14 comments

• 

  1truepatriot

  9 months ago

  If the Republican voting stance on people displaced due to mortgage foreclosures is taken to its logical conclusion, then those people (from mostly red states) that have been displaced due to Hurricane Ike who now have no house in which to reside would also have to be included in that stance. I am not condoning or endorsing such a decree, just pointing out what the Republicans themselves are purporting.
• 

  Earl_E

  9 months ago

  I would think many of the homes were 2nd homes, vacation retreats for the wealthiest few. So the republicans would not use the list of hurricane victims except in just the poorest counties, those least able to deal with the storm.
  
  At some point, the crap will hit the fan in this country, and if you think the streets of Bagdad were bad, read Lucifer's Hammer. A very old book but not to far from where this country may end up.
• 

  pageiv

  9 months ago

  Wouldn't the letters just be forwarded to the new address? I know a few people that've been forclosed on and non were sub-prime loans, and to add plently of poor do vote GOP.
  
  This guy is a hack.
• 

  nottalotta1025

  9 months ago

  The letters sent to addresses with foreclosures would NOT be forwarded. This is a version of a voter-suppression tactic called "caging," where "Do Not Forward" letters are sent to houses precisely so they will bounce. So, no, they will not be forwarded.
  
  Not-so-coincidentally, McCain adviser Phil Gramm pushed for the measures that de-regulated the mortgage and financial industries, which made possible the predatory lending practices that are driving the current foreclosure meltdown. McCain has positioned Gramm to be Treasury Secretary should he be elected. Is this who we need at the helm of the US Treasury?
• 

  imamom2

  9 months ago

  Thank you, Ms. Melzer for your courage and skill in doing what we voters expect of our press. You are investigating and telling the truth to the American people-now while it counts-before the election. Bless you and all of your colleagues at the Michigan Messenger.
• 

  bumerry

  9 months ago

  Nottlotta is absolutely right. The letters would not be forwarded in any case to those with forwarding addresses because bulk/business rate mail is not forwarded. Example - you lose all your catalogues and school mailings when you move, even with a forwarding addresses. As s/he pointed out, any letter saying "do not forward" is also not forwarded. And it is technicallly legal to send "do not forward" letters to anybody at all. Generally, only first class mail is forwarded anyway. Republicans have more money than we do, but with the percentage of foreclosures in the average Michigan county it might get pricey very fast.
• 

  chetlyzarko

  9 months ago

  Your main "source" for this story is a guy who has a book-profit interest and spent time in federal prison (prosecuted during the Bush administration, nonetheless). Furthermore, the guy's language doesn't sound like he's knows the right "lingo" - for example, he uses the term "geo-political" when an expert would use the term demographic. Geo-political has an international relations sound to it, but even then it doesn't fit into that field. You quote Raymond "You got to", suggesting he doesn't even have good command of English grammar. Hardly seems like a high-level operative to me.
  
  As to the accuracy of Carabelli's quote, I have no idea.
• 

  serendipitist

  9 months ago

  "You quote Raymond "You got to", suggesting he doesn't even have good command of English grammar. Hardly seems like a high-level operative to me."
  
  Have you heard Bush address the public? Yet here he is, a high-level operative.
• 

  chetlyzarko

  9 months ago

  I don't need to defend Bush to make the point that Raymond doesn't pass the smell test as an "expert" in the field of election analysis or the legal nuances of election challenges. If Karl Rove came off that way, you'd have a point. Regardless, my point doesn't hinge on the grammar as much as it does the lingo.
• 

  serendipitist

  9 months ago

  No, you don't need to defend Bush to get your point across; I was using our current president to showcase that your "smell test" isn't necessarily the best way to judge a political figure.
  
  My point is this: your "smell test" doesn't pass my "smell test". Lingo is not a good hinge.
  
  Your "smell test" would indicate that we should doubt the fact that George Bush is the president of the US. After all, he forgot the proper name for the State of the Union Address... It appears that George Bush doesn't know the right lingo for his position.
• 

  chetlyzarko

  9 months ago

  You just don't like me or my argument and don't want to believe it, so you attack my reasoning by pointing to another person who you assume I support (there many things with Bush I disagree upon) who is also not expert, but that has no relevance to Raymond. The two are unconnected. Bush could be the biggest moron in history and unworthy of the office -- that doesn't make Raymond an expert in election knowledge or impact my arguments that he demonstrates lack of knowledge of key terms. It's not just "lingo" or "jargon" - but those are signs of expertise. "Demographics" is a pretty basic term, and "geo-political" is a wholly different term in another field (foreign relations).
• 

  serendipitist

  9 months ago

  I have nothing personal against you. I can't say whether I like you or don't like you because I don't know you. I do, however, disagree with you.
  
  I don't care if you support Bush or not, that is not the point (I used him as an example because he is an easily recognizable figure). Are they really unconnected? I'm not saying that Raymond is automatically trustworthy because Bush is "the biggest moron in history". I'm saying that Bush provides a good counterexample to your logic.
  
  Just because a person does not speak/write well does not mean he is not familiar with an issue. Perhaps that person is simply not an expert at communicating?
  
  All I am saying is that I am not ready to dismiss Raymond's claims simply because I disagree with his syntax. Like Rayne1 said, he was enough of an expert to be hired by the GOP.
  
  That said, I will agree to disagree. Good-bye and good luck!
• 

  chetlyzarko

  9 months ago

  I wouldn't dismiss them entirely for these reasons either. On the other hand, I wouldn't accept them blindly either -- he's trying to sell a book, and this tell-all angle has in the past proven to be prone to exaggeration by people on either side of the aisle.
• 

  Rayne1

  9 months ago

  Raymond was enough of an expert for the Republican Party to use his services.
  
  If readers would like to make up their own minds about Raymond, they could view interviews with him at Velvet Revolution (here's one link to 4 videos: http://www.velvetrevolution.us/#012308 -- there are at least 8 other videos at that site with Raymond).