IT'S PERSANAL DET, YUEZHARE, AAND BAANGKRUPTSE, STUEPID

I aam vere kansernd thaat the Demakraatik Porte iz luezing its miend tu diluezhanal tthingking agen, aand thaat neether Hilare Klintan naur Barok Oeboma iz eelektabool, unles tha Reepublikanz go eekwale kraez aand nominaet a Maurman, hu iz eekwale uneelektabool. Wood a ttherd-porte kaandidaet, Nu Yaurk Site's Juewish maeyer, giv us a ttherd unaakseptabool chois? Hwut haapanz if boetth maejer porteez, aur tthre prezidenshal porteez, giv tha peepool kaandidaets thae deetest? Du voeterz stae hoem in droevz? Du thae get out thair gunz?
+
Yu or probable the oenle Demakraat reemaening in tha raes hu haaz a reel chaans uv not oenle wining tha Hwiet Hous but aulso bringing in a waev uv Demakraatik Repreezentativz aand Senaterz tu empouwer tha Prezidant aakchuewale tu enaakt a lejislaetiv proegraam. Yu kaan kaare tha Soutth, unles yu silekt Oeboma aur Hilare aaz Veep. If yu silekt Bil Richerdsan aaz Veep, yu kaan kaare tha Hispaanik voet, bigtiem.
+
But yu woen't get thaat chaans unles yu speek tu hwut iz tha moest impaurtant ishu faur the eelektarat this tiem, aaz it wuz tha laast tiem. In 2004, Demakraats reefyuezed tu speek tu persanal det, tha faakt thaat tha tipikal Amairikan faamile iz in hok up tu thair iebaulz, aand beeying krusht under yuezhuereeyas interest raets thae kaanot eskaep beekauz tha Reepublikanz paast baankruptse "reefaurm" thaat preezervd baankruptse baesikle oenle faur kaurparaeshanz, so thae kood eskaep laeber kontraakts aand penshan aand heltthkair obligaeshanz, hwiel maeking it aulmoest kampleetle unavailabool tu aurdinere peepool.
+
Duering yaur run faur the Hwiet Hous witth Jon Kere, I chekt tha kaampaen'z websiet aand did aan eelektronik serch faur tha werdz "det", "yuezhare", aand "baangkruptse". No such werdz apeerd on tha hoem paej aur links tu subpaejaz on thaat siet. Agen in 2006, I sercht faur thoez werdz in tha websiet faur the DNK, aand agen did not fiend them. I roet tu the DNK, Senater Kenade, aand sum uther leederz tu sae thaat if thae did not adres persanal det, yuezhare, aand baangkruptse, thae riskt luezing tu tha Reepublikanz agen, aur aat leest luezing the abilite tu set the ajenda faur tha nekst Konggras. Thae did not aanser, thae did not adres thoez kansernz, aand thae 'wun' a morjin uv kantroel oever Konggras so flimze thaat thae wer aabsaluetle unaebool tu du a daamd tthing faur tha Amairikan peepool. Thae didan't eevan atempt tu undu tha baangkruptse "reefaurm" paast bi tha Reepublikanz, thaat haaz traapt 40 milyan Amairikanz in krushing det aat yuezhuereeyas interest raets. Pleez doen't maek tha saem mistaek agen.
+
I yuezd tha serch fungkshan witthin yaur websiet aand sercht faur "det", "yuezhare", aand "baangkruptse". Sum tthingz about "det" aand "baangkruptse" did apeer, but (a) mene wer dueplikats, (b) tha menshanz uv "det" aand "baangkruptse" wer not prominant aand tha ferst reepaurtad reezults reelaetad oenle tu reefaurming baangkrupse lauz aaz reegordz tha vaalyu uv maurgajaz, not the jeneral unavailabilite uv reel baankruptse tu aurdinere peepool, aand (c) theez werdz aand the apaulingle horsh reeyaaliteez beehiend them du not konstituet eether tha sentral naur eevan a maejer theem uv yaur kaampaen.
+
Serchas faur "yuezhare" aand "yuezhuereeyas" on yaur websiet did not pradues a singgal reezult. Not WUN. Or yu just unawair thaat tha reezan peepool kaan't get out uv det iz thaat the interest raets chorjd or outlaandish? Yu prapoez permiting hieyer interest raets oenle on fyuecher perchasez, but du not prapoez a naashanal yuezhare lau. Hwi not?
+
I noe yu or rich nou, but yu or not sapoezd tu be bliend tu tha horsh eekanomik reeyaaliteez uv tha "litool peepool" hu or drouning in det.
+
I chekt tha websietz uv the Oeboma aand Klintan kaampaenz.
+
In boetth the Oeboma aand Klintan websiets, tha werdz "det", "yuezhare" aand "baangkruptse" du not apeer on tha hoem paej, naur iz thair a serch boks bi meenz uv hwich tu fiend thoez ishuez. The "Ishuez" dropdoun menyu duez not sho ene uv thoez werdz eether.
+
Or theez peepool frum anuther plaanat? Haav thae bin so rich faur so laung thaat thae haav no iedeeya thaat this Naeshan iz drouning in det? Eevan Boosh understaandz thaat peepool or so hevile in det thaat thae kannot spend the eekoname out uv reeseshan. But nun uv tha Demakraats understaandz thaat? Hwut iz raung witth yu peepool?
+
"It's persanal det, yuezhare, aand baankruptse, stuepid."
+
(Tha kerant Y.S. militere detth toel in Eerok, akaurding tu tha websiet "Eerok Koewalishan Kaazhuewalteez", iz 3,940 — faur Izreeyal.)

"IT'S PERSONAL DEBT, USURY, AND BANKRUPTCY, STUPID"

I am very concerned that the Democratic Party is losing its mind to delusional thinking again, and that neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama is electable, unless the Republicans go equally crazy and nominate a Mormon, who is equally unelectable. Would a third-party candidate, New York City's Jewish mayor, give us a third unacceptable choice? What happens if both major parties, or three presidential parties, give the people candidates they detest? Do voters stay home in droves? Do they get out their guns?
+
You are probably the only Democrat remaining in the race who has a real chance of not only winning the White House but also bringing in a wave of Democratic Representatives and Senators to empower the President actually to enact a legislative program. You can carry the South, unless you select Obama or Hillary as Veep. If you select Bill Richardson as Veep, you can carry the Hispanic vote, bigtime.
+
But you won't get that chance unless you speak to what is the most important issue for the electorate this time, as it was the last time. In 2004, Democrats refused to speak to personal debt, the fact that the typical American family is in hock up to their eyeballs, and being crushed under usurious interest rates they cannot escape because the Republicans passed bankruptcy "reform" that preserved bankruptcy basically only for corporations, so they could escape labor contracts and pension and healthcare obligations, while making it almost completely unavailable to ordinary people.
+
During your run for the White House with John Kerry, I checked the campaign's website and did an electronic search for the words "debt", "usury", and "bankruptcy". No such words appeared on the home page or links to subpages on that site. Again in 2006, I searched for those words in the website for the DNC, and again did not find them. I wrote to the DNC, Senator Kennedy, and some other leaders to say that if they did not address personal debt, usury, and bankruptcy, they risked losing to the Republicans again, or at least losing the ability to set the agenda for the next Congress. They did not answer, they did not address those concerns, and they 'won' a margin of control over Congress so flimsy that they were absolutely unable to do a damned thing for the American people. They didn't even attempt to undo the bankruptcy "reform" passed by the Republicans, that has trapped 40 million Americans in crushing debt at usurious interest rates. Please don't make the same mistake again.
+
I used the search function within your website and searched for "debt", "usury", and "bankruptcy". Some things about "debt" and "bankruptcy" did appear, but (a) many were duplicates, (b) the mentions of "debt" and "bankruptcy" were not prominent and the first reported results related only to reforming bankruptcy laws as regards the value of mortgages, not the general unavailability of real bankruptcy to ordinary people, and (c) these words and the appallingly harsh realities behind them do not constitute either the central nor even a major theme of your campaign.
+
Searches for "usury" and "usurious" on your website did not produce a single result. Not ONE. Are you just unaware that the reason people can't get out of debt is that the interest rates charged are outlandish? You propose permitting higher interest rates only on future purchases, but do not propose a national usury law. Why not?
+
I know you are rich now, but you are not supposed to be blind to the harsh economic realities of the "little people" who are drowning in debt.
+
I checked the websites of the Obama and Clinton campaigns.
+
In both the Obama and Clinton websites, the words "debt", "usury" and "bankruptcy" do not appear on the home page, nor is there a search box by means of which to find those issues. The "Issues" dropdown menu does not show any of those words either.
+
Are these people from another planet? Have they been so rich for so long that they have no idea that this Nation is drowning in debt? Even Bush understands that people are so heavily in debt that they cannot spend the economy out of recession. But none of the Democrats understands that? What is wrong with you people?
+
"It's personal debt, usury, and bankruptcy, stupid."

(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 3,940 — for Israel.)

- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 8:58 PM