Wall Street's Response to Obama's Economic Policy

The near 400 point drop in the DJIA yesterday speaks volumes about Wall Street's attitude toward Obama, Geithner, and their recent press conferences. Personally, I thought Obama's press conference last night was the first intelligent interactive dialogue between the press and a sitting U.S. President in just about 8 years. I also very much liked what I heard - that the American economy is going to be transparently managed in order to strengthen the middle class as opposed to the most wealthy, as has been the case. A most welcome change as one only has to look at history to see what happens to countries when all the wealth is held in the hands of a very few. In that case, the outcome inevitably ain't pretty.

With respect to Geithner, I also liked what I heard. The Treasury Department is now going to be transparent about who gets the money and what they do with it. A governmental website is being designed to show Americans just how their tax-dollars are being spent. What a refreshing change after the $700 billion that Paulson gave to corporate executives which was mainly, from what I can tell, used as bonuses and vacation resort slush fund money as a reward for bankrupting their companies and pulling down the entire U.S. financial system. The money spent certainly didn't make any impact on the ability for consumers and small businesses to obtain credit, and the Bush administration seemed to be very indignant if anyone even had the unmitigated audacity to ask, "hey, where did the money go?".

However, apparently the "market" and talking heads on CNBC didn't like what they heard and disagree with me (no surprise there). Larry Kudlow simply repeated his now very boring mantra for yet more tax cuts (surprise surprise!) for the wealthy despite the fact that the 8 year verdict on this idiotic "policy" is in: it has been an unmitigated disaster both for the U.S. economy and the U.S. equity markets. The boys on Wall Street appear to be disappointed in any policy other than "just print money and give it to us with no strings attached".

Besides, say all the pundits who by-the-way supported all the policies over the last 8 years that put the economy where it is today, "there were no details". This amuses me to no end as these are the same chaps that supported Paulson's request for $700 billion dollars that he asked for in a one page written memo on the back of a napkin! At least Obama's stimulus bill has been debated in the House and Senate. What a concept! After all, this is how U.S. tax-payer money is supposed to be legislated and spent.

As long as these attitudes prevail on Wall Street and in the U.S. media, and as long as the Republicans continue to play partisan politics with the dire economic situation they themselves created, the outlook for "U.S. capitalism" is bleak. Republicans, though they wave the flag of "free market capitalism" have, over the last 8 years, contributed to the biggest move in governmental control of the U.S. economy (I refer to this as fascism) in the over 200 year history of the country. They complain about a $20 million (with an "m") item in Obama's stimulus plan, yet a few months back when Paulson wanted $700 billion (with a "b") no strings attached they pounded the table that it must be done! Now, after 8 years in which the Republicans doubled the fiscal debt (and that is before the bailout money!), now they have the audacity to criticize Obama's stimulus plan as "too much spending". It's a surreal Orwellian experience which the U.S. press and financial media are all too happy to play along with.

What does this mean for U.S. investors? Stay out of S&P500 broad market investments. Stick to energy stocks that pay dividends, gold, and I-bonds. Wall Street won't be happy until Obama writes them a blank check. Obama, to his credit, is simply not going to give it to them. In the long run, the U.S. will be better off. In the short term, the powers on Wall Street will pout about it. Perhaps that is because they know they don't have the skills to make money any other way but to steal it from the U.S. middle class taxpayer.

Hopefully, that era of U.S. government is at an end. Time will tell.

Comments

[Leftfield:]

Somehow the highest-paid in this country have excuses for doing a lousy job and plenty of supporters to help. The highest-paid include the politicians and their staff.

Along with good points, this article puts deserved blame on Bush but can praise Obama only because he is not Bush and he is thoughtful and intelligent in conversation.

I scratch my head over the retreads from the ruling class he has appointed, many of whom don't obey the law, and the porkfest he claims is necessary to save us. The rulers are in it together, Wall St. and Washington. I don't see Pelosi, Dodd or Frank as the antidote to Wall Street. Sorry.

Feb 11 10:08 AM

[User 209035:]

lostark98 is the only one who has really posted anything of any value. the author is as much a partisan idiot as anyone who defends the Bush administration however, in defense of "the last 8 years" I find it laughable that the Democrats (the author included) forget the growth of the economy for, oh, 7 of the last eight? What makes me sickest, however, is how the democrats completely fail to overlook the Dodd/Franks/Clinton debacle that without a doubt, led us to this place. It was clearly their push to have lenders lend to borrowers that had nowhere near the financial wherewithal to afford homes that led to this mess, pure and simple. I wish, just once, that a Democrat would address that fact and show me how ACORN/Dodd/Franks/Clin... had nothing to due with Freddie/Fannie failure. Why can they not accept the blame for this and why do they roll out this tired "last 8 years" crap all the time.

I'm not sure that Obama's plans will work, no more than he is. I will give him credit that he admits that the make-work programs are temporary. Road and bridge jobs WILL go away. The hope is that it will stimulate enough money flow into the economy that REAL careers can be built.

I'm also continually disgusted at the democrats position on renewable energy sources. Look at what that idiot Salazar is doing to our nations ability to drill for new sources of oil and gas. In 3 years, oil prices will escalate to over $100/bbl. Non-OPEC supplies of oil are at their peak. Wind, solar, wave, etc are "nice" but folks, they ain't gonna take the place of oil and natural gas inthe next 1/4 century. This is a fairy tale. The most important thing this country can do is to establish natural gas as our strongest and first option for moving away from foriegn oil. Unfortunatley this administration doesn't get it. They want automobile MANUFACTURERs to retool their plants to make....??? they don't know! How many people are going to park their existing vehicles along the side of the road and go buy a new vehicle? We need an INDUSTRY built on retrofitting existing vehicles 10 years old and less, for natural gas. We need and INDUSTRY to expand the natural gas distribution systems to allow for NG refueling both at service stations and at home. Massive tax credits should be provided to individuals for the vehcile changes and the in-home refueling. This will change not only emissions (NG is much cleaner that gasoline and diesel) but will also drastically reduce our dependence on foriegn oil. BUT (and this is a big one for the democrats) we HAVE to open areas to drilling. We have to drill baby drill. If the dems and enviro nut jobs don't get off their high horse and scream BIG OIL all the time, we'll keep importing. Fitzsimmons talks about Gas Hybrids but I'll bet you anything, he's an closet enviro whack job that doesn't wnat domestic drilling.

Which, by the way, tell me ONE industry that has seen the price of their sales commodity fall by 70% that the government doesn't bail out. Does anyone have any idea how many jobs have been lost in the oil and gas industry as a result of the falling prices? Does anyone even care? Doubt it. But we care so much about RV manufacturers (that burn HUGE amounts of gas and diesel, by the way) in Indiana. What the hell is wrong with this picture?!?!?

Feb 11 10:18 AM

[atlasman:]

You really did drink the coolaid. A few response:

1. Stop assuming because I criticize the Geitner plan (which is absolutely not a plan but only just a concept) that I approve of the Paulson plan(s). Paulson and Bush are gone. Get over it! You own it now, stop making excuses.

2. Say what you will about Paulson's TARP plan (at least the one they executed on), it is was transparent. He just gave billions to banks to shore up their B/S. It is the Geitner Concept that is not transparent because there is no plan to back it up. And while we are discussing lack of transparency, the destimulous package could be the most opaque document ever written.

Lets analyze this sentence in your original rant:

"What a refreshing change after the $700 billion that Paulson gave to corporate executives which was mainly, from what I can tell, used as bonuses and vacation resort slush fund money as a reward for bankrupting their companies and pulling down the entire U.S. financial system."

First, only $350B was authorized by Congress, not the $700B in which you refer. Second, the great bulk of that $350B is sitting on Banks B/S and is being used to create leverage for their operations. Lastly, believe it or not, in the case of AIG, spending money selling your product to your partners is an absolute necessary business expense. I do not doubt some small percentage of the TARP I money was wasted, but it pails in comparison to the amout going down the tube in the destimulous plan. I am shocked that such a clueless partisan democratic hack was given space on this otherwise fine website.

And before you make more other bad assumptions about me, I do not work nor am I in any way associated with Wall Street. I am just a run-of-the-mill entrepeneur trying to feed my family despite all of the obstacles put in front of me by my well meaning but largely incompetent government.


>>>>atlasm... so you don't like the democrat's trying to make the process transparent to know where your tax money is going? i take it you prefer to give your tax dollars to john thain's bonuses, AIG exec's resort vacation, etc.etc under the previous bush/paulsen plan? well, i disagree. my investment advice was given because i believe those running wall street aren't going to get on board, they are going to pout until obama writes them a blank check (like paulsen/bush did) and obama simply won't do it. wrt wall street stealing middle class tax-payer money, did you not see the *billions* of our US tax-payer money that went to the CEO bonus pool to *reward* these incompetents for bankrupting their companies and requiring bailouts? hello??!!!

Feb 11 10:19 AM

[Jason Rines...:]

1) Kelm gets it mostly right and I will attempt to clarify: This was an Administration mistake from an inexperienced President. What should have been stated to the public was that Geitner was going to have a brief speech about the Treasuries new mission statement and that plans for stabalizing the banking system were still being ironed out. That's what the speech was, a mission statement. Sentiment of the mission statement was fine as the Mr. Fitzsimmons claims.

2) Investors expected a plan. To me as an investor, I want to first see the approach of how a market problem is going to be solved. Then, I want to know the management. Unfortunately, Geitner already has tarnished rep, Obama made another mistake keeping him as lead man, he should have kept him on as an advisor only and appointed a fundamentalist that understands the Save and Invest Economy, NOT Efficient Market Hyposis. On the plan it shows how money would be appropriated but absolutely zero forecasting on the jobs created and what we all as investors call 'return' for the money being invested. Since that part of the financial plan is not complete, the Administration as a whole is proving the claims of political opponents that the lack of Obama's experience will create difficulties and further market confustion.

3) Do I think President Obama means well? Yes. Do I think political parties make much of a difference? NO. Both political parties are a Cerebeus, two heads of one ugly dog. The country at most times has leaned mildly conservative or what one may call 'Centrist'. But neither the Republicans or Democrats are Centrists, they are Socialists and have demonstrably acted this way since 1998. That was the time to begin shifting back to Save and Invest slowly over time instead of the debt and spending orgy Washington pursued. You have fooled yourself Mr. Fitzsimmons in believing there is a major funamental difference between party lines.

Feb 11 11:10 AM

[Jason Rines...:]

Let's not use such innapropriate language that does not improve our investment community members learning process, OK?


On Feb 11 09:02 AM thaipo wrote:

> This author, Michael Fitzsimmons, is an ass.

Feb 11 11:12 AM

[Jason Rines...:]

Here's something that may help refine thought process to go three levels deep instead of one and improve your writing style Mr. Fitzsimmons: That picture on my profile is VP Al Gore to the left and me to the right. Now, while I have tremendous appreciattion for VP Gore's understanding of how Internet technology can be leveraged for all manking and person business interests, I totally disagree with him on global warming. Because how it is sold to the public and what his own personal agenda is amounts to a global tax with he and a few personal colleages being the biggest profiteers. Think three layers down my brother.

Feb 11 11:29 AM

[Unrepresent...:]

Sounds like more Obamaspeak to me. Here's some news: fancy words do not equate to economic expertise. They are just a defense of unassociated spending on long-time favorite Dem programs. So you like transparency...so do I. But for another news flash: vague information and zero detail do not equate to transparency. By the way, where is the transparency in the White House taking over personal control of the 2010 census--sounds like foul play and lack of non-transparency exist already in the Messiah's administration.

Feb 11 12:00 PM

[atlasman:]

I spent a good portion of my daily dog walk thinking about this article and the resulting follow-up posts. I have been a seeking alpha subscriber pretty much since its inception and have honestly learned a lot from some of the articles and even more so from some of the really bright people that comment on the articles. However, I have noticed lately that this has become a home to a bunch of partisan bloggers that clearly have no clue about economics, business, and/ or investing. For some reason they believe they can move people to their religeon (or serve their business interest, never sure which) by posting thoughtless garbage like this. The problem this creates is it is now becoming harder and more time consuming to find clearly thought-out and articulated articles and related post. Not sure what the answer is other than just finding a few smart writers and only looking at their blogs, but it sure would be easier if stuff like this was moved over to the dailykos where it belongs and leave the articles here to people that understand what they are talking about.

Feb 11 12:19 PM

[henarl:]

This article started off well but soon deteriorated into a liberal rant. The Democrats certainly deserve a share of the blame for our current situation. I think most of us can agree that the last eight years of Bush administration were abysmal and that Obama has inherited an economic mess. But, altho he is a much smoother speaker, and apparently a more logical thinker than his predecessor, lets not crown him as the Messiah quite yet. He still has to prove that he can successfully navigate between the remaining neo-cons and the Pelosi liberals.

Feb 11 12:42 PM

[Duude:]

This blog is critically deficient as a nonbiased assessment. First, the press conference was a sham. The President's men set a seating chart issuing front row seats to Obama apologists and supporters within what is already a very biased media group. I wouldn't call the question and answer session softball, it was tee-ball. While its true that most writers are liberal, he called on no conservatives while over the last 8 years Bush mainly called on liberal writers during question and answer forums. As for Geithner's presentation, I'm at a loss as to why he spoke at all. He provided nothing more than what he had already released. No plan. Wall Street was expecting a plan because the Obama Administration said they would provide a banking plan this week. Should the market be disappointed? Of course. BTW, Tim Geithner didn't need time to get up to speed as other members of the Obama administration did. He doesn't have any good excuse because he'd been involved in Hank Paulson's inner circle of advisors as was Bernanke, while he served as the president of the NY Fed. Geithner now must understand Wall Street has a fully funcional BS meter unlike the Washington Press Core.

Feb 11 01:30 PM

[john s. gordon:]

well under the paulson regime paulson's favorite bankers got bailouts with no plan so what else is new.
> jack

Feb 11 01:52 PM

[optionsgirl:]

To quote Axel Merk on 2/11/09:

The U.S. economy has attracted investment for so long because it has been a fair place to conduct business in. Gaining the confidence of investors takes decades to build, but is easily destroyed. The U.S. must focus on reform to avoid some of the excesses from happening again; not simply prop up a broken system. So far, all we see is governments throwing money at the problem. We may be able to sum up our current policies as

‘We don’t know what we are doing, but we are doing a lot of it…’

Feb 11 02:25 PM

[Michael Fit...:]

Thanks again for all the comments. I knew this article would be controversial, but I wrote it anyway just to see how the rigid ideological support over the last 8 years would to the men whose responsibilities it is to clean up the mess they inherited. I will depart from my usual practice of responding to individual comments and simply say this:

What Obama and Geitner announced over the last couple days was a broad architecture for fixing the financial system. The architecture has a few fronts to it, but all of it will be based on:
----- accountability -----
----- transparency -----
In response, Wall Street sold off because of it. Why? because they yearn for the days of the "free lunch" with the Bush/Paulsen engineered a $350 billion give away to the ultra rich executives of bankrupted firms which now need tax-payer money just to stay afloat. Now, I pay taxes, and it just burns my ears when I hear my tax money pays for a CEO's bonus - a man who not only bankrupted his company, but already makes a multi-million dollar salary to begin with! or for a southern california resort vacation. this should mortify any US taxpayer who sees with his eyes and hears with his ears and thinks with his brain. in other words, it should mortify YOU. Obama and Geitner are attempting to put an end to this theivery - and I wish them the best of luck.

Obama didn't create this disaster - 8 years of Bush policies did: huge deficit spending, unregulated financial markets, tax breaks for the rich, idiotic oil wars, no energy policy, and a war on the middle class. Now, all the same ideologues (supposedly "conservative republicans", but what is conservative about the previous listing of bush policy? answer: nothing. It quite simply amazes me that, after seeing the results of the failed Bush economic policy, that people still repeat the same old boring mantra "tax cuts". Tax cuts alone are simply not an economic policy! tax cuts are easy. Yeah, I am for tax cuts! well of course, I mean all else being equal - who isn't?? But, when you are running huge fiscal deficits and fighting two wars, a tax cut for the wealthy is simply idiotic. There is nothing "conservative" about that. the history of the republican party, my OLD republican party, was based on conservative fiscal discipline and small government. Under Bush, the size of the US government ballooned as did the deficits. why don't *real* conservative republicans acknowledge this as well as the damage it has done to our country and to our children's future (not to mention our equity investments?) It quite simply baffles me. the truth of the matter is, if you compare clinton's 8 years with bush's 8 years, clinton was far-and-away a more "conservative republican" than was bush!! that is, if one uses the definition of conservative republican prior to the hijacking of the party by the far right religious zealots.

instead of rejoicing at the fact that we now have a president with a brain who can hold a press conference and answer question intelligently, and instead of celebrating the fact that the bankrolling of wealthy americans by the government is going to be stopped under this administration, and instead of the stock market rallying on these events, it sold off due to a "lack of details". that my friends, i find sad. perhaps, just perhaps, over time americans will wake up and realize that ideology is bad, and what is best for the middle class is good. we need to rediscover the US constitution, and we need to recreate the environment where free market capitalism can again function as it should. it will be a long road to hoe, and yesterday's response by the media, wall street, and some of you was certainly not an auspicious start. hopefully, over time, people will see that Obama and Geitner and their staffs are trying to do the right thing. Confidence will come back, and we'll get out of this mess. One thing, however, is certain: sticking with the failed policies of the past 8 years is a recipe for further economic ruin.

Feb 11 04:37 PM

[mlyn:]

The criticisms are that his "plan" is just too general; nothing substantive to hang a hat on; no specifics, etc., etc., etc.

Has anyone ever thought that the intent of his "plan," regardless of the stock market, is some kind of message to other players like bondholders or sovereign wealth funds? Can one possibly imagine that the economic team is trying to engineer some kind of reaction outside of the expected Wall St. media reaction he is getting now?

The Fed and the Treasury would like nothing more than the U.S. dollar to devalue or, put the other way, have other currencies revalue up in relation to the U.S. dollar.

Instead of Treasury nationalizing the banking system, perhaps it wants Wall St to decide to go into Chapter 11 or something else. Wall St. had the expectation that it was going to be "bailed out" by taxpayers' money, and surprise, surprise.

I'm only speculating because I, for now, cannot agree that the economic team is "clueless." Obviously it is risky that the econ team will achieve "spring cleaning" it wants considering all the despairing "fall out" in the market and media.

I agree with the author, but only time will tell what the outcome will be.


On Feb 11 09:26 AM kelm wrote:

> Your first hint that there is no substance to the "plan" is when
> Geithner's first concrete step in his speech was setting up a website.
> I have lost count of the number of instances i corporate America
> where I have seen that tactic used. It ALWAYS means they have nothing
> concrete.
>
> Yes, better transparency is necessary. But the crux of the problem
> is - fix the banks. Fix means - exactly what are we doing to get
> all the bad banks closed down or restructured in some defined period
> of time. Tell me how you'll communicate your success after you've
> told me what EXACTLY you are doing and how EXACTLY it will solve
> the problem. Don't kid yourselves. If those details don't exist then
> there is no plan in any meaningful sense.
>
> Geithner was supposed to present a plan to fix the banking system.
> A plan means details not vague generalities. At best you could call
> it a strategy but it is the same strategy that Japan followed to
> their continuing detriment.
>
> The Treasury's "plan" put's America in an even worse posture than
> we were in before and will greatly prolong the crisis.

Feb 11 05:59 PM

[mlyn:]

The criticisms are that his "plan" is just too general; nothing substantive to hang a hat on; no specifics, etc., etc., etc.

Has anyone ever thought that the intent of his "plan," regardless of the stock market, is some kind of message to other players like bondholders or sovereign wealth funds? Can one possibly imagine that the economic team is trying to engineer some kind of reaction outside of the expected Wall St. media reaction he is getting now?

The Fed and the Treasury would like nothing more than the U.S. dollar to devalue or, put the other way, have other currencies revalue up in relation to the U.S. dollar.

Instead of Treasury nationalizing the banking system, perhaps it wants Wall St to decide to go into Chapter 11 or something else. Wall St. had the expectation that it was going to be "bailed out" by taxpayers' money, and surprise, surprise.

I'm only speculating because I, for now, cannot agree that the economic team is "clueless." Obviously it is risky that the econ team will achieve "spring cleaning" it wants considering all the despairing "fall out" in the market and media.

I agree with the author, but only time will tell what the outcome will be.


On Feb 11 09:26 AM kelm wrote:

> Your first hint that there is no substance to the "plan" is when
> Geithner's first concrete step in his speech was setting up a website.
> I have lost count of the number of instances i corporate America
> where I have seen that tactic used. It ALWAYS means they have nothing
> concrete.
>
> Yes, better transparency is necessary. But the crux of the problem
> is - fix the banks. Fix means - exactly what are we doing to get
> all the bad banks closed down or restructured in some defined period
> of time. Tell me how you'll communicate your success after you've
> told me what EXACTLY you are doing and how EXACTLY it will solve
> the problem. Don't kid yourselves. If those details don't exist then
> there is no plan in any meaningful sense.
>
> Geithner was supposed to present a plan to fix the banking system.
> A plan means details not vague generalities. At best you could call
> it a strategy but it is the same strategy that Japan followed to
> their continuing detriment.
>
> The Treasury's "plan" put's America in an even worse posture than
> we were in before and will greatly prolong the crisis.

Feb 11 05:59 PM

[exNewspaper:]

I just want to know when we're going to go after all the offshore accounts. Like KBR that avoids paying taxes and avoids paying SS on its emplyees yet is a HUGE recipient of our tax dollars. Taxes that the rest of us then have to make up. America's infrastructure and our government isn't free. Enough is enough and to hell with the repubs, they obviously just don't get it. After this last election, WE are obviously still in charge!

Top Iraq contractor skirts US taxes offshore (Boston Globe)
www.boston.com/news/wo.../

Feb 12 08:26 AM

[john s. gordon:]

newsboy - right on.

remember the furor a couple yrs ago when stanleyworks tried to reincorporate in bermuda to avoid u.s taxes ?
> jack

Feb 12 10:39 AM

[WayneS:]

Pelosi is already going after "onshore" accounts. Maybe this is why they are moving offshore. For example, she wants to double tax American oil companies who make the majority of their money overseas. Then, she wants to nationalize the oil fields within the US. This is from her website.

I thought Obama's "change" was different from that last 8 years, but it is identical with different recipients of other peoples' moneys.


On Feb 12 08:26 AM exNewsBoy wrote:

> I just want to know when we're going to go after all the offshore
> accounts.

Feb 12 11:00 AM

[exNewspaper:]

I disagree because I happen to think the article I posted is not ethical behavior. Also, why should corporations and the rich have the luxury of being able to take advantage of all the benefits America has to offer yet not have to put anything back?

As far as the oil companies, I like Pelosi's idea because we, including myself, only worry about oil prices when they're high yet forget about the future when they're low. High oil prices obviously have a direct impact on our economy. Now we have both congress and the president fairly close to being on the same page and quite frankly, I'm all for getting us away from our dependence.


On Feb 12 11:00 AM WayneS wrote:

> Pelosi is already going after "onshore" accounts. Maybe this is why
> they are moving offshore. For example, she wants to double tax American
> oil companies who make the majority of their money overseas. Then,
> she wants to nationalize the oil fields within the US. This is from
> her website.
>
> I thought Obama's "change" was different from that last 8 years,
> but it is identical with different recipients of other peoples' moneys.
>

Feb 13 09:38 AM

[Michael Fit...:]

Since I wrote this article, more details have emerged with respect to how the your $350 billion dollars in tax-payer money were spent on the bush/paulsen "bank bailout" according to the AP:

- $3.5 billion went to Merrill Lynch executive bonuses
- 700 Merrill Lynch executives received $1 million dollars or more
- 4 executives alone received more than $121 million dollars

these reports came just days after the Bush/Paulsen plan gave Bank of America $20 billion in US tax-payer money to "offset losses at Merrill Lynch". in addition, the Bush/Paulsen plan promised to take over another $100 billion in "risky assets". you can bet these bonus plans were replicated at other firms which received Bush/Paulsen "bailout money", and you can also bet the folks receiving these bonuses were already very wealthy individuals. they were also the folks that bankrupted their firms and our financial system. good work guys - here's your rewards?!

now, if this isn't simply outright theivery I don't know what is. so, for all the republicans lambasting Obama's stimulus plan as "pork spending", at least his legislation was "legislated" and creates some middle class jobs, provides infrastructure improvements, provides tax credits for green energy, and yes, helps people who have lost their jobs, where is your outrage over the above give-aways to the ultra wealthy? where is your outrage over the $6 trillion (with a "t") of fiscal debt Bush ran up over his 8 years? at least we get *something* from Obama's plan as opposed to just more "thin-air" from Bush's spending. that is, unless you are one of the lucky lucky execs who fattened your wallet. theives. all of them.

my grand old party, the republicans, apparently have replaced Lincoln with Limbaugh. as the rest of the advanced world seeks out new technologies, the repbulicans have turned to, unfortunately, a very very effective one: radio (credit bill maher for that one).

this is why this republican hasn't voted republican in over 20 years. it is time for me to change parties, and i will do so on monday.

Feb 14 08:54 AM