To eHarmony: Grow a Pair

In case you didn't hear about this, someone sued eHarmony.com a few years ago for not catering to his particular taste of partners. He couldn't find suitable partners on the site and thus declared the site was discriminating against him. I'm sure you've already assumed, but I'll clarify here: the man is gay. He was complaining about not having the option to be matched with other gay men.

Fast forward to this past week. eHarmony has settled this case. That's right - they sold out. The end result is that they have to pay the legal fees and other expenses of the attorney general's office ($50,000) as well as $5,000 to the man himself - let me guess - for pain and suffering. In addition, the business has to create a new website that solely caters to the gay and lesbian community; they're calling it Compatible Partners. They're giving the first 10,000 users free accounts and will be kept completely separate (database, etc.) from their regular site.

Now, on the surface, this issue seems like a gay issue. Don't be fooled - it's not. In a very real sense, this is just one more case of a company being trapped into making a so-called politically correct decision simply not to offend anyone. I contend that their decision was weak-kneed and will only set a precedent that need not be set.

Let's just forget about the whole gay aspect. It's not relevant to what happened. What essentially happened here is that an individual decided to go to a business and be served, only to discover the business didn't serve anything he liked. Normal people would go to another business that does serve what they like. Not so with Mr. I'm-a-minority (be it religion, race, sexual orientation, language). Mr. I.A.M. feels put down and trounced upon and wants every place he chooses to do business with to cater to HIM. Unfortunately for us without a minority mindset, I.A.M. wins more and more in our court system.

In this particular case, the charge was ridiculous. eHarmony.com is a private business. As long as it doesn't break any laws it can do whatever it wants. And - here's the kicker - both the company and even the attorney general agreed that no laws were broken! So why settle?!? It baffles the mind. At least - the normal mind. Let's take this analogy. I'm a carnivore. I love meat. Let's say I'm walking in a shopping center and I see a vegan market store. We'll suspend reality here for a second and say I walk in to this store to purchase some meat. What do I find? Steaks? Hamburgers? Pork Chops? NO?!?!? How could they! They are discriminating against meat-eaters! I'LL SUE!!!

(You see how ridiculous it is when you remove the I.A.M. slant?)

Here's a thought: Let's say that eHarmony.com doesn't give in. I don't call that discrimination - I call it a business opportunity! If there are that many people interested in finding a gay partner online, then there should be websites devoted to it! If I were gay that's where I'd go! You see - that's one of the benefits of our country; if someone sees a need for a product/business/idea, then they can fill that void with something that consumers will purchase. In some cases they can create a market where none existed before.

I wish people who felt disenfranchised didn't always look to the courts to solve their problems. I'm not saying the courts are never an option, but it's not like there weren't other alternatives for the dude - there are websites that cater to just about every type of partner-interest one might have. Nobody was forcing him to use eHarmony. He chose to implicate this business - this private, law-abiding business - in his own little "I'm a victim"-mentality-induced crusade, and the company just gave up. The real crime here is that he should have never been allowed his day in court. That would have saved everybody some dough.

The real scoop - the real reason this was even pursued - was because eHarmony has long been the bane of the gay community. The site/company was founded by a former affiliate of Focus on the Family - an evangelical Christian, Dr. Neil Clark. He designed the site and their formulas specifically to match heterosexual couples. Since this suit in 2005, at least one more was launched last year in California. Same concept - same goal - same I.A.M. mentality. By the way - this one is a class action lawsuit, and even the attorney for the plaintiff says,

This lawsuit is "about changing the landscape and making a statement out there that gay people, just like heterosexuals, have the right and desire to meet other people with whom they can fall in love."

I don't agree with his comment about "everybody has the right...". Nobody has the right to meet anyone. They may have the desire, for sure, but they definitely don't have the right. I'm pretty sure that nowhere in the Constitution does it say, "We all have the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and to meet our future lover." Maybe I missed that day in Civics class. To be sure - it would be nice if every company you wanted to do business with catered to you, but that's just not how it works in this country. If enough people want a business to change, the business will change. Obviously, eHarmony didn't feel the need to change to cater to the gay community and were staying as is. Could they have made more money had they done so? Probably. But again, not enough people wanted that service from them, so they didn't feel the business need to change.

The irony of this is that now that eHarmony is in the game, they will undoubtedly take business away from existing sites that specifically designed themselves to cater to the gay community. They have been so successful with the hetero market, who's to say they won't be just as successful with their new venture? What one hand giveth, the other taketh away...

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go sue that damn vegan store for not selling sirloins.

Bastards.

Obama's no fool...

Earlier this week Obama met with Bush to discuss transition issues, etc. These type of talks are typically not public affairs and tend to be more private in nature. In other words, the media is not present behind these 'closed doors'. I say this because Obama staff broke that unwritten rule and leaked details to the press about the visit. However, this was a very clever move, even though it pisses me off.

During their talks, the issue of the auto-bailout came up and it was said that Obama pushed for the bailout to be passed, and Bush (who apparently is being resistant) asked for some things in return for his support; namely Democrat approval of the trade pact(s) with Columbia. Tough call for Obama - he backs (and is backed by) unions and labor forces which directly oppose said trade agreements with Columbia. They say of course that it is because of mistreatment of workers down there, but in reailty it has a lot more to do with fear of losing revenues, etc. to Columbia. Anyway, turns out it's not so tough a call for Obama after all. In a brilliant political move (whether by him or by a staffer) it's leaked that Bush is trying to horse-trade behind the scenes. What's the fallout?

1) Bush is made to look like he is not supportive of American laborers.
2) Obama can say (rather honestly), "Look I tried to get the bailout money and help the American work----SNORE...insert rhetoric here...SNORE--, but you know Bushie, he's stonewalling me until he gets what he wants."
3) Obama can bide his time if need be and wait until he's in office and then do whatever he wants anyway, while looking like he tried to 'cross the aisle'.
4) Bush's approval rating can dip even lower.(Is it at absolute zero yet?)

No, Obama's no fool, but the American people are. Most out there probably have no clue how politics work and that this 'horse-trading' is done each and every single day in Washington. It's how 'pork' even gets added to bills in the first place. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours; either now or later. How else can you explain NASCAR racing track owners getting millions in the much-talked-about bailout bill after it went through the Senate? I love NASCAR, but it has NOTHING to do with the financial meltdown in the banking industry.

Bush played the same game he's learned to play since entering Washington, but the public at large will despise him for it.

Brilliant move, Obama. Check and Mate.

Am I in the Twilight Zone?!

A few days ago I wrote a nice little fairy tale that most certainly did not have a fairy tale ending. It portrayed the current attitude in Washington toward corporate bailout, etc. It used the analogy of the money being candy, and that if you give in once, then everybody will come knocking.

Enter American Express. Yep, now they're knocking at the door. Though their requested amount is a "paltry" 3.5 bn dollars, they actually had to change their business definition just so they could qualify for bailout money. Yep, after an emergency ruling, the Fed now considers AMEX a "bank holding company" which entitles them to bailout dough. Which brings me to my first point, I now wish to be a bank holding company.

However, that's not the main thing I wanted to vent about. I wanted to vent about the very high probability that we will bailout the auto industry as well. Actually, that's not precisely accurate. We will only bailout the 3 automakers which happen to be in Detroit. And happen to be employed by union workers. And happen to be losing money by the truckloads. And happen to make crappy cars. That's right - Toyota, Nissan, Honda, etc. are doing just dandy other parts of the country and there's nary a union worker in sight.

So the "Big 3" want bailout money (or more in the case of GM and Ford, who have already received 25 bn that they burned through in a couple months), and it seems at this point e they will likely receive it. But should they? Should we bail out every failing industry? How about the film industry? It's been hurting for a while; perhaps they're entitled to some help as well? After all, there are hundreds of thousands of jobs at stake in that industry as well. I'm not heartless. I do understand that many jobs will likely be lost if any or all of the Big 3 would go bankrupt. But let's play devil's advocate: if they DO get the bailout money, will they still be able to keep all those jobs? The answer may surprise you: probably not.

Rewind nearly 30 years ago to another government bailout of Chrysler. There is a common myth that this government bailout gave the company a leg to stand on and they bounced back from near death to become successful yet again. However, let's look at the facts. Despite the money being intended to keep the company from going bankrupt and laying off workers, they STILL laid off nearly HALF of its employees. Estimates at the time figured that these losses were comparable to what would have happened had the company actually gone into Chapter 11. So the bailout essentially failed at its main intent. How about bankruptcy? It's true that it never went into Chapter 11, but it essentially went through all the motions, completely screwing creditors in the process. In some cases it was able to pay off hundreds of millions of dollars of loans at 30 cents on the dollar. Sweet deal for the shareholders which would have lost everything had they gone bankrupt. Here's a great article that details the ordeal from a 1983 perspective (isn't the Internet great?).

http://www.heritage.org/research/regulation/bg276.cfm

The two quotes I especially liked that are very pertinent today are:

Confronting the Chrysler myths with Chrysler facts reveals Chrysler's true financial condition and the real impact of those federal guarantees. It shows that if the bailout is indeed the model for an American industrial policy the consequences could be disastrous.

and

When Chrysler was on the verge of bankruptcy in 1979, the marketplace was signaling that the slackening automobile market would only support three U.S. car manufacturers. By granting the Chrysler loan guarantees, Congress ignored that signal. If Chrysler survives, it will probably mean that the shrinking automobile market will be shared by four ailing domestic automakers, rather than the two or three relatively healthy car manufacturers that would have emerged had Chrysler been allowed to go into formal bankruptcy.

Get your damn heads in the game, Washington. If a company is doomed to fail, then let it fail. Don't try to prop it up with my tax dollar when it should fall. You know, there's a nice legal entity for dealing with a failing company that handles creditors, shareholders, and typically, management as well. It's called Chapter 11. Let these companies go bankrupt. The creditors will lose some, the shareholders will lose a lot, the management will be recycled, and the company can refocus and start over. The taxpayers? It won't cost us a dime.

Farmers burn their fields to replenish the nutrients in the soil so they can reuse it. Steel is tempered with intense heat to make it stronger. If these auto companies rise from their own ashes they will be better for it. If they don't, then why would we have wanted to prop them up to begin with?

A Tale of Children and their Candy

Once upon a time there was a family, the Publics. The Publics had a little boy named Bear. Bear was Stearn, but boy did Bear love candy. LOVED it. Especially those gold foil wrapped ones. Anyway, Bear wasn't very good with his candy and finally got to the point where he had very little candy left.

Bear cried when he got home, "MOMMY!!! I NEED MORE CANDY!!"

Mommy came in the room. "Bear? What's wrong dear? What did you do with all the candy you had?" Bear replied, "I don't have it anymore. I had lots, and was even holding some of the other kids' candy too. But you know how I love it so much, and I ate it all! Now everyone wants their candy back and I don't have it! They're gonna beat me up!" Mommy deliberated on the issue and finally decided to give in and give Bear the candy.

A few days later, the Public twins Fannie and Freddie were found crying in their room. Mommy came running up the stairs, "What's wrong children?" "We don't have any more candy!" they replied in unison. "Let me guess," Mommy said, "if you don't get any more candy you'll get beat up?"

They looked at each other. "How'd you know, Mommy?" "How many pieces do you need to not get beat up?" Mommy said. Again they looked at each other. Fannie said, "We need 100 billion pieces of candy. Each."

Mommy (whose name was Connie, short for Congressa) shook her head and sighed. Just at that time, Daddy (whose name was John Q.) walked into the room. "What's the problem, Dear?" "Oh, John. The twins are saying they need more candy." John glared, "Listen, I'm still upset about the twins lying about how much candy they had a few months ago." "I know, I know," Mommy pleaded. "But I'm sure this time will be different, and we can trust them again." John was firm, "I still say no." Mommy grew furious, "Well, I don't care what you say! You don't care about the well-being of our children anymore! I'm giving them the candy - every single last piece!" With that, she slammed the door on him, leaving John in the hall.

A few days later John was walking through the kitchen when he saw Mommy filling their other son crAIG's backpack full of candy. "What is that for?" he asked. "I don't want to hear it, John! This is our son we're talking about!" "But crAIG hasn't even come asking for candy yet..." "This is a precautionary measure, John. If I don't give him this candy he might get beat up one day! I can't see my boy get hurt!"

The next day Daddy noticed some papers on the dining room table. Upon closer inspection, he saw that it was a receipt for 700 billion pieces of candy. "Connie! Get in here now!" She came in defiantly with her head held high. "What is the meaning of this!?!?" John said, his face turning red. She answered, "I've done what needed to be done. You'll have to trust me. I wanted to give enough candy to all the children in the neighborhood so that they wouldn't beat each other up and they would start being friendly again," she answered calmly. "But where in the world did you get the money to pay for this?!?" he said. "It wasn't a big deal, You had plenty of money in your wallet." At this point John was ready to strangle his wife. "Connie - don't you see what your rashness has done? When you give a child candy when they ask for it, they're going to ask for more. When you give them more, they're going to ask for even more. Then other kids in the neighborhood will want the same candy that you're giving the kids. Don't you see the pattern?" Connie just stood there dumbfounded.

At precisely that moment, some neighborhood kids showed up in the driveway. The triplets, G.M., Fordy, and Chryssy all filed inside. "So, uh...we heard you had some candy?"

As Connie smiled at them with a wink, John sighed and buried his face in his hands, longing for a divorce and wishing for a new wife.

Get out (of work) and vote!

This is the newest message from Obama. Get out of whatever you're doing next Tueday and help him win. I guess Step 1 on the road to change is to avoid whatever responsibility you might have next Tuesday and do whatever you can to get yourself and others to vote for Obama.

The messages:

Vote next Tuesday!
...Admirable

Get out of work...
...Deplorable

Here's the ad: http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/dayoff

Why should the citizens of the US just put their lives on hold for a day just to vote him in? Let it be known I would be just as upset if McCain tried to pull this stunt...this is completely non-partisan. It kinda reeks of egotism and self-importance. In effect, his campaign is saying that working a phone bank or physically travelling to a battleground state is more important than your job/school day. Actually, that's exactly what they're saying. I wouldn't avoid work for McCain and I would hope few people would. Hell, I never even take sick days...

Another frustration stemmed from the tone - it said you can't 'make history' from your couch or while playing video games, which I agree with - who wouldn't? But then it says you can't make history from your job. Now, I don't think every single job in this country impacts history, but it definitely keeps the wheels turning and keeps us moving forward. I guess they're ok with half the country (his support according to polls) just pausing for a day.

I'm not suggesting the world will end if half the people didn't work/go to school for a day, but it's mainly the principle of the matter. It's not like someone's out there saying, "Ok, there's been a huge [insert natural disaster] and the area could really use your help. Please consider donating a day of your time to the people of this plight and let's work together to improve this situation blah blah blah." No, instead it's take a day off and help ME get elected.

It reminds me of an interview I heard about from a friend that aired on TV some time ago. The two opposing sides were represented as usual, but I don't know who they were. The Obama supporter made some statement to the effect of "Look at attendence numbers. Obama consistently attracts 15, 20, 25 thousand people at his rallys. McCain is lucky to draw half that." His implication of course was that Obama was obviously more popular with the American people and they're kicking ass. This attempt was foiled when the McCain supporter calmly interjected, "That's because McCain's supporters are at work."

'Nuf said.

I'll be working next Tuesday, but it won't keep me from voting. Where will you be?

Annoying "Facts"

So; only 12 days left in the election. I thought I'd take a quick minute to throw out one of the common party-lines from Democrats and voice my frustration over it. Note that I'm NOT saying that Republicans do not also have their own party lines. They most certainly do. In politics, who doesn't?

This one just grates on me because it panders to people as if they're idiots and it is consistently glossed over by any opposition; be it McCain in EVERY debate or opposing commentators on news channels. They never respond the way I think they should. And since I'm all-knowing, then they're wrong. (or was it a know-it-all? I forget...)

So there.

Back to topic - here's the "fact"oid. Americans consume 25 percent of the world's produced oil, but our nation holds less than 3 percent of the world's proven oil reserves

The very first time I heard that it made me immediately want to get on the Internet to disprove its implication. I admit, I automatically got cynical about it, assuming (rightly as it turned out) that it was completely misleading, despite being based on facts. What irks me about this statement is that it implies that we consume 8 times what we can make. Admittedly, the wordplay is clever and has obviously pulled the wool over people's eyes, because it never gets clarified by opposition.
When someone hears it or reads it, their mind focuses on the 25 and 3 percent numbers and 25 is a lot bigger than 3, so we must use more than we make. This couldn't be further from the truth, though it's exactly what they want you to think. In actuality, when you look at the numbers, you find that our proven reserves are about 30 billion barrels. These numbers are from 2008. As for consumption, we consume about 20 million barrels per day.

So, 25% = 20 million/day and 3% = 30 BILLION. Hardly using 8 times what we can make. In fact, if we were able to extract and refine all those proven reserves today, we could subsist entirely on our own oil for almost 4 years without any imported oil.

However, the facts are that we'll never have to do that. Canada has just had revealed that they have - get this - about 180 BILLION barrels of proven reserves. They're nice to us and we trade well with them, so there's no reason we wouldn't be able to trade for some of that lovely oil. When you add in their consumption of about 3 million/day and their reserves of 180 billion, then we can now last TWENTY-FIVE YEARS. That's right - a quarter a century. This obviously doesn't take into account any increases in usage, but if we're smart we would actually LOWER consumption while we INCREASE production.

Now, if that were to happen, we'd obviously not want to sit idly and let the 25 years run out without doing something, so we'd need to use that time wisely to rapidly develop alternative fuels and power sources, as well as utilize our UNproven reserves. Cuba has supposedly found lots of oil off their shores, which by the way, is off OUR shores. I believe the facts of that find are still waiting to be verified, but remember that Brazil also found a TON of oil off their shores recently. It's more than likely there off our shore too, just waiting to be drilled and refined.Who knows, if we were able to reduce our own consumption and have a big find ourselves, WE could export oil to others...what a concept. In fact, our increased production could probably bring the price of oil so far down that there'd be little profit or money in it for anyone and entrepreneurs would look to other fuels as their next big buck.

Now, truthfully, we can't start refining all that oil we have and Canada has overnight, but we've got to start somewhere, and we should. It's not about politics, it's about common sense. Why should we rely on someone else for something when we can produce it (or purchase from friendly countries) now? You can't simply turn the country from oil to alternative fuels overnight either, but obviously advancement needs to be made in those areas as well. If we could kick all the damn lobbyists out of DC then we could probably get some things accomplished. Environmentalists lobby against any sort of oil expansion whatsoever and oil companies lobby against alternative fuels. It's got to stop!!

Sorry - got slightly off topic. My point was that statement by Dems just gets under my skin every time I hear it and NOBODY ever says anything. So consider something said.

A missed opportunity last night...

Overall I thought both candidates did pretty well on the debate. Sarah definitely did MUCH better than McCain - hopefully McCain will actually prepare this time and be ready next Tuesday...but I don't want to get off topic.

I don't want to write a long review of the debate - each side will say their side won and such is the nature of politics. However, in a brief recap - she spoke direct, glossed over in a very political way when she didn't have all the information she needed, and overall she handled herself pretty admirably. Biden was very factual and threw out a lot of numbers and figures, and assuming they're all true, won on that front. He was cordial and respectful and at one point choked up a bit on a personal hardship issue. I thought he did just fine.

Despite his fact throwing, I think at one point Palin actually called his bluff. He essentially railed against McCain's claim that the surge worked in Iraq and it can work in Afghanistan. He claimed the general in charge of Afghanistan said that the surge used in Iraq simply won't work. Apparently he had said that yesterday morning. Palin fired back that in fact he said a surge could work, but it would need to be customized to Afghanistan's terrain and opposing forces. When it passed back to Biden, he changed topic, with a "Ok, you got me" look because he didn't have a comeback.

I did see one big missed opportunity with Palin last night, and it stemmed from a critism I had with her that she exhibited twice (maybe 3 times...). I don't know who was prepping her with Obama's record, but I can't rationalize why anyone would send her in there with facts about Obama's voting record about seemingly NEGATIVE votes cast, when McCain supposedly (according to Biden) made the exact same votes! You can't critize someone for voting one way, implying your running mate is 'better than that', when in fact he voted the same way. It's just not even believable.

HOWEVER, in the case of the last issue that I can remember, she missed her big opportunity. I'm paraphrasing here, but she said that Obama voted against funding the troops for some vote. Bad Obama. Biden countered with the fact that McCain also voted against because there was a timeline attached to withdrawal. This would seem to be a moot point - she failed to make her case that McCain was "above that". She just let it go. Wasted opportunity. Here's what I would have said:

"You know something, Joe? You're right. John McCain did vote against that bill, and it's for exactly the same reason you just outlined. It had a timeline attached to it. You see, folks, this is what is wrong with the current political state of Washington. You can't vote for something you truly believe in and want without compromising some part of it by voting for something you vehemently disagree with. When something is desired for a good cause, our representatives in Washington jump on it and start throwing in everything under the sun because it might go through. The problem is that it happens on nearly EVERY bill. Not even bills that are assumed to be critically important are left unscathed. Look at the most recent bailout bill that just passed the Senate. It was designed to sweeten the deal for taxpayers, which is good, but under that same umbrella various special interest groups were granted millions of dollars. Now what in the world do those have to do with bailing out the economy? Absolutely nothing. We have a major crisis here, and you can rest assured that when John McCain and I get into that White House, this kind of behavior will be reigned in. As Americans we should not stand for our representatives loading up billis with unnecessary pork just to satisfy a few people. There are people's financial futures at stake here and Washington wants to just slide these things in. It's ridiculous and we won't stand for it."

Now, of course, she would have never said the last few parts because McCain actually voted for the dang bill. I don't know whether he actually agrees with it or not, but he really had no choice. It was going to win anyway, so he had to vote with the majority. If it works, then he was as good as Obama; if it fails then he was as bad as him. It basically accomplished the nullifying of Obama's vote. But still, she could have still made the point I outlined and essentially nullified Biden's claim that McCain voted against troop funding when in fact there was a good reason, and then also that current Washington politics are frustratingly and unnecessarily complicated and pushed her issue of reform.

All in all though, good debate. Palin held her own and did very well. She didn't topple Biden, but she definitely wasn't expected to. I think she did, however, get over her rash of bad publicity lately.

Finally, you can bet that if the House votes today, which I believe they are, it will pass there too. Pelosi surely wouldn't make that mistake again...

Nancy Pelosi And Co. need a reality check...

So everybody who cares knows by now that the "Bailout Bill" failed in the House today. If you were to not look at the actual numbers and just hear the various Democrats come out with a stern disapproving look on their faces, you'd be inclined to think it was the fault of all "those Republicans". Alas, Ms. Pelosi, you and your friends are a bit...misguided. But kudos to you for making the most of this opportune time to be a fricking partisan as you possibly can. Nice effort there.

I'm not going to go into detail about her silly attempt at convincing congressmen to vote for this bill by bashing the very people whose votes she needed. Why in the world would she even do that? Any reasonably intelligent person would not think to put somedown down right before a vote you hope they cast! It's like having a baseball player choosing between two teams, and the one team tells him he's been playing like crap for the past few years and is essentially good for nothing (and by the way his coach sucks too), and then getting indignant when the player chooses to go to the other team. WTF?? I think she must have wanted the vote to not pass. After all, it's keeping the economy in the forefront of the news, which is good for Obama and bad for McCain. It's not like she actually *cares* about how people's investments are being drained. (For that matter, that probably goes for the lot of them - both sides)

But, I digress. Despite her...speech, I don't think it caused the 12 people to vote the other way. I think there were things in the bill that just couldn't be swallowed. Then again, maybe her rant did offend some people, childish as that reaction may be. Whatever the reason; that didn't upset me personally. It was really what she (and, admittedly, her cohorts) said *after* the vote that got to me.

She said: "...The Democratic side more than lived up to its side of the bargain", then she talked about the numerous 'improvements' to be bill she claimed they were "bipartisan". Then, "WE delivered on our side of the bargain...clearly that message has not been heard by the Republican caucus" The others around her said basically the same thing. It boiled down to: "The President said we need to get it together and push this thing through and we did our part but those lackeys on the other side of the aisle decided to spoil the fun and go against THE PRESIDENT (gasp)." (as if they're always best buds with Mr. P.) There's only one problem with that assessment. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH PARTISANSHIP. Let's look at the numbers shall we?

Only SIXTY PERCENT of Democrats voted for the plan!! If you didn't know the numbers, you would have assumed from their comments that nearly all of the Democrats voted for the plan. On the other side, 67% of the Republicans voted against, so a third voted for it. Even if you would have gotten the needed votes, couldn't they have come from the Democratic party?!? Why not put any "blame" on them? After all, almost HALF of the Democratic party voted "no". I would think that regardless of the issue, big or small, they have a hell of a lot easier time getting their own party to vote for it than the other party. The one guy even said "60% of the Democratic party voted to put aside their feelings/emotions/experiences and vote for the best interest of their country. 67% of the Republicans decided to put their political ideology ahead of the best interests of our great nation." He makes no mention at all of the 40% that also voted "no". I guess their "no" was not an indication of their "political ideology" and was probably a case of punching the vote card wrong or something... And while he was at it, he didn't bother to acknowledge the 1/3 of the Republicans that actually DID vote his way. One more thing - if they were TRULY united in this fight to do the President's bidding, then they could push this through without any say so of the Republican party, but of course, they're not.

Still, if those were the only numbers you looked at, you could still (weakly) argue that the vote was along partisan division lines, and that divide caused the failed vote, but let's look at the numbers that really matter. The AMERICAN PEOPLE.

60% of Americans think the government would not manage this properly
Over half outright oppose the bailout plan
28% think the government will not do enough to fix the problems that exist
(these were on the ticker during the aforementioned press conference)

If you can't get the majority of the country to be in on this, then why in the hell would you expect our elected representatives to be on board? Droves and droves of people are hammering their representatives and threatening to pull their support in the next election if they vote for this thing as it is now. I know it's not going to happen, but if the greedy little fingers up there could just keep their hands out of the cookie jars and actually try to do something positive with no side-benefits for themselves, then this thing would go through in a heartbeat. Can you believe they're putting earmarks on this thing??

Well, whenever it does go through, and rest assured SOMETHING will go through eventually, I hope it's by a bit larger of a margin than 51%/49%. And if it is just that slim, then I suppose half the country will just have to get over it.