bostonbubble.com

[john p]

NYC's Mayor Bloomberg had a profound thing to say this morning on Meet the Press. He said that because of gerrymandering (strategic political redistricting to favor one political party over another) has led to very concentrated ideology and the resulting political leaders holding polarizing positons. People throw red meat to their own people and in some districts competition isn't from the other political party, but the flank of your own party.

Think about trying to get a job at the Boston Globe as a writer. Would you feel comfortable offering anything other than a left wing ideology? Think about the business model, think about the readership which fuels their business. What if the Globe printed articles with a centrist or right wing view, they'd get so much hate mail because people usually like validation to their view.

Obama was building his career in steps and he admittedly skipped a step. He was getting along to go along with his own party to build standing within the Democratic Party, I think eventually he would have tried to build bonds across party lines, the necessary step in my mind. Instead, he voted 97% with his own Party. Here's my point guy's, he solidified his base because he built his bonds with his own party exclusively, we're talking record not rhetoric. This is the new political approach, it is too hard to try to flip districts, it is about magnetizing your own party and getting one more vote than your opponent. This sort of makes the 97% voting record make sense, if you vote 97% of the time with your own party, you'll get the most votes from your own party, get the nomination and the election that has the momentum of the pendulum swing for change, it's like shooting fish in a barrell. Think about it, in a year of change towards the left, the most polar left person is in a power position. The middle is looking for a balanced view and perspective and many of these provincial news outlets like the Globe don't have the financial stability to go out on that limb, they need circulation and they need to serve the same menu that they know will be absorbed by their market.

When Bloomberg was asked about this financial situation, isn't it interesting that he made this point twice? He knows that the culture of Washington is polarized because the districts that choose leaders are polarized. Bloomberg knows that it will be a rock fight and you need open minded people surrounding these important value judgments.

This is the thing to consider, who has the infrastructure to elevate the right people? Obama knows the polar extreme left, he hasn't built the bridges and taking the risks of being out of favor from the political leaders in his Party. You can't trash your opponents and then think everyone is going to rally around you. McCain actually was pretty firm to his own Party at the RNC, and told his own Party that they and the Democrats had lost their way with spending. He has built relationships with the right leaders of both Parties that do buck the Party Politics and at times try to put the Country first. This is why I think McCain will pick and empower the middle of the road leaders who will put the Country first. When you look at it through that value structure, that prism, Palin has lots of experience in that view because someone might have 20 years of experience with a polar legislative record and no experience standing up or going out on a limb for anything.

When Obama voted for Condi Rice, I knew he was playing politics because he supposedly thought the War was based on lies and was immoral and if those were his convictions, he should have voted no. I couldn't figure out for the life of me why he did what he did; it didn't make sense other than it was a political move.

The other really, really weird thing that happened in this Election was when Obama disassociated himself with Reverend Wright, Wright's response was "Obama is a politician and that is what he's being right now, and he is doing what he has to do as a politician." Where I'm from, Massachusetts, loyalty is a big, big deal. I mean the Democratic Party has totally changed yet people are loyal to the Party that was their for their grandparents who were facing real oppression. We've got Democrats who want to bring in casinos, predators to drain wealth from the poor, I mean weren't the Democrats supposed to be sticking their fists up for the poor, instead of opening the door for predators that want to prey on the poor? My view is to be loyal to the values and as long as the Party is loyal to the values, they can count on my vote.

Back to Reverend Wright, what I thought was weird was that what value system, especially coming from the leader of a Church (Christian one at that) thinks it's ok for a "politician" to be dishonest? Isn't not lying one of the Ten Commandments? What Wright was talking about wasn't that, and he seemed so comfortable saying that lying was ok with him even though he was the subject of the disloyalty and dishonesty.

The only ideology that would explain that would be Machiavelli's "End justifies the Means" view. Digging a little deeper and learning about Saul Alinsky's view of grabbing power with any means and at any costs which is very strong in Chicago's radical culture. Again, Alinsky said that Lucifer was the best radical because he challenged power and got his own kingdom.

There is a reason why these radicals never gained traction, because you can't succeed very long being dishonest. Just ask any mafia how secure they feel with vendettas. Machiavelli gets you so far, but if you want to build for the long term, you need to weather the storms of standing up for your values. I think Obama and Patrick have learned a little trick, you don't have to lie if you don't have to make a position. If someone asks you a tough question and you say "Yes we can", or "Together We Can", you won't ever have to lie. If you get people hyped up and feeling good they might forget that you don't have a track record to align with your rhetoric. What storm has Obama ever weathered, ever, to stand up for his values? If he was agains the War why did he vote to fund over $300 Billion to it? Maybe I've been reading too much mathematical "set theory" and I try to reverse engineer someone's value structure as their political "function", but when someone spits out a range of votes and decisions that don't align with their words, it is very confusing and brings doubts.

Part of the reason why you don't see many politicans that have a moral compass is because it is really, really hard to have one, it is like an extra load in a race to have to carry, it is much easier to lie and not be tied down to the truth if you can get away with it. If we don't want bubbles, we need to filter people who lie and who are irresponsible. Expecting people to have the appropriate experience filters out the lightweights. Then all you have to worry about are the ones adept at tap dancing and lying.

If I've learned anything about this Housing Bubble it is that people suspended rationality and got caught up in a hype and failed to root their decisions in fundamentals. Fundamentally, Obama has not nearly enough experience and some of his assocations are as sketchy as some of the shady mortgage lenders. The fact that Deval Patrick was on the Board of Ameriquest, one of the worst predatory lenders that targetted minorities and poor people, wanted casinos, and asked a parole board to let a grandmother rapist out of prison, the Democrats lost me, I'm sorry, but the fact that Obama gave Patrick a key speaking spot and they have the audacity to point the finger at the predatory mortgage industry while Deval Patrick was getting hundreds of thousands of dollars is despicable.

Further, for Obama to try to attack the Republicans for this current mess is also despicable because he got the second most amount of money from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae than anyone. The person with the most, Senator Dodd from CT was interviewed this past Friday and he actually went on the attack of John McCain. I would have thought that Dodd would have been defensive because he was in an indefensible position, caught with his hand in the cooking jar like Obama. I was floored to see him attack McCain, but from a Machiavelli perspective, proud of him for having the balls to lie so blatantly; that just makes him a politician in my eyes. Think about Dodd's audacity and think about what he thinks of you and me when knowing full well he's totally busted that he thinks you're so stupid that he can lie right in front of your face, the old Jedi Mind trick.

I was floored that nobody in the television media picked up that McCain put in a bill in 2005 to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. My own research led me to this informatin and later I heard it on one of those "right wing" news shows. So, if I get the truth from these sources, isn't that what's important? If MSNBC won't mention a very KEY POINT that McCain tried to put reforms in place for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and warned about the current situation we're in, where do I go for a diet of truthful information?

[samz]

[Former Owner]

Sam,

Sam - You are Right - Government does the best job spending Money. The Big Dig was an excellent investment and it was Well Managed. The Government has done a Great job spending money on Iraq. The Bridge to NoWhere in Alaska was another Excellent use of Government Money - that almost happened.
All this Spending means that the Money Supply Must be increased - that reduces the buying Power of every dollar - Did you notice that Eggs, Milk, and Gasoline have all more than doubled? Inflation it s result of More and More Money chasing the same goods.

But, $3 eggs and $4 gallon of Milk is because of Big Poultry and Big Dairy. I only pray that President Obama can hit the Big Poultry and Big Dairy Executives with the Obscene Profit Tax. Executives shouldn't profit from Food Products - Its A Crime against humanity.

Good Luck.

[Guest]

eggs and milk have a bit to due with demand-- as china is buying all the milk we can produce (powdered) and eggs.

I am scared going into a recession I might be pregnant-- i really do not see how i am not with as many ways as the Goverment has screwed me in the last few months

[StallionMang]

McCain Abandons Concerns Over Bush Tax Cuts To Get 2008 Nomination

"I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief."--John McCain, May 2001

"He voted against tax cuts in 2001, 2003, 2004 and 2005, and this year he's for the tax cuts in the reconciliation bill. It looks like he did it for political reasons."
--Grover Norquist, on McCain’s conversion, http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060227-123409-3819r.htm

If you need further evidence that John McCain will do anything to get elected president, note his conversion to the right wing orthodoxy on Bush’s tax cuts. McCain opposed the tax cuts previously, but with a need to convince the base that he is one of them, McCain has tossed aside his previous concerns about who benefits from the tax cuts, and is now appearing to endorse making these tax cuts permanent, at a time when the gap between rich and poor is wide, and at a time of incredible deficits.

[Guest]

since the us government now will control the debt-- and the assets attached to that debt, does this now mean the majority of the US will live in Public housing??...

Also with dollar devaluation-- how much is that going to cost the US people-- we have laready see a 15-20% spike in crude.. hell that equates to almost 100bilion in itself (if you look at the us consumption is close to 20mil barrels a day)

guess what you can buy your slef out of debt by creating more debt---