Threats of filibusters don't scare the Democrats

Democrats remain confident that the new economic recovery plan will have enough votes to succeed. Senators Harry Reid (D-NV), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Patty Murray (D-WA) and Charles Schumer (D-NY) held a press conference today discussing the new plan.

Although the Republicans threaten to stall with filibusters, Senator Schumer said, "Has bipartisanship been a failure? Well so far its not working but it takes two to tango and the Republicans aren't dancing." The Republicans are trying to "lob off" parts of the bill said Sen. Schumer, but he stated that every time we lob off of the bill, we lob off jobs.

Schumer stated that the only people who oppose this bill are Republicans in the house and senate that are holding on to a doctrine that's "been tossed out by the voters and tossed out by experience." He further stated that he would rather pass a good bill with 65 votes, then a bad bill with 80 votes. "the key is the number of jobs created, not the votes" said Schumer

Schumer said that McCain's mortgage plan, which focuses on re-financing is "totally flawed". He says that, "Instead of re-financing mortgages and making the bank the gatekeeper, we should just give people the money in a direct way, which is what the Obama plan does.”

Senator Murray concluded with "a 4% mortgage does you absolutely no good if you don't feel confident that you have a job and an income."

by Suzia van Swol, University of New Mexico- Talk Radio News Service

Republican Party Needs To Roll Forward Not Back

By Kayleigh Harvey - Talk Radio News Service

Former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, senior policy adviser for the 2008 McCain Presidential Campaign; Jim Pinkerton, senior adviser for the 2009 Huckabee Presidential Campaign, former domestic policy aide to Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and contributor to Fox News; Reihan Salam, fellow at NAF and author of "Grand New Party: How Conservatives Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream"; and David Gray, director at the Workforce and Family Program at NAF met today to discuss how the Republican Party can move on from their 2008, Presidential, election defeat.

David Gray opened the debate by asking the panel how the Republican Party needed to reflect on their 2008 performance. There was mixed consensus amongst the panel as Douglas Holtz-Eakin focused on the economy as being the downfall for the Party in the election campaign.

Holtz-Eakin said, "Right after the convention we were leading in the polls and then the wall street breakdown occurred. Then people started to look backwards." He claimed that in the election the Republican's lost every age group except the 85 and over, every minority group, working woman and college students.

Jim Pinkerton also blamed the economy, stating he felt the "recovery plan was a bad move," adding that "on competence the Republican Party deserved to lose." Describing how he felt , he said the party should "move forward" from their defeat. Adding, "I would advise the Republicans to fight global warming and fight tax increases to the death." Pinkerton also claimed that national security would have to be an key issue for the Republicans.

Reihan Salam said that concentrating on global issues would hep the Republican Party progress. He said: "the Republicans need to think outside the box purely in carbon price."

Holtz-Eakin further said that the Republican defeat had led some conservatives to believe that a return to the "Reagan handbook" would help the party. "I think the party is at a significant moment and replaying the 1980's handbook would not be useful." Holtz-Eakin insists that the party should move forward instead if looking back. He said, "we need to be more appealing to a wider demographic. We need to have a message for urban areas. We have to restore the integrity."

Holtz-Eakin also blamed mixed messages among the electorate for creating a downturn in Republican support in the election. In order for the Republican party to move forward Holtz-Eakin suggested, "we need to be for education reform...we need to send the message that we are here for the kids of America." He concluded saying, "you have to have a role for government, you have to be proud if it and the Republicans need to define that role."

Nader mocks the media

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader gave a few choice words on the election, emphasis on “few”.

In an act that was part satire and part protest, Nader gave a press conference in which for the first portion he would only respond to reporters’ questions with one word answers, mocking what his campaign describes as the media’s reliance on sound bites.

When asked for one word to describe Obama, Nader responded “clever”, and described the amount of money the Obama campaign has spent as “disgusting”. When questioned what the major policy difference between Obama and himself Nader answered “corporations”. When asked what promises Obama wouldn’t keep Nader replied “change”, “hope”, and “peace”.

When asked about his impression of McCain, Nader answered with “clone” and “Bushlike”. Prompted to predict which Presidential candidate he would take more votes from, Nader responded “McCain” and when pressed to elaborate said “polls”.

Nader answered that the reason he ran this year was “justice” and that he would “maybe” decide to run in 2012.

In the second portion of the conference, Nader reverted to complete sentences and elaborated on his grievance with the media.

“It’s remarkable, when journalism studies this campaign that Joe the plumber will have received more coverage than a Nader-Gonzales campaign rooted in forty years of accomplishment and determination. This is one of the worst hours of the press.”

Nader also blamed the candidates for the coverage, saying that the repetitive nature of the candidates forced the media to resort to trivia.

“The candidates have wasted almost two years in redundancy and evasion and refusal to elaborate on what’s troubling most Americans on the community level.”

Does the winner lose?

For the past year Americans have been losing friends, making enemies and in general, being their old partisan selves over the question of who is best qualified to lead us. We've argued about Iraq, taxes, the budget, whether one candidate is a Mini-Me of George Bush and whether the other candidate is an honorary member of the Weather Underground.

It's now end game. On Tuesday, the shouting, arguments, innuendo, dirty campaigning and the all the rest comes to a screeching halt. We'll get our president … and then … and then … and then what?

Everybody, left, right, center and unknown agree that this time, it really is different. The meltdown, the looming global recession and the foreign-policy mess have produced a world unlike any other that Americans have faced since the end of World War II. So my question is this: Given the magnitude of the problems we and the world face, does the winner of this presidential contest actually lose?

What is to be done? Signs right now point to a deflation, possibly global. Everyone senses this – falling stocks, home values and commodity prices, layoffs and the threat of double-digit unemployment now point to falling wages. Even the price of gold is down. Can falling prices be far behind?

Everyone knows that what the candidates argued about during their three debates – tax cuts, spending programs, something better for everyone, no exceptions – was not only beside the point, but was almost irrelevant to the problems we face. In truth, whether the winner is McCain or Obama (and I hope it's Obama), no one knows for sure what either man is going to do about any of this. It's as if the candidates were sleepwalking. In fact, by not demanding more answers about real problems, so were the media and the public. One might call this the Great Denial Election.

So does the winner lose? If we are headed into a deflation, something this country has not really experienced since the 1930s, what exactly will McBama do about it? More to the point, what can they do about it? It's as real as rain and as serious as a heart attack – neither McCain nor Obama has addressed the economy on its own terms and proposed anything of substance. It's as if both men studiously avoided having to tell us the truth.

And what is that truth? Perhaps that we're up to our eyeballs in debt. Perhaps for a generation, we spent too much and saved too little, pinned our hopes to real-estate investments (something our grandparents never would have understood) or our 401Ks (something our grandparents would have warned us against doing.)

So whether it's the man from Illinois or the one from Arizona, be prepared to be disappointed. Be prepared to, as the old Yankees used to say, "Use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without." Because for now, and maybe for the first term of whomever wins, we're in a new age of austerity, limited missions, curtailed dreams and quite possibly, a declining standard of living.

It promises four years of heartache and broken hopes for Tuesday's winner. And it will hit hard, because neither McCain nor Obama was able to look into that magic lens and tell the people the economic equivalent of what Winston Churchill explained on May 13, 1940 – that all he could offer the public was "blood, sweat, toil and tears" – especially the part about toil.

McCain campaign confident as they approach election

In a conference call today, McCain-Palin Campaign Manager Rick Davis said their campaign is "pretty jazzed up" as election day gets closer.

Davis stated that the narrowing polls between the candidates is evidence that "we fight back." He felt the world was "witnessing one of the greatest comebacks since John McCain won the primary."

Davis also noted that Gov. Palin (R-Alaska) has been generating a lot of excitement about their ticket. He added that the notion that she is hurting Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.) "can't be further from the truth." He used the example that yesterday, Sen. Biden (D-Del.) had 800 people at his speech, while Palin had 20,000 people at hers.

Davis felt the polling in the last 10 days were the "best 10 days of polling since the convention." He was also encouraged by the fact that Sen. Obama (D-Ill.) is campaigning in states like Iowa, which were previously thought to be easy victories for him.