posted
There's going to be a lot of talk now about what's responsible for the Republican defeat, and a lot of the reasons being floated around by the pundits seem to miss the point. The main reason was not a sudden decline in conservative values in "red" states. The main reason wasn't the selection of Sarah Palin. It wasn't because McCain used the wrong campaign strategy, or because Democrats raised more money, or because the media was unfair to McCain. After all, both prediction markets and polls had Democrats expected to win long before anyone knew Palin, before either Obama or McCain were expected to be the party candidates, and before any campaign strategy was selected. If the blame is going to be placed on something, it shouldn't be leveled on any of these.
Instead, I'd say blame reality. Reality gave Republicans Hurricane Katrina, an unpopular and deadly Iraq War, a stagnant war in Afghanistan, an historic financial collapse, countless scandals by high ranking Republican officials, strained alliances abroad, a massive budget deficit, and the list goes on. This is why the Republicans lost. This is why McCain was forced to run the campaign he did. Any Republican using any campaign strategy would have had to face the exact same reality.
But Republicans should not try to claim it was just bad luck. They are to blame for choosing ideology over reality for the past eight years. The Bush administration seemed to believe that those in power got to decide what reality was. The priority was placed on selling their ideas, rather than coming up with the right ideas. The priority was selling the Iraq War to the American people, not finding out if it was necessary. The priority was selling the bailout to the American people, not determining if it was necessary. And the priority was winning 50%+1 in elections, so they could stay in power.
The same goes for the conservative branch of the media; the blame also falls on Hannity, Rush, Fox News, and all the Republican media institutions that intended to help the Republican cause by being deliberately and extremely one-sided. And the blame falls on groups like the Swift Boat Vets. They were short-sighted. They succeeded in helping bad Republican candidates get elected (or reelected) into office, and they succeeded in generating public support for enacting bad ideas into law - but in the long run the Republicans had to pay for the inevitable consequences for all of it. By turning the Republican base into something largely anti-intellectual that wouldn't trust any facts that disagreed with their predetermined ideology, the conservative branch of the media ensured that those same attitudes would filter up to the Republican leadership, and ultimately end in laws that reflect ideology over reality.
The moral is this: Playing politics can advance an ideology in the short run by winning elections, but in order to advance in the long run it has to be correct. Otherwise reality eventually bites back, as wrong policies lead to very real failures.
So, the ideal in politics should not be for your party to win every election at all costs, or to make the government as conservative or liberal as you possibly can during your time in office. That only helps politically in the short term. If you want to advance an ideology in the long term, it is better if only your best candidates win elections, and if only your best ideas make it into law. It may mean losses in the short run, but it means history will shine brightly on you in the long run.
This is a lesson that Democrats need to understand. After all, they are now in a position to pass almost everything they'd want. But if they fall into the same trap of using their mandate to advance liberal ideology over factual reality, they'll eventually pay the same cost that Republicans are now. They need their leadership to hold back and say things like "Wait, maybe using the Fairness Doctrine to force out conservative talk radio isn't really a good precedent to set." They need to listen to the opposition.
It's also hopefully a lesson Republicans will figure out. After all, the Republican Party used to stand for some great ideas, and those ideas were based on facts and reasons. I'd like to see them get back to standing for those ideas once again.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The repubs lost because we are a cyclical country. We don't want any one party or group to control for too long. We will start seeing a shift in the house and senate in 2 years. We like balance of power...
Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There seem to have been some things in this election that trumped any attraction to balance of power.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well said, Tresopax! I've been listening to them talk about this and shaking my head for hours now. It's about to wobble off.
I would just add this: Unfortunately, I think these things go in cycles. Nobody really learns their lesson or if they do, it's only for a short while. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely which is why we can't and won't let that happen.
I see Obama as a moderate who understands the lessons you outlined. Hopefully I'm right. If not, he'll be gone in 8 years. (I have trouble seeing him as a 4-year president.) If he does understand, then he'll usher in the next Dem who may or may not remember the lesson. Eventually they will forget. And we'll oust them.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: The republicans lost because there was a sudden dip in the economy just as mclame had taken the lead.
Terror in the stock market usually spells an incumbent party loss.
I don't think the numbers support this. I found a graph that showed the polling numbers over time here In terms of McCain "catching up" all I'm seeing is his convention boost and the temporary buzz about Pailin that disappeared quickly when we actually got to know her. It would be one thing if McCain had been steadily gaining on Obama but that isn't what I'm seeing.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even as a Republican, I have to admit that Obama had a strikingly well-run campaign, and McCain just didn't. McCain's group lost many opportunities to improve themselves in the eyes of America.
Obama's campaign was impressive.
However, basically it is true that is it because McCain is a Republican, and currently there is a Republican president who performed pretty badly -- so people are going to equate the two. That's pretty normal. So I wasn't surprised with the result.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul: A republican forum I read (well, more libertarian really but most people there vote republican) are livid and talking about splitting the party and kicking the country club conservatives.
Unfortunately, I doubt this will extend to the republican hierarchy and next election they'll run as Democrat Lite again.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:A republican forum I read (well, more libertarian really but most people there vote republican) are livid and talking about splitting the party and kicking the country club conservatives.
Oh, man, that would be nice. The country club conservatives are the tolerable portion of the party.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I blame the neo-cons taking over the republican party and implementing an ideology that split the base and angered the independents and democrats. I also blame right wing radio which succeeded in making Ayers, terrorist connections, and Obama's "socialism" as the talking points to try and bring down Obama.
Talk radio is great at rallying the base. Unfortunately the base is shrinking. I know I left the party because I am not a fan of nation building, pre-emptive wars, torture, or a run away unbalanced budget.
I am also not a fan of an encroaching loss of civil liberties and a militarized police force. Things like the 100 mile constitution free zone worry me. I blame neo-con policy pushed by Bush the the Department of Homeland Security.
Social issues like abortion and gay marriage are not that important to me, and I actually vote left.
I voted third party. I wanted to participate, but I don't endorse Obama.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: ... The priority was selling the bailout to the American people, not determining if it was necessary.
To be fair, the Republicans in the House were rather against the bailout whereas the Democrat support was much more reliable. This (the bailout in specific, rather than subprime as a whole) is one particular issue where the two parties are both complicit and probably share equal blame/credit.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
The Republicans lost because they try to govern, legislate and judge using Conservative Christianity which is very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very flawed.
Seriously, Conservative Christianity is flawed to its very core.
Don't try and take a splinter out of your brothers eye when you've got a forrest on fire sticking out of yours. Republicans lost because they got judged by the fruit that fell from their tree.
The Republicans lost because the George H. Bush/Karl Rove/Evangelical model is broken beyond repair.
The Republicans lost because they can't tell the difference between Halliburton and the mom and pop donut shop at the corner of main street.
Republicans lost because they put all their eggs in George W. Bush's basket and ended up with egg all over their face, and a 10 trillion dollar doctors bill to get the egg shells out of their eyes.
Republicans lost because they have no concept of slavery (African Americans), genocide (American Indians), or being humbled when forced to wield the power of God (Hiroshima).
Republicans lost because they believe your time is money and money aint worth much.
Republicans lost because they shoot from the hip when 1000 year old problems need more thought out solutions.
Republicans lost because when they listened to Barack Obama they heard Osama Bin Laden and not Martin Luther King Jr..
Republicans lost because they are ok having the largest prison population in the world, even though we are 1/300's of the world's population.
Republicans lost because they saw Wisdom, Ronald Reagen and everything conservative Christians stand for in the female Dan Quayle.
Republicans lost because the rest of the world does matter.
Republicans lost because their greatest artists are Rush Limbaugh, Orson Scott Card, Jessica Simpson and Hannah Montana.
Republicans lost because they believe that allowing Saudi owned and run corporations giving our politicians billions of dollars is 'free speech'.
Republicans lost because America was tired of losing.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since McCain was leading in the polls until the financial market collapse, that has to be the main reason Republicans in general did so poorly. In fact, McCain gets credit for doing as well as he did against the headwinds he faced. He did not do that badly in the popular vote. It appears that the Democrats will not get a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Unicorn Feelings: Republicans lost because they have no concept of slavery (African Americans), genocide (American Indians), or being humbled when forced to wield the power of God (Hiroshima).
I'll have to beg to disagree with you on this point. If you look back in history, especially the time right after the American Civil War, it was the Republican party that was giving the hand-up and help to the freed slaves. They fought against slavery (Union) and Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.
(although granted, the Republican party has changed much since those days)
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Unicorn Feelings: Republicans lost because they have no concept of slavery (African Americans), genocide (American Indians), or being humbled when forced to wield the power of God (Hiroshima).
I'll have to beg to disagree with you on this point. If you look back in history, especially the time right after the American Civil War, it was the Republican party that was giving the hand-up and help to the freed slaves. They fought against slavery (Union) and Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.
(although granted, the Republican party has changed much since those days)
Lincoln was a Whig. He only joined the Republican Party because the Whigs had ceased to exist. But he brought the whole Whig platform with him.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But the entire Republican party was formed as a anti-slavery group. It was in response to the Kansas-Nebraska act. LinkyPosts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "The republicans lost because there was a sudden dip in the economy just as mclame had taken the lead."
I hope this is the extent of soul searching the republican party does.
I agree with this Paul, but I do not believe it is the only reason. McCain's weakest area was the economy. His choice of VP was not the best in this regard either.
HOWEVER, the republican party can only blame themselves. We are the ones that picked John McCain as our candidate. At the time the primaries were being conducted, the war was a bigger issue. Many people believed that McCain would be better for the country because of his foreign policy experience. However as the election drew closer, the priorities of the American people shifted to the economy, which in turn hurt McCain's campaign.
The American people were willing to vote for President Elect Obama because he offered them solutions to their economic woes.
Mr. Obama was able to show some of these Republicans that he was willing to cut spending, cut taxes, and improve the economy. These were all views that were primarily republican strengths in the past.
I was one of those that thought Romney was a better choice for the Republican party. He had a proven track record on economic issues, and he could have easily picked a running mate with foreign policy experience much in the same way Mr. Obama did.
As soon as McCain chose Palin as his running mate, the only thing I thought was "McCain is trying to get Hillary supporters." I also thought "Epic Failure."
In my opinion, the Republican Party is dead. The party has moved away from what they believed in and what they stood for. They have been wasting taxpayer money on pork, bailing companies out that should not be, mailing stimulus checks out to try and buy votes, and ignoring the American people.
That is not to say that some Reagan-esque conservatives are not out there. The problem is they are the minority now.
While I was a McCain supporter, I completely understand why people voted for Mr. Obama. While I disagree with some of Mr. Obama's policies, if he is able to bring the country together the way he was able to last night in a bi-partisan way, I will support him. I hope and pray that he means the things he said last night in his speech. His speech made it seem as though he were coming more into the center instead of the hard left, and one can only hope he continues this and works with those on both sides of the isle to help the country improve domestically and abroad.
I also thought McCain was very gracious in his speech last night. Even when some of the people in the audience starting booing, McCain showed class by asking them to stop, and throwing his support into helping Mr. Obama in whatever way he can. While I am quite sure it will not happen, Mr. Obama would be wise to choose McCain as a Foreign Policy advisor.
All in all, I am proud to be an American, and am proud that so many people went out and voted. Even though I voted for McCain, I am glad that I am here during such a historic moment in history.
Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the entire Republican party was formed as a anti-slavery group. It was in response to the Kansas-Nebraska act.
And around 1920, having ended slavery, the Republicans decided to pack it up and never do anything for minorities, ever again. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
After McCain's speech last night, I turned to my wife and said, "I am so grateful that the loser of the American presidential election graciously concedes one of the most powerful positions in the world to his opponent, and that the winner doesn't turn around and arrest his opponents and all their supporters for treason." Even after a somewhat bitter campaign by McCain, he helped wounds start healing by voicing his support for Obama and the country. Obama in turn graciously praised McCain. I'm very glad for that underlying admission that beneath it all, we're all part of the same country.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Yes, but that just pushes it back one step: Why did Obama have all that money? Presumably for the same reason he had all those votes: People gave him both.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Since McCain was leading in the polls until the financial market collapse...
Obama was consistently leading in the polls between the beginning of June and the Republican convention. The Republicans got a bump after the convention which had them leading briefly. So McCain wasn't "leading in the polls until the financial market collapse."
Check the poll aggregator of your choice. Here's a Pollster link; 538 also has a 2008 national polling average tracker.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: "I am so grateful that the loser of the American presidential election graciously concedes one of the most powerful positions in the world to his opponent, and that the winner doesn't turn around and arrest his opponents and all their supporters for treason."
Amen. Voting, peaceful transfers of power, and a refreshing lack of miliatary coups are among my favorite things about my country.
It's the peaceful transfer of power that gets me. Can you imagine if, after this, President Bush got himself made Vice-President to Obama and Speaker of the House at the same time and refused to exit the Oval Office?
No "Yes, I can totally imagine that." It isn't going to happen, and that there isn't a chance of it is one of the things I love here.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Hear, hear advice for robots.
I think Obama won for 2 main reasons.
1) A brilliantly organized and managed grass-roots campaign.
2) Bush's awful record.
I think the republican party wants us to think it was just Bush, but I'm sorry I can't agree. He had a republican congress backing him up and frankly, many of his bad policies were continuations of bad policies created by Reagan, who the republican party still seems to idolize.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason Republicans lost are because they've become the party catering to white straight Christian men alone. And with Obama and Hillary being the Democratic forerunners, the Democratic party proved it wasn't.
If you're any other religion than Christian, you most likely voted for the Democrats. If you're any other gender than male, you most likely voted for the Democrats. If you're any other race than white, you most likely voted for the Democrats. If you're any other sexuality than straight, you most likely voted for the Democrats.
They'll keep losing until they change that. They attempted it partly with Palin -- but this attempt backfired as she has despicable anti-female policies (she'd like raped women to carry their rapists' babies to term, and the town of Wasilla charged raped women for their own rape kits).
In 2012, they'll attempt it again with either Palin (most probably) or Bobby Jindal (less likely). Of course Bobby Jindal is the sort of person who thinks that a good exorcism can cure you of cancer, so honestly, he'll probably fail too.
I'd like Obama to pick Sebelius or Napolitano for his VP in 4 years (Biden isn't getting any younger) and so give them a boost to become presidents in their own turn in 2016.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Because for the past couple of decades they forgot what their jobs were.
Oh, the party officials didn't forget. Those elected did.
Their job was to govern this country. Instead they held as their main job--defeating Democrats.
They dehumanized them. They turned Liberal into a naughty word. They did everything in their power to destroy any Democrat who opposed them.
And most of the surviving Democrats did the same in return.
This gave us Terry Schaivo and mud slinging attack ads that never stopped and while the world was falling apart we spent time arguing over Avers and Joe the Plumber.
Since Gringrich the goal of the Republican party was a permanent control of the entire government. They spent so much time working towards hegemony that they forgot to actually govern.
So when natural disasters like Katrina camped on their doorstep, they were unprepared. You can say that was bad luck. I say it was bad governing before, during, and after.
So when the economy dove you can say it was just bad luck. I say that if they would have been governing during the past 8 years, instead of leaving things to Greenspan & Co--who seemed to know what to do while they focused on defeating Democrats, it would not have tanked.
Heck, the way I remember the Iraq war starting, it was not to defeat our enemies abroad. It was not for Oil. We went to war in Iraq to defeat the Democrats here at home. What a mess it put the Democrats in. If they voted for the war they loose their base. If they voted against the war, they look like pansies and unpatriotic.
And then, before the surge but after the US military did what it does best--defeat armies of aggression, the Republicans in charge didn't worry about Governing this conquered land either. They were more impressed with photo-ops so they could defeat Democrats.
Last night they discovered something they forgot.
Democrats and those who vote Democratic on occasion, are not the enemy. They are the American People. They are the people who their elected officials must answer to. And if those officials have not been doing there job, they will get replaced.
Senator McCain had the experience over President Elect Obama. But that experience was tainted by the lack of governance the Republicans in general have given.
Senator McCain fought a campaign not about how he would govern, how he would do his job in such a way as to be successful. His people were too busy pointing out the need to destroy the Democrats.
I think I, and many people in old Red States, now colored Blue, would have been happy with the John McCain that did so well in New Hampshire. He was honest, upbeat, and talked to the people, not screamed if fear and anger at them. That John McCain, a man of honor, returned last night to say it was over.
Its a shame that between New Hampshire Primary and last night the Republican Party took over and ruined his chances.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: So when natural disasters like Katrina camped on their doorstep, they were unprepared.
Shouldn't Katrina's aftermath be blamed more on local and state officials? Didn't they completely drop the ball right from the start?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: If you're any other religion than Christian, you most likely voted for the Democrats. If you're any other gender than male, you most likely voted for the Democrats. If you're any other race than white, you most likely voted for the Democrats. If you're any other sexuality than straight, you most likely voted for the Democrats.
Well, I'm Christian, male, white & straight and I voted for Obama. So, the republicans didn't do a great job of catering to me...
I have great respect for John McCain. But I don't think he's what the country needed. I don't expect Obama to be a "savior" of America, and I don't agree with all of his or the democratic party's positions but I think he's got a good chance to make some needed changes in this country.
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Does anyone know if a president has ever chosen a different VP for a second term?
Yes, it's happened before. For example, FDR's vice president for his third term was Henry A Wallace, who was replaced by Truman during FDR's last election.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Does anyone know if a president has ever chosen a different VP for a second term?
I can think of a couple that had a different VP for their second term, but I'm not sure if it's because he fired the first one or because he died or declined to run again. Lincoln didn't start with Andrew Johnson, he started with...a guy whose name I can't remember but I know his initials were H.H.
Are you wondering if Obama drops Biden for the reelection bid in order to set up a successor to run when Obama is done? It's a fair question. Biden was chosen for his experience and foriegn policy savvy, but Obama won't need that as much after he's president for four years. Biden could be appointed Secretary of State, and there is plenty of precedent for using former VPs in such a fashion. That would allow Obama to pick a more likely successor to run after he's done, and would give him two years until the primary chatter started to give that VP some time to shine. I don't know if he'd do it, or how Biden would react. It's all still too new to speculate.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"The election of our first African-American president truly shows how far we've come as a nation," said NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams. "Just eight years ago, this moment would have been unthinkable. But finally we, as a country, have joined together, realized we've reached rock bottom, and for the first time voted for a candidate based on his policies rather than the color of his skin."
"Today Americans have grudgingly taken a giant leap forward," Williams continued. "And all it took was severe economic downturn, a bloody and unjust war in Iraq, terrorist attacks on lower Manhattan, nearly 2,000 deaths in New Orleans, and more than three centuries of frequently violent racial turmoil."
Said Williams, "The American people should be commended for their long-overdue courage."
There is more than a little truth in this article. Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania predicted that some PA voters previously uncomfortable with a black candidate for president might be in a different position. I believe he likened it to drowning in the middle of a river - you don't care if the person on the shore is black, purple, whatever - you just want to know if he has the strength to throw you the rope and haul you in.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: I'll have to beg to disagree with you on this point. If you look back in history, especially the time right after the American Civil War, it was the Republican party that was giving the hand-up and help to the freed slaves. They fought against slavery (Union) and Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.
(although granted, the Republican party has changed much since those days)
Lincoln also ran on a pro-slavery campaign when he was orginally elected.
Posts: 549 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't agree with that at all. In the past we still avoided electing, or even considering electing, non-white candidates no matter how bad it was......I think that there has been a change in attitude in this country, partly because a lot of the inflexible. racist people has quite frankly died off at this point.
I am not saying if you are old you are racist, but my personal observations have been that as a group older people without a doubt are far more likely to express racist views.
It was a big day for us as a country, and I hope we continue to move in that direction.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twinky, after McCain announced Sarah Palin was his vice presidenial running mate, his polls shot up five or six points, better than Obama's poll numbers, and stayed there through mid September--until September 15 when Shearson-Lehman collapsed, and McCain said "the fundamentals of the economy are sound." Obama exploited that remark unmercifully, and poll numbers for McCain at that exact point began to decline.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In 1976, Gerald Ford selected Bob Dole as his running mate rather than the sitting VP, Nelson Rockafelle but I'm not sure if that actually counts since neither Ford nor Rockafeller were on the Presidential ticket in 72.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or Ron, perhaps people remembered McCain's remark in the campaign along the lines of "I don't know much about economics."
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe the Republicans REALLY have no idea how judgemental, divisive and condescending they became.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley act is the main cause of the financial downturn (or what made it really bad). That act is the legal manifesto of free-market capitalism. That is what has brought the Republicans low in this election. Of course, the Iraq stuff didn't exactly help.
This doesn't mean I'm a Communist. I'm an economic centrist, meaning I think pure Communism and pure Capitalism are best in very, very, very, small doses. 1 molecule of either is almost a poisonous dose. LOL
[ November 05, 2008, 11:26 PM: Message edited by: steven ]
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Twinky, after McCain announced Sarah Palin was his vice presidenial running mate, his polls shot up five or six points, better than Obama's poll numbers, and stayed there through mid September--until September 15 when Shearson-Lehman collapsed, and McCain said "the fundamentals of the economy are sound." Obama exploited that remark unmercifully, and poll numbers for McCain at that exact point began to decline.
Not according to the pollster link Twinky provided. McCain's numbers went up after the republican convention, but they peaked in the 9/7 - 9/9 range and were already on their way down before 9/15. The lines showing the averages of the polls crossed back to positive for Obama on 9/13, before the Lehman collapse.
I do think the economic situation helped Obama increase and maintain his lead, of course. But a close look at the polls shows that 1-week period when McCain was actually ahead is much more likely a post-convention and Palin-announcement bounce than a trend that was only spoiled by the economic collapse.
posted
Either way, I'm glad we don't have another free-marketer in office. There's a reason that the regulations that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act repealed have been in place since after the Great Depression. They work to prevent future depressions. You want proof? 8 years after they are repealed, we have another major crisis. Coincidence? Fat chance, folks.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
My faith in lesson-learning is low.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
