After the flap about Biden claiming that FDR went on "television" to reassure Americans during the Great Depression, I did some very basic research and discovered what is surely known by many people more informed than myself: The Great Depression occurred at the end of nearly 10 years of Republicans in the White House. It was, of course, FDR, a Democrat, who charted a course out of that horrible mess.

Fast forward 80 years and we have what none dare call the makings of another depression and, again, it comes at the end of nearly 8 years of a Republican in the White House. Bush II is apparently more efficient, and less competent, then the combination of Presidents Harding, Coolidge and Hoover.

The analysis of who controlled Congress during these various administrations complicates the picture slightly, but competent Democratic leadership in the White House can accomplish great things even with an intractable and/or "do nothing" Republican Congress; look at what Clinton was able to do. Alternately, I Republican president can wreak havoc even with a Democratically ruled Congress.

This pattern would seem to present an opportunity for Democrats running this fall in their efforts to bring their cases to the American people, perhaps in the form of a TV ad or talking points for Obama surrogates. The greatest good for the greatest number is always accomplished with Democratic leadership.

A concerned American,

Alex Kirby

Here in Texas, the term "maverick" refers to a seriously lost steer.

You have defined abortion as taking a human life or else you've said nothing at all.

For years, observers have noted the similarities between GOP Rule under the Busheviks (but certainly tracing back to Nixon if not earlier) and an organized criminal enterprise.

From the outset of this misbegotten reign of error and terror, right at its beginning in its anti-Constitutional, indeed anti-American, foundation, the lawlessness we've noted so often was set. Its criminality was foregone. It's built in. It's who they are and what they are.

The overt corruption of the government by this regime was immediate, noted, and denounced. Yet nothing (or almost nothing) has ever been done to interfere with the corrupt actions of the regime and its enablers in Congress and the Courts.

The whole government has come under the thrall of the Crime Lords who rule us, and at this point, there is little indication that government as a criminal enterprise is going to change any time soon, little indication that the levels of corruption and obscenity in American government are considered untoward by the Ruling Class in particular and the American People in general.

We may fuss and fume over it, but does anyone else?

Yes. Of course. When the extortion demands were made by Wall Street, through their governmental representative Mr. "King of the World" Paulson, the American People -- and even some of the Ruling Class -- were outraged. But their outrage amounted to sound and fury signifying nothing, in part because the Congressional leadership and the White House were not willing to consider any option except paying the extortion. The very idea that there was any other option was not heard.

And so it will be paid, and paying it will not change anything significantly, will not make anything better, will not prevent the economic trainwreck now long underway. It will have no positive effect on the future and may make things much worse. We may wind up in a situation in which regular extortion payments will be demanded and paid, simply so the government will survive. For now.

This is all a legacy of the lawless enterprise set up as the Supreme Court did its dastardly business back in 2000.

Shambles? We still have a way to go to see how bad things can get, and we may not notice how bad things are getting as the downward spiral continues. People adapt. We get used to things being worse rather than better, and we learn to make do.

But what seems clear is that the Ruling Class has no intention of letting the System -- that system of criminality -- fail. Senator Obama has done nothing to convince me that his administration (if such there be) will interfere with the profitable continuation of it either.

The government just forked over $700 billion to bail out the financial institutions. California just asked for a $7 billion loan in order to pay their bills due to bond market freezing up. Unemployment continues to rise.

And the coming week(s) figure to be a tumultous time for Wall Street.

So check out the lineups on SERIOUS Sunday shows.

FOX News Sunday (FNS): Host Chris Wallace will interview Senator Joe Liebermann, Claire McCaskill and Karl Rove.

This Week (ABC): Host George Stephanopoulos talks to Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell (D), Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (R), Florida Senator Mel Martinez (R), and Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown (D).

Meet the Press (NBC): There will be something involving NBC News' Chuck Todd, GOP strategist Mike Murphy, Paul Begala, NBC News' David Gregory, Gwen Ifill, Peggy Noonan, and David Yepsen of Iowa's Des Moines Register.

Face the Nation (CBS):Host Bob Schieffer has California Senator Dianne Feinstein and Michigan Governor Jen Granholm.— plus Representatives Heather Wilson and Roy Blunt.

Late Edition (CNN): Host Wolf Blitzer talks to McCain economic adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer, Rahm Emanuel and Marsha Blackburn, Mike Bloomberg.

Not included on any of these shows is an economist. Or even one person with any expertise regarding the status of the financial markets. Nothing but horserace Presidential journalism.

It just further illustrates the contempt in which the MSM has toward its viewers and the American public.

“In sum, Americans hate the way the country has been ruled, the economic crisis is making them hate that more by the minute, and the country has been dominated by Republican rule for the last eight years -- at least. It's just this simple”

Why was the Clinton economy so great?

As far as the economy goes, there is no doubt that Bill Clinton presided over a favorable economy and a remarkable expansion in the stock market. But what did he do that was so beneficial to the economy?

What did Clinton inherit?

The international environment was a lot more favorable in the 90s. The dollar was rising and oil was cheap

China was mainly a supplier of cheap goods

Why has the Bush economy been so lousy? What did Bush inherit?

China is now a competitor for increasingly scarce supplies of oil,

and imported goods aren’t as cheap as they used to be

Then on September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington took place.

Looking Back Bill Clinton said:

Clinton's comments and his actions relating to American efforts to capture bin Laden have taken on renewed interest because of claims made in a new ABC movie, the "Path to 9/11," that suggests Clinton dropped the ball during his presidency.

During a February 2002 speech, Clinton explained that he turned down an offer from Sudan for bin Laden's extradition to the U.S., saying, "At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him."

My Repsonse:

My point here is not to blame Bill Clinton for preventing 911. The point that I am trying to make is that if we are attacked during an Obama administration, will Democrats blame Bush for not capturing Bin Laden? We know that whoever wins this election will be inheriting a mess, but president usually have no choice in what they are given. What I am getting at here is a president is not always responsible for what he or she may inherit be they Democrat or Republican.