I knew there was a reason I hadn't posted on this thread.. looks like things haven't changed much since the Rev. Wright thread.

You guys are absolutely right..... so here's he deal.

I am allowed my ideas and to spout my opinion. and you gus just shut the fuck up and say..."ok". That way I can't play the martyr and I get my opinion out.

Sound ok.... sounds great.

pan: I acknowledge and respect your right to hold and espouse whatever opinions you have, regardless of how misguided and wrong-headed I believe them to be. The mods say we've got freedom of speech here, and so we have. Spout on, brotha.

See the one thing you all cannot seem to grasp is, it is not about me voting for McCain because I like the man. It is about me voting AGAINST Obama. He scares me.... scares me worse than French fry man. Scared me worse than Shrillay who I swore I would never vote for.

But ignore the reasons why he scares me ..... say it's because I'm racist.... I want to be a martyr.... I want to hold him to a different standard whatever....

I feel what I feel and for the first time in my life come Nov. I will be voting a republican in for president. Not one of you has convinced me with sound argument not to. In fact you push me even further towards making sure I vote for McCain.

Either way whoever wins we are pretty much in trouble... personally, I see McCain doing far less damage and allowing the Dems to come up with a true plan and leader that can rebuild this nation. Obama just can't and won't.

But such is life...... but it's not the times we live in, it's the loved ones we surround ourselves with that truly make our lives....

pan...hey...I'm just trying to understand the double standard.

Only if you consider four more years of essentially the same policies as the last eight as ""doing far less damage" than a more progressive alternative.

Obama is proving to have no substance behind his words. And, he is developing a pattern with his "friends" of first minimizing bad behavior, dismissing it, blaming the "attack machine", apologizing for it, and then throwing his "friends" under the bus. I don't like that. At least McCain knows he is a politician.

Actually, one of pan's two core arguments - if I am correctly apprehending it - to wit - that whoever has the whitehouse next is in an impossible situation, cannot but fail miserably, and will sour the country for their party for the next n*4 years where n>2 - is one of the ones that really scares me. I am seriously worried that whoever takes the whitehouse next, regardless of any actions they take or fail to take, will be presiding over a trainwreck of Hooverian proportions.

So the question is, do we want a young man in full possession of his faculties, or another case of impending alzheimers. Reagan got away with it only because he was losing his mind at the right time for the policies of everyone president from Truman forward to come to fruition. A guy with a slim chance of doing the right thing or a guy with no chance at all. Is the cup half empty or half full if the liquid is cyanide?

That said, his second core argument - that Obama scares him - largely because of 1) pandering and 2) Rev. Wright - is pure twaddle.

All politicians pander. It's a core job function. You might hold it against Obama more because he presents himself as above it, but you'd be naive to believe that in the first place.

I think he handled the Rev. Wright thing pretty well. Black ministers, in my limited experience say some crazy, racist shit until they see the white guy about 10 rows back. The issue is that their racism is based on a not unfounded, historically speaking, assumption that the man (that would be you and me) is trying to keep the black man down. I don't know about you, but I am only trying to keep the crazies down regardless of color. Obama explained at length his view on race relations and correctly identified the problem. When Wright gave him problems after the speech, he kicked him to the curb. I give him credit for giving his friend one chance to make it right. This is high stakes politics, after all. (And if you have a problem with having friends who have some fucked up repugnant viewpoints, well, I'm glad you have enough friends that you can demand perfection. I don't think that is the case with most people.)

You may have noticed today that there was a 5-4 decision on whether Habeus Corpus was a fundamental right in SCOTUS today. 4 years of McCain and that could well go the other way. That will be what he is forced to pay for evangelical votes - another Scalia clone.

I'm sure that did absolutely nothing to change your mind, yet I feel better for saying it anyway.

I think the train wreck is going to be a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress. The economy certainly took a turn south after Democrats gained control of Congress. It will only get worse after Obama is elected.

Possession of faculties? Let's see - Obama is not going to allow new domestic oil exploration, he is going to raise taxes on gas, lessen our use of coal, not allow nuclear, raise CAFE standards (raising the price of cars), increase taxes on domestic oil companies, lessen our use of foreign oil, subsidize inefficient alternatives to gas...and...(this is the kicker)...lessen the burden of energy costs on the average American. Who is kidding who, or is it whom?

Except for standing up for someone you had a 20 year friendship with. How about simply telling the media I don't share Wright's views on everything, but he his my friend, my pastor and I stand with him and I won't throw him under the bus..

Some believe...I mean truly believe.

They generally don't say crazy racist stuff.

I think Wright has been consistent, he even said that during his PBS interview. I think the change was with Obama and the fact that he started taking heat. Instead of standing up to the heat he gave in, a sign of weakness.

We could use more Scalia's on the court.

True. I am thinking the exact same thing.

Can you post some verifiable figures on this?

Blaming the Democrats for the economic downturn? Are these the same Democrats in Congress who you repeatedly say havent done anything substantive since they took control?

I recall an earlier discussion about Bush economic policies where you made an argument that one must wait a number of years in order to have an objective analysis of the impact of a change in policies on the economy.

Beyond that, like will, I too would like to see some objective facts and figures where you can blame the economy turning south as a result of the Democrats gaining control of Congress or how it will get worse after Obama is elected.

While you're at it, maybe you can find a way to blame the Democrats for the rise in the national debt from under $5 trillion to over $9 trillion during Bush's first six years with a Republican Congress.

Thank you for the respect of a true discussion of my ideas instead of just telling me how wrong I am. I appreciate that.

I will say that the first core you have pretty nailed down. I see serious problems on the horizon and we need a man that will either find ways to try to change things and inspire hope or a sacrificial lamb. I choose the sacrificial lamb because I don't see Obama changing things, I actually fear they would be worse with him.

The second isn't just Wright, it's Obama's grandmother, his relationship with Rezko, Ace made some good points in this aspect. the fact that he is relatively an unknown.... I don't buy all the hype. Someone somewhere is pulling his strings.... he is a puppet to someone.

In 1980.... the GOP was all excited about Ronald Reagan.... turns out he was a front man, a puppet. I see Obama much the same way, only not in anyway shape or form good for this country.

If he surrounds himself with a racist, a mobster, throws his grandmother under the bus and so on.... then says these are people he didn't truly know...... this shows me a man who accepts no responsibility for the people he calls friends. So then the question begs, what kind of people will he put into his cabinet? Carter was very similar, but at least he didn't say, "I didn't know", he accepted responsibility for his choices, THAT IS THE SIGN OF A LEADER.... I do not believe based on what I have seen, read, heard from Obama himself in some instances... that he would do the same. The buck won't stop with him, he'll pass it off anyway he can to whomever happens to be in his way. The man is colder that Bill Clinton in that aspect. That frightens me.

And again, if I am wrong and in 4 years Obama turns out to be the messiah, I'll admit I was wrong and vote for him with gusto..... but if he isn't and things do get worse and he is among the worst rated presidents (Hooveresque) then I can rest easy with my conscience.... even if I will be homeless.

So there ya have it.

I dont think most reasonable and rational supporters of Obama believe he will be the messiah...at least I dont.

Based on his positions, record, background and experience, I hope and expect that he (and a larger Democratic majority in Congress) will bring more progressive solutions to the problems we face as nation....problems that have been been made worse by the policies of the last eight years.

And I think he and his supporters understand how hard that may be...the ship of state that has been on a terribly wrong course for eight years cannot be turned around overnight.

_dux, the stock market is finally waking up to "the tell" from the stock price performances exhibited in the charts of four national residential homebuilders.

The chart of the S&P 500 shows that a "V Shaped Recovery" was the popular investor belief, after the democrats gained control of congress, even so far as the expectations for the homebuilders themselves. The homebuilders led the decline, they paused, bounced back, declined again. Now, it is sinking in, they are making new lows, and they will go bankrupt....but, for the S&P 500, realization was slow in coming, steeped in a denial that drove that index to a new, all time high, even when it was obvious that the homebuilders were losing money and would not recover anytime soon.
http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/2y/_/_gspc

http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/2y/b/bzh

http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/2y/k/kbh

http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/2y/c/ctx

http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/2y/d/dhi

Obama, if elected, will preside over a period of economic depression, if the downward momentum of the stock prices of the homebuilders is an indication, and I believe that it is.

The concern that I have is that Obama is not talking about the manipulation that drove the clear sign of a broken system....new highs in the S&P 500 when there were obvious signals that it was time to sell stocks, not to buy them....the sudden collapse of Bear Stearns, the unprecedented access given by the Fed to unregulated, major investment banks, to low interest loans in exchange for "collateral" of questionable (unmarketable....nearly worthless at the present time....) value. He's not describing these signs as problems, not proposing investigation leading to regulatory reform.

He's telling us (and Wallstreet) what we want to hear.....the consequences will be that the shock of what is actually coming to America in the next two years will catch him, and us....unprepared, unaccepting....although he must know at least what I know....and he still wants to run....and do it this way, not talking about it!

So you're saying if the country is worse it won't be Obama's fault? Thatwe are already headed there and Obama may work hard but we still maybe headed there.

Kinda goes against what he is telling everyone doesn't it?

People vote because they (the vast majority) believe the person they are voting for will better even a little their lives and the country, yet you are saying, "well he'll try."

Hmmmmm.

Just like getting out of Iraq overnight, I truly think it's a wrong move and if he does he is foolish to and it'll end up political suicide for him and the party.... but if he stays, he lied and that will be political suicide. He painted himself into a very very bad corner with this issue. One that can very well destroy the whole party.

pan, even though you have ignored my supportive post, FWIW, I tried to take your opinion seriously....you're making it harder....Obama's Iraq position is perfectly reasonable, full of common sense. Your position seems full of Bush-Cheney-McCain Kool-Ade:

BINGO.... B I N G O and BINGO was his dog O.

And when it does happen, or OPEC decides to finally pull the plug on the US Dollar and go to he Euro for oil...... where will Obama be? Where will his supporters be?

America the beautiful will as a majority turn him into a very hated president.

Gee, that really helps all of us, a black president in office during a great downfall..... that will help race relations won't it.

Hmmmm..... Maybe the powers that be in the Dem party are sacrificing Carter..... I mean Obama...

But shhhhhh don't tell anyone to believe that would be racist.

I do wonder, who the Obama puppet masters are.


Make it clear we are leaving.... YES.

Set a time table based on days? NO.

We need to make sure that what we destroyed in that illegal war, we fix before we come home. We need to use the military to help the Iraqis rebuild a better homeland.

Does that mean continue the war? No, but we cannot just bring everyone home, leave that place a shit hole and have the Muslim world over there use it as a bigger excuse to hate us.

FUCK THAT SHIT!!!!!!! Help them rebuild it. We bombed the hell out of it, now we need to help rebuild it.

I don't hear Obama talking this way. His plan would be to bring the troops home ASAP and leave that mess. If we do that, we just helped the radical muslims in that area draft more terrorists. Terrorists that WILL come to our homes.

But if we help rebuild and when we leave Iraq and the Iraqis are a better, happy people and nation..... then we have accomplished something.

With the right leadership we can do this.

Is that leader McCain? Maybe, but he is far better than Obama on this issue. McCain is far more realistic.

That's an easy one, pan....Obama is a defender of the status quo...the top fraction of one percent in this country who hold controlling interests in wealth, and it follows...also in corporate (and in the corporate media...Russert is eulogized as an aggressive, "probing journalist", a year after Cheney's former press secretary testified under oath, that Cheney considered questioning on teevee by Russert, to be Cheney's "best venue"....) and political power, and thus, controlling interest in Obama !

pan...you've conveniently twisted what I posted. I said IMO, his progressive policies are the best way forward for the country but the impact of any policy changes are not likely to be felt overnight....he has never suggested anything more.

One thing is more certain, IMO....a continuation of the same policies as Bush will only compound the problems we currently face and that is what you will get, for the most part, with McCain.

Beyond that youve demonstrated in your last two post that you really have no idea what Obama's policy positions are...particularly regarding Iraq....which is not getting out of Iraq overnight and abandoning the reconstruction of the country.

But that comes as no surprise....IMO, your contribution to every discussion about Obama have been based purely on emotion, which is your right......but I would describe it as an emotional train wreck, which is my right.

Screaming he is a FUCKING IDIOT......FUCK THAT SHIT.....THROWING FRIENDS UNDER THE FUCKING BUS ...HE HANGS OUT WITH RACISTS SO THEY ALL CALL ME A RACIST does not lead to a productive discussion of policy alternatives!

Pan, you are welcome, and I completely understand now from whence you are coming. I can't say that I even disagree on particulars, only that I have a different take on 1) The folks Obama has surrounded himself with (in degree if not in kind) and 2) the likely direction in which he will go. I think who the Veep is will tell. If he starts giving previews of likely cabinet members, it will solidify further one way or the other.

So, having come to this, I can fully respect your decision and thank you for it, even while not sharing it.

The Courts are the bottom line for me. I am deeply frightened by another activist calling himself a strict constructionist in the Scalia mold. With a significant fraction of the populace evidently bent on theocracy, I don't believe we can afford another SCOTUS justice who is willing to tolerate legislative shennanagins in their support. That was by bottom line for voting for Kerry, who was the least appealing presidential candidate since Buchanan (I exaggerate, but at least since Dukakis).

Thanks for the conversation.

dc_dux, the economy will not improve without dramatic, swift, forceful, economic reform. The problem is that Obama is more progressive than McCain, but he does not even raise issues evinced here, by Ben Stein, who is certainly no "progressive", himself:
Obama is taking up the seat....squeezing out any opportunity for an actual progressive democratic candidate. Since one did not emerge, Edwards would at least have been a poor stepchild in that role....he showed potential to possibly rise to the occasion.

IMO, Obama cannot and won't....not when Ben Stein seems progressive, compared to Obama. The investigation driven reform needs to happen fast, if there is any hope of mitigating a downward spiral in consumer demand.

The folks in control got what they wanted...an ambitious, well spoken, charismatic young man....to take up the seat in the oval office. The people needed an intimidating firebrand, along the lines of a Huey Long, sans the ego and corrupted background. Things need to be shaken up....Obama is there because he will leave the folks at the top alone....at a time when they need to be investigated, exposed....effed with!

Paulson at treasury is a fox in the henhouse....why hasn't Obama been asking the questions that Ben Stein, in the NY Times, has? I've been asking them, and I''m nobody....but I know where we are, and where we're headed if something isn't done ASAP, by elected officials, or by the growing, deposed, increasingly desperate feeling, middle class mob.

host...I dont think we need another Huey Long

I would much prefer to see an open-minded intelligent guy who will be guided by his progressive tendencies (see my response to your other Obama thread) but also demonstrate a willingness to listen to all sides to understand the impact of policy proposals... and not surround himself with sycophants like we have seen for the last eight years and would likely see with McCain.

IMO, Edwards is an empty suit.

An article in Le Monde Diplomatique this month makes a similar claim: That a vote for Obama may be a vote for the status quo...

I think you guys are engaging in an interesting intellectual exercise, but IMO, it ignores the pragmatism that is required in pursuit of a political agenda that can generate majority support in Congress (and of the American people) and actually be implemented given the circumstances that will be inherited.

A guy like Kucinich (or even Nader) might fit your mold, but do you believe that such a president could get much of his agenda through a nearly evenly divided Congress? Hell,they probably wouldnt even get support from a majority of the Democrats for some of their truly "progressive" proposals.

Pragmatism is the word of the day.

Do you think it is at all odd, that you react to what I am bringing up in these two threads, the way that you do? You've posted that you started out in Washington in the office of a senator from WV, so I think you have an idea of the chronic, higher than average poverty level in that state.

What has all of the pragmatism of the representation in Washington, sent there by the people of WV, actually achieved for that constituency since 1936? Is wealth in the US more equitably distributed now, than then? Have the people of WV achieved anything comparable to what the average man in France has achieved through the effect of his vote?

Why not? If you can't even consider it happening, how could it, ever?

host...I learned pragmatic progressive politics from Sen. Jennings Randolph.

I think you be surprised how much he achieved by understanding that politics in the US is a matter of give and take. He left idealism to the academics.

He was the force in Congress that created the Appalachian Regional Council that dramatically improved the lives of citizens in WV....but he had to give alot to get a majority support in Congress for a region in the country that most didnt give a shit about. As a result of the programs of the ARC over the last 40years, poverty in WV is half what it was in the 60s and per capita income, while still below the national average, has increased at a higher rate than many states during that period. As a rural state, WV will also be on the lower end of the scales.

I am all for idealism and I agree with most of your concerns.....I just dont see the practicality of your proposed solutions given the makeup of Congress.

A good point, but I am unconvinced that congress will be all that evenly divided come next session. bush has poisoned the well for a lot of Repubs.

I think you make a very good point about pragmatism dc... Anyone running for President in this day and age could not win if he or she were to suggest that they were going to rock the boat as host suggests.

If progressives are truly interested in making these sorts of investigations occur they first need to make these sorts of things part of the popular discourse. At present this is fringe politics at best.

To be clear, we are living in an age where the crafting of public opinion part of the political process more than it ever has been... mostly because the tools with which public opinion is formed has become as much a science as it is (and was) an art.

In a US of 50/50 elections, it is not the candidates job to push too hard on changing public opinion. To do so can end up with losing the election. The pragmatist will stand a much better chance of winning than those who try to force something on the public that they are not quite ready to accept.

McCain on women's health issues
 

I am completely against going back to the 'dark ages' of the 1950's view on woman's rights and sexual health issues. IMO, it's completely absurd to think that Abstinence Only education would ever work especially in our sex driven world today.

Also, as a woman who is on birth control not just to prevent pregnancy, but to keep a hormonal balance, I wouldn't be able to afford it if my insurance didn't cover a large portion of it.

All of the ideas he supports would do more harm than good for women and that alone besides other things makes me really against McCain.

On the issue of abstinence only education, federal funding for abstinence only education really stated as part of the 1998 welfare reform that Clinton negotiated with the Republican Congress. It was a "must include" on the part of the Republicans.

Bush took it to new levels and has included more than $1 billion in federal funding for abstinence only education in his eight years.

McCain has supported every budget request for these programs.

Even more frightening is this exchange where a reporter inquired whether McCain supports sex education that candidly discusses contraception and preventing the spread of AIDS and other disease, or whether he backs President Bush's abstinence-only education program
He even doesnt understand the underlying issue in the exchange...not necessarily federal funding for contraception, but funding for contraception education.

First, just because McCain is a fool when it comes to this, does not mean any bill he puts up will be passed.

Secondly, why should contraception be funded by the federal government? Our government needs to stop funding some social programs. I mean come n, if you go to school, a doctor or even talk to your parents they should be able to help you understand contraception. How and why is it the federal government's responsibility to make sure you are educated and have these materials? If you can't afford birth control, condoms and so on then don't have sex.

Schools need to teach this. Parents need to teach this. You don't need special funding to teach this. You don't need to have government step in and dictate what your school can or cannot teach, let the school board and the voters who elect the boards decide what they want taught in their systems.

I know it's cold but God damn it I'm tired of watching money go to waste. I'm tired of people turning to government for issues that are personal choice and then demand that government helps them support their personal choice. I'm tired of government being so far into our lives we can't sneeze the wrong way.

It's not a return to the "Dark Ages" it's a return to common fucking sense and personal responsibility.

Schools DO need to teach this. Relying on parents hasn't worked--as can be seen from the results of Abstinence Only... which McCain supports AND wants to continue wasting money on.

You're really going to have to go through some logical flaming hoops to justify supporting McCain on this one, pan.

-deleted-

Well, if it's cost you're concerned about don't you think it would be less expensive for the insurance companies to pay for birth control rather than the hospital expenses of having a baby?

That's common sense.

And as for my "dark ages" I meant that in the terms of McCain wanting to overturn Roe vs. Wade, I don't think we should be taking steps backwards.

How did I say I support McCain..... I stated how I feel on the issue..... now it's up to me to decide who best represents that issue or is closest to it.

If you read my post nowhere do I say "Abstinence Only"..... nowhere do I state schools should not teach it....... nowhere do I state that contraception and education should not be available.

You twist my stating a belief that the federal government should in no way fund contraception to "Abstinence Only". That is a mighty huge jump and there is no justification that is what I am saying..... because it isn't.

But if you go by my true argument, the true belief I have stated..... you cannot truly argue against it because you have nothing to stand on. Thus, you need to twist and argue things that aren't even remotely close to what I said.

I don't believe in all honesty McCain cares one way or the other about birth control, hence, DC's post.

Obama on the other hand will do what he does..... he will say whatever is the "right" more popular answer.

I would rather have a man who is willing to state his personal views, even if he doesn't have any on an issue.... than someone trying to tell me what they think I want to hear.

I seriously doubt and hope to God Roe v Wade is never overturned.

So the Federal government should pay for those who want to have sex and use birth control??????

How and why is it the federal government's responsibility to make sure you are educated and have these materials?

That is just fucking insane.

LOL....let me be sure I understand this, pan.

Obama's views on issues are what people want to hear and the most popular answer, rather than what he believes. (on what do you base this assertion?)

McCain states his personal views and what he believes.

WoW...and I thought it was McCain changing his views to ingratiate himself to the social conservatives that he needs as his base....his changing views since this campaign started on a marriage amendment, his tacit support for the Republican party platform calling for an amendment to ban abortions (this goes way beyond Roe),....his flips on embryonic stem cell research, immigration reform....

Two appointments by McCain to the USSC could do it....given that those most likely to retire in the next 4 years are Roe supporters (Stevens, Ginsburg)

Sorry for just skipping to the end of this story, but there seems to be no climax.

The big issue is the economy. I don't believe in trickle-down economics... it just doesn't sit right with me. Granted every economy class I had ended with me arguing about the concept of money... so econ is a bit to far aside of me. Until I further research economics, I am voting for Obama. I have little against McCain.

When will the Federal government be paying for these things? If the birth control is medically required, as some of my girl friends require it for other medications, then I think why not have the gov't help pay for it. If it is just for people that want to fuck and have fewer consequences, than, yeah let them shell out the full payment.

But I also think the federal government should help out teaching kids that there are consequences when lil' Johnny puts his pecker into lil' Suszy. I am sure we can find some parents that are not qualified to have "the talks" to their children.

pan, I was basing my comments not so much on you pro-McCain views as your anti-Obama views. Which, based on the things you say, aren't grounded in anything like reality. From this side of it, it appears to be pure emotional knee-jerk on your part. Which is perfectly okay; in that respect you're similar to I'd guess 90% of the electorate.

I pretty much agree with your views on sex education and contraception, and so, more or less, does Obama. But you feel pandered to by him, so your emotional pull is not to trust him. Even though McCain has said right out loud that his views are the opposite of yours on this issue. Makes very little sense to me not to support the guy who says he thinks the same thing you think, but I don't really have an emotional dog in the fight, so I guess it wouldn't make sense to me.

pan, based on your last post regarding Obama taking the position that is the most popular, I just want to clarify: Obama is the biracial man, Clinton is the older white woman. It sounds like you have them confused.

I can agree with this, a medical requirement should be covered by insurance or med card.

A requirement from the federal government is a little much, I'm sorry. I want less federal requirements on social issues and more state and local, they know their communities better than the feds.

Look, if I live in some religious area (and believe it or not there are some), I don't want some politician in DC making laws on what my schools teach. Now, if I am a progressive and I do not like what that school district teaches, I move to another, I put my kid in a private school or run for the school board and try to change things. I work within the community for change, I don't rely on the federal gov't for it.

9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11
It almost seems that all you have to do is keep an eye on the polling to predict whether or not we're gonna "get hit again"..... 9/11 - 9/11 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11....

Has anyone mentioned 9/11?

9/11? What's that? Can you tell me more or possibly point me to a website that debunks it?

It would be funny if not for the fact that for the last six years, Bush/Cheney used 9/11 to stoke the fears of the American people and justify the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq...

....and McCain continues to make some nebulous connection between continuing the occupation indefinetly in order to prevent further al Queda attacks on the homeland...despite the fact that he seems to confuse al Queda with the Shiite insurgency.

McCain said it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate." A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate's ear. McCain then said: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-t...in_jordan.html

I think that's where we can expect to see Little Joe for the rest of the year. I wish he would just go ahead and switch parties already so the good people of Connecticut can vote him out of office.

No, and that wasn't my intention. I posted directly after host's 9/11 9/11 9/11 ... 9/11 rant. And then I said "has anyone mentioned 9/11?" My apologies. I'll stay out.