

You can’t be serious. As you note, it’s that for some reason, members of the Democratic Party are simply not held to any standards. I would note that many people believe that the only reason McCain was in the Keating 5 was so that it wouldn’t be all Democratic Party. I.e., he was a scape goat from the start. I find that plausible.

If you want to compare, why not compare former Senator Ted Stevens and Rangel? Or Stevens and Dodd. Those are interesting. Or heck, Foley and his replacement. Which one had more illicit sex, and which one is remembered? Or Jack Ryan, the guy who was knocked via sealed divorce records to let Obama win. Records which contained a “sex scandal” that involved only his wife, and no sex, and turned out later to have been mostly exaggerations. What do you think Ryan should have done to avoid being a hypocrite or practicing what he preached?

P.S. I wouldn’t call Obama’s margin large. Clear, I think is more accurate.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 04:11

No, the question is “what does Obama expect us to find?”. After all, it’s Obama who is keeping it under wraps, not erp. That’s just a irrelevant deflection.

Not at all, since I don’t care what Obama is concealing with respect to this particular document.

What interests me is what erp thinks is there.

Both you and Brian have posited reasonable theories, but nothing that’d be a big problem for Obama at this stage - just an embarrassment, as Brian points out.

The Republicans would have a lot less trouble with the voters if they’d just stop being hypocrites.
You can’t be serious. As you note, it’s that for some reason, members of the Democratic Party are simply not held to any standards.

Democrats are absolutely held to standards, they’re just different standards. Look at Hillary and Lieberman, and how much trouble they got into with the Dem base over their war votes.

The GOP wants to appeal to the socially conservative. Fine. Just be conservative and law-abiding, then. If you want to fool around sexually or with drugs, or cut corners when accepting money, then run as a Dem.

It’s the “campaign Right, live Left” dynamic that’s laid low the GOP, IMO.

If you want to compare, why not compare former Senator Ted Stevens and Rangel?

Two peas in a pod. Both have/had been in Congress for FAR too long, both got lax about their roles as public servants and began to believe that they were entitled to special deals and preferential treatment. (I mean, very special deals and extra-preferential treatment, since all members of Congress feel entitled.)

What do you think Ryan should have done to avoid being a hypocrite or practicing what he preached?

What I think is that Jack should have made absolutely certain that Jeri would support him before he made his bid. If Jeri had immediately announced that she was “misunderstood” during the divorce proceedings, and that she 100% endorsed Jack for the U.S. Senate, then it might have blown over.

Barring that, he shouldn’t have agreed to unseal the documents. He was trying to thread the needle of appearing to be open, yet also continuing to conceal, and his luck turned bad. Them’s the breaks.

I wouldn’t call Obama’s margin large. Clear, I think is more accurate.

Yeah, I was considering what to call it. It wasn’t anywhere near a Reagan vs. Mondale blowout, but it also was less contested than a comfortable-but-close 51%-49% win.

Obama got double the number of Electoral votes and carried 25% more states than did McCain, and received 16% more popular votes. The spread between Obama and McCain was 7.2%. That seems “large”.

erp Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 08:22

Obama doesn’t want any of his past made public. Clearly said at least a half dozen times.

Odd that you don’t care what the president’s motives are, but want to know what an anonymous geezerette retiree in Florida is thinking.

Here it is for what it’s worth. I think it’s impossible to discuss an issue unless the terms have been defined and there is agreement on the facts.

Stevens was tried and found not guilty for a far lesser offense than those known about Pelosi, Reid, Rangel, Dodd, et al. Yet they haven’t been reprimanded, nevermind indicted because Democratics just keep circling the wagons and the same foxes who caused the current crisis are still there in the hen house.

Ryan, Jack, Jeri? Don’t know them.

Large numbers, clear victory? — nitpicking semantics.

Obama won and we’ll be paying the price for that for years to come.

erp Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 08:35

Just found this in the Canada Free Press. Too bad we don’t have a free press here at home.

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 08:53

Stevens and Rangel may be two peas in a pod, but only one was forced out of office. The other still chairs one of the most important committees in Congress.

Anyway, my understanding of the Ryan issue is that Ryan did not agree to unseal the records, that it was done against his and Jeri’s wishes. I also think it’s a bit of a high standard to say a divorced GOP candidate can’t run unless his ex-wife is 100% behind him.

P.S. Here’s a cite related to getting indicted based on politics.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 18:46

Obama doesn’t want any of his past made public. Clearly said at least a half dozen times.

That’s right, but whilst being insistant that such is sinister, you also refuse to elucidate what you think is his motivation for so doing. That leaves your position summarizable as “I have a formless anxiety about Obama.” Also known as ODS.

Odd that you don’t care what the president’s motives are, but want to know what an anonymous geezerette retiree in Florida is thinking.

I’m not talking to the President, I’m talking to you. Therefore, I want to know what you think.

Further, with regard only to the specific issue of his birth certificate, there’s nothing there that would shock me, or that could dislodge Obama1, so why should I care?

Now, if it could be shown that Obama’s mother wasn’t an American citizen, or possibly had renounced her citizenship, then Obama could be in deep trouble.

Obama won and we’ll be paying the price for that for years to come.

And reaping the benefits, such as muting and blunting those who make a living from racial tensions, and having a clear one-up in moral superiority over Western Europe and the rest of the world.

Plus, we actually DID overcome!!!!!!!! Truly, free at last.

That’s worth celebrating. That our culture is so inclusive and elastic is ultimately going to be the wellspring of strength that kills Islamic expansionism - it’s too brittle to stand against us, in the fullness of time.2

Finally, we’ll also have the immediate and practical benefit of having more candidates from which to choose for high offices, as more people of color will feel that winning races is possible. More choice is good.

Just found this in the Canada Free Press. Too bad we don’t have a free press here at home.

*sigh* JB Williams, like you, has an active contempt for the American electorate, similar to the classic Euroweenie headline in 2004, after Bush the Younger’s re-election: “How can 59054087 people be so DUMB?”3,4

Williams also misunderstands both the process and nature of what he’s discussing. As to process, he writes:

Maybe it is “crazy” that “birthers” are only concerned with the missing birth certificate at this late date?

Most American citizens have a job, a bank account, a post office box, a driver’s license, and some even have high level security clearances. What was asked of you before you can have any of these things?

Something more than a simple birth certificate, yes?

But that’s not true. I got my bank account by showing my driver’s license, and to get my driver’s license I merely showed my birth certificate. (Yes, it’s tougher after 9/11, but most Americans had bank accounts and driver’s licenses before 9/11, and I’ve never been asked for more than my license when renewing it.) As for a job, one can show a driver’s license and SS card, OR a passport, to satisfy I-9 requirements - and Obama has all three of those documents.

Which pretty much guts Williams’s point in that passage.

As to the nature: Williams is concerned that Obama couldn’t pass a backround check for a security clearance.

But who grants security clearances? Bureaucracies do. And for whom do bureaucracies ultimately work? (Even though they often forget this, and have to be periodically curbed.) The people - the citizenry of the U.S.

Now, in the businesses that I’ve owned, we’ve had certain policies and procedures for employees. Did those apply to me?

No, they did not, although I often followed them to increase employee morale. The point of the policies was to (attempt to) ensure that business was conducted in a manner that was consistent with my desires. The policies are to benefit me, and I can change or circumvent them should I decide that another method or approach would be better.

Similarly, the ultimate goal of security clearances is to safeguard the American citizenry. But the American people decide on what procedures are to be used, what safeguards are to be enforced, and what the ultimate goals and aims of such policies are.

THAT is why security is always a POLITICAL issue: Whom and where should the CIA or FBI watch, arrest, question or kill; torture or no torture; assassinate foreign peoples in their own lands or not; disclose U.S. documents and activities - or not…

So if the American people, who are their own Overlords, choose to make a security risk their leader, who can gainsay that?

It may not be wise, but that’s democracy. (Or Republicanism, if you prefer.)

Stevens and Rangel may be two peas in a pod, but only one was forced out of office. The other still chairs one of the most important committees in Congress.

Maybe not for long.

Anyway, my understanding of the Ryan issue is that Ryan did not agree to unseal the records, that it was done against his and Jeri’s wishes.

Both Ryans agreed to a partial unsealing of the records, and left the extent of the unsealing up to a court-appointed child advocate and a judge. Things didn’t go as well as Jack had hoped.

I also think it’s a bit of a high standard to say a divorced GOP candidate can’t run unless his ex-wife is 100% behind him.

It’s not that a candidate with “history” can’t run, it’s that it’s FOLLY to run without ensuring that any baggage is, or can be, neutralized.

Surely Jack knew about the charges that Jeri had made during the divorce proceedings - shouldn’t a careful candidate have thought “hmm, what if that stuff gets out? What’s my plan for that?”

But he didn’t have a plan, despite his foreknowledge. Epic fail.

Here’s one strategy: Release first, so that it’s self-disclosure and not a shocking surprise revelation. When Jack announces for the Senate, have Jeri there to say “I was bitter during the divorce, and I said some things that I now regret, and Jack will make a fine U.S. Senator.” Then it probably blows over.

1 IMO. If it turns out that he doesn’t meet the “natural born citizen” criteria, then I suspect that we’ll just change the standard. After all, in the 21st century it’s a bit short-sighted to require that the POTUS have simply been born in a specific geographic location. As AOG commented up-thread, what we really want are people who are born as American citizens, and who are culturally American. Birthplace immaterial.

2 That quality is also why the U.S. of A. are likely to retain global leadership throughout the 21st century. We get bogged down but not paralyzed by cultural conflict, unlike Europe, and we absorb newcomers, unlike Asia.

3 Daily Mirror, November 4th, 2004

4 Yes, you say not, writing “I never said voters are uneducated” - but you also insist that they’re ignorant of the issues which upset you. Perhaps they are aware, and simply disagree with you about the importance of such things?

erp Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 19:18

Wow! Rough, I surrender to your supernatural ability to read my mind and condemn me not only for things I haven’t said, but things I’ve never even thought about. Pace.

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 20:35

And reaping the benefits, such as muting and blunting those who make a living from racial tensions, and having a clear one-up in moral superiority over Western Europe and the rest of the world.

Again, you can’t be serious. Obama has done more to inflame racial tensions so far than Bush did in 8 years. Race relations are going to far worse after 4 years of Obama. As for any perceived moral superiority over Western Europe

  • Who cares?
  • It won’t happen.
AVeryRoughRoadAhead Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 21:44

Rough, I surrender to your supernatural ability to read my mind and condemn me not only for things I haven’t said, but things I’ve never even thought about.

I can’t read your mind, but I can read your comments. When you wrote that “Here IMO is Rough’s take on Obama — a well informed electorate chose him by a large margin,” I thought that it was sarcasm.

But I apologize profusely if you meant it literally, and intended to praise the electorate for their sagacity.

Obama has done more to inflame racial tensions so far than Bush did in 8 years.

It’s a turning point, a time of turmoil. After things calm down, race relations will be better.

The 60s were also a time of turmoil, but race relations were better after than they were before.

As for any perceived moral superiority over Western Europe…

It’s not just “perceived”.

Choosing a somewhat-black person to lead America is the culmination of the dream of equality in society, and that dream was the yearning of our better selves.

No lions shall be laying down with lambs, because the human mind is wired to be tribal, but at least one deep-seated prejudice has been overcome, and our hands have been washed completely clean of the abominable stain of our historical chattel slave-keeping. That is worth celebrating.

(Which is not to say that Obama had anything to do with the abatement of prejudice; he’s simply the one who benefitted from its ebbing - a marker by which we see that the turn has come. Nor does it mean that blacks aren’t still going to get a rougher deal in the Southeastern states than do whites. But one could say exactly the same of Mormons and Catholics in the South, vs. Baptists.)

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 22:28

No, I don’t think it’s just turmoil. Check out polling on public opinion of Obama — it’s more racially polarized now than before the election. The endless race baiting certainly is a big factor. This was predicted before the election and those predictions seem to be playing out.

Choosing a somewhat-black person to lead America is the culmination of the dream of equality in society

I completely disagree. I think that is, frankly, a rather trivial thing, especially under the circumstances. It means nothing in terms of “our hands have been washed completely clean of the abominable stain of our historical chattel slave-keeping” because, ultimately, Obama was elected because of his racial background, not without regard to it.

erp Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 22:49

I’m not writing in code. No interpretation is required. I merely restated your position, repeated several times, that informed voters elected Obama by a large/clear margin.

Where’s the sarcasm?

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Friday, 16 October 2009 at 03:01

erp:

Please excuse my faux pas.

Obama was elected because of his racial background, not without regard to it.

So any black guy could have gotten elected?

If not, then his skin color is only one of the elements that affected voting.

It is true that Obama’s racial heritage shaped his life in very significant ways as a youth, and so his psyche wasn’t formed in race-neutral ways - as you’ve pointed out many times.

Let us assume that Obama was elected solely due to his race, and so it was a racist event. With regard to the stain of slavery, if we are to be racist isn’t it better that being black worked for him?!? That certainly wasn’t the case in the past - being black rarely helped anyone win election at any level, except in minority-dominated places.

So although I disagree with your analysis, even if you’re right society is STILL better than it was even ten short years ago. “Racist but voting for the minority” is better than “racist and never considering voting for the minority, regardless of qualification”.

And speaking of qualification, considering how lightweight is Obama, if the U.S. as a nation are still deeply racist but we elected a colorful guy anyway, then that must mean that the general public was more deeply disgusted with the GOP and with Bush than even I thought.

Ouch. Mega-epic hyper-fail to the nth degree.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 16 October 2009 at 08:21

So any black guy could have gotten elected?

No, no more than previous racial bias meant any white guy could have been elected. But just like in those days where if you weren’t white you would not be taken as a serious candidate, this time had Obama not been half black his absent history and pathetic resume would have been a complete non-starter. Instead, he got the votes of many people just like you who voted to “erase the stain of slavery” and other guilt induced decisions.

With regard to the stain of slavery, if we are to be racist isn’t it better that being black worked for him?!?

No. I utterly reject that point of view. Racism is wrong or it is not, it is not context dependent.

even if you’re right society is STILL better than it was even ten short years ago

Better now, perhaps, but my claim that was Obama would make things worse in the future. I already think it’s worse now than when he was elected, primarily because of the excessive and cheap playing of the race card, not to mention the misogyny used against Hillary Clinton.

Note that primary effect of the race card playing — what is the average white in the street to think when, after electing a black man and doing all that stain erasing, any criticism of Obama’s policies is met with “racist!”. Perhaps that whole “one up stain erase” meant absolutely nothing?

if the U.S. as a nation are still deeply racist but we elected a colorful guy anyway

Who said the US as a nation was still deeply racist? Your premise is false so your conclusion doesn’t follow. Moreover, the racism we’re discussing is anti-white, which would lead to the conclusion that Bush and McCain weren’t that bad, just the wrong color.

erp Friday, 16 October 2009 at 08:44

Obama’s background has no “stain” of slavery, unless you count that his father’s ancestral tribe were slavers, a fact you won’t find very readily (that’s one of those links I had that went mysteriously missing).

As I’ve said many times, it’s no less racist to vote for somebody because of his/her race as it is to vote against somebody because of it.

Brian Friday, 16 October 2009 at 12:57

AVRRA: “Finally, we’ll also have the immediate and practical benefit of having more candidates from which to choose for high offices, as more people of color will feel that winning races is possible.” No we won’t. Show me ANY evidence that that’s true. The most admirable people in politics are minority Republicans because they get attacked so viciously that it’s a wonder any even try, and the whole goal of the attacks is to scare off any others.

The best thing (only good thing, actually) about Obama’s election, from a conservative’s standpoint, was supposed to be that no one could claim anymore that America was a racist country, if it could elect a black man. The downside, even then, was that we knew there would be massive race baiting and outrageous claims that any opposition to Obama was because of racism. At this point it looks as if the upside is just plain not materializing at all, and the downside is larger and more open that most of us even feared. Race baiters haven’t quieted at all. Just the opposite.

Obama’s policies are awful, and if they continue to be implemented, will continue to be disastrous. If so he will not be reelected, and the professional race baiters in the Democrat party will NOT say “Boy, I guess his policies were terrible, weren’t they? Maybe we should rethink our goals.” Of course not. They’ll say “Whitey wouldn’t let a black man succeed.” Guaranteed.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 20 October 2009 at 08:02

The Obama Administration working on improved race relations (via Instapundit)

KINSTON, N.C. | Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.

The Justice Department’s ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their “candidates of choice” - identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.

The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters’ right to elect the candidates they want.

erp Tuesday, 20 October 2009 at 09:28

AOG, you’re right. No comment is required to that statement.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 20 October 2009 at 10:41

It ties in with Brian’s comment as well.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Wednesday, 21 October 2009 at 02:01

…had Obama not been half black his absent history and pathetic resume would have been a complete non-starter. Instead, he got the votes of many people just like you who voted to “erase the stain of slavery” and other guilt induced decisions.

If Obama got the votes of people “just like me”, then he got a lot of votes from people who saw McCain as an honorable and storied man who was EXACTLY the wrong nominee for the times, nominated despite several situationally-superior candidates being in the race.1 If the RNC insists on shooting itself in the foot, then there’s nothing that people “just like me” can do about it - except vote for other-than-GOP candidates. (Which we have, in huge numbers, during the past two national elections.)

Racism is wrong or it is not, it is not context dependent.

You’re kidding, right? A LOT of wrongs are dealt with in context-dependent ways. “The lesser evil” is what we call it. Edwards vs. Duke in Louisiana, for instance.

Or we could compare it to manslaughter vs. murder. Racism today in America is like manslaughter, whereas in the past it was like murder (and at times it actually was, literally, murder). So it’s better now, even if it’s still wrong.

[W]hat is the average white in the street to think when, after electing a black man and doing all that stain erasing, any criticism of Obama’s policies is met with “racist!”. Perhaps that whole “one up stain erase” meant absolutely nothing?

Or that a changed zeitgeist takes time to be fully reflected. Old habits die hard, and there are entrenched factions whose power base depends on the old ways. They won’t willingly acknowledge the new era.

NOW is still around, even though few young women actively support them. Ostalgie still exists twenty years after Germany reunified.

Who said the US as a nation was still deeply racist?

You did. “Obama was elected because of his racial background, not without regard to it” can’t be read any other way.

Obama’s background has no “stain” of slavery, unless you count that his father’s ancestral tribe were slavers…

We’re discussing American society, which ancestrally were slavers too. Obama’s background is that of growing up black in America during the seventies - which, as I’m sure you recall, were a time of racial strife.

1 Indirectly related: As Chris Good writes in the Atlantic about a Matt Lewis Politics Daily column - “The Head Says Romney, But The Heart Says Palin.”

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 21 October 2009 at 08:00

AVRRA;

No, I think Obama got the votes of people who thought more of “answering history’s call” than whether McCain would make a better President. Everything you’ve written here makes me think you are in that category. This also addresses the point of Obama getting votes for his ethnic background without the voters being strongly racist — it was a reaction of guilt and ego, not racism per se.

No, I am not kidding about “racism is wrong or it is not, it is not context dependent”. I agree the morality of most acts is context dependent, but I do not consider racism to be one of them. Otherwise it’s just tribal politics which has no end.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Thursday, 22 October 2009 at 01:46

This also addresses the point of Obama getting votes for his ethnic background without the voters being strongly racist — it was a reaction of guilt and ego, not racism per se.

Yes, that’s a good point, but “a reaction of guilt and ego” to what? To Obama’s ethnic background. That’s the very definition of “racism” as you’ve been using the term in this thread, which appears to mean “with overt consciousness of and making decisions based upon race, but not necessarily with prejudice”.

Everything you’ve written here makes me think you [thought more of “answering history’s call” than whether McCain would make a better President.]

Everything? :

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Saturday, 19 September 2009 at 07:11

[…]

Neither Palin nor Obama have resumés impressive enough to support a candidacy for President in normal times, although as I have written several times in this forum, a sterling resumé is no guarantee of a successful Presidency: Buchanan and Grant, for instance. Or in this case, even Carter and Clinton were far more qualified to be President than either Obama or Palin using standard criteria, but Carter was a disaster and Clinton a disappointment. (Disclosure: Ford voter in ‘76, Clinton in ‘92 but not ‘96. [Anti-Bush the Elder vote, really; supported Dukakis in ‘88 for much the same reason.])

Judging just by the top of the ticket I probably would have gone with Palin, because I like her bearing and I like that she was a reformist zealot who triumphed not once, not twice, but three times over the corrupt, wicked, big-money, good ol’ boy old guard.

But she would have been hopelessly at sea in Washington, in a fathom over her head, so it would have depended on who was on the underticket. Palin/McCain, Romney, Huckabee or Paul vs Obama/Biden, I probably go with Palin. Palin/Romney vs Obama/Clinton I go with Palin, but Palin/Anyone else vs Obama/Clinton I go with Obama.

So in essence I like McCain as Vice President, in an advisory role, but not as President - at least not vs Obama or Clinton.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Saturday, 24 October 2009 at 02:28

Obama’s policies […] will continue to be disastrous. If so he will not be reelected, and the professional race baiters in the Democrat party will […] say “Whitey wouldn’t let a black man succeed.” Guaranteed.

Sure, as I allude when writing that “a changed zeitgeist takes time to be fully reflected. Old habits die hard, and there are entrenched factions whose power base depends on the old ways. They won’t willingly acknowledge the new era.”

It’s just that I don’t see the common person buying it, a few years in the future. “Race-baiting” only works if those being baited feel guilty. If they don’t, then it doesn’t matter what’s said - it becomes “tinfoil hat” fodder. Like Cynthia McKinney; she was initially successful with the “downtrodden black” shtick, but she was so crazy and outré that she eventually became a laughingstock and was shunned. (And then she joined the Green Party.)

erp Saturday, 24 October 2009 at 08:18

One positive thing coming from Obama’s election is that the race card has lost its sting. Black people can now be held responsible for their actions and no longer have immunity from criticism because of their complexion.

All this travail might just have been worth it if only for that.

Brian Monday, 26 October 2009 at 16:00

erp: Again, can you give a single instance demonstrating that that is true, and not just Hope?

erp Monday, 26 October 2009 at 17:12

The Reverend Wright was exposed for the racist he is; Van Jones was forced to resign; ACORN is being exposed for the radical racist organization it is, ditto the Reverend Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition; criticism of Obama, although mild, is surfacing and will continue to grow.

Even his vaunted oratorical skills have been ridiculed and shown to be largely mythical. The nets won’t be so fast to interrupt regular programming so he can’t bore us with his brilliance on demand.

The media tried mightily, but didn’t have any luck playing the race card against the tea parties last summer. After Obama’s debacle with the Olympics and the Peace Prize, I doubt the race card will be seen again anytime soon. People aren’t meekly accepting the epithet, racist, because they have differences of opinion with a black person.

All of the above would have been unthinkable only a year ago.

I’m not saying we’re now color neutral, but there is hope that MLK Jr’s dream that we all be judged by the color of our characters may actual be in our future.

Time will tell if it’s wishful thinking.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 27 October 2009 at 10:12

Yes, that’s a good point, but “a reaction of guilt and ego” to what?

Historical guilt, rather than personal. Ego, by thinking that what I say and do makes a difference on history. My voting for Obama overrides historical problems, makes me the turning point of history. It’s why these politicians go around apologizing for things no one alive has done. For instance, ex-PM Tony Blair apologizing for slavery when no nation in the entire history of the world has ever done more to fight against slavery than the UK.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Wednesday, 04 November 2009 at 15:24

Does a Defense Lobbying Investigation Put Charlie Rangel at Risk? by David Corn, Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones magazine, 10/30/09.

Bad news for Rep. Charles Rangel, the powerful Democratic chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee: The Washington Post obtained a copy of a House document showing that seven members of the House appropriations subcommittee in charge of military spending — almost half of the panel’s members — are being investigated in an expanded probe focused on a once-influential lobbying firm called the PMA Group that exploited its close ties to lawmakers to win earmarks for clients.

Rangel is not one of the seven. That list includes John Murtha (D-Pa.), Peter Visclosky (D-Ind.), Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), James Moran (D-Va.), Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.) and Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.). These committee members, according to the Post, steered more than $200 million in federal earmarks to PMA clients in the past two years; they also received millions of dollars in campaign contributions from PMA and its clients. The multimillion-dollar question is, were these earmarks and campaign donations explicitly connected? […]

Why might the Post article and this widening investigation of ties between lawmakers and lobbyists — neither of which relate to Rangel — matter for him? Though the probe has not yet found any of these House members guilty of wrongdoing, this episode will place pressure on Pelosi and her colleagues to show they’re not a party of sleaze. Consequently Rangel, [who has too many ethics troubles to keep track of], is more vulnerable. […]

If the PMA investigation heats up, he would make a great sacrificial lamb…

erp Wednesday, 04 November 2009 at 17:07

Only a moonbat like Corn could think of “someone who has too many ethics troubles to keep track of,” a sacrificial lamb.

Post a comment