A Victory For The Beltway "Bipartisan" BSers; Yes They Did!

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Economy
Posted on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:09:54 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Fred Hiatt and the WaPo Ed Board Gasbags:

The gang of 20 or so moderate Democrats and Republicans, led by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), heeded the president's call for bipartisanship and hunkered down to produce the bill announced Friday night. Though the details of the package still need to be examined, the senators' effort was an admirable one -- one that aimed at providing the quick and large injection of funds into the economy experts say is necessary, while modifying or removing parts of the bill that were too long-range or complex for an emergency bill . . .

. . . In the end the White House showed pragmatism in striking Friday's deal. Mr. Obama now must go to work to ensure that the fragile consensus survives a conference committee and a vote in Ms. Pelosi's House -- where there has been, as yet, no sign of the new politics he seeks.

(Emphasis supplied.) More . . .

Here's what the WaPo is saying - my paraphrase -- 'You did our bidding well President Obama . . . so far. Remember who is in charge - we are . . and we decree that Joe Lieberman, Susan Collins, Ben Nelson and Arlen Specter will run the country.' Gail Collins got off a good line in her column today:

Obama . . . wound up cooling his heels, waiting for word from the newly hatched moderate caucus on what would happen next. This is the group that was led by Susan Collins of Maine. In November, we apparently elected Collins and her fellow Maine Republican, Olympia Snowe, to help run the country. And you wasted all that time thinking about Joe Biden.

(Emphasis supplied.) Good snark. Teach it to Dowd, Gail. We could laugh harder if the the Greatest Depression were not at hand. We simply do not have the time or room for this empty headed High Broderistic nonsense right now. Susan Collins and Ben Nelson have not an effing clue what we need in these economic times and they never even tried to figure it out. It goes without saying that Fred Hiatt has no clue.

How did Nelson and Collins and Hiatt decide what to cut? Well, they sort of looked at what had less popular support or lobbying support and went for it. There is no rhyme or reason to anything they did and did not do. There is not one bit of intelligent thought in this. It is absolutely nothing but pure Centrist posturing, of the type we discussed all day yesterday.

And the sad thing is everyone will go along with it. We will let the High Broder "drunks" keep steering the car into the ditch for some reason.

We needed an FDR to address this economic calamity and all we got were these lousy "Yes We Can" tee shirts.

Speaking for me only

< Suicidal Gitmo Detainee Needs Help | The Age Of Nelson, Collins and Obama: Part 2 >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

A Victory For The Beltway "Bipartisan" BSers; Yes They Did! | 61 comments (61 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Of course, Ben Nelson et al. .... (5.00 / 12) (#1)
by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:25:36 AM EST

aren't the problem. It's Obama and his people. Not only have they not got a proper stimulus passed, but they've allowed their approval ratings to slip during the process.

Getting rolled by Olympia Snowe is not change one can believe in.

Well they are part of the problem (5.00 / 12) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:28:39 AM EST

Obama had the mandate to brush them off his shoulder and he did not do it.

I'll repeat my line - we needed an FDr and all we got were these lousy "Yes We Can" tee shirts.


And a gross of ... (5.00 / 8) (#4)
by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:39:05 AM EST

"I'm with Stupid" t-shirts for the lot of them.


Yet I don't see how Obama could get to 60 (none / 0) (#6)
by steviez314 on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:00:18 AM EST

in the Senate.

Do you realize that even in the House, only 56% of representatives voted for their version of the bill?

My god, there were 36 Senators who voted for an amendment with NO spending.

What bullying or threats would have worked on Nelson or Collins or Snowe or Spector?

I'm sure Obama could have gotten 52 votes for a $1 Trillion package. Big deal.

The only solution would have been an up-or-down vote; it doesn't get 60 and fails and they economy tanks more. And that's even better?

It sucks to be sure, but 5-10 senators do seem to be the key to anything needing 60 votes, and I've yet to see any specific way to get them stuck off stupid.


Exposure (5.00 / 10) (#9)
by pluege on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:14:11 AM EST

Had Obama and his geniuses BEEN PREPARED with a larger bill absent republican pre-capitulation fantasy carrots (i.e., non-stimulative tax cuts), and had Obama immediately and relentlessly HAMMERED every damn democrat and republican that got out of line wandering into wacko plutocratic republican failed policies of the past land, and HAMMERED them hard on the telley vision, he would have:

carrots to throw them in conference to STFU the screeching Harpy repulican/mediate axis of destruction.
the nation would have gotten a useful bill to actually attack the problem
republicans and Blue Dogs would have been put in their place from the get-go instead of being emboldened.

Obama and his geniuses did EVERYTHING WRONG in their first challenge and it has crippled his presidency.


Also a good response (5.00 / 7) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:15:57 AM EST

How hard it it so say Obama effed this one up. and this one mattered - tons.


correction (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by pluege on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:16:41 AM EST

should be " ...republican/media axis of destruction


I disagree (5.00 / 7) (#19)
by BernieO on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:54:32 AM EST

What Obama needed to do was educate the public on what we need most - stimulus, and what that entails - massive spending. He, his team, cabinet members, and all other Democratic spokespersons should have been schooled on how to do this and then sent to every possible media outlet to get the word out. They should have encouraged a massive letter writing, email, and phone campaign supporting their approach aimed at Congress and the media.

Had Obama just hammered the Congress, our vapid media would have had a heyday carping about his hypocrisy on bipartisanship. But if Congress had been hearing from large numbers of constituents demanding a true stimulus bill, it would not have been necessary to beat them over the head. Instead Congress has been hearing from large numbers of contituents complaining about the "welfare" in the bill and the "high" price tag.

So now what we have is a little bit of bipartisanship achieved by seriously weakening the stimulus package and throwing in wasteful tax cuts. And the stimulus was almost certainly too small to begin with.

AAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHH!!! We will never get "change we can believe in" until the Dems learn how to manage the message.


This is change THEY can believe in (5.00 / 6) (#41)
by esmense on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 10:32:15 AM EST

We may not really be a center right country, but we definitely are increasingly ruled, rather than represented, by a center right to far right elite and meritocracy. Seriously, no matter the rantings of Horowitz and Coulter, Harvard really isn't churning out bold progressives. And neither is Columbia or the University of Chicago. I'm not saying that many in our meritocratic elite don't consider themselves "liberal." But they are primarily social liberals whose own economic interests, experience and education is often far divorced from and in conflict with the economic interests of the bottom 80%. Successful careers in politics, law, media and finance, after all, depend on successfully serving the interests of corporate and inherited wealth. What passes for progressive economic policy among this class is more likely to be nervously paternalistic than bold and well-grounded. It's an improvement over the outright hostility of their "more conservative" peers, I suppose. But enough of an improvement? Perhaps not.


: C. Wright Mills wrote (none / 0) (#47)
by jeffinalabama on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 10:58:54 AM EST

"The Power Elite" in the 50's... still salient, perhaps even more so, today.

We only needed 60 to vote for cloture (5.00 / 13) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:14:57 AM EST

My gawd, do you ever wonder how bush got anything passed?

How come the number 60 did not come up then?

This is the type of BS excusemaking I can not abide.

Are you freaking telling me these people were going to filibuster an emergency bill? Never.


: And even if they were ... (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by Demi Moaned on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:59:42 AM EST

this is surely an issue where the Majority Leader can say, "We're not moving on until we get a vote on this bill." Keep the debate open as long as it takes. No painless filibuster. We'd see how much stomach they have for that.

: As i recall re: (5.00 / 4) (#38)
by DFLer on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 10:25:24 AM EST

My gawd, do you ever wonder how bush got anything passed?
How come the number 60 did not come up then?
The 60 vote rule only came up after the Dems got hte majority in the Senate

: Idiots (5.00 / 3) (#57)
by squeaky on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 02:34:36 PM EST

If the shoe were on the other foot the GOP would have set up the Dems forcing a filibuster.
Nothing more I would have liked to see, GOPers reading the telephone book during a national emergency..
Would have neutered them for at least a year.

: Especially the case after (none / 0) (#31)
by BackFromOhio on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 09:22:04 AM EST

yesterday's job loss report for January -- almost 600,000 jobs lost for the month.

: Exactly. It's total BS. (none / 0) (#36)
by masslib on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 10:15:25 AM EST

STOOOPPPP!!!! (5.00 / 6) (#14)
by pluege on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:29:09 AM EST

throw out that republican kool aid right now.

It takes FIFTY ONE votes to get a bill passed in the Senate. The filibuster and all the NONSENSE that Reid has permeated is just plain old BAD POLITICS that democrats in general, and reid in particular have been destroyed at by the republicans (or is it that they have been complicit).

Its a media war that democrats have been complete failures at. They failed at it under bush, failing to block bush's insidious Court nominations, and they've failed incredibly miserably since 2006 letting republicans create the FALSE impression that bills in the Senate require 60 votes - IT JUST AIN'T SO! Its all failed Democratic politics - Reid needs to be thrown out NOW!!!!
.


I agree about the 51 votes (none / 0) (#21)
by BernieO on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:56:29 AM EST

The risk with this approach is that the Dems would almost surely blow the PR battle and wind up getting the blame for not being bipartisan. I think it is too late for them to get control of the message. Not that they would know how to do it anyway.


I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by Democratic Cat on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 10:29:33 AM EST

If the GOP had been forced to filibuster this emergency spending bill, the public and the media would have raked them over the coals.

Why oh why are the Dems in Congress and Pres. Obama so friggin' scared of these goofs?


: Right, the Republicans get to (5.00 / 2) (#42)
by ThatOneVoter on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 10:36:08 AM EST

block legislation without even being forced to give a reason---it's their prerogative. Of course, the Democrats didn't have the same option when Bush was President.

one of THE main benefits of (none / 0) (#43)
by pluege on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 10:39:02 AM EST

attaining the bully pulpit of the presidency is that you get the bully pulpit. Of course its of no value if Obama refuses to use it...or maybe he's saving it for a real crisis.


Headed to Montgomery this morning but (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:38:18 AM EST

wanted to stop in and read the write up before taking off. If I wasn't so busy I'd be really effed off, hair on fire. I will have to be busy while I can be though because we will all be cooling some heels for long lapses too soon. One question continues to tickle my otherwise busy brain today. Will I be ladling the soup or holding the bowl between my precious fingers? Too many high rollers will be taken down by deep defense spending cuts. I'll probably be ladling. Sometimes REAL life is so much more shallow than anything FOX can produce in actuality.

Some people just refuse to learn from mistakes (5.00 / 6) (#5)
by mmc9431 on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:45:36 AM EST

There's a time and place for everything. This definitely was not the time to play games with the countries very survival at stake. After eight years of failed economic policies there absolutely nothing that the Republican's can bring to the table. They had their shot and look where we are.

Continuing the failed economic policies of the Republican's is not the change that the American people voted for.

There comes a time (5.00 / 6) (#15)
by pluege on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:32:12 AM EST

when you have to question whether or not the massive Democratic leadership failures of the past 9 years are failures, or complicity.


That time was last year (5.00 / 6) (#33)
by Cream City on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 10:12:22 AM EST

when it became clear to some of now former Dems that the party was doing everything it could to knock out those who really were fighters and really stood for the Democratic platform and principles.


paranoid thought of the day (none / 0) (#39)
by DFLer on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 10:27:07 AM EST

This trend was continued by taking out fighters and placing them in executive branch positions, namely Hillary, Biden....who else?


Biden a fighter???? (5.00 / 2) (#44)
by pluege on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 10:41:08 AM EST

don't think so. Biden is a gadfly (which is OK for VP).


: well at least not a conservative like Nelson (none / 0) (#45)
by DFLer on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 10:42:56 AM EST

Good God (none / 0) (#51)
by jondee on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 12:14:18 PM EST

Let it go, already.

If they were REAL fighters, they'd find a way to fight instead of allowing themselves to be "placed" hither and yon away from the main fray.

And HRC aint no Elizabeth Gurley Flynn. Sorry.


: hey! i said it was paranoid and not clear thinking (none / 0) (#56)
by DFLer on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 01:07:37 PM EST

stop picking on me! :(

There is a sizeable bloc of (5.00 / 2) (#46)
by ThatOneVoter on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 10:54:52 AM EST

Democrats who actually believe the Reagan tax cut nonsense. The "Laffer contingent", I call them.
Naturally these are among the stupidest elected officials, so there is little hope of reasoning with them.


: From the same swamp (none / 0) (#53)
by jondee on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 12:26:54 PM EST

that produced the later-to-mutate-into-neocons "Reagan Democrats" of the eighties.
It's all intermixed with an unhealthy dose of class interest trumping public spiritedness also.

You "may have to wonder" (none / 0) (#20)
by tokin librul on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:55:49 AM EST

I don't.

"There isn't a nickel's worth of difference between 'em."

That is not to say there are no individual differences...Rather, it is that they both conceive the same ends in view but differ on the best means to achieve them...


Pathetic leadership all around (5.00 / 8) (#7)
by mmc9431 on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:02:58 AM EST

No one in the country is going to care that Obama tried to play "nice" when the 2010 elections roll around. All anyone will care about is their standard of living. Democrat's better hurry up and take advantage of their majority while they have it. If they continue down this road, they'll find themselves on the outside looking in.

They had the majority, the polls and the mood of the country in their favor. And this was the best they could come up with?

: you know what Obama (none / 0) (#27)
by pluege on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 09:10:42 AM EST

apparently doesn't.

Now I understand what change is (5.00 / 7) (#13)
by ricosuave on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:24:03 AM EST

Change is not doing something different from the last 8 years. Change is trying to address the problems created during the last 8 years by watering down your proposals with the policies of the last 8 years. And change is using the "congress must act now or we are all going to die" speeches like we heard for the last 8 years, even though it is your own party in charge.

Right now, MSNBC is running a segment on whether Obama has abandoned the "Hope and Change" mantra and is using the politics of fear to push for the stimulus. They are the liberal network, you know.

: I don't know about that (4.00 / 4) (#22)
by BernieO on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:59:13 AM EST

It is change to have the majority party caving in to the minority. Not good change, but change nonetheless.
Heck Bush got his way even after the Dems had taken back the majority.

: No. Change is... (none / 0) (#59)
by jar137 on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 03:42:01 PM EST

trying to fix the policies of the last thirty years to make them work. The problem wasn't the policies, it's that Bush didn't know how to execute them.

What I Don't Understand Is Why (5.00 / 4) (#18)
by tokin librul on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:52:48 AM EST

The Dims don't force the Pukes to actually filibuster, instead of threatening.

I'd love to see Mitch McConnell reading the Louiville phone book while his feculent, fatuous caucus slept at his feet...

Does this mean I don't get a pony? (5.00 / 8) (#25)
by lambert on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 09:02:04 AM EST

Let's keep it simple:

Why didn't Obama:

Start getting the Blue Dogs under control in June?
Start with a high number instead of pre-negotiating?
Mobilize the famous email list?
Force the Republicans to filibuster?

Because this outcome is acceptable to him. We really need to get over the idea that the Dems are weak or incompetent. That's just a dodge.

I agree with all of your points, lambert, (5.00 / 8) (#32)
by Anne on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 09:42:22 AM EST

but the whole situation kind of makes me wonder about all that fabulous advice he surely must be getting from all the blindingly brilliant minds that comprise the Obama Brain Trust.

Is this the plan that his Secretary of the Treasury thinks is going to start pulling us out of the economic ditch? Is this what Larry Summers advised should happen to this bill? Are the opposition voices of his economic advisors being ignored?

Obama seems to be taking the position that he is just the coach, whose place is on the sidelines, that he will incur some kind of penalty for storming onto the field; he's watching and occasionally mildly chastising the players for not executing properly. His sideline interviews are along the lines of "this is an important game and we know we have to win" - a statement of the obvious that is stunning in its passivity.

I feel like I am watching the Detroit Lions, and we all know how that turned out.


: Hey! (5.00 / 3) (#34)
by jbindc on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 10:13:20 AM EST

Don't be picking on my Lions and insulting them this way! :)

: They're still decorating (5.00 / 6) (#35)
by Cream City on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 10:14:46 AM EST

their new offices and nice new Georgetown homes.
And even when Obama's economy brain trust gets going, do not expect anything better. Some of us, as you know, were warning the O fans to look more closely at the U of Chicago econ philosophies.

Exactly. But I have been syaing this for over a (5.00 / 6) (#37)
by masslib on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 10:17:18 AM EST

year. It's like the FISA vote. It's not capitulation if you agree.


: And then grin about the FISA vote (5.00 / 6) (#48)
by Cream City on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 11:19:21 AM EST

and your flipflop.
And then promise to make its recission one of the things you'll be Ready to do on Day One. I keep waiting to get my rights back.

See my latest post (none / 0) (#28)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 09:12:48 AM EST

Do any of you remember all those childrearing (5.00 / 4) (#26)
by BernieO on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 09:06:49 AM EST

techniques that were based on the assumption that you could control a strong-willed child just by using the right words and not losing your cool? No negative consequences would be needed because you had the power to control kids behavior completely with your words and tone of voice. Those approaches ignored a basic fact of human nature - some kids have a need to push back and assert their own power. (Not that I think this is a bad thing. I like feisty kids.) I know a lot of parents who tried these approaches and were sorely disappointed.

That is what comes to mind when I think of Obama and the media assuming he had the power to change the Republicans' behavior just by the power of his words and charm. That if he were reasonable and respectful they would cooperate.

: As Barney Frank said recently, (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by andrys on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 03:45:45 PM EST

Obama overestimates his ability to charm Republicans.
That House vote sure put a stamp on that.

Wonnerful (5.00 / 9) (#29)
by lentinel on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 09:16:05 AM EST

I thought that electing someone with no experience would be a good idea.
Bush turned out so great I thought I would try it again.
Who knew?

An example of what is wrong with the media (5.00 / 5) (#30)
by BernieO on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 09:18:04 AM EST

Ann Kornblut was just on MSNBC discussing the so-called stimulus bill. She pointed out that tax cuts had been tried before and did not work, but that this bill now has even more tax cuts. But then she asserted that of course who is right and wrong is PURELY SUBJECTIVE! As if there is not a mountain of hard data on the effects of these tactics, based on years of experience. That's like saying it is just a matter of opinion whether antibiotics kill bacteria. Just because antibiotics aren't successful 100% of the time does not mean they don't work. How stupid can you get?

With that attitude is it any wonder that these fools think it doesn't really matter what is in the bill since it is all subjective anyway as long as it is bipartisan.

In countering criticisms (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by KeysDan on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 11:37:52 AM EST

of little or no administrative or management experiences, the brilliance of the Obama campaign was often cited. The differences between effective campaigning and governing are now glaringly apparent. As a mistake of a president early in his term, the handling of the stimulus bill may not seem, to some, as being Bay of Pigs-like in consequences, but it is every bit as serious. The silver lining, if there is one, is that the grand coalition idea will be jettisoned along with several of his campaign stalwarts transformed into key advisors. The press secretary would be a good place to start, and the "new and improved" Rahm Emanuel should resume his own skin. Also, it might be good to hear Tim Geithner's voice on economic matters. It is all pretty disheartening until I get buoyed by the what ifs of a McCain/Pallin administration.

I wonder what a Mccain stimulus bill (5.00 / 3) (#52)
by Cream City on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 12:18:11 PM EST

would look like -- 50% tax cuts instead of, what now, 48%? Seriously, since the current stimulus bill was put together by so many Republicans. . . .

I hear McCain was criticizing the current bill when in progress, though. So is he happy with it now? That would be, well, telling.


100% Tax Cuts (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by FreakyBeaky on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 03:24:18 PM EST

It could be worse, and with McCain in office it would have been.

To me, the election was better-than-nothing vs. unacceptable. The problem is better-than-nothing may not be sufficient, which is epitomized by the better-than-nothing stimulus bill. It's a bad spot we're in.


I think the McCain (none / 0) (#54)
by KeysDan on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 12:32:35 PM EST

amendment, that was defeated, was for l00 percent tax cuts. A Vice President Palin probably would have asked for an even greater percentage.


: Ha, funny line for (none / 0) (#55)
by Cream City on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 12:59:48 PM EST

the math-challenged.
I looked farther and found more about McCain's bill. More tax cuts were wisely defeated, but I'm not sure he was wrong about the inanity of at least the wording -- and possibly the countering of existing agreements -- in the "Buy American" part.

I've come to believe (none / 0) (#8)
by Lil on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:06:34 AM EST

that Obama was the right person for the right time, but boy, Hillary's slogan sure seems to have fit the bill "Ready on Day One"... not, but I hope he gets his balance back and starts to fix these situations a little. It would help to get the extra vote of Franken; how long will Minnesotans put up with that situation?

Democrats MUST stop (or be stopped) (5.00 / 8) (#17)
by pluege on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:45:19 AM EST

legislating as if every bill requires 60 votes. Just the opposite, a filibuster should almost NEVER be available. But reid has successfully created the condition where Democrats CAN'T filibuster (ergo we have the noxious Roberts and Alito for the next 30 years), and republicans are granted unlimited filibustering AT NO POLITICAL COST. It is an incredibly horrific condition that reid and his stooges have foisted on us.

Dreaming about a Democratic filibuster-proof majority is ridiculous. There are way too many skank Democrats like LIEberman and Nelson that will always step in to prevent Democrats from stopping a republican filibuster. What is needed is to get rid of reid and get a Democrat in as majority leader who knows how to keep republicans around and blue dogs in their place - which should be: never seen and never heard.


: This is where LBJ would do us great. (none / 0) (#61)
by AX10 on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 11:22:09 PM EST

Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Lieberman would be have a brown substance leaking out of their pants after Johnson got through with them and we would have a truely effective stimulus/jobs package.

How does ge know (none / 0) (#16)
by jussumbody on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:37:29 AM EST

that the too long range or too complex got eliminated, if the bill can't be examined yet? And wouldn't tax cuts fall into those categories?

Yes they did?? Obama should be saying, Oh no they di'int! But Obama and the Dems apparently won't do anything they have to fight for in the media and on the floor of the Congress. If they can't get it with a please and thank you, then it would be tainted and they don't want it.

: Yes we can!! (5.00 / 3) (#24)
by BernieO on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:59:48 AM EST

Too bad we didn't.

crap. (none / 0) (#49)
by coigue on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 11:33:49 AM EST

can i say that here?