Barb Caffrey's Blog

Writing the Elfyverse . . . and beyond

Occupy Writers: Articulate Speakers for the Bottom 99%

with 24 comments

Tonight, via MSNBC’s “Rachel Maddow Show,” I found out about the Website Occupy Writers because Maddow had author Daniel Handler (aka Lemony Snicket) on to discuss his recent post at that site.  A few of Lemony Snicket’s salient points from his post at Occupy Writers follow:

6. Nobody wants to fall into a safety net, because it means the structure in which they’ve been living is in a state of collapse and they have no choice but to tumble downwards. However, it beats the alternative.


11. Historically, a story about people inside impressive buildings ignoring or even taunting people standing outside shouting at them turns out to be a story with an unhappy ending.

(Good words.  I can’t top them.)

Note that is where many of my favorite authors have signed up in support of the Occupy Wall Street/Occupy Everything Else movement that’s going on right now.  A few of my favorite science fiction and fantasy authors who’ve signed their names in support at that site include Rosemary Edghill, Mercedes Lackey, Tamora Pierce, Melinda Snodgrass, Laura Resnick, Laura Anne Gilman, Ursula K. LeGuin, and Neil Gaiman — I’m sure there were more, but those were the ones I noted right away.  There are many, many writers on that list, some who are extremely well-known (like Salman Rushdie), some who are well-known to SF/F readers like myself (see above) and some who aren’t known — including some editors of various magazines, including Esquire and Harper’s Bazaar.  (I’d gladly sign my name to the list, too, but I don’t have a novel published yet.  Otherwise, I’d have done this as soon as I knew the site was available.)

What I think is great about is that it shows that people who are creative understand what’s going on in this world.  Our economy is not just bad; it’s truly terrible, and it’s something that all Americans — not just the “bottom 99%” — should care about.  These writers get that, which is great.

Now, it’s time for the top 1%, like those who sit in the United States Congress, to realize that without the “bottom 99%,” nothing gets done in this country.  Period.

Speaking of that, CNN’s Jack Cafferty has an excellent blog about why the Congress doesn’t seem to care at all about the “bottom 99%”.  This is because they, themselves, benefitted from the horrible policies they instituted — greatly.

During the height of the recession, Congress actually became 25% richer.  Meaning they were “feathering their own nests” while the rest of us got the shaft — as disgusting as this is, there’s more to the story.

From Cafferty’s blog post:

“Roll Call” reports that members of Congress had a collective net worth of more than $2 billion in 2010.

That was up about 25 percent from 2008, during the height of the recession.

And these wealth totals likely underestimate how rich Congress really is. That’s because they don’t include homes and other non-income generating property, which could come out to hundreds of millions in additional dollars.

This wealth is split fairly evenly between both Democrats and Republicans.

Overall, about 200 members of Congress are millionaires. Once again, this doesn’t include the value of their homes.

So did you catch all that?  As bad as this is that the Congress is so much wealthier, overall, than the rest of the country — including the vast majority of their own constituents — this doesn’t even include the value of their homes or other property, which anyone else would have to claim as a matter of course as part of his or her overall wealth.

Cafferty continues a bit lower with:

Another expert suggests members of Congress do better with their investments than the average American because they are privy to inside information.

Really? Seriously? They would take advantage of that… something that is clearly illegal for the rest of us?

The bottom line is this body of lawmakers has next to nothing in common with the average American. Yet we keep sending most of the same rat pack back year after year.

Here’s my question to you: What does it say when members of Congress got 25% richer during the height of the recession?

I don’t know about anyone else, but what it says to me is that Congress is behaving in an unethical, immoral, blatantly dishonest manner.  And it once again reminds me why we must be vigilant, watch what our representatives do (not just what they say), and perhaps most importantly of all, keep an eye on who — and what — is financing their campaigns.

This is why I, for one, intend to vote out as many wealthy incumbents who are in Congress as I possibly can.  In this case, there’s one name who tops my list — my long-time Representative, Paul Ryan (R-Janesville), who clearly has forgotten that most of his constituents make far less money than he does.  Ryan has done himself no favors, either, as he’s shown little to no understanding of the whole “Occupy” movement, nor any compassion as to how difficult it is nowadays to find work in America — even for our honored military veterans, some of whom have gone out in support at various “Occupy” protests and have been hurt badly by police, most especially in Oakland, California.

And I’m sorry; I cannot support anyone who doesn’t want to help promote job growth in this country.  Rep. Ryan’s been in office for twelve whole years; he’s had twelve years to try to improve the economy, and he’s done very little about it.  Ryan has obviously lost touch with the people of his district, and more importantly, the people of this country.  If he can’t even figure out that the economy is in the tank, so the House of Representatives should have better things to do with their time than re-affirm “In God We Trust” as the official motto of the United States (as they did earlier this week) rather than take up any measure that could possibly help create employment in this country (see previous post for details), I know that just about anyone would do a better job as my US Rep. than Paul Ryan.

Worse yet, he’s said several times that he doesn’t understand the “Occupy” movement; he doesn’t believe it’s helpful.   Yet military veterans, who Ryan claims to appreciate, are coming home to no jobs and a 12% unemployment rate, which is why some are going to “Occupy” protests across the US of A in order to ask, “Where are the jobs, and why doesn’t anybody in Washington, DC, or in the halls of power seem to care?”

I’m sorry; if you can’t be bothered to understand why people are upset because there’s a high unemployment rate overall, including a very high unemployment rate for returning military vets who’ve fought the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, it’s time for you to go.

So please, Mr. Ryan — don’t let the door hit you in the rear on the way out.


I, indeed, am an “Occupy Writer” even if I never am able to sign that petition — and I hope that I’ve done my level best to speak for the bottom 99% this evening, even if I did originally say “top 99%” because I was thinking about our morals, manners, and ethics — where we are, indeed, the top 99%, and those who don’t get it have to be the bottom 1% in these areas.

Written by Barb Caffrey

November 4, 2011 at 11:52 pm

24 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Finally, I have the motivation to get started on that novel…maybe one day I’ll be able to sign the petition 😉

    Creative people always seem to be more attuned to and better able to sense what’s going on, perhaps because creativity requires one to be open to everything. Too bad they always get made fun of for their “weird” ideas about the world.


    November 5, 2011 at 1:28 am

    • Hey, Eurobrat! 🙂 Thanks for reading my blog.

      I agree with you. I definitely think that the creative people in this country know that something is drastically wrong. Not all of us agree as to what that is, mind you, and not everyone agrees as to a proper remedy (if there is one). I do think most of us, whether R, D, or Indy, know that the US Congress has completely and utterly failed — otherwise, why would their “approval” rating be sitting at somethingl ike 9%? (Way below the President’s numbers; hey, they’re even below the former President’s numbers, and G.W. Bush had some really low numbers there toward the end of his term.)

      I don’t think we’re weird — we creative people, that is. And I, personally, would like to find common ground with those on the right who are intellectually honest and want there to be a fair playing field so they can get their chances to get to the pinnacle of human achievement — whether that’s being the top 1% in their field, the top 1% wage earners, whatever, they deserve to have that chance. (And more power to them.)

      Right now, there’s a vicious cycle out there. There are fewer jobs available. So there are fewer people who are employed doing _anything_. And that means that there’s less money overall to buy goods, which means more people at various places get laid off because there aren’t enough sales going on to sustain their employment numbers . . . we’re in a downward spiral and something has to change.

      I blame Congress more than I blame any captain of industry, no matter how corrupt or venal (most of them aren’t, though many of them do seem to be clueless and out of touch). The Congress has the ultimate authority to make, change, or get rid of legislation that’s causing problems, or to make, change, or improve legislation so it’ll stop causing problems.

      It seems to me that there’s a way around this that no one in Washington, DC, has yet thought of — these corporations want tax breaks, right? So why not give them a legal way to have the tax break they want _and_ employ people at the same time, so everyone wins?

      My thought as to how this would work is this: if you employ a certain percentage of people who’ve been unemployed for over six months (and get a double credit for someone out of work for a year, triple for over 18 months, etc.), then you get your tax breaks and write-offs. If you don’t do it, then no tax breaks.

      That would give companies incentives to hire people, I believe; it also might give the banks more reasons to loan money — that’s the other half of this. The banks are sitting on a stockpile of assets and they’re not loaning them out to small businesspeople or anyone else — even medium-range businesspeople are having trouble securing loans, and that’s just not right. So something needs to be done there; I don’t have a solution for that, but I think someone needs to work at that — that’s what we pay the Congress to do, and that’s why I’m so very frustrated with them for not figuring out _anything_, even the smallest thing, that could help.

      Instead, they waste our time by re-affirming “In God We Trust” as our official motto — why bother with that, when we have high unemployment overall, very high in certain areas (like my hometown of Racine, WI), and people with good to excellent motivation and job skills like _military vets_, of all people, who are looking for work and can’t find anything?

      How can they just sit on their butts and do nothing up there in DC? Do they not know anyone who’s a real person in this world who’s struggling? Do they all think we make $174,000 per year like they do in the House, and get excellent medical coverage like they do in the House? What’s wrong with them?

      See, I look at it this way. The Tea Party people — the ones on the ground, who went out to protest — said that Washington was not listening. And that’s why they went out; the big money that came in to reinforce that movement had more to do with positive PR for big businesses that were laying people off (among other things), but the real people who went to protest were basically saying, “We don’t like what you’re doing, Washington bureaucrats. You’re not listening to us.”

      Even on health care, most people do want low income people (like me) to have health care — to be able to be seen by a doctor, and pay what we can afford to pay. The main thing people were protesting was how the whole health care plan was handled; it was a showy, “top-down” maneuver that hurt many people who did have good insurance, and didn’t do anything to help those programs already in place that have been helping the uninsured and underinsured for years now. (I say, “reinforce those programs, first. We know they work.”)

      Now, people are going out to protest, again, that nothing is getting done. Some in the “Occupy Wall Street/Everything” movement blame big business for the way they’ve manipulated public opinion and donated big sums of money to campaigns — mostly R campaigns, but to some Ds as well.

      But I think everyone should blame Congress first, last, and always — give big business some blame, too, for taking advantage of this corrupt and obnoxious system, and for nudging the Congress the way big business seems to want it to go — because the Congress is supposed to care about _all_ the people, not just the wealthiest people.

      Because so many of them in the House and Senate are _in_ the top 1%, they just don’t get it — I find that shocking, sad, and oh so utterly wrong.

      (BTW, I’m with you about finishing a novel. Good luck getting your novel finished, and keep me posted! :-))

      Barb Caffrey

      November 5, 2011 at 2:26 am

      • Thanks for the encouragement, Barb 😉

        I like your idea of tax breaks for employment! However, you and I both know it ain’t gonna happen right now….since it might actually *improve* employment rates and make Obama look good. The Republicans in Congress can’t allow that to happen!

        I think most people out there are disillusioned with both the government and corporations, not just one or the other. At this point, Congress and “the captains of industry” are so buddy-buddy with each other, they’re practically the same group of people. To dislike one is to dislike them both *shrug*

        Finally, on health care–I realize the Obamacare plan isn’t perfect (the mandatory insurance part made me groan). But as someone who, as my nickname might indicate, came here from Europe, I am exasperated at how many Americans don’t see how much their current health care system is hurting them. I get it, I get it, people in this country don’t want too much govt control. But health, of all things, should not be dependent on profit. And the public health care systems in Europe…don’t tell anyone 😉 …are *not as bad* as pundits here make them out to be. In fact, they work quite well, and in my experience, you do get the health care you need when you need it.

        So I guess I’m saying Obama’s health care plan, to me, was better than nothing–I just want to see the current system change! I know you’re saying there are programs currently helping the under- and uninsured, but they don’t seem to be sufficient…


        November 5, 2011 at 1:08 pm

      • You’re welcome about the encouragement, Eurobrat. 🙂 (Always glad to encourage a fellow writer.)

        I agree with you that the “captains of industry” are in cahoots with Congress. There’s no question that’s the case. I blame Congress more because they are supposed to know better. The oaths they swear are to uphold the Constitution, and yet it seems to me they’ve kind of forgotten what that really means.

        I agree with you that the Obama health care plan was an improvement over what we have now for most low-income people — or it will be once it starts being implemented in 2014. But it wasn’t properly explained to people; worse yet, the public option plan was far better and would’ve included more of the programs that actually are working but needed more money so they could serve more people for the low-income folks like myself, the underinsured or uninsured.

        And of course you’re right that health care should not be a profit-based business. That’s just absurd. We’re the only country in the civilized world who sees health care this way. And that’s wrong. (I know Europe, and Canada, too, are much better off with regards to health care than most citizens of the US. Even some who are insured now have to pay huge co-pays — what’s the sense in that?)

        And finally, you’re again right about the R-dominated Congress, particularly in the House of Reps. They want the current President to fail — they wouldn’t care who it was at this point, but that President Obama has done some things that people either didn’t understand or disapproved of (the health care plan being both, then TARP II, the lack of anyone going after the people who caused the catastrophic stock market crash while those “too big to fail” banks got huge bailouts under both the previous POTUS _and_ Mr. Obama) — and they don’t care how bad off the country becomes on their watch. I find that absolutely disgraceful, and I hope this tactic backfires in a big way on the Rs in the House.

        Barb Caffrey

        November 5, 2011 at 8:44 pm

  2. I should clarify….and this will come as no big surprise…that I think the public option would have been much better. I wish we would have gone with that instead, but the political appetite didn’t seem to be there for it.

    I have a member of my family right now who is uninsured and on the search for individual insurance. Either the monthly insurance premiums are so high that she can’t afford them, or if she gets a plan with lower premiums, the deductible and co-insurance are so ridiculously high it’s like having no coverage at all. Such great options!

    I also hope their tactics backfire on the Republicans, but I don’t have much faith. I’m worried Obama won’t get re-elected in 2012…


    November 5, 2011 at 11:25 pm

    • I agree with you, Eurobrat — sure this isn’t a surprise, either. 😉 — that the public option would’ve been better. I think Harry Reid knew he didn’t have the votes in the Senate as he’s stuck with a few really conservative Ds among his “majority” — like Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who is extremely conservative (the only type of D to get elected in Nebraska is going to be that way, mind), and even Jon Tester of Montana is not always progressive (though he’s further left than Nelson).

      I know that I cannot get insurance right now due to several “pre-existing” conditions. But yes, people who cannot find insurance that has an affordable co-pay is a major problem right now and I think it’s something we need to fix in this country.

      Right now every R candidate is unpalatable — the only two Rs I like, at all, are Huntsman and Johnson, and really, they seem more like Dems than Rs. (That the Rs have moved so far to the right that Huntsman, a centrist, seems “liberal” rather than commonsensical is a sad commentary, isn’t it?) I think the current President will easily beat any of them. I’m not a huge fan of the current President, mind; I think Hillary Clinton would’ve made a far better POTUS because there’s no way in the world she would’ve given in so easily on _anything_ because she knows everyone in Washington and would’ve been able to hold her ground a whole lot better than the extremely inexperienced Barack Obama — but he’s a lot better than any of the Rs, for sure. (Even Huntsman and Johnson, though I like both and find them effective public servants, who are principled conservatives/centrists.)

      Barb Caffrey

      November 5, 2011 at 11:42 pm

      • I do think President Obama has done better this past year, and he’s certainly hampered by the current crop of Rs, who are among the worst “public servants” I’ve ever seen. No one would be likely to succeed with this bunch.

        Barb Caffrey

        November 5, 2011 at 11:48 pm

  3. We’re finding way too much to agree about! I’m a Hillary chick as well. And can you imagine having Bill as the First Husband to back her up? Mmm-hmmmm….

    But I do think that Obama is better than anything Republican out there right now, plus I feel he hasn’t quite gotten the credit for a lot of the stuff he’s done right. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that you’re right about 2012.


    November 6, 2011 at 12:31 pm

    • Yep, we agree on many things. 😉 Which is good.

      I think if HRC were able to run in ’12 she’d win much more easily than the current President. She didn’t vote for TARP II and had nothing at all to do with Nancy Pelosi or that whole botched process for the health care reform stuff. (When HRC did it, she didn’t do it in the same way, either. She brought in doctors and nurses and the like and listened to them. I wish the Congress had taken care of this when she was still First Lady.)

      But yes, you’re also right that the current President, Mr. Obama, has done more things right than wrong. The one really big problem he has at the moment is with the lack of oversight on Wall Street; that no one has been brought to justice there is a major problem. I hope there is an investigation going on, mind you, but if there is, it’s so quiet that we probably won’t know anything about it unless and until the SEC brings charges.

      Even so, Mr. Obama is much better than any of the Rs that are likely to get the nomination. And if someone like Cain is the nominee, I can see Obama winning very easily; if Romney runs, Obama will win relatively easily. Not sure about Perry; if he recaptures whatever it was that made the Rs really like him, he’d be tough — but he’s way off his game right now to the point I’m wondering if he has a severe illness going on.

      Barb Caffrey

      November 6, 2011 at 9:58 pm

      • Hmmm, I think of Romney as having a good chance of winning against Obama, because of his “moderate” reputation, whether it is deserved or not. All the other Bachmanns and Cains would be easily defeated. Perry might have had a chance once, but at this point I’m with you on the “severe illness” comment–he’s completely lost it.


        November 7, 2011 at 12:14 am

  4. Eurobrat, I’m not able to reply directly — so this will be out of order, I’m afraid, sequentially (WordPress is doing something odd) — but if that does happen (Romney winning due to seeming like a “moderate”), it means that the media have fallen down on the job. (I want to write “media has,” but I know “media” is plural. It doesn’t sound right, I know.) Romney was for collective bargaining when he was the moderate R Gov. of MA — I know that. But now, he’s against collective bargaining and is actually supporting Ohio’s issue #2. Where is the logic there? Any media operative should have a field day with that if he or she is paying attention, IMO.

    As for Perry, if he _is_ very ill, he needs to treat the illness and suspend his campaign. If he does that, he can still come back. Much of what he’s said and done on the campaign trail will be written off that way. And he’ll be better able to make a good case for himself as the nominee. (In this case, doing what is right, health-wise, is also what’s right politically no matter what his advisors say. He needs to take time off, and relax, bare minimum.)

    Barb Caffrey

    November 7, 2011 at 12:45 am

  5. No worries about the sequence problem. WordPress does this to me all the time. It`s like they don`t like too many replies in a row,

    Romney is now trying to play to a conservative base, so he`s saying the opposite of everything he did as MA governor. You`re right that any media worth its salt should have a field day with this. I`ve seen a few commentators point out his contradictions, but not nearly enough. So I think they are falling down on the job.

    As far as Perry, I was thinking more mental illness… either way, he needs a break 🙂


    November 7, 2011 at 11:42 am

    • I’m glad you understand about the WordPress issues, Eurobrat. I’ve seen this a few times before and thought it was just me. 😉

      Yes, Romney _is_ doing his level best to convince the far right Rs that he’s as conservative as Mom, apple pie, and baseball — not that _any_ of those things really are, of course, but Romney is counting on two things: his appearance (vs. what’s real) and the fact that due to budget shortfalls and such, the media have really fallen down on the job (just as you’ve said) regarding him and everyone else.

      Yes, Perry needs someone competent to look him over. My Mom suspects he’s taking something like Ambien, which is known to cause some real problems. They give that to people to help them sleep, but it has some nasty side effects, and might cause some of this outright loopiness (I was going to say “lunacy,” but I’m trying to be kind). And yes, he does need a break; he needs to go home for a few weeks and wind down, then decide if he really wants to do this now.

      Me, if I were a competent military strategist, I’d tell him to go home. Nothing is worth this. He can re-start the campaign after the first of the year. He’s obviously ill and something should get out about that — it’s no lie, because anyone can see that Perry isn’t the same guy now as he was a month or two ago. And I believe that despite Perry being an R, he’s actually a pretty decent fellow in many respects and a very good stump speech candidate; that he’s not coming off well now means there _is_ something really wrong and it should be addressed _now_, not later, for his own sake. (And if he wants to be President, the argument can be made that he should treat his health _for the sake of the country_, too.)

      Barb Caffrey

      November 7, 2011 at 12:44 pm

  6. Oooh, Ambien. I have a few co-workers who used to take it, and it is *bad news*. It can cause sleep eating, sleep driving and all kinds of actions you won`t remember due to blacking out.

    When you put it that way, I actually feel sympathy for Perry. No fair doing that–it`s so much easier when you can view the other side as not quite human 😉


    November 7, 2011 at 4:14 pm

    • LOL to the last, Eurobrat. But yes, after the terrible way that Tea Party crowd acted during the late September debate (where they cheered at a hypothetical death example), sometimes it is easier to believe that the opposition isn’t being humane. I think Perry isn’t a bad guy. I don’t want him as my next President. But I don’t see him as a bad guy.

      I see Romney, OTOH, as not only venal, but as somewhat dissolute. I know this has to sound very odd as Romney puts on a very nice appearance; he’s well-dressed, well-groomed, and is extremely well off. But Romney bothers me because of all the policy switches, and how he refuses to believe that he’s anything but the same from day to day when his political positions seemingly change with the wind.

      I actually think that both Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul have the courage of their convictions and will speak their mind even if it’s not popular. That quality would make _either_ of them a better President than Mitt Romney. (Though of course I don’t want Gingrich or Paul as my next President, either.)

      And as for Herman Cain — this guy has been like teflon this far, but now with Gloria Allred coming out with someone who was sexually harassed by Cain, I think his poll numbers are about to go into freefall.

      Barb Caffrey

      November 7, 2011 at 5:54 pm

      • I remember that debate well–it made me sick to my stomach. Perhaps rather than seeing them as inhuman, that audience reaction shows just how easily those who are human just like us can get carried away. A good warning for all of us.

        Weirdly enough, your post made me realize that I prefer a politician who doesn’t stick to his convictions to a politician who has strong convictions which scare me. I’m not sure if this is something I should be embarrassed about or not. It may be why Bill Clinton never bothered me much.


        November 7, 2011 at 10:17 pm

      • Yes, that debate was just terrible. It showed the problems with both mob psychology and “get on the bandwagon psychology.” I’m convinced that many of those people were embarrassed after they went home and realized how terribly they’d acted. But that doesn’t take back what they did nor how they did it, either. And it _is_ a good warning for us all, of what _not_ to do.

        I prefer a politician who has good common sense. But I’d rather have someone who’s wrong but principled — because if you _can_ change his/her mind, that is because of _principle_ and you have a better shot with someone like that than someone who twists in the wind and does whatever he/she wants or whatever his/her donors want.

        Romney _does_ have common sense. He proved that by how he governed in Massachussetts. He was a decent to good Governor even though I didn’t approve of how he conducted himself (I thought he liked the fame too much; he was always in the news for something or other, usually nothing bad). He probably would make a much better President than G.W. Bush, for example (though that’s a low bar), might be better than George H.W. Bush (a much higher bar), who was a moderate R by today’s standards.

        That said, I wish Romney would stand up for himself against the advisors who are saying, “Move to the hard right and court the Tea Party.” Someone needs to tell Romney’s people that the Tea Partiers are a lost cause. They’re on Herman Cain’s side, or maybe Newt Gingrich’s side or Michelle Bachmann’s side — and if Perry figures out what’s wrong and fixes it, they’ll gravitate toward him.

        As for Bill Clinton, I didn’t vote for him either time. (Matter of principle, but not anything to do with his philandering even though I disliked that because he had a great woman at home; why didn’t he just stick with her? Not too many women like HRC. It had more to do with the mess with Dan Rostenkowski in Illinois and how the Democratic Party didn’t rein him in fast enough. I voted Indy in ’92 and ’96 because of that.) But I think he was a very, very good President and I actually sent one of those fawning, fan-type letters — the one and only time I’ve done so — because I was impressed with how far he’d come in his own, personal journey. I think Bill Clinton, having grown up poor, knows how it feels to be poor and disadvantaged. I think his wife, Mrs. Clinton, knows that, too, to a certain degree — when Bill Clinton was Gov. of Arkansas, he only made $40,000 a year and that certainly was not wealthy even by 1992 standards. So they really know how it is to have to live on a budget, pay student loans, and have to deal with real financial stressors. Most contemporary politicians, including Mitt Romney, have _zero_ idea of how to do that. So that’s why in retrospect, I wish I would’ve voted for Bill Clinton.

        Barb Caffrey

        November 7, 2011 at 11:24 pm

  7. You know, you’re probably right. If a politician like Romney who twists here and there with the wind gets into office, who’s to say he won’t be bought and sold by a scary religious lobby, or a corporatist war lobby? You never know.

    And, no need to feel bad about not voting for Bill Clinton. The man had his flaws. I love him simply because I associate him with memories of a time of delicious prosperity and a beautiful job market. So yeah, I like him for my own selfish reasons. And I’m in the minority of women who like Hillary–because she’s smart and strong, and I believe she really wants to make positive change in the world.


    November 8, 2011 at 12:46 am

    • Yes, this is the main worry I have with Romney. He goes with the flow, which would be fine except we have exorbitant amounts of money flowing through political coffers. No one could see that amount of money and remain incorruptible, not even the independently wealthy Mitt Romney. So I agree 100% with you yet again. 😉

      I’m with you all the way with regards to HRC as well. I really admire her and think we need more people like her — competent in a wide variety of things, and to be able to shine equally or nearly equally at any task she puts herself — that’s a very rare thing.

      See, Bill Clinton understood the economy a whole lot better than G.W. Bush (though that’s damning with faint praise) and I think better than Pres. Obama also. That’s why I wish I had voted for him; he got results, and he had good people working for him for the most part.

      Barb Caffrey

      November 8, 2011 at 3:34 am

      • So your worry about Romney confirms what I was already thinking: Obama needs to win in 2012. He may not be as good at playing the presidential game as Bill Clinton, but he`s the best option we`ve got out there right now. And yeah, comparing anyone to W is just plain cruel…mainly to W 🙂


        November 8, 2011 at 11:22 am

      • LOL to the last, and yes. Right now it seems like there’s very little choice out there. All we can do is wait, and watch.

        Barb Caffrey

        November 8, 2011 at 6:16 pm

  8. Let’s both keep our fingers crossed for next year!

    Thanks for a great discussion, Barb. It’s conversations like this that are the reason why I love having a blog in the first place 🙂


    November 8, 2011 at 9:20 pm

    • Fingers, toes, and other assorted appendages crossed, Eurobrat. 😉

      I enjoyed the discussion as well. Stop by anytime, and I’ll do what I can to visit your blog, too! 🙂

      Barb Caffrey

      November 9, 2011 at 12:35 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: