Month: February 2010

TMCP In A Suit

by digby

Steve Clemons always has intriguing insider village gossip and this bit about The Man Called Petraeus testing the waters is especially interesting to me since, like Clemons, I’ve been convinced for a long time that Petraeus was contemplating a run for office. My most recent post on the subject was back in 2008 when I wrote this:

I think there is nearly zero chance that Petraeus is apolitical and I would bet good money that he is positioning himself for a role in shaping policy. His willingness to be used by the Bush administration proves it in my mind. In fact, his recent protestations of being above politics are actually very cunning — if the country devolves back into angry partisanship, which it will (it always does), TMCP will be positioned to be the apolitical outsider with the leadership experience to lead us out of the darkness. There is no doubt in my mind that when he looks in the mirror he sees President Petraeus.

Obama had better watch his back. As Bacevich mentions in the article (and Lucian Truscott IV wrote in my comment section last night) there is a pretty recent example of another ambitious General who stabbed his Democratic president in the back. This is the one area where Obama should cultivate Powell’s advice. He’s an expert.

Clemons thinks that’s a possibility as well, although he’s much more generous toward Petraeus (and certain Republicans) than I am:

[A]fter spending an evening with General Petraeus and watching him closely for a number of years, there is no way that this intelligent leader — with whom I have some disagreements but respect — could be comfortable with the Tea Party takeover of the Republican political machine.

There is always the possibility that a core of reasonable Republicans like Michael Bloomberg, James Baker, Olympia Snowe, Chuck Hagel, Alan Simpson, John Whitehead, Peter Peterson, Rita Hauser and others will try to rekindle classic Republican sensibilities by fighting to re-hijack their party back in an Eisenhower-like campaign with Petraeus at the lead. Remember that Eisenhower clinched the Republican nomination by promising to be the President who though he knew war would end the Korean War. Petraeus knows Afghanistan and Iraq — and though it seems hard to envision today could be the kind of leader promising to end those wars if Obama proves unable to do so.

But Clemons really thinks that Petraeus may be preparing to be VP to Obama, if Clinton retires after the first term and Biden moves over to state:

… General David Petraeus, in his business suit, lurks out there. Obama seems to be concerned about looking like he is weak on national security. The Republicans — at Cheney’s constant goading (and now Sarah Palin’s) — seem to want to continue to play politics through fear-mongering.

Obama could neutralize the possibility that he faces a Republican party challenge by David Petraeus by inviting the General on to the 2012 ticket as a Democrat.

Crazy? Perhaps.

But inviting potential rivals into his tent is becoming a standard Obama trademark — much as he did by appointing Republican Governor of Utah and former G.W. Bush administration Deputy US Trade Representative Jon Huntsman, Jr. to serve as US Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China.

And get this, we have just learned that David Petraeus has not voted since 2002 — not because he doesn’t care to vote — but reportedly because he wants to keep his eventual political options and political loyalties open.

It’s an interesting idea,and I don’t doubt that Petraeus is keeping everyone guessing, but I think his first scenario is far more likely. I just don’t believe for a minute that Petraeus will end up a Democrat. I haven’t had dinner with the man as Clemons did, so maybe he heard something that made him think he is, but his public behavior during the Bush administration was very political — and not in a good way.

There’s no doubt in my mind that he would be a godsend for the GOP so I can certainly see why Obama would want to take him out of the mix. I am just skeptical that he would want Obama.

.

An Exercise In Sadism

by digby

This is not the most credible administration official to deliver this message but I like it anyway:

Once a cheerleader for Wall Street immoderacy, Summers decried a “system that is based on massive borrowing, intermediated through a bloated financial system, inorder to support excessive consumption.”

Presented with Wall Street’s longtime goals of slashing Medicare and Social Security, Summers refused to swoop down for the deficit hawk bait thrown out by CNBC co-anchor Erin Burnett:

“In the longer term, are you willing to stand up and say, ‘Hey, America, your pensions are going to be smaller, your Medicare benefits are going to be lower, your Social Security retirement age is going to go way up and your benefits are going to go lower even if you paid in?'” Burnett asked. “Are we at the point where the government has to say, ‘These are painful facts, and we might lose re-election by telling you, but we’re going to telling you the truth?'”

“Erin,” replied Summers, “listening to you, it sounds like it’s an exercise in sadism, who can cause the most pain.”

I often find that listening to Erin Burnett is an exercise in sadism, but that’s another story. (And watching millionaire celebrities prescribe this pain to “America” every day on TV is always annoying.)

I think Burnett is right on this though. Except I think the Republicans should have the benefit of making that case, seeing as they think it’s such a big political winner and all. And they really do believe that governance is about who can cause the most pain — to the undeserving losers who haven’t had the good sense to be born rich or the good character to become that way.

.

The Return Of Up Is Downism

by digby

The other day I hypothesized that the Republicans were hypocritically turning “bailouts” into a right wing dogwhistle. Unsurprisingly, it turns out it’s a Frank Luntz special.

Senator Jeff Merkely explains:

We may be in the middle of a huge snowstorm here in Washington D.C. but there is another storm brewing on Capitol Hill. Master manipulator Frank Luntz is at it again, with a memo for the lobbyists and their allies in Congress who want to derail financial reform and allow Wall Street abuses go unchecked. The memo lays out an unapologetic roadmap for harnessing Americans’ anger with bailouts and their demand for accountability to … kill any effort to bring accountability to Wall Street. It just doesn’t get any more cynical.

[…]

Say you’re for reform while you kill it

Luntz writes that in order for politicians to remain popular on financial issues, they need to “be an agent of change” and state that the “status quo is not an option.” Of course this advice is included in a memo explaining how to preserve the status quo. Luntz is saying, in short, pretend to be for reform while you work to kill reform.

Call financial reform a job killer

The memo tells opponents of reform to say that financial reform kills jobs. I’m sorry, but have they checked the unemployment rate lately? Failure to enact reform earlier led to the biggest loss of jobs since the Great Depression.

Blame the government

Predictably, given that the goal is to allow the banks to keep doing what they’ve been doing, the Luntz memo advises Republicans to blame the crisis on government instead of the banks. I will concede one point here – the government is responsible for not doing its job and allowing Wall Street abuses to run amok. But it’s a tough stretch to argue that the cure is for the government to continue the same bad behavior and forgo accountability and oversight.

Luntz, by blaming the government, is advocating that legislators ignore many of the factors that created this crisis. Ignore that the banks paid kickbacks to brokers to put customers in high-cost loans they didn’t need. Ignore that credit rating agencies said that lots of risky loans packaged together were a safe security. Ignore that investment banks borrowed billions to gamble other people’s money on dubious mortgage-backed securities. Ignore the explosion of derivatives – bets on future interest rates, currency values, and the price of commodities, stocks and bonds – that linked banks and investment houses in a web of risk.

Threaten that reform will limit choices

The memo tells opponents of reform to say that financial reform will limit consumer choice. What kind of choice do consumers have when credit card companies can unilaterally change the terms of the contract, when mortgage brokers get secret payments to steer borrowers into dangerous loans, when banks reorder the sequence of one’s checks in order to maximize overdraft fees? That’s not choice, that’s tricks and traps. Real choice is clear information and the right to walk away from a bad deal without leaving your wallet behind.

Poison the process

In the memo, Luntz advises Republicans to use the phrase “lobbyist loopholes” when describing a financial reform bill. He suggests, essentially, that any advocacy for reform be characterized as the work of lobbyists seeking special favors. But the fact is, last year the financial sector hired 2,567 lobbyists and spent over $300 million lobbying Congress in an effort to water down financial reform.

The Republicans are going to use the unpopularity of the bailouts to discredit Democrats so that they can cut taxes and deregulate the system even more. It’s actually a beautiful scam — may be one of the most beautiful ever because the Republicans have constructed a truly elegant explanation for their hypocrisy.

Here’s the new GOP Superhero, Paul Ryan, explaining why he voted for the bailouts:

Ryan said his vote for the bailout was influenced by Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, a popular book among conservatives that argues that Nazism and other fascist movements were actually left wing in origin, and his belief that a second Depression would threaten capitalism—and rescue Obama’s presidency.

“I’m a limited-government, free-enterprise guy, but TARP… represented a moment where we had no good options and we were about to fall into a deflationary spiral,” he said. “I believe Obama would not only have won, but would have been able to sweep through a huge statist agenda very quickly because there would have been no support for the free-market system.”

He couched his support for the auto bailout in similar terms, saying that he feared the bill’s failure would have led the Obama administration to use TARP funds in order to rescue the industry with less congressional oversight instead.

“A lot of these votes are defensive votes,” he said. “A lot of them are not votes you want to take but under the circumstances they’re the best path forward.”

It’s not far removed from the thesis set forth at the teabagger convention last week-end by the far right fruitcake, Joseph Farah. And I’m sure Ryan and the boys will find no end of clever rationales for why they might need to do it again should the need arise, whether in power or out.

Yes, the Democrats are corrupt and complicit in the face of Wall Street crime as well. We know this. But Republicans are corrupt and complicit in the face of Wall Street crime — and batshit insane about everything else. Empowering this wacko extreme wing at this moment of economic and social instability is a nightmare scenario. These people have already shown that they care nothing for popular opinion, elections or the consent of the governed and they are in the grip of a powerful myth about their own ideology. Any validation of that myth would be very dangerous.

Witness Sarah Palin’s advice to Obama as to how he might win reelection:

PALIN: It depends on a few things. Say he played, and I got this from Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day. Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran, or decided to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do. But that changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today, I do not think Obama would be re-elected.

But three years from now things could change if on the national security threat —

WALLACE: You’re not suggesting that he would cynically play the war card.

PALIN: I’m not suggesting that. I’m saying, if he did, things would dramatically change if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies. I think people would perhaps shift their thinking a little bit and decide, well, maybe he’s tougher than we think he is today. And there wouldn’t be as much passion to make sure that he doesn’t serve another four years —

Two of the GOPs most important rising stars believe, respectively, that Liberal Fascism was an important work of political history and that the president could prove he is “tough” by invading Iran or doing “whatever he could” to strongly support Israel. That’s just nuts.

It’s very difficult to deal with the Democrats, most of whom seem to be in some somnolent state of denial about their own political fortunes, and it is vital that the liberal rank and file push them as hard as they can to end this sick, corrupt symbiosis between Wall Street and the federal government. But no matter how feckless they are are, it’s important to also remember that the alternative is worse.

.

Bill Clinton Hospitalized

by digby

Apparently with chest pains. Thank goodness he was in New York instead of on a plane somewhere or down in Haiti.

Let’s hope it isn’t serious.

Update:

Clinton, 63, was transported to Columbia Presbyterian Hospital in Manhattan for a condition related to his heart.

ABC News’ chief political correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported that sources said he was taken to the hospital “likely for a stent procedure.”

Update: Oh, Good God. I didn’t mean to be insensitive to the Haitians or imply that Bill Clinton deserved better than the victims of the earthquake. I just meant he was lucky not to have had a heart attack while he was down there helping, obviously because their hospitals are all rubble. I would feel the same way about anyone who was lucky enough not to have a life threatening event in Haiti at the moment. Jeez.

Intellectual Honesty

by digby

This is a fascinating exchange between Gail Collins and David Brooks on today’s NY Times Opinionator, in which Brooks proves himself to be a quivering bowl of lemon yellow jello.

But I was struck by something in particular:

David Brooks: I actually find myself warming, unexpectedly, to Paul Ryan’s vision of government. Ryan, as you know is the Wisconsin House Republican who recently laid out a “Roadmap for America’s Future.” It is the most intellectually honest budget proposal I’ve seen. It really would produce a balanced budget. The Congressional Budget Office even says so.

It is also a vision for a voucher state. Government would have very few decision-making powers. Instead it would essentially redistribute money so that individuals could better secure their own welfare provision. Medicare and Social Security would essentially be turned into cash programs. The elderly would receive $11,000 a year to purchase insurance. The tax code would be radically simplified.

Have these Republicans dealt with any elderly people recently? Do they know how much medical care they receive? Dealing with the health care system becomes the focus of their entire lives at some point. Yet, with out of pocket expenses, many people my age pay at least that much per year without even being seriously ill. The elderly, most of whom are dealing with both chronic and acute illness and injury, would be completely screwed with that small stipend. Even the more wealthy ones would quickly run out of money.

Why is it that Palin can mindlessly trot out “death panels” and turn the entire senior population against health care reform but the phony deficit fetishists are able to put something like this down in writing and it doesn’t even garner a headline? Could we get John Edwards to start a Facebook page and write about it or something? At least it would get some attention.

Oh, and by the way, it turns out that Ryan’s budget wouldn’t eliminate the deficit after all.

.

Epistomology In Her Pants

by digby

I happened to catch this exchange while channel surfing and realized that we are about to enter the wingnut twilight zone again. (Luckily C&L preserved it for posterity … people will study this freakshow someday.)

Behar: Ronald, let me ask Ron — why do we pay attention to this woman? She has a point.

Reagan: Well, indeed, and I think we do have to pay attention to her, unfortunately — it’s sad that we have to pay attention to her, because she’s totally unqualified for high office. Yet —

Geller: Your father would love her. Your father would love her.

Miller: First of all, his father didn’t quit halfway through the term.

Geller: Neither did she. Neither did she. She did not quit. The Lower 48 needed her, and she heeded the call. She did not take the easy way out.

Reagan: No, she quit. No, Pam, she quit. When you leave the governorship halfway through your first term, it’s called quitting. She quit.

Geller: She came to lead the next revolution.

Reagan: Quit. Quit.

Behar: Ron, Ron — no, I want to hear from Ron. Why would your father not like this woman?

Reagan: Because she doesn’t have a thought in her head. That’s why.

Geller: That’s what they said about your father.

Reagan: My father knew what he stood for, you can agree with it or disagree with it, he knew how — what he stood for, he could explain what he stood for. He was conversant in domestic and foreign policy — she’s neither! She can’t explain where she stands on anything!

Geller: Your father would love her, and frankly I don’t think you can speak for your father, because you — you don’t even espouse —

Reagan: No, Pam, actually, have you ever met my father, Pam? Pam, did you ever meet my father?

Geller: Did you ever meet the Founding Father. I’ve read everything he said. I’ve read everything he said.

Reagan: Did you ever meet my father? I’m asking you a simple question. You can’t answer that because the answer is no. So why don’t you rely on someone who knew him very well to tell you what he would think of Sarah Palin.

Behar: It’s really hard for you to argue with the offspring of the guy and claim you know more than he does.

Geller: He’s nothing like the father! He doesn’t share the epistemology of the father. He doesn’t have the nature of his father, the knowledge — he has nothing in common with the father. Look —

Behar: He knows what his father would think rather than you.

[Crosstalk]

Reagan: Is Pam still blathering about me and my father? Oh, you are. You still haven’t met him, though, right? You still didn’t know him, so you’re just sort of making things up as you go along, right?

Geller: You never met him either. You know, you never met him either. Do you think you’re making your father proud? Do you really think you’re making your father proud?

(The Founding Father? I’d assume she was talking about Jesus, but she’s Jewish, so maybe Moses. John Bolton?)

How dare Ron Reagan assume that he knows his own father when Pam Geller has spent countless nights cuddled up in bed with her Ronnie statuette fantasizing about jelly beans and nuclear war. Let’s just say that in her mind, Gellar has “known” Ronald Reagan in the biblical sense, and one has to admit that’s something Ron Jr is very unlikely to have experienced.

For a substantially less vulgar (if no less snarky) discussion of Geller’s epistomology, LGM has the goods.

.

The Trouble With Palin

by tristero

I’d like to add one more point to Digby’s post below. It is quite true that Sarah Palin is, as Digby says, “a quitter, a liar, [and] a greedy opportunist who more commonly speaks in incoherent gibberish.” But, as appalling as all that is, those are her best qualities.

For even if Palin was a reliable public servant, even if she was as honest as the day is long, even if she was not greedy, and even if she was even remotely articulate, she would represent the worst trends in modern American politics. She’s been known to pal around with rightwing extremists like the John Birch Society:

. She attempted to name [Steve] Stoll, a John Birch Society activist known in the Mat-Su Valley as “Black Helicopter Steve,” to an empty Wasilla City Council seat.

When she was on the Wasilla City Council she also publicly associated herself with the Birch Society, posing for this photograph with Bircher literature:

And, of course, this is just the tip of the iceberg. In reality, there is more to Palin than merely a high level of comfort with denizens of the far right. To the extent that her politics are discernible, she is one more extremist. The fact that she’s also a cheap grifter has given us some diverting, even mind-boggling, examples of loony behavior, but it has served to derail serious discussions of what she stands for and what her real political friends are. Fortunately, Dave Neiwert reports that, finally, the mainstream media are starting to catch on. To be clear:

Palin and the people she associates herself with are not only nuts, as in “crazy.” Their political views are nuts as in “demented,” potentially violent, and highly dangerous.

There is one thing about which Broder and I agree:

Take Palin seriously.

But Mr. Broder, Sarah Palin, by no stretch of the imagination, is “good.”

The Dean’s Valentine

by digby

Somebody’s got monster crush:

The snows that obliterated Washington in the past week interfered with many scheduled meetings, but they did not prevent the delivery of one important political message: Take Sarah Palin seriously.

Her lengthy Saturday night keynote address to the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville and her debut on the Sunday morning talk show circuit with Fox News’ Chris Wallace showed off a public figure at the top of her game — a politician who knows who she is and how to sell herself, even with notes on her palm.

Blessed with an enthusiastic audience of conservative activists, Palin used the Tea Party gathering and coverage on the cable networks to display the full repertoire she possesses, touching on national security, economics, fiscal and social policy, and every other area where she could draw a contrast with Barack Obama and point up what Republicans see as vulnerabilities in Washington.

Her invocation of “conservative principles and common-sense solutions” was perfectly conventional. What stood out in the eyes of TV-watching pols of both parties was the skill with which she drew a self-portrait that fit not just the wishes of the immediate audience but the mood of a significant slice of the broader electorate.

[…]

Palin did not wear well in the last campaign, especially in the suburbs where populism has a limited appeal. But when Wallace asked her about resigning the governorship with 17 months left in her term and whether she let her opponents drive her from office, she said, “Hell, no.”

Those who want to stop her will need more ammunition than deriding her habit of writing on her hand. The lady is good.

I wonder if the fact that she is a quitter, a liar, a greedy opportunist who more commonly speaks in incoherent gibberish like this might be enough?

WALLACE: What do you think of Barack Obama’s presidency so far?

PALIN: He has some misguided decisions that he is making that he is expecting us to just kind of sit down and shut up and accept, and many of us are not going to sit down and shut up. We’re going to say no, we do not like this…

WALLACE: Wait, wait, where’s he saying sit down and shut up?

PALIN: In a general just kind of general persona I think that he has when he’s up there at, I’ll call it a lectern. When he is up there and he is telling us basically, I know best, my people here in the White House know best, and we are going to tell you that yes, you do want this essentially nationalized health care system and we’re saying, no, we don’t. And the messages are not being received by Barack Obama. So I think instead of lecturing, he needs to stop and he needs to listen on health care issues. On national security, this perceived lackadaisical approach that he has to dealing with the terrorists. We’re saying that concerns us and we’re going to speak up about it and please don’t allow this persona to continue where you do try to make us feel like we need to just sit down, shut up and accept what you’re doing to us.

I will be very interested to see how the Village takes the Dean’s glowing endorsement.
Recall that they loved Junior Bush to death and he was barely sentient…

.

Notes From The Tea Party Convention

by digby

I just received this in my email from World Net Daily, reporting the highlights of Joseph Farah’s speech at the convention:

“Some people say it’s not important where Barack Obama was born,” said the
founder and CEO of WorldNetDaily.com. “Some think the Constitution is just an
archaic old document. … It’s the glue that holds us together, that binds us to
the people as a nation-state, and we abrogate and abuse it at our great peril.”

Each time he mentioned the eligibility issue, explaining to the crowd that the
president refuses to produce documents proving he meets the Constitution’s
natural-born citizen requirement, the crowd cheered wildly, whistled and
applauded.

Citing the recent rapid sales of his prescient 2003 book, “Taking America Back,”
which presaged the current grassroots uprising against Washington’s intrusive
policies, Farah revealed the nefarious roots of another, lesser-known strategy.
One that mirrors the White House playbook.

“The question has been asked many times in the last year: “What is Obama doing?
Surely he is not dumb. Why is he doing what he is doing knowing that these
policies have never worked in the past, are not working now and could never work
in the future?” Farah said. “The shocking answer is that they are not supposed
to work the purpose of the policies is, for the most part, to increase misery
and to create crises.”

Then Farah cited the plan devised by Richard A. Cloward, a Marxist Columbia
University professor, and his assistant, Frances Fox Piven. It was first
unveiled in a May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation. The title of the plan pretty much
says it all: “The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis.”

Under the canard of ending poverty, Cloward and Piven openly calculated
“bringing the capitalist system to collapse through a series of escalating
demands that could never be met,” Farah said.

“When these entitlements were no longer able to be covered by government
agencies,” he continued, “the new dependent class would riot and rebel and
create chaos that would create a real crisis for the system.”

Cloward’s and Piven’s influence proved profound on first George Wiley, who then
turned Wade Rathke on to it. Rathke in turn employed it as the founder of ACORN,
“the organization Barack Obama would serve as an attorney and as a trainer of
its leadership,” said Farah. ACORN’s purpose? Overwhelming the voting rolls with
registrations, “multiple entries, dead voters, random names, contrived names,”
he continued. “When it all became impossible to police, the lobbying for minimal
identification standards for voters would begin.”

Pulling no punches, Farah claimed the power structure’s real disdain is for
the Constitution, and America’s Judeo-Christian rooting that rights and
liberties ascend from God not government.

“Once upon a time, the U.S. government was the envy of the whole world,” he
said. “It presided over the greatest freedom the world had ever known. But as
Washington’s power and reach grew well beyond its constitutional restrictions,
something happened. It started to supplant God.”

“Government wants to be your one and only god,” he said, decrying the false
assumption the Constitution is a “living document,” with meanings always open to
interpretation.

· “Can Congress constitutionally require Americans to buy medical insurance?” he
asked.

· “Does Obama have the constitutional power to appoint unaccountable czars to
rule over virtually every aspect of our lives?”

· “Does Congress have the power to kill or inhibit freedom of speech of
talk-radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh?”

“No!” the crowd enthusiastically boomed each time.

“Do we have the right to bear arms or not?”

“Yes!” they responded in unison.

“Our leaders are a judgment on us,” Farah warned. “We’ve got to get our
spiritual priorities straight. We’ve got to recognize our government is either a
blessing or a curse on us.”

I think Boehlert understated the degree to which the reporters punted. Ignoring this major speech when the all the networks were present and broadcasting from the convention was malpractice.

The projection is astonishing.

.

No Good Reason

by digby

Mike Elk writes:

In an attempt to clear the roads and keep the economy moving, President Obama has issued Federal FEMA orders declaring snow emergencies, giving federal FEMA funds to states so they can remove the snow.

The leading conservative think tank, Heritage Foundation, has cast such efforts a “Snow Bailout” criticizing it by saying:

“Given the federal budget deficits, FEMA can’t afford to cover 75% of the costs of state snow removal either. It is high time for this federalization of routine events to come to a halt and for states to plan and budget for what are known events every year.”

It’s funny that the Heritage Foundation mentions its concern for federal budget deficits
The Heritage Foundation certainly had no qualms advocating for the unnecessary War in Iraq without paying for it, but when it comes to removing snows from the road to help people get to work – no way. Remove snow from the roads – that’s simply irresponsible!

It’s time that conservatives in Congress wake up and behave like human beings. States desperately need federal aid in order to provide basic services that we all depend on like clearing the roads. Nobody benefits – rich or poor – alike when they have to risk their lives on dangerous roads.

They just don’t agree with that sentiment no matter what the situation. Here’s a good example of Republican prescriptions to problems:

WOMAN: “Senator Coburn, we need help (crying) my husband has traumatic brain injury, and his health insurance would not cover him to even drink, (Crying) and, what I need to know is are you gonna help him, where he could eat and drink, we left the Nursing Home and they told us we’re on our own.

He left with a feeding tube, I’ve been working with him but I’m not a speech pathologist, a profession though that take six years for a Masters, and I try to get him to eat and drink again and this means so much to me (crying). “

COBURN: “Well I think, first of all yeah, we’ll help, uh, the first thing we’ll do is see what we can do individually to help you, uh, through our office.

Uhm, but the other thing that’s missing in this debate is us as neighbors. Helping people that need our help, uh, you know, we tend to, (clapping) the idea that the government is the solution to our problem is an inaccurate, a very inaccurate statement, (clapping) Government, government…”

People should be out there digging out the roads themselves.

.