take your answer off the air...

  • HorsesAss.Org: the straight poop on WA politics & the press
    progressive brilliance from the guy who pointed out Tim Eyman's nascent horse's-assedness
  • Talker's Magazine
    The quirky talk radio trade mag. Check the Talk Radio Research Project- it's not very scientific, but places on the top 15 talkers list (scroll down to Talk Radio Audiences By Size)) are as hotly contested as Emmys (and mean just about as much).
  • The Advocate
    No, not THAT Advocate... it's the Northwest Progressive Institute's Official Blog.
  • Media Matters
    Documentation of right-wing media in video, audio and text.
  • Orcinus
    home of David Neiwert, freelance investigative journalist and author who writes extensively about far-right hate groups
  • Hominid Views
    "People, politics, science, and whatnot" Darryl is a statistician who fights imperialism with empiricism, gives good links and wry commentary.
  • Jesus' General
    An 11 on the Manly Scale of Absolute Gender, a 12 on the Heavenly Scale of the 10 Commandments and a 6 on the earthly scale of the Immaculately Groomed.
  • Howie in Seattle
    Howie Martin is the Abe Linkin' of progressive Seattle.
  • Streaming Radio Guide
    Hellishly long (5795!) list of radio streaming, steaming on the Internets.
  • The Naked Loon
    News satire -- The Onion in the Seattle petunia patch.
  • Irrational Public Radio
    "informs, challenges, soothes and/or berates, and does so with a pleasing vocal cadence and unmatched enunciation. When you listen to IPR, integrity washes over you like lava, with the pleasing familiarity of a medium-roast coffee and a sensible muffin."
  • The Maddow Blog
    Here's the hyper-interactive La Raych of MSNBC. daily show-vids, freakishly geeky research, and classy graphics.
  • Northwest Broadcasters
    The AM, FM, TV and digital broadcasters of Northwest Washington, USA and Southwest British Columbia, Canada. From Kelso, WA to the northern tip of Vancouver Island, BC - call letters, formats, slogans, networks, technical data, and transmitter maps. Plus "recent" news.
  • News Corpse
    The Internet's chronicle of media decay.
  • The Moderate Voice
    The voice of reason in the age of Obama, and the politics of the far-middle.
  • News Hounds
    Dogged dogging of Fox News by a team who seems to watch every minute of the cable channel so you don't have to.
  • HistoryLink
    Fun to read and free encyclopedia of Washington State history. Founded by the late Walt Crowley, it's an indispensable tool and entertainment source for history wonks and surfers alike.

right-wing blogs we like

  • The Reagan Wing
    Hearin lies the real heart of Washington State Republicans. Doug Parris runs this red-meat social conservative group site which bars no holds when it comes to saying who they are and who they're not; what they believe and what they don't; who their friends are and where the rest of the Republicans can go. Well-written, and flaming.
  • Orbusmax
    inexhaustible Drudgery of NW conservative news
  • The Radio Equalizer
    prolific former Seattle KVI, KIRO talk host speaks authoritatively about radio.
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 02/2005


« Barack brings a gun | Main | Floyd brown says he'll stop toilet fishing »

June 20, 2008



David Brooks gives a fair assessment of Mr. Obama - no Nazi or Obamunist implied, just a good observation. If elected, see what you deserve...

The Two Obamas

Published: June 20, 2008
God, Republicans are saps. They think that they’re running against some academic liberal who wouldn’t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn’t proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they’re running against some naïve university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson.

David Brooks
Go to Columnist Page »
The Conversation
Times columnists David Brooks and Gail Collins discuss the 2008 presidential race.
All Conversations »
But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes.

This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.

But he’s been giving us an education, for anybody who cares to pay attention. Just try to imagine Mister Rogers playing the agent Ari in “Entourage” and it all falls into place.

Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Dr. Barack could have taken positions on politically uncomfortable issues. But Fast Eddie Obama voted “present” nearly 130 times. From time to time, he threw his voting power under the truck.

Dr. Barack said he could no more disown the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Rev. Wright escalated and Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck.

Dr. Barack could have been a workhorse senator. But primary candidates don’t do tough votes, so Fast Eddie Obama threw the workhorse duties under the truck.

Dr. Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works. John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the country. But favored candidates don’t go in for unscripted free-range conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the truck.

And then on Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system.

But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama’s got more money now.

And Fast Eddie Obama didn’t just sell out the primary cause of his life. He did it with style. He did it with a video so risibly insincere that somewhere down in the shadow world, Lee Atwater is gaping and applauding. Obama blamed the (so far marginal) Republican 527s. He claimed that private donations are really public financing. He made a cut-throat political calculation seem like Mother Teresa’s final steps to sainthood.

The media and the activists won’t care (they were only interested in campaign-finance reform only when the Republicans had more money). Meanwhile, Obama’s money is forever. He’s got an army of small donors and a phalanx of big money bundlers, including, according to The Washington Post, Kenneth Griffin of the Citadel Investment Group; Kirk Wager, a Florida trial lawyer; James Crown, a director of General Dynamics; and Neil Bluhm, a hotel, office and casino developer.

I have to admit, I’m ambivalent watching all this. On the one hand, Obama did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny political advantage. If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out? On the other hand, global affairs ain’t beanbag. If we’re going to have a president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking inside.

All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.


Good stuff.
It will be interesting to see what the 'locked in' types will do with this.
In some ways I see it as very comforting. He is just a regular politician. When elected he'll move to the center and triangulate the issues on the right. The conservatives will be upset about having issues taken from them and the left will be neutered once again.
Lets cue up 1992.


And like the 1990's, a robust economy. We're glad to see you're on board


Sorry to break it to you, dude - no robust economy ahead. Increased taxes for virtually everyone, especially the rich coupled with an alarming deficit that will not shrink anytime soon under Democrat control does not spell robust economy. It spells slowdown continuing and noticeable recession.

The price of oil will be a factor and if the Democrats in Congress puppeteered by the environmentalist jackasses keep playing obstructionist games with offshore drilling - while the Chinese continue to drill 80 miles off the Fla. Coast, it will only go up and at an accelerated pace. Nuclear power needs to become proactive soon, which Mr. Obama also opposes.

Despite the press coverage and urban myths, the truth is that it will take only just over one year to have new oil on-line, which it would take 5-7 years if it is drilled on land before it can go on-line. (this information from Stuart Varney, investment guru and one of the best in the business). It will be interesting to see if the Democrats in Congress change their positions or stay stuck on stupid.


Coiler, to make your scenario work you will need a Repub Congress like we had in 94.


You had one in 2004, whau hauppened?


well over a period of time you will see ups and downs in the economy. we had a very nice run since 94.
frankly, the repub congress towards the end deserved to be voted out for a host of reasons.


What incentive is there to drill for more oil if oil companies are making record profits? Bringing down the price of oil is least interest of oligopolies in bed with a cartel. You are fooling yourself KS in believing that drilling for more oil will solve the energy crises. Short term solutions and/or a lack of policies have been a contributing factor to this country’s economic ills since 1974. We have had 34 years to find long term and healthy solutions to solve the energy dilemma. In typical American fashion, nothing is vision beyond weekend (i.e. drill for more oil) or ideas discarded because it was not invented here (i.e. French or Japanese model of nuclear power industry).

What solutions or better yet gimmick did America have to show for solving its energy crises? Extending daylight savings time at each end of the calendar. That is really impressive for a country that once mustered ventures such as Manhattan and Apollo projects in a short span with results. Today it cannot make a fuel efficient automobile or a simple DVD player Toyota and Honda ponders on battery shortages of its high selling hybrids while GM, Ford and Chrysler announce record losses, factory closures and massive layoffs.

Low energy prices ($8 per bbl in 1997-98) and single digit interest rates contributed to the economic boom in the 90’s. On top of that a genuine peacetime economic expansion took place because investors, especially those from overseas had confidence in the U.S. Government’s focus on getting its financial house in order. Yes taxes were raised in the 90’s but look at what had happened to the economy when tax cuts for the wealthy were placed by Reagan and Bush. Real estate prices escalated and finally busted, competition decreased, deregulation with “self-policing” put in place and outsourcing soared. Great economy isn’t it? How do you think the middle class in India and China came to be?

Reality check guys, we are in a recession and you just haven’t received your pink slip yet but you will be next. And Obama isn’t even president yet! The impression I get is that most of those proselytizing fear of tax increases are typing your piece while looking out the window at the lake from your mansions in Madrona.

As for the Chinese drilling for more oil 80 miles south of Florida, this is a Dick Cheney created myth. Let’s see, there is a fear of a black president, fear of brown skinned undocumented workers, fear of brown skinned Semitic Arabs or anyone who looks like one and now replaying of the yellow peril except this time it is the Chinese instead of the Japanese.


Most of the Republicans voted out in 2006 were from or descendents of 94. They just got drunk with power and became the type of politician they ran against. Today’s Republicans are going to have to wean themselves from the fables of Reagan, distance themselves from Bush and get a full divorce from religious zealots and their ideology. Telling voters that they are a “Reagan Republican” is not going to make it in this atmosphere of hostility towards conseravatism.

The problem with Republicans in the 90’s was Gingrich was so immature that he was slapstick, Dole was past his prime and that GOP class and beyond had a sanctimonious attitude. That all collapsed from Enid Waldhotz, Mark Foley to Larry Craig. You have to admit that Clinton’s attempts to quickly impose his liberal ideals contributed much to GOP victories in 94 but he stole their playbook. In retrospect there was more bipartisanship then than now with the exception of the farcical Lewinsky affair.

The “Contract with America” was a clever publicity stunt. I won’t write the Republicans off though. I still remember the comeback they made six years after Watergate. The Dems need to read "the Art of War."


Even Cheney had to admit he was "misinformed" about the Chinese drilling. It never happened.


Yes, even Cheney had to skedaddle (a putz word) on the Chinese oil drilling lie. Why does Cheney lie so much--he's not very good at it and has even a lower approval rating than the other liar in the WH. I really hope they are arrested soon and charged with treason.

joanie hussein

I thought he apologized for saying it. And right-wing media continued to repeat it. Unbelievable.

Rozskat, you romanticize the left. Clinton was and is no liberal idealist. He moved to the right to win Arkansas and stayed there.

Theodore Lowi (oft-referenced by me, I know, guys!) of Cornell calls him "the last great Republican President."

Nafta, Rubin, Albright, workfair...

And, a pleaser. He profited from the dot.com boom. Hard to mess up even though I think he did have good intentions and was smart. Given a great economy, he made good fiscal decisions. Except for trade policy if you consider that fiscal. Also, he bought into deregulation which has proven disastrous for this economy and nation.

Listening to the radio yesterday, I heard a discussion about the 2004 election I hadn't heard before. So much emphasis was placed on the Presidential race that Congressional races were neglected. I can't remember the program - I'll try. Apparently, a lot of blue-dog Dems were put into office and many of these guys were conservatives who changed parties to win.

Their effect can be seen in the GI bill which Republicans and liberal Democrats alike tried to pass. It was the blue-dog dems that have held it up.

Rachel blasts Blue Dog Dems on the GI bill"

and this from the Wall Street Journal

"The deal also frees House Democrats from the concerns of two factions in their own party who object to parts of the war-funding bill: antiwar lawmakers who oppose additional funds for Iraq operations and the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats who say the veterans' education benefits should be funded with a revenue increase or spending cut, as required by budget rules. With Republican support for the legislation expected to be widespread, the support of those factions no longer will be needed to pass the bill."

These blue dogs may or may not be Democrats at heart. Who knows? Short of looking up each and every one of their forty-seven histories, I don't know. Joe Baca from California has been there since 1999. Republicans always seem to find a way to screw it up. Usually a dishonest way.

So, don't be too sure that all will be well.

BTW, we haven't had liberal since Carter and people choose to forget his getting all the hostages through alive, a still-surviving peace compact between Egypt and Israel and an attempt to start an energy revolution from which we would be reaping huge rewards today had Reagan not been such a great storyteller and lousy president.

And if you have to tell people that more oil is not the answer when not one of them has had to sit in a line for gas before the pump runs dry, then you are talking to automatons absent circuitry.

So, the rest of us just have fun with them.

Since Rozskat seems to post and leave, I'll probably be disappointed again in the absense of a thoughtful reply.

joanie hussein

The discussion yesterday is coming back to me... I recall that someone commented that while Dean was focused on the Presidential race, Raul Emannuel of the DLC was behind some of this recruiting. The DLC is not a liberal wing of the party. And the blue dogs might just as well rename themselves the "Republican Democrats."

Found on the net:

"...The Blue Dogs pride themselves on being a fiscally conservative group intent on balancing the national budget and paying down the almost $9 trillion national debt."

""We're hawks on national defense, we're pro-business, especially small business, and we believe in balancing the budget,"

"The Blue Dogs have apparently informed the Democratic leadership in the House that they support the ongoing occupation of Iraq. According to Mahoney, he met with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and told her "The president should be free to maintain troops in Iraq, if the purpose is to thwart terrorism."

"According to Mahoney, he faced a thorough vetting process before being accepted into the group. "You have to be interviewed and accepted by the group. You have to be able to demonstrate that you're ideologically supportive of being fiscally conservative. You show them speeches and statements you've made in the past,""

"According to their web site, 24 Blue Dogs won elections against Republican incumbents since 1996."

"The Blue Dogs have provided key votes on controversial bills backed by the Bush administration. "

"The Blue Dogs have provided key votes on controversial bills backed by the Bush administration. In September of 2006, 31 Democratic representatives voted with the Republican majority in the House to pass The Military Commissions Act. The controversial act empowered Bush to designate individuals as "enemy combatants," and deny them certain legal rights."

Apparently the above is originally from truthout as it is cited.

I don't know what all you rightwingers are worried about, you own both parties.

Even I didn't realize the scope of these guys. We're worried about a President? The Republicans are taking over our party. Now I understand why it feels like we no longer have a two-party system.

We don't.


"I don't know what all you rightwingers are worried about, you own both parties.

Even I didn't realize the scope of these guys. We're worried about a President? The Republicans are taking over our party. Now I understand why it feels like we no longer have a two-party system."

I can see how a far leftist progressive would think like that. Both parties are corrupt - agreed, but the era of big government is upon his from both the right and the left. Big government will always be indigenous of the left so it seems that the left has infiltrated from all sides, not to mention corrupt mainstream media coverage (ie. the Government-media complex) - but in Joanie's world up is down, light is dark and blue is red.


Does anybody have a clue what the heck Klueless is trying to say?

Clean it up, Klueless, and be specific if you've got something to be specific about. You are beginning to sound like puts. He utters an awful lot of words but never says anything.

Now there's two of you. OMG!

joanie hussein

Now, getting back to my previous comment: the program on which it was said that Emmanuel recruited blue-dog Dems (Bush supporters as evidenced above) was Peter B. These guys are pro-war and pro-administration on most things.

The Peter B. show on Sat and Sun on KPTK seems to be a repeat of the same show. Kind of nice actually since I get to re-hear good stuff.

Also, Robert Scheer was on. It was a great show.

If interested, Peter B. Collins

He also talks about the Airbus contract put out for rebid for Boeing. The show is the 6-20 show.

joanie hussein

I'm listening to the show again via podcast and I missed this earlier but Peter B. just made a high endorsement for Darcy Burner and her detailed plan to get out of Iraq and said she's within five points of Reichert. He just said he'd rather send $100 bucks to Burner than to Sheehan because Burner has a chance of winning.

See, he's really knowledgeable. He stays informed.


I am not in disagreement with what you said Joanie. I have never viewed Bill Clinton as being a true liberal after 1994 but I would never attach Republican distinctiveness to him. I did not agree with NAFTA or many of the pro-business agendas put forth by the centrists Democrats including sustaining deregulation and “reinventing government.” Those were very Reaganist ideals which lead to the current woes we have in economics and government i.e., Brownie you are doing a good job. But was America ready for a change after the “Morning in America” fictitious idealism of the Reagan years and the testosterone inducing “by god we have kicked the Vietnam syndrome” of Desert Storm when Clinton took office? He tried to impose change and paid for it in the 94 mid term elections.

If Clinton was ever worried about his legacy, then George W. Bush determined it for him. What scares me more is one day there may be a president that may make Dubya look good! Despite of misgivings you have of Clinton, you agree that the country was under much better stewardship with him than either of the Bushes and he was more pragmatic than Reagan.

President Carter was faced a difficult quagmire and to his disappointment his political future and legacy was not determined by Americans but by the Iranians. He looked weak and inept not only with the public handling of the hostage crises but wearing a sweater during one of his fireside chats about energy. I agreed with most of Carter’s assessments but he was responsible for the demise of liberals at the time and made it dormant for years to come. He was very intelligent and had visions for the long term. Unfortunately, the public he was to serve did not, especially over energy issues. In addition, President Carter initiated some of the deregulation starting with the airline industry and eventual disbanding of the Civil Aeronautics Board and of course deregulation of oil and gas. I did agree with the Windfall Profits Tax he imposed on oil companies in 1980.

Contrary to George H.W. Bush’s statement, no we have not kicked the Vietnam syndrome as it still haunts America. A petrified Democratic congress continuously fails to cut off funding of the Iraq War because of the specter of that Southeast Asian war remains. Rhetorical proclamations of mistreatment of the troops to which Bush, Republicans and war supporters have no qualms in holding them hostage only furthers their imperial adventure. If that is the case then who really supports the troops? I see no evidence from supporters of the war or the administration. The parallels between George W. Bush, Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson imperial presidencies are all there. It certainly did not exist with President Clinton or Carter.

joanie hussein

You assign too much credit to the man rather than the times. That is popular to do but not particularly intellectually honest. Nor is condemnation for sweater. Sorry.

George HW Bush was ready to roll back military and pare down the budget. Desert storm notwithstanding, he saw the end of the cold war as an opportunity to focus on domestic needs.

As for being haunted by the Nam syndrome, I think the blue dog Dems have more to do with an ineffectual Congress than ghosts of Viet Nam.

And an all volunteer force engaged in a war that effects such a small percentage of the population. A draft would change that immediately.

I'm curious why you even suspect that the memory of Nam controls our current Congress?

A petrified Democratic congress continuously fails to cut off funding of the Iraq War because of the specter of that Southeast Asian war remains.

Truly, I think this is just pure BS. Sorry. The only people who are imprisoned by Nam are old soldiers who wallow in memories of warmongering and winning unwinnable wars.

BTW, lumping Johnson, Nixon and Bush and imperialism is curious. Why did you leave out Kennedy and Eisenhower?

Wasn't the "imperialism" practiced by these men a result of the cold war and an attempt to stave off communism? How is that commensurate with a war for oil? E


rozskat said
"If that is the case then who really supports the troops? I see no evidence from supporters of the war or the administration."

Rachel Maddow just read a media study that has kept track of how many minutes a week all of the networks combined spend on talking about Iraq. In the last few months, the average time is:
2 minutes.
Way to support the troops.


That is because our guys are winning. Although a last ditch effort by AlQuida and the Taliban is expected by many before the November election here and the October elections in Iraq, our troops are handily defeating the enemy at every turn.
That flies in the face of all that our liberal media has invested in our defeat in the war on terror.
Many thanks to all that have fought the enemy, turned the Iraqi Army and police forces in to quality warriors that can and do stand up to our mutual enemy's, bringing victory to the greatest fighting forces in the history of the world.
But do not worry my liberal pergressive friends. The democrat congress will find a way to take credit for the victory. I can just hear Dirty Harry Reid proudly announcing that his proclaiming our guys defeated inspired them to fight harder. The press will make sure to get that story out with the proper spin.
Just wondering what to do about that moron Ex-Marine Jack Murtha.
I say string the bastard up, which means he will probably get a White House post if Obama slips past the electorate.


Warning - Obama supporters - The following may cause duress and decrease the number of Obasms in the near term.

MARK SHIELDS, liberal syndicated columnist said in an interview with Judy Woodruff:
"Barack Obama made history this week. He became the first presidential nominee since Richard Nixon in 1972 to state that his campaign will be funded totally by private donations with no limits on spending.

It was a flip-flop of epic proportions. It was one that he could not rationalize or justify. His video was unconvincing. He looked like someone who was being kept as a hostage somewhere he was so absolutely unconvincing in it. It could not have passed a polygraph test.

I mean, coming up with this bogus argument the Republicans have so much more money -- the Republicans don't have so much more money. He's raised three times as much as John McCain has.

He has every possible committee, except Republican National Committee, Democrats at the Senate level, congressional level have this lopsided edge over Republicans. They spent three times as much, did Democratic leaning 527s, in the last election as did Republicans.

So what Obama didn't admit was, up until February of this year, when he told Tim Russert that not only would he aggressively seek an agreement on public financing, that he personally would sit down with John McCain and work it out, then, all of a sudden, they realized that all these small contributions were coming in and he was going to have a financial advantage in the fall against the Republican, and they grabbed it." END OF STORY

In addition: Obama has ties to the Ethanol Industry, which would not be of his ties to support offshore oil drilling.

Last Friday night in Jacksonville at a rally, Barry Obama became the first candidate to play the race card, when he proclaimed that the Republicans would try to instill fear in voters and one of the reasons that he believed would be given is because he is black. (He said all of it, noone else did).

The more I hear him speak, especially in the last week, the more I believe we would be making a big mistake to elect him as President. Why do we want an equal or greater inept candidate from the other party to succeed a current inept President ? If he is elected, it has been proven that this is clearly the age of Stupidity - wisdom doesn't seem to matter any more, just knowledge which is not the same.
Right - elect an elitist who comes across as arrogant, who starting to sound like a fraud, when is not scripted because he sounds good reading off the teleprompter and promises hope and change - inciting Obasms. I was intrigued at first, but after seeing that he is really about the same old s**t, I just don't see anything else there. You can call it an Independent talking point if that lifts up your skirt.

From the above stories, it seems like Obama campaign may have been using suggestions from Joanie Hussein - bad idea !!


The above should read:
In addition: Obama has ties to the Ethanol Industry, which would not be in his best interest to support offshore oil drilling. (he claims windfall profits tax on oil companies would lower prices at the pump, but that has already proven false in the past)

my bad - besides his bad


The biggest flip-flop of epic proportions was the 'read my lips' of Bush Sr. This current fantasy of repubs on Obama will pass.


Time will tell.

joanie hussein

Well, chucks, it's clear you choose not to talk to me but I'm answering anyway. You always do take the easy way.

We are paying the Iraqi not to strike us. What do you think will happen when we stop paying them?

I don't know where you get your information - well, actually, I do - but you are seriously propagandized about everything.

You sound like a fool. An absolute ignorant fool.

And if you were to listen to anything but fascist talking points, you'd have heard Rachel interviewing one of the vets who has been going around the country trying 5to clear Kerry's name because he said that the swiftboating of kerry reflected on all of them and it was a lie.

You guys are all the same. Muckraking haters of democracy and the values that this country used to hold dear: decency and honesty; fairness, freedom and justice for all. Not just middle aged white guys.

If you had any intelligence or information about anything, you'd hide your head in shame. Absolute shame.


"You guys are all the same. Muckraking haters of democracy and the values that this country used to hold dear: decency and honesty; fairness, freedom and justice for all. Not just middle aged white guys."

All smoke and mirrors (i.e. B.S.) , Joanie - nice try. The truth can set you free, but not by playing the victim card like you have.

joanie hussein

And, again Klueless, you respond with empty words that say absolutely nothing about the topic.

Don't you ever get tired of posting comments that do nothing more than attack the poster?

You are like a name-calling kid on the playground. Go into the school building and learn something.


"Well, chucks, it's clear you choose not to talk to me but I'm answering anyway. You always do take the easy way."

Double Yikes.


KS, on one hand you say that this is the age of Stupid, yet you call Obama an elitist for speaking clearly. Why does the right insist that education is failing, but when someone speaks in an educated way, they are branded as "intellectuals" and "arrogant."

Which is it?

joanie hussein

A link to a Canadian article about the US paying Iraqi Sunnis - very interesting. "US Military Paying 70,000 Iraqi Insurgents 10$ a Day NOT To Be Violent!"

You have to read all the way down - scroll down or you might miss the full article. I did the first time.

Klueless, what's this crap about ethanol? Farmers produce corn from which we get ethanol. You don't support farmers?

Who could possibly have a problem with a Presidential candidate supporting farmers?

You really must think after listening to Rush and before posting. Take some time and think about what it is he really, really said.


Oh, BTW, wasn't it McBush who first promised to take public money, then got a loan against that public money, and then said he wasn't sure he'd need it?

And the way I heard it, Obama couldn't get a straight answer from the "straight talk express" and so decided to just do it his way. Of course, Rush won't necessarily give you all the details. You might have to do a little homework to get all the information necessary to understand the situation.

But, then, you didn't earn the nickname Klueless by doing due diligence, now did you?

"McCain, however, wanted to preserve the option of not participating in the public financing system, ..."

You really are lazy about your facts, Klueless.


If you want to buy a house, you would have to receive the loans. Moreover, my mother all the time takes a secured loan, which supposes to be really useful.

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2013

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30        

Tip Jar

Change is good

Tip Jar

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    pacific nw talk stations

    • KIRO 710ESPN Seattle 710 KHz
      Games and sports-blabber
    • KIROFM 97.3
      Multi-format: news and nearly all local talk. This is where classic KIRO AM news talk radio went... hopefully, not to die. The home of Dave Ross & Luke Burbank, Dori Monson, Ron & Don, Frank Shiers, Bill Radke, Linda Thomas, Tony Miner and George Noory.
    • KUOW FM 94.9
      Seattle's foremost public radio news and talk.
    • KVI am 570 KHz
      Visit the burnt-out husk of one of the seminal right-wing talkers in all the land. Here's where once trilled the reactionary tones of Rush Limbaugh, John Carlson, Kirby Wilbur, Mike Siegel, Peter Weissbach, Floyd Brown, Dinky Donkey, and Bryan Suits. Now it's Top 40 hits from the '60's & '70's aimed at that diminishing crowd who still remembers them and can still hear.
    • KTTH am 770 KHz
      Right wing home of local, and a whole bunch of syndicated righties such as Glennn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Lars Larsony, and for an hour a day: live & local David Boze.
    • KPTK am 1090 KHz
      Syndicated liberal talk. Stephanie Miller, Thom Hartmann, Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Norman Goldman fill in the large hole to the left on Northwest radio dial.
    • KLFE AM 1590 kHz
      Syndicated right-wing 2nd stringers like Mark Levin, Bill Bennett, Mike Gallagher, Dennis Prager, Dennis Miller and Hugh Hewitt inhabit this timid-voiced neighbor honker for your radio enjoyment (unless you're behind something large like Costco).
    • KOMOAM
      News, traffic, Ken Schram and John Carlson.
    • Washington State Radio Stations
      Comprehensive list of every danged AM & FM station on the dial.
    • KKOL am 1300 KHz
      Once a rabid right-wing talker, except for Lou Dobbs, it's all business....