Gerry Ford

Bob Woodward was giving an interview for his new book when he said something interesting, suggesting the country needs someone like Gerry Ford to get us past the rancor of the Bush years. Unfortunately, the key for Ford was that he was unelected. He didn't go through an election cycle which had the parties "going to mattresses." Can we get unity after this election? How? Maybe a cross-party cabinet? The country is in the habit of hating, how do we get past that?

Great.

Another thread to haunt me over the weekend. Thanks again Griff.

Spreading misery one post at a time.

Put Diebold on the cabinet. :rolleyes:

The kitchen's a funny place to keep a Diebold.:cool:

Griff, don't fret too much. Look at the history of the American press through practically all the nineteenth century, in particular the American press on the politics of the day. Vitriol upon aspersion upon flying mud and the occasional grenado, fuze a-sparking. We got out of that habit very early in the twentieth, but a rancorous establishment press began developing again in the latter twentieth.

It's a pendulum.

640,000 dead

The only clamor for a cross-party cabinet comes from the side that lost the election. If Obama wins, do you see him stacking the table with people who disagree with his fundamental political philosophies? I don't, and neither would McCain.

They'd never do it. I was just scratching for possibilities. Now that they're headed for a bail-out I'm starting to hate again, so I'll be revisiting the Libertarians.

Gerry Ford

:shudder:

Griff;487340 wrote:

They'd never do it. I was just scratching for possibilities. Now that they're headed for a bail-out I'm starting to hate again, so I'll be revisiting the Libertarians.

You know, Griff, the more I read about it, the more I wonder if it's the right thing to do? I had accepted as a given, the government had to do something, but lots of smart people are saying no. Am I (the public) being duped?:confused:

I'll have to look for the poll but the public is very sceptical. Everybody can personalize this to some extent. We knew housing was a bubble and we knew people were going to get burned when it went. We didn't know the extent to which the banking community was gaming. My simple logic is this: There were too many dollars in the country due to deficit spending. What the administration proposed was pouring cash into Wall Street to see what happens, which would lead to more shenanigans and weaken the dollar further. Everyone has been buying securities for years because banks didn't pay decent interest because they had too much cash. A woman from the club who lives with her daughter in a tiny apartment in a bad neighborhood put it best last night, "screw the fuckers, live within your means." Now the Dems want to reward the flippers and McMansionites for screwing the pooch and the Republicans are being pressured to reward the banking community. Middle America isn't buying it.