I hope Gramm falls off his high horse!!!

Obama was no slouch, either, in taking on the "nation of whiners" comment. I especially appreciated the parallels he drew between Gramm's comments on the "mental recession" and McCain's earlier comments regarding the "pyschological benefits" of a gas tax holiday. And then there was his comparison of Phil Gramm to another notorious psychologist, noting that "America already has one Dr. Phil."

Link

MJR

that is what you should have done. Nominated someone that couldn't carry his own state in a year of Democrat landslide and comes from a politically corrupt family. I am sure that would have worked for you.

He came closer to winning the Senate than anybody thought he possibly could. Corker's injection of his own personal fortune into the race in the last week was a large part of the difference.

I think he is seriously interested in the governor's office in 2010, but I have to think odds are against him unless he gets back into our state so that people have enough time to get over the fact that his wife, Emily, is white. She's also rather attractive, intelligent, and successful in her own right. They are a great couple, but will they be accepted in Tennessee?

Judging by the huge lines this morning outside our local AT&T store, the economy isn't so bad that it's keeping people away from buying a new iPhone 3G.

I think Gramm could have been a little more eloquent with his preaching, to be sure. But essentially, his was an indictment of the media's coverage of economic events. There are issues with which we have to deal right now, the mortgage crisis and fuel prices right at the top. But, to me, when the economy shows growth, no matter how small, that is not a recessionary cycle. Perhaps Gramm should have simply made that statement, and moved on.

Gramm's an idiot (I thought he was dead) and I agree that Harold Ford, Jr. would be a much more attactive candidate than the presumptive Democratic nominee. I believe he came close to winning the Senate because he is a moderate Democrat in a relatively conservative state. On the other hand, if he couldn't win in 06, I'm not sure he can win........

...relatively conservative state

And what state is that? Part of your problem is we know your game. Whoever is running as a Dem is always the "most liberal." Just like Kerry and Gore. What were the odds that that could occur? While whoever is not running would be preferable because they're "more moderate." That's why Hillary became Rush's BFF (but only temporarily).

I take your words as an endorsement that we have the right candidate.

I don't think many would disagree that Tennessee is a relatively conservative state. I have no game - If you don't think Kerry, Gore and Obama are more liberal than Ford, what game are you playing? Evan Baye (Indiana) is an example of a moderate to even conservative Democrat. The fact is, you can't get the endorsement of the Democratic money machine without blowing the extreme Libs. Does Moveon.org mean anything? The Democratic party has sold out to the far Left.

I do endorse that for the Dems because that's a loser. This year may be unusual in that the stars are so far aligned against Republicans that we could possibly elect a radical far Leftist. Even so, doesn't the fact that - with everything the Dems have going for them and everything the Repubs have going against them - Obama's lead is only 3 - 4 points concern you?

If you don't think Kerry, Gore and Obama are more liberal than Ford,...

Not just "more" so than Ford. "Most" liberal is how it's put by the right. We only wish.

The Democratic party has sold out to the far Left.

Promise? You don't know what liberal is. There hasn't really been liberalism in government, oh--since just about forever. FDR maybe. Paul Wellstone was a liberal. And he was really a threat, wasn't he?

...Obama's lead is only 3 - 4 points concern you?

Keep thinking that.

Dow down another 200 points on rumors of a "mental recession."

Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.

Many believe Obama is the MOST liberal in the Senate. His very short experience lends credibility to that statement.

Thanks for setting me straight on the fact that I don't know what liberalism is. Far Left's position today (Obama) = Euro-style Socialism

Obama's lead today is less than Kerry's was at this point in time in 04.

... a highly respected study by political science professors Keith Poole and Jeff Lewis ranked Obama as tied with Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) as the 10th "most liberal" senator in 2007.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802110008

The real point of Conservative talking points is that they have an indefensible record. Since they can't run on their record they have to resort to making stuff up about Obama. This thread illustrates that.

I think Ford's response is marginally better than Obama's: perhaps a double as opposed to a single.

But this shudda been a grand slam, considering that Gramm slowpitched a fat softball right over the middle of the plate.

Mr. Carlisle said in 1878 that this was a struggle between the idle holders of idle capital and the struggling masses who produce the wealth and pay the taxes of the country; and my friends, it is simply a question that we shall decide upon which side shall the Democratic Party fight. Upon the side of the idle holders of idle capital, or upon the side of the struggling masses? That is the question that the party must answer first; and then it must be answered by each individual hereafter. The sympathies of the Democratic Party, as described by the platform, are on the side of the struggling masses, who have ever been the foundation of the Democratic Party.

There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.

OK, you got me there, W'creek. He's only in the 90th percentile of Libs. I'm actually not shy about standing by the Conservative record. We've gone nearly 7 years without being "hit" by Al-Qaeda and we're annihilating them (I know Libs and media don't like to admit that!). We've had a relatively strong economy although weak dollar has caused some slowing in growth - foreign oil dependence and the massive amount we spend on it is driving most of this. I like a lot about W but I don't know what's worse - a tax and spend liberal or a tax cut and spend Republican. We definitely need a Conservative and I'm afraid McCain's not it.

Most important of all - and when you cut through all of the bull crap - we're really voting for a few Supreme Court Justices. W tried to screw this up the first time but came through big time with Roberts and Alito. His dad batted .500 with Thomas and Souter. With Obama, I'm afraid his nominees will make Ruth (Darth) Bader Ginsberg look like Robert Bork!

What Gramm said was right, but he should have said it a different way. What we need in these times is a leader who will motivate us. The media is doom and gloom; I don't know how anyone could argue that. The most important issue this election year at all levels is our economy. If one were to look at things from an objective point of view, we are not in a recession, and certainly not in a depression, *but* we are headed in that direction if we as individuals don't recognize that what we do as individuals everyday has more impact on the future of our nation than our president.

We should give 100% at work, we should manage our money wisely, and we should support each other. We all have something to offer our country, we all have a part to play in our future. Anyone who advocates another adopt the position of victim is not a responsible leader. A responsible leader motivates others to treat all fairly, and to accept accountability for their own actions.

Ok, you got me. We've just been lucky under W's watch. Do you think Obama will be as lucky? Patton was extremely lucky that the Battle of the Bulge went his way and Sherman's (lucky) March to the Sea was another good one. It's too bad Bill Clinton wasn't so lucky when he was president.

Thanks for clearing up that surge thing. I could have sworn that I heard that even the Iraqi's are starting to tell us to start collecting our toys and get ready to leave.

I feel so refreshed making my points without unnecessary name calling......

It's too bad Bill Clinton wasn't so lucky when he was president.

In terms of... being targeted for removal from office by alleged Americans of the (disloyal) opposition party to the extent that he was criticized even for trying to go after OBL?

...even the Iraqi's are starting to tell us to start collecting our toys and get ready to leave.

They've been saying that for a LONG time, but Bush and McSame are still pretending they don't hear it. So please explain that to them.

Tell us all at KV, Tin Pan, that five 5 years ago you fully expected to be only to this point in Iraq now. Not to mention the prospect for a responsible Iraqi government is still as elusive as it was before your precious surge.

W's invasion of Iraq has been one endless disaster of historic proportions, only mitigated by less violence in recent months for a host of reasons that aren't flattering to Bush or the U.S. It's still a quagmire that makes Vietnam look easy to have walked away from.

And your hero Duhbya failed to protect our country while a member of a family close in with the Bush circle of friends carried out the worst attack ever on U.S. soil. He even stayed stuck reading a children's book while the attack was in progress. And you give him a freebie for that. I don't.

Tin Ear, why do you hate America?

Yeah, thanks talidapali for the good reminders of that little matter of Afghanistan, which is in total FUBAR. So far OBL's pretty much had his way with W all the way around. Got our price of oil up to where he thinks it should be, ruined W's popularity, has the Taliban thriving, saw W take the bait on Iraq, etc. etc.

How many times has OBL been able to proclaim Mission Accomplished, thanks to W?

So Phil Gramm claims we aren't in a recession when the mess appears to be primarily his fault.

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/ptristam/cn070908/

How ironic.

____________________________________
"Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult; whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse."

Gramm both looks like a snapping turtle and has the personality of one. When he ran for president in 1996 and finished fifth in Iowa, all the profiles written of him included the line “Even his friends don’t like him.”

http://lonesomemongoose.wordpress.com/2008/07/12/molly-ivins-on-phil-gramm/

As for Tin Cup, It's obvious that he can neither do 8th grade arithmetic, nor can he make the conservative case without lying. But don't worry...No other conservative can do that either.

One thing seems to escape mention when someone calls somebody a 'Liberal"...As it was with Jesus, "Liberal" is a good thing. As that Ivins piece clearly shows, conservatives are simply mean and nasty, having no desire to help anyone except their rich associates. (I almost used the term "rich friends" but that wouldn't be correct, would it?)

U.S. makes Sunday evening announcement of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac rescue plan on rumors of a "mental recession."

Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.

Talidapali, you scolded me last week for name calling. Your silence is deafening over FactChecker's mangling of my name (Tin Penny, Tin Pan, Tin Ear). I don't think I can bear it, Talidapali. Please don't tell me you stand by your principles only when it suits your argument. Say it ain't so!

Whitescreek, "Liberal" is such a good thing that Liberals don't want to be called "liberal" anymore.

Justin, your argument is so persuasive. I'm teetering on coming over to the other side.......

I was only treating you in kind.

The only reason why liberals wouldn't like the tag anymore is because the right has smeared the label has so badly for so long just for the purpose of associating the word with everything bad. It's what your side is good at. If that can be called "good."

Now that you've earned your spot as just another troll, I'll try better to ignore you. There aren't many freeper sites that aren't moderated to filter out any comments from the left. You're free here to make a fool out of yourself.

I'm not free to make a fool of myself on this site afterall, Factchecker. I have been blackballed, thrown out, my authorization revoked. I get to respond until my IP address spotted then.........ZAP! I'm outa here.

I don't think I broke any rules but I'm positive I've ruffled some feathers. SNIFF. (I'll miss you, Rachel! But I'll sneak in to see you when I can.)

Gosh. I thought you'd want to hear diversified opinions. Guess not. Now what were we saying about liberals?

Yea, Rush told me. Great analysis Gonzo.