Awww, did you get your feelings hurt?
Sometimes the whining from the GOP gets to an all-time idiotic level that makes most of the American public throw up their hands in disgust. This is one of those times.
The GOP could have taken this opportunity to claim they helped America by not passing this bill. 95 Democrats could have joined them in this cause. Democrats could have said the legislation did not contain enough regulation or enough punishment for Wall Street executives that got us into this mess. The GOP could have said their constituents were upset and did not want them to vote for it. This didn't happen.
Instead, the GOP blamed the Democrats for the bill not passing.
What? Did I hear that right? I did.
The GOP is blaming the Democrats for this bill not passing because of Speaker Nancy Pelosi giving a speech telling the TRUTH?
Partisan Politics Aside:
Now we've heard from both sides that they want partisan politics & presidential politics off the table when voting for this bill. Because of this stance by the American people, John McCain suffered his worst poll numbers in a long time after the debate. Now, because of the bailout not succeeding, it is fair to say that he can re-stable his white horse. This is the fault of the GOP, hands down.
Most GOP & Democrats have resisted this bill since it's inception, as they should have. The lack of oversight and regulation by the original Paulson legislation was horrific, irresponsible and downright wrong. The Democrats knew this and immediately pounced on it. Good for them and for the fiscal Conservatives in the GOP that did as well. Though they did it for different reasons, the end result was the same.
Working Together:
I hate the term "Bi Partisan" as it has been an oxymoron of stupendous proportions in the last 8 years (sorta like Military Intelligence). This wasn't about bipartisanship, it was about political posturing during an election year. This is why so many democrats said no to the bill. Nancy Pelosi did not want the democrats owning this bill, period. I don't blame her. She wanted 2/3 of Democrats and 2/3 of Republicans to vote for this bill. There is VERY GOOD reasoning for this. She wants the Democrats AND the Republicans to own this equally. The way it was setup was to show that not everyone agreed with it, but that it was agreed upon on both sides of the aisle.
The Republicans did not vote NO to this bill because their feelings got hurt. But, stupidly, they are saying they did! What a crock! They have now taken a giant foot and inserted it directly in their asses because of this. Their original plan did not work so now they are crying foul on the Democrats. I cry foul on the GOP!
The Plan & Political Posturing:
The original plan of the GOP was to get Democrats to vote for this bill and then have the Republicans not show up so that later they could say, "We have nothing to do with this bill that George W. Bush and the Democrats have signed on for." A clever tactic that Nancy Pelosi saw right through. Nancy Pelosi saw that the only way for this bill to not cost the election for either party was to have bi-partisan support as well as bi-partisan negativity. This would create a political environment that would not only allow the bill to pass, but would also make it so that neither Presidential candidate was affected.
It worked perfectly.
Pelosi did her job on the phone with this one. She knew exactly how many FOR and how many AGAINST we had on the Democratic side. She knew this and adjusted where necessary. She knew the possible plan of the GOP and made sure the numbers on the Democratic side were right. The Democrats would not own this bill alone, PERIOD.
The Speech:
Sometimes the whining from the GOP gets to an all-time idiotic level that makes most of the American public throw up their hands in disgust. This is one of those times.
The GOP could have taken this opportunity to claim they helped America by not passing this bill. 95 Democrats could have joined them in this cause. Democrats could have said the legislation did not contain enough regulation or enough punishment for Wall Street executives that got us into this mess. The GOP could have said their constituents were upset and did not want them to vote for it. This didn't happen.
Instead, the GOP blamed the Democrats for the bill not passing.
What? Did I hear that right? I did.
The GOP is blaming the Democrats for this bill not passing because of Speaker Nancy Pelosi giving a speech telling the TRUTH?
Partisan Politics Aside:
Now we've heard from both sides that they want partisan politics & presidential politics off the table when voting for this bill. Because of this stance by the American people, John McCain suffered his worst poll numbers in a long time after the debate. Now, because of the bailout not succeeding, it is fair to say that he can re-stable his white horse. This is the fault of the GOP, hands down.
Most GOP & Democrats have resisted this bill since it's inception, as they should have. The lack of oversight and regulation by the original Paulson legislation was horrific, irresponsible and downright wrong. The Democrats knew this and immediately pounced on it. Good for them and for the fiscal Conservatives in the GOP that did as well. Though they did it for different reasons, the end result was the same.
Working Together:
I hate the term "Bi Partisan" as it has been an oxymoron of stupendous proportions in the last 8 years (sorta like Military Intelligence). This wasn't about bipartisanship, it was about political posturing during an election year. This is why so many democrats said no to the bill. Nancy Pelosi did not want the democrats owning this bill, period. I don't blame her. She wanted 2/3 of Democrats and 2/3 of Republicans to vote for this bill. There is VERY GOOD reasoning for this. She wants the Democrats AND the Republicans to own this equally. The way it was setup was to show that not everyone agreed with it, but that it was agreed upon on both sides of the aisle.
The Republicans did not vote NO to this bill because their feelings got hurt. But, stupidly, they are saying they did! What a crock! They have now taken a giant foot and inserted it directly in their asses because of this. Their original plan did not work so now they are crying foul on the Democrats. I cry foul on the GOP!
The Plan & Political Posturing:
The original plan of the GOP was to get Democrats to vote for this bill and then have the Republicans not show up so that later they could say, "We have nothing to do with this bill that George W. Bush and the Democrats have signed on for." A clever tactic that Nancy Pelosi saw right through. Nancy Pelosi saw that the only way for this bill to not cost the election for either party was to have bi-partisan support as well as bi-partisan negativity. This would create a political environment that would not only allow the bill to pass, but would also make it so that neither Presidential candidate was affected.
It worked perfectly.
Pelosi did her job on the phone with this one. She knew exactly how many FOR and how many AGAINST we had on the Democratic side. She knew this and adjusted where necessary. She knew the possible plan of the GOP and made sure the numbers on the Democratic side were right. The Democrats would not own this bill alone, PERIOD.
The Speech:
The day of the vote was like any other vote day in Congress with something a little bit different. It seemed the Republicans and Democrats were actually on board with what was happening. There was no feeling of smugness permeating the hall of Congress. There was no stink of ill feelings towards one another. This was all smoke and mirrors.
The GOP had never planned on signing off on this bill, and all they needed was an excuse. Nancy Pelosi gave them one.
Nancy Pelosi got up to give a speech that was full of truth. She let Congress know exactly why we got into this mess and that we should never let it happen again. She attempted to shame congress into doing the right thing. Unfortunately, thinking she could shame a Republican into understanding the truth was a mistake.
The Republicans saw their excuse and used it. They still voted JUST enough to lure American into believing it was Pelosi's fault it didn't pass. Thanks to Barney Franks (who happens to be one of my favorite congressmen), it didn't work.
Barney Franks, an outwardly gay congressman, has been at the forefront of the financial crisis for quite sometime. He is one of the first to dismiss Henry Paulson's plan and has fought diligently to get a bill passed that would keep Americans from losing jobs in the next few months. He's smart, funny and angry. His reputation as a hardball is only outweighed by his knowledge of the facts in any debate. This man knows what he is doing
Thursday:
Thursday:
Not only are we having a historic debate on Thursday, but we may see another version of the bailout plan up for a vote. Watch for major political posturing and for the Democrats to cave in as usual. Watch for the Democrats balls to shrink, voices go squeaky and dicks go limp.
They may have won this round...but the GOP knows how to be angry...and right now they are angry. If Democrats perform as they normally do when the GOP is angry...I expect them to give in to whatever they want.
I hope I am wrong.
I hope I am wrong.
Posts
30 comments:
Well I'll have to research some of your bias before commenting on the topic. However one thing you are 100% right on and that is the democrats don't know how to take a stand. They waiver back and forth and allow people to own them. Not sure how you can even be proud and say you are a democrat because of it.
I am more proud than ever to be a Democrat. I think it shows your bitterness when questioning it.
After watching what the other side has done to this country it is the easiest thing in the world to be a Democrat. The reason they give in so much is because we actually practice bi-partisanship. Just because I don't want them to give in on something doesn't mean it shouldn't be given in on. I don't claim to be some all knowing democrat who everything I believe should come true.
On the flip side, the Republicans don't know how to practice bi-partisanship and do nothing but scoff at it. They can't stand not being in power and it shows. I think Pelosi is doing a great job with what she has. Harry Reid, on the other hand, needs a replacement. His balls are so small you can't even see them anymore.
This is yet another reason we need a congressional majority come this November. If it happens, you will see major reform of our government. And most of it will be good.
why would I be bitter that you guys can't take a stand? I agree bi-partisanship is better sometimes. McCain actually said he wanted more oversight on that bill, but you didn't commend him for that? Why not? Because you are taking a stand against everything a republican says or does even when they are with you. I think you are the bitter one.
Larry you just doesn't understand that your argument holds no merit and has no basis in facts.
Had I talked about how Obama was doing this or that, then perhaps you would have an arguement.
I attack my own party and you still go on the offensive. I think that shows bitterness much more than me attacking my own party.
Had Obama jumped on his white horse to come rescue the bailout plan I would have the same reaction. He didn't. Don't let it upset you so much that Obama hit 50% on the polls today.
The American people are finally waking up...maybe you should too?
Why don't you tell me what my argument is? Let's start from there.
And since you're talking about McCain being for more oversight. Let's not forget how against oversight he's been in the past. He even regrets his vote for Sarbanes-Oxley.
and regarding Obama at 50% this is fantastic. I know he will win anyway, but now I can choose NOT to vote for the infant killer (since it won't hurt anyway).. Maybe I'll vote for Barr
This is the argument you presented:
"McCain actually said he wanted more oversight on that bill, but you didn't commend him for that? Why not? Because you are taking a stand against everything a republican says or does even when they are with you. I think you are the bitter one."
Considering McCain's past on de-regulation, that's why I feel your argument has no basis in facts. It's easy for someone to say they are against something...much more difficult for them to show it.
You said "It's easy for someone to say they are against something...much more difficult for them to show it."
This is exactly the reason I feel like I do about Obama. He has no record to show anything given his lack of experience. He can say whatever and do something different. Let me guess, you don't agree do you?
Obama was against off-shore drilling too until the majority of Americans wanted it. People change redwing. We've discussed this before I thought. You should be happy McCain now thinks govt. oversight is needed. What would make you happy? Why don't you tell us all what McCain could do to make you happy? Oh wait, if he conforms to your ideas, you will still say in the past he did something different. Nevermind. No use arguing with someone who can't see both sides.
I grow weary of your hypothetical circumstances. McCain would never do what would be needed to get my vote. It just wouldn't happen, no point in arguing it. If I agree with him on 1 point there would be 1000 points to not agree on so it wouldn't change my stance.
I've never claimed to be a proponent of both sides. My lack of respect for the Republican party has grown from a tiny speck to what it is now over many years and thanks to them. You can only look at both sides for so long before one side jumps out at you.
No need to get your feelings hurt about it. Just don't pretend you've ever been on the fence about this one when you say things like "infant killer." Your partisanship is no better than mine, I just admit mine.
Redwing, did you read my comment on your last blog? I was curious as to your take on my thoughts. When I did not see a response, I was puzzled. I am even more surprised that no one else replied or challenged my comment as I noticed occurs with all of your other comments. Am I too new to your site to get a response? Go back to your last blog about how the McCain/Obama debate went and read my comment. Agree? Disagree?
oh boy, I had a long written response and stupid site locked up. Oh well, guess I'll let it go.
I have heard over and over again how the Republicans "fixed" the florida vote over Gore and are nothing but fraud, etc, but according to the Wall Street Journal they are not the only ones : )
well i just watched pelosi and she sure looked like she wanted the bailout to pass. How would one expect both parties to take ownership when she gets up and makes an ass of herself? What I also heard was Barney Frank recognize her for 1 minute and after 10 minutes I stopped listening. I guess her bullshit after 1 minute was ignored.
Barney Frank is probably more responsible for this mess than anyone else in Congress. He's been in bed (figuratively and literally...he was lovers with a Fannie exec for years) with Fannie and Freddie for years now. He was an opponent of the Bush Administration's attempt to keep tabs on the two companies, and pushed for more low-income mortgages. Those same mortgages are the ones causing the crisis. Funny how the media overlooks that and just wants to blame the GOP for not wanting to bail his ass out.
Barney Frank is partly responsible for this mess. The problem is, he's just as responsible as the next guy in congress. Frank's mistake was thinking the firings that went on after the last scandal would have fixed the problem. Apparently the right people weren't fired or more idiots were put in their place.
However, to lay total blame at his feet is disingenuous as the congress was led by the Republicans from 1994-2006. That was plenty of time to put more regulation on Fannie & Freddie which didn't happen.
This problem is owned by Republicans (who, with the exception of Greenspan (who i'd like back as sec. of treasury), want less regulation) and Democrats (who want more affordable housing for everyone, which can't happen without giving riskier loans) alike.
Real Estate had boomed so much that it lured people into a false sense of security on purchasing homes they planned on getting out of within 2 years for a profit. When the housing market lost value as many months as it did in a row, it cost millions their homes with no refinance credit available. This is a case of a lot of bad gambling on the housing market by a lot of people and giving loans to people who shouldn't have them.
Everyone is to blame here. This is why Pelosi wanted 2/3 Dems and 2/3 Reps on the vote. This is not the fault of one person or one party.
Frank was wrong on thinking the firings in the last scandal would fix the problem.
Both parties are guilty. Obama accepted donations from Fannie & Freddie and his economic advisors were part of them (he fired them). McCain's campaign advisor, Rick Davis, was getting PAID by Freddie up until last month (did not get fired)! This is a problem on both sides of the aisle.
But to whine about a speech instead of fixing the problem... that's the fault of the GOP. Thus, in my opinion, my post still holds true.
Oh and so we don't get into an Obama vs. McCain on Fannie/Freddie here are some facts:
Lobbying firm of Charlie Black, one of McCain's top aides, made at least $820,000 working for Freddie Mac from 1999 to 2004. The McCain campaign's vice-chair Wayne Berman and its congressional liaison John Green made $1.14 million working on behalf of Fannie Mae for lobbying firm Ogilvy Government Relations. Green made an additional $180,000 from Freddie Mac. Arther B. Culvahouse Jr., the VP vetter who helped John McCain select Sarah Palin, earned $80,000 from Fannie Mae in 2003 and 2004, while working for lobbying and law firm O'Melveny & Myers LLP. In addition, Politico reports that at least 20 McCain fundraisers have lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, pocketing at least $12.3 million over the last nine years.
And let's not forget Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, who has received $2 million from Freddie.
This morning I heard both a good explanation and also the latest "spin" on what created the market crisis. Joe Scarborough had a financial advisor on his show to discuss the problems that led up to this mess - but instead of letting her talk - he jumped in (talked over her) and said that the REAL problem was that in 1999 Clinton signed some sort of bill that lowered the standards on qualification for mortgages thus allowing lower income people to get mortgages (supposedly giving them a 'stake in America'). As you know many Republicans like to blame Clinton for everything and here again is an opportunity it seems. The financial person kept trying to interrupt him to say that while this did contribute to the problem it was NOT the problem - the problem began when, due to deregulation, speculators began selling and reselling mortgages (good ones and bad ones) with no regard to the worth of the paper because there were no longer regulations on what could and could not be sold.
The new deregulated system led to speculators entering the market and creating the whole 'sub prime" system to buy and sell mortgages. The selling and reselling caused the holders of ARM mortgages that were entered into at low rates to adjust the rates dramatically upward, thus, in some cases, nearly doubling the monthly mortgage payments - this, of course, began the rash of foreclosures as people who were struggling to pay the mortgage as it was, definitely couldn't pay the hefty increase. It was all kind of "musical chairs" - the entity holding the mortgage when it went bad owned the problem - and in most cases the last entity to hold a mortgage was a bank because banks bought mortgages in bulk. She explained this all very well and it was understandable (Joe of course was not deterred in blaming Clinton) - she said that if the regulations on the reselling of mortgages had not been eliminated (done in a bill sponsored by Phil Graham when he was in congress) there would still be some bad mortgages, without doubt, maybe even more than usual, but they would have been worked out at the local bank level - there would not have been scores of speculators in the picture to make the problem exponentially worse.
Oh well, its all happened, we can't change it so I guess it just has to be fixed!
WHOA ! WHOA ! WHOA ! a long distance friend sent me to this site and THIS is the way you conduct yourselves? Boys, c'mon! Settle down Larry and Redwing. Larry, somehow you lose sight of what the Redwing is saying and I think you tune out to his very long blog post and start in way over your head. I went back a ways in the blog articles on this website and they are quite compelling and full of truths, half-truths, and some lies (I am including comments as well). I agree with Kevin's comment in one of your more recent blogs about the back and forth. You need to have a more concise and intelligent debate without all of the low blows. I tune out to some politicians when they start that mess. It is distracting and detracts from what you are trying to convey to your audience. Essentially, I am saying to grow up and be more mature in your rhetoric. I would like to chime in, but I am afraid Larry or Monica will take it personally and Redwing will boast of his superior knowledge of the events. Please, please, please stick to the topic or subject at hand and have some intelligent conversation so those of us being re-directed to your site can follow along and join in on the debate. I am all for controversial topics and I would like to drop by again and read your blogs.
Well Josie, I agree with you on the childish comments, but one thing is for sure - I do not take any of this personal. I like playing devil's advocate, but you are right in that all of this is way over my head, but at least I am trying to understand it and get involved. 4 years ago I would never even read anything on anybody. Matter of fact 4 years ago I voted for Kerry just because I didn't want Bush in any longer and was persuaded by my democrat friends to do so. I am glad I voted for Kerry, but it did no good anyway. Monica won't post anymore so don't worry about her. Although Redwing is bias at times, he does do a pretty good job when he creates a topic and can back most of it up. The only reason I respond at times to certain items is if I feel something unfair was said. But this blog, well I enjoyed finally being a kid again. So don't worry about hurting my feelings really, as I could almost, just almost care less who wins the election.
another female joins the ranks! josie you are sooo right in everything you said! im glad to see larry doesnt take it seriously as i stopped posting because i feared he did.
either way i am glad to have another female perspective and look forward to more comments from you!
i wish i knew more about the economy or i would comment on this particular blog post. i do know it seemed petty to not vote for something because of a speech. the speech did not, in any way, affect the legislation being proposed. right or wrong, if we needed to pass it, the republicans are to blame for why it didnt. while it appears obama got the better of the situation, i don't think either one provided enough to warrant a boost in the polls.
redwing, i want more posts from suebee and you need to add another female poster! maybe josie could volunteer?
i do have one question for you josie. what do you think of sarah palin? i can't wait for the debate tomorrow! i'm with redwing on this one. she will surprise everyone with how good she does. unfortunately, she set the bar so low it wouldn't be hard.
to larry, didnt you say you wanted bob barr in an earlier post? are you the one who voted for him on the sidebar?
jessica
Hey Jessica, glad you are back. Let me ask one question though, how come everyone thinks I am taking this personally? Let me tell you how I see it. When I read the blogs posted by others, including redwing, I read certain paragraphs or items in it as though they are full of hate. So when I respond, I take the opposite position and sometimes sound strong in the response. However it isn't personal to me. I guess I feel like if hate (or my interpretation of it) is in a post then why can't I also show hate? But this is the wrong attitude to have. I am going to sit on the side lines for a while to give others an opportunity to read a progressive's blog without my opposite views. And earlier up I said maybe I would vote for Barr since Obama was going to win anyway, but I did not vote for Barr on the side. I believe Kevin or Benny? may have done that, but I suppose anybody anywhere lurking the internet could've done it.
Larry,
Nooooooo please don't sit on the sidelines, I've always enjoyed your comments even when we're arguing or seem angry towards each other.
I would, however, ask that you show me things i've said in my blog posts (not comments) that have spewed hatred. As I feel hatred is an evil state of mind, it is never my intention to do portray it. In order to keep with my internal philosophy, please provide an example so that I can begin re-toning my posts in the future. Hate is a strong word and I try to never feel it or even portray it in my posts.
To Josie. Welcome aboard! As I've said to Kevin, I will make every effort to keep anger out of my comments from now on. My apologies if I have offended anyone out there. Also, a few posts back i tried the whole 'stick to the topic' scenario and got a backlash from several users. We may go off topic, but I will make every effort to not be angry about it. :)
To Larry...NO SIDELINES!! Your responses force me to do research and keep me on my toes! I love it! (and don't play devil's advocate and hate it because i love it! haha)
Kevin/RedWing
Yikes I didn't realize the anger thing was so bad until I read these comments. I'm sorry if my previous comment on the other post seemed angry. It seemed that way because it WAS. :)
RedWing, I agree with your analysis on the "hurt feelings" but I need to mention that I am also disappointed in Nancy Pelosi for making that speech. I do not believe that it affected the votes (God willing) but it did set a tone that didn't need to be set with a bill that's bipartisanship was on display to the country.
Don't get me wrong, Pelosi was right on everything she said. There was no spin, no lies, no distortions or exaggerations that I saw. It was just bad timing. Had it not been for Barney Frank's impressively humorous response, Pelosi would be on the hot seat right now. We got lucky.
I do find it funny that Lindsay Graham called the American people a "nation of whiners" but then whined himself about a speech that did not change the legislation itself at all. Just because someone gave a speech before a vote (which happens all the time) doesn't mean it changes what's IN the bill. The bill is the same. YOU EITHER AGREE WITH IT OR YOU DON'T.
Don't get me wrong, I don't mind them taking another look at the bill to ensure it's what we really want. But to blame a speech by Nancy Pelosi with ZERO change to the bill itself is just plain ridiculous and very obviously petty (see polls).
Again, I disagree with Nancy Pelosi using her platform for a partisan speech (even though it was full of truth), but do not feel it was the reason they voted NO on the bill.
Their reasons were selfish and immature. Two of the things I've come to expect from the Republican party since Newt Gingrich offered his "Contract for America" so long ago.
Keep 'em coming RedWing. I feel you should let Kevin be an author, as well. He would bring a unique perspective to the blog and hopefully keep Larry from having to play Devil's Advocate all the time. I hope to find out how he truly feels when he's not playing the other side.
Finally - a Republican I can respect.I was doing some prowling around and found an article about a computer security expert by the name of Stephen Spoonamore. Seems he's a lifelong Republican and, up until recently, was working on McCain's campaign. At this point you're probably asking yourself how I could find anything in that to respect. Well, it seems that Mr. Spoonamore has been a VERY vocal critic of electronic voting machines for the past 10 years, and is firmly convinced that the last two Presidential elections were stolen from the voters by fanatical right-wing religious extremists. He's had some very interesting things to say about the King Lincoln Bronzeville v. Blackwell case in Ohio. In this suit individual voters and three voters' rights groups went after former Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell over voting irregularities in Ohio's 2004 election. It's not necessary to get into the nuts and bolts of those irregularities, but what I found significant and respect-worthy was Mr. Spoonamore's position regarding the fraud. As a Republican he's obviously going to want his candidate to win but he insists that win be an accurate reflection of the will of the people, not the product of any kind of interference, fraud or tampering. He feels that keeping democracy alive and intact is far more important than who wins the elections.He has stated unequivocally that it is not possible to design a foolproof, tamper-proof, and hacker-proof electronic voting machine - a fact which I know to be true. Furthermore, he's adamant that the only way we can prevent our votes from becoming inconsequential is to go back to hand-counted paper ballots.He suggests we do it the way we used to do it here and how they still do in England and other parts of Europe. After the polls close, the ballot boxes are gathered up by the poll workers and removed to a bank, where they are counted by bank employees. Representatives of any of the political parties are welcome to accompany the ballot boxes on their trip to the bank, and any interested or concerned citizen is permitted to attend and view the counting. In other words, no part of the process is in secret except for the actual vote itself. The beauty of this approach is that it's SO much cheaper than electronic voting machines and there can be data verification every single step of the way.
What I found particularly interesting was the fact that in 100% of the cases he's investigated involving this kind of fraud he's found the key figures are always fundamentalist Christian right-to-lifers. Their sole agenda is to enforce their moral vision on the entire country - primarily (but not limited to) the overturning of Roe v. Wade. I sat through a nearly 40 minute interview he did and came away thinking how much I wished more Republicans were like him - common-sense, religious moderates with the best interests of the country at heart.
Thanks Redwing for inviting me to author, but I am more a reader than a writer. I follow many blogs from all over the country and I am glad that you allow other points of view. So many blogs that I read lean to one side or the other and do not seem to want any new ideas. I noticed you have some female authors listed such as Jeannie and Aleena, but I did not see any postings from either of them. Will we be hearing from them soon? I agree with Jessica that it would be a refreshing touch to see a female perspective on politics. I like what suebeehonee has written and I hope she continues to post. I read where you said she was your sister and that's great. Well, you will hear from me again soon and maybe I can see about finding you some more authors from my circle of friends.
Bill, excellent comment. You are another I would consider for a new Author for The Progressive Movement if you so chose.
Josie, so glad to see you check back here often! While it saddens me that a bright woman such as yourself does not want to be an author, I understand and look forward to you finding me someone else as bright and energetic as you. Just have them comment on the latest blog entry and we'll talk! :)
TO EVERYONE: We are very close to 100,000 hits now and I feel we can make this blog a huge success with great contributers such as yourselves! Keep it up!
Josie,
One other question. How did you know RandomCleo's name was Aleena?
Just curious.
Redwing, suebeehonee is a friend of mine from another network called powerful intentions. I had scanned your site at her request and asked her who the authors were. She only knew the real names of you and your wife. Your mother posts as herself. Sorry if I gave that away. I apologize. By the way, I sent your progressives url to many of my friends here locally in Ocalla and across the country from the same powerful intentions network. I hope you don't mind. I have acrued more friends,over 1500,on that network alone, that would probably love to read and respond to your blog. I hope they all decide to comment. Your sister is well liked on our site as well. She started a very popular group, cat lovers, where she met most of us. I believe kevin is from our site as well. That "crazy" way of writing looks familiar and it sounds like his values and opinions. I do not generally give my real name, but this site seemed safe enough, though I still do not give my last.
No worries Josie, I was just curious and you did not give away anything I was hiding.
I hope Kevin knows that the "Crazy way of writing" was not meant to be deragatory at all. He just likes to hit enter a lot to start a new line. hehe
Please send them all here! And help me find more authors! I would love to have someone from the other side of the fence make a post now and then.
Post a Comment