When Did the GOP Lose Touch With Reality? -- by David Frum

*sniff*

I smell troll. Reported as probable re-reg.

I know right, jwc2blue, wasn't it just last week that all Dem's were over-educated-out-of-work-freeloading-entitlement-seeking-deadbeats? I simply cannot keep up with the rabid, 360 GOP rhetoric these days, I guess I'm just not a Faux-bot!

shyonee. How did the dems give everything to wall street? the republicans(the self proclaimed party of deregulation) bent over for wall street over the last 30 years far,far, FAR MORE than any dems did . revise history much?

DNFTT

ahhh the joys of a rabid rereg.

Lets see the dems gave us the consumer finacial protection agency, which wallstreet was against.

teh dems are trying to give us the dodd frank rule which wallstreet is against.

the dems took student loans away from wallstreet which wallstreet was against.

the dems tried to give us eliz warren which wallstreet was against.

and to totally pwn this rereg out of the water to the point that no one with a sliver of a brain could agree with him.

Leaked Memo Reveals Wall Street Plot To Undermine OWS..and the dems and obama

I linked to the memo itself, so no crying liberal.(but you can cry PDF)

Notice how their biggest fear is the GOP will stop defending wallstreet.

Notice how they want to engage the GOP/TP.

Look at the second page, look at whose seats they are targeting.. see a single solitary R? I DONT.

SHYONEE FROM THE HORSES OWN MOUTH, WALLSTREET PREFERS REPUBLICANS AND FEELS THREATENED BY DEMS

Bill Clinton got rid of Glass–Steagall that got us in this financial mess in the first place.

What about the presidential veto power?

The fact is BOTH parties suck.

You can find examples where both have screwed up. If they would follow their constitutional oath the country would be a lot better off right now.

The purpose of the Constitution is to protect us from government.

Its a true statement that "government is not the answer, its the problem."

Minimum government=maximum freedom.

The founding fathers knew it, the trash in government today don't.

Sniff...Think I smell another re-reg.

Already reported.

I agree!

Why pay million for a job that only pays a few hundred thou?

Follow the money.

theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/12-facts-about-money-and-congress-that-are-so-outrageous-that-it-is-hard-to-believe-that-they-are-actually-true

endoftheamericandream.com/archives/10-mind-blowing-facts-which-show-how-members-of-congress-and-federal-employees-are-living-the-high-life-at-our-expense

endoftheamericandream.com/archives/after-all-of-the-crazy-insider-trading-that-now-has-been-revealed-how-can-the-american-people-ever-trust-congress-again

Yes, Clinton did compromise a lot with Republicans to get other things passed. Democrats have gone along to get along for too long. When the real story of the Deficit Committee comes out, I think you will see that Dems compromised a lot and got nothing in return. It is time for them to stand up for the American people.

Unfortunately, this would mean that their real masters, the big corporations will donate less. I agree, redsfan about campaign finance reform. It is time for a Constitutional amendment taking both corporations and unions out of the campaign finance business and put it back into the hands of real people.

What about the presidential veto power?

The final version of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed the House by a vote of 362-57 and the Senate by a vote of 90-8. This made the bill veto proof.

Minimum government=maximum freedom.

The founding fathers knew it, the trash in government today don't.

I must strongly disagree with your premise regarding the Founding Fathers and actual history. In fact, our present Constitution is the second attempt at coming up with a national government form, because the Articles of Confederation were almost immediately found to be far too weak to deal with the (far less complex) issues of the day.

The Constitution provided for a much stronger national government, because the alternative of too little government was found to be a failure. The Constitution also provides enormous flexibility for the citizens of this country, at any given time, to decide democratically for themselves what clauses such as "General Welfare" for example may mean to them.

A reasonably strong government is essential to protect the freedom of individuals vis a vis the powerful - otherwise you have "strongman" rule such as in so many of histories failed nations.

I would argue that today our government is not strong enough in terms of its protection of individuals from the wealthy and powerful ("he who has the gold makes the rules"). That government sometimes fails to counter such power adequately does not mean it is not the best, and I would argue only, way the people have any hope of remaining more than serfs.

Phill W

Bill Clinton got rid of Glass–Steagall that got us in this financial mess in the first place.

I love it when 30 years of political wrangling can be so eloquently summarized in one sentence.

Phil - I hate to break it to you, but you can't wholesale blame one man for the financial mess. While the repeal of some provisions in the Glass-Steagall bill when the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was signed into law ended up being one of the most significant changes to banking reform - (and should be re-instated) there's a couple points you failed to mention:

1) Clinton did not "get rid of" Glass-Steagall. He signed a bill that repealed some provisions of it. If you did just a little research, you'd know that FDIC insurance was a provision of Glass-Steagall. That was not "gotten rid of"; the bill was not "got rid of".

2) The bill that repealed portions of Glass-Steagall - The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act - was actually authored and ushered through the Senate and House by three Republican congressmen

3) There has been a whole series of legislation previous-and-subsequent-to The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act that contributed to the mess as well. This isn't accounting for actions by lenders, actions by borrowers, and global forces that were outside the realm of the legislative bodies, that accounted for the mess.

While Clinton can "take the blame" for the ill effects of the repeal in 2011 because he was the President that signed the bill in 1999 (and I don't deny he should be blamed) - you need to judge based on the time, and facts that presented themselves at that time. Glass-Steagall was initially made a law in 1933 - a different time, when different market forces were in place. It was felt that certain provisions of this bill were holding US banking companies to a level of compliance their counterparts in other countries were not. It was thought that this would "level the playing field" a bit. I am a firm believer that the provisions repealed *should* be re-instated, but I'm not going to say "Bill Clinton wrecked the economy by singing one bill."

Second - what Clinton did was compromise. As President, he wanted to get some stuff passed and some GOP guys wanted to get something passed. Your comment almost implies compromise is a bad thing. Knowing what we do now we can say - yes the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was some bad legislation. But, in my opinion, the process by which the bill got signed is one of the few instances in recent political history where the political system "worked".

It wasn't a bunch of partisan rhetoric and legislating on the extremes that we're experiencing now. @!$%# - I'd take another Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act if it meant the two groups pissing away our time and money would actually freaking *work* to get *something* done. And for what it's worth - I'd take Bill Clinton as Prez over *any* of the candidates that any party will be putting up in the next election.

Glass Steagall (the restrictions on integration of banks) actually made it impossible for US banks to comply with BASEL II obligations. Considering the level of integration of the US economy into global affairs, that pretty much made BASEL II useless (in reality it isn't, but the antiquated structure of the US banking system makes it largely ineffectual.

At least in Canada, the regulators said, you have US assets, well they can't have any leverage whatsoever on those assets.

Thank you for the article and I enjoyed the replies. Refreshing to know that I am not the only one that is asking where has the Republican party has gone. Why are they so devoted to Wall Street bias? I miss the old Republican party that was willing to work with others.

• The repeal of Glass-Steagall was one of those brain spasms that was almost certain to have deleterious consequences, and that is surely how it has turned out. The repeal was dreamed up by a Republican congress and sold heavily enough so as to be veto-proof. Should Clinton have vetoed anyway? Perhaps, but it is usually not wise to pick a fight that you have zero chance of winning.
• Dennis in WA - You are totally on the spot about the Constitution. Most of the Baggers and/or Libertarians would be much happier living under the Articles of Confederation. Luckily the folks running the show in 1789 recognized that a diverse country such as the USA needed a strong federal government. Those who think otherwise should maybe be looking a lot more closely at the EuroMess.
• We need to recognize that the de-regulation nonsense that played such a role in the economic collapse is still a prime article of faith for the Republicans. Mortgage-based securities anyone?

The repeal of Glass-Steagall was actually something that the international banking community had been pushing for for many decades because the US banking industry is so fragmented that it makes it extremely difficult to gauge the longer term solvency of a bank.

now the deregulation of the derivatives market that was part of that bill, THAT was about as brain damaged as you can get.

I think a very important distinction needs to be made when discussing repeal of Glass/Steagel, or Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. There is an enormous disconnect between what the Republicans would have us believe versus the reality of what happened in the financial collapse.

The government (thru regulatory repeal and lax enforcement of existing regulations) and Fannie/Freddie, which are distinct from the government - they're private, for profit entities (thru poor enforcement of underwriting standards) did was FAIL TO PREVENT the economic collapse, by failing to prevent the players in the mortgage backed securities casino from making stupid decisions. They did not CAUSE the problem in the slightest - they were not forcing any one to make bad loans, they simply failed to prevent them from first doing so.

Then these private entities (totally unrelated to the government) thru their own ideas regarding securitization and the creation of new derivitives / credit default swaps / massive leverage compounded the underlying problem of their making of bad loans by trying to hide them and simultaneously overleveraging themselves to generate more fee income. securitization/derivitatives markets.

No government policy (or policy of Fannie/Freddie) FORCED any of these actions. They were purely the cause of the private sector trying to make a buck. (Don't give me that CRA line of BS - CRA loans were an infinitessimal portion of mortgage lending, and CRA loans performed far, far better than non-CRA subprime loans).

That is the CAUSE of the meltdown - the only thing the government did was fail to prevent the private sector from doing what it wanted, and the Republican policy seems to be to make sure that the government CANNOT regulate the financial system, by trying to blame something that was not the cause for the collapse.

dennis,

the securitization itself though isn't really a problem. It only becomes a problem when you either ignore or don't understand what is inside those securities that have the securitized assets. There were many problems with what happened, partly it was the spreading of risk to so many entities along with a lack of understanding of the domino effect that is inherent when you do that, but also there was the mislabeling of various assets within those mortgage backed securities. The derivatives in question are priced according to the rating of those assets, and so on.

From a regulatory standpoint, the inability of authorities to slow the bubble down, because hey, we can't stop 'growth' now can we, who cares if it is unwarranted growth, made the problem MUCH worse, because instead of a 2% bubble burst, we had a 40% bubble burst.

(Having reread that, I think we are saying the same thing, just from different vantage points, as I was working in the financial industry during this time)

Another important part of the article:

“This was my I won’t soon forget the lupine smile that played about the lips of the leader of one prominent conservative institution as he told me, �Our donors truly think the apocalypse has arrived.� Yet conscious cynicism is much rarer than you might suppose. Few of us have the self-knowledge and emotional discipline to say one thing while meaning another. If we say something often enough, we come to believe it. We don’t usually delude others until after we have first deluded ourselves.”

This and other thoughts confirmed by former GOP operative Mike Lofgren in the following article.

http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779

So the GOP in Washington are the Riders of the Apocalypse? Makes sense.

kj-

1980 is when the Republican Party devolved into a reactionary Hollywood fantasy and lost total touch with reality. If you go back further, the election of 1964 for example (yes, I'm old enough to remember), the Republican's grip on reality has always been, at best, tentative.

"Morning in America"

Or

"Moaning in America "

Kay, I remember warm pink snow from fallout in the late 50s. Eisenhower would wait until the winds blew NE from area 51 when he authorized the above ground nuke tests. He ordered many young men in the military to well within the nuke's effect to see what would happen to them. My home town (Not Madison) was subjected to the highest Strontium 90 fallout in the country (this information was made available through the Freedom of Information Act from the department of energy in the early 90s). Then, there was his riding on horseback, swinging his saber, into a peaceful camp of WWI veterans and their families in a 1933 attack on the "Bonus Army."

Yes, the 50s and 60s in America were some of the best years for the families of this country, but Eisenhower (a Republican) was really a cold blooded, hard hearted president for these and many more of his cruel actions. I see the beginning of the hateful selfishness of the Republican party as beginning with him. Then, you're right, Reagan was the next one to continue this hatred of the labor unions and the working class.

And also: Just how far they will stray before their own faithful are forced to say "Now wait one darned minute and hold it right there..."? Reality must intrude, if only for a brief glimmering moment for some of them, statistically speaking that is.

I think there is push back by the right wing in terms of policy or lack of policy. Will it matter though?

The republican party has created a coalition of very different priorities. Each one in the coalition demands their priority be addressed. The conservatives resist any governance that does not serve the collations priorities. Morally, fiscally about anything that would help the whole . Even themselves...

redsfan: I agree...and I have to believe that there are still sensible conservatives out there...but either they are being brainwashing by right-wing media to believe something that's not true, or they are just not paying attention to what is happening to their party.

Or, like Frum indicated, they are afraid of the back-lash from their fellow TEApublicans and would rather let 'rabid' dogs lie:

For the past half-dozen years, I have been arguing that we conservatives need to follow a different course. And it is this argument that has led so many of my friends to demand, sometimes bemusedly, sometimes angrily, “What the hell happened to you?”

lol
the federal reserve turns it's profits over to the treasury.

The Fed will return about $45 billion to the U.S. Treasury for 2009, according to calculations by The Washington Post based on public documents. That reflects the highest earnings in the 96-year history of the central bank. The Fed, unlike most government agencies, funds itself from its own operations and returns its profits to the Treasury.

the parties are hardly the same, it is true the dems havent been awesome for the poor and middle class, but they sure as @!$%# havent been republicans.

and yeah you need to stop freaking over the fed, learn some reality about the fed,a nd while it isnt the best thing in the world and probably could use some changes.Having congress or the "free market" set interest rates is exactly the wrong thing to do. Congress could never get it done in time and parties would use the interest rate politically to hurt presidents of the opposite party. as for the free market, it works the opposite of what is needed during recessions. Interest rates should be through the roof but they arent, this is because the market doesnt set rates.

$45 billion? You think that is the Fed Reserve's profit for 2009? hahahahahah

You better add a crap load of zeros to that number.

Interest rates should be through the roof but they arent, this is because the market doesnt set rates.

Exactly. The free market is not free - and that is a good thing!

If we let suicide banksters truly run our markets, price fluctuations for commodities would be insane (much more so than now), and interest rates would fly out of control.

This libertarian "kill 'em all" approach is not the answer.

sorry, Brian but you are wrong.

Fractional banking, etc is what destroyed the world's economy. Its all a big ponzy scheme. Its Bernie Madoff times a zillion.

Its the job of Congress to control the nation's money. Not a private bank. (The Federal Reserve is no more a part of government than FedEx is)

Why hasn't the Federal Reserve ever been audited?

This is a great movie to check out when you get a chance:

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

Phill W

Its the job of Congress to control the nation's money. Not a private bank. (The Federal Reserve is no more a part of government than FedEx is)

And it is completely within the purview of Congress to establish entities upon which to delegate day-to-day activities or responsibilities.

And Congress could dissolve the Federal Reserve if it so desired, but it could not do so to FedEx.

Congress has no say over their banking masters. Neither does the president.

Phill W

Congress has no say over their banking masters. Neither does the president.

Saying so doesn't make it true. The Fed has been granted a certain autonomy, but it is not absolute.

youtube.com/watch?v=3QkmLnNEvdU

youtube.com/watch?v=oOpQkRsEfaU

youtube.com/watch?v=n0NYBTkE1yQ

youtube.com/watch?v=AidBugvVqpw&feature=related

youtube.com/watch?v=-hhPvas-Q8Y

youtube.com/watch?v=nAID6lxd7jE&feature=related

Phill W

youtube.com/watch?v=3QkmLnNEvdU

youtube.com/watch?v=oOpQkRsEfaU

youtube.com/watch?v=n0NYBTkE1yQ

youtube.com/watch?v=AidBugvVqpw&feature=related

youtube.com/watch?v=-hhPvas-Q8Y

youtube.com/watch?v=nAID6lxd7jE&feature=related

What do you imagine we are going to do with this? Follow all of these links? Sit through the inevitable bull@!$%# and smack our forehead with our palms while exclaiming "of course!"?

This is the laziest form of "debate" and it accomplishes nothing.

Gedde, don't let facts and logic get in the way of your love of socialism and big government.

Talk about lazy, it would really tire you out to go and look at proof.

Would you feel better if I typed in what they said so you could just sit there in your mom's basement and read what was said?

Phill W

Talk about lazy, it would really tire you out to go and look at proof.

Yes, frankly, that kind of ordeal is exhausting.

There is an entire cadre of posters here on Newsvine that think going to the trouble of creating a video on youtube expressing an opinion about something somehow elevates it from opinion and extrapolation into fact.

I do not. I especially will not wade through half a dozen of them trying to figure out which one of your unsupportable assertions they're meant to try to buttress. It's your job to make your arguments.

If you me to make them for you, you've already lost.

The youtube op/ed crowd function solely under the aegis of 'obfuscation makes for truth if repeated often enough' since it works so well for the right-wing, hate-mongering radio-celebrity set!

I've never understood the Republican hate for the Federal Reserve...

Nearest as I can figure redsfan, it's because they cannot control it to suit their base purpose or further their propaganda machine without vilifying it. What they cannot master (like unions) they must utterly destroy.

Phil - What you and the rest of of WildEyes ought to maybe contemplate is the Euro mess, a real-life example of a system with strong state autonomy [are you listening Ron Paul? Naw, I didn't think so.......] and a weak central bank. The result is weak states such as Alabama Greece having the ability to blow off all encouragement toward getiting themselves together until the system is at real risk of breaking apart. Ron P might secretly love it if Texas became autonomous, but to the rest of us it is a real poor option.

tabart

Well there are differences, but they don't disprove what I believe is your point.

In the US, the states themselves are hindered because they are forbidden in most of them (by their state constitutions) from running a deficit. In europe, there is a treaty obligation to not run deficits larger than 3% of their GDP, but exactly how are you going to enforce that?

True enough, and Clinton was white! We can only imnagine the boiling vitriol of wingnuts, now that America has elected a'colored' president!

Bulls-eye Jackol, I can not count how many moderate republican friends of mine who claim to be independent now but in fact have voted democratic since Clinton. It's so frustrating that the new era of conservatives refuse to compromise. Polls scream that Americans are pleading for both parties to compromise and yet it seems only the left are willing to do so. President Obama has been negligent to compromise more than his base has liked. I am confident that he has learned the one sided compromise has failed. I support our president and give him praise for trying to unite the country, but the Right simply want to control the country and are stuck on tax cuts for the wealthy.

I'll agree with that. If we didnt have a gop, the dems would be some might fascist people but compared to the GOP the dems look almost like they work for the people.

Especially when you start looking at the data and graphs.

Yep you can trace it all back to Reagan, and the Reagan Dems who resented Affirmative Action.

Phill,

Which means what???

Really Phil? I thought your party was of the "It's their money, they made it and they can spend it as they darn well please" mindset- or does that only apply to the GOP faithful?

It means all this talk about Republicans being the "rich fat cats" is a bunch of B.S.

We have a two party dictatorship with a continuity of agenda with only small differences between the two.

theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/12-facts-about-money-and-congress-that-are-so-outrageous-that-it-is-hard-to-believe-that-they-are-actually-true

endoftheamericandream.com/archives/10-mind-blowing-facts-which-show-how-members-of-congress-and-federal-employees-are-living-the-high-life-at-our-expense

www.infowars.com/how-can-the-american-people-ever-trust-congress-again-after-learning-of-the-rampant-insider-trading-that-has-been-going-on/

Republican/Democrat

Left/Right

Coke/Pepsi

McDonald's/Burger King

Its the False Left-Right Political Paradigm

And what is my party?

Right Phil, like there were soooooo many GOP millionaires up there on Capitol Hill demanding higher tax assessments for their ilk last week. If you want an accurate headcount- not a one was a Republican! By the way, do you hate all millionaires, or just Democratic ones?

It means all this talk about Republicans being the "rich fat cats" is a bunch of B.S.

The difference being the Democrat 'fat cats' are willing to vote to raise taxes on themselves.

Near as I can tell Phil, you must be a member of the "I-Hate-Democrats-And-Especially-That-President-Of-Yours-Beyond-All-Rational-Reason Party, y'all are really easy to spot ya know!

Members of Congress get elected to fatten their bank accounts, not act as public servants. They are not our leaders they are our servants.

The reason I linked this article is to let the left know their people are just as corrupt as the other side of the isle.

I have no problem with millionaires and billionaires. That's who own the industries and corporations who create jobs and grow the economy. What I do hate is this two party dictatorship. And yes, I do hate Obama but I also hate Bush. They are both banker puppets.

What do politicians create besides higher taxes and obstruction to growth?

The problem is all you Democrat supporters and you Republican supporters who think your party is without fault and the other one is never right.

Wake up people.

Correct redsfan, and standing around whining that 'they're all crooks, so throw the baby out with the bathwater'- the idea du jour from all competing GOP candidates this week in their Norquist-induced vision of 'smaller' government- is so very counterproductive. By the way Phil, don't you think that perhaps 'hate' is too strong a sentiment concerning something as nebulous as American politics? After all, the music does stop every 2 to 6 years (depending upon job description) and some politician-type folks simply lose their chairs, pick up their toys and go home!

Vote Libertarian so we can save the Republic.

Libertarians are simply anarchists in sheep's clothing, I have never heard such selfish, self-serving and self-involved tripe as I've heard from the wild-eyed Randians! No matter one's religious affiliation (or lack thereof) common human decency is totally lacking in any/all of their manifesto!

Liberatiarian? I love this country too much to let libertarians ruin it even more!

Libertarians need to learn that freedom is not an unlimited resource. Freedom in civilized society requires balance not everyone doing what they want, when they want, how they want, however they can...that leads to "[anarchy in disguise]," as QuiteContrary put it.

Everyone is a Libertarian until the neighbor installs a Cyanide leach pit right over the fence from your child's sandbox.

Good point Gedde. That happens all the time.

Of course it doesn't. But it does point to the practical weakness of Libertarianism. Two people can often agree on a boundary for personal space, rights, whatever. Ten people is much more difficult. Five hundred and it's impossible.

If you ever need proof of this, join the Parent Teacher Organization at your local school.

gedde

Hmmmm was that you that complained about my cyanide leach pit? You bastard /sarc

Ah bse1963, pandering to is just not quite the same thing as taking them seriously, they perceive them as a serious threat and/or valuable asset, but privately sneer at their core beliefs as either ludicrously simplistic or simplistically ludicrous!

But there current belief du jour is a mainstay of Libiterian Norquist. I agree they may have perceived them as a serious threat, but it looks like the canary eat the cat.

Norquist is the love child of Ayn Rand and Ron Paul- pass it on!

ittoolate, agreed and the grover will be their downfall. They also seem to forget that there are poor Republicans who rely on the same programs they are so hot in the butt to do away with. Sending a friend request.

Grover will be the Republicans " Waterloo"

He is a very dangerous man and he is holding the gun/pledge to the heads of the GOP/TP. Therefore he is holding us all hostage.

I am a baby boomer, though and I wonder why I am not as afraid of this time of change as so many others seem to be...what makes me different?

First, I try not to generalize to a population, my direction of the comment was towards conservative Baby Boomers.

Second, my best guess would be the factor of intellectual curiosity and moral relativism. From what I've noticed those that hold the view that the world and thus it's people should be unchanging and held to strict and unwavering standards tend to view the world from the perspective previously mentioned. That is not to say that only conservatives behold this view though, being conservative tends to infer this. Those that are more curious and contemplative appear more open, accepting and willing to change with a rapidly changing world.

Maybe I'm wrong, it's a working theory.

Well, I wouldn't presume to "know" anybody on NV.

There is nothing that exemplifies this more than global warming denialism. The prospect of realizing that what we have been doing for years, releasing GHG's, something that wasn't an issue when the baby boomers were growing up could turn into a catastrophic problem for their grandchildren is far too much for some people to bear.

It is the unwillingness for some conservatives to accept that rapidly changing world and the ability to project the deleterious changes onto others that is at the heart of this radicalization/lunacy.

Apparently some have not heard nor do not heed the warming, "we have found the enemy and he is us". They appear willing to announce the US is the greatest nation, (God given of course but that's another subject for another time) and with that announcement fail to acknowledge that the US, its people, its businesses and its government, did create the financial crisis, are luring illegal immigrants, does have policies that make other countries hate us and are the largest contributor of global warming than any other nation.

What if Gingrich actually admitted that most of the tenets of ObamaCare originated with Republicans?

I had this conversation with a GOP friend of mine and she swears that the GOP never pushed this idea - even though we all know they did beginning back when they shot down HillaryCare.

Pretty funny that their own ideas are - Socialist!

Let's not forget Gingrich's brand new plan to turn our public education system into the GOP equivalent of a pay-for-play workhouse, scrapping all child labor laws in the process. Everyone practice it together now: "Please Sir, may I have some more" (Brit accent optional, but you will get extra points for the attempt!)

Yeah, his first class will be "How to scam Fannie Mae for $2 MILLION then blame the housing crisis on Barney Franks"...

His most popular course is called: "How to devise a lobbying plan, with all pertinent contact info and personnel bios contained therein; but it's not really lobbying unless you drop the dime yourself" full credit applies if you get someone else to write your final paper for you!

Most productive for Nancy's bank account you must mean....A little of that "legal" Congressional Insider Trading ?????

"While the rest of us have been languishing in what seems like a never-ending recession, one of top San Francisco lawmakers just keeps getting richer.

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi's (D-San Francisco) personal wealth grew by 62 percent over the last year, making her one of the richest politicians on Capitol Hill.

According to Washington news outlets, Pelosi is now worth some $35 million as of 2010, up from her net worth of $21 million in 2009. Pelosi reported $43.4 million in assets and about $8.2 million in liabilities.

To put that into context, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is worth a measly $2.1 million.

So how is it that this wealthy pol keeps getting wealthier while unemployment remains at a staggering high? It seems the Minority House Speaker's husband, Paul, got lucky with some rising stocks and real estate investments that are paying off.

According to media outlets, Apple stock owned by her husband rose from $500,000 in 2009 to $1 million in 2010. He also invested more money in Matthews International Capital Management, which reportedly jumped from being worth $1 million in 2009 to $5 million in 2010. His other real estate investments in Sacramento also shot up to $5 million, according to The Hill.

Meanwhile, more than 2.5 million Californians, including Pelosi's constituents, don't have enough money to buy food.

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/06/nancy_pelosis_wealth.php

Tricky dick was SANE but ULTRA DEVIOUS