Huckleberries Online

Hump Day Wild Card — 2/18/09

Feb. 18, 2009 6 p.m. • 59 comments

In the news this Hump Day evening, President Obama says he opposes ‘Fairness Doctrine’ revival here. A man killed himself in Robert Schuller’s Crystal Cathedral today here. Obama pledges $275B to underwrite mortgage payments for some 9M struggling homeowners here. Derek Jeter defends A-Roid and attacks the former Mariner star’s critics here. And the Wild Card remains in play …

59 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

Arch_Druid on February 18 at 10:29 a.m.
If it had been McCain, would he have taken it then? Bet the city of New Orleans wouldn’t mind a major chunk of that money.
sue on February 18 at 11:36 a.m.
If Idaho representatives had any integrity, they would encourage Butch to reject it also. Let’s see how much they believe in that blatantly partisan vote.
Transplanted_Texan on February 18 at 11:41 a.m.
Sue, you know full well that if Idaho rejects its share of the money, that money own’t be reverting back to the US Treasury. Rejecting the funds doesn’t save the money or help the economy, it just means Idaho roads will continue to suck.
toadman on February 18 at 11:44 a.m.
“Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal indicates that his state may not take the stimulus money”

If he needs a suggestion as to where to send his share, I think I can think of some other people who might appreciate it….
sue on February 18 at 2:30 p.m.
Don’t get me wrong TT. I just see Idaho politicos as being hypocritical in this instance, having voted vociferously against the package.
Bent on February 18 at 4:11 p.m.
” Let’s see how much they believe in that blatantly partisan vote.” — sue

Last I heard 11 democrats voted against the bill in the house. I think the issues were a little more complex than the simplistic partisan vote argument…
hmoffsuite on February 18 at 5:02 p.m.
A while back, I made a comment in a post that company CEOs had a higher approval rating than congressmen. The comment was challenged (as most are on the blog) and an actual comparison couldn’t be found. Anyway, an item just crossed the newswire that actually addresses the issue. (my statement was not accurate according to this poll.) Here it is ….

WASHINGTON (AFP)—Company bosses are less popular than bankers, lawyers or
members of the U.S. Congress, according to a survey published Wednesday by
pollsters Rasmussen.

Some 73% of respondents said they had an unfavorable impression of chief
executives, five percentage points higher than members of Congress.

The poll was carried out Feb. 15-16 as controversy raged over huge executive
pay packages amid global economic chaos.

Journalists, stock brokers and financial analysts were also among the least
respected.

Of nine professions listed, small business owners were the most popular,
with 92% considering them favorably.
thomg57 on February 18 at 5:08 p.m.
Bent,

The issue are quite complex, but 4% of the Democrats voted against this bell, 100% of the Republicans and the GOP rhetoric was highly inflammatory and mostly inaccurate. I think the evidence supports sue’s comment.
Cindy_H on February 18 at 5:12 p.m.
“but 4% of the Democrats voted against this bell,”

Gosh. Who knew the dems would come out against bells? I’m thinking the same 4% voted against whistles, too.
DFO on February 18 at 5:14 p.m.
ThomG; I’ve just deleted 3 of your posts in which you tossed elbows at others. I have thoroughly enjoyed the way civility has broken out in the last 36 hours or so — so much so that I simply am not going to allow this blog to be driven into the ground again by insults. That ended with the unilateral surrender of The Joker. If you or anyone else tries to drive it off the rails at this point, you’ll be tossed in the cooler. Seriously. The Cold War is over here. I’m prepared to ban anyone who hasn’t gotten that message. I hope you’ll reconsider any potential nasty follow-up post to this one. Mebbe count to 10 and call MikeK re: what you should do.
JohnA on February 18 at 5:20 p.m.
“but 4% of the Democrats voted against this bell,”

Leaders couldn’t remember (maybe his face didn’t ring a bell) but Walt Minnick was one of the Dems’ against.
Cindy_H on February 18 at 5:22 p.m.
Guidelines to Consider Before Posting a Comment:
1.) Is it kind?
2.) Is it necessary?
3.) Will it add to the convivial feel of HBO?
4.) Would it make your mother proud?
5.) Will it make others laugh with you, not at you?
6.) Will it make DFO’s head spin ‘round in scary circles?
7.) Will it earn you votes as best-loved commenter at Blogfest?
8.) Does it contain any of the three forbidden “S” words? (If you don’t know what those are ask your mother)
9.) Will it make HBO a better place and earn you free beer at Blogfest?
10.) Will it make me laugh?
hmoffsuite on February 18 at 5:28 p.m.
As a fwiw, I would like to see Obama quit campaigning and get back to DC and read some bills or something. He seems to really relish the cheers and admiration he receives when making his speeches, and that is understandable. Now, I would like to see him go to work. He hasn’t spent enough time in the White House to even know where the bathrooms are.
OrangeTV on February 18 at 5:50 p.m.
Oooooh, I hate it when I miss deleted posts! What did he say? What did he say? What did he say? It always echoes in my brain. Alas, as per usual, I’ll never know…

DFO, how about a separate, non SR blog where you could repost all the nasty-but-fun deleted posts. Then there could also be an ongoing comments thread where everyone could fight to the death with no moderation at all, may the snarkiest, trolliest man/woman win. You’d never even have to look at if you didn’t want to. You could call it “Flaming Huckleberry Tarts.” Just an idea, never said it was a very practical one.
JeanieSpokane on February 18 at 5:53 p.m.
I really like your guidelines, Cindy, and have nothing to add except:

11) Will it make the majority of the blurkers and bloggers go back to their rooms until the room quits spinning? If yes, #1-10 just got negated. Bad.
Cindy_H on February 18 at 6:00 p.m.
Flaming Huckleberry Tarts?
Gosh darn it, OTV! You just totally spoiled my and Jeanie’s opening number at Blogfest.
Bah!
JeanieSpokane on February 18 at 6:07 p.m.
Yeah, who told! Now I have to get a new costume AND a new name!
nic on February 18 at 6:39 p.m.
“Derek Jeter defends A-Roid”

Well, of course. I’m sure it’s because Jeter also uses steroids.
Escapee on February 18 at 6:39 p.m.
Maybe we need President Obama to galavant around the country and Actually Meet Real People instead of wallowing around in the mire of Capitol Hill Politics. Maybe President Obama needs a platform. To say he’s doing this for the mass adulation is…well, in my opinion, anyway…totally incorrect. (I’m trying to maintain civility here…)

We had 8 years of a Prezzident who was out of touch with the people. Perhaps President Obama, having an idea of what goes on in Washington, D.C., must find his visits to other places quite refreshing. I think Barack Obama IS working. To imply he ‘isn’t’ is…um…well…also totally incorrect. Again, in my opinion.
thomg57 on February 18 at 6:58 p.m.
I’ve just deleted 3 of your posts in which you tossed elbows at others—DFO

Man are you off the rails! go back and read the comment I directed towards hmo— I COMPLIMENTED HIM!!!! for doing the stand-up thing and self-correcting a statement he’d made days ago, something he didn’t have to do and would have gone unnoticed. Sheesh!

I understand the crack at Kage was borderline, but without calling anyone a name it would appear to fit the guidelines you’ve established. You appear to change the rules and the enforcement of the rules capriciously and arbitrarily and without any notice, how is one to keep up ?

I don’t even remember the third one? At whom did I toss an elbow?
Cindy_H on February 18 at 7:04 p.m.
I’m not sure Thom, but my ribs are kinda sore.
I’m pretty sure it’s all your fault.
Ouch! My ribs have the imprint of Thom’s elbow!
Transplanted_Texan on February 18 at 7:12 p.m.
Sure, Sue, but despite their voting against it, it passed, which means the policy reality of this country is different than it was a week ago, and why ignore that? They didn’t want the money to be there, but now it is. They tried to prevent something, and failed. Why stick their head in the sand and ignore that failure? Contend with the new realities, says I.
thomg57 on February 18 at 7:33 p.m.
DFO, never mind, I just remembered the other “elbow” at James Bond. Can you do a favor and run that as a compare and contrast and almost any other post on here today and let me see the difference, I learn visually.
thomg57 on February 18 at 7:34 p.m.
I have thoroughly enjoyed the way civility has broken out in the last 36 hours or so ——DFO

As compared to the way your instigated incivility broke out for the days prior?
thomg57 on February 18 at 7:36 p.m.
I’m pretty sure it’s all your fault.—Cindy H

From reading this thread you’d probably think so.
thomg57 on February 18 at 7:37 p.m.
Mebbe count to 10 and call MikeK re: what you should do.—DFO

Why, does Mikek know the secret code?
hmoffsuite on February 18 at 7:45 p.m.
Escapee >> “Maybe we need President Obama to galavant around the country and Actually Meet Real People instead of wallowing around in the mire of Capitol Hill Politics”

The mire of capitol hill politics might include figuring out what to do with the automakers, for example, as it will be the next problem for Obama to deal with. There is much more to be accomplished in his office right now than flying around to cheering and adoring audiences like the old campaign days.
Bob on February 18 at 7:52 p.m.
“As compared to the way your instigated incivility broke out for the days prior?”

Exactly. It’s like this, there were maybe a few red embers smoldering here and there about the campfire, no big deal, occasionally they’d flare up a bit but nothing too impressive, then along comes Ranger Dave with his jug of gasoline and he starts splashing the embers and tossing on cedar kindling and now he’s got a big nasty fire going he slaps his hands against his cheeks and slacks his jaw and exclaims OH GOSH IT’S A BIG TERRIBLE FIRE I MUST DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT then off he goes to throw water and shovelfuls of dirt and when it’s mostly all out (trust me, the embers are never ALL the way out) he hugs his Ranger Dave self and smiles with a big self satisfied smile and chuckles “Boy, isn’t the campfire nice when it’s not burning my face!”

Jesus. Christ.
Cindy_H on February 18 at 7:56 p.m.
Way to totally spoil DFO’s Ranger Dave costume for Blogfest.
Geez, now EVERYONE will know who he is.
jazzyvandal on February 18 at 9:20 p.m.
It’s a good day to be a Vandal. They just beat BSU again in basketball, in Boise! Woo!
Bent on February 18 at 10:15 p.m.
” 100% of the Republicans …????” — Thom

I wasn’t going to get into this, but I counted 3 GOP senators who voted for it. And there was a fairly substantial rumor that up to 20 house republicans were considering voting for the bill after conference, but that changed when the house scheduled the vote before members had a chance to analyze the final product.

With that said, I think the GOP is making a huge mistake by attempting to trash this thing now. They are turning Independents like me off. I just don’t think the GOP has the credibility to do an effective job.

Also, I don’t believe the Dems are doing themselves any favors by trying to spin this thing into a partisan fight. Look where the success was, Thom, right in the middle.

It is a fact that there were plenty of legitimate attempts to pursue a bipartisan approach to the stimulus bill, but a few in the majority weren’t going to have that… It’s all documented … just look at all of the bipartisan sponsors of the Senate amendments to the bill, or the original stimulus proposal from House Trasnsportation & Infrastructure Committee. Both Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica signed off on it, but the House leadership took over and chopped the heck out of it, and then refused to let the T&I committee have it back to hold hearings on the changes.

If this was a rainy Saturday morning, I’d start posting links and all, but I don’t much feel like starting something like that tonight…

Anyway, that is my take on this bill and you don’t have to agree with it. I don’t have an axe to grind, I just know what I saw play out and it was much more complex (and interesting) than a simple partisan battle that is being claimed here. IMHO, the Dems need to learn how to quit when they are ahead…
thomg57 on February 18 at 10:39 p.m.
And there was a fairly substantial rumor that up to 20 house republicans were considering voting for the bill after conference, but that changed when the house scheduled the vote before members had a chance to analyze the final product.—Bent

Possibly. Or, just as likely, that changed when leadership twisted a few arms and leveled some not so subtle threats. Make no mistake, the GOP isn’t sure which way to go after Novembers losses and their only course of action at this time is to JUST SAY NO. Of course, that isn’t stopping many of their members from prancing around their home districts, this week, taking credit for bringing home some financial relief to their constituents. I can respect Minnick and the other 10 Democrats for going against their party on principled, fiscal grounds to oppose this bill (although I personally disagree with them), but the greatest majority of the GOP no votes were strictly an obstructionist politics-as-usual tactic.
thomg57 on February 18 at 10:40 p.m.
Look where the success was, Thom, right in the middle.-Bent

I don’t follow, what success? right in the middle of what?
Nick_Adams on February 18 at 11:27 p.m.
Thanks, hmoff for posting the info on “approval ratings”. Good on you.

I support Obama’s attempts to get out of DC and sell his plan. He should use the bully pulpit. Just today, our junior Senator admitted that he was relying on Republican talking points when refering to the Recovery Act. He was wrong. Of course, he doesn’t have your integrity, so he’ll never actually correct himself.

Obama must do whatever he can to deliver his message to the people. Otherwise, we’ll all drown in misinformation—even though it comes through our beloved personal, political filters.
Joker on February 19 at 7:27 a.m.
President Obama’s mortgage bailout leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I realize people are losing their homes to foreclosure and that many home values are now worth less than what people paid for them.

It’s unfortunate, but why should taxpayers pick up the bill for other people’s foolish choices. Buying a house isn’t an impluse decision or something you go into blind. I feel for the people who are losing the American Dream, but the truth is: :Tough Luck.” America is the land of opportunity — not the land of “Try real hard and if you fail. We’ll make it all better.”
eagleeye on February 19 at 7:49 a.m.
Read the plan more carefully Joker. Its intention isnt to protect people who have made foolish choices. So what do you think about the family that has lived in their house for 5 years or so and the guy loses his job of 15 years because of the worst economy since the 1930s? So instead of bringing home $4k a month he is bring home $1500 a month in unemployment. Well he cant make his 1K a month mortgage on the house that he has lived in for 5 years AND provide for his family. Maybe he needs a hand up. Or I guess he should just lose his house and
move into a run down 2 bedroom apartment. We can just call that tough luck!

Ya, in this program there may be some people helped that dont deserve it. That is the bad part of a program like this. But the worse part would be to do nothing and have Joe the Family man
lose his home. I am OK with helping Joe out with my tax dollars.
Because it was the banks foolish decisions that got us into this mess not his. Banks were allowed to do this because of greed and the lack of oversight. All Joe did was get up every morning and go to work.Until the time he didnt have a job anymore.
moscow_minidoka on February 19 at 7:50 a.m.
What burns me Joker - and forgive me if I’ve said this before - is the fact that my wife and I COULD have bought a house anytime during the past 8 years, when easy money was flying left and right, but felt that it was irresponsible to assume that kind of debt/responsibility with our student loans and children to worry about.

Everyone in our families was pressuring us to “stop throwing your money away on rent” and “buy a house,” but we were reluctant.

Now, of course, credit has dried up and no one would finance us. That doesn’t bother me so much, because I am actually hoping home values decline so that we can buy something affordable eventually.

But here’s what burns me the most, removed from any Democratic/Republican position: Why are my wife and I - who were RESPONSIBLE and have lived in very tight quarters with our children to be frugal - bailing out homeowners with McMansions who made stupid choices?

Am I guilty of class resentment? No. I am guilty of resenting being continuously expected to bail out other people for their mistakes when NO ONE is offering to help get ME into a house. Bite me, defaulting homeowners.
moscow_minidoka on February 19 at 7:53 a.m.
EagleEye writes: “But the worse part would be to do nothing and have Joe the Family man lose his home. I am OK with helping Joe out with my tax dollars.”

EagleEye also talks about how bad it would be for Joe the Family Man to lose him home and move into a two-bedroom apartment. Guess what, EagleEye, that has been my family of five’s reality for a long, long time. Three kids in one bedroom, mom and dad in the other.

While you’re generously helping out Joe the Family man save his house, would you like to send a little extra to Moscow the Family Man so he can buy a house that has three bedrooms and a yard?

I don’t need anything extravagant - just an old house with enough room for my kids to play.

I’ll take a check.
Joker on February 19 at 8:00 a.m.
Eagle Eye,

Yeah, it’s tough luck. Life sometimes deals you a bad hand. We should all have an exit strategy if something goes terribly wrong, such as losing your job. Not many Americans have anything in savings, or a plan to survive if they lose their job.
idawa on February 19 at 8:06 a.m.
Joker - “it’s unfortunate, but why should taxpayers pick up the bill for other people’s foolish choices”

Then how would you deal with the toxic debt that is trickling like poison through our economy. Do you favor the government directly buy those assets from the banks rather than this plan that tries to detoxify those mortgage directly (of course, the nationalizes home ownership)? Or are you one of those people who thinks that the only fix needed is a simple accounting rule change? Or do you think we should do nothing, wait until 80% of banking sector collapses and then dust our selves off after the upheaval?
Joker on February 19 at 8:12 a.m.
Moscow,

You’ve discovered the sense of entitlement our country has developed and our transformation into a socialist regime.

I am waiting anxiously by the mailbox for my check even though I pay my bills on time and I have saved money instead of buying new stuff. Maybe if I click my heels together three times, put an Obama picture above the fireplace, I can get some money thrown my way.
eagleeye on February 19 at 8:15 a.m.
Well Moscow, Joe the family man has already saved enough to be able to buy a house and is losing it because of losing his job due to no fault of his own. I dont know your financial situation so I cant comment why you are living five people in a two bedroom. But I can tell you if you were being evicted from your apartment because of no fault of your own I would help you as well. But Joker would tell you tough luck!
Joker on February 19 at 8:17 a.m.
ID,

I don’t know. I wish there was an easy answer. Maybe it’s a giant bailout. Whatever it is, I don’t have to like it.
idawa on February 19 at 8:18 a.m.
The Joker’s Stimulus Plan -

Complain, then pray, then complain. Or is it complain, complain, and then pray. Thanks god he only runs a blog
idawa on February 19 at 8:20 a.m.
J - So you are saying you acknowledge that we might need a giant bailout but then you decry the spending of money to cure mortgages because it might help someone who doesn’t “deserve” it…sometimes, I just don’t get people.
Joker on February 19 at 8:21 a.m.
Eagle,

I’d hope that Moscow has at least 9 months of salary saved. I’d hope that he would be able to ride it out until things turned around. LIfe is hard, it’s not always fair. It’s how you adapt to these challenges that defines a person.

If you want to go socialist, fine. Start issuing checks.
eagleeye on February 19 at 8:22 a.m.
Joker, I dont deny that there are some lazy folks out their just looking for a handout. But you cant deny there are some honest hard working people that may need a hand up during a tough time. Where you and I differ is that you have the idea that because of the lazy ones and the inability to shut out those people from getting helped, that no one should be helped. I go back to my previous post where I said I would rather spend money on American citzens and risk wasting some than spending 597 billion in Iraq and wasting it all.
Joker on February 19 at 8:23 a.m.
Id,

If these problems were sooo simple to fix, dont’ you think they’d be fixed already?

Yeah, if you go out and buy a house you can’t afford, why should I be asked to chip in for your mortgage payment. Do you help out your neighbors this way? If so, maybe I should move to your neighborhood.
Joker on February 19 at 8:27 a.m.
Well, Eagle I agree the Iraq War was and is a giant waste of money. However, we’re there until Obama pulls us out.

That money should be spent on things like education, health care, veteran benefits, infrastructure…

I think something will be done, it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
moscow_minidoka on February 19 at 8:31 a.m.
Nine months salary saved! HA!!! No, thanks to our crackpot health care system, I basically live paycheck to paycheck. My wife almost died during childbirth 5 years ago, and we’ve been living on a meager line since then. Our insurance company would only pay 80% of the costs, which - it being a life or death scenario - were astronomical.

So Joker, while I somewhat agree with you about undeserving homeowners getting bailed out (I don’t think they are all undeserving, by the way - I was just voicing my resentment at rich people getting bailed out), it is immoral for you to say “tough luck” when you don’t know people’s individual scenarios. If someone gets run over in a crosswalk, would you say “Well, he should have been driving a car”?

Life *is* hard, and it’s not often fair, but when people get really furious is when they feel the system is rigged against you.

Those who have never suffered or never been dealt a tough hand seem to find it easy to cry “socialism” or “wealth distribution,” but they certainly step up to the plate when it’s their turn at the trough. What about people who’ve never even had a chance?

My finances were responsible and prudent before my wife almost died - and they’ve been a disaster ever since. We have never defaulted on anything, but there were times our income was so low and the medical bills so high that we had no choice but to buy groceries with credit cards. We were too poor to make ends meet, but too “middle-class” to get any sort of gov’t assistance.

And for the record, I don’t WANT gov’t assistance, OR a handout (I was being sarcastic in my “entitlement”). What I want is a level playing field - you either help home owners AND people who could feasibly get INTO homes if the economy was better (help for first time homebuyers), or you help nobody.

There is NO reason that someone with a $400,000 house who has defaulted on his payments should get help when someone who has paid his rent and bills on time and defaulted on nothing should get no help getting into a first-time home.

That’s what I’m trying to say, but not articulating very well. Sorry.
idawa on February 19 at 8:37 a.m.
J - I don’t think that anyone is the administration has argued that fixes are simple, but at least they are acting and trying to fix the problem. I have not heard a decent plan from the opposition except for the tired message of tax cuts for business… I don’t ague that some home buyers mis-calculated the risk of purchase, then again, a lot of sophisticated market players also miscalculated the risk of lending and loan packaging. We are dealing with their mistakes, all the players in the market, because fixing those mistakes is “cheaper” for society than waiting for those mistakes to play out. Is it logical to spend a few trillion to mitigate a crisis or do you let the crisis unfold and let the economy bleed out tens of trillions? Which is the more rational course of action?
Joker on February 19 at 8:55 a.m.
Your situation is all too typical.

The good middle class people in this country (I am one of them) get screwed by the system. There’s support for people living at the poverty line or below, but very little for middle class folks.

Yes, life gave you a crappy deal. It’s not fair that rich people get bailed out, while you struggle. But you have your health and a family. There’s no price tag on that.

« Back to Huckleberries Online

You must be logged in to post comments.
Please create a profile or log in here.

About this blog

D.F. Oliveria is a columnist and blogger for The Spokesman-Review. Huckleberries Online was judged the best 2008 Idaho newspaper blog by the Idaho Press Club. And the best 2007 news blog in the Pacific Northwest by the Society for Professional Journalist. Print Huckleberries is a past winner of the Herb Caen Memorial Column contest by the National Association of Newspaper Columnists. The Readership Institute of Northwestern University cited this blog as a good example of online community journalism.