46. Senator Joe Biden voted against Gramm-Leach-Bliley while John McCain voted in favor. Hmmmm...

Yes, and McCain put a bill up to tighten regulations in 2005-Democrats kept it from coming to a vote.

Of course we cannot forget Obama and a role he has in this financial mess.

Now we know why Obama wants to raise taxes - to bail out those jerks who tanked our mortgage markets and nearly sent us into a real depression. First off it is good to get a little history on what led to this mess. Michael Reagan does a good job of laying out the story, but this part is worth noting and remembering:

To find the donkey, you need to go back to the Clinton administration, which decided that everybody and his kid brother was entitled to a mortgage even when they didn’t begin to qualify for a home loan.

In saner days, banks designated certain areas as no-loan zones — depressed neighborhoods where lending money to potential home buyers was not just a risky investment, but a certain future foreclosure.

Critics of the practice called it “redlining,” and President Clinton and his chums on Capitol Hill decided that banks should no longer act like banks and lend money only to home buyers who could afford to handle the monthly payments.

Remember, Clinton left office with the economy a mess after the dot.com bubble burst too. This is what happens when you let inexperienced people with radical and naive ideas become president. One of the people key to this mess is Franklin Raines - who has ties to both Clinton and Obama:

Franklin Delano Raines (born January 14, 1949 in Seattle, Washington) is the former chairman and chief executive officer of Fannie Mae who served as White House budget director under President Bill Clinton.

…In 1991 he became Fannie’s Mae’s Vice Chairman, a post he left in 1996 in order to join the Clinton Administration as the Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, where he served until 1998. In 1999, he returned to Fannie Mae as CEO, “the first black man to head a Fortune 500 company.”[1]

In 2006, the OFHEO announced a suit against Raines in order to recover some or all of the $50 million in payments made to Raines based on the overstated earnings [2] initially estimated to be $9 billion but have been announced as 6.3 billion.[2].

As everyone noted this guy was the first black CEO of a fortune 500 firm it becomes clear we cannot select leaders based on their race, or whether it advances their race. We need to pick leaders based on the content of their character, judgement and plans. Anyway, after setting up this mess and stealing a few million Raines ended giving advice to the Obama campaign.

Even more troubling is the fact that the two top beneficiaries of political donations from failed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the last 9 years were Sen Chris Dodd (#1) and Barack Obama (#2). First off, I cannot fathom how a quasi-government company controlling 100’s of millions of dollars in mortgage payments from Americans across this country can line the pockets of the politicians supposedly overseeing them.

This is criminal. They take our mortgage payments and send some of it to the politicians - all the time running the entire thing into the ground? Folks, they took our mortgage payments, got rich, bribed some pols and sit fat and dumb in million dollar homes - paid for by us. And now we will pay more to fix the mess they left behind. Obama is in this up to his neck, since he got more money than any other senator save one, and he did it while in office only three of the 9 years covered.

And how much campaign money is he getting from this debacle? I tell you what, I thought I was angry about how the Political Industrial Complex was ripping me off through taxes. But now that I see they took my mortgage payments and did this with them really steams me.

Obama’s connections don’t stop there. He has another ‘leader of industry’ on his team who led his company to ruin and voter buy-outs: Jim Johnson of Fannie Mae:

Big Democrat Jim Johnson, recently on Obama’s VP search committee, has hauled in millions from his Fannie Mae CEO job.

BTW, Neal Bortz had a front row seat to the debacle and also does a good job reviewing it. A snippet:

Washington made it clear to banks and other lending institutions that if they did not do something .. and fast .. to bring more minorities and low-income Americans into the world of home ownership there would be a heavy price to pay. Congress set up processes (Research the Community Redevelopment Act) whereby community activist groups and organizers could effectively stop a bank’s efforts to grow if that bank didn’t make loans to unqualified borrowers. Enter, stage left, the “subprime” mortgage. These lenders knew that a very high percentage of these loans would turn to garbage – but it was a price that had to be paid if the bank was to expand and grow. We should note that among the community groups browbeating banks into making these bad loans was an outfit called ACORN. There is one certain presidential candidate that did a lot of community organizing for ACORN. I won’t mention his name so as to avoid politicizing this column.

So this is change? Outright stealing our money to give to Pols until the bottom falls out, and leaving us the tab? I don’t think we can affort any more of team Obama’s hands on the economy.

And the Washington Post comes out debunking Obama’s claims about McCain’s record on calling for reform:

John McCain’s record on Wall Street oversight gets some misleading spin from Barack Obama.

It is an extensive smack down on Team Obama. One could easily conclude Obama’s ad is ignorant or outright false. Clearly it is not ‘presidential’.

The Raines connection has always be a bit weak, but the connection to Jim Johnson, another Fannie Mae ‘leader’ who made millions is much more obvious since he did join the Obama campaign (until Fannie Mae blew up in his face and he quit). McCain’s new ad just reminds Americans who really is allied with those who cost us, our children, and our children’s children so much financial strain in our lives.

Of course, let us not forget now it started in 1999 with the push by Clinton/Franks/Dodd/Biden against the fictional redlining. That resulted in the repeal of the depression era bank regulations, the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act with the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999.

With the stroke of a pen, Clinton with the 1999 act deregulated the banking system, removed a lot of the capital requirements — This in turn touched off a stampede of Banks, investment companies and others trying to buy into the new market opportunities through mergers.

This was then followed up with the ADDI 2003, which effectively made qualification for a home loan discrimination.

It’s all about a massive failure of liberalism,

Also, the original CRA was signed into law by President Carter, or day one of the start of this financial mess. The purpose of the CRA was to provide credit, including home ownership opportunities to underserved populations and commercial loans to small businesses. The CRA was passed into law by the U.S. Congress in 1977 as a result of national grassroots pressure for affordable housing, and despite considerable opposition from the mainstream banking community. Only one banker, Ron Grzywinski from ShoreBank in Chicago, testified in favor of the act.

The CRA mandates that each banking institution be evaluated to determine if it has met the credit needs of its entire community. That record is taken into account when the federal government considers an institution's application for deposit facilities, including mergers and acquisitions.

Robert OKane at 9:21PM on Sep 20th 2008

47. Godess1prevail

Before any new bill could be enacted, the "Glass-Steagall Act of 1933" had to be repealed. This is where millions of dollars in payoffs went to get this bill repealed. This bill was originally enacted to prevent another Market Crash, now it was to be repealed. Among the many voices favoring this was Alan Greenspan along with former Goldman Sachs partner Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary. In a 1995 speech and testimony to Congress Rubin signaled the Clinton Administration was ready to repeal Glass-Steagall. Right after that, President Bill Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, opening the door to the "Gramm-Leach Bliley Act"


So who are the true players that opened up this new road to the abyss? They are Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, Sandy Weill, Phil Gramm, Jim Leach, Tom Bliley, Barney Frank, Bill Clinton,

Alan Greenspan -
In 1990, the Fed, under former J.P. Morgan director Alan Greenspan, permitted guess who J.P. Morgan–to become the first bank allowed to underwrite securities.

Four legislative attempts were made to weaken or repeal parts of Glass-Steagall from 1988-1996. One reason they failed is because smaller banks feared that opening the doors to allow banks to trade in securities would lead to the domination of larger banks–a fate that has come to pass.

The biggest change came in 1996 when Alan Greenspan issued a ruling allowing bank investment affiliates to have up to a quarter of their business in investments.

Robert Rubin - in testimony before Congress in 1995

The banking industry is fundamentally different from what it was two decades ago, let alone in 1933.” He said the industry has been transformed into a global business of facilitating capital formation through diverse new products, services and markets.

U.S. banks generally engage in a broader range of securities activities abroad than is permitted domestically. Even domestically, the separation of investment banking and commercial banking envisioned by Glass-Steagall has eroded significantly.


Robert Rubin - following Shaggy's strategy in 2008

If Wall Street companies can count on being rescued like banks, then they need to be regulated like banks.


He was for the deregulation before he was against the deregulation.

Sandy Weill -

Here you have the leadership, Sandy Weill of Travelers and John Reed of Citicorp, saying, Look, the Congress isn't moving fast enough. Let's do it on our own. To heck with the Congress. Let us effect this. And so they move towards effecting it, and they get the blessing of the chairman of the Federal Reserve system in early April, when legislation is pending.

I mean, this is hubris in the worst sense of the word. Who do they think they are? Other people, firms, cannot act like this. Citicorp and Travelers were so big that they were able to pull this off. They were able to pull off the largest financial conglomeration the largest financial coming together of banking, insurance, and securities when legislation was still on the books saying this was illegal. And they pulled this off with the blessings of the president of the United States, President Clinton; the chairman of the Federal Reserve system, Alan Greenspan; and the secretary of the treasury, Robert Rubin.
And then, when it's all over, what happens? The secretary of the treasury becomes the vice chairman of the emerging Citigroup.


Phil Gramm James Leach Thomas Bliley -
The Citi-Travelers Act went under the benign-sounding name of the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 and, like Glass-Steagall it has become known for the key sponsors of the bill as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, for Republican Senate Banking Committee Chair Phil Gramm, House Banking Committee chair James Leach, and Virginia Representative Thomas Bliley.

Lobby money to push through the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act -
In the year previous to the Financial Services Modernization Act, the thing that overruled Glass-Steagall, Citibank spent $100 million on lobbying and public relations, which is a good indication.
Yes. They spent a small fortune, a king's ransom, if you will, getting rid of Glass-Steagall. In fact, when thrown in with other financial firms lobbying, it was closer to $200 million over the short period of time.

The Industry's efforts to jump-start progress on the Senate bill is a case study in how a well-heeled and well-organized interest group can swiftly prod Congress to move, even on an issue about which most people outside Washington and New York have little knowledge.

Nor is it surprising, according to both political science and economic literature, that the interest groups played a vital role in the timing of the 1999 deregulation. Without persistent lobbying by commercial and investment interests it is unlikely that reform would have taken place in this century.

Barney Frank -
There was only one problem: the bill had to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions. The House version differed in two important ways: 1) It took regulatory authority from the Federal Reserve and gave it to the Secretary of the Treasury and 2) it refused to extend to insurance companies obligations under the Community Re-investment Act to provide information about their patterns of mortgage lending.
Democrat Barney Frank was among those who especially opposed the second.

We do a good job in fostering conditions in which our capitalist system can flourish and it's in our interest that our capitalist system flourish. But can we try to do a little bit for those who are being left behind. This is an inappropriate continuation of a pattern of helping those who need a benefit but ignoring those who are left behind.


How the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act became law -
On Oct. 21, with the House-Senate conference committee deadlocked after marathon negotiations, the main sticking point is partisan bickering over the bill's effect on the Community Reinvestment Act, which sets rules for lending to poor communities. Sandy Weill calls President Clinton in the evening to try to break the deadlock after Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, warned Citigroup lobbyist Roger Levy that Weill has to get White House moving on the bill or he would shut down the House-Senate conference. Serious negotiations resume, and a deal is announced at 2:45 a.m. on Oct. 22. President Bill Clinton signed this bill into law on November 12, 1999.

Bill Clinton -
So we know that the topic of that late night phone call between Bill Clinton and Sandy Weill, the man whose career began in the subprime mortgage business, was the Community Reinvestment Act. We know that Phil Gramm, who was the one most strongly pushing for gutting CRA (Leach actually supported it) threatened to torpedo the legislation if the White House did not reach an agreement.

So why did Clinton go along? His writings are silent on the subject. He seemingly held the trump card with the threat to veto any legislation that did not meet his approval. And why is it Sandy Weill who makes the phone call to Clinton? At this point not enough evidence is available to finally connect the dots, but whatever it is, it cannot possibly benefit Bill Clinton. The reason for the silence may be that for the Clintons the repeal of Glass-Steagall may prove far more embarrassing in the long run than Monica Lewinsky.

Barack Obama - when asked if he would restore Glass-Steagall

Well, no. The argument is not to go back to the regulatory framework of the 1930's because, as I said, the financial markets have changed substantially.


Obama's top campaign contributors include Goldman Sachs, J.P.Morgan, and Citigroup.

Where are these players today

Alan Greenspan -
Retired as chairman of the Fed in 2006, he is married to staunch Obama supporter and NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell.

Robert Rubin -
Chairman of Citigroup and one of Obama's economic advisors

Sandy Weill -
Retired as chairman of Citigroup in 2006

Phil Gramm -
Retired from the US Senate in 2003. Served as John McCain's campaign co-chair and most senior economic advisor until July 18, 2008.

James Leach -
Defeated in the 2006 midterm election for US House, Iowa's 2nd District. He currently is the Director of Harvard University Institute of Politics at Kennedy School of Government. On August 12, 2008, Leach broke party ranks to endorse Democrat Barack Obama against John McCain for the American presidency. He spoke at the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver Colorado on the night of August 25, 2008.

Thomas Bliley -
Retired from the US House 7th District Virginia in 2001, and he was succeeded by Eric Cantor.

Barney Frank -
Current chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

Robert OKane at 9:56PM on Sep 20th 2008

48. 45. "Now you talk about someone getting "owned", Kane just bought Brian"

Okane is still pissed about getting owned by his/her school teacher. And anyone with intelligence is an elitist. And a person of color with intelligence is a Muslim.

I can tell the days that he/she is own his/her medicine.

I just don't know what to call him/her anymore. Is it Robert? Perhaps Judy from NYC? Or is it Terry? Who knows?

I'll just stick with "Bigot".

Botts at 9:18PM on Sep 20th 2008
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Hi Reverend Botts

Back here to post more of your enlightening thoughts?

Is your new blog site not doing that well that you have the extra time?
Hang in there, all new "Capitalistic" businesses need time to get kick started.

You certainly did pick a good business to get involved in, Religion. By gosh, the Tax Write Offs are really good for a business dealing with religion. If you get enough of a following you can get off from paying property taxes on your house.

But I guess you knew all of this. You little devil you, hiding your money so when Obama gets elected and taxes the rich, you are already covered and have sheltered your income under the sign of the cross.

Robert OKane at 10:09PM on Sep 20th 2008

49. "Hi Reverend Botts"

Hi Robert, Judy or Terry.

"Back here to post more of your enlightening thoughts?"

Yup. How about you?

"Is your new blog site not doing that well that you have the extra time?"

That's subjective I guess. What would consist of doing well?

"Hang in there, all new "Capitalistic" businesses need time to get kick started."

Well it's not a business, and I don't need any income. How about you?

"You certainly did pick a good business to get involved in, Religion. By gosh, the Tax Write Offs are really good for a business dealing with religion."

Well if you knew anything, tax write offs would be for a Church. In regards to my blog, if you checked it out, there is no advertising on it. I'm not doing it for money. I don't need any money. I'm doing it to spread the message that people like you desperately need to hear. Come back tomorrow, I'll have a dandy of a post for you.

"If you get enough of a following you can get off from paying property taxes on your house."

I already get off from paying property taxes on my house.

"But I guess you knew all of this. You little devil you, hiding your money so when Obama gets elected and taxes the rich, you are already covered and have sheltered your income under the sign of the cross."

Oh believe me, I know all the loop holes and tax shelters. Anyone who knows the industry and has money, can certainly get away with whatever they want.

I want Obama, because he actually has a clue. He actually has intelligence and thinks. Something we haven't had in a quite a while.

Muslim or not, he will be the President.

So should I call you Robert, Judy or Terry? Or do you prefer bigot?

Keep coming back to the blog. Maybe you'll actually learn something.

www.beyondbotts.blogspot.com

Botts at 10:19PM on Sep 20th 2008

50. Botts

You forget to mention in Post #49 that as a Chicagoland Machine Politician, Barack Obama legislated over and supported $40,000,000.00 in bad loans that were granted to his friends and political supporters.

Barack Obama helped enrich Slum-Lords, Political Fixers, Felons and Himself with the taxpayers money.

You consider that as Intelligence and Having A Clue: Huh!!!!!!!

Paul Sparcello at 10:57PM on Sep 20th 2008

51. Hi Paul,

How have you been? I haven't seen you in a while. Despite our disagreements, I missed our debates together. Please have a pleasant weekend.

Back to your well thought out post.

"You forget to mention in Post #49 that as a Chicagoland Machine Politician, Barack Obama legislated over and supported $40,000,000.00 in bad loans that were granted to his friends and political supporters."

Do you have complete evidence that supports this and has all 40 Mil accounted for as bad loans? I'd like to see it out of curiosity.

"Barack Obama helped enrich Slum-Lords, Political Fixers, Felons and Himself with the taxpayers money."

Please provide hardcore solid evidence that isn't a conspiracy, but is factual. And why wasn't he prosecuted for this crap. Damn this system!

"You consider that as Intelligence and Having A Clue: Huh!!!!!!!"

I know his intelligence intimidates you Paul, but you've got to get over it. Have you been paying attention to anything? We are in the situation we are in because we elect people that are not thinkers.

Botts at 11:44PM on Sep 20th 2008

52.

McCain put a bill up to tighten regulations in 2005-Democrats kept it from coming to a vote.-Robert



He didn't put up anything. He co-sponsored it, Hagel sponsored Senate Bill 190. Ever read it? Also it demanded more than regulations. It added stipulations for control of assets. Something that both dems and repubs disagreed with so both parties killed it. And Please be fair in mentioning that republicans killed it too.

If you need to know, many representatives introduced regulatory bills to congress from 2003-present.

Look it up on www.THOMAS.loc.org.

Both houses were controlled by the republicans up until 07. I think over 10 bills were written for regulation demands by BOTH parties. None passed. On 31 July 2007, after the Democrats obtained control of the Congress in the House Pelosi introduced HR3221. The bill that granted the Federal Housing Finance Agency regulatory authority over Fannie & Freddie, Finally!



Now we know why Obama wants to raise taxes - to bail out those jerks who tanked our mortgage markets and nearly sent us into a real depression.-Robert


Lets be fair, Obama will raise taxes for those who make over $250 a year, corporate tax and others but he will generally lower taxes to 80% of the population. And aren't the bailouts to those jerks in the process already?
Hmmm......




Of course, let us not forget now it started in 1999 with the push by Clinton/Franks/Dodd/Biden against the fictional redlining. That resulted in the repeal of the depression era bank regulations, the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act with the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999.-Robert


Ahhh no. Redlining was not fictional and it has its historical roots in the National Housing Act of 1934. This created the Loan Board that mapped out minority and ethnic cities for purposes of ignoring those areas for investments. It conducted no methodology based on salary education or job history etc. These maps were "redlined" around the bad cities and if banks wanted FHA backing they needed to stay clear of these red lines on maps that identified these zones. How you can say redlining was fictional blows my mind.


Carter signed the CRP ACT to repeal the NHA act. So Clinton had nothing to do with repealing redlining. The Financial Services Modernization Act ONLY repelled regulations for banks, investment and insurance companies to merge, nothing for redlining there so I have no clue as to where you got your info.

The CRP ACT was a bill that provided responsible loans, meaning low income housing to those who could afford it. Bankers did so for 30 years before the deregulation lead by republicans in a republican controlled house and senate.



It’s all about a massive failure of liberalism,-Robert


Liberalism the ideology no, I don't doubt gays, abortion, contraceptives or tree huggers created this economic fallout. But the liberation of the unregulated markets yes. Hopefully that is what you mean.


You're not real honest in your research Robert. I worked in politics, have my degree in history and know and accept that both parties have equal responsibilities in our current and past crisis. Please do more than cut and paste main stream biased media information. I'd rather discuss real issues with someone educated in the field.
No more wasting my time here.
Good Night.

goddess1prevail at 11:51PM on Sep 20th 2008

53. So why did Clinton go along? His writings are silent on the subject. He seemingly held the trump card with the threat to veto any legislation that did not meet his approval.-Robert


One more thing, In case you missed it from my other post. Clinton went along because even if he didn't support it, he had no veto authority over the bill. It passed both republican controlled houses by over two thirds.
Hope that helps....




Hiya Botts.
Planning on reading your new blog soon.
Take care

goddess1prevail at 11:56PM on Sep 20th 2008

54. godess1prevail

I do agree with you on an item, that both parties have a degree of responsiblilty in almost all issues, including this one.

But the poster, Ana TYT or Cenk, almost always present a one sided view, so my reply is directed to present a different view if I disagree with them.

I much rather have a subject that asks opinions from those posting as to a particular question that they may raise, such as "what do you thing was the root cause of the present financial disaster?", with a little more detail.

But that is something one does not find with TYT, so my answers tend to be opposite of what they write.


Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
Goddess1 said
Clinton went along because even if he didn't support it, he had no veto authority over the bill.

Clinton went along with the bill which is why the dead lock was broken and it went to a vote, in
which you state passed by 2/3 in both houses. Yes, It did pass because of Clinton's support and did get the 2/3 veto proof vote. But without Clinton's support, the original Senate vote before conference of 55-44 would have kept in place and Clinton could have vetoed it. Also Gramm threatened to pull the bill if Clinton did not agree to changes in the bill.

It was Clinton's support of the bill that enabled the bill to become law.

While you are a self proclaimed expert on history, try not to play the fuzzy card.

Robert OKane at 1:50AM on Sep 21st 2008

55. Do you think or engage that mellon of yours before you state this drivel? I am wondering because this is not even in the realm of half truths. Does AOL actually think you deserve a site? Are you really what you say you are or paid by the Obama campain to spread this drviel? Please tell me I want to know and the public wants to know WHAT OBAMA HAS DONE in the 143 days in office? What? If you answer nothing but run for President. So no thanks I will be voting McCain/Palin 08 Obama can collect all that money from those he plans to tax or is that coming in from oversea? Please learn some of this countries moral and ethical lessons because you are even worse than any crimial now in prison. McCain/Palin 08

Michael Jennings at 3:23AM on Sep 21st 2008

56. Hey siff head repubicants part of the problem was the "Crawford Cowboys" idea of an ownership nation and I quote The Moron "More people own there own homes now than anytime in past history.Because we deregulated the lending practices so every idiot who could fill out an application got a loan.

michael caruso at 9:09AM on Sep 21st 2008

57. The radical left wingnuts, party of terrorists rights and their right to privacy and that crap, like Ny Times who leaked NSA and FISA classified information because terrorists privacy might be compromised, show what fascists they really are. SILENCE and complicity over the hacking of Palin's private email account.
There has been no outrage over Palin's privacy being hacked by leftist digital brownshirts.And no one on the left will denounce this.
Could you imagine if this happened to Obama or Campbell Brown? How the leftards would weep and prostrate themselves?

Yesterday O' Reilly was hacked.

Leftist hackers broke into Bill O'Reilly's website and posted information on his premium members
The criminals were upset with the way O'Relly reported on the Sarah Palin "hacker" attack.
Computer World reported:

Just days after publishing U.S. vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's personal email messages, the Wikileaks Web site has published data about members who signed up for a section of Fox Television host Bill O'Reilly's Web site.

Hackers were able to obtain a list of Billoreilly.com premium members, including email addresses, site passwords and the city and state where they live. Some of the information was published Friday on Wikileaks.com, which has been under fire from conservative commentators, including O'Reilly, for publishing Palin's messages.

Need I say more??????

Robert OKane at 9:28AM on Sep 21st 2008

58. cowboy for hire-------------muslims didnt exist when revelations was written.

Louis IX KingofFrance at 9:31AM on Sep 21st 2008

59. Cink, as usual your on the money and the dumbed down right wing morons are regurgitating the GOP/republicans talking points because they dont do any real research, they are just regurgitators. Dumbed down right wing sheeple that blindly follow. And these idiots are so stupid, so ignorant, so dumbed down from FAUX news, druggie limpbaugh and slant head hannity that they are truly a reflection of the republican party. Bottom line, the repubs just held all three branchs for seven years straight, and the dems took back the majoritys in the house and senate last midterms due to republican corruption and the FACT the majority of Americans want us out of Iraq. So if the dems had done something wrong that just means that the republicans were to stupid, to corrupt to do anything about it. But all of us but the dumbed down sheeple, the entire world knows the republicans are to blame but will not accept responsibility...And now they want to tell us McSame is their man? What a joke, he cant even handle the ladies on the VIEW when he and palin are checked on their lies..and she cant even handle a softball interview...they are done for and not a minute to soon. Obama 08 for a better America, not more failed policies from right wing republican criminals who have this nation in the shape its in right now.

paul at 9:28AM on Sep 22nd 2008

60. "We're sorry, this video is no longer available." You are sorry indeed. How about using the word apologize? Sorry just doesn't cut it.

Mike Luongo at 10:06AM on Sep 21st 2008