Liberal Harvard Law School wrote on Oct 4, 2008 5:39 AM:Raoul claims that everything Obama earned at Harvard law school was a gift to his skin color, each presented by the famously (to raoul) liberals at Harvard. But I just ran across the educational background of our current Supreme Court Justices. Did you know that six of the nine are Harvard Law alumni? Yep. Justices Ginsburg, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Roberts, and Breyer all graduated from HLS. Now you can correct me if I'm wrong, but is this a bunch of liberals? Seems to me that a whole range of views is represented, including Bush's two appointees. Hard for me to imagine the same faculty that gave Scalia his grades gave A's to Obama because he was black but dumb. Hard for me to imagine Scalia-type classmates putting up with it. (Raoul, did it occur to you that the GI Bill is its own kind of affirmative action? That people who might not otherwise have been qualified were given seats in our universities for their having served, even if they had been drafted and sat at a desk for their term of service? Raoul, would you be consistent and submit for us your SAT scores and grades? Sorry. You claim to be a journalist and an expert in the Constitution. I know you've published things, but I suspect they were opinion pieces like you publish in the NCT. Proove that your education was good and that it was earned without gifts. Seems only reasonable.)

Still Dont Get It wrote on Oct 4, 2008 5:52 AM:Most middle-class Americans are outraged that our representatives still don't get it--about the bailout bill or almost any other bill. Of course the bailout bill isn't designed to work. It is designed to carry more pork to benefit special interest lobbyists and outright crooks. Tell me why the hell all those earmarks had to be added to the bill to start with. It is the most ridiculous thing I can imagine. I am a retiree and depend on my investments to help me through my senior years, but my IRA is down 23% because of stupid tactics from Congress that only serve to line their own pockets and satisfy their buddies, the special interest lobbyists that hang all over them. I will cast my vote in November to throw every incumbent out of office I can because none of them has the courage to stand up for their constituents, which is why they were voted into office in the first place. May God have mercy on the souls of our so-called Congressional representatives, because they will have no mercy from me.

Marlowe wrote on Oct 4, 2008 6:06 AM:I saw that Joe Biden is sending his son off to Iraq. Must be tough. Unlike Palin, Biden knows that Iraq is not the central front in the war on terror. He knows Iraq is the bogus war. What mixed feelings he must have about this. So proud of his son's service. So puzzled about where he's going and what he's risking and what he's risking it for. When Biden reads the paper or his daily reports on Foreign Relations and learns about yet another bombing or attack from the Taliban and al qaeda in Pakistan/Afghanistan, our real enemies getting stronger, he must shake his head in confused despair as his son leaves for Iraq. Both VP candidates have a son heading for battle in Iraq, and one of them knows it's the wrong place. McCain/Palin say, "stay the course". Have we not all had enough of the Bush/Cheney presidency?

Chuck wrote on Oct 4, 2008 6:28 AM:I emailed Joe OBiden and $2 off coupon for tissues. I dont want him sloobering all over Castro and Chavez when the liberals have their annual love-fest

But Marlowe wrote on Oct 4, 2008 8:19 AM:That's the problem, Bush and McBush are perfectly aware that the real enemy is growing stronger, they just don't give a damn. They want oil and they'll sacrifice the lives of our soldiers under false pretenses, they'll bankrupt this country and they don't care.

Sane wrote on Oct 4, 2008 8:21 AM:The letter from David Horwitz is right on.

Be careful Chuck wrote on Oct 4, 2008 8:31 AM:Bashing someone for crying about the loss of a spouse is beneath everyone but you. Nevertheless, there may come a time in your life when you undergo a similar tragedy. I don't know if you are capable of loving, and therefore of crying, but if you are I hope those around you are kinder than you are.

Marlowe to but Marlowe wrote on Oct 4, 2008 8:39 AM:I have to agree with you, but I want to add something. Bush/McCain are all and only about politics, about winning and keeping power. To them, getting involved in a Vietnam-type "quagmire" would be seen as politically dangerous. Bush didn't want to be LBJ or Nixon. So when it became obvious that Afghanistan (ask the Russians) was going to be a tough fight, he decided to build up Iraq as a Great Enemy, a Great Threat, knowing that they had few, if any, functional WMD systems and virtually no army. Bush, and McCain, are much more concerned with delivering a face-saving, ego-saving "victory" than they are with actually doing anything of national importance, like our defense. But Bush didn't even get THAT right, because Iraq DID become a quagmire that lost the Congress in 06 and sent his approval rating plummoting, "Mission Accomplished" speech and all. Now here's McCain, same philosophy, same focus on delivering a face-saving "victory", same fear of the real fight in Afghanistan. Our NATO allies see this and bit by bit are bailing out, saying "Why should we fight this fight if the US won't?" Bush/McCain: party over country every time. Cowards. Liars.

One down Two to go wrote on Oct 4, 2008 8:45 AM:I see that OJ was convicted of all 12 counts in Las Vegas and might well spend the rest of his life in prison. That leaves just Cheney and Bush to go, and we'll be able to believe in justice again.

Vista Granny wrote on Oct 4, 2008 8:57 AM:Up to now, I have ignored Chuck's awful commentaries, usually skipping them completely. But, this a.m. there were only 7 comments published, so I read Chuck's. The scary thing about them? He's not alone. Remember, very few people participate in the blog -- so how many Chucks exist out there? Cruel, unthinking people! Real men do cry! Chuck is not a man. He's a little boy with a runny nose, throwing rocks at his neighbor's house.

It could be raining wrote on Oct 4, 2008 9:07 AM:As it becomes increasingly likely that Obama will be our next President we should take some time to explore the ramifications.
Will the Israelis, with the support of GWB, between Election Day and Inauguration Day, attempt to take out Iran’s nuclear infrastructure?
Will the anticipated troop withdrawals help or hinder the Iraqi’s desire to control their own destiny?
Will we have to go back to Iraq in five years?
Will Obama, backing up the left’s claims that Iraq has been a distraction, redeploy enough of those troops to Afghanistan in order to actively pursue bin Laden and al-Qaeda into an Islamic and nuclear-armed Pakistan?
With the Bush tax cuts set to expire, will the Senate Republicans have enough votes (and courage) to filibuster plans for a middle class tax cut extension in order to force Democrats to allow all of Bush’s cuts to remain in force?
For that matter, will the Senate Republicans, the sole remaining vanguard of the right wing, be humble in defeat or attempt to block all of Obama’s proposals?
Will the new AG (Hillary?) aggressively pursue the Bush Administration’s transgressions or allow them to slide as predecessors have done?
Some say that on January 20th we will wake up from an eight-year nightmare. They are daydreaming. I see plenty of nightmares ahead but how could it possibly be worse?
In that regard, I’m holding my nose and voting for Obama.

chuck wrote on Oct 4, 2008 9:25 AM:The news is reporting that the push to register felons to vote could aid Obama. Gee, do you think so. They see who Obama hangs with, befriends and does deals with, and they see themselves in Hussein

Rodeo wrote on Oct 4, 2008 9:26 AM:Ok, for all you war hating, can't stand the current President Bush.

You say we got into the war for the wrong reasons. Fine, you believe that. But please, do not, DO NOT, question the good that has ocurred there, the positive changes that have taken place, and the better standards of life that some are starting to feel and that the rest will feel as time moves forward.

By doing so, you are taking away and devalueing everything that those troops have fought, bled, and possibly died for. The Marines have turned over the Anbar province to the Iraqi Security Forces. That means things are working. All we have to do is continue to train, equip and we will be able to continue turning things over to the ISF.

Nobody believes that dictatorship is the proper way of running a country. So the fact that we took out a dictator would be a good thing, no?

And its a hard rain wrote on Oct 4, 2008 9:27 AM:Raining is speculating in territory worth speculating in. Except I'd say "between NOW and inauguration day". The GOP, at least under its current neocon mentors, have stopped believing in democracy, international law or the constitution. They are former leftist ideologues turned hard right, but still seeing their holy mission as making the world do things their way. They will do anything to move this mission forward, in fact they already have! If wars are needed to expand the powers of the executive branch, wars we shall have. If that executive power needs to include independence from oversight by the Congress, let's make signing statements routine. If the courts object, browbeat Congress to pass a law that, ex post facto, makes the executive immune to the old law. American lives mean little to them (none of them actually served) in comparison to the larger shifts in world power that they are trying to bring about. Those of us who have a vestige of belief in what this country has been about must be extremely vigilant. These folks mean business and they are positive our beliefs and assumptions are foolish and obstructionist. There's a revolution going on, folks. It's deeply anti-American, and because you've been duped into being afraid (of terrorists, of depressions), you have been voting for it. Enough!

Chuck wrote on Oct 4, 2008 9:28 AM:>>>Cruel, unthinking people! Real men do cry! Chuck is not a man>>> Don't get your panties in a twit, Granny. If Palin cried during the debate, you'd be blasting her and saying if she cries during a debate, what will she do in a crisis, and conclude she is unfit. I am merely slamming in your face what your type would be doing to Palin, if given the slightest opportunity.

Feminist wrote on Oct 4, 2008 9:31 AM:I really liked the comment in Ellen Goodman's column (reprinted in this morning's North County Times), when she referred to George Bush's famous use of the expression, "the soft bigotry of low expectations" (offered as an excuse for cutting back outreach services for disadvantaged young people).

Nowhere has the application of that phrase been more appropriate than to the low expectations that Sarah Palin was able to "live up to" (or down to).

Ron wrote on Oct 4, 2008 9:32 AM:You just gotta love people like Nikki Leeds. LOL
In her "Women voters for Obama" letter today. LOL

Does this women even know that as a Senator, Barack NObama pays his women senate office staff about $6,000 less than their male counterpart?

Well, if he cares about women's issues, he had better start with the women he employs first, don't ya think?

Also, he claims to be his brother's keeper, yet his own half-brother lives in a 6 x 9 foot hut in Africa on $12 bucks a year.
NObama and his wife made $4 million dollars last year, and still had time to complain about their Harvard student debt's.
Ain't this a great country? LOL

Rodeo wrote on Oct 4, 2008 9:35 AM:Mike Russell, you are right, the legislation that was pushing for Harvey Milk Day was incorrect in it's attempt to tell the teachers of California that they MUST teach about this man and HIS beliefs to their students.

Fortunately, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill.

What I find funny is, Harvey Milk was killed by another politician, not just some regular Joe out on the street. The guy died fighting for something he believed in. Good for him. But that stil does not mean that a teacher should be forced to push his agenda in our schools. Just as the majority says that there is no room for religion in school, nor is there any room for pushing a sexual orientation lifestyle on our students.

Questioning wrote on Oct 4, 2008 9:35 AM:Rodeo at 9:26 a.m. scolds us not to question the "good that has occurred" in our misbegotten, unjustified invasion of a country (Iraq) that posed no threat to us.
What good?
4,000 American soldiers are DEAD.
Almost a trillion dollars sucked out of our economy, creating huge debt and imploding our economy.
Military resources have been diverted AWAY FROM the real war against the real terrorists.
Bin Laden is still free.

How dare you ask us to put on your rose colored glasses and turn from cruel reality.
Now, get back up and back on that bronc you just got thrown from.

sdraoul wrote on Oct 4, 2008 9:36 AM:Wm Buckley once said that he would rather be governed by the first 300 names in the Boston phonebook than by the Haavard faculty.

Again, I state that Obama is an affirmative action baby.

His admittance to Harvard Law School is highly suspect. We cannot assume he was accepted because of a high LSAT score and that he was in the top two percent of Harvard Law School applicants. As we can't, we have toa ssume he was accepted for reasons other than LSAT and grades.

As to what he did in law school, how he earned his grades and what he did as editor of the Harvard Law Review, thsoe are things we will never know because he won't tell us.

We know that unlike other Review editors he didn't publish anything. We know that he hqas never won a legal appeal in state or federal appeals courts. We know that in Chicago he litigated $400 small claims actions and did legal paperwork for convicted criminal Tony Rezko. Those things we do know.

As for my academic experience, I assure my critics that in the late 50s and early Sixties my admission to the university was grade and test score guided. as to my grades, theyw ere earned even as I worked three paert time jobs a day alsting until 1:30 a.m.

I did well despite having to work.

To Rodeo wrote on Oct 4, 2008 9:42 AM:You've got things seriously distorted, Rodeo. You sound like a decent person with good, strong values. But when you start a war for the wrong reasons, in an unjustified way, how can much "good" come from it? Did you know that other than the Southern Baptists, EVERY organized major religion in the US opposed the Iraq invasion, including all the other Christian groups? That says something, doesn't it? It's clear that between our shock and awe bombing of a major capital city, population greater than a million, and the insurgency that this unleashed, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead. Another 4-5 million are in exile (that's about 20% of the whole population). The infrastructure is still in ruins. National, cultural, and archeological treasures are gone forever. Enemies of the US have used Iraq as a recruiting poster for haters of the West. The current government of Iraq, one of the "good" things to come of it all, is strongly tied to Iran, which is THE biggest beneficiary of the whole thing. Our attackers in Pakistan/Afghanistan, which were nearly beaten until we switched our focus to Iraq, is gaining strength and the governments of those nations, which had been our allies in 2003, are now against us. I say: our kids have given their blood, sweat and tears in Iraq for wrong reasons, for evil reasons, for nothing. But your justified anger over this should be directed at Bush/Cheney, not at me. I'm only describing the facts. Bush and Cheney are the perpetrators. This is tragic and criminal and beyond horrible, but don't blame the messenger. Mccain says: stay the course. Palin says God tells her Iraq was right. If you are angry about this, and if you don't want even MORE AMerican blood shed for nothing, then vote for Obama/Biden.

Rodeo wrote on Oct 4, 2008 9:46 AM:So, Questioning, you are saying that as Americans, we are not to attempt to help others to possibly have a better way of life? So screw them Iraqi's that were being persecuted because they didn't believe or want to live as their dictator wanted them to?

While it is unfortunate, those that have been lost, or injured over there, it is a part of war and in asking my fellow Marines that have been over there with me, would they have done the same thing, knowing what we know now, if they could do it all over again, they said yes. Definitely. Why is that do you think? Because they know they are giving an opportunity to another human being to have a better life and not fear for their life because they don't agree with the current regime.

And for the record, I don't ride broncs, I ride bulls when I have the opportunity and not in a foreign country.

to Rodeo part two wrote on Oct 4, 2008 9:57 AM:Now that I read your comments about homosexuality, I doubt my previous comments about your values. For you, saying that homosexuality exists is equivalent to "pushing a sexual orientation lifestyle on our students". This is simply false. Did you know that for 20 years, there have been studies of children adopted and raised in homosexual households, and that these have found that the kids are no more likely to be homosexual than kids raised in heterosexual households. If their PARENTS' lifestyle fails to be "pushed" on them, why would anyone think that mentioning the existence of homosexuality in schools do so? True answer: irrational homophobia. To turn your question around, why should a demonstrably irrational phobia be pushed on our kids? There's plenty to rationally fear in the world, to learn to avoid or cope with. I resent people who want to terrorize our children for no reason other than that they are phobic. Go away, Rodeo. Your insanity should be a private matter and not foisted on the rest of us.

Answering wrote on Oct 4, 2008 9:57 AM:Rodeo at 9:46 a.m. says that Americans were right to ignore our own needs, ignore the real terrorists (and let them get away), because there were injustices and problems in Iraq.
News for Rodeo: Iraq was a poor nation with an evil dictator, but if you look around the world, it was nowhere near the poorest, not even in the top 40, nor was it in the top 10 worst dictatorships in the world.
Burma (I join with Laura Bush in refusing to call them Myanmar), North Korea, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and several African dictatorships were far, far more brutal.
But, ooops, they didn't have our oil under their desert sands (other than the Saudis, but they entered into Bush's sweetheart deals with the devils, including Bush holding hands with Prince Bandar, which doesn't seem to bother Chuck.
So, is Rodeo saying we should deplete all our resources going solving all the world's problems of poverty?
Is Rodeo saying we should invade the dictatorships of Burma, North Korea, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Zaire?
Before we catch Bin Laden?

Ron wrote on Oct 4, 2008 10:01 AM:I have no problem in assuming that Barack NObama worked hard in law school, especially Harvard.
But, the point is...
Where is this guy's track record?

Can you point us to something along the grounds of a legal argument, some lesson plans for his 12 years of teaching constitutional law, or I'd even accept some notes he wrote grading some law students essay.

Can ya give us one thing that remotely gives us any idea how astute this guy is? eh.. "Liberal Harvard Law School"
@5:39 AM?
Each of the other lawyers on the Court, have a legal track record to follow.
NObama has a Global Poverty speech put to print in 2007. That's it.
Where is his "craft" during his 12 years of teaching law?

We know that one school, gave him an office and a stipend to write a book about civil law, he used their office space and their money to write a memior about himself. To promote himself into a run at being President.

Oh, and that 2007 speech put to print, exudes the wrong Rev. Wright's theology and hate. Go to page 293, and you will see: "...white mans' greed, a world in need."

Rodeo wrote on Oct 4, 2008 10:03 AM:We're fighting for Chris' freedoms :)

Rodeo wrote on Oct 4, 2008 10:09 AM:If a parent wants to teach their children one way or another is up to the parent, not the school system in regards to sexual orientation.

Once I begin having a family and raising children, my wife and I will raise our kids to love everyone. They don't have to accept their lifestyle, but they should still love them.

My brother is a homosexual. I don't accept his lifestyle but I still love him. I have a brother that died from drugs. I didn't accept his lifestyle, but I still loved him.

There are politicians that push that certain drug use is ok. Should we start acknowledging this in our schools too?

more cowardice and racism from raoul wrote on Oct 4, 2008 10:11 AM:Last time, I asked raoul to give us the reasons that he KNOWS that Obama was admitted by affirmative action at HLS. All he offers is that if you are black, the burden is on you to prove to us that you WEREN'T one. He says William Buckley, a conservative's conservative, despised Harvard. Yet, as I posted earlier, Scalia, Roberts, Alito, 3 of the 4 most conservative members of the Supreme Court, were graduates of HLS. Even though affirmative action only deals with admission to a school, not to grades within classes, and even though Obama graduated cum lauda (i.e., more or less straight A's), raoul says that unless Obama can prove to us HOW he got his grades, each A is suspect. Why? Because Obama is black? Raoul himself doesn't give us his SAT scores, nor tell us where he went to school, what degrees he's earned, if any, nor what his grades were, let alone how he earned those grades. The only people who have the burden of proving such things are, um, black people. And if they DO display genuine accomplishments (such as heading the Harvard Law Review), why Raoul simply raises the bar, saying this doesn't count because Obama hasn't published. If we suddenly found Obama publications, I can hear raoul now. Would raoul say, "Obama didn't really write that, he had help!" (raoul has actually said this about Obama's two books)? That the things he wrote appeared in trivial journals? That he had co-authors. That he needed to publish more than the number he published? Does it matter? Raoul is a racist and a coward, and each post proves this with more conviction. He is no longer worth my efforts. He has proven to me in this long, extended conversation that he will not deliver anything of substance except to repeat himself and demand more of Obama than he will go near himself. Racist. Coward. G'bye, raoul. You've been thoroughly outed.

Rodeo wrote on Oct 4, 2008 10:19 AM:To Answering,

No I don't think we should ignore our own needs. I don't agree with the bail out bill. I don't think it benefits the American citizen. I think it benefits a certain group of people.

That is why I think they could have given money to those specific people to save their mortgages (it would have benefited the banks as well). When I say give it to the people, I mean the government could have wrote a check to the bank for a specific mortgage. I don't trust that all of the people would have done the right thing and put that money where they needed it to be put.

There is a lot more that we as Americans need to do to start helping ourselves. The first and biggest thing is our materialistic views, and the got to have it "now" attitude. The thought of saving the money to purchase something, or putting it on lay-away, until you can pay for it in full is a way of life that is no longer considered acceptable by society.

Last time I checked, we are not ignoring the real terrorists. We have had special operation forces in Afghanistan continuing the fight since day one. Yes while we may not have been keeping our total focus on there, we haven't ran from the fight.

Personally, I feel that we did the wrong thing by not finishing the job and removing Saddam in 91. But, we were destroying their military and there were some that thought it was wrong to keep the fight up against an inferior force.

I feel we did the wrong thing in Somolia, but cutting and running instead of continuing that fight there. Yes we lost some very professional warriors there, and while that is sad, it is even sadder that we gave the organizations there the leverage and mental attitude that they "won" by leaving. This process empowered them. It gave them teh mentality that if they can inflict enough death and destruction on us that we, as a nation, will cut and run.

to Rodeo part three wrote on Oct 4, 2008 10:21 AM:Rodeo says that Iraq was a good hearted effort to give the Iraqis a better life. Because Saddam had been brutal ten years earlier. The thousands dead? The millions exiled? Oh, well, that's war. But it wasn't "war", Rodeo. It was an unjustified invasion, done with a boneheaded absence of preparation. Even the "mission" of removing Saddam, which you are so impressed with, was accomplished in a few weeks (because this deadly tyrant had no army). That was 5 years ago. The "war" was over 5 years ago, Rodeo. IN that time, most of the dead have died, most of the exiles left, most of the disaster has occurred. It hasn't been a war since late Spring, 2003. We are an occupation force, and strongly resented (for years, more than 2/3 of Iraqis polled have wanted us out). As an American, under these circumstances, you do not have the right to decide what's right or justified for the Iraqis. What their life was and is now is up to them, not you or me or Bush or McCain. Thinking that it IS up to you is in iteself a kind of imperialism. Of course the Marines say it's the right thing. What do you think they're going to say? "Me and my brothers in arms have fought, died, killed, for no moral reason, and are no better than thugs"? Most murderers also say the victims had it coming. (I am NOT saying the Marines were murderers, by the way. They have done what they were told to do and have done it well. What they have been told to do, as, I hope, a future international court will show, was an illegal invasion and occupation.)

Ron wrote on Oct 4, 2008 10:29 AM:Let me give you the short verison..
"Still Dont Get It" @5:52 AM.

Most Americans are outraged about this bailout, and our representatives still voted for it. Well, most did.
And come election day, I have no doubt that nearly 96% of them will be returned to steal from us again.

Now, why is this? It's simple.
It's Co-Dependancy. They've preached to you your whole life that what they do in Washington matters to you, and about you. That every action they take will either make or break your life, your livelihood, and your children's future.
Right?

So let's go through the list of things they have done to "save you" from disaster, shall we? Yes, We Shall!

Social Security to save you from being placed into poverty during your old age.
$13 Trillion in debt.
MediCare supposed to save you from being sick during your old age.
$41 trillion in debt.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., supposed to protect pensions of 44 million workers.
$14 billion debt, and even larger projected shortfalls.

Do I need to continue?

Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac,
$200 billion bailout.

In fact, let me cut to the chase here..
You take a look at most governments, Federal, State, and local.. and almost without exception, they are broke.
They have all over-promised and under-funded every single program they have ever come out with to help you, the middle & lower classes.
And they do it all by playing a kind of three card monty, while at the same time, playing each economic lass off the other, to gain political advantage.

So, the bottom line from this taxpayers prespective is, this experiment of Government interventionism has failed, and failed.. miserably.
It's time to stop it, it's time to get the government out of the marketplace, and back into the role to which it was originally designed, and limited to through the enumerated powers as defined by our Founders through the Constitution.
The "Living Constitution" model has failed, and it's time to call it a failure. We've been tinkering with this darn thing for far too long, like children of wise & experienced parents, we ignored their advise, and thought we knew better.
The capitalist system works fine in my own life, and that is because I don't have to deal with foolish ideas about fairness, or affirmative action on an economic basis. If I don't have the money, I don't spend.
In Washington, Sacramento, and many other places, they don't see any limits, even when they don't have the money.

tjefferson wrote on Oct 4, 2008 10:32 AM:SDRAOUL keeps writing that Obama was "an affirmative action baby." . Obama was not a "baby" when he was admitted to Harvard. He graduated in the top 5% of his class which makes it highly unlikely affirmative action was involved. There is, however, a form of "affirmative action" at ivy league schools like Harvard. It's called legacy and that MIGHT be one factor in Obama being admitted. Obama's father went to Harvard. McCain, on the other hand, WAS probably admitted to the Naval Academy due to "affirmative action" in the form of legacy. His father, an Admiral, graduated from the NA. Unfortunately, McCain graduated at the bottom 1% of his class. Using your criterion, it was actually McCain who was really the "affirmative action "baby," as well as being terrible student.

SANTA wrote on Oct 4, 2008 10:38 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Oct 4, 2008 6:28 AM: You are a considerate gentleman. Santa has moved you from the naughty list to the nice list. Don't blow it!

Oh Please wrote on Oct 4, 2008 10:41 AM:sdraoul[-] wrote on Oct 4, 2008 9:36 AM:
I say again that we do not care if Obama is an Affirmative Action baby. You are the only who cares. We don't care about yu either. If Obama is an affirmative action baby. We should celebrate. Obama will be the first affirmative action President.

Better with Saddam wrote on Oct 4, 2008 10:50 AM:The Iraq before the Bush's invasion was a far better place than it is today.

Sure Saddam and his sons were sadists who committed terrible crimes but their crimes touched only a very small number of people. For the vast majority of the residents of Iraq everything was better under the SECULAR Baathist and secular Saddam.

Under Saddam, women were safe on the streets. Few wore burkas or veils and they were not beaten or harassed in any way. Minority religious communities were safe in their homes and their places of worship.

Today the few Christians, Parsi, worshippers of John the Baptist and other minor religions who remain in Iraq are killed and kidnapped at will. The vast majority of the members of these groups have fled for their lives leaving everything behind to Syria. They now live in desperate poverty in Syria. Christians and religious minorities had equal access to government jobs. One of Saddam’s most important advisors, Tariq Aziz, was a Christian.

Today’s systematic persecution of religious minorities NEVER happened under Saddam or the SECULAR Baathist party. He attacked only POLITICAL enemies. Yes, he was brutal and vicious, but even among the populations he attacked most individuals were relatively unscathed.

Today the “elected” government is a very religious Shiite government with a constitution that enshrines Islam and Islamic Sharia as the basis its the laws. The new Iraq constitution even calls Iraq an Islamic Republic. The current Iraqi government gives no more than lip service (if that) to the rights of women or religious minorities.

Under Saddam there were more hours of electricity in Baghdad than now. There was also a functioning sewer and water system unlike now. Under Saddam Shiite, Sunni, and Christian lived PEACEFULLY together in mixed neighborhoods. Today it would be suicide for a Shiite to live in a Sunni neighborhood or vice versa.

In the late twentieth century, Iraq was considered to be the most open, prosperous and free country in the middle east except perhaps Lebanon and of course Israel.

You folks that get your information from Con-men on the radio and Fox phony news are terribly misinformed. I have a friend who is a Christian from Syria. He had relatives in Baghdad before Bush's war. They all look back on the days of Saddam as the good old days.

Question for DD Wiz wrote on Oct 4, 2008 11:00 AM:I'd be interested in your speculation about what it would cost to get every American hooked up to the kind of energy system that you use. Take into account how much the prices of solar panels, etc would drop with that kind of volume. I'm curious. If every American that could afford it would go your way right now, and if similar systems would be given to everyone else, what would the tab be? I wonder if all the subsidies to oil and its subsidiaries were used for this. I wonder if a big chunk of our defense spending were put into this pool, since, free from reliance on foreign oil, we would become much safer. Maybe you've offered this to us before and I missed it.

Desperater and despereter wrote on Oct 4, 2008 11:03 AM:gosh, raoul is sinking to where not knowing when the SAT started is reason enough to dismiss his opponent as an idiot! What must raoul think of Sarah Palin? LOL This descent into extreme name-calling over trivialities indicates that raoul is backed into a corner. Jeeze, raoul, all the poster asks of you is what you ask of Obama. If you have nothing to hide or be ashamed of, why not just deliver the goods? Simple!

Ron wrote on Oct 4, 2008 11:03 AM:Kind of Ironic? Ain't it?
"Marlowe" @6:06 AM.

Now here is old Joe, who's not sending his son off, his son CHOSE to serve.
But Old Joe chose to vote YES to go to war, in the first place.
So, let's at least be honest here, shall we? Palin, on the other hand had NO say, and her son is going.
Now, THAT's tough. Joe is responsible, so he can go and cry those crocodile tears somewhere else.

But, let me speak to his so-called, and assumed Foreign Relations expertise.
Now, this is a guy who voted NO on the 1st Gulf War, when the whole rest of the world backed us, and said Hussein had to be defeated, and pushed back inside Iraq.
Then, getting the first war wrong, he voted Yes on the 2nd War, now making the claim he got fooled by that old Texas rube, voted for it, before he voted against it?
Third, the guy wanted to partition Iraq, and everyone thought the guy was nutty. But, he pressed on in the nuttyness. Still believes he was right.
He and NObama still refuse to admit the surge worked, and voted against it.

Now, one thing I will grant to Old Joe, at least he's not into cutting off bullets, body armor, or supplies to our troops. While they guy he says is qualified now, voted against giving our troops needed materials, which Joe said would get our soldier killed.
And just a few month ago, he said NObama was all about "talking points don't get ya there", and "on the job training" for the President wasn't a good idea.
But it is a good idea now?
I voted against NObama, before I voted for him? What?
How does that make any sense?

Reardon wrote on Oct 4, 2008 11:20 AM:While I think it laudable that Joe Biden’s son is deploying to Iraq, it should remembered that Joe Biden’s son is going to Iraq AS A LAWYER.

Absolutely normal for The Lawyer Party of Obama (Lawyer), Biden (lawyer) and presumptive First Lady Michelle (Lawyer.)

Perhaps we can get our potential enemies to debate us!

Bill wrote on Oct 4, 2008 11:41 AM:The Monday Morning Quarterbacks out there amuse me.

It sure is funny to see liberals still claiming that we lost in Iraq and that we "let" Al Qaeda get away.

We defeated AQ in Iraq and forced them to regroup by retreating to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Somehow, I dont believe that liberals would somehow support an invasion of Afghanistan or Pakistan.

They would whine about how we preemptively invaded an alleged ally.

An ally that harbors our enmeny.

AQ has to be rooting for Obama.

Thanks to our liberal enemies here at home, another plan for attacks is about to be spawned as they do all their planning under Democrat admisistrations.

I sure hope Im wrong but why wouldnt AQ want what liberals do?

gracchus wrote on Oct 4, 2008 11:51 AM:again at 9:36 a.m., sdraoul, you "state" that obama is an affirmative action baby. but again you present no proof. when you can disclose the the evaluations of harvard law's admissions committee, you can can offer proof. until that time you only present conjectures.

sdraoul, one of the principles of this site is authorial anonymity. i don't know who you are, although apparently other readers here know you and the opus of your published work. nonetheless, inasmuch as one of the underlying provisions of this site is anonymity, references to your own past academic and professional accomplishments have no relevance to your arguments here.

if you want to throw at us obama's relationship to tony rezko, maybe you will kindly explain mccain's relationship to charles keating. and before you talk about obama's relationship with william ayres, take a look at the article in today's NYTIMES that gives an objective account of that relationship. of course i realize that a lot of people here would discount the NYTIMES, preferring what they would perceive as the superior NYPOST.

if you really want to convince us that obama has no qualificatiions to be president, sdraoul, give us some substantive facts about his liabilities. your hysterical speculations just aren't persuasive.

Respect is earned wrote on Oct 4, 2008 12:19 PM:How sad it is for a certain blogger to have to keep reminding us of his self-promoted academic and journalistic prowess and almost beg us to take him seriously.
The rest of us let our words and thoughts define us and then it’s up to the others to decide whether we’re to be taken seriously or not.
We have read his words and know his thoughts and I believe there is consensus on this particular individual’s credibility.

Ron wrote on Oct 4, 2008 12:21 PM:Ya just gotta love these ...

Complaining about "Trickle down economics with no trickle."

Hey.. ah.. genius...

Now, I don't know where these guys went to economics class, but..
As an "old timer" you'd think by now he'd have a slight grasp at how our economy works. But, alas.. it is left to me to explain, yet again!

The implosion on Wall Street is the result of, yes greed, but also Affirmative Action Lending.
It began long ago in the Carter Administration under the Community Reinvestment Act. Where it was thought then, that they could defy the laws of economics. Where through political spin, you'd blame mortgage lenders of a crime they had not commited, racial lending practises. When what was happening was pragmatic, and practical lending decisions based on credit history.
Well, the Liberal Democrats just could not let it stand, that some were being left out of the American Dream of Homeownership. So they pushed a scheme to legally prosecute any lender they believed had practised "Red-Lining."
And in time, they gave mortgage lenders an out, through Fannie Mae to buy up these risky loans through securitization as practised by Franklin Delano Raines at Lazard, before being appointed to Fannie Mae. So Raines brings his expertise over to Fannie, buys these fraud loans, securitizes them, which offshores them to Europe, and everybody's happy? Right?
And, of course, along the way we were sold a bill of goods by Liberals who said Fannie was fine, nothing to worry about, and.. they wished they had been able to do more!
God help us if they had only succeeded in that socialist dream.
Well, everyone's happy, until..
That is until the lendee's quit paying their mortgages, then the paper ain't worth spit. These bonds start losing their value, people ain't happy.

My point being this is bubble up in action, caused by an affirmative action lending program pushed by non-economically minded socialists. The worthlessness of these loans bubbled back up to the top, leaving these guy's holding the bag.
But, that's what people do who are more concerned about political advantage do, than they will ever be concerned about doing the right thing, in the first place.
Bottom line, white, black, brown, green... you DON'T lend money to people who can not pay it back.
But Liberal Democrats believe you should.

Full circle wrote on Oct 4, 2008 12:30 PM:Wouldn’t it have been easier to have fought and defeated AQ in Afghanistan and Pakistan seven years ago than to have invited them to Iraq to defeat them there only to have to fight and defeat them again seven years later back where they were in the first place?

Ron wrote on Oct 4, 2008 12:30 PM:I am nominating...
"gracchus" @11:51 AM for the best, and funniest line of the day!

>>>if you really want to convince us that obama has no qualificatiions to be president, sdraoul, give us some substantive facts about his liabilities.>>>

I'm telling ya folks, it's gettin awful scary out there! The Cult-like mental hold on the NObama-ites is just amazing!
This surely needs to be studied.

Apollo wrote on Oct 4, 2008 12:31 PM:Re: Bill (11:41 a.m.)
I'm not sure what planet Bill has had been hiding on the last 7 years, but he sure is having a hard time telling the difference between Afghanistan (where Al Qaeda, Bin Laden and the terrorists who attacked us operated from) and Iraq.
This seems to be a common problem among conservatives.
Check the record!
In the vote to retalliate against Afghanistan, all Democrats except one congresswoman voted in support (and she promptly lost in the Democratic primary at the next election). But for Iraq, half voted against it.
He says Al Qaeda fled from Iraq to Afghanistan.
This is complete, utter nonsense!
Al Qaeda STARTED in Afghanistan, and was not in Iraq at all UNTIL we created a vacuum they were able to exploit.
Because we diverted resources AWAY from Iraq, we allowed Al Qaeda the space to regroup and expland, and we allowed Bin Laden to escape.
Al Qaeda may try to endorse Obama, but only because they know it would hurt him, like how Bin Laden helped Bush by releasing a tape just before the 2004 vote.
But Al Qaeda really wants McSame to win and continue Bush's 3rd term that has enabled him to thrive so successfully, thanks to conservatives like Bill in such catastrophic denial.

grj wrote on Oct 4, 2008 12:37 PM:We took out a dictator in Iraq so do we have a right to take out dictators in Africa, Cuba etc. Iraq is not better off we bombed the whole country and killed many innocent people and many others were forced to flee their country. America has got to stop medling in other countries business .9/11 was related to a bunch of trrrorist from saudi arabia who were friends of the bush oil businesses.America is a violence fueled country. Bush wouldn't even have talks with most people. More arrogance.I agree Bush and Cheney belong in jail.

Reardon wrote on Oct 4, 2008 12:42 PM:While I think it laudable that Joe Biden’s son is deploying to Iraq, it should remembered that Joe Biden’s son is going to Iraq AS A LAWYER.

Absolutely normal for The Lawyer Party of Obama (Lawyer), Biden (lawyer) and presumptive First Lady Michelle (Lawyer.)

Perhaps we can get our potential enemies to debate us!

(Resubmitted)

Over the edge wrote on Oct 4, 2008 12:56 PM:Bill wrote, "...they (al-Qaeda) do all their planning under Democrat admisistrations (sic)."
The final nail in the coffin of Bill's credibility.
If they haven't been planning for seven years why did it take so long to defeat them in Iraq, and how do they mount offensives in Afghanistan without planning?
Are you suggesting the bombings in Madrid, Bali, Jordan, et al, were impromptu bombings of opportunity?
Do you further surmise the first World Trade Center bombing was all planned in the first 23 days of Clinton’s term when the court records indicate otherwise?

Oh Please wrote on Oct 4, 2008 1:02 PM:Rodeo[-] wrote on Oct 4, 2008 9:26 AM:
hip hip Horay. Al Queda is defeated in Irag. They have left. Al Queda is now in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If this so, why are we sill in Iraq? Could it be for control of oil and to use Iraq as a springboard to attack Iran? By the way, why isn't the approval rating of the President still under 25% and the Congress hovering around 18%? Why are not Americans celebrating in the streets if victory has been achieved?
LOL.

Oh Please wrote on Oct 4, 2008 1:07 PM:Reardon[-] wrote on Oct 4, 2008 12:42 PM:
So what/ Isn't that his MOS? There thousands of Americans in Iraq with MOSs that are not even combat designated. I bet that you can find some priests and ministers in the Army serving in Iraq. Bi den's son got is orders and has left to do his duty. You should not demean the service of any person in uniform serving under orders in Iraq. Biden's son has nothing to do with Biden senior or Obama or Michel Obama. man. I though yuo super squid graduates were thinkers. At least, you have told us so many times on this blog.

Apollo wrote on Oct 4, 2008 1:25 PM:Re: Alexandra Cloney (letter) and Ron (12:21 p.m.)
Gotta hand it to that Ron! Sure knows how to spin a yarn, and good for some laughs to boot!
Still joins letter writer Alexandra in clinging to the charge that "Affirmative Action" lending from Jimmy Carter's very successful 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).
So now the new term is, what? "Affirmative Action" lending? Is that the latest Limbaugh line?
Whatever it is, it is a crock of hooey.
Nothing in the CRA mandated bad loans, only that they not discriminate, and provided secondary financing structures to enable that.
The law worked fine for 31 years until gutted by Republican deregulators.
Alexandra and Ron are peddling a cute fantasy, but dangerous when someone actually takes it seriously.

Bush underachievements wrote on Oct 4, 2008 1:27 PM:The perpetrators:
bin Laden and al-Zawahiri are still alive.

The Axis of Evil:
Iraq STILL has no weapons of mass destruction.
North Korea does.
Iran is on their way.

You Go FOX wrote on Oct 4, 2008 1:32 PM:You Dems are a funny lot, You have ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN just to name a few, But along comes a voice that does not kiss your butts, and all you can do is cry and holler about how they are not a "real" news agency. You Go FOX NEWS!!

To Luki Vail wrote on Oct 4, 2008 1:36 PM:Get real. Your letter reads just like Ms. Douglas' web-site and flyers. Nice work, Farrah, I'd pat you on the back, but I can't get your hand out of the way.

gracchus wrote on Oct 4, 2008 1:57 PM:ron, i'm delighted to know that my sense of humor pleases you.

now you will perhaps offer substantive criticism of obama.

what i find scary, ron, is yor habitual misrepresentation of facts which some might call lies. i refer to your mistake the other day when you alleged that the top 95% of individual wager earners make at least $150,000. it is households, a distinction which a person of your business acumen should certainly recognize.

and then on friday you misrepresent the facts about minimum wage in america samoa. it's interesting that this was a story that emerged in january 2007, and you bring it up a month before the elections in november 2008. do i detect a wee bit of desperation, ron?

why, ron, when a writer disagrees with you, you must resort to ad hominem attacks? is it because you recognize the weakness of your arguments, many of which are predicated upon false data? your lack of cordiality only intensfiies the silliness of so many of your positions.

Reardon wrote on Oct 4, 2008 2:06 PM:I'll break my rule for one question.

Oh: Are you blonde?

chuck wrote on Oct 4, 2008 2:18 PM:>>>it should remembered that Joe Biden’s son is going to Iraq AS A LAWYER.>>>

God bless him for going. But, if he's under Murtha's wing, going there to arrest Marines based on reports from terrorists, he's just like his old man

DD Wiz wrote on Oct 4, 2008 2:20 PM:The post from "Question for DD Wiz" (11:00pm) asks me to speculate as to the cost of getting every American hooked up to the kind of energy system I use (on-grid residential photovoltaic electric system).
While appreciating the interest in forward-looking strategies for energy independence, the question is misdirected. Speculating about future costs for such a massive undertaking is not a viable strategy. The costs for complete conversion of everyone are unknowable at this time.
What we do know is that, on an individual basis, alternative sources such as my solar (but also other sources such as wind, fuel cells, geothermal, hydro -- solar is only one piece in solving the energy puzzle) are now