BLAMING SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NACY PELOSI FOR FAILURE OF BAILOUT BILL = STANDARD REPUBLICAN HYPOCRITICAL SPIN

Although I am not an ardent supporter of the so-called "bailout plan", I feel that something should be done to prevent a meltdown of the economy that will take us - OFFICIALLY - into a recession, a word that George Bush and the White House have been avoiding, similar in fashion to Ronald Reagan refusing to acknowledge the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s.

Not all Republicans NOR DEMOCRATS were in favor of the bill. A lot of congressmen/women from both parties were angry at being railroaded into voting on a escape plan for greedy Wall Street leeches. But, according to consensus over the past week it seemed that the correct thing to do - for the good of the country - would be to vote to pass an amended version of the bill to prevent a run on the stock market.

Democrats delivered - as promised - their end of the bargain with over two-thirds of their voting power IN FAVOR of the bill.

Republicans - for reasons being discussed ad nauseam on news networks - decided NOT to back the bill, and votes two-thirds AGAINST the bill, leading to the defeat of the bill.

The Dow Jones fell by 777 points - the largest one-day fall in the history of the stock market.

The estimated value of the loss is a staggering $1.2 TRILLION DOLLARS.

Although this is only paper worth, it translates into pain for the various 401K plans and other such retirement instruments heavily invested in the stock market.

When the effect that the defeat of the bill had on stocks became known, House Republican began pointing fingers to a speech that House Majority Leader, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D- California), made earlier that morning that harshly criticized the Bush administration for wanton deregulation without supervision.

Quote:

"[W]hen was the last time someone asked you for $700bn? It is a number that is staggering, but tells us only the costs of the Bush administration's failed economic policies — policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything-goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system."

She continued:

"Democrats insisted that legislation responding to this crisis must protect the American people and Main Street from the meltdown on Wall Street. The American people did not decide to dangerously weaken our regulatory and oversight policies. They did not make unwise and risky financial deals. They did not jeopardise the economic security of the nation. And they must not pay the cost of this emergency recovery and stabilisation bill."

According to House Republicans, these were some of the words that changed their minds in support of the bill.

HORSESHIT.

The Republican Party endorsed presidential candidate himself has expressed the same sentiments. As late as September 15 during a rally in Florida McCain lashed out at[sic] "the current administration's regulation of Wall Street as ''out-dated'' and ''tax burden-built'' vowed to "end the old boys network" that is crippling America's financial markets."

Same message, just a different messenger.

Partisan statements on the floor of the House is NOT irregular, but commonplace. House Republicans, sticking to their party's cowardly policies of taking no blame - cried "Fowl!" and used Pelosi's speech as a distraction for their true motive: voting against the bill only for political gains.

NOT because they thought it was wrong - or they would have been more vocal and have delayed voting until Wednesday (an option not exercised).

NOT because they thought that voting NO was in the best interests of the county.

They voted to save their political asses.

The current analysis of those - both Democrats and Republicans - who voted against the bill showed (not so surprising) that those who voted against the bill were up for heavily-contested seats back in their home states. They took the safe road and voted against the bill in line with the angry feedback of their constituents.

The next few weeks will see if their gamble pays off.

And they are playing with very high stakes.

WHY McCAIN MIGHT JUST WIN THIS ELECTION

Contrary to popular belief some Democrats are preparing for the worst - a McCain win of this November's presidential election.

"What?!" ask Democrat die-hards in disbelief, "that's not possible after last week...!" Oh yes it is. It's time Democrats wake up and sniff the sobering smell of reality coffee .

"But," cry others with indignation, "because of the current Republican administration the state of the union is in disarray: we're in an unpopular war, the economy is a mess, cost of living is rising daily, petrol is expensive, people are losing their homes!!!! Have you gone mad?!"

No, but this is America we are dealing with - ANYTHING is possible!

Let me put forth my arguments why people may vote McCain/Palin on November 2nd:

AMERICA IS IN AN UNPOPULAR WAR. Sure, but there's that nagging issue of experience that dogs Obama. To counter this he picked Sen Joe Biden as his running mate primarily because of his expertise in this foreign policy, but American voters want an experienced number one with all the executive powers to make snap decisions on international matters, not for him to wait on the advice of the ceremonial number two who's just a stand-by waiting to give his input. This is where McCain can convince some voters not to "take a chance on a fresh face with fresh ideas" when the lives of their sons and daughters are in peril.

GAS PRICES ARE INCREASING; OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL IS GROWING. And the everyday common man/woman in America can relate to only one solution - "DRILL, DRILL, DRILL!" It doesn't matter that it could take anywhere from five to ten years for any benefits of off-shore drilling to hit the marketplace and that by then it may not make a difference as our appetite -and the world's - has increased making any gains intangible. Voters relate drilling now to lower gas prices, they can NOT relate to Obama's message of "tightening our belts as we transition to renewable energy". We're an instant-gratification nation: instant food, instant TV, instant satisfaction, etc. And to voters instant fix minds off-shore drilling equates to lower gas prices. Again, another brownie point for McCain.

OUR FINANCIAL MARKETS ARE IN PERIL OF COLLAPSING, and everyone will feel the pinch. Sure, voters will admit that it was the policies of the current Republican administration in cooperation with the (1995 to 2004) Republican-controlled houses of congress and senate that implemented the rules of deregulation of the financial industry that lead to this mess, but again it comes to the instant fix solution: the Republicans created the problem, and they're the one's who came up with a quick fix plan to solve it - why not let them oversee the solution for the next four years?

After all, if the $700 billion proposal is approved banks will have money to lend, taxpayers may be able to negotiate lower payments on their house, auto and credit card loans, and STILL have money left over to buy even more stuff they can not afford! Who wants Democrats in power with their cold-water reality argument that the companies should NOT be bailed out as it would provide absolution for the fuck-ups of greedy corporate companies and their executives?! Why SHOULD we suffer for years because of Wall Street mistakes that consumers enabled with their greed for easy credit? Nah, let's go the easy way - borrow, borrow, BORROW OUR WAY OUT OF THIS MESS SO WE CAN SPEND MORE , MORE, MORE!!!! Again, one more reason to go McCain and the Republicans!

And last, but not least - RACISM AND SOCIAL CHANGE. As much as Americans like to delude themselves that theirs is a forward thinking society, 66% of the population is comprised of Caucasians - the majority of whom are socially reserved, cautious, conservatives. They do not like quick social change: while slavery was abolished in most of the world in 1838, it took a Civil War to end slavery in America in 1865. When British imperialists were giving their territories independence in the 1950s and 60s AS A CONDITION LAID OUT BY THE AMERICANS to helping the British with World World II, those same Americans kept racial segregation legal until the Civil Rights Act of 1968. While the rest of the world has made strides with birth control, abortion and gay rights issues - America struggles to adapt. Today, women's rights are rallied around the world - the USA still has yet to make any formal legislation on this issue.

Are most Americans ready for a black president only 40 years after segregation was made illegal? No - the ugly truth is that racism is still rampant in rural areas and in private and public administrative practices of the union. Up to March of this year the United Nations criticized the U.S. on their policies regarding racial profiling according to a report by The Human Rights Watch (click here).

So why, you may ask, does the writer of this article still fight for the Obama/Biden ticket?

Because although these elements are in place for a possible McCain/Palin win, there is also a strong undercurrent in this country for change in the way America thinks, reacts and is perceived by the world.

To us, the slogan CHANGE WE NEED means something more than a new president.

To us, Obama means hope of a better America:

HOPE is the thing with feathers
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all,

And sweetest in the gale is heard;
And sore must be the storm
That could abash the little bird
That kept so many warm.

I've heard it in the chillest land,
And on the strangest sea,
Yet, never, in extremity,
It asked a crumb of me.

- Emily Dickinson

JOHN McCAIN HAS PENIS ENVY

"WHAT?!" you cry in shock, "are you talking about, Adrian?!!"

No, no, no - I'm not referring to the appendage between most men's legs, I'm referring to all men's propensity to base or equate their performance on...well...the SIZE of the appendage between their legs.

(This is not going well....sigh...)

Let's try another approach - all men are driven by competition. (There - that's it!) And some competition is based on the SIZE of the outcome of said contest(s).

I think John McCain is envious of the LARGE crowds Barack Obama has been pulling in and is beginning to resent being THE SMALLER in the public eye (the gym locker room).

Maybe that's why he used Brittney Spears and Paris Hilton in those 'celebrity' spots - he could be trying to emasculate Obama by comparing him to blonde females.

And that spot called THE ONE - doesn't that conjure an image of a large singular object. No? (Okay, maybe it's just me.)

But can I not refer to this as POLITICAL PENIS ENVY?

STALEMATE OR STUBBORN? Clinton plans to hold on until June 3rd

The results of the May 20th primary are in and again the results are split - Clinton trumping Obama by over 30% in Kentucky - a state with over 4 million residents, versus Obama's 18% win over Clinton in Oregon - a state of 3.4 million. The delegate count (including super delegates) currently stands at Obama 1,962 versus Clinton's 1,777 with 2026 needed to clinch the DNC nomination. (Numbers courtesy of CNN's Election Center)

At this time Obama clearly has an unbeatable lead in delegate count but again the argument is beginning to surface with regards to his electability when pitted against John McCain. Some pundits suggest that disillusioned Clinton supporters may chose to either not vote in the November election, or switch support to John McCain rather than vote for Obama.

One can not forget what happened in the 2004 elections: John Kerry (another junior senator) won the DNC nomination, but could not deliver the presidency. Some registered Democrats did not feel he was a strong enough candidate on the issues and failed to convince the swing voters and independents – thereby giving a second win to G.W. Bush.

Clinton's argument is she CAN win the large states and has a strong following with the working class and the Hispanic vote (the largest minority) - a feat Obama has yet to master. His win in the delegate count has been on the backs of the less populous states - if he is sanctioned as the DNC candidate - will he still have the 'rock star' appeal to deliver them again? Also, will he alienate Clinton voters in large urban areas if he is declared the DNC presidential candidate?

Obama's wild card could be independents and swing voters - he appeals to them and they may be the group to court during the weeks leading up to Super Tuesday in November.

One area of uncertainty - we have yet to see how Obama performs in a debate against John McCain. Although Obama is a polished, confident and strong speaker when presenting a prepared speech, he has a tendency to come across as hesitant and struggling when put on the spot in live one-and-one debates. This is one area that Clinton has shined - during debates she regularly comes across decisive, articulate and very determined.

With all of these elements for both DNC candidate hopefuls we really have to ask ourselves – is Clinton’s determination to stick it out until June the act of one who feels she has a better chance at the general elections, or one who refuses to back down because everyone says she should?

Stalemate or stubborn – you decide.