The House healthcare bill, as expected, will raise costs

The evil insurance companies have produced a report loaded with propaganda designed to stop healthcare reform government agency in charge of administering Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) has released a report which essentially undermines everything the Democrats and the White House have been preaching about healthcare reform:

Democrats have promised that health reform would reduce health care costs, but legislation the House passed last week would increase costs over the next decade by $289 billion. By 2019, health costs would rise to 21.1 percent of GDP compared to 20.8 under current law, according to an actuarial report prepared by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

“With the exception of the proposed reductions in Medicare payment updates for institutional providers, the provisions of H.R. 3962 would not have a significant impact on future health care cost growth rates. In addition, the longer-term viability of the Medicare update reductions is doubtful,” the report said.

In other words, outside of Medicare payment cuts to hospitals, the bill doesn’t curb increasing health care costs.

The analysis is more bad news for Democrats, who are facing increasing criticism that their reforms don’t do enough to control costs.

The entire report is available at this link (PDF)

Throughout last year’s campaign, and in the White House, Obama has repeatedly tied healthcare reform to fiscal responsibility—the idea being that reforming healthcare would cut fraud, waste and “keep the insurance companies honest”, allowing for a reduction in overall healthcare costs and further helping to reduce the national deficit.  Congressional Democrats have joined in this bogus chorus, giving them cover while shoving healthcare reform down our collective throats.

The CMS report pretty much debunks all of that.   I’m really not convinced that the Democrats actually believe the nonsense they say about fiscal responsibility in this regard.   Politically, it doesn’t help the centrist Democrats up for reelection in the House or Senate in 2010, Democrats that are keys to the party’s majorities.  I can’t imagine their constituents will be too happy if they vote for this monstrosity.  

Passage of a massive new bureaucratic entitlement has been predicated on the idea that it is “deficit neutral”—-the CMS report puts an end to that pipe-dream.

We’re all homophobic bigots now

Voters in Maine went to the polls yesterday and repealed the state’s law allowing same-sex marriage. 

Same-sex ballot initiatives are now 0 for 31 across the country—31 states came up to the plate and 31 went down.  All by taking the question to their citizens, who have decisively denied all of thim.  

The angry left tells us why this is:

…[T]here’s Maine where hate prevailed. The Bishop of Maine, Richard Malone, must be quite pleased with himself. He ran a campaign of lies, hate and distortions — and convinced enough Maine voters to vote with him. It’s going to take me a couple days (or more) to get my head around this one. But, for now, suffice it so say: HATE was the winner in Maine. Hate and the Catholic Bishop.

That’s right.   People who don’t support gay marriage are,  by default, filled with hate.  And then there’s the Catholic church.

For those of us with a modicum of sanity, the real reason that the initiative failed was that a majority of Maine’s citizens just didn’t approve.  It’s that simple:

This was the real battlefield where No on 1 lost. These voters – and their cousins in other counties – are not “back country hicks” – even though some areas of those counties are remote.

[...]

In other words, many of them work white collar jobs, live in mostly nice neighborhoods within striking distance of a city, and are pliable for whichever side makes the better case. We are not talking about culturally conservative “Deliverance” type areas here – this is the home of Maine’s soccer moms.

[,,,]

This fight was lost among the middle class voters of “middle Maine”, and it was lost badly.

So, the people of Maine have spoken, democracy is at work.  Ordinary, middle-class Americans took to the polls to make their voices heard.  But that doesn’t stop extremists from engaging in their own versions of reality and vilifying institutions like the Catholic church.

Say what you want about the role of the church—its doctrine is what it is.  But at what point does the left realize that not everyone is a hate-filled bigot and that maybe the resistance to same-sex marriage goes much, much further than a fringe minority.  The score is 0-31, after all.

 

 

NY-23 Update

Dede drops out of the race

Clearly the turning point in the race was Palin’s endorsement.  But conservatives should hold back on the celebration for now.  The race is likely to go down to the wire, with polls showing a virtual dead-heat.  This in itself is amazing, considering that Dede and Hoffman have effectively switched polling spots in less than one month.

This race will be determined by turnout, plain and simple.  As of right now, Dede has not endorsed Hoffman in the race, which I think is something of an omen for Hoffman, only because it appears that most Dede supporters seem to like Obama.

On the other hand, it appears that independents are taking kindly to Hoffman.  According to this week’s Research 2000 poll:

While Hoffman is in a dead heat with Owens among all voters, he carries a wide 47 percent to 28 percent edge over the Democrat among self-identified independent voters. Among those same independents, Hoffman has a 53 percent favorable rating and a 14 percent unfavorable rating, far better than the 38 percent fav/23 percent unfav number he had with the electorate as a whole in the poll.

From what I can make of it, today’s events show that conservatism angst has a pulse and can make their voice heard.  If Hoffman can actually pull this out, it will be a victory for conservatism and the establishment GOP and Newt Gingrinch will have significant egg on their faces.

NY-23

The race is getting extremely interesting down the stretch (a D-Kos poll–take with a grain of salt). 

And not just because conservative Doug Hoffman is now in a virtual dead-heat with a moderate Democrat in upstate New York. 

But because Dede Scozzafava, handpicked by the tone-deaf, establishment GOP, is fading just as fast.

Support Doug Hoffman For Congress

Harry’s Big Adventure

The incompetent Harry Reid has his work cut out for him:

[T]here are two Senate bills, with very significant substantive differences between them, which need to be combined, voted on, then merged with an even more different House bill, and voted on again. Each of these votes would require the support of just about every (if not indeed every single) Senate Democrat, and each would be a very tough vote for one or another group in their caucus. It is an exercise in serial needle-threading that will call for an extraordinary degree of discipline by the Senate Democrats—a group not known for discipline.

I’m still extremely pessimistic about health care reform.  At this point, it’s inevitable that there will be a bill passed in some grotesque form that will somehow have the blessing of Democratic centrists and the left-wing fringes.  Either way, it’s bad news for the country.

But the Democratic leadership in both chambers of Congress are inept and full of hubris.   Health care reform, that is to say, the goal of government-sponsored health care for all, mandated by the federal government, is the crown jewel of modern day liberalism.  I wouldn’t put it past this group of corrupt, power-hungry buffoons to fumble the ball at the goal line.

And if that were the case, I would enjoy watching it go down in flames.

Beatles RockBand Bust?

Did the Beatles bomb with the video game generation?  That’s the subject of this post at the Games Beat blog:

The Beatles Rock Band sold just 595,000 units across the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 and Nintendo Wii, according to market researcher NPD Group. That made it the top music game, beating out Guitar Hero 5, which sold 499,000 units. But it ranked fourth place in the month of September and was far behind a bonafide hit, Halo 3: ODST, which sold 1.5 million copies on just one game platform.

Given the huge amount of PR and advertising the Beatles game got from Electronic Arts, MTV Games and Harmonix, the result is a disappointment.

[...] 

It’s a reminder that video games is a hit or miss business. There are no guaranteed hits. It’s just too bad that this game set the whole industry up for the expectation that September would be a blow-out month, with sales as much as 20 percent above year ago numbers. Instead, software sales were up only 5 percent.

I’m a big Beatles fan.  I have all the albums on vinyl, CD, loaded onto my iPod, etc.   But over the summer, as the hype for the Beatles RockBand game began to build toward its September release, I got the feeling of queasiness at the crass commercialization of the whole thing. 

First, I an conviced that the Beatles/Apple/Ono/McCartney conglomerate is a dysfunctional organization.  I picture board meetings with Macca and Ono figuring out more grotesque ways to cash-in on and debase the Beatles brand.   And Paul has been doing nothing over the last 10-15 years but milk the Beatles.   I cringed when I read that he was running video of the game’s animation at his concerts.

Second, I thought the September 9th release date odd and completely off—right at the end of summer, in the middle of a recession.   I know there are real gaming freaks out there, but $250 is a lot to plunk down for a Beatles-only game. 

Some evidence to that effect:

I took this picture on September 16th at my local Best Buy, exactly a week after BRB was released.  Clearly, there wasn’t a mad rush by anyone to  buy the game.  The store was fully stocked—six to be exact, plus several of the Gretsch guitar controllers available.  

If it was me, I would have pushed the release closer to Thanksgiving to take advantage of the holiday season.  But that’s just me. 

Who knows the real reason why the game is under-performing expectations?  Underestimating the 18 year old demo’s affinity for Beatles-related merchandise?  The recession?  Too expensive?  Maybe a little of everything.

The new iMac

Apple just released new versions of its iMac, which includes the ultra-sleek Magic Mouse. 

Apparently the mouse uses the same multi-touch technology as the iPhone. 

 I’m not a tech-geek by any stretch and couldn’t even begin to tell you any details on the specs of the new model, but the overall look of the unit alone is enough to make me wish I used the Mac OS instead of the Microsoft spread.  Really sharp.

Engadget has an awesome gallery of the entire unit here.

Bailout Bonanza

With the Dow reaching 10,000 again and Wall Street executives about to reap 2007-like bonuses, it must be gratifying for middle-class Americans to know that the government bailouts are having their intended effects:

It may come as a surprise that one of the most powerful forces driving the resurgence on Wall Street is not the banks but Washington. Many of the steps that policy makers took last year to stabilize the financial system — reducing interest rates to near zero, bolstering big banks with taxpayer money, guaranteeing billions of dollars of financial institutions’ debts — helped set the stage for this new era of Wall Street wealth.

Titans like Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase are making fortunes in hot areas like trading stocks and bonds, rather than in the ho-hum business of lending people money. They also are profiting by taking risks that weaker rivals are unable or unwilling to shoulder — a benefit of less competition after the failure of some investment firms last year.

So even as big banks fight efforts in Congress to subject their industry to greater regulation — and to impose some restrictions on executive pay — Wall Street has Washington to thank in part for its latest bonanza.

“All of this is facilitated by the Federal Reserve and the government, who really want financial institutions to get back to lending,” said Gary Richardson, a research fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research. “But we have just shown them that they can have the most frightening things happen to them, and we will throw trillions of dollars to protect them. I have big concerns about that.”

I have no misconceptions about this being a ”Democrat-only” problem.  The bailouts began with President Bush over a year ago, and have continued through the current administration.  There’s plenty of blame and anger to go around. 

The American people should be INCENSED about this.  The bailouts of our financial system have done nothing but foster the most advantageous environment for the bankers and executives to run rampant with just as much abandon as they did during pre-crisis levels.   Supposedly, the administration’s efforts are meant to stop the “risk-taking” that supposedly caused this crisis in the first place.  More lies.

And with a $800 billion stimulus that is doing nothing but transferring resources to Obama’s political supporters and has been helpless in stopping unemployment from reaching 10%, with government forcing through a massive and ruinous new entitlement program called “healthcare reform” which will add even more of a burden on the middle class, with cap-and-trade in the works, which will knee-cap whatever is left of the manufacturing industry in this country (and their employees)—-all of what is intended to “help” the average American—-amounts to a huge middle finger and kick in the groin.

I have no issues with anybody making a profit.  But not on the backs of the American taxpayer, who is expected to just grin and bear it.  This is an outrage.

Going nuclear on healthcare legislation

If Democrats don’t use reconciliation to vote on healthcare legislation in the Senate, at the least, they’ll have it as a weapon.

“This is a massive abuse of power,” says [Congressman Paul Ryan]. “The reconciliation process was designed for the budget and to help reduce deficits and debt. Now it’s being used to create new entitlement programs. The Democrats hijacked the rules in order to exploit a procedure.”

It’s just how Democrats roll these days.

Texting has jumped the shark

Texting is now part of our board game action:

Clue fans bored with Colonel Mustard with the lead pipe can now move beyond the mansion with CLUE: Secrets & Spies, an international espionage edition of the classic detective game. The mission here is not impossible and the new Clue comes with a new real-time tech twist: Hasbro says it is the first board game in the company’s history to use cellphone text-messaging in gameplay.

[...]

At the beginning of the game, players check in at Hasbro headquarters via text from their own cellphones. As the game proceeds, Hasbro sends six text messages back to move the action along.

[Via]

A Do Nothing Leadership

 “We pledge to make this the most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history.”

 - Nancy Pelosi, November 2006

 After returning from a paid, 5-week vacation, Congressional leaders returned to Washington hoping to push through a new energy bill by the suddenly pro-drilling House Leader Nancy Pelosi (the bill does nothing to expand America’s oil resources and supports more tax increases) and quickly adjourn Congress for the election season. 

What they found was a financial system in crisis and a buckling stock market, as Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, Merril Lynch swallowed by Bank of America and AIG getting taken over by the Feds.  While the McCain and Obama campaigns exchanged blame for the crisis, Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid also chimed in, blaming McCain and the Bush administration for the crisis. 

 Realizing the severity of the situation, the Democrat “leaders” of the Congress did what is expected of the “most ethical” Congress in history; they decided to leave town.   In an act of shameless cowardice, the always intimidated Reid said “no one knows what to do” and Ms. Pelosi decided it was time to get out of Washington, and leave the heavy lifting to the Fed, the Treasury and the Administration.  Reid continued “This is a different game. We are not playing soccer, basketball or football. This is new game……” despite that the government bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac a little over a week ago, or that the Federal Reserve helped with the eventual takeover of Bear Stearns just six months ago. 

 The real motive here? Pelosi and company would rather not have to get their hands dirty by actually helping the taxpayers (their constituents), in at least helping to find a solution, as this is a tense political season, with the Democrats in striking distance of obtaining the White House.  This is their priority.  It would be extremely convenient for them that the economy squirm as it has, for another month and a half or so, until election day.  This is not the politics of change that the Democrat party consistently cries about, its politics of the same.  No leadership here, just constantly passing the buck, blaming Republicans and conservatives for any and all problems that may arise.  We saw this in the Clinton Administration, we continue to see it here in a Congress where the Democrats have the majority, and yet, have accomplished nothing.  Hypocrisy at its finest, at a time when, you would assume, their constituents needed them the most.  Instead, they were basically told that they literally knew nothing about how to handle the situation, and tried to wash their hands of the whole mess.  Is this considered ethical of elected politicians and leaders?

 Last night, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, challenged the Democrat leaders in Congress to actually contribute to helping with the solution rather than continually blaming the Bush Administration and John McCain for the market’s troubles.  Apparently, they got the hint, and realizing the political fallout from doing nothing might be worse than attempting to do something, apparently have decided to stick around for a few weeks.  The election can wait.  After meeting with Sec. Paulson last night, there are renewed calls by Pelosi to “hold hearings” in September and October, saying “I don’t think the American people want us to wait until next year…” 

 

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson talks with reporters after meeting with Congressional leaders on the current economic crisis Thursday, Sept. 18, 2008 on Capitol Hill in Washington

The Surge Is Working

“I am not persuaded that (the surge) is going to solve the sectarian violence there….in fact, I think it will do the reverse..” – Senator Barack Hussein Obama, January 2007

 “I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated.” - Sen. Obama, September 2008 

Where’s the Outrage?

Finally, some progress in rooting out the real cause of America’s financial crisis.   According to Reuters, the FBI is probing “potential corporate fraud” as the cause of the collapse in the mortgage industry.

 
Its about time. The American people deserve real answers to the questions in this debacle. The political ramifications could (should) be huge, as this crisis has liberal Democrat fingerprints all over it. The American people need to hear, that senior management at Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae, had “economic” roles in the Carter and Clinton Administrations (Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson). That Raines and Johnson falsified profits for personal gain, to the tune of millions of dollars, while greasing the political coffers of those in charge of “oversight” (read Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer, etc.)

 
The American people need to know that Barack Obama is the recipient of the 2nd largest total of lobbyist money from Fannie and Freddy, in ALL OF CONGRESS. And that Franklin Raines currently serves as his campaign’s “economic adviser.”

 
The American people need to know that $200 billion of taxpayer money was used to bailout the corporate crimes of Fannie and Freddy, committed by those entrenched in the political party that prides itself on “helping the poor and middle class.” The monetary fallout from these crimes dwarfs that committed by the guys at Enron and Worldcom, whom the liberals assailed so much in the early part of this decade. Liberals are to blame for the fleecing of America the past 10 years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe Joe Biden IS That Dumb

Startling new evidence that Joe Biden, is NOT just a gaffe machine, but could actually be as dumb as a doornail.  As the media and Charlie Gibson wait to pounce all over John McCain and Sarah Palin for ANY misstep, they’ve conveniently ignored the latest idiocy by Joe Biden.  The latest buffoonery from Biden came in an interview with CBS mouthpiece Katie Couric.    Talking about what leaders should do in a time of financial crisis, he quickly pointed out that:

“When the stock market crashed Franklin Roosvelt got on television and….”

The rest of the quote is irrelevant, you get the idea.  Imagine if Sarah Palin made such a comment in Charlie Bibson’s interview.  Or at the convention.  Or at a press conference.  Or on the campaign trail.  The media would have a field day.  Looking at the left wing bloggers, they’ve apparently ignored the idiocy coming from Biden as well.

And that’s not all.  He also acknowledged the Obama campaign ad ridiculing McCain’s not using a  computer (his war injuries limit his ability to type) as “terrible…..I would not have approved it…” 

But Joe, its YOUR campaign too….or maybe its just Obama’s.  Oh well…

Exaggerating Problems: Democrats and the Mortgage Crisis

 

Whole Lot of Loans

 According to the WSJ, the troubled mortgage lender Countrywide Financial made “VIP” loans to Jamie Gorelickand Daniel Mudd, loans that were charged “preferential rates”.  In case you didn’t know Ms. Gorelick and Mr. Mudd were both executives at Fannie Mae.  Also notable in the above chart (courtesy of the WSJ), is the presence of Chris Dodd, Democrat Senator from Connecticut. 

Some key excerpts are listed below and you can read the whole article here.  But let’s point out a few things first.  The media are conveniently ignoring/avoiding, the central cause for the current financial crisis.  That is, the housing market recession, and as it pertains to Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac (GSEs) and their political connections. 

This is a Democrat scandal, first and foremost.  Beginning with Jimmy Carter, whose admistration signed into law the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).  The law essenitally mandated that lending institutions make loans in communities designated as low to moderate income areas; in other words, areas that are high credit risks and where said institutions probably would not lend to, if not for that law.  The initial political pressure for the CRA came from various political/social groups advocating the practices, such as ACORN (read Barack Obama’s “community organizing”).  As the liberal doctrine goes, banks are run by “greedy, white men” and therefore the rules must be changed to accommodate the ideology that there needs to be “fairness”.   The law was further made less restrictive by the Clinton Administration, with the blessing of Robert Rubin, and was championed as true reform to the process, when it in fact lessened capital requirements for the GSEs, allowing them to bulk up on the toxic securities that we are now, as taxpayers being “asked” to purchase as part of a $700 billion bailout plan.

Despite attempts by the Bush Administration to truly reform the oversight of the GSEs, liberal ideology in the Congress trumped any sense of sanity.   Let’s not forget, Ms. Gorelick and Franklin Raines both held prominent posts in the Clinton Administration (another fact overlooked and ignored by the liberal media).  Barney Frank in 2003, after the White House proposed the reforms:

”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing…” 

“Exaggerate” the problem?  Of course.  Why let sound financial practice get in the way of liberal special interests?  And true to form, the liberals played the class-warfare card, “the poor need houses, and the  rich, white republicans wont give it to them…”  And the game continued.  Which has led us down this road of turmoil in the financial markets and the buckling of our banking system. 

The point is, the American people need answers here.  What got us to this point, what is the root cause, who was at the wheel when everything went spiraling out of control?  Again, this is a Democrat scandal with plenty of blame to be passed around.  The media is more than happy to ignore the GSE debacle (despite a massive government bailout earlier this month), and divert attention to other, more Republican fall guys.  It is their best interest to do so as, less connection between Democrats (and Obama’s presidential aspirations) and the true cause of this crisis would only help them in November.

Some excerpts:

“Countrywide was the nation’s biggest mortgage firm and was the biggest supplier of mortgage securities to Fannie Mae under an exclusive “strategic agreement” reached by the two firms in July 1999. Under the deal, Countywide agreed to deliver a large portion of Fannie’s annual loan volume in exchange for special financing terms.”

“I do not believe there was any special treatment given,” said Ms. Gorelick. A former Countrywide employee, Robert Feinberg, said that Ms. Gorelick’s business was handled through the firm’s VIP lending department in California, and the staff there was aware of her position as a senior Fannie executive.

“I know 100% she went through the VIP department,” Mr Feinberg said, adding that VIP clients such as Ms. Gorelick typically received a one percentage point reduction in their interest rate.”

Real estate records show that Ms. Gorelick received nearly the same interest rate that Countrywide provided to then-Fannie chief Franklin Raines, who received a similar loan about 40 days before Ms. Gorelick in the spring of 2003.

Mr. Raines received a rate of 5.125% for the first 10 years on a $982,253 refinancing, Washington, D.C., real-estate records show.

A little over a month later, Ms. Gorelick received a rate of 5% for the first 10 years on a $960,149 refinancing.

The average market rate for loans of the type obtained by Ms. Gorelick and Mr. Raines fluctuated around 6% at that time, according to data from HSH Associates Inc”

Marine Sues Congressman Murtha for Libel

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pennsylvania) and Congressional American Apologist,  is being sued for libel by Lance Corporal Justin Sharratt.  Sharratt was part of the Marine unit which was involved in what became known as the “Haditha massacre”, so dubbed by a Time magazine “exclusive” in 2006, after two dozen civilians were found dead.  The incident is primarily remembered for Rep. Murtha’s comments, referencing the marines as ”cold blood” killers.  The quote:

There was no firefight, there was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed these innocent people.  Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.

Most of the officers in the case have been acquitted since the case went to trial, including Mr. Sharratt. 

See the local news story here.

The Forum supports America’s Armed Forces and we support Justin Sharratt.

Also, Murtha is being challenged for his seat by Republican William Russell, a decorated Army veteran who was encouraged to enter politics because of Murtha’s insanity. 

Quote from Mr. Russell:

I believe in the sovereignty and security of this one nation, under God. I believe the primary role of government is to provide for the common defense and a legal framework to protect families and individual liberty. … I believe that no one owes me anything just because I live and breathe..”

It is contemptible that any member of Congress abuse the power of his office to advance a political agenda by unjustly attacking our brave men and women in uniform.

Mr. Russell needs our support to oust Pelosi-stooge Congressman Murtha from his perch.

Subpoenas Issued to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

According to Reuters, the US Attorney’s office has issued subpoenas as part of federal grand jury investigation into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

As indicated in an earlier post the FBI is already probing allegations of corporate fraud at the GSEs.

With all eyes focused on the ineptitude of Congress this week, this development is not getting alot of press but it should be on our minds.  We are glad someone is actually looking toward the root cause of the crisis in our financial system; the corrupt political machine that was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  And specifically, the Democrat party stooges behind the whole mess.

Goosestepping for Obama

 Definitely one of the more disturbing images fo the 2008 presidential campaign is this video of children singing what in essence, is a song praising Barack Obama. Eerily reminiscent of the indoctrination of children seen in Nazi Germany, Communist China and North Korea, the video shows children singing a song that opens with the following lyrics:

We’re gonna spread happiness

We’re gonna spread freedom

Obama’s gonna change it

Obama’s gonna lead ‘em “

Watch the video, if you can, and listen for yourself.  Its disturbing if only for its (ab)use of children. Disturbing also because of their being coerced into singing praises for a politician. Freedom and happiness. Courtesy only of Dear Leader Obama. Courtesy only of the government. And what happens if Obama is not elected? The implication is that America plunges into an era of slavery and depression.  Liberals have no shame.  They are reckless in their actions to promote their cause. 

The authors of this liberal tripe describe it as part of a “grassroots” effort. But keep reading, you will discover that this is nothing but a farce. The narrative goes:

“As Sunday approached, a neighbor volunteered a home…”

Keep reading and you find out that none other than Jeff Zucker, helped produce the clip. For those of you not in the know, Zucker is CEO of NBC Universal. You know, the TV network.  

The narrative continues, with all the socialist buzzwords: “grassroots inspiration”, “inclusiveness”, and of course “community building”.

So this is what the liberals consider “grassroots.” Sipping your Starbucks lattes at an Obama rally, with your Hollywood friends, indoctrinating your kids into a cult of personality, at your neighbors house, who just happens to know Jeff Zucker.  Because we ALL have the CEO of a major television network as neighbors.

Pentagon: The Surge Is Working

The Defense Department issued its quarterly report on the progress being made in Iraq, citing that “…the overall security situation in Iraq has greatly improved,” although the gains there remain “fragile”.

Fragile yes, but it is progress nonetheless. The report goes on to say that factors which could upset the progress being made include provincial elections and “Al Qaeda and (Iranian militants) attempts to reignite violence.” Essentially, the DOD is reaffirming what liberals and Democrats in Congress refuses to acknowledge: the continued threat of Al-Qaeda to Iraq’s progress towards a sovereign nation, and that the surge crafted by General Petraeus and ordered into action by President Bush (supported by John McCain) is working.

Some excerpts:

The surge in Coalition forces, the growth of more capable Iraqi Security Forces, operations against Al Qaeda in Iraq…and the increased willingness of the people and Government of Iraq to confront extremists…have contributed to the improved security environment.”

“There have been a number of encouraging developments in Iraqi capabilities and popular attitudes in recent months that the Government of Iraq and the Coalition are focused on maintaining. First is the improved capacity of the Iraqi Security Force, which is increasingly leading major security operations and demonstrating an ability to achieve security gains. Second is the Iraqi people are increasing choosing to address their differences in the political arena rather than through violent means. Third, government’s and Coalition’s success over the last several months against militias in Basrah, Sadr City, Mosul, Amarah and Diyala…and the Iranian-supported Special Groups (SG)…has reinforced a widespread shift in the population’s attitude toward greater rejection of the militias.”

“Iranian influence continues to pose the most significant threat to long-term stability in Iraq…it appears clear that Iran continues to fund, train, arm and direct SG intent on destabilizing the situation in Iraq.”

See the DOD Press Release here

See our previous post on the surge here

Sarah Palin: The Real Deal

There are plenty of reasons why Sarah Palin has energized both the McCain campaign and the Republican Party overall. Much has been said and written about her personal charm, her ability to connect with the average American citizen not living in New York, Los Angeles or on the Beltway. Her down to earth persona is a refreshing improvement to the standard Washington crowd; more significantly, her unabashed love for our country should make all of us proud as conservatives.

Sarah Palin is the real deal. Sometimes, we can judge how real and effective she is as a conservative, by how angry and vitriolic the media becomes. The angrier they get, the more powerful she becomes. Here is a woman who doesn’t fit the liberal mold of playing the victim, of being short-changed by a chauvinistic society. She’s actually happy with her life as a mother of five and having a successful career, with no axe to grind.

What stands out most of all is her steadfast belief in the basics of conservative ideals: lower taxes, smaller government, pro-family, pro-life, personal responsibility and the overall notion that government is not the solution to our everyday problems. For someone whose name has been dragged through the cess-pool of malicious mainstream media pundits and talking heads, regarding her lack of foreign policy experience, she has the right ideas: no appeasement of our enemies, standing up and not apologizing for America, realizing that terrorism is our enemy.

She couldn’t have made her beliefs more clear to us than she did in last night’s vice-presidential debate

On the issue of taxes, we believe that lower tax rates spur economic growth, allows for increased consumer spending; the concept of easing the tax burden on those that create jobs, those that risk capital. Higher tax rates on businesses and individuals impedes capital investment. Governor Palin drove that point home in the debate with one sentence:

“We do need the private sector to be able to keep more of what we earn and produce….”

While we’re on the subject of taxes, she cleverly rebuked Biden’s comments from last week that paying higher taxes was “patriotic”:

“…that’s not patriotic. Patriotic is saying, government, you know, you’re not always the solution. In fact, too often you’re the problem so, government, lessen the tax burden and on our families and get out of the way and let the private sector and our families grow and thrive and prosper.”

And when it comes to our own personal checkbooks, no government bailouts, no self-deprecating sense of being victimized by whomever:

“Don’t live outside of our means. We need to make sure that as individuals we’re taking personal responsibility through all of this”

On gay marriage:

“I don’t support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman”

In regards to foreign policy, where Joe Biden easily has more expertise (although not necessarily so much success), Sarah Palin stood out with the most succint point on meeting with enemy leaders:

“But again, with some of these dictators who hate America and hate what we stand for, with our freedoms, our democracy, our tolerance, our respect for women’s rights, those who would try to destroy what we stand for cannot be met with just sitting down on a presidential level as Barack Obama had said he would be willing to do. That is beyond bad judgment. That is dangerous.”

Liberals and the mainstream media constantly ask the question of what consitutes victory in Iraq; what is the end game? On the war in Iraq, Palin noted simply:

“We’re fighting terrorists, and we’re securing democracy…”

Like I said, Sarah Palin is the real deal. As conservatives, we should be proud.

(UPDATE)

Along the same lines, see this column in National Review

NYT: Obama and Ayers Merely “Crossed Paths”

In an attempt to weaken the McCain campaign’s new offensive on Barrack Obama’s questionable judgment and personal associations, Saturday’s New York Times ran with a front page, above-the-fold story on his political relationship with admitted American terrorist, Bill Ayers.

The article is liberal fluff, of course.

An agitator in the true sense of the word, Ayers was a founding member of the Weather Underground in the 1960’s; the radical leftist group “protested” the violence of the Vietnam War with violence of their own, bombing various public locations including the Pentagon, the Capitol, police stations and courthouses, killing innocent citizens in the process. As recently as 2001, Ayers has admitted “I don’t regret setting bombs, I feel we didn’t do enough.”

As most liberal extremists of the 1960s did, he followed the path to the halls of academia, where violence is replaced by indoctrination; Ayers is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois, endorsing education “reform.” Ayers even cozies up to Socialist dictator, Hugo Chavez. In a speech at the World Education Forum in Venezuela, after applauding the “profound educational reforms underway here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez….we share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution..”

The Obama campaign has fervently tried to defuse any hint of a connection between the two; even Mr. Obama refers to Ayers as “a guy who lives in my neighborhood”. But even the NYT piece hints of a significant relationship between the two. It has been well documented that Obama’s political career began with a fundraiser at Ayer’s home in Chicago in 1995. The two even worked together in 1998 to defeat an Illinois juvenile crime bill. They have served together on the boards of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and the Woods Fund Institute, throughout the 1990s and earlier this decade. Both institutions receive grant funding to promote liberal education and social agendas.

On the state level, Obama’s working association with Ayers in Chicago’s political underworld could fly under the radar, not attracting much national attention. However, as Obama’s national ambitions became clearer, separating himself from Ayers was imperative. In fact, distancing himself from the extremist workings of his political foramtive years, became the campaign’s primary goal.  In a debate with Hillary Clinton, during the Democrat primaries, Obama reacted to Clinton’s accusation of a significant relationship between the two:

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

As the title of the Times piece suggests, the two merely “crossed paths” and their interactions were “sporadic.” The facts, once again, get in the way of an attempt by the NYT to be credible on the issue of Obama’s character and professional affiliations, past or present. Ayers kick-started Obama’s political career and the two of them have worked together several times to promote their liberal extremist agendas. That Obama is looking to be President (a goal the NYT obviously supports) and wishes that the mainstream media conveniently ignore these specifics, does not take away from that fact and neither can the New York Times.

Take the Gloves Off

By all measures, this is an important election.  Probably the most important Presidential election of our time.  Is it too much to ask then, that the American people know not just where the candidates stand on the political issues, but also about their character? 

Barack Obama would rather the media ignore the issue of character.  To liberals, character doesn’t matter.  Unless, of course, you are a conservative running for office.  Just look at what happened after Governor Palin was announced as the vice-presidential nominee for the GOP.  The media had a field day, determined to find out everything about her past: who she associated with, what church she attended, what they believed in, criticizing her religious beliefs, and so on.  Not to mention an unrelenting smear campagin on her and members of her family.  Only then, apparently, does the media feel obliged to dig into someone’s past in order to judge their character. 

As for Obama’s association with an admitted and unrepentant terroirst?  Irrelevant.  Or a poison-filled, America-hating “pastor” who baptized the Senator’s two children and whose congregation the Obama family had been a member of for 20 years?  Not an issue.  And what about Obama’s origins in politics as a member of ACORN, a leftist, non-profit group of “community organizers”?  Who cares?  

William Kristol writes in an op-ed piece for the NYT today; he describes a phone conversation he had with Sarah Palin yesterday:

Palin also made clear that she was eager for the McCain-Palin campaign to be more aggressive in helping the American people understand “who the real Barack Obama is.” Part of who Obama is, she said, has to do with his past associations, such as with the former bomber Bill Ayers. Palin had raised the topic of Ayers Saturday on the campaign trail, and she maintained to me that Obama, who’s minimized his relationship with Ayers, “hasn’t been wholly truthful” about this.

I pointed out that Obama surely had a closer connection to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than to Ayers — and so, I asked, if Ayers is a legitimate issue, what about Reverend Wright?

She didn’t hesitate: “To tell you the truth, Bill, I don’t know why that association isn’t discussed more, because those were appalling things that that pastor had said about our great country, and to have sat in the pews for 20 years and listened to that — with, I don’t know, a sense of condoning it, I guess, because he didn’t get up and leave — to me, that does say something about character.  But, you know, I guess that would be a John McCain call on whether he wants to bring that up.”

Her advice to Senator McCain in tomorrow’s presidential debate: ”Take the gloves off…”

We’re glad Governor Palin brought that up and we’re thankful to see that she’s the importance of bringing it to the campaign trail.  We know that she has the right idea when it comes to policy issues.  We know she’s proud of our country and doesn’t apologize for us to foreign leaders.  Apparently, she’s right on what needs to be done for the remainder of this campaign.  Bring the issue of character to the American people.  Because in the end, character does matter.

100 Economists Say Obama Is Wrong

Bet you won’t be seeing the mainstream media report this bit of news.  A statement issued by no less than 100 economists, including several Nobel Prize winners, basically says that Obama’s economic policies are a recipe for disaster; that is, if you consider the Great Depression a disaster.

Some excerpts of note:

Barack Obama argues that his proposals to raise tax rates and halt international trade agreements would benefit the American economy. They would do nothing of the sort. Economic analysis and historical experience show that they would do the opposite. It was exactly such misguided tax hikes and protectionism, enacted when the U.S. economy was weak in the early 1930s, that greatly increased the severity of the Great Depression.

We are equally concerned with his proposals to increase tax rates on labor income and investment. His dividend and capital gains tax increases would reduce investment and cut into the savings of millions of Americans. His proposals to increase income and payroll tax rates would discourage the formation and expansion of small businesses and reduce employment and take-home pay, as would his mandates on firms to provide expensive health insurance.

In sum, Barack Obama’s economic proposals are wrong for the American economy. They defy both economic reason and economic experience.

Like I said, don’t expect to see this story reported by angry Keith Olbermann anytime soon. We all know that it’s in the media’s best interest to keep these things under the radar and and have them just go away, being in the tank for Obama as they are.

Race-Baiting Democrats

It is no secret that the McCain campaign is changing tactics by bringing up questions about Barack Obama’s character.  But despite media implications that the Democrats are taking the high road in the last few weeks of the campaign, the truth is that the Democrats are up to their old tricks; namely, playing the race card. 

The New York Times:

They have gone far beyond the usual fare of quotes taken out of context and distortions of an opponent’s record — into the dark territory of race-baiting and xenophobia. Senator Barack Obama has taken some cheap shots at Mr. McCain, but there is no comparison.

It is also no secret that liberals love to use claims of racism not only to smear political opponents, but to distract from real issues.  As  Sarah Palin attracts larger crowds on the campaign trail, the GOP message reaches a greater number of people.  The Democrats just won’t have any of it.  Smear away:

He’s ‘not one of us?’” Mr. Meeks said, referring to a comment Sarah Palin made at a campaign rally on Oct. 6 in Florida. “That’s racial. That’s fear. They know they can’t win on the issues, so the last resort they have is race and fear.

Racism is alive and well in this country, and McCain and Palin are trying to appeal to that and it’s unfortunate,” said Representative Ed Towns, also from New York.

This is why Obama is always calling for a “clean” campaign.  He doesn’t have to smear; in typical, south-side of Chicago-style politics, he has his surrogates do it for him.

So we have Democrats smearing and race-baiting the Republican ticket, contrary to what the left-wing media is saying.  And as if there needs to be any more proof of the obvious bias in “mainstream” media, here’s how the AP reported the “story”.

By claiming that Democrat Barack Obama is “palling around with terrorists” and doesn’t see the U.S. like other Americans, vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin targeted key goals for a faltering campaign.And though she may have scored a political hit each time, her attack was unsubstantiated and carried a racially tinged subtext that John McCain himself may come to regret.

But let’s look at Governor Palin’s quote more closely.  Here’s the transcript of the speech in question, and the quote in context:

So I’m reading the New York Times, though, and I was really interested to read about Barack’s friends from Chicago, as the New York Times (put it ?).  Now it turns out one of his earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers.   And according to the New York Times he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that quote, “launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol.”

And then there’s even more to the story. Barack Obama says that Ayers was just someone in the neighborhood, but that’s less than truthful. His own top adviser said that they were quote, “certainly friendly.” In fact, Obama held one of his first meetings of his political career in Bill Ayers living room.

And they worked together on various projects in Chicago. And, you know, these are the same guys who think that patriotism is paying higher taxes.  Remember, that’s what Joe Biden had said. And I am just so fearful that this is not a man who sees America the way that you and I see America, as the greatest source for good in this world.

I’m afraid this is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to work with a former domestic terrorist who had targeted his own country.

This, ladies and gentlemen, has nothing to do with the kind of change that anyone can believe in, not my kids, not for your kids. What we believe in is what Ronald Reagan believed in, and that is America is an exceptional nation.

Now, exactly how is this racist again??

Kids for Obama Parade

 
The new Cultural Revolution has begun…

It’s well known that one of the prominent characteristics of liberals is that they have no shame. Recently, we’ve been particularly aware of this fact in how liberals supporting Obama have taken advantage of children for their political obsession; in that case it was children singing the praises of Dear Leader Obama.

Along the same line, and true to Obama’s marxist inclinations, the Obama campaign has scheduled a “Kids for Obama Parade” for this Sunday.  Kids will be able to march in their Sunday best, praising the leader of their movement, complete with balloons and “wish flags”:

Grassroots “Kids for Obama Parade” (Organizing)

On Sunday, October 12, Washington State kids and families will parade around Seattle’s Green Lake. “Kids for Obama Parade” will illustrate one of Barack Obama’s core beliefs: Everyone’s voice counts. Join us as Obama’s youngest supporters rally their families and call for change, for a better America. At 2 pm, rain or shine, children and teens will express with words and drawings their hopes for the future of America on “wish flags” that will be mailed to Obama.

The first 300 kids will be given a helium balloon, an expression of solidarity. At 3 pm, the “Kids for Obama Parade” will skip, toddle, stroller, rollerblade, pedal, and red-wagon clockwise around Green Lake in a cloud of red, white, and blue balloons and a garland of kid-made wish flags. How to prepare? If possible, bring home-made signs and wear red, white, and/or blue clothing. That goes for moms, dads, big brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, grandparents too. Please spread the word.

A outfit called Asian-Americans for Obama listed the event on their website, and explains why their kids are “rooting for Obama”:

Obama speaks for everyone, he cares about everybody- Dalton, 11
All kinds of people, all over the world, like Obama. He’s a peacemaker- Seki Thu, 7
Obama made me want to get involved, and get my friends involved- Tim, 17
He taught me that this is more than an election. It’s my future- Blake, 7

Again, the use of children and their obvious indoctrination into the cult of personality put forth by Obama throughout his campaign is tough to comprehend. Maybe because it’s radically out of touch with most American families and how they raise their children.

These two instances of pseudo-marxist nonsense are notable for other reasons as well; nowhere is the notion of country or patriotism mentioned. It’s all about espousing your faith in “Obama” and how he can bring happiness and how he can bring freedom. For a candidate who criticizes others for not actually saying the words “middle class” lest they not be genuinely concerned about them, the lack of any sort of mention of “America” or “the United States”, is striking. Country definitely doesn’t come first in this campaign.

So get your “wish flags” ready.

ACORN Watch

The fraud allegations from everyone’s favorite left-wing non-profit group, ACORN, have been coming in fast and furious this week. The NY Post sums it up for us:

Voter fraud allegations have been made in at least eleven states so far.

About half of those states are considered swing states, and nine of them have investigations currently under way.

The details are interesting: the 19 year old who registered 72 times; voters like Dick Tracy, Jive Turkey and Mary Poppins have registered in Ohio, courtesy of ACORN.

Take it up a notch; which presidential candidate has cozy ties to ACORN?

Consider:

ACORN’s political-action committee has endorsed Barack Obama.

Obama’s presidential campaign has paid an ACORN front $832,000 for get-out-the-vote activities.

Before launching his electoral career, Obama was the Illinois coordinator for ACORN’s voter-registration group, Project Vote.

As a lawyer, Obama represented ACORN in a voter-registration suit against the state of Illinois.

Michelle Obama’s old law firm represents ACORN in an embezzlement cover-up case involving the brother of the group’s founder.

Now, they are trying to distance themselves from ACORN.  But we know that’s definitely not the case.

From the Chicago Reader, 1995:

Another strong supporter of Obama’s work–as an organizer, as a lawyer, and now as a candidate–is Madeline Talbott, lead organizer of the feisty ACORN community organization, a group that’s a thorn in the side of most elected officials. “I can’t repeat what most ACORN members think and say about politicians. But Barack has proven himself among our members.

Obama continues his organizing work largely through classes for future leaders identified by ACORN and the Centers for New Horizons on the south side.

And we know the Democrat-leaning SOS in Ohio broke the law, favoring Democrat voters.

We know liberals have no shame.  This time is no exception.

Obama The Great

Talking about the issues.  Kim Strassel at the WSJ sums up Obama’s plans for the economy, healthcare, etc.

And now, America, we introduce the Great Obama! The world’s most gifted political magician! A thing of wonder. A thing of awe. Just watch him defy politics, economics, even gravity! (And hold your applause until the end, please.)

To kick off our show tonight, Mr. Obama will give 95% of American working families a tax cut, even though 40% of Americans today don’t pay income taxes! How can our star enact such mathemagic? How can he “cut” zero? Abracadabra! It’s called a “refundable tax credit.” It involves the federal government taking money from those who do pay taxes, and writing checks to those who don’t. Yes, yes, in the real world this is known as “welfare,” but please try not to ruin the show.

For his next trick, the Great Obama will jumpstart the economy, and he’ll do it by raising taxes on the very businesses that are today adrift in a financial tsunami! That will include all those among the top 1% of taxpayers who are in fact small-business owners, and the nation’s biggest employers who currently pay some of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world. Mr. Obama will, with a flick of his fingers, show them how to create more jobs with less money. It’s simple, really. He has a wand.

Next up, Mr. Obama will re-regulate the economy, with no ill effects whatsoever! You may have heard that for the past 40 years most politicians believed deregulation was good for the U.S. economy. You might have even heard that much of today’s financial mess tracks to loose money policy, or Fannie and Freddie excesses. Our magician will show the fault was instead with our failure to clamp down on innovation and risk-taking, and will fix this with new, all-encompassing rules. Presto!

Did someone in the audience just shout “Sarbanes Oxley?” Usher, can you remove that man? Thank you. Mr. Obama will now demonstrate how he gives Americans the “choice” of a “voluntary” government health plan, designed in such a way as to crowd out the private market and eliminate all other choice! Don’t worry people: You won’t have to join, until you do. Mr. Obama will follow this with a demonstration of how his plan will differ from our failing Medicare program. Oops, sorry, folks. The Great Obama just reminded me it is time for an intermission. Maybe we’ll get to that marvel later.

We’re back now. And just watch the Great Obama perform a feat never yet managed in all history. He will create that enormous new government health program, spend billions to transform our energy economy, provide financial assistance to former Soviet satellites, invest in infrastructure, increase education spending, provide job training assistance, and give 95% of Americans a tax (ahem) cut — all without raising the deficit a single penny! And he’ll do it in the middle of a financial crisis. And with falling tax revenues! Voila!

Moving along to a little ventriloquism. Study his mouth carefully, folks: It looks like he’s saying “I’ll stop the special interests,” when in fact the words coming out are “Welcome to Washington, friends!” Wind and solar companies, ethanol makers, tort lawyers, unions, community organizers — all are welcome to feed at the public trough and to request special favors. From now on “special interests” will only refer to universally despised, if utterly crucial, economic players. Say, oil companies. Hocus Pocus!

And for tonight’s finale, the Great Obama will uphold America’s “moral” obligation to “stop genocide” by abandoning Iraq! While teleported to the region, he will simultaneously convince Iranian leaders to peacefully abandon their nuclear pursuits (even as he does not sit down with them), fix Afghanistan with a strategy that does not resemble the Iraqi surge, and (drumroll!) pull Osama bin Laden out of his hat!

Tada!

You can clap now. (Applause. Cheers.) We’d like to thank a few people in the audience. Namely, Republican presidential nominee John McCain, who has so admirably restrained himself from running up on stage to debunk any of these illusions and spoil everyone’s fun.

We know he’s in a bit of a box, having initially blamed today’s financial crisis on corporate “greed,” and thus made it that much harder to call for a corporate tax cut, or warn against excessive regulation. Still, there were some pretty big openings up here this evening, and he let them alone! We’d also like to thank Mr. McCain for keeping all the focus on himself these past weeks. It has helped the Great Obama to just get on with the show.

As for that show, we’d love to invite you all back for next week’s performance, when the Great Obama will thrill with new, amazing exploits. He will respect your Second Amendment rights even as he regulates firearms! He will renegotiate Nafta, even as he supports free trade! He will . . .

Bubba Stumps With Biden

Its no secret that Bill Clinton is not exactly fond of Barack Obama. But of course he will stump for him….with Joe Biden.

Which only begs the question: If Bill Clinton stumps for Obama at a rally with Joe Biden, does he make a sound?

Liberal Angst

In recent days, the less-than-mainstream media, the liberal blogosphere and leftist politicians, are having an aneurysm about the allegedly “hate-filled” and “frenzied” crowds that have shown up at McCain/Palin campaign stops. One blog in particular criticized the “nationalistic tone” at one rally, exemplified by the chanting of “USA! USA!.” How horrific! In the United States?? Apparently, liberals still adhere to their innate belief that ordinary citizens should not make their opinions heard in such forums and that such emotions should be suppressed; otherwise, what’s the fuss?

Of course, liberals have never been known for their patriotism. The liberal ideology is structured on pandering to their vast array of special interests. Their primary objective is to coddle them and not the vast majority of Americans.

But their lack of patriotism is merely the tip of this iceberg. We’ve already seen what happens when criticism of their ideology gets too close to home; they project their opponents as purveyors of hate. Their primary and most effective (they assume) tool, is playing the race card. 

Recently, everyone from Reps. Greg Meeks and Barney Frank, to Senator Harry Reid, even the “objective” Associated Press, put their chips on the racist square. But that’s just the beginning. When that doesn’t stick, they start conjuring images of hatred, using words like we’re seeing now to describe Republicans….”hate-filled…destructive…..vicious…” Yes, throw in a little fear-mongering, which is always good for effect.

On Saturday, one of their own, Representative John Lewis (D), member of the Congressional Black Caucus, jumped into the pool:

John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat and veteran of the civil rights movement, says the negative tone of the Republican presidential campaign reminds him of the hateful atmosphere that segregationist Gov. George Wallace fostered in Alabama in the 1960s.

Said Lewis:

“George Wallace never threw a bomb…He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights.”

Liberals have built a movement on race-baiting and scare-mongering; class-warfare is a specialty. But unlike what we’re seeing at the McCain rallies, liberal vitriol is intentionally malicious and vile. The venom runs deep, stemming from a myriad of reasons, not the least of which is trying to live a life without accountability, without repercussions. Their candidate has had an extensive and significant political relationship with an unrepentant American terrorist? Irrelevant they say….but don’t you dare bring it up on the campaign trail, a la Sarah Palin.

Apparently, someone (namely Governor Palin) has touched a liberal nerve, because leftist angst is growing even more intense. And, probably not coincidentally, it has increased in tandem with the McCain campaign trying to shed light on Sen. Obama’s questionable character and judgment, specifically as it relates to William Ayers and to ACORN.

Yes, their hatred runs deep; thanks to Michelle Malkin for pointing this out.

Bob Herbert’s column in Saturday’s NYT: 

For the nitwits who vote for the man or woman they’d most like to have over for dinner, or hang out at a barbecue with, I suggest you take a look at how well your 401(k) is doing, or how easy it will be to meet the mortgage this month, or whether the college fund you’ve been trying to build for your kids is as robust as you’d like it to be.

He continues to drivel on about Ronald Reagan, William Buckley and conservative policies in general. 

Here we see the worst kind of liberal fear-mongering: Vote for Obama or your portfolio and your children’s future are doomed. Or something like that. Never mind that the liberal wing of the Democrat party has dominated the 110th Congress for the better part of two years. But whatever, the facts are trivial to liberals.  What’s important is that you are scared (and if you’re not, you should be) and remain scared, and ignorant.  Its rants like these that epitomizes the radical and dangerous liberal psyche.

Marxism We Can Believe In

These comments should come as no surprise to anyone; if it does, you’re just not paying attention.  We already know that inherently, Barack Obama is a Marxist ideologue.  The real question here is this: 

With the McCain campaign at the plate, Barack Obama throws a meatball right down the middle, matter-of-factly revealing his Marxist tendencies to a prospective voter, for all the world to see.  We don’t think Gov. Palin will have a problem knocking this one out of the park; our question is, whether John McCain has the fortitude to even take a swing. 

Plumber to Obama: “Your new tax plan is going to tax me more. Isn’t it?”

Obama: “It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

Note he doesn’t even answer the question directly; “Yes, I will be taxing you a lot more…”, probably wouldn’t have gone over too well.

First Graders Taken To Gay Wedding

Thanks to Michelle Malkin for picking up on this.  As if we need to further prove the fact that liberals have no shame: First graders go on a class trip to see their gay teacher’s wedding. 

 SAN FRANCISCO, October 11 – In the same week that the No on 8 campaign launched an ad that labeled as “lies” claims that same-sex marriage would be taught in schools to young children, a first grade class took a school-sponsored trip to a gay wedding. Eighteen first graders traveled to San Francisco City Hall Friday for the wedding of their teacher and her lesbian partner, The San Francisco Chronicle reported. The school sponsored the trip for the students, ages 5 and 6, taking them away from their studies for the same-sex wedding. According to the Yes on 8 campaign, the public school field trip demonstrates that the California Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage has real consequences.

“Taking children out of school for a same-sex wedding is not customary education. This is promoting same-sex marriage and indoctrinating young kids,” said Yes on 8-ProtectMarriage.com Campaign Co-Manager Frank Schubert. “I doubt the school has ever taken kids on a field trip to a traditional wedding,” Schubert said.

The school’s principal approved of the trip, saying it was “a teachable moment.” 

A teachable moment?  Since when is witnessing a gay wedding part of a 1st grade curriculum?  And they wonder why opposition to Prop. 8 is wilting. 

Tell these extremist headcases to stop shoving their way of life down the throats of mainstream America.   Support Prop. 8

Barack Obama: Writer’s Cramp and the Mortgage Mess

The WSJ takes Obama to task on his complete ineptitude and lack of leadership:

If Sen. Obama were truly looking for a kind of deregulation that might be responsible for the current financial crisis, he need only look back to 1998, when the Clinton administration ruled that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could satisfy their affordable housing obligations by purchasing subprime mortgages. This ultimately made it possible for Fannie and Freddie to add a trillion dollars in junk loans to their balance sheets. This led to their own collapse, and to the development of a market in these mortgages that is the source of the financial crisis we are wrestling with today.

Finally, on the matter of deregulation and the financial crisis, Sen. Obama should consider his own complicity in the failure of Congress to adopt legislation that might have prevented the subprime meltdown.

In the summer of 2005, a bill emerged from the Senate Banking Committee that considerably tightened regulations on Fannie and Freddie, including controls over their capital and their ability to hold portfolios of mortgages or mortgage-backed securities. All the Republicans voted for the bill in committee; all the Democrats voted against it. To get the bill to a vote in the Senate, a few Democratic votes were necessary to limit debate. This was a time for the leadership Sen. Obama says he can offer, but neither he nor any other Democrat stepped forward.

Instead, by his own account, Mr. Obama wrote a letter to the Treasury Secretary, allegedly putting himself on record that subprime loans were dangerous and had to be dealt with. This is revealing; if true, it indicates Sen. Obama knew there was a problem with subprime lending — but was unwilling to confront his own party by pressing for legislation to control it. As a demonstration of character and leadership capacity, it bears a strong resemblance to something else in Sen. Obama’s past: voting present.

If the Senator from Illinois really did forsee the current subprime disaster and the devastating effect it would have on our financial system, he did absolutely nothing about it.  We know that John McCain co-sponsored the Chuck Hagel bill to propose and enforce tighter regulations of the GSE’s, as noted by Hot Air:

It demonstrates a key difference between Obama and John McCain.  When McCain saw the potential for crisis, he took action by co-sponsoring Chuck Hagel’s Fannie/Freddie reform bill that would have increased regulation on the two GSEs.  He spoke in the Senate for its passage.

What did Barack Obama do?  He wrote a letter.  He didn’t bother to co-sponsor the bill that could have prevented this year’s financial collapse, or to even allow it to come to a vote.  Obama talked (allegedly — we have yet to see this letter) while McCain took action.

Despite his tenure as the junior US Senator from Illinois, no legislation was proposed, no hearings called. Just a bad case of writer’s cramp:

The first debate:

Last year, I wrote to the secretary of the Treasury to make sure that he understood the magnitude of this problem and to call on him to bring all the stakeholders together to try to deal with it.

The second debate:

I wrote to Secretary Paulson, I wrote to Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, and told them this is something we have to deal with, and nobody did anything about it.

This is what liberals consider “leadership”.  Pathetic…

Western Pennsylvania Is Racist

 We knew this was coming. While they and their surrogates in the media accuse the GOP of “inciting hatred”, the extremist fringe of the Democrat party is screaming racism again.  This time its oozing from House apologist John Murtha of Pennsylvania’s 12th District. In explaining why Pennsylvania may not overwhelmingly vote for Obama, Murtha bloviates:

“There’s no question Western Pennsylvania is a racist area,” said Mr. Murtha, whose district stretches from Johnstown to Washington County. “The older population is more hesitant.”

Let’s not for one second think that this dramatic support for Obama is somehow emboldening the Democrat party with some sort of new vision for their party. The congressman is goose-stepping in line with the same liberal mantra: if they don’t vote for us, they must be racist.  This is the type of politics that Obama loves to play and the cowardice rolls downhill.  Nothing new here, just typical spineless fare from the left.  And Murtha has other problems to worry about.

Murtha is being challenged by an upstanding American, Lt. Colonel William Russell, for his House seat. The best thing for our country right now would be for Murtha to lose his job.

Support William Russell for Congress.

And let’s not forget about Lance Corporal Justin Sharratt.

(UPDATE)

William Russell has responded to Murtha’s bloviating.  Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the update.

Joe The Plumber

The legend of Joe Wurzelbacher continues to grow.  We bet the media and the Obama campaign wishes this story would just go away.  We said it was a softball for the McCain campaign, ready-made to launch out of the ballpark.  The plumber from Ohio has attracted a lot of media attention since his encounter with Obama earlier this week, but this interview speaks volumes.  The interview was conducted by Pam Meister over at familysecuritymatters.org.  Joe’s comments are in bold

Some highlights:

Initially, I started off asking him if he believed in the American Dream and he said yes, he does – and then I proceeded to ask him then why he’s penalizing me for trying to fulfill it. He asked, “what do you mean,” and I explained to him that I’m planning on purchasing this company – it’s not something I’m gonna purchase outright, it’s something I’m going to have to make payments on for years – but essentially I’m going to buy this company, and the profits generated by that could possibly put me in that tax bracket he’s talking about and that bothers me. It’s not like I would be rich; I would still just be a working plumber. I work hard for my money, and the fact that he thinks I make a little too much that he just wants to redistribute it to other people. Some of them might need it, but at the same time, it’s not their discretion to do it – it’s mine.

PM: Okay, and then he talked about 10, 15 years ago maybe you weren’t making that sort of money, how would you feel – if you were just starting out, or maybe looking back – the kind of tax cut that he’s promising for other people, does that still make you think that that’s a great idea?

See, I believe in working for what I get. I don’t want to say it’s a handout, but essentially that’s what it comes down to. You’re going to tax someone else more that’s been working hard to fulfill the American Dream and you’re gonna give it to other people who – I’m not saying they don’t work as hard, but I’m sure some of them don’t – and I don’t think it’s right just to give it to them or reduce taxes on their part and hike it up on my part like a teeter totter to bring it back even.

PM: …taxing small businesses making $250,000 and above is going to help the people “behind you.” And yes, “spreading the wealth around.” How did you feel about that?

As soon as he said it, he contradicted himself. He doesn’t want to “punish” me, but – when you use the word “but,” you pretty much negate everything you just said prior to that. So he does want to punish me, he does want to punish me for working harder to – you know, my big thing is the American Dream. 

 It was just a contradiction of terms, what he said: he doesn’t want to punish me but he wants to redistribute my wealth. And what I mean when I say my wealth, I mean the collective. Eventually – I mean, just to sound a little silly here, but you need rich people. I mean, who are you going to work for?

PM: Do you fear this is the possibility of America turning more down the socialist road if Obama does become elected and if he is able to implement these policies?

JW: Very much so. You start giving people stuff, and then they start expecting it – and that scares me. A lot of people expect it now. They get upset when their check’s late, they get upset when they don’t get as many benefits as they used to, or when different government agencies are cut or spending is cut here and there for whatever reason – people get upset at that. And that’s because they’re used to getting it and they want more. I mean, everyone’s always gonna want more. People work the system left and right to get more out of welfare, to get more out of state assistance, federal assistance. And if government’s there for them, they’re gonna keep on trying to manipulate it to get more out of it. You got people that come along and say, “Hey, I wanna help you people,” I mean, they’re all ears! They’re like, “Hey, you can help me more, I don’t have to work as hard, I don’t have to do as much, and you’re gonna give me this? Man, that’s great, you’re a good guy.”

So yeah, it goes down the socialist – His healthcare plan scares me. You know, I don’t like people going without healthcare, but it’s not my job to pay for everyone else’s healthcare. It’s hard enough paying for my own. I like the idea of deregulation as far as – nationally, you know, you only get insurance companies that can work in this state – if you deregulate that then you have more people competing and then the prices would go lower. It seems pretty simple to me. It probably isn’t that simple – but you flood the market with more products, usually they go down cheaper.

What he expects McCain will talk about during the last debate:

There’s a lot of things I wish McCain would say. As far as (taxes for small businesses)  yes, I would like him to speak. Not so much about small businesses, but just people in general that make this money. It’s not up to them to help America, I mean – let me rephrase that. It’s not – they shouldn’t be taxed more because they’ve succeeded. That’s envy and jealousy. Get off your butt and go work. Don’t sit there and expect the government to give it to you. So I wouldn’t mind him speaking on it like that. I know he couldn’t say it probably like that because that’d turn a lot of people off. But it just – yeah, I guess I would like him to speak about that and a bunch of other things.  

Michelle Malkin agrees that a joint appearance with Joe and McCain is in order, at the least.  We agree.  Hopefully, we haven’t heard the last from Mr. Wurzelbacher.

Obama and Ayers and Why It Matters

The Obama campaign insists that the subject of William Ayers and his relationship with their candidate is irrelevant. The reasons, they say, is that Obama was too young when the Weather Underground committed most of their terrorist activities, which consisted of bombing various symbolic institutions: the Pentagon, the Capitol, various police stations and banks. The other reason is that Obama, who cut his teeth in Chicago’s entrenched political system, was simply unaware of Ayers’ (who by then was a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago) despicable past. The former is obviously true, but misses the point. As to the latter, it is most likely false; there’s really no way that someone as intelligent as Obama makes himself out to be could not have known. We think the Obama apologists know this also. The whole point is that it raises the question of Obama’s judgment, and his moral ineptitude and qualifications (or lack thereof) to be President.

Joseph M. Skelly, at National Review gets it. He does a great job connecting the dots between the violent depravity of Ayers and the Weather Underground with Barack Obama, and why it’s relevant. An excerpt:

Ultimately, Dan Berger is an apologist for terror. In the conclusion of his book he asks, “Was the [Weather Underground] a terrorist Organization?” His reply: “Terrorists? Apocalyptic nihilists? Hardly. The Weather Underground was, on the contrary, a militant continuation of the hopeful spirit of the early to mid-1960s, inspired by the success of national liberation movements the world over.” Bill Ayers parrots this same distorted line of reasoning in his memoir, Fugitive Days. “Terrorists terrorize, they kill innocent civilians, while the [Weather Underground] organized and agitated,” he claims. “Terrorists intimidate, while we aimed only to educate.”

This moral relativism eerily echoes Barack Obama’s blasé reaction to questions about his relationship with Ayers and Dohrn. The former is just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood” we are told. With a rationale like this Obama insults our intelligence. It is inconceivable that someone with his education – including at Columbia University, where the SDS’s occupation of the campus in 1968 is the stuff of legend – and his exposure to politics in Chicago, the sight of the 1968 Democratic Convention and the Days of Rage in 1969, knew nothing of the history of the Weather Underground when he first met Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. “I was just 8 years old” in 1969, Obama says. How old was he when Ayers and Dohrn emerged from hiding in 1980 to headlines across the country? How old was he when the Weathermen murdered two policemen and a Brinks security guard in Nyack, New York in 1981? He was twenty, well past the age of reason. What is more, he was in his junior year at Columbia University in New YorkCity, less than forty miles from where the crime occurred. “Despicable acts” is his strongest description of what Ayers and Dohrn did. Wrong again. These were not simply “despicable,” they were evil, terrorist atrocities – and capital murders in the case of the Brinks robbery. Why can’t Obama, lauded for his oratory, speak plainly and truthfully about such actions, about a campaign that aimed to rip our country apart?

In recent days Deroy Murdock and radio talk show host Laura Ingraham have asked the right rhetorical question: what did Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn see in Barack Obama when they met him in Chicago? After reading Berger’s book the answer is clear: they saw in him a kindred spirit, a fellow traveler, an acceptable face of the radical agenda they were pushing. What is more, Obama saw kindred souls in Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. This cuts to the heart of the matter. A person with a sound moral compass would have never developed a relationship with the two former terrorists in the first place, but would have immediately distanced himself from them. A person with a strong moral foundation, never mind a candidate for president of the United States, would have never sought to ingratiate himself with the likes of Ayers and Dohrn, a man and woman who have committed evil acts, who have admitted as such, and who have never repented for their transgressions.

This entire episode represents a profound failure of judgment on Obama’s part. It also has the most serious of implications regarding his presidency if he is elected. Remember, on Inauguration Day Obama will take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. He will be the highest law enforcement official in the nation. He will recommend judges to sit on the Supreme Court, appoint the Attorney General of the United States, and name the Director of the FBI. Bernardine Dohrn refused to cooperate with the latter agency and refused to testify before a grand jury. What does Obama think about this? What does his association with someone who has nothing but utter contempt for our legal system portend? Will he go soft on domestic terrorism? Can we expect him to take a page out of Bill Clinton’s book and pardon Judy Clark and Dave Gilbert? Will he sound off about moral equivalence, which we have already heard in some his statements? Can we trust him to enforce the rule of law? We do not ask these questions about John McCain because we know his track record. We ask them of Barack Obama because, for whatever reason, he is covering his tracks.

Murtha Cancels Debate

 John Murtha is pathetic. Being one of the most corrupt and inept representatives in all of Congress is actually his strongest characteristic. But is it possible to sink below the appeal of pond-scum? Murtha has it in the bag. Earlier this week, he referred to citizens of Pennsylvania as racist, lest they not vote for Obama in the general election.  But then again, he’s not the first liberal to smear and race-bait the citizens of Pennsylvania this year.

We don’t think Murtha is smart enough to realize his own idiocy, so his enablers issued a feeble attempt at an “apology” :

While we cannot deny that race is a factor in this election, I believe we’ve been able to look beyond race these past few months, and that voters today are concerned with the policy differences of our two candidates and their vision for the future of our great country

Looking “beyond race”? Not really.

Murtha is a disgrace to his constituents; just to drive the point home, he cancels his debate with Bill Russell, his Republican opponent for Pennsylvania’s 12th District, who we strongly support. As per Russell’s campaign:

Once again Mr. Murtha is using the prestige and platform of public office to make wild, reckless statements about the people he represents in Congress.

Because the people of Western Pennsylvania aren’t wholeheartedly embracing Barack Obama’s values and positions on issues like the right-to-life, taxes and the 2nd Amendment doesn’t makes us racist. That’s the cheapest of cheap shots

Here’s the ad:

According to PA WaterCooler, Russell is PA’s biggest fundraiser in the 3rd quarter. 

It should be clear that the only thing John Murtha deserves is retirement.

Support Bill Russell for Congress

Lance Corporal Justin Sharratt

Democrats and the Mortgage Crisis (Continued)

Funny how these things get noticed so close to election day.  Now we know what Henry Cisneros, President Clinton’s first HUD Secretary, has been doing all these years:

As the Clinton administration’s top housing official in the mid-1990s, Mr. Cisneros loosened mortgage restrictions so first-time buyers could qualify for loans they could never get before.

Then, capitalizing on a housing expansion he helped unleash, he joined the boards of a major builder, KB Home, and the largest mortgage lender in the nation, Countrywide Financial — two companies that rode the housing boom, drawing criticism along the way for abusive business practices.

Of course, we always knew this.  After helping create the environment from which our current mortgage crisis originated, he profited (and continues to profit) not only from those who provided financing for the industry, but also those who built the houses themselves.  What a guy:

For the three years he was a director at KB Home, Mr. Cisneros received at least $70,000 in pay and more than $100,000 worth of stock. He also received $1.14 million in directors’ fees and stock grants during the six years he was a director at Countrywide. He made more than $5 million from Countrywide stock options, money he says he plowed into his company.

And that’s not all:

KB’s board also included James A. Johnson, a prominent Democrat and the former chief executive of Fannie Mae, the mortgage giant now being run by the government. Mr. Johnson did not return a phone call seeking comment.

What a surprise: Democrats, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, corrupt mortgage brokers and a massive government bailout, all at taxpayers’ expense.

Say It Ain’t So, Joe…

Barack Obama is constantly telling us that as President, he will “restore” the image of the United States in the world and that he and Joe Biden have enough experience to see us through any potential crisis. 

Don’t say we weren’t warned.   In a stump speech on Sunday, Joe Biden more or less acknowledges what we’ve always known about foreign policy: weakness incites aggression.  And the United States will appear weak indeed, if Barack Obama is elected President:

“Mark my words,” the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

Wouldn’t it be prudent to elect a candidate who already has the foreign policy experience in order to avoid any sort of international incident in the first place? What’s more disturbing from is that Biden  sounds more concerned about falling poll numbers than anything having to do with foreign policy issues:

“I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate,” Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. “And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you – not financially to help him – we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”

Here we have Joe Biden telling us to ignore potentially unfavorable polling numbers, because it will not be “apparent that we’re right”. 

Say it ain’t so, Joe. You mean like proposing an unpopular troop surge in Iraq?  This is the same Joe Biden who has been wrong on so many foreign policy issues over nearly three decades.

We mention the troop surge as a perfect example.  While Biden was bloviating about the benefits of “triangulization” in Iraq, John McCain was practically a lone voice in the Senate pushing for the change in strategy; this depsite polls and pundits criticizing the move.  True leadership requires experience and forsaking polling data for convictions and principles.  These are qualities in which the Obama/Biden ticket are seriously lacking.  We hope the American people realize this as well. 

 We don’t expect Biden’s remarks to get much attention from the media; they’d rather not raise any questions about Obama’s lack of experience and Joe Biden’s ineptitude in foreign affairs this close to the election.  But as others are noting, and we agree - the McCain campaign should make good use of Biden’s comments and put a new ad together.

Deficits Be Damned

Webster’s defines the word reckless as “utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action; without caution“.  Liberalism’s approach to fiscal policy has been and still is, more than reckless; it’s irrational and based on ignorance.   Case in point, Barney Frank on CNBC:

 

 

 

Says Frank:

“At this point, there needs to be an immediate focus on spending….this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat. I do think this is a time for a very important…dose of Keynesianism. Yes, I think later on there should be tax increases. Personally I think there are a lot of rich people out there who we can tax to recover some of this money…”

In less than a minute, Barney Frank encapsulates the failed liberal philosophy of tax and spend, and spend some more.  Liberalism’s blatant disregard for fiscal discipline is striking.  Spend now and we’ll get the money later.  What’s even more disturbing is the smug attitude; the joy he gets from fleecing his fellow citizens.  All of this coming from one of the architects of the current financial crisis.  What happened to the the Democrats that didn’t want to “mortgage our children’s future?”  Apparently they don’t miss President Clinton’s budget surplus that much.  That has to take a back seat now, according to Frank.  Deficits be damned.  

Chiming in on the massive spending orgy is Ben Bernanke; apparently, the Fed Chariman is on board with the Democrats “stimulus” plan, despite the assumption that the Federal Reserve should be politically neutral in these matters.  As the WSJ notes, he’s probably looking out for his job more than anything else, seeing a new political landscape that appears inevitable on Capitol Hill and in the White House within the next two weeks.

Apparently, the change we need in Washington is not coming anytime soon.

Sabato: McCain Losing Virginia

When it comes to Virginia politics, it doesn’t get much more serious than Larry Sabato.  The professor of politics at the University of Virginia, says Obama could win Virginia, which means McCain’s road to the White House just got narrower.  The last several elections, going back to 2002, have seen Sabato’s predictions bear fruit.  The McCain campaign should take notice.

Good News For McCain in Ohio?

On the race for President in Ohio; good news for McCain as per National Review:

I continue to hear from my source on the ground in Ohio, who is seeing results for McCain that are surprisingly good. He puts it, “in a key bellweather section of Ohio, McCain continues to show internals that are exceeding the national pollsters’ results. This portends a potentially larger McCain victory in Ohio than Bush had in 2004.”

As for those national pollsters, note that Fox News/Rasmussen puts McCain up 2, NBC/Mason-Dixon puts McCain up 1 and Rasmussen had it a tie last week. My guy on the ground thinks this might mean that the internal polling is a leading indicator, and he’s noting that if McCain does as well among the key demographics in neighboring Pennsylvania as he is in Ohio, then the Democrats ought to be sweating about that state.

That’s far from a given, of course; Pennsylvania is a bluer state than Ohio. I don’t know that McCain will win Pennsylvania, but it isn’t like he hasn’t been given enough material – “spread the wealth around”, “no coal plants”, Murtha alternately calling his constituents “racists” and “rednecks,” the bitter small-town clinger comment, etc.

Rendell: “A little nervous” about Pennsylvania

Despite double digit leads for Obama in several PA polls, Governor Rendell is still a bit uneasy; not only does he want Obama to come back to the Keystone state, but he wants the Clintons there as well:

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell has sent two separate memos to the Obama campaign in the past five days requesting that the Democratic Presidential candidate—as well as Hillary and Bill Clinton—return to campaign in Pennsylvania, Rendell told CNN’s Gloria Borger.

Obama’s support appears to be weakest in the western part of the state, a region Pennsylvania Rep. Jack Murtha recently called ‘racist,’ and one where he badly lost to Sen. Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary.

CNN’s Creative Journalism

Need more proof that the media is in the tank for Obama? Or rather that it just cannot tolerate Sarah Palin?  Or that CNN is completely inept?  Rich Lowry catches CNN in the act of “creative journalism”.

Pennsylvania In Play?

Could this be the reason Gov Rendell is feeling a little queasy about Obama’s lead in Pennsylvania polls?

An internal Barack Obama campaign poll has the Democrat ahead of John McCain by just two percentage points.

WILK radio host Steve Corbett said Tuesday he obtained an Obama campaign e-mail about the internal poll showing a tight race.  Pollster.com’s trend line of public Pennsylvania polls has Obama leading McCain 54 percent to 38 percent.

Or maybe it’s this:

Allan Povanda, 67, of Greensburg was one of seven campaign volunteers waiting to greet him there. Povanda, a lifelong Democrat, plans to vote Republican for the first time this year in support of McCain, a fellow veteran.

“(Obama) stands against everything I believe,” Povanda said, citing the Illinois Democrat’s support for abortion rights. “We need somebody with integrity. We need somebody with leadership.”

Palin, whom Povanda called “a breath of fresh air,” is scheduled to return Thursday for a rally at Beaver Area High School in Beaver County, the campaign said.

Or maybe it’s just that calling your own constituents “racist” and “rednecks” two weeks before an election is never a good campaign strategy. 

It’s hard to believe that the Obama campaign, which is notoriously well organized and efficient, would let its internal data slip out.  As others are noting, this could be a motivational exercise.  That being said, we don’t think Rendell would be calling in the big guns if there wasn’t some concern there.  And some others on the left seem to be concerned as well.

Poll: Murtha Lead Down To 4 Points

Some good news for Bill Russell:

Democratic Rep. John Murtha leads retired Army Lt. Col. William Russell by a little more than 4 percentage points, within the Susquehanna Poll’s 4.9-point margin of error. The poll of 400 likely voters was conducted for the Tribune-Review on Tuesday, amid uproar over Murtha’s statement that some of his constituents are racist.

About 54 percent of voters among those polled say it’s time for someone else to represent them in Congress. About 35 percent say Murtha deserves to be re-elected.

“The most important variable here is that a decisive majority say it’s time for a new person,” said Jim Lee, president of Susquehanna Polling and Research. He attributed some of the unhappiness with Murtha to the congressman’s recent comments.

National Review writes about Bill Russell here.

Support Bill Russell For Congress

Do Republicans Need To Lose?

Radley Balko on why the Republicans must lose:

While I’m not thrilled at the prospect of an Obama administration (especially with a friendly Congress), the Republicans still need to get their clocks cleaned in two weeks, for a couple of reasons.

First, they had their shot at holding power, and they failed. They’ve failed in staying true to their principles of limited government and free markets. They’ve failed in preventing elected leaders of their party from becoming corrupted by the trappings of power, and they’ve failed to hold those leaders accountable after the fact. Congressional Republicans failed to rein in the Bush administration’s naked bid to vastly expand the power of the presidency (a failure they’re going to come to regret should Obama take office in January). They failed to apply due scrutiny and skepticism to the administration’s claims before undertaking Congress’ most solemn task—sending the nation to war. I could go on.

As for the Bush administration, the only consistent principle we’ve seen from the White House over the last eight years is that of elevating the American president (and, I guess, the vice president) to that of an elected dictator. That isn’t hyperbole. This administration believes that on any issue that can remotely be tied to foreign policy or national security (and on quite a few other issues as well), the president has boundless, limitless, unchecked power to do anything he wants. They believe that on these matters, neither Congress nor the courts can restrain him.

That’s the second reason the GOP needs to lose. American voters need to send a clear, convincing repudiation of these dangerous ideas.

If they do lose, the GOP would be wise to regroup and rebuild from scratch, scrap the current leadership, and, most importantly, purge the party of the “national greatness,” neoconservative influence. Big-government conservatism has bloated the federal government, bogged us down in what will ultimately be a trillion-dollar war, and set us down the road to European-style socialism. It’s hard to think of how Obama could be worse. He’ll just be bad in different ways.

Whether McCain wins or loses, the party needs a massive overhaul and there needs to be a push to make Reagan conservatism the focal point of the platform.  That is the only forumla for success in elections; this goes not only for general elections, but for elections at the state and local levels.  The reason why states such as Virginia and North Carolina could be turning blue is that the Democrats have spent the past few years developing Democrat strongholds in state governments and municipalities.  The Republican party needs to focus on organization and efficiency, bound together by a coherent platform and message. 

Perhaps the Republicans need a few years in the political wilderness.  However, the costs of defeat are high and any policies set in place by a liberal Congress and liberal President will take years to reverse.  They’re already ecstatic at the prospect of spending even more taxpayer money.  The media and leftist bloggers are full of hatred for Republicans and conservatives, but they will claim that this is a victory for big government and liberalism in general.  As Balko notes, this election is not a repudiation of smaller government, just more big government under the GOP banner.

House Democrats Consider Nationalizing Retirement Funds

Not all of the turmoil in global financial markets can be blamed on the economic problems of the United States.  Argentina made news this week when their government decided to nationalize the country’s private pension funds, in the name of “rescuing pensions from the global market crisis.” 

As the WSJ notes, this is just a cash grab from an increasingly leftist Argentine government, one that faces nearly $30 billion in maturing government debt within the next two years, with little resources to pay it.  But it also stands as an ominous sign for the recent government bailouts by our own government:

Argentine President Cristina Kirchner announced this week that her government intends to nationalize the country’s private pension system. If Congress approves this property grab, $30 billion in individually held retirement accounts — think 401(k)s — managed by private pension funds will become government property.

That the state could seize retirement savings no doubt seems outrageous to Americans. But it is a predictable development in a country where government intervention in the financial system is the norm. With Washington now expanding its role as guarantor in American banking, that’s something to think about.

The Argentine plan currently requires 11% of employees’ wages and a 16% employer contribution to go into any of 10 private pension funds. Under the nationalization plan, all contributions would go into a state fund. In other words, the Argentine government would control about $30 billion in taxpayer money.

In a society that should be based on free market capitalism, any notions of nationalizing private pensions and massive transfers of wealth and assets, should be considered questionable and dangerous at the very least.

Unfortunately, the Democrat party has plans to bring it right to the mainstream of US domestic policy. Reminiscent of President Kirchner’s desire to “rescue” retirement savings from the financial crisis, the House Education and Labor Committee earlier this month said it was entertaining strikingly similar nationalization proposals:

Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.

House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.

 Under one such plan:

All workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.

At least we can’t say we weren’t warned.

Ted Stevens Needs To Go

On Monday, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska was convicted on seven felony counts for failing to report approximately $250,000 in gifts from VECO, an oil services company. When the verdict came down, we couldn’t put our feelings any more succinctly than with the sentiments of Michelle Malkin: good riddance.

Up for reelection next week, Stevens has decided he will stick it to the GOP some more, by not making the honorable choice, and give up his Senate seat. The hubris and self-importance is not surprising. So much for country first, let alone your own party.

Stevens encapsulates everything that is wrong with the Republican Party in 2008. He represents the corruption, the runaway, pork-laden spending that makes this Republican Party indiscernible from the liberal Democrats and led to the party’s downfall that began in 2006 and most likely will continue next week.

If fiscal conservatism is not dead in the GOP, then it certainly is on life support; Ted Stevens helped it get to this point. It’s becoming clearer, as we inch closer toward next week’s election and the Democrat tsunami that’s about to hit the GOP in both houses of Congress, that the party needs to tear down whatever is left of what Stevens represents and begin a long process of rebuilding, of creating a platform rooted and based in traditional conservative values, which should include a hard lesson in values in governance and fiscally sound policies. Ted Stevens represents none of this. That process for the GOP should begin here; the Senator needs to be jettisoned and fast

Biden, Richardson Add to “Middle Class” Question

Apparently Sen. Obama’s plan to tax the “rich” includes considering everyone “rich”.   The threshold for what Obama considers middle class keeps falling.  As per the campaign’s website:

Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase.

On Monday, Joe Biden put the income tax-cut threshold at $150,000. 

Earlier today, Obama supporter Bill Richardson threw $120,000 to the wall.

Change indeed.

Wonkette On Trig Palin

Normally, we’d like to assume that candidate’s families (children in particular) are off limits when it comes to political or even social conversation.  This political season, as the extremist Left, including we’re sure, those that would consider themselves “progressive” have spent a startling amount of time and money condemning the alleged hatred coming from Republicans, specifically (as usual) conservatives.

The fact of the matter is, that the fringes of left wing extremism is indeed fueled by hatred; hatred of the wealthy, hatred of those who espouse traditional religious beliefs, hatred of patriotism in our country.  This can never be overstated, and has never been more apparent than how the media and liberals have had aneurysms over Sarah Palin and her family.   

Other blogs have detailed the cesspool of shameful and vile personal attacks (we acknowledge Michelle Malkin here, who has done a great job with keeping tabs on this). 

Just when you think liberals can’t sink any lower, they continue to outdo themselves.  Wonkette has now sunk to new depths of degeneracy.  Referring to photos of Trig Palin wearing an elephant costume for Halloween:

Little baby Trig must be so glad he wasn’t aborted for this, his first Halloween, because his parents dressed him up like a political party symbol to be carried around at snarling political events. Aww. Isn’t life just grand?

Starving for attention, the wingnut gallery chimes in with some comments:

- Ugh. I hate that look people get on their face when they are happy to be holding a baby. It is all domestic and other disturbing things.

- Initially they were going to have trig dress up as an aborted fetus.

- May I please report child endangerment? She may not have aborted, but I assure you she’s spent the last few months trying to kill this poor baby!!!

- I thought an unaborted mongoloid baby was the symbol of the Republican Party.

This is what liberalism and “progressive” discourse has come down to.  These are Obama supporters.   This is the “new politics”.   A classy bunch, them liberals. 

(Thanks to National Review and Newsbusters)

FDIC Plan For Mortgage Relief Tests the Limits of Leniency

In July, the failure of mortgage lender IndyMac Bancorp, one of the country’s biggest originator of subprime mortgage loans, prompted a seizure by banking regulators.  The FDIC was assigned the task of sorting through its massive loan portfolio.  From a regulatory standpoint, the goal was to determine value of the bank’s existing assets, paying off its liabilities, and protecting depositors.  But as the real estate market continued to flounder, another priority was to stem the tide of home foreclosures.  

The FDIC Chairman, Sheila Bair noted: “Our goal is to get the greatest recovery possible on loans in default or in danger of default, while helping troubled borrowers remain in their homes”

Its plan was put into effect soon after the feds took over, working with various borrowers to renegotiate the terms of their mortgages.  The WSJ writes about some of these borrowers (emphasis added):

Nanci Puerto, a 40-year-old house cleaner in Antioch, ran into such a problem. She refinanced her house for $637,288 from IndyMac in 2006, taking out cash for a down payment on another property. She and her husband, who works in a machine shop, take home a combined $70,000 a year. Each month, she makes the minimum payment on her loan, $2,416. At the same time, she watches the outstanding principal swell since that payment doesn’t fully cover the interest costs. Now she owes IndyMac $707,000, on a house that the county tax assessor says is only worth $410,000.

There’s more:

Bertha and Nicolas Bobadilla, of Brentwood, a town not far from Antioch, are making their payments but don’t think they can hold on for much longer. There’s not much the FDIC can do. Mrs. Bobadilla, 45, is an out-of-work house cleaner, while Mr. Bobadilla earns about $36,000 a year as a tree trimmer. In recent years, the couple borrowed heavily to buy houses for various family members, a bet that depended on ever-rising house prices. One home has already gone back to the bank.

So, the Bobadillas used their primary residence as an ATM to finance homes for “various family members”, and now taxpayers are paying the price.  Another:

Rafael Martinez is a 31-year-old stucco worker in Pittsburg, Calif. earning $3,600 per month at his union job. He has two IndyMac loans that ballooned to $420,000. He originally borrowed $400,000. His wife lost her job and he hasn’t made a payment on either loan since March. He figured the house was lost. In hopes of saving his credit rating, he arranged a $150,000 short sale in which the bank would agree to cancel his mortgage in exchange for the proceeds.

A $400,000 mortgage with $3600 in monthly income. Amazing.

One of our primary criticisms of the last month’s massive government bailout package is the bad precedent set forth by the government proposals and lack of personal accountability for most of the “victims” of the crisis.  Borrowers who took out loans they knew they couldn’t repay, to purchase homes they knew they couldn’t afford, are deemed to be the victims in this crisis, especially by lawmakers and think tanks from the left. 

Certainly there were unsuspecting borrowers who got scammed; and there still are more than enough predatory lenders out there.  The fast-talking, mortgage brokers pushing no money down loans, originating loans to borrowers with low credit scores and questionable credit histories, all working on commission are still out there.  But at some point, somebody needs to realize that for the most part, most of these borrowers knew exactly what they were doing.  During the height of the real estate boom, there was enormous pressure to purchase real estate because, it seemed, “everyone was doing it”; just like “everyone” was making fortunes day-trading stocks in the late nineties.  In the end, not everyone was getting scammed; we don’t think we’d be stretching to assume that most of them knew exactly what they were doing.

Sarah Palin Cleared In Second Troopergate Probe

Let’s finally put the Troopergate non-scandal to bed.  A second investigative probe revealed today that Sarah Palin did not violate ethics laws in firing Alaska’s public safety commissioner Walter Monegan, contrary to the findings of the Branchflower report issued in October.  The report was released earlier today and noted the following: 

1. There is no probable cause to believe that Governor Palin violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act by making the decision to dismiss Department of Public Safety Commissioner Monegan and offering him instead the position of Director of the Alaska Beverage Control Board.

2. There is no probable cause to believe that Governor Palin violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act in any other respect in connection with the employment of Alaska State Trooper Michael Wooten.

3. There is no basis upon which to refer the conduct of Governor Palin to any law enforcement agency in connection with this matter because Governor Palin did not commit the offenses of Interference with Official Proceedings or Official Misconduct.

4. There is no probable cause to believe that any other official of state government violated any substantive provision of the Ethics Act.

Now before the liberal bloggers get all agitated, let’s get the facts straight.  Although the Branchflower report found that Gov. Palin “abused her power” in showing concern about the fate of the state trooper in question (who happened to be involved in a messy divorce with Palin’s sister) the report’s more relevant finding:

Governor Palin’s firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads

The battle for the GOP begins now…

Exactly.

It is of course a great thing that we are (it seems pretty certain) electing a black President. It’s just a crying shame it had to be this shallow, empty man, who has never shown a flicker of interest in wealth creation, whose head is stuffed with all the vapid nostrums of 1980s student leftism, and who seems – putting the most charitable construction on it – not to mind the brazenly thuggish tactics of his supporters.

Malkin agrees that the battle begins now:

This disastrous defeat can and will be laid at the feet of the Big Government corporate Republicans, who abandoned the Reagan Coalition, massively expanded government, and ignored the needs and values of regular, grassroots Americans.  They protected Wall Street and K Street and forgot about Main Street.

Republicans will make a comeback only after they return to their conservative roots.  That process starts with the replacement, with principled conservatives, of all of the Republicans’ elected Congressional leaders, as well as most members of the Republican National Committee and most state party officials.  It’s time for new leaders, from top to bottom.

The battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party begins now.

The battle for the GOP begins now…(Part 2)

We wrote about this two weeks ago:

Whether McCain wins or loses, the party needs a massive overhaul and there needs to be a push to make Reagan conservatism the focal point of the platform.  That is the only forumla for success in elections; this goes not only for general elections, but for elections at the state and local levels.  The reason why states such as Virginia and North Carolina could be turning blue is that the Democrats have spent the past few years developing Democrat strongholds in state governments and municipalities.  The Republican party needs to focus on organization and efficiency, bound together by a coherent platform and message. 

Perhaps the Republicans need a few years in the political wilderness.  However, the costs of defeat are high and any policies set in place by a liberal Congress and liberal President will take years to reverse.  They’re already ecstatic at the prospect of spending even more taxpayer money.  The media and leftist bloggers are full of hatred for Republicans and conservatives, but they will claim that this is a victory for big government and liberalism in general.  As Balko notes, this election is not a repudiation of smaller government, just more big government under the GOP banner.

During the primaries, a lot of the establishment Republican pundits and talking heads were bloviating about what a great choice John McCain would be, as he has experience reaching across the aisle, appealing to bipartisan sensibilities in Congress like Joe Lieberman and the like.  Apparently, that strategy did not turn out so well in the general election, and an all too accommodating media were obliged to incessantly point out the opposite; the Obama talking point that McCain was too partisan, a clone of President Bush.  No surprise, the very same people who supported McCain for this very reason (read Peggy Noonan, Christopher Buckley) were busy jumping ship at the eleventh hour. 

As Malkin puts it, the Republican Party does not need  to water down our conservative principles; it needs to refocus on them.  Those responsible for letting Republicans in the Senate and House turn into an abyss of bi-partisan spendthrifts, need to be held accountable.

The inclination will be to throw President Bush under the bus as well, but this is not acceptable either.  The President is lambasted for reaching over the aisle, while succumbing to liberal inclinations in policy as well (NCLB, immigration, etc)  The WSJ:

This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans. During his 2004 victory speech, the president reached out to voters who supported his opponent, John Kerry, and said, “Today, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust.”

Those bipartisan efforts have been met with crushing resistance from both political parties.

The president’s original Supreme Court choice of Harriet Miers alarmed Republicans, while his final nomination of Samuel Alito angered Democrats. His solutions to reform the immigration system alienated traditional conservatives, while his refusal to retreat in Iraq has enraged liberals who have unrealistic expectations about the challenges we face there.

It seems that no matter what Mr. Bush does, he is blamed for everything. He remains despised by the left while continuously disappointing the right.

Democrats Have Their Own Issues

In the wake of Tuesday’s election results, Beltway pundits and talking heads in the mainstream media are buzzing about disarray in the Republican party.  The Republicans indeed, have a long and tough road ahead.  Going back to basic, conservative principles is a start and is obviously the right course of action. 

The Democrats, however, may not be without their own ideological struggles. 

The liberal blogosophere naturally, yet incorrectly, assumes that the election was a mandate for a progressive America, that the country is now a “center-left” nation versus a more conservative one.  Nobel laureate and economist-turned-liberal Bush-hater, Paul Krugman, thinks so; not only that, he demands that President-elect Obama ignore the pleas for moderation and fiscal prudence called for by the electorate and jerk the nation’s collective steering wheel to the left:

Bear in mind…that this year’s presidential election was a clear referendum on political philosophies — and the progressive philosophy won.

What about the argument that the economic crisis will make a progressive agenda unaffordable?

Well, there’s no question that fighting the crisis will cost a lot of money. Rescuing the financial system will probably require large outlays beyond the funds already disbursed. And on top of that, we badly need a program of increased government spending to support output and employment. Could next year’s federal budget deficit reach $1 trillion? Yes.

So a serious progressive agenda — call it a new New Deal — isn’t just economically possible, it’s exactly what the economy needs.

But how does a Nobel laureate explain that most environmental ballot measures were voted down on Tuesday night?  Or that all three gay-marriage proposals were rejected (making suporters of traditional marriage a perfect 30 for 30 overall in such measures)?  And, as Malkin notes, these were rejected by voters who supported Barack Obama? Certainly all of these issues would be part of the progressive agenda.

In the adrenaline-filled momentum of a political campaign, promises are made and are expected to be kept.  This is especially true in the Democrat party, whose base is an extremist, liberal coterie of special interests. National Review’s Jonah Goldberg writes:

As a matter of practical politics, contemporary liberalism amounts to a coalitional ideology, while conservatism remains an ideological coalition. The Democratic Party is the party of various groups promising to scratch each other’s backs. Gay rights activists and longshoreman coexist in the same party because they promise support on each other’s issues.

That being said, the pressure from these groups will be enormous.  They’ve worked tirelessly and spent millions of dollars over two years to get Mr. Obama elected.  These groups, a veritable who’s who of American liberalism, will not be waiting too long after January 20, 2009 to cash in their chips:

In recent weeks, groups have held conferences, drafted policy papers and lobbied campaign advisers in the hope of influencing what they believe would be the most receptive administration to the political left since Jimmy Carter. The Obama campaign declined to comment about pressure from liberal policy groups.

A number of the economic and social prescriptions being pushed on Obama advisers would require greater spending that almost certainly depend on raising taxes — threatening Sen. Obama’s campaign promise to cut taxes.

For example:

The Center for American Progress likewise backs higher taxes based on a “pro-growth” structure steering funds to schools, health care, job training and technology innovations. Mr. Podesta’s organization is one of several interest groups working with Mr. King’s Realizing the Dream Inc. to push the federal government to cut the poverty rate in half over the next 10 years.

 John Podesta was just named the head of Obama’s transition team.

More moderate voices in the Democrat Party, could have other plans.  An interesting development over Democrat leadership in the House has the liberal pitbull Henry Waxman up against Blue Dog Democrats, a caucus of moderate Democrats.  Waxman is eyeing the chairmanship of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee and is challenging current chairman John Dingell of Michigan, who is being supported by members of the Blue Dog coalition.  Waxman has already launched his offensive.  Dingel’s office has responded:

Tearing a leadership apart is something the Republicans should be doing after their big loss. It shouldn’t be the first order of business for the Democrats after a historic election

This could get interesting.

(UPDATE)

Ed Morrissey feels the same.

Gerald Seib at the Wall Street Journal:

Some of the new Democrats in Congress aren’t prototypical liberals but moderates who won by knocking off Republicans in middle-of-the-road congressional districts. Their presence may aggravate an existing split about how much to worry about the federal budget deficit. The party’s progressive wing sees a mandate for new programs in health care and alternative energy that trumps deficit worries. More conservative Blue Dog Democrats loath the idea that such spending could add to an already-growing tide of red ink.

The Fairness Doctrine Clouds Are Gathering (UPDATE)

Browse the headlines of the past few weeks and you’ll see various examples of the dangers of forcing liberalism upon a free society. The implosion of the financial markets can be traced back to the implementation of the CRA, which in essence, is socialism rammed down the throat of the banking industry. The tenuous auto industry, buckling under the weight of the competitive disadvantage bestowed upon it by a suffocating unionized workforce, for the “benefit” of blue-collar workers.

Along the same lines, the Fairness Doctrine is as “fair” as George Orwell’s Ministry of Love was affectionate.

Make no mistake, with a larger majority in Congress and a liberal President, the Democrats will try to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine; the policy determines what the American people listen to on the radio, in the name of “fairness”. Most liberals would favor the policy. Why? Because it would in effect, stifle what is arguably the most powerful medium in the expression of conservative ideals: talk radio. Like the mortgage and auto industry among others, fairness requires regulatory intervention to delineate and rectify the inherent “misconduct” of free and logical enterprise.

The foundation for restoring the policy is being laid out.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has indicated several times her desire to have the policy reinstated.  An aide to Pelosi admits to liberals’ fear of free speech:

Conservative radio is a huge threat and political advantage for Republicans and we have had to find a way to limit it. Second, it looks like the Republicans are going to have someone in the presidential race who has access to media in ways our folks don’t want, so we want to make sure the GOP has no advantages going into 2008.

 

Democrats Henry Waxman and John Dingell are engaged in a battle for the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.  The committee is a powerful one.  Politically, the focus here is which of the two Congressmen gets to stick it to the pharmaceutical industry (both Waxman and Dingell have previously lead the charge in this fight).  But the committee’s jurisdiction is widespread, covering energy, the environment and, significantly, radio; this is done through the Subcommittee  on Telecomunications and the Internet.   We’ve written about this Democratic infighting and it’s been well documented that Dingell is backed by a contingent of moderate Democrats.  Waxman is notoriously liberal, arguably more so than Dingell.  Waxman would enjoy nothing more than to see the revival of the Fairness Doctrine.

Last month, Senator Jeff Bingaman shared his view of the media industry’s “higher calling” as justification for implementing the policy:

I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view instead of always hammering away at one side of the political-

Well I guess my thought is that talk radio and media generally should have a higher calling than just reflect a particular point of view. I think they should use their authority to try to – their broadcast power to present an informed discussion of public issues

Senator Chuck Schumer, who can always be counted on to lead the charge in front running and political cowardice on “real” issues, chimed in on election day.  His comparison of conservative talk radio to pornography is especially disturbing and quite frankly, idiotic.  But it is, after all, Chuck Schumer: 

 

When John Podesta is not leading President-elect Obama’s transition team, he is a leader of another left-wing organization, the Center for American Progress.  A progressive think tank, the CAP has adamantly supported the Fairness Doctrine.  Last year, it issued a pubclication to this effect.  With various numbers and graphs, the document proves one of the basic tenet of capitalism: free markets root out the excesses of inefficient products and services.  In other words, liberal talk radio generates significantly lower ratings, and therefore, lower profitability compared to its conservative counterpart.  The study recommends some ”remedies”, and in true liberal fashion, plays the race card:

Ownership diversity is perhaps the single most important variable contributing to the structural imbalance based on the data. Quantitative analysis conducted by Free Press of all 10,506 licensed commercial radio stations reveals that stations owned by women, minorities, or local owners are statistically less likely to air conservative hosts or shows

Which brings us to President-elect Obama.  True to his form as an eloquent speaker, he knows how to speak from both sides of his mouth.  He can do this and still manage to pursuade scores of believers that he means what he “says”.  Hence, he can be oppose gay marriage, yet still support Proposition 8, for example.  Obama has said he is not in favor of the Fairness Doctrine.  But does this mean he will oppose its implementation?  Jesse Walker at Reason notes that suppression of free speech and liberalism’s socialist tendencies are not exclusive to the Fairness Docrine alone:

There’s a host of other broadcast regulations that Obama has not foresworn. In the worst-case scenario, they suggest a world where the FCC creates intrusive new rules by fiat, meddles more with the content of stations’ programs, and uses the pending extensions of broadband access as an opportunity to put its paws on the Internet. At a time when cultural production has been exploding, fueled by increasingly diverse and participatory new media, we would be stepping back toward the days when the broadcast media were a centralized and cozy public-private partnership.

An Obama FCC might mean still more steps toward reregulation. Coming on the heels of Martin’s commission, it could also mean a relative reprieve-even, in some areas, a move away from command and control. A lot depends on events, and a lot depends on which interest groups acquire the most influence in his administration

And, tying in to Podesta’s thinking:

Obama has the overwhelming support of the black community. Generally speaking, that includes blacks in the broadcasting business. The Democratic coalition has a history of calling for more minority-owned enterprises, and that’s not likely to change during an Obama presidency.

And who has Obama tapped to head the FCC transition team? One Mr. Henry Rivera, a radical lobbyist to the the broadcast/telecom industry, whose passion of late has been pushing “diversity” among ownership in the industry:

Reports about the man that President-elect Barack Obama is expected to choose to manage the transition at the Federal Communications Commission emphasize his past role as a lobbyist and FCC Commissioner. But the truth is that Henry Rivera has never really left the FCC, having stayed active in its matrix of advisory groups from the 1980s right up to the present. And Rivera’s agenda is no secret: figuring out ways to help minorities get a bigger slice of the telecommunications and broadcast media pie.

In fact, as Chair of the Commission’s Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communications in the Digital Age, Rivera just sent the agency a set of recommendations on how to further this goal. It suggests three ways to enhance “the ability of minorities and women to participate in telecommunications and related industries.

The premise of the Fairness Doctrine goes against one of the basic principles set forth in our Constitution: the right to free speech.  The political planets are aligned, the actors are in position and the requisite “change” is in the air for the policy to soon be resurrected.  It’s up to the Republicans in Congress and conservatives in general to take a stand here, against what could be the first ideological battle of the new administration.

(UPDATE)

Others:

Gateway Pundit

Rich Noyes at NewsBusters

(UPDATE II)

Fairness Doctrine Watch

(UPDATE III)

As Malkin notes, Democrats don’t particulary care for talk radio when it’s helping to call BS on a porkulus bill.  Senator Stabenow is doing the honors now, via Politico.

(UPDATE IV)

From Mike Calderone’s blog at  Politico (via Hot Air headlines):

BILL PRESS: Alright, well good for you. You know, we gotta work on that, because they are just shutting down progressive talk from one city after another. All we want is, you know, some balance on the airwaves, that’s all. You know, we’re not going to take any of the conservative voices off the airwaves, but just make sure that there are a few progressives and liberals out there, right?

SENATOR TOM HARKIN (D-IA): Exactly, and that’s why we need the fair — that’s why we need the Fairness Doctrine back.

The interview refers to an op-ed that Press wrote in WaPo earlier this week.  The highlights are disturbing in their idiocy:

The commercial use of public airwaves is supposed to reflect the diversity of the local community, but that’s not how it works in Washington.

[...]

Starting tomorrow, our nation’s capital, where Democrats control the House, the Senate and the White House, and where Democrats outnumber Republicans 10 to one, will have no progressive voices on the air.

[...]

Nationwide, progressive talkers Randi Rhodes, Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller have proven that, given a level playing field, they can more than hold their own in ratings — and make money for their stations.

 Bill Press is obviously delusional.  Since when does the political make-up of legislative offices determine what and who gets air time on the radio?  And Randi Rhodes, Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller?  Give them a “level playing field”?  Why?  If the public doesn’t care enough to listen–why bother?   Absolute insanity.

(UPDATE V)

Hey, whaddya know? Bubba chimes in on the Fairness Doctrine (via Allahpundit)

(UPDATE VI)

If its Friday the 13th, it must be Fairness Doctrine Watch—either that or the fact that people are wising up to the whiff of socialism emanating from Washington these days which is leading more and more lefty politicians to call for the Fairness Doctrine.  Seems like every day now there’s more hand-wringing about conservative talk radio.

(UPDATE VII)

Yes-update SEVEN.  I’m too lazy to start a new thread right now, so here goes.  According to FOX News the White House is saying that President Obama opposes any move to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.  Take it for what it’s worth.  I agree with Philip Klein over at AmSpec, Obama is more politically saavy than to waste political capital on an issue that is so polarized.  Barack Obama is a leftist ideologue, and knows how to play politics.  As per his Alinskyite political upbringing, he does the opposite of what he says he will do—and the lemmings on the left applaud him for it.  As such, the pronouncement from the White House doesn’t necessarily mean much in the sense that the buck stops at the White House on this particular issue.  As Ed Morrissey notes, there has been a cavalcade of politicians making noise about the FD in the past few weeks and whose to say the new FCC won’t push it as well?  Will Obama stand in the way?  I doubt it.

(UPDATE VIII)

Sen. De Mint wants to vote on a bill that would prohibit the FCC from reinstaing the FD.  Interesting move, but as Allahpundit points out—the White House moves in stealth-like fashion these days, and nothing is as it seems.  Whether its called the “Fairness Doctrine” or some other moniker, liberals will find a way to weasel it in somehow.

Sobering: “The Night We Waved Goodbye to America”

If the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency is not a strong enough impetus, not a wake-up call for the Republican Party, then what is?

Peter Hitchens sums up election night:

The swooning frenzy over the choice of Barack Obama as President of the United States must be one of the most absurd waves of self-deception and swirling fantasy ever to sweep through an advanced civilisation. At least Mandela-worship – its nearest equivalent – is focused on a man who actually did something.

I really don’t see how the Obama devotees can ever in future mock the Moonies, the Scientologists or people who claim to have been abducted in flying saucers. This is a cult like the one which grew up around Princess Diana, bereft of reason and hostile to facts.

If you can believe that this undistinguished and conventionally Left-wing machine politician is a sort of secular saviour, then you can believe anything. He plainly doesn’t believe it himself. His cliche-stuffed, PC clunker of an acceptance speech suffered badly from nerves. It was what you would expect from someone who knew he’d promised too much and that from now on the easy bit was over.

He needn’t worry too much. From now on, the rough boys and girls of America’s Democratic Party apparatus, many recycled from Bill Clinton’s stained and crumpled entourage, will crowd round him, to collect the rich spoils of his victory and also tell him what to do, which is what he is used to.

Perhaps, being a Chicago crowd, they knew some of the things that 52.5 per cent of America prefers not to know. They know Obama is the obedient servant of one of the most squalid and unshakeable political machines in America. They know that one of his alarmingly close associates, a state-subsidised slum landlord called Tony Rezko, has been convicted on fraud and corruption charges.

As I walked, I crossed another of Washington’s secret frontiers. There had been a few white people blowing car horns and shouting, as the result became clear. But among the Mexicans, Salvadorans and the other Third World nationalities, there was something like ecstasy.

They grasped the real significance of this moment. They knew it meant that America had finally switched sides in a global cultural war. Forget the Cold War, or even the Iraq War. The United States, having for the most part a deeply conservative people, had until now just about stood out against many of the mistakes which have ruined so much of the rest of the world.

Suspicious of welfare addiction, feeble justice and high taxes, totally committed to preserving its own national sovereignty, unabashedly Christian in a world part secular and part Muslim, suspicious of the Great Global Warming panic, it was unique.

These strengths had been fading for some time, mainly due to poorly controlled mass immigration and to the march of political correctness. They had also been weakened by the failure of America’s conservative party – the Republicans – to fight on the cultural and moral fronts.

They preferred to posture on the world stage. Scared of confronting Left-wing teachers and sexual revolutionaries at home, they could order soldiers to be brave on their behalf in far-off deserts. And now the US, like Britain before it, has begun the long slow descent into the Third World. How sad. Where now is our last best hope on Earth?

Thanks to John Derbyshire

President Bush Defends the Free Markets

For the most part, its been really hard to make the case for President Bush as poster-boy for free market capitalism and small-government conservatism.  In the last two months or so, he (along with most Democrats) presided over the most obscene and blatant episodes of government intervention and expansion since the New Deal.

Today, in a speech to business leaders at the Manhattan Institute, there was a glimmer of redemption and hope for those who long ago, put their faith in the President as a harbinger of conservatism.  Too little, too late, perhaps.  

Mr. Bush gave a fantastic speech defending the free markets, warning those who saw this crisis as a repudiation of laissez-faire capitalism and justification for even more regulation and interference, to back off.   And correctly so.  The DJIA, which at one point during today’s session had traded lower by 400 points, ramped higher as Bush spoke, closing the day up over 550 points.  Sure, this probably had more to do with the volatility that has dogged these markets since the crisis began, but the timing is also more than coincidental.  The theme of the President’s speech was probably some of the more inspiring words this market has heard in quite some time:

History has shown that the greater threat to economic prosperity is not too little government involvement in the market, it is too much government involvement in the market. (Applause.) We saw this in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Because these firms were chartered by the United States Congress, many believed they were backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. Investors put huge amounts of money into Fannie and Freddie, which they used to build up irresponsibly large portfolios of mortgage-backed securities. And when the housing market declined, these securities, of course, plummeted in value. It took a taxpayer-funded rescue to keep Fannie and Freddie from collapsing in a way that would have devastated the global financial system. And there is a clear lesson: Our aim should not be more government — it should be smarter government.

All this leads to the most important principle that should guide our work: While reforms in the financial sector are essential, the long-term solution to today’s problems is sustained economic growth. And the surest path to that growth is free markets and free people. (Applause.)

This is a decisive moment for the global economy. In the wake of the financial crisis, voices from the left and right are equating the free enterprise system with greed and exploitation and failure. It’s true this crisis included failures — by lenders and borrowers and by financial firms and by governments and independent regulators. But the crisis was not a failure of the free market system. And the answer is not to try to reinvent that system. It is to fix the problems we face, make the reforms we need, and move forward with the free market principles that have delivered prosperity and hope to people all across the globe.

Like any other system designed by man, capitalism is not perfect. It can be subject to excesses and abuse. But it is by far the most efficient and just way of structuring an economy. At its most basic level, capitalism offers people the freedom to choose where they work and what they do, the opportunity to buy or sell products they want, and the dignity that comes with profiting from their talent and hard work. The free market system provides the incentives that lead to prosperity — the incentive to work, to innovate, to save, to invest wisely, and to create jobs for others. And as millions of people pursue these incentives together, whole societies benefit.

Free market capitalism is far more than economic theory. It is the engine of social mobility — the highway to the American Dream. It’s what makes it possible for a husband and wife to start their own business, or a new immigrant to open a restaurant, or a single mom to go back to college and to build a better career. It is what allowed entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley to change the way the world sells products and searches for information. It’s what transformed America from a rugged frontier to the greatest economic power in history — a nation that gave the world the steamboat and the airplane, the computer and the CAT scan, the Internet and the iPod.

Ultimately, the best evidence for free market capitalism is its performance compared to other economic systems. Free markets allowed Japan, an island with few natural resources, to recover from war and grow into the world’s second-largest economy. Free markets allowed South Korea to make itself into one of the most technologically advanced societies in the world. Free markets turned small areas like Singapore and Hong Kong and Taiwan into global economic players. Today, the success of the world’s largest economies comes from their embrace of free markets.

Meanwhile, nations that have pursued other models have experienced devastating results. Soviet communism starved millions, bankrupted an empire, and collapsed as decisively as the Berlin Wall. Cuba, once known for its vast fields of cane, is now forced to ration sugar. And while Iran sits atop giant oil reserves, its people cannot put enough gasoline in its — in their cars.

The record is unmistakable: If you seek economic growth, if you seek opportunity, if you seek social justice and human dignity, the free market system is the way to go. (Applause.) And it would be a terrible mistake to allow a few months of crisis to undermine 60 years of success.

 

Senate Pondering Tax Credits for Car Buyers

Always on cue to hear themselves talk about how government can save private industry and never missing an opportunity to get their mitts on more of our money, the US Senate has convened again to determine how much more taxpayer money can be thrown into a growing bonfire of government intervention and futility. 

Malkin notes some of the idiocy we’ve already come to expect (see TARP).

Obama Leaning Left

The Democrat party is indeed facing some issues during this transition period.  A strong election only two weeks ago solidified their majorities in both houses of Congress, but it seems even they are confused as to what the victory means.  Is it a mandate for a more progressive approach towards government?  Or was the election merely a repudiation of a failed Republicanism and compassionate conservatism, or a rejection of President Bush and anything or anyone associated with him?

Congressional Democrats have some sorting out to do, but it appears that President-elect Obama and his transition team have no such worries.  They continue to work under the delusion that the country is ready, willing and able to embrace a new era of invigorated progressivism.  Just askJohn Podesta, head of the Obama transition team and founder of the Center for American Progress:

I think that that progressive vision of providing opportunity for people who work hard, providing for the common good, to helping people succeed in their own lives – I think was what he laid before the American people.  It’s in that great tradition of progressive politics in this country. And it’s a tradition of reform. And I think he’ll deliver on all those elements

Evidence is mounting that the President-elect, although he says he would like to embrace bipartisanship in his administration, it sure doesn’t look like that:

Thanks in part to funding from benefactors such as billionaire George Soros, the Center for American Progress has become in just five years an intellectual wellspring for Democratic policy proposals, including many that are shaping the agenda of the new Obama administration.

Some of the group’s recommendations already have been adopted by the president-elect.

These include the center’s call for a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and a buildup of forces in Afghanistan, a plan for universal health coverage through employer plans and proposals to create purchasing pools that allow small businesses to spread the cost among a larger group of workers. Obama has endorsed much of a CAP plan to create “green jobs” linked to alleviating global climate change.

CAP also is advocating the creation of a “National Energy Council” headed by an official with the stature of the national security adviser and who would be charged with “transforming the energy base” of the U.S. In addition, CAP urges the creation of a White House “office of social entrepreneurship” to spur new ideas for addressing social problems.

Despite a proliferation of several left-leaning groups and organizations, the CAP stands out (emphasis added):

Yet CAP may be the most influential. In addition to Podesta, at least 10 other CAP experts are advising the incoming administration, including Melody Barnes, the center’s executive vice president for policy who co-chairs the agency-review working group and Cassandra Butts, the senior vice president for domestic policy, who is now a senior transition staffer.

Let us make special mention of George Soros.  Yes, the very same multi-billionaire speculator and hedge-fund manager, who single-handedly brought the Bank of England to its knees in 1992 for his own benefit.  This is the man funding the progressive agenda, who has made a fortune taking advantage of free markets across the globe.  But we guess you can’t blame George Soros for being a greedy capitalist interfering in world markets for personal gain; apparently nobody on the “progressive” side of the table, or in the Democrat party for that matter, told him that only Republicans dabble in that sort of behavior.  Hypocrites indeed.

UPDATE:  Just to drive home the point about the shameless and hapless left.  The lefty blogosphere is crying about greedy Wall Street types:

And yet Wall Street still can’t decide whether they will hand out bonuses or not. It’s incredible to observe this episode of greed and excess

Call us silly, but we don’t think the greedy and excessive Mr. Soros and his hedge fund associates for that matter, will be having trouble sleeping if they were to forgo their bonuses this year.  We guess there will be other financial markets to plunder next year. 

Howard Dean’s Victory

Kudos are in order for Howard Dean, chairman of the DNC.  He envisioned and implemented his “50 state strategy” to great success in the 2008 general election.  Not only did the Democrat party win the White House, while bolstering their majority in both houses of Congress, but Barack Obama became only the fourth Democrat candidate in history to win at least 51% of the popular vote.

The Left is understandably giddy over their victory and are heralding it as a new dawn for liberalism, a clarion call for progressivism.

Not so fast.

Matt Bai gives due credit to Dean in Sunday’s NYT.  He delivered victory for his party, but it doesn’t necessarily mean progressivism has won, despite the frenzied salivating in the media and leftist blogosphere:

Even before the country voted, as the contours of a Democratic wave began to come into focus, a story line of the election was taking hold among Democrats in Washington: repulsed by the incompetence of the Bush administration, American voters had at last renounced the conservative ethos of the Reagan-Bush era and had moved, en masse, to embrace the Democratic Party and its agenda. Polls showed, after all, that the number of people identifying themselves as Republicans had fallen sharply, while the ranks of those calling themselves Democrats had swelled.

Moreover, and this is not so good news for both progressive liberals and conservatives, voters are not necessarily placing themselves into any one particular ideological box:

The cautionary note here, for jubilant Democrats, is that there is little reason to believe that the electoral trend in their favor actually reflects any widespread ideological shift. If you only look at numerical majorities, it might well seem that the story of the last 20 years in American politics is one in which voters have swerved erratically from one ideological pole to the next, embracing a harsh kind of conservatism in 1994 and then a resurgent liberalism in 2006. In reality, though, the American public doesn’t seem to move very much in its basic attitudes about government, which have remained mostly pragmatic and predictable; simply put, people tend to want a little more government when times are tough and a little less when things are going well. The number of voters who identified themselves in exit polls as conservative, liberal or moderate remained virtually unchanged between 2004 and 2008 — and in fact, those numbers have been more or less steady for decades.

The real trend line in our politics — from Ross Perot and Bill Clinton in 1992 to Obama this year — speaks not to any change in governing philosophy but to a growing frustration with incumbency and dogma, a sense that both parties are more concerned with perpetuating their own power than they are with adapting government to a fast-changing world. Voters aren’t really identifying more closely with one party or another when they periodically revolt; they are simply defining themselves against whoever happens to be in charge at the moment.

This younger Democratic base stands less on loyalty to institutions generally, and that includes the Democratic Party itself. These voters represent a generation of Americans reared in the cynical, detached environment after Watergate rather than in the idealist, more doctrinaire atmosphere of the ’60s. To keep his party unified, Obama will have to embody this modern, less-partisan ethos while at the same time respecting the power and conviction of an older set of Democrats who nurture a less-flexible liberal ideal and who aren’t yet ready to step aside. Obama’s task is to somehow move away from reflexively partisan solutions — no trade deals, no charter schools, no entitlement reform — even as he defers to a generation of leaders for whom ideology and par-tisanship are the guiding paradigms of political thought.

So as conservatives, let’s let the progressives, liberals and their surrogates in the mainstream media have their day.  Every victorious President is allowed their honeymoon period.  But we know their victory is based on flawed ideologies and false assumptions.  Let the house of cards fall where they may…

Reality Check For Obama Liberals

The mindless adulation of anything and everything Obama-related continues on the extremist fringe of the liberal blogosphere and in the media.

Yesterday, the stock market soared on the news that the President-elect had tapped New York Federal Reserve President Tim Geithner, to be Treasury Secretary. The progressive bloggers and their media surrogates, desperate for any sort of confirmation that Obama is, indeed, their harbinger of “progressive” change, proclaimed as much:

Did you ever think you’d hear Wall Street people adopting the language of “hope” and “change”? The new administration can’t start soon enough

I tried to find similar accolades after President Bush sparked a similar rally in the markets last week as he defended the free markets in a speech to the Manhattan Institute, and the stock market rallied 550 points during that speech, but…no dice.

No doubt, the market rallied yesterday on the Geithner news.  But the implication that it was Obama’s magic never-can-do-wrong pixie dust that liberals swear he is gifted with, that his Harvard-pedigree and intellect helped guide him to this choice, which caused the markets to thankfully genuflect in praise.  Simply wrong.

But if the Left wants to deal in absolutes, then fine.  But why stop there? Why confine the Obama magic to just one trading day? Because that’s all there is.

Let’s take a look at how world financial markets have reacted since November 4th, 2008:

• The S&P 500 has dropped 20%.
• The Dow Jones Industrial Average is down 28% 
• The NASDAQ has fallen 22%
• The Russell 2000 Index…down 25%
• England’s FTSE Index…down 19%
• Germany’s DAX….down 22%
• Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index…down 12%

Just to be fair, the S&P 500 closed at 752 on Thursday, down 25% since Election Day.  This doesn’t take into the account the Geithner rally. 

A popular gauge of volatility in the financial markets is what’s commonly referred to as the VIX, the Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility Index. In financial circles, it’s known as the “Fear Index”.  The VIX measures the implied volatility of the S&P 500 and moves inversely to that index; if the market is up, the VIX trades lower, and vice versa.  The VIX is a common tool used by technical analysts of financial markets. The higher the VIX, the more implied fear there is in the market and the expectation of volatility is expected to continue.  How has the VIX fared since Election Day?  Note the ramp-up in “hope” since November 4th, highlighted in red:

CBOE Volatility Index (VIX)

Hope and change? Maybe not:

U.S. stock investors are going through a record-setting bout of fear that probably won’t end until next year, according to Michael McCarty, a strategist at Meridian Equity Partners.

“We clearly have people who are leaving the market and leaving in a big way,” McCarty said in an interview. At the same time, he added, many investors who ordinarily would buy stocks as prices fall “are sitting on their hands.”

Financial markets hate uncertainty and the $700 billion monstrosity of a bailout calmed that uncertainty for a while.  As the VIX chart shows, volatility had leveled off somewhat until early November until it started to spike again, almost to the day of the election.  If liberals want to assume that their progressive agenda is confirmed every time the President-elect selects a cabinet appointment, or sneezes, or orders lunch, then fine.  The facts show otherwise; in fact, as the aforementioned market stats indicate, it’s somewhat detrimental to their cause.  There are other factors to consider.  In a time of massive government intervention, a looming recession, and a persistent market fear, the Obama transition team has taken its sweet time in appointing their economic team; they’ve already made nominations for AG, HHS Secretary and the continuing soap opera for Secretary of State took up most of this week’s headlines as markets suffered.  There has been no sense of urgency:

Amid the brief market euphoria, it is hard not to notice the leaks and air of disorganization coming from the Obama transition team on these important appointment decisions.

It’s no wonder the market jumped on the Geithner news, the market was practically beggingfor some indication on what the Obama team was considering on the economic front:

David Kotok, chairman of the money-management firm Cumberland Advisors in Vineland, N.J., welcomed the news about Mr. Geithner in particular, but he attributed the market rally to relief that Mr. Obama seemed to have made a decision. “The most important thing for the market and for the economy is that these decisions are made and uncertainty is removed,” Mr. Kotok said. “It probably would have been the same rally had it been someone else on the short list.”

And:

The market “was screaming for some semblance of leadership from the new administration,” said New York money manager Michael Holland.

As for Tim Geithner, we welcome his appointment, as he definitely would definitely bring a new face to the Treasury department, unlike what Obama has been trotting out for the past two weeks; but he is hardly a voice for progressives:

Economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior policy adviser for Sen. John McCain’s presidential bid, said that the Republican, had he won, would also have considered Mr. Geithner for the Treasury post. “I don’t want this to sound demeaning, but he’s an excellent mechanic,” Mr. Holtz-Eakin said. “He knows the nuts and bolts.”

By all accounts, Geithner can be considered a moderate on policy issues and has Treasury experience going back to Bush 41.  He’s actually a registered independent.  Kind of like Joe Lieberman.  Hope and change. 

OTHERS

Time , Jennifer Rubin and The Weekly Standard

 

 

 

Post-Thanksgiving Mental Health Break

Because Monty Python’s Fish Slapping Dance sketch never gets old…

More Signs That The Treasury Is Clueless

The Treasury can’t keep up with the demand for handouts, bailouts, whatever…funded by you and yours truly: 

The current Treasury has so far struggled to keep up with the task of hiring enough people to handle the $700 billion financial rescue package passed by Congress in October. The man now in charge of running the Troubled Asset Relief Program, Assistant Secretary Neel Kashkari, said the department’s Office of Financial Stability, with about 40 full-time employees, is operating at half-staff.

Federal banking regulators, who must approve the applications from banks before they go to Treasury, said there is a backlog of unprocessed applications for relief. Outside observers said the difficulty of quickly building a qualified staff may be one reason the Treasury abandoned its original plans to use the TARP to purchase assets from financial institutions, deciding instead to inject capital into the banking system.

The insanity continues…

Give the gift of death this Christmas (UPDATED)

Can’t figure out what to get that special lady in your life this Christmas?  For the woman who has everything, you can’t go wrong with a Planned Parenthood gift certificate!  Just in time for the holidays!

That’s right.  Celebrate the meaning of life this Christmas by taking one out:

Chrystal Struben-Hall, Planned Parenthood in Indiana vice president, said the reason for the controversial sales move is due to current economic woes nationwide and how such problems may impact women’s healthcare needs, WISH-TV, Indianapolis, said Wednesday.

“People are making really tough decisions about putting gas in their car and food on their table, so we know that many women especially put healthcare at the bottom of their list to do,” she said.

The gift certificates, which are only available in $25 increments, can be used on a number of Planned Parenthood services, including abortions.

Because we all have to struggle for the essentials in life: food, shelter, infanticide…

Merry Christmas!

Meanwhile over in Spain, abortion is now the leading cause of death.  Viva Espana!

More from Jill Stanek and Allahpundit

Malkin has more on Planned Parenthood

Michael Medved

(UPDATE)

Indiana Attorney General has launched an investigation into Planned Parenthood (H/T: Hot Air)

(UPDATE 2)

We thought the Planned Parenthood gift certificates would make the Top 10 Pro-Abortion Moments of 2008 or maybe even the continued proliferation of abortion mills in our country, but hey…what do I know?

Advent 2008

As most Americans celebrated Thanksgiving this past week, the world witnessed some abhorrent tragedies; tragedies in the form of Islamic terrorism abroad and consumerism run amok here in the USA.   

Time to put things in perspective.  Let’s look away from the culture of death.  For Catholics, today is the first day of Advent.  Rather than my trying to expound its importance, read this and this.  The Anchoress puts things in perspective.

And, for those who did not make it to Mass today.

The GOP Doesn’t Need “Republicans” Like Schwarzenegger (UPDATED)

Rebuilding the GOP is going to be a long and arduous process.  There is a lot of talk right now about rebirth, about how the GOP needs to abandon conservatism and appeal to the wandering “middle”; talk about the party’s hopes in 2012 and who will lead the charge against an incumbent Obama administration.  To me, this is unfathomable right now. 

To be sure, the Democrats have a lot riding on the next four years.  No more excuses for them.  Starting January 20, 2009, it’s their economy, it’s their war on terror, etc.  But they have the power and the control now.  The GOP does not; and quite frankly, they don’t deserve to have any of it right now.  Not when the GOP establishment in Washington, including President Bush, have wasted precious political capital, not to mention the time, money and efforts of its supporters blowing it away, spending like liberals and allowing the runaway growth of government to continue unabated for years.  What turned the tide in Obama’s favor, was the perception that the GOP was not an alternative to tax and spend liberals, but their equal.  The GOP got what they deserved.

President Bush learned that “compassion” in politics means more spending, which leads to more bureaucracy and more waste; characteristics attributable to liberal agendas more than anything else.  William Buckley once said of President Bush, that he was conservative but not a conservative.  And John McCain was never even close.  Nevertheless, the irreparable damage to the GOP was completed long before John McCain became the nominee.  The GOP is not seen as conservative; there is no fiscal responsibility, no accountability. 

As some have noted, there are bright spots in the GOP, particularly at the state level.  This may be true, but there is waste there as well, and waste needs to be discarded.  If it isn’t, it will continue to rot and give off a real funky smell.

Now that the federal government has left the door wide, wide open for bailouts of any size, shape and form, it really wasn’t a surprise for states to start whining as well.  The governors of New Jersey and New York have already made the trip to DC to plead for help. (Interestingly enough, John Corzine who was co-chairman of Goldman Sachs with Henry Paulson, is just as clueless with public finance as Corzine is apparently). 

Today, Gov. Schwarzenegger of California is pushing the panic button, and more than likely, as Malkin notes, is looking for a handout:

Facing a deep budget deficit, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday declared a “fiscal emergency” in California and called a special session of the state legislature to deal with the crisis. 

“Without immediate action our state is headed for a fiscal disaster,” said Schwarzenegger in a statement.

The Governator likes to talk tough at GOP conventions and stumping for candidates; his great speech at the 2004 GOP Convention seems like decades in the past.  But his record, in his second term at least, stands as one of fiscal irresponsibility and pandering to liberal special interests, drifting towards the political “center”.  Of course, Democrats share much if not most of the blame as well.  But the point is made.  This is not conservatism.  Again, this is not conservatism.  Fiscal conservatism is all but dead in the Republican party, which is one of the reasons they have lost in the past two election cycles, and will continue to lose in the foreseeable future.  They need to get their act together and lose the dead weight.

(UPDATE)

Stacy McCain has more

And speaking of Republican dead weight.  Senator Mel Martinez is not running for re-election.  More from Malkin and Allahpundit.

Not enough change for liberals and progressives?

The media and the Beltway pundits, for the most part, are applauding President-elect Obama’s move to the “center”, cheering his moderation in his cabinet selections and administration posts.  But is this the change that Barack Obama promised to legions of self-declared liberal progressives? 

It’s no secret that labor unions helped elect Barack Obama .   If you don’t think so, then you probably haven’t been paying attention.  Some labor unions are starting to get a little antsy, not only about the speed of the alleged “change”, but of the appointments made so far:

Behind the scenes, however, labor officials are grumbling over the appointments to Obama’s economic team, particularly his selection of New York Federal Reserve Bank President Timothy Geithner as Treasury secretary and former Treasury chief Lawrence Summers to be his White House economic director.

Both are linked to Robert Rubin, who pushed the North America Free Trade Agreement as former President Bill Clinton’s Treasury secretary.

“Labor is completely underrepresented here both in terms of people and ideology,” said Rose Ann DeMoro, head of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee, the country’s largest nurses union.

“But labor will be hesitant to say that because they have done a lot to elect Obama and a lot of members of Congress and now they are in a double bind,” she said.

Self-declared “progressive” liberals are wringing their hands.  Chris Bowers:

I know everyone is obsessed with the “team of rivals” idea right now, but I feel incredibly frustrated. Even after two landslide elections in a row, are our only governing options as a nation either all right-wing Republicans, or a centrist mixture of Democrats and Republicans? Isn’t there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic administration? Also, why isn’t there a single member of Obama’s cabinet who will be advising him from the left? It seems to me as though there is a team of rivals, except for the left, which is left off the team entirely.

And Christopher Hayes:

Not a single, solitary, actual dyed-in-the-wool progressive has, as far as I can tell, even been mentioned for a position in the new administration. Not one. Remember this is the movement that was right about Iraq, right about wage stagnation and inequality, right about financial deregulation, right about global warming and right about health care.

And yet, no one who comes from the part of American political and intellectual life that has given birth to all of these ideas is anywhere to be found within miles of the Obama cabinet thus far. WTF?

Code Pink, the liberal anti-war group:

To be sure, there are some voices who haven’t hesitated to take on the president-elect when he’s departed from their line, but those voices have found themselves increasingly marginalized by the press and those in the peace movement willing to give Obama a chance.

“He is violating the people’s mandate,” complained Jodie Evans, a Code Pink co-founder who emailed from Tehran, where she was meeting with government officials and other peace activists. “The people elected him over her precisely because of their different foreign policy stances. Here we are in Iran, working to establish citizen diplomacy, hearing the concerns of the Iranian people and how it feels to have [Clinton] say she wants to obliterate Iran. Those comments are not taken lightly and [are] seen as policy positions here.”

Bob Herbert, who can always be counted on stir up an outbreak of leftist class warfare and ignorant bloviations, over at the NYT laments:

So why do I have this uneasy feeling?

Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, Eric Holder, Rahm Emanuel, Larry Summers …

What I wonder is whether the members of this team, in addition to their grasp of the issues and success at achieving power, have a real feel for the needs of the people they are supposed to be representing.

I don’t doubt that they have the best of intentions. But the people at the pinnacle of power in Washington are encased in a bubble that makes it extremely hard to hear the voices of those who aren’t already powerful themselves.

I hope Mr. Obama’s “new dawn” portends more than just a few nibbles around the edges of change. We need change that brings about more shared sacrifice in wartime and tough times, and a more equitable distribution of the nation’s resources all the time.

Wasn’t Obama the one who had the ear of the people to begin with?  Liberals are funny. 

There was a lot of time and money spent on a massively successful netroots campaign to get Obama elected.  This Democrat netroots “machine” was fueled almost entirely by the liberal progressive blogosphere and activism. 

But progressives shouldn’t be dismayed.  Obama has littered his team with liberals and progressives to be sure.  We’ve written about John Podesta, head of Obama’s transition team, who is as progressive as they come, and the dangers he represents to free market capitalism.  Rahm Emmanuel is a partisan political hack for the Left.  And since when is Hillary Clinton a moderate?  Maybe she is to the right of Barack Obama when it comes to foreign policy, but that doesn’t say much, and doesn’t exactly make her Alexander Haig by any stretch.  There’s also Tom Daschle, he’s a left winger, and he’ll keep the government mandated, federally funded, bureaucracy-laden health care-for-all-dream alive and well in an Obama Administration. 

 

Thanks but no thanks to federal pork

So, Barack Obama decides the immediate solution to our economic morass of fiscal irresponsibility infinite government bailouts, is more fiscal irresponsibility and more bailouts. This time to the tune of $500 billion in pork.  How insightful…

The country’s governors were in DC today for the NGA meeting and to meet with the President-elect and, as Governor Rendell says, they aren’t there to panhandle.  Nooo…of course not:

“As people lose their jobs, they’re going to look to us for help,” Rendell told reporters. “We didn’t just come here begging for help.”

In other words: We looted our states’ coffers, but its the poor who are hurting, so please fork over some cash. We swear we know what to do with the money this time. Promise.

Class warfare and fear-mongering in its most basic form.  Democrats are masters at this game.  Read that over again: “…they’re going to look to us for help...”   Yeah.  Because the governors looking for a handout have done such a great job keeping their own financial house in order:

The state executives want an assistance plan to create jobs through infrastructure projects, such as highways, and to aid with programs such as unemployment benefits, food stamps and health care for the poor, said Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, chairman of the National Governors Association. Rendell said more than $130 billion in infrastructure projects are waiting to go ahead if funding is secured.

Rendell said the meeting was “productive” and that the President-elect was “receptive” to the governors’ pleas:

“If we’re listening to our governors, we’ll not only be doing what’s right for our states, we’ll be doing what’s right for our country,”

Brilliant!!

Yesterday I wrote about how Gov. Schwarzenegger will be looking for his handout soon, so this isn’t an only a issue for Democrats, although pandering for government “assistance” is a tenet of Democratic politics.

Surprisingly enough, there are Republicans who want no part of the bailout or stimulus or welfare or handout, or whatever you want to call Obama’s plan:

…the bailout mentality threatens Americans’ sense of personal responsibility.

In the process, the federal government is not only burying future generations under mountains of debt. It is also taking our country in a very dangerous direction — toward a “bailout mentality” where we look to government rather than ourselves for solutions.

Our Founding Fathers were clear and deliberate in setting up a system whereby the federal government would only step in for that which states cannot do themselves.

We’d humbly suggest that Congress take a page from those playbooks by focusing on targeted tax relief paid for by cutting spending, not by borrowing.

…we’d ask the federal government to stop believing it has all the answers.

Read the whole piece here.

As 2008 winds down, and we conservatives sort through this mess called the 2008 general election, of what essentially amounts to a kick in the groin of an election year; as the bailout insanity picks up steam, it’s somewhat refreshing to know that at least two Republicans still get it.  Enough with the bailout mentality.  Enough with this “government has the power to cure all” mentality.  Enough.

No Room For Moderates In the Democratic Caucus

It’s becoming more and more obvious:

Next year is regarded as the biggest legislative opportunity for Democrats since 1993, the last time they controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress.

But not all Democrats are celebrating. Liberals are worried about Pelosi’s vow to govern “from the middle” and centrists are concerned that the make-up of the House leadership team has shifted noticeably to the left.

Contrary to the jubilation of House Democrats after they regained control of the lower chamber after the 2006 elections, there is some unease among members heading into the 111th Congress.

“Everybody I talk to, everybody’s worried about something,” said a Democratic staffer.

Centrists are grumbling that their growing ranks aren’t represented in the leadership team that Pelosi shaped through back-room arm-twisting. The so-called Blue Dogs, while publicly celebrating President-elect Obama’s commitment to “pay-go,” are wondering when the stimulus balloon stops expanding.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes the Democratic leadership, under the delusion that they have a mandate for a liberal or progressive agenda, to shoot their majority position in the foot.  They are delusional because the foundation of their regaining the majority in 2006 was built upon dozens of freshman House members running on moderate, even conservative platforms.  Liberals would rather just forget about that.

These more moderate members can get antsy wondering when the bailout insanity will end, or exactly how much more money the government expects to throw at “stimulating” the economy, both led by the incompetence of liberal leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.  After the 2006 election, both insisted that the electorate had spoken in their favor and that the mandate for liberal ”change” was theirs.  That didn’t work out so well, did it?

Republicans certainly have their fair share of issues both in Washington and at the grassroots level, and have a long road to regaining the trust of their supporters, not to mention even thinking about regaining a majority in Congress.  It’s a shame.  The Democrat Party is was a great institution, before it’s ideology got hijacked by inept lunatics.  In the meantime, watching Pelosi and Reid and the rest of the far left liberals cut their party off at the knees will make it almost worth the ride.

Thoughts On The Chambliss Victory

I am trying not to read too much into Senator Chambliss’ victory in yesterday’s runoff election.  Despite what you may hear from Democrats and liberals trying to play this down, it is killing them that they couldn’t get their 60 seats.  Chambliss is a conservative incumbent in a red state, and he beat an ineffective liberal, who pathetically tried to associate himself with Obama and have Ludacris appear at an election-eve rally for support.  Yes…THAT Ludacris (Malkin has more on that).  Put a conservative up against a liberal when you’re not voting for the first black president on the same ballot, and the conservative will win.  No surprise really. 

Another positive note is the Palin effect.  She campaigned harder for Chambliss than any other Republican and according to him, she made all the difference. 

There are no exit polls for the runoff, but all accounts are that Democratic turnout was low, especially among black voters, which ruined any chance of a fight for Jim Martin. 

One more thing.  I’ve always believed that Obama is an arrogant narcissist; he’s as power hungry and self-centered as politicians come.  From the Greek columns to the meaningless “Office of the President-Elect” signs, it’s all about self-importance and hubris.  The Democratic Party has staked alot on him and what his campaign machine can deliver, most likely to their detriment.  Tantaros explains:

He’s the star, he controls the lists, the money and the power. But when it comes to the Democratic brand, the party is in no better shape than the GOP. There is no Obama effect when he’s not on the ballot. Turnout pales in comparison. And he doesn’t seem to care. Obama didn’t stump for Martin in the Peach State just like Obama didn’t stump for his colleagues in the Presidential election. We heard rumblings throughout the year that there were tensions between the Obama campaign and Capitol Hill Democrats and Obama’s army-of-one mentality was likely the crux of that tension. No man is an island but apparently Obama believes that he is. Maybe he doesn’t need anyone else, but what will that do for the future of the Democratic Party?

Liberals and progressives are getting the message as well:

So now, because of this, you have a large majority (though not the whole) of his 10 million-person email list overarchingly organized around the celebrity Barack Obama – not really around issues (though certainly people can like Obama and support specific issues). That means he feels no real obligation to appointing “movement progressives” because he has his own movement – one that’s about helping, aiding and defending Barack Obama.

Like I said, I’m trying not to make much of this victory.  As conservatives we have a lot of work ahead of us, which goes beyond Chambliss’ victory.  But Michael Barone makes a good case for the other side of the argument.

When Does the Madness End?

How long do taxpayers in this country have to put with ineffective and inept leaders overseeing matters when it comes to the financial crisis?  The ignorance and ineptitude eminating from Washington is alarming.  Every week it seems, brings a new boogeyman, a new smoking gun. And each purported “solution” involves more and more taxpayer money being thrown down a cesspool of government hubris.  This week, the evil of choice is home foreclosures.

The headless chickens start running:

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said the U.S. government must step up efforts to prevent home foreclosures, with options including buying delinquent mortgages and providing bigger incentives for refinancing loans. 

The government could buy “delinquent or at-risk mortgages in bulk,” then refinance them through the federal Hope for Homeowners program, Bernanke said in a speech at a Fed conference in Washington. Congress could also help reduce loan rates and lender insurance premiums, he said.

Each option would require “some commitment of public funds,” Bernanke said, underscoring his position that the central bank alone can’t revive the economy through its interest- rate cuts and emergency lending programs.

The HFH program went into effect in October.   Under the program, banks would take on delinquent loans while the borrower switched into loans with lower rates to make payments more affordable. Meanwhile, the lender would have to take a haircut on the bad loan.  Sounds like something the government would come up with: socializing losses and rewarding incompetence.

It didn’t take long for the geniuses in charge to realize that forcing banks to take on riskier exposure while forcing them to take losses, wasn’t such a good idea.  So what did they do? They relaxed certain requirements of the program to make it palatable for lenders to participate in the program.  More idiocy:

 The changes include increasing the loan to value ratio (LTV) from 90 to 96.5 percent for some H4H loans; for borrowers whose mortgage payments represent no more than 31 percent of their monthly gross income and household debt no more than 43 percent. Raising the LTV ratio reduces the gap between the existing loan balances and the new H4H loan and decrease losses to the existing primary lienholders, according to a HUD press release regarding the announcement.

 So while the Fed determines that it’s the Federal government’s job to bolster a home-buyers market that isn’t there, the Henry Paulson-led Treasury is trying to muscle mortgage rates lower by flooding the financial system with dollars and force banks to price loans at a discount: 

Both the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post reported that the proposal would have the Treasury buy securities to finance new loans for home purchases. 

Mortgage lenders would have to set extremely low interest rates — as low as 4.5 percent for a standard 30-year fixed-rate mortgage.

According to the tentative plan, the Treasury would buy the securities from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the housing giants that buy most mortgages from lenders, unnamed sources told the papers.

Treasury officials say the proposal might just stem the plunge in home prices by allowing borrowers to secure larger loans, which would then bolster demand and drive up moribund home prices.

Does this all sound familiar? It should.

It’s exactly the same type of government interference and chicanery that was the basis of implementing CRA.  The same shortsightedness that led to government interfering in the marketplace, by forcing banks to make loans they would otherwise not make.  The same threat of fines and harrassment by the government that started us on this road of financial meltdown, is happening all over again.  At this point, foreclosures need to happen, the market needs to take care of the excesses.  Amazing how government hubris always comes full circle, no matter who’s at the wheel.

MORE

Malkin has more.

Mental Health Break: Stuff White People Like

Stuff White People Like

#117 – Political Prisoners:

In fact, most white people would love to be locked up for their beliefs provided that they could go to a jail with private toilets, plenty of books and no rape.

Read the full list here.  Hysterical…

Voting ‘Present’ on Government Bailouts

Congressional Democrats are getting a little tired of being water carriers for implementing the TARP bailout money and are now debating as to when the second half of the $700 billion bailout money will be used.  Looks like they want some hope and change of their own:

Democrats are growing impatient with President-elect Barack Obama’s refusal to inject himself in the major economic crises confronting the country. Obama has sidestepped some policy questions by saying there is only one president at a time. But the dodge is wearing thin. “He’s going to have to be more assertive than he’s been,” House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., told consumer advocates Thursday.

An Obama official said the Bush administration reached out to the transition team about tapping into the money.  The official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks, said Obama’s transition team urged the administration to talk to bipartisan congressional leaders and assemble a meeting between the White House and Congress.

The Treausry is getting annoyed as well:

Treasury officials have grown frustrated with the Obama transition team’s unwillingness to engage in specifics. Mr. Paulson has to consult with the Obama team on any big moves, in particular on plans for how the next $350 billion should be used. While Treasury has been in frequent contact with the Obama team, there is uncertainty about what it wants to do with that next batch of money. Many within Treasury believe the next administration is trying to keep its distance in an effort not to be painted as endorsing any of the Bush administration’s plans.

Under other circumstances, I might be able to give the President-elect the benefit of the doubt here;  we have one president at a time he says.  But not now. 

Obama is a master of generalization; he speaks in broad strokes.  Put him in front of some styrofoam Greek columns, crank up a teleprompter and he’ll spew specifics from a prepared speech all night if he must.  But this isn’t a campaign any longer. 

Apparently, a lame duck Bush Administration approaches the Obama team for their outlook on the TARP money, and Obama just punts the ball.  Talk to Congress, he says.  I’m just the President-elect here.  

And now, Democratic leaders are pleading asking for some political cover real-time leadership from Obama on what’s shaping up to be a very unpleasant and unpopular episode in Washington. 

Nope, this is not a campaign.  Neither  is it the friendly, non-confrontational confines of the Senate, where Obama could stay hidden as a junior Senator, writing stern and harsh letters to policy makers, displaying no leadership on anything.  This is real-time.  Voting “present” doesn’t cut it anymore.

Another Abortion Mill Busted, Roe vs. Wade Lives On

For decades, pro-choice types (particularly the rabid, extremist liberal ones) have used the “back alley abortion” argument to justify their cause. The reasoning behind this is the implication that if Roe vs. Wade were to be overturned, it would result in the proliferation of illegal abortions, and would endanger the lives of the women undergoing said unsafe procedures.

This, of course, is a farce.

Illegal abortion mills are alive and well in America.  So much for the “back alley” argument: 

A woman who operated an abortion clinic that catered to low-income Latino women has pleaded guilty to nine felony counts of practicing medicine without a license, the district attorney’s office announced today.

Bertha Pinedo Bugarin, 48, faces as many as nine years in prison when sentenced Feb. 6.

“This criminal preyed on women in the Hispanic community and has now been held accountable,” said Dist. Atty. Bonnie Dumanis.

Bugarin once operated six abortion clinics in Southern California, including Clinica Medica de la Mujer in Chula Vista, which advertised on Spanish-language television in San Diego.

Nine former patients identified Bugarin as the person who performed medical procedures on them. One gave birth to a premature baby after going to the clinic for what she thought was an abortion. Another paid $500 for an abortion but had to return for a second procedure when it was unsuccessful, according to court testimony.

Brings back not-so-fond memoriesof another infaticide factory in New Jersey last year: 

A New Jersey abortion clinic was shut down last weekend, nearly a month after a woman who had an abortion there became ill and fell unconscious, the woman and the authorities said yesterday.

The woman, Rasheedah Dinkins, 20, who her lawyer said was forced to undergo a hysterectomy as a result of the abortion, filed a lawsuit yesterday in State Superior Court in Newark against the clinic, Metropolitan Medical Associates in Englewood, and several doctors who work there.

As a result of that complaint, the health department went to inspect the clinic on Feb. 2, and that investigation was still open. The department also moved up a previously scheduled licensing inspection, to last week, and then ordered the clinic to stop seeing new patients, citing violations related to infection control, instruments, and equipment used for sterilization.

Should we expect a response from Planned Parenthood, purveyors of legal infanticide anytime soon?  Don’t hold your breath.  They’re busy breaking laws on their own (via Malkin).

Czars All Around

Its a sad day when the US government is taking a page from the Russian playbook on governance:

Now, the Kremlin seems to be capitalizing on the economic crisis, exploiting the opportunity to establish more control over financially weakened industries that it has long coveted, particularly those in natural resources.

With the financial crisis jolting economies around the world, Russia is hardly alone in taking ownership stakes in corporations these days. But many governments seem to view this as an uncomfortable role that has been thrust upon them. Russia’s rulers, however, appear to perceive the crisis as a chance to further expand their control over the economy, concentrating ever more power and wealth in the Kremlin.

The vote on the auto industry bailout is coming soon and what’s at stake is whether the Federal government can further muscle its way into yet another vestige of private industry.  The government is demanding strict “oversight” in exchange for yet another taxpayer-funded bailout.  This time, in the guise of a $15 billion bridge “loan”.  Amusing:

Congressional Democrats were drafting legislation Sunday for tight government control of the crippled American auto industry, including the possible creation of an oversight board made up of five cabinet secretaries and the head of the Environmental Protection Agency and led by an independent chairman or “car czar.”

While the form of oversight was still to be negotiated by Congressional Democrats and the White House, the talks made clear the extent to which the auto companies would have to submit to substantial government supervision in order to receive a taxpayer-financed bailout.

Whatever oversight entity is created, it would direct the drastic reorganization plans that the auto companies have said they were willing to undertake in exchange for billions of dollars in short-term government loans to keep them in business, a senior Congressional aide said. A main factor complicating the deliberations was the imminent transition between the Bush and Obama administrations.

Details  of  the bailout package are emerging, which includes the creation of a “car czar”, who will determine by April 2009, if the automakers recovery is going as scheduled.  Amazing.   So, for thirty years the auto industry couldn’t get anything right.  But now, with billions in taxpayer money, they’ve suddenly learned how to run their business?  And our government will provide “oversight”?  All I see is more bureaucracy, more waste and misguided priorites. 

It’s encouraging to see Richard Shelby and Bob Corker stand up to the bailout nonsense going on in Washington right now.   But I won’t hold my breath waiting for a filibuster of this loanbailout package to the automakers, which most likely goes to a vote in the Senate and House sometime next week.   I’m not going to pretend that the Republicans in the Senate were the ones voting against billions upon billions of pork spending over the last six years, feeding at the public trough along with the Democrats, at the behest of President Bush.  If there’s one thing this group of Senators has shown us, it’s that fiscal conservatism is dead and with a few exceptions (Shelby, Corker, et al) they will have to prove that they have the fortitude to fight this down.  The Republican party needs to rebuild on conservative ideals; fiscal irresponsibility is not an exception to this plan.  As Malkin notes, if it means no bipartisanship, so be it.   This is the perfect time  for ideological purity. 

The Democrats on the other hand, continue to play hot potato with the auto bailout.  Obama is all talk , and the Dems want some action from their President-elect.  Whereas in September they were willing to hand over $700 billion in bailout money to the Treasury, no questions asked, now they are being a little more demanding.  Make no mistake, this is political showmanship on the part of the Democrats.  They are a conniving bunch.  The American public is becoming very uneasy about how brazenly our government is handing out what amounts to corporate welfare; government money rewarding failure and ineptitude.  They’d rather not want to feel any of the reprecussions of a failed and shortsighted bailout policy, if once their plans fail.

Liberals Will Protest Anything to Get Out of a Day’s Work

Gay marriage supporters are planning to skip work on Wednesday, protesting the passage of several gay marriage bans in last month’s general election.

Their ’sacrifice’ is yours too, if you have children in school that is:

Scott Craig, a fifth-grade teacher at Independence Charter School in Philadelphia, had no problem requesting and being granted the day off. So many of the school’s 60 teachers were eager to show support for gay rights they had to make sure enough stayed behind to staff classrooms.

About 25 teachers plan to take Wednesday off and to have their work covered by substitutes while they discuss ways to introduce gay issues to their students and volunteer at the local branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, Craig said. A letter telling parents why so many teachers would be out went home Monday.

“We want to get the conversation going in the community that gay is not bad,” Craig said. “For kids to hear that in a positive light can be life-changing.”

Yes, get the ‘conversation’ going.  If your child asks why their teacher wasn’t in school, just explain to them that their education was less important than their bitter and angry gay teacher’s sense of self.  Fantastic!  So much for priorities in education.

And just in case you’re wondering, the organizers of this ‘protest’ hail from West Hollywood.  That’s right, the same West Hollywood crowd that brought us the Sarah Palin effigy for Halloween.  Tons of fun and inclusion.  Ah, tolerance…

 (UPDATE)

“Day Without Gay Day” Ends: World Survives

Go To Work Straight, White & Male Day

 

   

 

Does The GOP Have the Guts To Stop The Bailout Insanity?

Senator Mitch McConnell’s statement on the Senate floor this morning (emphasis added):

The auto industry is vitally important to our nation’s economy and it is vitally important to my home state of Kentucky. This is not in dispute. The question before us is how to reverse the decline of some of these auto manufacturers after decades of complicity between management and labor.

I understand congressional Democrats sent a revised proposal to the White House late last night. We will reserve our judgment until we see the latest text. But the proposal we saw yesterday afternoon fails to achieve our goal of securing the long-term viability of ailing auto companies.

I want to support a bill that revives this industry. But I will not support a bill that revives the patient with taxpayer dollars yet doesn’t secure a commitment that the patient will change its ways so future help isn’t needed.

To do so would be a betrayal of the millions of hardworking taxpayers who are not at fault for the troubles in the auto industry. And it would be unfair to the millions of Americans who depend on these companies.

On the management side, the draft plan released yesterday fails to require the kind of serious reform that will ensure long-term viability for struggling auto companies. By giving the government the option of cancelling government assistance in the event that reforms are not being achieved – rather than requiring it – we open the door to unlimited federal subsidies in the future.

Instead, we should demand that management make the tough choices that are required for long-term viability. This is the only fair approach from the standpoint of the taxpayer, who’s footing the bill.

On the labor side, this bill proposal fails to require any serious reform of legacy costs. Indeed, it states explicitly that one of its purposes is to preserve the same retirement and health care benefits that have made these companies so uncompetitive. It’s delusional to expect a company that spends $71 per labor hour to compete with a company in a neighboring state that spends $49 per labor hour.

In short, this proposal is deeply flawed because it fails to assure taxpayers – who rightly expect us to be good stewards of their hard-earned money – that they will not be asked to shell out billions more a few years or even a few months from now.

There are times when help is needed. But one thing most people expect when they’re asked for help is that the one asking makes a commitment to change. This proposal does not go nearly far enough. It holds neither management nor labor truly accountable. And in areas where one side is held accountable, the other side isn’t. One example is a provision that requires automakers to drop all legal challenges to state fuel economy standards that are inconsistent with the federal standard.

Where is the offer from our friends on the other side to call on environmental groups to drop their lawsuits?  Democrats say they want to solve this problem as much as we do. Yet they seem all too eager to tip the scales to the detriment of the manufacturers. There is plenty of blame to go around for the problems that ail the auto industry. But fixing half of a problem is not a real solution.

Any successful proposal would force companies to reform, either inside of bankruptcy or outside of bankruptcy. Without that mandate, there can be no real expectation of reform.

A good proposal would force automakers to get control of their benefit costs.

A good proposal would make wages at struggling companies competitive with other automakers – not tomorrow, but today.

A good proposal would end the practice of paying workers who don’t work.

And a good proposal would rationalize dealer networks. Just as struggling airlines adjust their capacity to respond to market conditions, automakers must respond to market demands as well.

I regret to conclude that this proposal Republicans saw yesterday afternoon does not do enough to fix the whole problem. It subsidizes it.  A real solution must protect the taxpayers by forcing the changes needed to put these companies on a path to long term success.

Some of these highlighted points should be the groundwork for how the Republicans should must oppose the $15 billion automaker bailout.    The “car czar” will be in charge of providing the oversight that politicians have been crying about recently.  But the legislation gives the authority for the czar to cancel what obligations are outstanding, if they feel the automakers are not playing by the rules.  What the rules are, we don’t know.  Is there a benchmark for profitability?  The authority is there, but the czar is not required to use it, which is where McConnell makes his point.  The door is wide open for more money to be flowing before this is all said and done.

The key to this mess is here:

Where is the offer from our friends on the other side to call on environmental groups to drop their lawsuits? Democrats say they want to solve this problem as much as we do. Yet they seem all too eager to tip the scales to the detriment of the manufacturers.

The biggest “detriment” comes down to the stifling effect that the UAW has on the industry, by artificially inflating costs of operations and making the automakers inefficient and uncompetitive with lower cost manufacturers: 

 

Even as the UAW appears ready to make concessions as part of the bailout package, they are adamant that they stick aroundand make life even more miserable for the automakers and the workers.  The burdensome regulations and never-ending threat of environmental lawsuits add even more pressure to the industry.  Make no mistake, management is a big problem as we’ve noted.  But the unions, environmentalists, protectionists, etc., have dragged the auto industry down this road.  And the caretaker of these special interests is the Democrat Party. 

 The Democrats are forging aheadwith their plans to force yet another taxpayer-funded, government mandated bailout down the throats of the American taxpayer.   This is a political football for Democrats.  Their hubris will most definitely get in the way of fiscal and economic sanity.  For Democrats, it usually does.  As recent polls show most voters are growing weary of government bailouts, Democrats are growing more cautious.  In the next few days, Pelosi and Reid will start their fear-mongering again, inciting class-warfare against the Republicans;  they don’t want to jump off this cliff alone.  It’s a replay of the financial bailout fight in September.  The difference here: in about six weeks, this mess belongs entirely to the Democrats in the White House and on Capitol Hill.  Nothing will hurt voterstaxpayers more than hundreds of thousands of newly unemployed auto and auto-related workers, which is what the chicken-littles are saying will happen.  But then again, we were warned of impending financial disaster if we didn’t pass the financial bailout; the bailout passed and the economy appears to get worse.  Go figure. 

If the Democrats want to run with this, which they will, then fine.  If they want to believe that $15 billion for three months will even begin to correct a bloated and inefficient auto industry, let them believe as much.  If they feel that more government bureaucracy, more bureaucrats in the form of a “car czar” overseeing the auto industry is the answer, let them think so.  The Democrats need to pander to the UAW and environmentalists, not Republicans.

The GOP needs to take a big stand here and stop this bailout madness, this idiotic notion that government has the solutions to the self-made inefficiencies and ineptidude of private industry.  These bailouts represent everything that the GOP is supposed to be against: government intervention in the private sector, more useless bureaucracy and waste and inflating budget deficits.

A filibuster sounds greatright about now, but we’ve seen this group of Republicans fold before.  Hell, if they had any sort of spine before, last month’s election results might have turned out differently.  We probably wouldn’t have a $700 billion monstrosity on our hands.  The current batch of Republican whiners and RINOs needs to be weeded out in order to rebuild the party.   But it is encouraging to see a filibuster threat, maybe it’s just bailout fatigue.  And another encouraging sign:  John Ensign is looking to join Richard Shelby and his filibuster plans.   

The Nevada Republican said the assistance to the automakers amounts to “the government picking the winners and losers instead of the market.”

“We’re just going down further and further and further towards socializing our economy,” he said.

That’s exactly what this is.  Strong words to be sure.  Given that Republicans are talking the talk, let’s hope they can get it together and stand up to this nonsense now.  With one filibuster, the Republicans can kill several birds: begin rebuilding the GOP, watch the Democrats squirm come January and most importantly, save the country from the bailout insanity.

RELATED

GOP Inching Towards Filibustering The Auto Bailout?

More Voices For a GOP Filibuster of the UAW Bailout

The Bailout That Won’t

(UPDATE)

House Passes UAW Bailout 237-170; Showdown in the Senate

Speaking Of Corrupt Democrats…

Since the media is being forced to cover focusing on corrupt Democrats today, what are the odds that some of the spotlight be shared on the tax-dodging, tax-code writing Charlie Rangel?

AP reports: 

The House ethics committee is expanding an investigation of Rep. Charles Rangel, chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. The ethics panel issued a statement Tuesday saying it had voted to expand an already far-ranging probe into the New York Democrat to examine whether he protected an oil drilling company from a big tax bill when the head of that company pledged a $1 million donation to a college center named after the congressman.

 Meanwhile Harry Reid laments the Blago saga:   

The charges against Governor Blagojevich are appalling and represent as serious a breach of the public trust as I have ever heard. It is clear that anyone Governor Blagojevich appoints to the Senate will fairly or unfairly be tainted by questions of impropriety. A different process to select a new senator must be put in place – and that process should not involve Governor Blagojevich.

Strong words, coming from an inept and useless Senate majority leader.  And speaking of the public trust, those same words should apply to one of their own, no?  Nancy “the swamp drainer” Pelosi prefers to take a “wait and see” approach when it comes to questionable ethics and corruption in her own party.  These Democrats are a classy bunch…

(UPDATE)

Team Obama Contradicts Itself

Questions Arise About Obama/Blago Relationship

Rangel Probe Widening

Boomerang: The Democratic Culture of Corruption

It’s Good To Be Chairman of the House Ways and Means

A $15 Billion Down Payment

Congressional Democrats and President Bush are about to move forward with another government bailout for the auto industry.  It’s a slippery slope  indeed:

If, as seems likely, this restructuring doesn’t work, consider the $15 billion a down payment: It is the nature of federal czars to attribute mission failure to inadequate resources, and it is the nature of Congress to throw good money after bad. No one wants to call this a nationalization, but that is what it is bound to become unless Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell can rally enough Republicans to block the bill. McConnell got to the heart of the matter in a statement yesterday: This bailout doesn’t fix Detroit’s problem, he wrote, “It subsidizes it.”

This bailout is doomed to fail.  Conservatives know this.  Republicans can be heroes.  Let’s hope they make the right choice.

(UPDATE)

5 REPUBLICANS JOIN FILIBUSTER

House passes UAW bailout 237-170; showdown in the Senate 

Mortgage Aid Fails: Liberals Call For More

Does this actually surprise anyone?  The government’s idiotic attempt to “halt” mortgage foreclosures by modifying existing mortgage contracts for borrowers who couldn’t afford them in the first place, is backfiring, just as expected:   

Recent data suggests that many borrowers who received help with mortgage modifications earlier this year tended to re-default on their payments, a top U.S. banking regulator said on Monday.

“The results, I confess, were somewhat surprising, and not in a good way,” said John Dugan, head of the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, in prepared remarks for a U.S. housing forum.

Dugan said recent data showed that after three months, nearly 36 percent of borrowers who received restructured mortgages in the first quarter re-defaulted.  The rate of re-default jumped to about 53 percent after six months and 58 percent after eight months, Dugan said, without providing an explanation for the trend.

“We don’t know the answers yet, but these are the types of questions that we have begun asking our servicers in detail,” Dugan said.

Sheila Bair, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, who has been pushing for fast and systematic loan modifications, said regulators need to examine re-default data more closely.
“I think it’s very important to look at this data carefully and know what it says and what it doesn’t say,” Bair said.

Sheila Bair needs to get a clue.  We wrote about the FDIC’s plans to push the limits of leniencywhen it came to stopping home foreclosures.  Here’s what Ms. Bair had to say:

“Our goal is to get the greatest recovery possible on loans in default or in danger of default, while helping troubled borrowers remain in their homes”

How’s that working out?  This concept of government “leniency”, and “compassionate” politics has to stop.   Not everyone has a right to a home, but they should have the right to fail.  I’d say start at looking at the garbage quality of the borrowers that the Feds are trying to help:  irresponsible and obviously ignorant about home-ownership, who don’t belong anywhere near a new home.  How do you expect these people  to pay back anything?  These people need to lose their homes, if honest and diligent homeowners  taxpayers are being asked to pay for their blatant disregard of personal accountability.

So, now we know that the government stepping into the private sector to bailout deadbeat homeowners defaulting on mortgages is not working according to plan, that they are having the opposite effect and that the banking regulators are admitting this, basically saying that they have no clue whats going on.   But, alas, the facts will never, ever get in the way of idiocy.  And liberals are indeed, idiots:   

A top House Democrat threatened Monday to tie up the remaining half of the $700 billion financial industry rescue money unless the Bush administration provides some of it for borrowers facing foreclosure.

“They’re not going to get the [money] unless they get very serious about the foreclosure modifications and showing us how we’re going to get some lending out of the banks,” Rep. Barney Frank, Massachusetts Democrat, told reporters after speaking at a housing industry conference in Washington. “At this point I don’t see that happening.”

Next year, after President-elect Barack Obama takes office, lawmakers plan to subsidize rental housing, reform lending practices and overhaul the regulations for companies that collect mortgage payments and distribute them to investors, Mr. Frank said. Lawmakers also should regulate the amount of debt that can be issued by hedge funds and other Wall Street firms, he added

Not only does Barney Frank want more bailout money to go towards modifying existing deadbeat mortgages, despite the fact that it doesn’t work, he and his fellow liberals want even more government bureaucracy and interference.  Because it’s all worked so well so far.  Pathetic.

Quick! Which Is The Bigger Risk? Campbell Soup or Uncle Sam?

Apparently, Uncle Sam is:

Credit-default swaps on U.S. government debt in euros for five years are trading at 67 basis points, according to CMA Datavision, meaning it costs 67,000 euros ($87,100) to protect 10 million euros of debt. Contracts on Campbell of Camden, New Jersey, were quoted at 51 basis points today, and Deerfield, Illinois-based Baxter contracts were at 55 basis points, CMA data show.

The Federal Reserve’s assets have more than doubled from a year ago to $2.14 trillion as the central bank seeks to revive credit markets. The Fed’s balance sheet may reach $4 trillion, according to strategists including Ira Jersey at Credit Suisse Group AG in New York

That doesn’t mean the Federal Reserve won’t stop looking for more creative ways of leveraging itself, of course.  Nah, that would be too prudent: 

The U.S. Federal Reserve is considering issuing its own debt for the first time, the Wall Street Journal said, citing people familiar with the matter.

Fed officials have approached Congress about the move, which could include issuing bills or some other form of debt and would provide the central bank with more flexibility to tackle the financial crisis, the Journal said

Fiscal conservatism is DEAD.

Is Paul Ryan Irrelevant Yet?

Aggravating.

It’s not so much that 32 Republicans voted for this bill, it’s that 20 Democrats voted against it!  That’s not much of a swing.  And it just makes an opportunity to make any attempt at righting this sinking ship called the Republican Party, seem like a complete waste. 

Of the 32 Republicans who voted for this bill, eight of them came from Michigan, joining the remaining Democratic representatives from that state.  Congressmen from nearby auto states voted for the bill as well, including Paul Ryan. 

Can we now stop considering Paul Ryan as one of the “bright, young talents” that is expected to lead conservatives and the GOP to future electoral success?

He folded on his principles and voted for the $700 billion bailout package in September.  After yesterday’s aggravating and disappointing House vote, I think it’s time to pull the plug on Ryan’s “potential” as a conservative voice in the Republican party for the time being.   Here’s Ryan justifying his vote against the original bailout bill back in September (emphasis added):

I personally fought to make sure that taxpayers were protected. I fought to make sure that once these troubled institutions start making profits, the taxpayers benefit first and foremost. I fought to make sure Wall Street executives don’t profit personally as a result of their irresponsible decisions

Here he is explaining yesterday’s vote:

The American automotive industry is under considerable distress, and various proposals have been put forth to provide aid to those in need. I’ve maintained that any assistance to the domestic auto industry should be drawn from previously approved funds from a U.S. Department of Energy loan package, rather than divert resources from the financial rescue package or rely on additional taxpayer dollars. H.R. 7321 cuts through the bureaucratic red tape and expedites these previously appropriated funds. Because no additional taxpayer dollars were appropriated, I was able to support this legislation.

“At the forefront of my mind are jobs in Southern Wisconsin and the retiree commitments to workers that could be placed in jeopardy under certain bankruptcy scenarios. To be clear, this bill is not intended to save the American auto industry and makes no guarantees that layoffs in this industry will end. Congress must stop overselling what it can do. At the very least, I am hopeful that by extending these loans to the American auto manufacturers, bankruptcy will be avoided in the near term and protections for retirees will remain intact.”

In other words, shoveling billions of taxpayer money to be dispersed under the blind authority of the Secretary of the Treasury, bailing out corporate and personal failure, is a bad thing as long as it doesn’t affect him politically.  And the auto bailout is justified, because the $15 billion didn’t come from new taxpayer dollars, just taxpayer dollars allocated months ago.  Great, so Congress didn’t have to go loot the public till yet again to get new money.  That really wouldn’t be considered “protecting” the taxpayer. 

And oh, by the way, the bailout money to the auto-industry doesn’t guaranty anything, just “near-term protection” for retirees.  In other words, it was just political grandstanding and the $15 billion is just the beginning.  Spring will come and along with it, another multi-billion dollar request for taxpayer money. 

This is NOThow the GOP is going to differentiate themselves from Democrats in the eyes of the American electorate.  The government choosing who wins and who loses in our economy is not was never a tenet of conservatism.  It’s a bad precedent. 

And a word on the House GOP leadership.  John Boehner decided to cower on the financial bailout package in September, as well, weeks before the general election.  His message to Republicans: leave your fiscal conservatism at the door.  When the specter of an upcoming election is not around however, Boehner makes the “tough” call and votes no on the auto bill.   He might as well have voted in the affirmative. 

Finally, Mitch McConnell gave a great speech on the Senate floor the other day, denouncing the auto bailout, saying all the right things.  But these are the moments when action trumps rhetoric.  As conservatives, let’s not forget that McConnell voted for the $700 billion bailout.  And now, he has a chance to regain some trust.  But only some.  Keep in mind how different the situation would be if Toyota didn’t have one of its biggest manufacturing plants outside of Japan, in Kentucky.  

(UPDATES)

Malkin is reporting some last minute dealings going on with the auto bailout, involving Harry Reid.  And if Harry Reid is involved, guess which Senate minority leader from Kentucky is probably also involved?  Like I’ve been writing, let’s not hold our breath on a filibuster.  More GOP rhetoric on limited government and accountability, anyone?  What a joke…

This post was linked at The Other McCain, who thinks Paul Ryan should be contested for his House seat in the next primary.  Not a bad idea.   

Bad Policy From GOP’s Policy Chairman

 Will Saxby Chambliss Backstab Us Now?

Better late than never: McConnell assails auto bailout, failure subsidies

Does the GOP have the guts to stop the bailout insanity?

Why is the No. 4 ranking Republican serving as the leading crusader for the automaker bailout?

Bailout backers try to make a deal

What Got Into McConnell?

Jim Rogers: Government picking winners and losers is ‘horrible’

I’m not a big fan of Jim Rogers, but nevertheless, he makes a great point: 

“What is outrageous economically and is outrageous morally is that normally in times like this, people who are competent and who saw it coming and who kept their powder dry go and take over the assets from the incompetent,” he said. “What’s happening this time is that the government is taking the assets from the competent people and giving them to the incompetent people and saying, now you can compete with the competent people. It is horrible economics.”

He’s referring to the $700 billion TARP disaster, but make no mistake about it.  The same can be said for bailing out the auto industry.  Same concept, different players.   

New Jersey Cranberry Farmers Deserve a Bailout Too, Don’t They?

Cranberry growers in New Jersey face stifling environmental regulations and are considering leaving the state for friendlier and more cost-effective business environments, namely Canada.  Where’s their bailout?

Since the Federal government and certain states are eager to flush taxpayer money down the toilet, how long before ex-Goldman Sachs co-CEO-with bailout-loving Henry Paulson/Governor of New Jersey Jon Corzine start showing some compassion for cranberry growers in the great state of New Jersey and demand a bailout for them?  Looks like they may need one:

The Joseph J. White Cranberry Farm has grown cranberries in Burlington County for more than 150 years and is recognized as a historic landmark at both the state and national levels. But the farm’s owner, Joe Darlington, like many of his fellow cranberry growers, might relocate some of his operations out of state due to strict environmental regulations.

Darlington said he has repeatedly tried to expand his bogs, most of which were built in the 1800s, only to have those efforts blocked by the state Department of Environmental Protection. “We’re plenty frustrated,” said Darlington, a fifth-generation cranberry farmer who also had attempts to operate a fresh-produce stand and bus tours of his farm thwarted by the state. “We started here in 1857 and we’d like to keep it here, but New Jersey’s regulations have really made it difficult for us.”

Ned Lipman, who owns three cranberry farms in Ocean County, said these restrictions also often present problems in gaining access to water for farming and permission to plant in areas that are defined as wetlands. “It is challenging to be the grower of a plant that grows in the wetlands ecosystem in New Jersey today,” said Lipman, who is also director of continuing professional education at Rutgers University’s New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station. “There is really just a philosophic difference on land use that exists.”

You mean to say bureaucratic red-tape in the form of environmental regulations designed to protect the environment prevent businesses from expanding their operations? Shocker.

Cranberry growers, however, appear to already have their bags packed. Darlington has scouted properties in Canada and is investigating possible locations in Delaware.   “Delaware’s not a traditional cranberry-farming area,” Darlington said. “But its close proximity to New Jersey and comparable weather could make it a good fit. And, from what I understand, it’s a lot business-friendlier there.”

Jeff Beach, a spokesman for the state Department of Agriculture, said New Jersey’s cranberry industry had an estimated value of $23 million in 2007, the third-most nationwide. “Certainly $23 million is a significant number, and cranberries – like tomatoes, blueberries and sweet corn – are identified with this state,” Beach said. “It’s definitely an industry that our department would not want to see any loss to.”

But Ocean Spray Cranberries Inc. – a cooperative made up of about 650 cranberry growers from Massachusetts, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington, Quebec and British Columbia – is on the verge of investing $58 million in new farms in eastern Canada, according to Stephen V. Lee III, a fifth-generation cranberry farmer and member of the Ocean Spray co-op.

“That’s money that could’ve very easily been spent to build new bogs, or expand native ones, in New Jersey,” said Lee, who owns Lee Brothers Farm in Washington Township, Burlington County. “We see the industry that we play in is going to grow somewhere, even if it is unable to do so here. If we don’t collectively take steps like this, someone else will build those bogs and there will be competitors that didn’t exist before.”

The Canadian government is also offering the co-op rent for nearly unlimited acreage at just $1 per year, Lee said. “It’s an entirely different governmental approach,” said Lee, who held off on renovating 10 acres of his 135-acre operation after being told by the DEP that his mitigation expenses would be more than $50,000 per acre. If this migration policy continues, Lee said, it could hurt the state’s already-fractured economy.

“Ocean Spray is a $2 billion business, and 35 (percent) to 40 percent of its product is processed at a plant in Bordentown, which accounts for an untold amount of jobs,” Lee said. “The risk exists where if the center of gravity shifts to Canada, instead of staying in New Jersey, the next processing plant won’t be built in New Jersey. It will be built closer to Canada.”

Just like the auto industry, cranberry growers deal with stifling environmental regulations.  And, just like the auto industry, they are looking to move to states and/or countries that provide a business environment that makes it easier to provide jobs, encourage expansion and, in the long run, develop wealth for everyone.  What a novel idea.   

So, where’s the bailout?  Maybe if Ocean Spray’s workers belonged to a massive, corrupt and bureaucratic labor union, that was one of the major contributors to the Democrat party, you’d hear Corzine crying for cash.  But they don’t, so they won’t.  Democrats have no shame. 

 (UPDATE)

 Malkin on the telco industry…next in line for a bailout. 

Wrongway Harry

The dictionary defines the word leader as:  “a person or thing that leads; a guiding or directing head, as of an army, movement, or political group”

Referring to Harry Reid as a “leader” is a misnomer to say the least.  Harry Reid is a follower.  He follows the polls, follows the consensus.  He cuts and runs. 

Is there a lawmaker in Washington as inept, as useless, as irrelevant as Harry Reid?  As the auto bailout crashed and burned on Thursday night, “leader” Reid said the following:

“I dread looking at Wall Street tomorrow. It’s not going to be a pleasant sight,”  

The actual market results for Friday?  Not even close:

• Dow Jones Industrial Average…up 0.75%
• S&P 500…up 0.71%
• NASDAQ…up 2.18%

Pretty much break even for the day.  Investors basically yawned at the news, despite Reid’s whining and fear mongering.  This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.  Reid has made a career out of being on the wrong side of major political issues during his tenure.  Now if only Republicans would take notice, and take advantage.   

Paul Ryan Is Doing No Favors For The GOP (UPDATED)

Not so good news for the GOP and their future Congressional “leaders” (Paul Ryan comes to mind) coming from the Midwest.  The RNC and the candidates looking to be chairman come January need to pay attention (emphasis added):

Wisconsin, Iowa and Michigan are all top-10 manufacturing states where industrial job losses were a major campaign-year issue. That softened GOP support in all three; the onset of the credit crisis in mid-September was a finishing blow.

Comparing the number of votes cast for George W. Bush in 2004 and for McCain in 2008, Wisconsin saw the biggest decline (14.9%) of any contested state and the biggest in the nation after Hawaii and Vermont. Michigan saw a nearly 12% drop-off in GOP voters, twice as big as the national decline of 6%.

Paul Ryan chimes in:

“If we want to compete to be the majority party in this country again, we have to expand our appeal beyond the angry white male. We’ve got to look at the issues that got us to where we are. The biggest area where we stumbled the most are the economic issues, the fiscal issues.  I think it’s a bad cycle for us in particular in the Rust Belt. We need to have an agenda on: How do we survive, not only survive, but how do we thrive in a global economy?”

This from a Republican who voted for both the financial services and auto industry bailouts.  Congressman Ryan should take his own advice.  Both Senate and House Republicans have stumbled on fiscal and economic matters.  And to be more specific, they have floundered on accountability and fiscal conservatism.  They haven’t differentiated themselves from tax and spend Democrats.  Voting twice to break the financial backs of American citizens, not to mention throw billions upon billions of dollars in taxpayer money into a black hole of government hubris, will not reverse Republicans’ problems.   It will only exacerbate them.    

Paul Ryan loves to talk the conservative talk, and indeed, the GOP has a lot of mouthpieces.  As conservatives, we can benefit from losing both. 

(UPDATE)

This should be interesting:

U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., of Janesville, says he’s looking for ways to work with President-elect Barack Obama on the country’s most pressing issues.

Conservatives can only hope that Rep. Ryan understands the difference between “work with” and compromising core principles.

Mark Sanford Gets It (UPDATED)

Here’s a novel fiscal policy for Republicans in Washington to undertake:  eliminate corporate taxes, stop corporate welfare and cut personal income taxes.  It’s called fiscal conservatism.  At least one Republican gets it:

Gov. Mark Sanford has proposed eliminating the corporate income tax and would pay for it with tax breaks given to spur certain industries and research.

In addition, Sanford said the state should create an alternate, flat income tax rate – 3.65 percent – funded by a 30-cent increase in the state’s lowest-in-the-nation cigarette tax. Sanford has also asked for a panel to study the inequities in business property taxes

Sanford is also against the bailout mentality prevailing in Washington these days.  Governor Sanford issued a statement today criticizing President Bush on considering using the TARP money to bailout the auto industry, and the dangers that bailout insanity will bring:

“And I believe we are at a tipping point in moving from a market-based economy to a politically-based economy, wherein one’s success can be determined not by good decisions and hard work, but by the size of one’s voice and connection to Washington,”

Cutting taxes across the board and opposing government bailing out failure.  Sounds like a great idea.

(UPDATE)

Ed Morrissey: Stop raiding TARP funds for private enterprise

The Melting Pot Project

Support Our Troops

For many people, Christmas is a hectic time.  It seems as if there is never enough time for anything.  But as we’re all trying to find that perfect gift for family, friends, acquaintances, etc., take time out to remember our brave men and women in uniform serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and all over the world:

Send a care package via Move America Forward

Send books to the troops via Books For Soldiers

Other ideas at America Supports You

Obama’s Education Secretary: Chicago’s Loss Is Ours Too

On Tuesday, President-elect Obama selected Chicago Public Schools chief Arne Duncan to be Education Secretary.  The zombies in the media genuflected in praise, becaues every decision Obama makes on anything is the correct one.  The teachers unions applauded.  Obama then praised Duncan as a “reformer”.  Red Flag!

When liberals talk about “reform”, it means one of several things: higher taxes, more government bureaucracy, more government intrusion, social engineering , corruption, or all of the above.  Pick your poison.

One of Duncan’s “reforms” for the Chicago Public Schools system was advocating the establishment of an exclusively gay public high-school: 

“We want to create great new options for communities that have been traditionally underserved,” he told the newspaper. “If you look at national studies, you see gay and lesbian students with high dropout rates … I think there is a niche there we need to fill.”

 Social engineering? Check.

But forget all of that.  Let’s talk about results:

Only 17% of 8th Graders in Schools Overseen by Obama Education Secretary-Designee Can Read at Grade Level

In 2007, only 17 percent of eighth graders tested at or above grade level in reading in Chicago Public Schools – the school system administered by Arne Duncan since 2001.

President-elect Barack Obama on Tuesday tapped Duncan to become secretary of education in the upcoming administration.

Duncan, hailed by Obama as a reformer, said he would like to take the lessons he learned in Chicago with him when he moves to Washington. “I’m also eager to apply some of the lessons we have learned here in Chicago to help school districts all across our country,” Duncan said after Obama formally named him to the job in Chicago.

According to the U.S. Department of Education’s National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) report for 2007, Chicago public schools have consistently performed below the national average during Duncan’s tenure.

What are the odds that the mainstream media points out that Obama’s choice for Education Secretary supports segregating gays and has presided over one of the worst education systems in the country? Not very likely. 

So Obama is sharing with the nation his vision of where the American public schools systems should be headed.  But of course, what’s good enough for us, is not nearly good enough for him and his family.  Last I checked, the Sidwell Friends School doesn’t employ union-member teachers. 

And yet, it exposes so much about Obama’s tangled web of seedy Chicago-style politics.  E.M. Zanotti fills us in on the connection; read her post here.  Bill Ayers even makes a cameo (he’s an education “reformer”).  So unfortunately, the Chicago-izing of America’s public schools system begins now.

Everyone To The Stimulus Trough

It was only a matter of time before the lines are blurred between “stimulus” and “bailout”.  This is a dangerous precedent that our government is setting, where bailing out industries “critical” to our economy is practially interchangeable with massive government spending to justify a “stimulus”.

And it’s not just the auto industry trying to suckle at America’s bailout  teat.  The ethanol industry is lining up for their slop:

The Renewable Fuels Association, a trade group for the U.S. ethanol industry, has spoken with staff members from Capitol Hill and President-elect Barack Obama’s team and “provided them with some ideas on how to craft the language of” an economic recovery package, said Matt Hartwig, a spokesman for the RFA.

Hartwig said RFA has suggested a number of steps including setting up a $1 billion short-term credit facility so ethanol producers could finance current operations; a $50 billion federal loan guarantee program to finance investment in new renewable fuel production capacity and supporting infrastructure; and a requirement that any auto maker receiving federal aid only produce new vehicles that can run on any blend up to 85% ethanol, beginning with the 2010 model season.

The RFA is one of many business groups looking for help in the financial stimulus legislation expected to move through Congress early next year. It’s not clear how much support RFA has for its proposals; calls to several senior lawmakers close to the industry weren’t immediately returned.

“We’re not asking for a specific bailout, but rather, as a trade association, we’re providing ideas to an incoming Congress and a new administration about ways to bolster the domestic renewable fuel industry,” Hartwig said. “We’re doing what all trade organizations are doing – providing the Obama administration with ideas.”

A bailout? Nah.  Just $50 billion or so to tide them over until they blow through that money.  Then what?  Despite the fact that we know ethanol is not cost effective and is inefficient as a source of energy.  This is the epitome of what’s wrong with the liberal mindset: just throw some taxpayer money at any given problem and hope it goes way, just to say that they did something.  More liberal tripe. 

(UPDATE)

WSJ: An Ethanol Bailout? 

 

 

 

Does Anybody Really Care What Anna Eshoo Wants? (UPDATE)

I keep trying to ignore it, hoping it would just go away, but it keeps coming back.  Vodkapundit reminds us that liberals love talking up the Fairness Doctrine (emphasis added):

Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, said Monday she will work to restore the Fairness Doctrine and have it apply to cable and satellite programming as well as radio and TV.

“I’ll work on bringing it back. I still believe in it,” Eshoo told the Daily Post in Palo Alto.

 Eshoo said she would recommend the doctrine be applied not only to radio and TV broadcasts, but also to cable and satellite services.

“It should and will affect everyone,” she said.

She called the present system “unfair,” and said “there should be equal time for the spoken word.”

Apparently, the Fairness Doctrine clouds haven’t lifted as there are still liberals out there who think government should mandate what the people need to listen to on the radio and on television, only this time with a 21st century twist: cable and satellite transmissions should be included. 

Orwellian issues aside, the Fairness Doctrine is flawed for the simple reason that government micromanaging private enterprise is never a good thing, and this is precisely what it does.  As JG Thayer points out,  the liberal “spoken word” is not very profitable, because nobody really wants to listen:

For all the high-minded rhetoric behind the return of the Fairness Doctrine, the underlying goal is the same: to rein in talk radio, where conservatism has found its greatest popular success. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Jerry Doyle, Dennis Miller, are monumental success.

Conversely, liberals on the radio have been utter failures. Air America still limps along, but its market share has continually diminished and it has never made a single dime. Indeed, at some points it had to resort to shady (if not downright illegal) practices to stay solvent.

…

The station that airs Limbaugh does so because it is profitable for them to do so. Its advertisers are willing to sponsor Limbaugh’s show: that ’s how it gets on the air. 

 The good news is that Anna Eshoo is pretty much irrelevant.  But in the meantime, let’s just chalk this up to my being paranoid again for no good reason.

(UPDATE)

Brent Littlefield has more over at Pajamas Media.

“Conservative” Paul Ryan At It Again

This would be hysterically funny, if it wasn’t so annoying.  Congressman Paul Ryan, a falling star in the Repulican party as far as I’m concerned, and should be considered as such by any serious conservative, laments the country’s precarious fiscal situation in a letter to his House colleagues (co-authored with Rep. Jim Cooper):

As the Financial Report illustrates, our budgetary situation is dire. Putting the nation on a sustainable course demands bipartisan attention and action. We believe that Democrats and Republicans must put their differences aside and work together to address this problem.

In the short-term, it is essential that the American people understand the full picture of the Federal government’s financial position. The unified deficit does not reflect the full obligations of the Federal government. We must also work together to cut waste from the budget and truly prioritize how the Government spends the taxpayer’s money.

In the long-term, we must find a way to put out entitlement programs on a sustainable basis so that we do not leave future generations with a mountain of debt. Out entitlement problem demands action and every year that we do not act, the situation gets worse.

The nation’s fiscal situation is dire indeed.  Our fiscal “situation”, specifically our massive budget deficit, is not only unsustainable but also irresponsible.  I also find it pathetic that Ryan is calling for bipartisan solutions to these problems.  It was bipartisan efforts that have exacerbated the problems.  In a bipartisan effort, he voted on a $700 billion, no-questions-asked government bailout.  The results of that bailout have not exactly been stellar.  And its added another $700 billion to our fiscal “situation”.  In last week’s bipartisan adventure, he voted in favor of a bailout bill for the auto industry which didn’t pass but looks like it’s about to be implemented anyway, along with an even more precarious deficit. 

I love these quotes:  “…and truly prioritize how the Government spends the taxpayer’s money.”  and “we must find a way to put out entitlement programs on a sustainable basis so that we do not leave future generations with a mountain of debt.“

Funny.  Because Paul Ryan likes to talk about being a conservative, and that’s where it ends.  Is Ryan saying that his priority for spending taxpayer money is to waste in on ludicrous government bailouts?  If so, his priorities and priorities for conservatives are not mutual.   And is he finding a way to keep future generations out of debt by piling billions upon billions of dollars onto the federal deficit with no end in sight?  Will he engage in bipartisan folly with House Democrats when it comes time to vote on a $850 billion pork stimulus package?  My guess is he’ll cave.  Just like his record says he will.

A Banner Day For The US Government

Gateway Pundit reminds us that on this day ten years ago, the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Bill Clinton.

On this day in 2018, we’ll be remembering the ten-year anniversary of yet another instance of government incompetence and folly.

Caroline Kennedy Votes ‘Present’ On Democracy, Hocks Loogie At New Yorkers

Being a Kennedy has its benefits, I’m sure. As we’ve seen over the past two weeks, one of them is being able to call up the governor of New York and automatically become the frontrunner for a soon-to-be vacant Senate seat. As if this wasn’t enough of an insult to New York voters, she hasn’t even bothered to participate in the most basic right of the democratic process.  Ouch:

Caroline Kennedy, who is seeking to fill Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Senate seat, has not voted in a number of elections, including at least one race for the very job she’s seeking.

The Democrat registered at her current address on Manhattan’s Upper East Side in 1988. According to city Board of Elections records, she missed several Democratic mayoral primaries – typically important contests in left-leaning New York City – in 1989, 1993, 1997 and 2005. Republicans went on to win three out of four of those races in the general election.

She also missed the 2002 gubernatorial primary and general election, when Democrat H. Carl McCall faced Republican incumbent George Pataki and lost.

And she skipped the 1994 general election, when Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was running for re-election for the same seat she hopes to take over if Clinton is confirmed as secretary of state in President-elect Barack Obama’s administration.

And who cares if she’s a princess?? 

(UPDATE)

Queen Caroline

S&P Lowers Ratings On 11 Banks

Now they tell us.  Thanks, guys:

Standard & Poor’s downgraded the credit ratings of 11 top global banks Friday including Citigroup, Deutsche Bank and JP Morgan, citing increased industry risk and a deepening economic slowdown.

The agency cut its ratings on Citigroup (C.N), Morgan Stanley (MS.N) and Goldman Sachs Group (GS.N) each by two notches.

It cut Bank of America (BAC.N), JP Morgan Chase (JPM.N) and Wells Fargo (WFC.N) by one notch. For a complete list of rating actions, click on [ID:nN19448614].

In Europe, S&P shaved one notch off the ratings of Barclays, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland and UBS. It kept the rating of HSBC Bank, part of HSBC Holdings Plc, at “AA: but downgraded its outlook to negative from stable.

“The downgrades and revised outlooks reflect our view of the significant pressure on large complex financial institutions’ future performance due to increasing bank industry risk and the deepening global economic slowdown,” S&P said in a note.

The same ratings agencies (S&P, Moodys, etc.) that gave AAA ratings to toxic mortgage securities before the financial meltdown are now being used by the Fed to help dole out TARP money.  The financial crisis comes full circle. 

Biden: Be Patriotic and Pass the Pork

Say it ain’t so Joe.  The VP-elect has been released from the attic for this weekend before Christmas, when virtually nobody pays attention to news.

In an interview with George Stephanapolous, Biden effectively admits that after 35 years in the Senate, he knows absolutely nothing about the country’s economic condition. He’s just finding out now, that the economy has some serious problems:

Vice President-Elect Joe Biden said the U.S. economy is in danger of “absolutely tanking” and will need a second stimulus package in the $600-billion to $700-billion range.

“The economy is in much worse shape than we thought it was in,” Biden told me during an exclusive interview — his first since becoming vice president-elect– to air this Sunday on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”

“There is no short run other than keeping the economy from absolutely tanking. That’s the only short run,” Biden told me.  Biden said he has canvassed Republican and Democratic members of Congress about a second “big” and “bold” stimulus package . He said the Obama team is focused on creating jobs and spending on energy and information technology infrastructure.

“Every single person I’ve spoken to agrees with every major economist. There is going to be real significant investment, whether it’s $600 billion or more, or $700 billion, the clear notion is, it’s a number no one thought about a year ago,” he said.

The future vice president said the struggling economy will be the number one priority for the Obama Administration next year.  

“The single most important thing we have to do as a new administration, to have — to be able to have impact on all of the other things we want to do, from foreign policy to domestic policy, is we’ve got to begin to stem this bleeding here and begin to stop the loss of jobs in the creation of jobs,” he said.

Biden apparently got the Democratic talking points memo that says to exaggerate every problem the country has to “crisis” mode and resolve to fix every domestic and foreign policy we have, because that’s just what Democrats do is fix things.  And, according to Biden, passing Obama’s multi-billion-soon-to-be-trillion-dollar package of pork is the way to go.  So, let’s roll up our sleeves, it’s time to be patriotic, and suck it up, America.  We’re in for a long four years.

Wisconsin’s Principled Moderate

Congressman Paul Ryan is principled only it comes to dichotomizing exactly which pool of wasted taxpayer money he’s willing to throw into a black hole:

“I am deeply troubled by the precedent set by expanding the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) into areas beyond its original intent,” Ryan (R-Kenosha) said in a statement. “Allowing the Big Three to access funds from the financial rescue package creates a dangerous precedent for other corporations to lay claim to TARP funds.”

Disagreeing with the Congressman from Wisconsin’s 1st District is becoming what seems like a daily occurrence for me. While in principle, what he’s saying is correct: the TARP funds should not be used for bailing out the auto industry, which is what President Bush enacted yesterday.  But as we’ve seen, Paul Ryan seems to be more adrift  towards center when it comes to limited government , and less like the vanguard of fiscal conservatism the media, and some in the RNC, made him out to be.

If he wants to talk about “dangerous precedents”, then fine. What’s dangerous is Congress voting for a $700 billion blank check to be used at the whim of the Treasury secretary, who is not an elected official. What’s dangerous is the Federal government nationalizing portions of the financial industry. What’s dangerous is the President of the United States ignoring a Congressional vote (Ryan voted for the House measure for an auto bailout, which was rejected by the Senate) and recklessly handing over a $15 billion corporate welfare check to the auto industry.  What’s dangerous is effectively nationalizing a portion of the auto industry.  All of these, Mr. Ryan, are dangerous precedents. And all of these, you had voted for.

Land Of The Not So Free

The Nanny States of America:

(H/T: Reason)

Meet The Mileage Police

Hugh Hewitt Is Wrong

Hugh Hewitt on last week’s auto bailout:

The decision by President Bush to throw a lifeline to the Big 3 has been expected. The tipped hand probably led to the inability of the Senate Republicans to gain crucial concessions from the automakers and the unions during the failed negotiations of last week.

This seems to me to be a much preferred approach that cedes the long-term issue to the new administration, and the president-elect will be able to factor assistance to the car companies into his legislative program for the new year. Lame duck presidents and lame-duck Congresses should do as little as possible to limit a new president’s agenda, fresh as he is from a solid win and a shift to the left in the Congress.   Senate Republicans have got to be prepared to fight for sobriety in January and February, and their principled positions of this month allow them to do that. President Bush’s intervention provides his successor with all the options available.

This is cautious, responsible governance by a responsible president seeking to make his successor’s transition as smooth as possible.

Generally speaking, there are very few times that I disagree with Hugh Hewitt.  He’s one of the pillars of conservative talk radio and a strong voice for conservatism over all.  And I agree for the most part, with this post.  It’s true, George Bush should be getting out of the way and slowly allow the Obama transition to make its mark on what the agenda is going to be in the next administration.  Obama’s victory and bolstered majorities in both houses of Congress should only emphasize that fact.  And it’s also true that post-Inauguration, Congressional Republicans will need to grow a spine, and stand up for the massive onslaught of pork that’s about to be unleashed in their general direction.   Personally, I don’t see it happening.  By that time, the memories of this terrible election will have faded and these Republicans have short memories.   I hope I’m wrong.

But my main issue with Hewitt’s post lies with this:

This is cautious, responsible governance by a responsible president seeking to make his successor’s transition as smooth as possible.

There is nothing — repeat — NOTHING cautious or responsible from the president of the USA, when he supersedes a Senate vote against a bailout for Detroit, by giving them money anyway; money that was set aside for the financial industry.  No matter what the political motivation.  There is nothing responsible about government bailouts to begin with.  Not to mention the disturbing precedent of our government shelling out trillions of dollars to private industry to begin with.  Where does the bailout insanity end?  Who will be next in line?  

“Cautious or responsible”?  Not President Bush.

Huffington Ignores The Facts…Again

For contrarian market watchers out there, if this isn’t a sign to buy up American stocks, I don’t know what is.  

Huffington bloviates on the end of free-market capitalism:

The collapse of Communism as a political system sounded the death knell for Marxism as an ideology. But while laissez-faire capitalism has been a monumental failure in practice, and soundly defeated at the polls, the ideology is still alive and kicking.

…

It’s time to drive the final nail into the coffin of laissez-faire capitalism by treating it like the discredited ideology it inarguably is. If not, the Dr. Frankensteins of the right will surely try to revive the monster and send it marauding through our economy once again.

She goes on to cite this past Sunday’s piece in the NY Times blaming President Bush for the mortgage crisis as justification that “deregulation” in the name of laissez-faire capitalism is a flawed economic system and should be dead and buried.

Deregulated?  Does Huffington really believe that our economy operates completely free of regulation?  And that George Bush is the epitome of conservative, free-market idealism?  Hardly.  In fact, the past 8 years have seen a considerable ramp-up in regulatory burdens on our economy:  

Despite the claims of critics-and some supporters-of the Bush Administration, net regulatory burdens have increased in the years since George W. Bush assumed the presidency. Since 2001, the federal government has imposed almost $30 billion in new regulatory costs on Americans. About $11 billion was imposed in fiscal year (FY) 2007 alone.

Far from shrinking to dangerously low levels, regulation has actually grown substantially during the Bush years. By almost every measure, regulatory burdens are up.

Critics of Bush Administration regulatory policy have argued that budget cuts are evidence that restric­tions are being loosened. Yet according to an analy­sis by George Mason University’s Mercatus Center and Washington University’s Weidenbaum Center, appropriations for federal regulatory agencies have increased during the Bush years from $27 billion in FY 2001 to $44.9 billion in FY 2007-a 44 percent increase in inflation-adjusted dollars. The total staffing of regulatory agencies went up nearly as much, from 172,000 employees to over 244,000- a 41 percent increase

Arianna Huffington has made a career of shifting viewpoints with the political winds, a hypocrite in the purest sense.  Her lack of depth and original insight translate throughout her website and to it’s writers and readers.  While castigating free markets, she has no problem taking advantage of the system for her own benefit.  The solutions to the economic problems we face are not entirely political, and if they were,  the winning solutions are definitely not the ones to which she espouses. 

Proclaiming that George Bush oversaw an orgy of deregulation which allegedly resulted in the financial crisis, while not once mentioning the names of Barney Frank and/or Chris Dodd is not only hypocritical, but completely denigrates the facts.  But the facts never really got in the way of alarmist rhetoric from the Left before, so why should it now. 

 More idiocy from the Huffington Re-Post

 

 

 

 

NYT Report: Obama Eats Tuna Melt, Doesn’t Walk On Water To Greet Dolphins

OK.  I get it.  The media loves Barack Obama and he can do no wrong in their eyes.  But at what point doest the adulation go beyond a mere political bias and move into what Newsweek’s Evan Thomas referred to as a “creepy” cult of personality?  The media’s Obama crush has been under way for several months now, and any sense of objectivity and journalistic integrity have long since been jettisoned.  But the fawning and mindless sycophantic behavior by the mainstream media is really pathetic.  Let them report on his plans for nationalizing our health care system and editorialize that you agree with the plan.  File an in-depth story on how he selected his Cabinet or tell me how he developed his attitudes towards the Middle East or the Iraq War.  The economy’s in shambles we’re told, and only Dear Leader Obama and his band of redistributionists can fix it.  So the Washington Post gives us garbage like this:

Between workouts during his Hawaii vacation this week, he was photographed looking like the paradigm of a new kind of presidential fitness, one geared less toward preventing heart attacks than winning swimsuit competitions. The sun glinted off chiseled pectorals sculpted during four weightlifting sessions each week, and a body toned by regular treadmill runs and basketball games.

And in some idiotic journalism, the NYT reports that the Obama family managed to avoid a pool of reporters on his Hawaiian vacation:

The pool got to the park at 1:10 p.m. so it had to take on faith the staff’s word that Mr. Obama had arrived there exactly an hour earlier. “Your pool was not allowed inside the park,” Mr. Rucker then reported. He did see the Obama group leave the interactive dolphin area, saying, “It is unclear whether the Obamas swam with dolphins, and Obama’s clothing did not appear wet.”

…

The next stop was the Koko Marina Center, where he ordered a tuna melt for himself — on 12-grain bread with cheddar cheese, tomatoes and no mayonnaise (details thanks to the pool report) — and shave ice treats for the children.

Does anyone really care that Obama had a tuna melt?  If you do, you have other issues to worry about.  And is it just me, or is it insulting that the media has reduced the Presidency to something you would read in a trashy romance novel, or watch on an MTV reality show?  The Times and Post cover the “story” like Britney Spears had just been released from another mental hospital.  But who am I kidding, really?  This nonsense won’t end anytime soon.  (H/T: Jammie Wearing Fool)

(UPDATE)

I’m glad I’m not the only one creeped out by all of this.  The Anchoress and Michelle Malkin are equally disturbed and annoyed by the media adulation of President Chesty McCheesecake.

(UPDATE II)

More on Obama’s Paparazzi Presidency (via Politico)

(UPDATE III)

Sister Toldjah shares our concerns:

Does any hope exist whatsoever than any of these outlets will ever seriously scrutinze the next leader of the free world even remotely as much as they did the evil Bush “regime”? If there is, someone – anyone -please convince me, because I have very little that it will.

Obama Calls Time Out On Middle East Crisis (UPDATE)

With a conflagration in the Middle East erupting yet again, President-elect Obama plays the “we only have one president at a time” card and defers to President Bush on the crisis:

Asked Sunday if a land invasion would change how the Obama administration views Israel, Obama’s senior adviser yielded to Bush.

“The fact is that there is only one president at a time. There’s only one president who can speak for America at a time. And that president now is George Bush,” David Axelrod said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

It’s easy to bloviate about spending on infrastructure, about investing in wind farms that lose money, about creating millions upon millions of jobs by going green, etc.   Even the NYT laments that this pesky Middle East fighting is preventing team Obama from concentrating on exactly how much money it will take to spend our way back to prosperity:

Now, Mr. Obama’s presidency will begin facing the consequences of just such a counterattack, one of Israel’s deadliest against Palestinians in decades, presenting him with yet another foreign crisis to deal with the moment he steps into the White House on Jan. 20, even as he and his advisers have struggled mightily to focus on the country’s economic problems.

But real leadership, leadership you can believe in, is determined by actions not words.  It’s understood that Obama cannot enact anything right now, he is President-elect only, until January 20th, 2009.  But Obama’s mindless and sycophantic supporters on the Left, the very same that slogged through a two-year, victorious campaign for the Presidency, should expect and demand something more than just words right?  These are the same people that slobber all over 72% approval ratings for the President-elect, that anticipate and dissect every word of Obama’s transition press-conferences, cabinet appointments and YouTube “addresses” every week.  These are the people who insist “change” has come.  But as the Middle East bursts into flames, all we get from Dear Leader Obama is him sending out his mouthpiece David Axelrod to the Sunday talk shows, punting the ball on an issue whose response cannot be scripted, or input into a teleprompter.  Can Obama issue a statement?  Call a press conference?  Anything asserting his support for Israel and its right to defend itself from wanton acts of violence?  Not everyone on the Left is letting this go unnoticed.  The Nation’s Robert Dreyfuss writes today:

But the truly sad thing is see how Obama has opted out. He left the commenting to David Axelrod, his political strategist, who said, mouse-like: “I think he (Obama) wants to get a handle on the situation so that when he becomes president on January 20 he has the advantage of all the facts and information leading up to that point.” To that gobbledygook he added that now all-too-familiar nostrum that America has “one president at a time.”

Every news story on the subject today confirms that Obama is being “briefed on the situation” or has been “monitoring global events’; this would be true for any President-elect, whether they were Republican or Democrat to be sure.  But with this particular group, I get the feeling that he really doesn’t know what to say and therefore, is merely waiting to have his team determine the most politically correct, the least abrasive and most comforting “answer” he can issue.  Obama to me always has been, and always will be, nothing but words and fluff.

(UPDATE)

Since our liberal friends are always so worried about what the “rest of the world” thinks of the United States and our President, here’s a reaction:

On the fourth day of Israeli air strikes which have killed more than 380 people in Gaza, the U.S. President-elect has yet to take a position, though he spoke out after militants’ attacks in Mumbai and has made detailed statements on the U.S. economy.

“He wants to be cautious and I think he will remain cautious because the Arab-Israeli conflict is not one of his priorities,” said Hassan Nafaa, an Egyptian political scientist and secretary-general of the Arab Thought Forum in Amman.

“Obama’s position is very precarious. The Jewish lobby warned against his election, so he has chosen to remain silent (on Gaza),” added Hilal Khashan, a professor of political science at the American University of Beirut.

“If Obama continues to remain silent … his silence will be seen and will have the operational effect of providing an endorsement for Israel’s war on Gaza,” said Paul Woodward of Conflicts Forum, an organisation aimed at changing Western policy towards Islamist movements such as Hamas

Allahpundit’s post has another response.

(UPDATE II)

Geraghty over at The Corner:

The counterargument, basically, is that Obama is not president yet. Yes, but nothing precludes him from laying out what his view is; we know he’s setting policy in 20 days or so. In several emerging and pressing issues since Election Day, we’ve seen nations and groups facing the decision of whether they should agree to a compromise, or whether they would get a better deal starting January 20 – Pakistan’s cooperation in the Mumbai massacre, and the UAW’s decision on concessions to get an auto bailout to cite two examples. In both cases, the incoming president and his spokesman have said little beyond platitudes, and nobody quite knows exactly what the position of the U.S. government is going to be in three weeks. It’s like a big national and international surprise party.

(UPDATE III)

I agree with Ed Morrissey that Obama is not President yet, and as such, has no authority to implement any government policy, foreign or otherwise.  But I still have issues with his silence on the Gaza crisis.

(UPDATE IV)

Breitbart agrees with my sentiments, (via Instapundit)

Republicans Will Cave On Stimulus (UPDATE)

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that despite all the talk of hope and change of the last few months, despite an election which allegedly showed that the American people want a liberal, massive spending solution to our economic problems–in the form of an economic “stimulus” package–Congressional Democrats are lowering their expectations on the size and scope of  such a package.  Hope and change, apparently, cannot wait until the next election cycle:

Democrats are facing an especially precarious version of that dilemma. In crafting a package that will sink hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars into the economy, they are apprehensive about the fallout if the economy merely continues sputtering along for several years.

And lawmakers are already mindful of how they will face voters less than two years from now. The ruling party almost always loses seats in midterm elections, and that trend could be exacerbated for the Democrats if voters think they threw billions of dollars at the economy with little to show for it.

“Elections are run in two-year cycles, and we’re in an economic cycle that we can’t turn around in two years,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.). “It’s a political problem. But I don’t know that there is a way out of it.”

 So of course, Democrats are getting antsy.  But Democrats shouldn’t fear.  Dear Leader Obama is on his way back from his Christmas vacation and setting up shop in Washington to embark on a new campaign–the campaign for stimulus:  

President-elect Barack Obama is preparing to lead a full-scale marketing blitz to pass the massive new stimulus package that he says is needed to revive the slumping economy and put the nation on the course he laid out during his campaign.

Obama will move to Washington this weekend, checking into a hotel with his family. In the remaining weeks of the transition, and after he is sworn in, he will use the bully pulpit to make the case for passage of a stimulus package of up to $775 billion, an aide said.

 Obama, now in Hawaii on vacation, may travel outside Washington after Inauguration Day on Jan. 20, while others in the new administration scatter across the country to explain in minute detail the scope and purpose of the stimulus plan, said David Axelrod, a senior advisor to the president-elect.

“We’ll fan out, and this will be a public process,” Axelrod said in an interview. “We’ll make clear to people why we need to do what we’re doing, why it’s the size it is, what the individual component parts are, and why they are an important part of the equation in terms of short-term recovery.”

Obama, he said, “wants the American people involved in this discussion.”

When Obama says he wants the American people “involved”, note that this is code for: “I will appeal to the media who, knowing I can do no wrong, will make the case for stimulus on my behalf”. 

This is Obama’s bread and butter; he’s a master campaigner and he’s at his best on the bully pulpit.  Embarking on a three week advertising campaign for a Keynesian stimulus orgy, with a willing accomplice in the mainstream media touting the benefits of a bigger-the-better economic stimulus package, there will be enormous pressure to go along with anything the Democrats put forth.  Keep in mind that Democrats have indicated that they want a package on Obama’s desk come Inauguration Day.  Beginning late next week, economic reports from the last quarter of 2008 will begin to be released, and by mid-month we will have a steady stream of economic news  to digest, including an employment report, CPI, manufacturing results, etc., and none of these are expected to bring good news.  Worst case scenario for conservatives, this will be a perfect storm of bad economic data, constant cheerleading by Obama surrogates in the media and empty rhetoric by Obama and his mouthpieces. 

Meanwhile, looks like Republicans are getting ready to cave anyway.  Senator McConnell and Rep. John Boehner are making noises about “bi-partisanship” and more overisght over any stimulus package.  Obama has reached out to Senator Olympia Snowe, no friend of conservatives, about “working in a collaborative fashion” on a stimulus bill.  The same John Boehner who urged his party to forgo “ideological purity” for the sake of political expediency, or just because Henry Paulson told him so, doesn’t fill me with confidence going into this stimulus showdown later this month.  This group of Republicans has no backbone; as the GOP considers reaching across the aisle, Democrats are more than happy to turn the other way.  But watch for the Democrat leadership to implore the GOP be involved somehow, as they will quickly point their fingers in blame at the GOP once the stimulus fails to achieve any results.

We conservatives have no reason to believe that the Republicans in the Senate or the House will be able to withstand the pressure of giving in to new spending.  The GOP congressional leadership had no problem voting for the $700 financial bailout package, which added deficits as far as the eye can see, unprecedent government intrusion in the marketplace and expanded bureaucracy and waste; not to mention proving that government interventions are mostly inefficient and will not solve the problems they are created to correct.  Why should conservatives consider this time to be any different?

(UPDATE)

Red State’s  Robert Bluey: Democrats Get Greedy on Stimulus

(UPDATE II)

Just like I thought.  McConnell gives us another head-banging-against-the-wall moment….

(UPDATE III)

McConnell proposes more Big Goverment to fix Big Government debacle

You Needed A Poll To Tell You THAT?

Via Jake Tapper

No surprise here.  Our military is not too keen on the incoming Commander In Chief:

When asked how they feel about President-elect Barack Obama as commander in chief, six out of 10 active-duty service members say they are uncertain or pessimistic, according to a Military Times survey.

…

When asked who has their best interests at heart – Obama or President George W. Bush – a higher percentage of respondents picked Bush, though Bush has lost ground over time. About half of the respondents said Bush has their best interests at heart this year, the same percentage as last year but a decline from 69 percent in 2004.

I can’t help but notice that the lefty Obama sycophants in the blogosphere continue to genuflect at every Obama sighting, citing every meaningless poll that gives high grades to Dear Leader for doing nothing.  It will be interesting to see if they decide to highlight this poll…but I won’t be holding my breath. 

Jammie Wearing Fool has more.

We Share A Common Enemy In The Gaza Crisis

The crisis in the Middle East continues into its second week and the hostilities will be escalating, as Israel gears up for a ground invasion into Gaza.  President Bush has correctly declared that Hamas’ rocket attacks which started the fighting are an act of terror.  The president is right because Hamas is a terrorist organization, plain and simple.  Palestinians use Gaza as a de facto base for its cowardly attacks on Israel and its citizens as human shields and cover for the same.   Their hatred for Israel is the sole basis for their existence and their goal is its extermination and for a Palestinian state to take its place.  Their tactics are simple: kill as many Israelis, inflict as much suffering on them as possible.  Alan Dershowitz sums it up in his New Year’s Eve piece:

The rockets are designed exclusively to maximize civilian deaths, and some have barely missed schoolyards, kindergartens, hospitals, and school buses. But others hit their targets, killing more than a dozen civilians since 2001, including in February 2008 a father of four who had been studying at the local university. These anticivilian rockets have also injured and traumatized countless children.

The residents of Sderot were demanding that their nation take action to protect them. But Israel’s postoccupation military options were limited, since Hamas deliberately fires its deadly rockets from densely populated urban areas, and the Israeli army has a strict policy of trying to avoid civilian casualties.

The firing of rockets at civilians from densely populated civilian areas is the newest tactic in the war between terrorists who love death and democracies that love life. The terrorists have learned how to exploit the morality of democracies against those who do not want to kill civilians, even enemy civilians.

Israel is not a terrorist organization and as such, tries to wage a surgical war, warning civilians in Gaza to flee before any retaliatory strikes.  This could be to Israel’s detriment, but the point is that Israel is responding in self defense; its goal is not to harm civilians but to destroy the Isalmists that are out to destroy Israel, includingits innocent civilians.  I don’t claim to be an expert on the Middle East, but there really shouldn’t be any trouble figuring out who’s right and who’s wrong here.  Krauthammer notes today:

Some geopolitical conflicts are morally complicated. The Israel-Gaza war is not. It possesses a moral clarity not only rare but excruciating

…

Nor does Hamas conceal its strategy. Provoke conflict. Wait for the inevitable civilian casualties. Bring down the world’s opprobrium on Israel. Force it into an untenable cease-fire — exactly as happened in Lebanon. Then, as in Lebanon, rearm, rebuild and mobilize for the next round. Since its raison d’etre is the eradication of Israel, there are only two possible outcomes: the defeat of Hamas or the extinction of Israel

It’s a vicious, deadly cycle:  Israel agrees to a truce.  Hamas (or Hezbollah in Lebanon) instigate and provoke retaliation.  Israel repsonds.  Terrorists cry foul, the world condemns Israel, the powers that be do nothing, and the cycle begins again.  The Arab world is pathetically comparing the Israelis to Nazis (Gateway Pundit has more on that), trying to shame the world into coming down on Israel yet again.  And we don’t need to look far from home.  The liberal extremist fringe of the blogosphere and in the media, and even in our own Congress are alluding to atrocities committed by Israel in defending itself.   

Liberal extremist and progressive favorite, Dennis Kucinich writes a letter to the (ahem) United Nations calling for action:

Today I sent a letter to Secretary General Ban ki-Moon urging the United Nations to establish an independent inquiry of Israel’s war against Gaza. The attacks on civilians represent collective punishment, which is a violation of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The perpetrators of attacks against Israel must also be brought to justice, but Israel cannot create a war against an entire people in order to attempt to bring to justice the few who are responsible.

Sounds great, Congressman.  While you attempt to cajole the UN into even attempting to accomplish something in this crisis by enforcing international rules of engagement on Israel, Hamas continues to lob missles there.  Good luck in getting Hamas to adhere to Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. 

This is the essence of the inherent flaw in liberal thinking on issues of foreign policy.  They whine about the collateral damage and death incurred by Israel defending their own civilians, yet don’t see the hypocrisy of their whining.  These people are TERRORISTS.  They don’t abide by international laws of warfare.  They couldn’t care less what the United Nations says or thinks of them.  These people are inherently evil, who wish death upon innocents in Israel, as well as the United States.  The same ideology that Hamas subscribes to is the same ideology which led to the slaughter of three thousand innocent Americans on 9-11.  They share the same goal: the murder and ultimate destruction of Israelis and its supporters, namely Americans.  They want us dead.  Not just our political leaders.  Not just our military… EVERYONE.  I for one, remember who were dancing in the streets of Palestines on that day in 2001:

 

Palestinians celebrating the death of innocent Americans.  The same Palestinians who are now screaming about Israeli aggression.  There is nothing morally complicated here.  Israel’s enemy tonight, is our enemy too.  Islamist extremism is our enemy and has been for at least seven years.  It’s not complicated to understand that Hamas needs to be destroyed.

(UPDATE)

Israel Invades Gaza…via Hot Air

Another One Bites The Dust In Gaza

(UPDATE II)

While Gaza burns, Obama is still silent.  Breitbart agrees (via Instapundit)

Obama’s Vaunted Vetting Team Goes Bust

Bill Richardson was forced to withdraw from consideration for Commerce Secretary today amidst allegations of corruption.  Is anyone else wondering how the media will react to the Obama campaign’s vetting process?   

Cast your mind back about four months ago.  Obama adherents in the mainstream media were falling all over themselves pointing out how allegedly poor John McCain’s vetting process was in choosing Sarah Palin as the VP nominee.  The concern they said, was that Governor Palin’s daughter Bristol was (gasp!) pregnant while not being married.  Typical hypocrisy from the left. 

The bloggers got all excited too, always seizing on an opportunity to highlight their idiocy.  Idiots.  One particular  Daily Kos post went through ridiculous lengths to highlight the supposedly superior Obama vetting process and even pointed out the ”rigorous” vetting of Bill Richardson as a potential VP candidate:

Gov. Richardson tells of how Barack Obama called him several times out of concern about how he was holding up during the process. It might be safe to surmise that he also called the other potential candidates on his list. 

Kudos to the vaunted Obama vetting team!  Apparently Bill Richardson was too corrupt to be vice-president, but that doesn’t necessarily preclude him for getting a cabinet job.

Meanwhile, that thumping sound you hear? That’s the sound of Richardson under the wheels of the Hope ‘n’ Change express:

Sources tell ABC News that officials on the Obama Transition Team feel that before he was formally offered the job of commerce secretary, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson was not forthcoming with them about the federal investigation that is looking into whether the governor steered a state contract towards a major financial contributor.

I guess it would be asking too much of the transparent hope ‘n’ change bunch to acknowledge that they screwed up here, as anyone who was casually following this story since it broke last month knew that there were some issues.  That it took this long for Richardson to withdraw himself from consideration only shows that it wasn’t that much of a problem for the Obama team and they have no problems putting all of the blame on Richardson for not being “forthcoming”.  What a classy bunch.

More from Riehl World View and Ed Morrissey

Reaching A Bottom?

In order for our economy to begin recovering, it first has to reach a stable bottom before any upswing.  Larry Kudlow highlights (via Memeorandum) some favorable economic stats released this week indicating that we might be at least near a bottom of some sort.  The numbers are mixed but well worth noting.  Personally, I don’t think a bottom is as clear and acute as Kudlow seems to believe, but he would know more than I would anyway.  Of course, there’s still a lot of pessimism out there, and our liberal friends would like to keep it that way.  As always, their entire sense of self and identity as a movement depends on the public’s feeling of crisis and emergency. 

Hence, President-elect Obama and Congressional Democrats begin this new Keynesian-on-steroids era with calls for drastic change, lest the economic situation gets worse.  Action must be taken as soon as possible…our nation depends on it.  Typical fare from the Left.  And what is this new direction? This hope and change for a bigger and better economic future?  About $750 billion in more government spending.  Yeah, that’ll get the job done. 

And remeber the last time our government said something needed to be done about a particular “crisis” and quickly?    That didn’t work out so well, did it?

***

Another sign that we may be approaching a bottom in the economic cycle? A proliferation in rich-people-gone-broke suicides.  On the heels of the Bernie Maddoff scandal last month, one of his hedge-fund clients committed suicide two days before Christmas after having lost his clients’ money and his own personal fortune to boot.  Earlier today, Adolph Merckle a German billionaire and one of the wealthiest people in the world, threw himself in front of an oncoming train after the financial crisis negatively impacted his family’s business empire.

Morbid? Yes.  But markets are based in great part on psychology and you have to watch for the excesses, the extremes.  It doesn’t get more extreme than death.

(UPDATE)

Going beyond simple scare tactics, House speaker Nancy Pelosi wants you to just stop talking about the cost of the new stimulus.

(UPDATE)

Megan McArdle, citing John Kenneth Galbraith’s The Great Crash of 1929, makes an interesting point regarding the suicide of Adolf Merckle:

I wonder if what Galbraith saw in the unusually low suicide statistics for 1929 was the confounding effect of crisis. Suicide tends to fall during crises–they take peoples’ minds off themselves. So perhaps everyone outside of Wall Street was too busy watching the stock market collapse to think about the mess of their own lives–but suicide rates leapt for those on center stage. Certainly, there have been quite a few highly publicized suicides so far that can be directly attributed to the declining markets, and sadly, I doubt we’ve seen the last.

Let’s hope we’ve indeed, seen the last.

Obama Needs Bipartisanship To Justify Stimulus Failure

As President-elect Obama begins to campaign anew, this time for a gluttonous Keynesian spending package–you’re kidding yourself if you refer to it as “stimulus”–the mainstream media is charmed as Obama reaches across the aisle and engages Republicans in the process.  Indeed, Obama has lofty goals for Congressional support of the spending package:

 The Obama team’s goal, according to congressional advisers in both parties, is consensus legislation that could win as many as 80 votes in the Senate, 20 votes more than the number needed to break a filibuster.

First reaction: is he insane?  Second reaction:  Obama knows as well as I do, that the GOP has not exactly learned their lessons from the electoral drubbings they’ve received in the last two election cycles.  They’re willing accomplices. 

Obama knows the deal.  And with progressive liberals in Congress voicing concernsand outright criticizing the alleged “tax cuts” of the package, it appears Obama could need every vote he can get.  He’s a politician first and foremost, and he knows that the results of the 2010 mid-term elections could depend almost entirely on how big of a failure successful the spending package is in reviving the economy.  Democrats realize this.  In ten days, when Obama takes the oath of office at twelve noon, the clock starts ticking on them and the economy will be theirs to destroy.  The bottom line is, he needs insurance.  Because although the Democrats control both the executive and legislative branches, theirs is a frail coalition.  And once the spending plan fails, they will need to say the Republicans were there all along.

Government By Gallup

For the most part, I disagree with the tenets of liberal/progressive politics.  Theirs is a flawed ideology based on failed economic and social principles and is depends on pandering to special interests, and generally disenfranchises most Americans for the sake of a few.  That being said, there are what I would consider sensible liberals out there; liberal writers and blogs that I look forward to reading, those that are realistic and don’t let their political beliefs stand in the way of reality in reporting and commentary.  They may be on the wrong side of the political argument, but they are respectable.

But those are a rare breed.  A lot, if not most of the leftist blogosphere is rooted in idiocy and sycophantic behavior, especially when Barack Obama is the center of their idolatry.  One of the more worrisome aspect of this is their use of polling data to justify the political battle du jour.  I understand that like death and taxes in everyday life, polling is a necessary evil in political discourse and observation, especially during an election season.  But I generally disagree with polling being used as the main tool for developing domestic and foreign policy in a presidential administration, or to justify what a president plans to do with his administration.  This shows a lack of principle, a lack of fortitude, and as we witnessed during the Clinton Administration, can be very dangerous. 

With Obama’s recent trouble in garnering support for his gargantuan stimulus plan, the nutroots on the left are pointing to polling data to justify the mess the Democrats are about to impose on our economy.  The ludicrous notion that the we will love having to pay for billions of dollars in “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects, which of course will create millions and millions of jobs (because Americans flock to ditch-digging jobs), is supported 78% of all Americans they say.  Therefore, it MUST be the right thing to do (according to Gallup, of course):

The lesson here is simple: it’s not only good economics to fund every single “shovel-ready” (or nearly ready) reinvestment project in America through this stimulus plan, it is also great politics.

Idiocy is not even a strong enough word to describe this nonsense.  This is the innovative change and transparency in government that Obama is bringing to our nation?  Bill Clinton redux with government by Gallup? 

Since the left is so fond of quoting polling data, here’s a few policy changes they better get working on.  They should stop insisting on gun-control, because here’s a poll (from Gallup) that says 73% of Americans agree with the constitutional right to bear arms.  And can they stop complaining about the health care system in this country and trying to shove national health care down our throats?  Because here’ s a poll that says 69% of Americans love their health insurance,  would definitely keep their current insurance plans and, are very reluctant to change them. 

The 52.7% of Americans that voted for Obama and who are not a part of the lefty nutroots, are in for a rude awakening over the next four years.   

 

Axelrod Playing Key Role In Stimulus Push

No surprise to me, but it turns out the Obama presidency, the Hope ’N Change Express, is no more than one big propaganda machine, with David Axelrod playing the role of Joseph Goebbels:

David Axelrod, Obama’schief political adviser, along with campaign media adviser Jim Margolis, are encouraging lawmakers to use the word “recovery” instead of recession and “investment” instead of “infrastructure.” Those recommendations came from focus-group research indicating that such framing would make the package more appealing to voters.

And he’s encouraging Democrats on the Hill to join the party:

Axelrod briefed House Democrats on how to communicate to the public the importance of passing an economic recovery package that will by itself balloon the already-record deficit, according to aides in attendance.

The message coming out of the Obama team, those in the room said, was that most people understand that it will take time – likely many years – for the economy to get better and that the country in the short-term needs even more deficit spending for job creation and long-term economic growth.  Axelrod told Democrats that their objective is to communicate to the public that the money is going to the right things to accomplish those goals.

Wait a minute!  Didn’t 52.7% of the American electorate vote for hope and change this past November?  Weren’t they expecting a change in direction from the fiscal mismanagement of the Bush years, anyway? Spending on “infrastructure” and creating millions and millions of “green” jobs–wasn’t that part of the package?  Why is the rebranding necessary?

Political reality sets in as Obama’s team nears January 20th for the President-elect and Congressional Democrats, when campaign fear mongering and finger-pointing becomes ineffective, and actual responsibilities are handed over.  The fact that Obama and Axelrod feel the need to emphasize semanticsover substance, is insulting not only to Obama voters, but to our nation as a whole.  Say what you want about President Bush, the man has principles and he stuck to them, whether I liked them or not, he rarely wavered, for better or for worse. 

What the Axelrod-Obama gerrymandering also shows is that they themselves have no confidence in their ability to successfully confront the tasks that lie ahead.  To paraphrase Sarah Palin–actual responsibilities require leadership, not voting present and passing the buck, as senators (especially Barack Obama) are accustomed to doing.

Chrysler Asking For Additional Bailout Money

They’re asking for more bailout money, on top of the TARP money they received last month, and their financing arm is in talks with the Treasury for a cash infusion also.  The reason? The pesky consumer, already saddled with ridiculous amounts of debt and saving virtually no money, doesn’t qualify for any more debt, to buy cars that allegedly, nobody wants to buy:

Consumers have largely stopped shopping for cars and trucks as credit markets tightened and many could no longer qualify for loans.

Chrysler said last month that 20 percent to 25 percent of its customers couldn’t get credit to buy new vehicles, which was one reason the automaker’s sales plunged 53 percent in December, the highest of any automaker.

The Bush administration is working to complete action on financing help for Chrysler Financial LLC before it leaves office on Jan. 20. A government official involved in the talks said it would be less than the $6 billion package GMAC LLC received.

“We’re very hopeful that (with) continued support from the Treasury and access to the TARP funds for Chrysler Financial that we’ll be able to provide additional retail support,” Nardelli said. “Our hope is we would get that resolved within a week or so.”

Chrysler Financial’s request is separate from Chrysler’s request for $3 billion, Chrysler spokeswoman Shawn Morgan said.

Nardelli declined to say how much Chrysler Financial was seeking but said he hoped “it would provide the kind of support for us in a similar fashion that GMAC was able to provide to GM.”

After receiving its TARP money, GMAC announced new financing deals for customers and dropped its credit requirement for loans from a score of 700 to 621.

GM’s financing arm, GMAC received a New Year’s Eve infusion which allowed the company to lower its lending standards which effectively allowed even more deadbeats to take on even more debt, so that GM could sell more cars.

 So let’s get this straight.  The American people are in financial trouble, we’re told.  We don’t have money to pay for health-care, our homes are in foreclosure, we’re at risk of losing our jobs, etc.  Meanwhile, the federal government, already in massive debt, has decided to use taxpayer money (or print more money) to provide equity and/or loan that money to entities which are on the verge of bankruptcy, so they can sell more cars/make more loans, to Americans who already are on the verge of bankruptcy themselves. 

This is the problem with government and those who support government intervention and solutions to economic problems.  Government is inefficient and inept.  Using other people’s money to support bureaucracies which are intended to help its citizens always welcomes waste and excess.  In addition, once the government till is opened, once government sets the precedent that money is available to all who “need it”, and the government provides the means by which to get it, it’s only a matter of time before the dam breaks.  This is what we’re seeing here.  Other industries will line up for a handout, and as we’re seeing, the same industries will come back for more, and the spigot will get harder and harder to shut off.  If we want an end to our economic and financial problems, certain attitudes and behaviors have to change and bailout nation must end.  What we’re seeing with the auto-industry is just more of the same.

(UPDATE)

This Little Piggie Wants More

Hatch Undermines Specter’s Stance Against Holder Nomination

As the confirmation hearings for Eric Holder as AG approach this week, I thought the GOP caucus in the Senate made a decent move by letting Arlen Specter be the attack dog.  The moderate, pro-choice Specter, really can’t be painted as a conservative hack, when the inevitable politicking over this appointment is paraded before the press at Thursday’s hearing.  When Judiciary Committee chairman Pat Leahy announced that Holder’s nomination was more than likely in the bag,  Specter protested and asserted that the hearings wouldn’t go that smoothly, and Mr. Holder’s dubious character issues (the Marc Rich pardon, ignoring Al Gore’s fund-raising issues in 2000, etc.) would have to be an issue. 

Specter’s objections were somewhat successful, as the Democrats backpedaled and the hearings were delayed.  This was a minor victory for the GOP; Eric Holder is hardly a standard-bearer of blind justice.  His close association to Obama and ties to Blago (which is one of Specter’s concerns), are of concern but more importantly, have  significant impacts on judicial appointments in an Obama administration, which to no surprise, will fall to the liberal side of the ledger.

So much for that.  It looks like Orrin Hatch loves Eric Holder, so let’s just sabotage any efforts Specter made previously to stop this nomination.  Apparently, Republicans are intent on shooting themselves in the foot…yet again, and refuse to be unified against anything.  Seriously, the GOP better get used to being in the minority, because that’s where they’ll be staying for a long time with episodes like this.

Sanford Accused of Racism

With Democrats controlling both the White House and Congress, the whiff of hope and change is in the air.  But it’s becoming apparent that there’s not much change going around.  In fact it’s the same old liberal Democrats; race-baiting, class warfare-waging Democrats:

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) accused House Democratic Whip James Clyburn (S.C.) of playing the race card instead of explaining increased spending he wants as part of a proposed stimulus package.

In an interview with The Hill, Sanford said Clyburn, the highest-ranking black lawmaker in the House, injected racial politics into their disagreement over what constitutes an earmark by raising questions about Sanford’s wealth and the plantation his family runs.

“He can’t come up with a solid argument” in favor of the earmarks, Sanford said.

President-elect Obama has said he wants a stimulus that is free of earmarks.

Clyburn, in comments made to Roll Call, called for allowing federal money included in the stimulus to be sent back home to lawmakers’ districts. Sanford and others say that’s an end-around that would allow earmarks in the legislation without calling them such.

The money would bypass governors’ offices and instead go straight to communities. Clyburn disagrees with Sanford, who opposes accepting that federal money.

Sanford has said he does not want additional federal funding despite the Palmetto State’s high unemployment rate and poor budget situation. This year, Sanford’s $5.8 billion proposed budget is about $1 billion less than the fiscal 2008 budget.

“[H]e happens to be a millionaire,” Clyburn said of Sanford. “He may not need help for the plantation his family owns, but the people whose grandparents and great-grandparents worked those plantations need the help” in the form of federal money.

Mark Sanford is one of the few Republicans left in the country who is not only preaching fiscal conservatism, but actually acting on it when it comes to his state’s budget.  In a time when Presdient-elect Obama is calling for everyone to sacrifice, you would think that the type of fiscal restraint proposed by Sanford would be welcome news.  That would be true, if only the Democrats were serious about the “change” they merely talk about.  They just stick to the old liberal playbook: when your opponents criticize you, when serious questions are asked about your legislative proposals, just play the race card or wage class warfare.  If you’re James Clyburn apparently, it doesn’t hurt to do both.  But this shouldn’t come as any surprise.  The Democrats never stopped.  They did it during the campaign.  It happened more recently, during the Roland Burris debacle.

This comes as no surprise.  And this story is a microcosm of what’s to come in the fight for the stimulus package.  Expect any Republican to question the size, scope or intent of any part of the legislation to be branded as racist or unpatriotic.  This is what Democrats have always been about, scare tactics and hate mongering.  Nothing has changed.

(UPDATE)

Stepping Right Up has a list of GOP governors who have their hands out for stimulus pork;  Sanford is not on the list.

(UPDATE II)

Michelle Malkin picks up on the story on our post from yesterday…

The TARP Must Be Stopped

The sting of Republican-backed bailouts and their support for unprecedented expansion of government in our lives will take a while to soothe.  But it’s somewhat comforting to know that there are, amazingly enough, some Republicans still out there who understand the consequences of government folly.

Yesterday, the House began debate on the TARP Reform and Accountability Act of 2009 (H.R. 384), which is Barney Frank’s answer to the failures of the original TARP financial bailout which passed in October.  The bill proposes changes to the mechanics of the original TARP, and would be implemented if the second tranche of the program is approved.  Congressman Ed Royce of (R-CA) had this to say about certain provisions of the bill on the House floor (emphasis added):

I guess part of my concern here is philosophical, but I think that ideas have consequences, and bad ideas have bad consequences in policy. And specifically what I worry about here are two challenges that the U.S. faces; one is a budget deficit right now which, when we look forward, it’s going to be about 7 percent of GDP. And with the Fed’s balance sheet continuing to expand, I think it’s now at about $2 trillion.

With the promise of another stimulus package coming, which will be somewhere between $800 billion and $1 trillion, we are becoming increasingly dependent upon our rescuers. Now, in this case our rescuers are the American taxpayers and U.S. debt purchasers, most of them overseas. Why worry about this? Well, I think one of the reasons we have to be concerned is that eventually bond investors might begin to reconsider purchasing that U.S. debt, they might begin to second guess that. And that consequence would really be catastrophic. Avoiding such a scenario would require us, then, to take a step back from where we are and require us to begin to eliminate unnecessary spending and not go forward with compounding the problem with the deficits.

But beyond the impact of the budget, there is a second concern that I have, and that’s the ill effect of this bailout trend in terms of the rapidly increasing role that government is playing inside financial firms, that it’s playing in the board rooms. And I will just cite this December 17 article in the Wall Street Journal entitled, “U.S. Ratchets Up City Oversight.” And in that story they describe the active role that regulators are playing in the day-to-day operations of the financial institution.

Earlier this week, headlines focused on an effort by U.S. banking regulators to encourage Citigroup to shake up its board and to replace its chairman, Win Bischoff. And they said this would be an effort to restore confidence in the beleaguered financial giant. But then as the argument is put forward, one of the leading candidates is Richard Parsons, who is Time Warner’s chairman, and he is a member of Citigroup’s board, but he also happens to be a member of President-elect Barack Obama’s transition economic advisory board.

Additionally, it should come as no surprise, I think, that earlier this week Citigroup announced it would support legislative efforts to allow bankruptcy judges now to rewrite mortgage contracts. Now, that’s a provision that would restrict the flow of capital into the mortgage market, it would increase the cost certainly going forward of obtaining a mortgage for anybody. And traditionally the financial press has called this a “cram down” provision that’s been adamantly opposed by the financial institution. Now we have $45 billion of taxpayers’ cash, we have a $249 billion taxpayer guarantee for bad assets on the balance sheets of the institution. And the institution, which now has seen this bureaucratic control within the firm reverse itself on a position, and I begin to wonder if political pull is going to replace market forces, if government bullying is going to determine the actions that firms are going to take. And this is my second concern. Because, to me, a major reason we’re in dire financial straits is the market distortions caused by bureaucratic and regulatory manipulation of the quasi public entities. We’ve had 16 hearings where we’ve heard the Federal Reserve Board, we’ve heard the Treasury warn over the last few years about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And these institutions took on that excessive risk. It was Congress that encouraged it and prevented the regulation that the Treasury wanted in order to prevent it.

By the way, Congressman Royce voted against the TARP bailout plan as well as last month’s measure to access TARP funds to assist the auto industry.

Contrary to the implication in the bill’s title, there is neither “reform” nor is there any “accountability” in this bill.  What the bill calls for is the expansion of the government bailouts and intervention into other troubled industries, including the auto industry (which effectively approves President Bush’s use of the original TARP money to bailout the auto industry) a focus of the amended TARP.   Not to mention that the bill provides for the program’s use in student loans, consumer loans, etc.  The full text of the bill is here (PDF). 

As conservatives, its important that we take heed of what Congressman Royce is saying.  Besides the disastrous effects on the federal budget, the bailouts open the door to massive government expansion through “oversight”, which includes more ownership of private companies, more bureaucracy and, inevitably, more waste and a greater burden on the taxpayer and private enterprise.  But more importantly, once these measures are implemented, they will take years or be nearly impossible to reverse.  Government is good at expansion–but it almost never contracts.  The TARP did not work and common sense says to do away with the program altogether. 

And, as Royce points out, political cronyism will inevitably come into play.  Lets not forget, it was through “oversight” and political stewardship that  Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac imploded.  Encouraged by policies instituted by the likes of Frank and Chris Dodd (among others),  the firms were able to relax credit standards and book more loans (through lower capital requirements), leveraging their balance sheets to the edge of disaster and, eventually, into the abyss.  And now they’re demanding access to the remaining portion of the TARP to try all over again.

If Republicans have learned anything from the electoral misery of the past decade, it should be that they need to differentiate themselves from liberal Democrats.  Increased government spending, expanding the reach of government, has not and will not accomplish that.  As Royce says, “bad ideas have bad consequences in policy”, and Republicans apparently haven’t learned this lesson yet.  Voting against HR 384 and voting against the use of the second tranche of TARP money would be a step in the right direction.

(UPDATE)

Bailout Fallout: The Senate votes down a resolution (42-52) to stop the release of the second half of the TARP.  See the roll call on the vote here.   Why do we even bother…

(UPDATE)

Middle of the night bailout of Bank of America

GOP Reaps What They’ve Sown

Witness the consequences of a lame-duck Senator, an unprincipled party:

Attorney general nominee Eric H. Holder Jr. today won support from another Republican lawmaker, all but ensuring his candidacy will proceed smoothly and not fall victim to a GOP filibuster.

Holder, a former judge and U.S. attorney in the District, met this morning with Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) and picked up his endorsement only a day after Holder outlasted a grueling confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee.

“Eric Holder understands the unique role of the Attorney General and further, I think he’s qualified to serve in that role,” Martinez said in a written statement. “Therefore, I intend to support Mr. Holder’s confirmation and urge my colleagues to do the same.”

Unfortunately, the long road to recovery for the GOP will be more arduous and more frustrating than I even imagined.  As conservatives, we should get used to this.  We’re in for at least four years of this nonsense.

Consider Mel Martinez a Barack Obama Republican

(UPDATE)

Speaking of a political party without principles, the party that is currently known as the Republican party, RS McCain issues a word of warning:

If Republicans cannot unite on the principle of limited government, they will be divided and conquered by the united advocates of unlimited government. If you are unwilling to lose an election by standing firmly on principle, you might win a few elections in the short run, but eventually you will be defeated by your unprincipled betrayals.

It never should have come down to this state of atrophy for Republicans.  Limited, not expanded government is in tune with conservative ideals, and as McCain notes in his excellent post, Republicans better heed this advice if they are even remotely interested in being victorious at the ballot box again, and in doing so, win back the trust of the American people.  Read his whole post here.

An Underwhelming Inaugural Speech…A Wake-up Call For Republicans

I wish all the best to President Obama personally, to the First Lady and to the Obama children.  I wish them well.  But as for President’s Obama’s policies, his plans for governing this country–I pray that they fail miserably. 

Make no mistake about it, and you didn’t need some pedestrian Inaugural speech to deduce as much, Obama plans to expand the Federal government to stifling levels.  The Federal government will extend its reach to the point that will put the past eight years of incremental statism to shame.  And make no mistake, this is not Obama’s fault, it is the fault of weak-kneed and rudderless Republicans and their reckless attitude towards spending and the expansion of government.  Even now, after a debilitating election, they still can’t muster up the courage to stand for what’s right.  No guts. 

After the election, I had to listen to Reagan’s “A Time For Choosing” speech from 1964.  Tonight, even more so than on November 4th, it deserves to be listened to again:

 

Read the transcript here.  The money quotes:

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the “Great Society,” or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they’ve been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, “The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism.” Another voice says, “The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state.” Or, “Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century.” Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as “our moral teacher and our leader,” and he says he is “hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document.” He must “be freed,” so that he “can do for us” what he knows “is best.” And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as “meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government.”

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as “the masses.” This is a term we haven’t applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, “the full power of centralized government”-this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don’t control things. A government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

[...]

We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they’re going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer-and they’ve had almost 30 years of it-shouldn’t we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn’t they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

[...]

Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we’re denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we’re always “against” things-we’re never “for” anything.

[...]

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So governments’ programs, once launched, never disappear.

Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.

RS  McCain agrees.  Obama’s much anticipated Inaugural speech fell flat.  Read his whole piece here.

Mitch McConnell Mails It In For Senate Republicans

What’s that sucking sound you hear?  It’s the air seeping out of what’s left of the GOP balloon:

The U.S. Congress’s most powerful Republican on Friday backed President Barack Obama’s call to set aside political differences and cooperate on efforts to revitalize the economy and resolve other issues.
…
“People want their leaders to work together to solve problems, not to set traps,” McConnell said in a speech to the National Press Club. “The challenge now is for both parties to cooperate, not just in word but in deed.”
…
McConnell said Obama may have what it takes. “Most people think that ideas should be assessed on their merits, not on the senator or the president who proposes them. Our new president seems to think the same thing,” McConnell said.

 Meanwhile, Obama is showing Republicans who’s in charge in Washington:

President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning – but he also left no doubt about who’s in charge of these negotiations. “I won,” Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

Don’t look now, but it looks like Obama has the Republicans in a box.  Leading up to the inauguration, the Obama transition deceptively built the facade of unity (dinner with conservative columnists) in Washington between the political parties.  And the liberal surrogates in the media played along, developing the bi-partisanship narrative that winds its way in the background of the debate over the stimulus and the TARP.  Now, any objection on the part of the GOP will be seen as obstruction.  The President and the Democrats will forge ahead with their massive government expansion and the Republicans will have to play along.  Any objection by Republicans will be seen as obstruction.  Any question as to the size of welfare checks tax cuts in the stimulus package or to the size of the package itself, will be seen as partisan.  With regards to the stimulus, the Democrats will need to make the effort seem bipartisan, as they don’t want to be the only ones on the boat when it starts to sink–even if they have to lie about it.

Maybe its just me, but its pretty obvious that Obama is playing the congressional Republicans like a fiddle.  And of course, the sheep in the Republican party don’t even realize it.  They’ve been getting ready to cave for weeks now.  Its been stated over and over again, how the Republicans are scared of confrontation, scared of being called racist, obstructionist, the party of no, etc.  Apparently it’s true.  How else do you explain the above message from Mitch McConnell?  In the wake of a disastrous election, after the GOP nominated the most moderate maverick as a presidential candidate, who’s strong point was to be able to reach across party lines and was at odds with the “conservative” President Bush; after the drubbing that establishment Republicans took in the 2008 election?  THIS is their response? More moderation? More backtracking?  A trillion dollar stimulus?  Sure, Mr. President, we’ll work with you on that!  Expanded, “efficient” government to work for the people? Sure, Mr. President.  Millions of dollars on contraceptives? Sure thing…

This is no longer merely about winning elections.  It’s about conservative principles and finding political leaders to carry them out, because the current batch of Republicans are not discernable from most Blue Dog Democrats.  Establishment Republicans have been crashing and burning in slow motion for the better part of a decade now.  I used to be one of those conservatives who believed that the GOP needed to “rebuild” on its way to some sort of victory in 2010.  It’s not even close.  It appears that GOP rot is worse than I thought, and the party is still getting rid of the excess waste of hubris, lethargy and a lackadaisical attitude towards anything even resembling a firm stance on anything.

For the silver lining on this gray cloud, Jules Crittenden notes that President Bush was just as brazen over his electoral victories, and still managed to blow his party’s majorities in Congress.  Crittenden makes a good point.  Obama could actually blow it by the midterm elections–I know he’s arrogant enough.  And I still have the suspicion that he and the Democrats will be branded with this gargantuan stimulus package (and TARP II) once it fails…and it will fail. 

Allahpundit thinks that the Republicans won’t play wet rag on Obama’s honeymoon–enjoying enormous favorable ratings in the polls and all the momentum in the world.  Politically speaking, a good move for Republicans perhaps.  But this approach doesn’t sit well with me right now.  There’s too much at stake here.

 (UPDATE)  Behold, the Party of Supplication

(UPDATE II)  No surprise here.  McConnell is proposing more Big Government to fix a Big Government debacle.  Like I’ve been saying, there’s no real leadership here with these DC Establishment Republicans.  There’s nothing about this plan that differentiates the GOP from liberal Democrats–get used to being in the minority.

Dumbing Down, Pt. 2

Today’s Wall Street Journal, reviewed the book Script and Scribble by Kitty Burns Florey.  This paragraph stuck out:

Typing and texting have caused cursive skills to atrophy, and schools regard standards of style and legibility the same way they regard standards of dress. There may even come a day when longhand writing can no longer be deciphered by ordinary people — you’ll have to bring those old letters in the attic to some fussy museum curator. In 2006 only 15% of students taking the SAT wrote out their essays in cursive script; all the rest — no doubt to the relief of the examiners — used block letters.

Last month, I commented on RS McCain’s insightful post about the decline of print media–specifically, books and magazines.  The problem being, that younger generations don’t consider reading as part of their routines anymore, to the point where the ability and function of reading are deteriorating in society.  Florey’s new book highlights the decline in writing skills. 

I don’t know why, but this book review irked me a bit.  Not only do we have a generation of kids who aren’t reading, they’re not writing as well.  Take texting for example.  Texting has turned into a language of its own, and in my opinion, its reflective of a culture that caters to attention spans that contract with each passing generation.  As children grow older into a society where 7 year olds have cell phones, not to talk on the phones, but specifically to text, their minds morph into robotic blobs.  For adults it’s different, we grew up reading, writing and speaking normally–texting was learned as an ancillary form of communication, a requisite part of 2009 society.  To me, all of this equates to the continued dumbing down of society.  Bad news.

Testing GOP “Leadership”

The end result is leaving principles behind and in the long term, creating new and prolonging old problems that will only get harder to resolve as a result of your abandoning those principles.
Via Politico, it looks like the House GOP is circling the wagons on the stimulus package:

House Republican Leader John A. Boehner and his No. 2, Whip Eric Cantor, told their rank-and-file members Tuesday morning during a closed-door meeting to oppose the bill when it comes to the floor Wednesday, according to an aide familiar with the discussion. Boehner told members that he’s voting against the stimulus, and Cantor told the assembled Republicans that there wasn’t any reason for them to support the measure, according to another person in the room. Cantor and his whip team are going to urge GOP members to oppose it.

In a nod to the president, Boehner did point out that this is the third time that Obama has met with Republican leaders, compared with the zero meetings they’ve held with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) – a now-familiar refrain from Republicans in the House. But Obama’s diplomacy clearly isn’t buying any votes yet.

And Mitch McConnell was on the Today show this morning to sow the seeds of dissent on the Democrat side. 

I’m not buying any of this.  It was John Boehner not too long ago who urged conservative Republicans to toss their “ideological purity” aside and vote for the $700 billion TARP disaster–with all of its reckless spending, government expansion and misplaced priorities.  That was about 6 weeks before a national election and when it seemed that the earth was going to explode.  Now, safely in the opposition, Boehner is lambasting the stimulus as wasteful spending–we could have used that rhetoric and principled stance over the last 8 years.   Nevertheless, I give Boehner points for essentially isolating House Speaker Nancy Pelosi from the fracas right now–her disgraceful attempt to cram billions of abortion funding ”family planning” initiatives into the bailout was quickly thrown under Obama’s bus–funding for contraception was removed from the bill. 

McConnell still gets me worried.  Last week he made it known that he will be playing nice with the Obama administration on the stimulus pork package and according to his Today show appearance, he’s pointing fingers at the Democrats in the Senate for slowing up the legislation.  So great–the GOP leader in the Senate is accusing the Democrats of dragging their feet and nitpicking at more spending.  All this despite new evidence that the stimulus package will be to slow to stimulate.

Is it too much to ask for all of the GOP members in the House to vote “No” on this bill?  A bill will pass no matter what, it doesn’t need conservative support.

(UPDATE)

I spoke too soon.  House GOP members are taken in by our new charismatic leader.  As I noted in the original post, it IS too much to ask for these Republicans to get a backbone.  Grab your ankles, it’s time to bend-over like good Republican stooges…

(UPDATE II)

I agree with Ed over at Hot Air–the GOP needs to make a stand here and oppose this nonsense; otherwise, kiss any gains for 2010 good-bye.  To be fair, I dont think they have a shot for gains in 2010 regardless.

(UPDATE III)

Sister Toldjah sums up the GOP leadership and the risks of falling for the Obama charm:

The end result is leaving principles behind and in the long term, creating new and prolonging old problems that will only get harder to resolve as a result of your abandoning those principles.

Read the entire post here.

Hope And Change Are REALLY Coming To America

…in 2012 apparently.  Sarah Palin has launched SarahPAC.  Via Allahpundit.

A Fiscal Pinata

The FT sums up the stimulus plan boondoggle:

The most obvious problem with the stimulus package is that it has been turned into a fiscal piñata – with a mad scramble for candy on the floor. We seem all too eager to rectify a generation of a nation saving too little by saving even less – this time through expanding government borrowing. First it was former US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan’s bubble, then Wall Street’s, and now – in the third act – it will be Washington’s.

 The Senate Conservative Fund’s website has posted the final draft (PDF) of the stimulus here.   Malkin notes that the House version of the bill tops $1 trillion.

More Stimulus Musings

From today’s Wall Street Journal:

The larger fiscal issue here is whether this spending bonanza will become part of the annual “budget baseline” that Congress uses as the new floor when calculating how much to increase spending the following year, and into the future. Democrats insist that it will not. But it’s hard — no, impossible — to believe that Congress will cut spending next year on any of these programs from their new, higher levels. The likelihood is that this allegedly emergency spending will become a permanent addition to federal outlays — increasing pressure for tax increases in the bargain. Any Blue Dog Democrat who votes for this ought to turn in his “deficit hawk” credentials.

 Its hard to fathom the ramifications of that excerpt.  The problem with the legislation is that the bulk of the spending is on outlays that are normally allocated in annual appropriations–the annual budget.  The bill is not stimulative at all, but merely an extension of liberal statism that would have not otherwise passed in regular budget appropriation bills.  The WSJ article notes that approximately $90 billion of the total package can be considered “stimulative”, or 11% of the total, which further makes the point.  Make no mistake, the bill is a massive government expansion package, and to paraphrase the WSJ, does anyone really believe that Democrats will be pro-active in contracting their exploits two, four or six years down the road?  As Ed Morrissey notes, Democrats should be embarrassed at exploiting fear by cramming a larded up boondoggle spending package down our throats–don’t hold your breath. 

Democrats will vote for this bill and they have the votes to pass it without Republican support, so there’s no sense in calling your representative if they happen to be Democrats (Blue Dogs are the exception, perhaps).  For Republicans–its time to melt the phones.

Geez, people! Limbaugh is not a god! (UPDATE)

Last week, President Obama singled out Rush Limbaugh as the lightning rod for voter angst on the stimulus bill debate.  Congressional Republicans, the president said, needed to ignore Limbaugh if they wanted to get things done in Obama’sadministration.  Limbaugh quickly, and correctly, pointed out that a) Republicans have really not been listening to the ideals of fiscal conservatism that the talk show host believes in anyway, and b) Obama, the community organizing agitator that he inherently is, took a page from Saul Alinsky’s book (almost literally), that one needs to marginalize your opponent:  Pick the target, me, isolate it, polarize it. 

I agree with Limbaugh’s take on this.  Obama needs an enemy–during the campaign, it was George Bush and/or John McCain–now, it’s Limbaugh.  I understand Obama’s motivations, because that’s exactly what it was, but quite frankly, it’s extremely petty for the President of the USA to demonize a radio talk show host. 

But now, this story has taken a strange turn.  Yesterday, Congressman Phil Gingrey had issues with Limbaugh’s assertion that Obama fears him more than the GOP congressional leadership (which is not entirely surprising for what its worth):

“I think that our leadership, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, are taking the right approach,” Gingrey said. “I mean, it’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don’t have to try to do what’s best for your people and your party. You know you’re just on these talk shows and you’re living well and plus you stir up a bit of controversy and gin the base and that sort of that thing. But when it comes to true leadership, not that these people couldn’t be or wouldn’t be good leaders, they’re not in that position of John Boehner or Mitch McConnell

OK.  Fair enough.  I don’t particulary agree with Gingrey’s statement, but he can say whatever the hell he wants.  Today (via Hot Air), I’m reading this:

Because of the high volume of phone calls and correspondence received by my office since the Politico article ran, I wanted to take a moment to speak directly to grassroots conservatives. Let me assure you, I am one of you. I believe I was sent to Washington to fight for and defend our traditional values of smaller government, lower taxes, a strong national defense, and the lives of the unborn. In my six years in Washington, I have led the charge on many of these issues. In fact, in 2008 The National Journal ranked me the #1 most conservative Member of the House of Representatives.

As long as I am in the Congress, I will continue to fight for and defend our sacred values. I have actively opposed every bailout, every rebate check, every so called “stimulus.” And on so many of these things, I see eye-to-eye with Rush Limbaugh. Regardless of what yesterday’s headline may have read, I never told Rush to back off. I regret and apologize for the fact that my comments have offended and upset my fellow conservatives-that was not my intent. I am also sorry to see that my comments in defense of our Republican Leadership read much harsher than they actually were intended, but I recognize it is my responsibility to clarify my own comments.

Congressman Gingrey–he’s A TALK SHOW HOST!!   This is pathetic.  Look, Rush Limbaugh is a true conservative, no doubt about it–and if the GOP had actually listened to what Limbaugh and other conservatives have been saying the past eight years, Republicans wouldn’t be in the position they are in right now.  That being said, he is not a god–yes, you ARE allowed to disagree with him.  Doesn’t make you any more or less of a conservative, and it certainly is no reason for you to genuflect and kiss his ring run back with your tail between your legs and apologize, just because you received angry phone calls from some ditto-heads.  Your weak posturing is just as petty and ludicrous as the President singling him out in the first place.

If Republicans can’t muster up the strength to speak against a talk show host, what chance do they have against Democrats and the President??

(UPDATE)

No surprise here.  Of course most of the mainstream media outlets and the nutroots in the blogosphere are picking up on this Limbaugh-is-evil-GOP-grand-poobah narrative and running with it–demagoguery at its liberal finest.  Via Hot Air, you can see clips of two seperate MSNBCprograms broadcast this evening alone, asking the same question regarding Limbaugh.  Of course Chris Matthews had to chime in–I’m sure bonehead and resident bitter liberal Olbermann had something to say as well (I don’t watch).  (Speaking of Olbermann, et al, over at MSNBC–how’s that “place for politics” faring for their 401(k) plans?) 

So much for post-partisan utopia–the left is still up to old tricks, the dogs that they are.  But the point here, is that they will milk this non-story for all it’s worth and it all would have went away if some friggin Republican congressman had a pair and didn’t feel the need to go groveling to El Rushbo for forgiveness.  Like I said above, it’s pathetic.   Can the Republicans do anything without shooting themselves in the foot?

(UPDATE II)

Great.  I was hoping this nonsense would end sooner rather than later.  Liberals are showing their true colors…once again.  They’ve now resorted to demonizing Rush Limbaugh even further.  The usual suspects are cueing up the hope and change by using Rush’s comments and targeting GOP senators:

Politico has learned that tomorrow Americans United for Change, a liberal group, will begin airing radio ads in three states Obama won – Ohio, Pennsylvania and Nevada – with a tough question aimed at the GOP senators there: Will you side with Obama or Rush Limbaugh?

“Every Republican member of the House chose to take Rush Limbaugh’s advice,” says the narrator after playing the conservative talk radio giant’s declaration that he hopes Obama “fails.”

“Every Republican voted with Limbaugh – and against creating 4 million new American jobs. We can understand why a extreme partisan like Rush Limbaugh wants President Obama’s Jobs program to fail – but the members of Congress elected to represent the citizens in their districts? That’s another matter. Now the Obama plan goes to the Senate, and the question is: Will our Senator”-here the ad is tailored by state to name George Voinovich in Ohio, Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania, and John Ensign in Nevada-”side with Rush Limbaugh too?”

 ”Every Republican member of the House chose to take Rush Limbaugh’s advice”—OK—That’s not exactly what happened, but if that’s the narrative that the Democrats figure will play in the sticks, then so be it. Republicans are no geniuses, but it looks like the Democrats are still up to their old tricks-demagoguery and scare tactics–dogs that they are.

The fact of the matter is that this “stimulus” bill is a pork-laden, Ted Stevens-John Murtha-earmark-voting-politician’s-wet dream. There’s no stimulus in it.   OK-so Obama throws the Republicans a bone by not including landscaping the Washington Mall as “stimulus”, and that’s considered “bi-partisan”?   When politicians tell us to go along with some proposal because “time is running out”-that’s the time to slow down and watch your wallets.

It’s too bad the Republicans didn’t realize they were suppposed to be fiscal conservatives for the past eight years.  But that shouldn’t stop the GOP from letting the same old Democrats from forcing a crap sandwich down our throats because our government suddenly has the urge ”to do something”…

Genocidal Imperialism (UPDATE)

I’ll never understand the need for liberals to use taxpayer money to fund abortions, let alone abortions in other countries.  Yes, American taxpayer money funneled overseas to organizations that fund abortions.  I thought liberals were against imposing American culture on other countries?  Isn’t this a form of genocidal imperialism?

This is one of the priorities of the Hope and Change bunch–reinstating taxpayer funding of overseas abortions.  Elections, indeed, have consequences.

(UPDATE)

As Ed Morrissey notes, President Obama is no stranger to turning a blind eye towards infanticide.

The Other McCain has more.

Malkin notes the inherent hypocrisy and misguided priorities of the left.  Idiots.

The Bipartisan Myth

 The talk in Washington is all about bipartisanhship;  as today’s Washington Post notes, for Obama its not necessarily about getting votes for the current stimulus package, but more about setting a “tone” of bi-partisanship in Washington:

But the White House did not view the rejection of Obama’s initial bid at fostering bipartisanship as a stinging disappointment. Even as Obama was unable to pick up their votes, he was left with many Republicans praising his outreach. And judging by Obama’s record, it is this tone of mutual respect that — at least for now — he may be after as much as actual votes on bills he could pass without significant GOP backing.

[...]

“We got the sense that he was very genuine,” said Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.). But “if he comes and meets with us like that and it doesn’t have an impact, it begins to hurt his credibility.”

There’s a bit of truth there–the president will do everything he can to create the aura of bipartisanship on the Democrats part–running over to Capitol Hill to meet with Republican lawmakers, cocktails at the White House, etc.  But that’s all a scam–the Democrats don’t need Republican support, not with the majorities they have.  And the media, of course eats up the narrative and collectively wonders why Republicans are being such wusses about passing the stimulus package, which of course will save us from the Great Depression 2.0–with its re-sodding of the Washington Mall, the NEA subisdies, money for family planning, you know, creating REAL jobs and such.  

AmSpec sums it up better than I ever could thusly:

Despite holding huge and expanding majorities in both houses, Democrats fear for their legitimacy. When a stimulus bill easily passes without Republican participation, they regard it as a major defeat. Their toadies in the media join forces to denounce and taunt the Republicans for refusing to cooperate. Ignoring these catcalls and insults to their maternal heritage, the Republicans emerge ever cleaner and stronger. It’s clear what’s going on. No junkie likes to inject himself. Better if a handsome young stranger does the trick. Sorry guys. Compassionate conservatism moved back to Texas on January 20.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again–the Democrats need want Republicans on board the stimulus initiative so they can be able to say the inevitable failure was a bipartisan effort all along.

Republicans Are Wrong On Tom Daschle (UPDATE)

I’m getting tired of listening to Senate Republicans bitch about Tom Daschle’s tax issues.  Quite frankly, they’ve lost any credibility in bringing up this argument when they barely said a thing about Tim Geithner’s tax problems instead  and I’m tired of asking myself when the GOP will learn, that in order to effectively stand for something—you have to stand for something.  Letting Geithner pass with some under-the-breath mumblings about the insanity of not knowing that you’re supposed to pay taxes on ALL income, when you’re auditioning to be the head of the IRS, set a bad precedent.  What they should have done was focus more on Geithner’s participation (as president of the NY Federal Reserve Bank) in the TARP disaster, and his connections to Wall Street bankers (his chief of staff was a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs).  When more than one Democrat on the Finance committee expressed concerns, the Republicans should have been more forceful on the issue. 

Looks like they’re making the same mistake with Tom Daschle.  With the Republicans harping about Daschle’s tax problems, it casts them in a foolish light, less than two weeks after the Geithner episode.  What they should be focusing on is Daschle’s gluttonous health-care industry connections:

Another client paying for his policy advice was UnitedHealth, a giant insurance company with many issues pending before the Department of Health and Human Services. About a third of its $81 billion in revenue last year came from federally regulated sales of Medicare Advantage and Medicare supplement and prescription drug plans.

The company boasted in its annual report that “one in five Medicare recipients participates in a UnitedHealth Group Medicare program.” (Mr. Daschle has said he will recuse himself from matters involving former clients.)

Two of the clients Mr. Daschle disclosed involved Indian tribes: the Great Plains Indian Gaming Association, and the law firm Fredericks Peebles & Morgan, which represents Indian tribes in legal and government-relations matters involving gambling, health care and other issues.

Another was Perry Capital, a firm that specialized in handicapping the completion of mergers, many of which required federal approvals.

 And, via WaPo:

In recent months, Daschle has advocated for changes to the U.S. health system that are unpopular with sizable portions of the industry, including some physicians, drugmakers and insurance companies. Daschle has nonetheless prospered from a stream of income from the health sector, including $220,000 in speaking fees in the past two years, according to the ethics filing.

He also has been a trustee of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. For part of the $2 million he received from the law firm Alston & Bird over the past two years, Daschle also reported that he gave “policy advice” to United Health, a conglomerate that sells insurance, helps the government administer Medicaid, advises drug companies and physicians and dispenses prescriptions.

The 12 organizations or companies that paid Daschle speaking fees, ranging from $12,000 to $30,000, included the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy and America’s Health Insurance Plans, an influential trade group.

The Health Industry Distributors Association, a trade association representing medical product distributors, wrote to Daschle last week to express concerns about proposed Medicare changes and reminded him of the $14,000 speech he delivered at its conference last year.

“As you may recall from speaking to some of our members during HIDA’s 2008 Executive Conference in Miami, where you were the keynote speaker, a competitive bidding program will undermine access to quality care for millions of beneficiaries,” said the letter, which was posted on the group’s Web site.

This is the kind of nonsense the GOP should be focused on–like a friggin laser beam, from day one, right out of the gate.  Let me just say that this doesn’t make paying taxes (or not) is something to turn a blind eye towards, especially at the highest levels of government.  But like I said, the Republicans took that argument away from themselves with the Geithner nomination.  But they should be pounding away on the real problem with Daschle’s nomination.

Oh, and this just in…Tom Daschle says: “I’m Sorry” and of course, from the White House….”Nobody’s perfect” 

(H/T: Hot Air)

More from Gateway Pundit

(UPDATE)

Allahpundit with the news that Obama’s “Chief Performance Officer” doesn’t pay her taxes either.  Yet another issue the Republicans can’t say a word about.

Does anyone know how to pay taxes in the Obama White House?

Pelosi’s Moxie

Republicans sure could use some of it.  Her attitude towards House Republicans and their party line vote against the stimulus:

“I think the take-away here is ‘screw ‘em,’” half-joked a House Democratic aide.

“Remember, you have a speaker who has dealt with that for a couple years. She dealt with it as minority leader, she dealt with it as speaker [under President George W. Bush],” another staffer close to Pelosi said.

“What she realized with Obama coming in was that, yeah, we can go through this dance, but at the end of the day, this was going to be a tutorial for the Obama folks,” the person added. “They’re all going to vote against you and then come to your cocktail party that night.”

So much for that “new era of bipartisanship”….

We Lost To These Idiots?…

So reports Malkin:

House Speaker Nancy “Know Your Math” Pelosi is at the Washington Press Club Foundation’s dinner tonight along with other Beltway lawmakers.

Lots of MSM types Twittering the event, including Roll Call and WaPo’s The Sleuth. From all reports, it sounds like Pelosi and company are yukking it up. Glad they can laugh while they and their colossal failure of a “stimulus” package have become the biggest joke in America.

Pelosi apparently joked that times are so tough at the NYTimes that when Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner gets a call from the paper, he doesn’t know if it’s a media inquiry or a bailout request.

She also made fun of President Obama’s ears, saying his e-mail address is “I’m all ears at whitehouse.com.”

Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar made a joke that would have had Rush Limbaugh boycotted by GLAAD if he had made it. She quipped: “I raised $17,000 from ex-boyfriends. Barney Frank holds that record in the House.”

And the Sleuth at WaPo adds that she overheard Pelosi saying she “wants to pee on the Washington Times.”

Stay classy, Nan.

The only thing I can say is….let’s move towards some REAL hope and change.   Register for SarahPAC now.

Panetta’s Turn…

If Leon Panetta, President Obama’s nominee to head the CIA, earns $700,000 in 2008 from “government advisor fees” and from “honorariums” from bailed out banks like Wachovia and  Merril Lynch, plus the Carlyle Group–the politically connected private equity firm with ties to the CIA– does all that count against Obama’s proposed cap on executive pay?  The WSJ reports:

The White House’s nominee for Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon Panetta, has earned more than $700,000 in speaking and consulting fees since the beginning of 2008, with some of the payments coming from troubled financial firms and from a firm that invests in contractors for federal national security agencies, according to financial disclosures released Wednesday.

Mr. Panetta received $56,000 from Merrill Lynch & Co. for two speeches and $28,000 for a speech for Wachovia Corp., according to disclosures released ahead of Thursday’s scheduled Senate hearing on Mr. Panetta’s nomination.

[...]

Mr. Panetta also received a $28,000 honorarium from the Carlyle Group, a private equity firm that owns companies doing business with national-security agencies of the U.S. government. Carlyle holds a majority stake in the government consulting arm of Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., which works for the CIA and other agencies. A Carlyle spokesman said Mr. Panetta was paid to speak at an investor conference and that the matter was unrelated to Booz Allen or any other defense contractors.

Mr. Panetta also reported receiving a $60,000 “Governmental Advisor Fee” from the Pacific Maritime Association, which represents the shipping industry. The group lobbies the federal government regarding terrorism laws that affect shipping. A spokesman for the association didn’t respond to a request for comment.

 Leon better have his tax situation straightened out…

Flopping Aces has more here.

Bloomberg has the total income at over $800,000–which include director’s fees.

(UPDATE)

Ed Morrissey notes its up to Senate Republicans to oppose Panetta’s nomination.

What Sullivan Said…

It’s not very often that I find myself agreeing with Andrew Sullivan but here goes.  In response to a reader who wrote him regarding debate over the stimulus package, and how conservatism relates to that debate:

This is largely why I wrote last week that I would have voted “no” on the House bill. But the extreme danger of this downturn does seem to me to require some temporary, pragmatic attempt to mitigate it a little.

I don’t think broad tax cuts will do that – most people will save them, no? Feldstein-targeted tax breaks might work. I don’t have a big problem with re-sodding the national Mall (no snickers from the back, please) or worthwhile government-backed infrastructure projects. Finding a way to direct the money to the poor who will spend it quickly is also obviously key.

[...]

More to the point, Americans elected a new president and Congress with a clear mandate for tackling his crisis. Nothing is not an option.

Republicans in the House did the right thing, if getting back to the tenets of conservatism is the goal.  Politically, it’s obviously a different story with the 2010 midterms on the horizon–Republicans are still politicians and electoral victory is always the goal it seems (as it is for Democrats).  Nevertheless, I still think Republicans have a long road ahead of them if said electoral victory is the key.  The establishment GOP has rotted to the core, and I think it will take more than 2 years to flush it out. 

Back to Sulllivan’s post, I don’t think anyone knows what the effects of this stimulus package will be–and there will be a stimulus bill passed.  I’m sure most conservatives would think to do nothing, I know I have.  But Sullivan makes the point very clear: doing nothing is not an option.  The American people spoke loud and clear this past November and the Republican party needs to accept this as lesson number one in their rebuilding process–if there is to be a rebuilding process.  I say “if” because as much of a step forward as the House took in voting down this bill, I see Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans proposing a GOP version of government-sponsored home ownership, and we are back to square one again.

Read his whole post here.

(UPDATE)

And speaking of destroying what’s left of rebuilding the GOP, Senate Republicans are ready to “compromise” on the stimulus cave-in. 

Via Allahpundit:  Reid supposedly has 2 or 3 GOP fence-sitters, with neither of them committing out of fear of being the 60th vote.  Take whatever Reid says with a grain of salt.

(UPDATE II)

Malkin notes that Democrats will likely bring back all the cut pork once the house and senate bills go to conference…

Tell Paul Ryan What You Really Think

Ed Morrissey speaks with the lover-of-government-bailouts this afternoon.  Tell him what you think about his hypocritical opposition to the stimulus bill, while selling out conservative ideals on using TARP money for auto bailouts and for supporting the original financial bailout plan to begin with.  

Paul Ryan has yet to make himself relevant again.    As a matter of fact, Democratic congressman Heath Shuler has a better record on bailout votes than Paul Ryan does.   The “rebuilding” road for the GOP is longer than I thought.

The UK Is Officially Insane (UPDATE)

Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician who is facing persecution in his own country for making a film about Islamist extremism, is facing a new kind of multicultural idiocy.  Wilders was invited by a member of the House of Lords to screen the film.  But instead, he received a letter from the British embassy telling him not to bother:

Wilders said the embassy letter informed him he was being refused entry because his views “threaten community harmony and therefore public security” in Britain.

He said the letter cited article 19 of the 2006 British Immigration Regulations.

According to a copy of the regulations on the Home Office Web site, the article allows a person to be banned from the United Kingdom “if his exclusion is justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.”

 Public security?  OK–how is Geert Wilders a “threat” to public security? Here’s how:

Almost unreported in the Western media, including Britain’s, a Muslim member of the House of Lords, Nazir Ahmed, showed the advanced state of Britain’s dhimmitude when he threatened to mobilize 10,000 fellow Muslims to block Dutch parliamentarian and filmmaker, Geert Wilders, from entering Westminster. Wilders had been invited by another House of Lords member to show his controversial film, Fitna, last Thursday in a Westminster conference room. Invitations had been sent to all House members to attend the screening that was to be followed “by discussion and debate in true parliamentary fashion.”

Who’s the real threat here?  This story is alarming not only because Wilders is being prosecuted in his own country for making a movie, but the insanity of the British government.  It’s been pretty well documented to anyone paying attention that Britain has slowly been ceding moral and political authority to its Muslim minorities in politically correct multi-culturalism gone wild.  This sort of capitulation only drives the point home as to its questionable viability in the future and quite frankly, as an ally in the war against Islamic terrorism.  Pure insanity. 

Oh, and oh yeah–the biggest terrorist threat to the USA?  Islamic Brits, of course…

(Via Hot Air)

(UPDATE)

Geert Wilders will be in DC on Friday.  It should be interesting to see how this turns out–expect Islamo-fascists, jihadist nutcases priveliged white upper-middle class brats   the usual suspects to “protest” his visit with Sen. John Kyl and his appearance at the International Free Press Society.   Allahpundit notes that during an appearance on Glenn Beck, Wilders is calling for a Free Speech Amendment for the EU—what a novel idea.  Since the end of the NYU occupation, the brats need something to protest.  What are the odds we see any of them in DC on Friday?

John Kerry Knows Best

As the stimulus pork bill heads to conference for what is sure to be an additional larding-up of spending, most of which I’m sure was excluded when the bill went to the Senate, let’s keep in mind the mindset of lawmakers and how they see YOU, the taxpayer–financier of this government pork grab:

That made me cringe.  This is our government–essentially labeling us morons because of the economic crisis we’re in.  We’re not to be trusted, because you know, government has done such a great job of minding the store over the past 15 years or so. 

(Via The Corner)

Obama Morphing Into The Gipper Tonight

The Obama Campaign Administration switches gears:

President Barack Obama won’t speak until prime-time, but his aides fanned out to the morning shows Tuesday morning to talk up his first speech before a joint session of Congress. And the word they used to preview it: “Reaganesque.”

[...]

“He will,” Gibbs said, “tell the country that we’ve faced … greater challenges than the ones we face now, but we as Americans always meet those challenges. But in the Reaganesque words, there are always better days ahead.”

They’re pulling out all the stops:

Gibbs appeared on all six morning shows. Senior adviser David Axelrod is scheduled to do more interviews later today. And a slew of other administration officials are scheduled to make the cable rounds as the speech nears: Duncan again, Agriculture Secretary Thomas Vilsack, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan, Council of Economic Advisers Chair Christina Romer, and Vice President Biden’s chief economic adviser, Jared Bernstein.

Their goal? To quell suggestions that Obama is taking on too much just a month into his presidency, and to insist that he’s not down on hope.

“He still believes deeply in the ultimate success of this country,” White House senior adviser David Axelrod said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “But it’s important that people know where we are today and how we get out of the situation we’re in so it is a balance that he has to strike.”

I find it amazing how the Obama sycophants in the media and the blogosphere continue to heap praise on this administration for supposedly being somewhat above the fray of modern politics in Washington DC;  that somehow this crowd is markedly different from politicians who preceded them.  His speech to Congress tonight will, effectively, be another in a seemingly endless stream of campaign speeches.  Like all campaign speeches, it will be tailor-made for what the polls say the public wants the politician in question to tell them.

The bottom line is, that like most politicians, Obama said what he said during the campaign to get elected.  And, like most politicians, he changed his tune once he got to the White House.  The President has spent most of his month in office speaking of crisis and catastrophe, and how it’s all going to be much, much worse before it gets slightly better.  This, of course, had the desired effect, which is to say, it riles up the middle class—complaining that they got the short end of the stick over the last 8 years.  That is us against them, the greedy capitalists on Wall Street, the titans of industry, the investment class.  Class warfare at its finest, and to be certain, Obama knows how to play that game well. 

And now, all of sudden, he thinks he’s Ronald Reagan.  Why?  Because the “chattering class” is talking about a lack of optimism and people are beginning to talk.  Not to be undone and look silly by the likes of Bill Clinton, Obama will come out tonight glorifying the optimisim that is inherently American, but reminding us also, that government is his only idea the only answer.  Tailoring a message to throw to the masses because its what they want to hear is not leadership, but more of the same old politics.

Glad To See Someone Admitting It (UPDATE)

Governor Jon Hutntsman Jr. (R-UT), acknowledges GOP irrelevance:

The Republican governor of Utah on Monday said his party is blighted by leaders in Congress whose lack of new ideas renders them so “inconsequential” that he doesn’t even bother to talk to them.

“I don’t even know the congressional leadership,” Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. told editors and reporters at The Washington Times, shrugging off questions about top congressional Republicans, including House Minority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. “I have not met them. I don’t listen or read whatever it is they say because it is inconsequential – completely.”

[...]

Unlike some of his Republican counterparts in other states, Mr. Huntsman said he will not turn back any of his state’s share of President Obama’s $787 billion economic stimulus. But he said much of the spending is misdirected and more likely to bloat the government than boost the economy.

He said congressional Republicans failed to score political points for opposing the bill – only three Republican senators supported it – because the public saw them as objecting to being shut out by Democrats from helping write the bill rather than as taking a principled stand.

The governor said congressional Republicans are being frustrated by a lack of credibility on the party’s No. 1 tenet: fiscal responsibility.

“That’s why no one is paying any attention,” he said. “Our moral soapbox was completely taken away from us because of our behavior in the last few years. For us to now criticize analogous behavior is hypocrisy. We’ve got to come at it a different way. We’ve got to prove the point. It can’t be as the Chinese would say, ‘fei hua,’ [or] empty words.”

This is what drives me crazy about the congressional Republicans.  Yeah, it’s good to see them standing up for fiscal responsibility in the Obama era, but it really is a moot point right about now.  It’s almost as is their stance against the stimulus bill was a big slap in the face to conservatives like myself.  Yes, we know tax cuts work to spark economic growth, innovation and personal freedom, etc., but its falling on deaf ears right now, primarily for the reasons that Huntsman points out.  Whatever the GOP has to offer right now, is inconsequential because of how they acted over the past 8 years.  The brazen expansion of government and disregard for fiscal constraint of any kind at the federal level is paying off in painful electoral consequences for the GOP, sad to say.  Nevertheless, its somewhat refreshing to see this kind of acknowledgement of GOP establishment irrelevancy. 

And then I see stuff like this  which has me scratching my head.  Chairman Steele is considering primaries against the three GOP Senators who voted for the stimulus bill:

“My retribution is the retribution of the voters in their states,” he said. “They’re going to have to go through a primary in which they’re going to have to explain to those Republican voters in that primary their vote.”

OK–let the voters speak.  Call me crazy, call me racist, call me whatever—I’m starting to think that maybe the GOP laid an egg with Steele as party chairman.  Forget the hip-hop nonsense for a minute—that was all about the media piling on.  But I’m not sure it’s such a wise move to alienate the party even further this way.  Right now the American people are steamed to say the least, and from most of the polls that I’ve seen so far, they really see the GOP as mere obstructionists and not providing much in the way of solutions to our economic problems.  That being said, sure the stimulus package had pork in it but quite frankly, and I’ve noted as such before, something needed to get done. 

The GOP was really painted into a corner–damned if they did and damned if they didn’t.  Was it the right move?  Sure it was.  But as a matter of politics, of re-establishing party relevance, I don’t believe doubling down on the stimulus vote as a litmus test for who is a true fiscal conservative is the way to go right now.  These methods are engaged out of strength, not weakness.   And this is something the GOP has plenty of right now–weakness.

Allahpundit chimes in:

The idea of Republicans in Maine, of all places, trying to unseat not one but two moderate incumbents only to have Democrats crush their handpicked hardline conservative replacements in the general election is comical.

(UPDATE)

Via Allahpundit, some RNC backtracking on Steele’s empty rhetoric from a party spokesperson, and just about in line with my earlier post:

“I just don’t think we’re at a point where the party can threaten senators and ask them to adhere to some type of monolithic ideology,” the official said. “In fact, the party’s almost always been at its strongest when it was broad and had its big tent out. I get what Steele is trying to do in terms of channeling the anger and frustration at the stimulus bill, but there’s probably a more artful way of doing it.”

Steele’s not looking so slick right about now.

(UPDATE II)

What John Cole said.  No excerpts, just read the whole thing. 

Propping Up AIG

The AIG disaster continues to amaze me:

So far the government has thrown $150 billion at the company, in loans, investments and equity injections, to keep it afloat. It has softened the terms it set for the original $85 billion loan it made back in September. To ease the pressure even more, the Federal Reserve actually runs a facility that buys toxic assets that A.I.G. had insured. A.I.G. effectively has been nationalized, with the government owning a hair under 80 percent of the stock. Not that it’s worth very much; A.I.G. shares closed Friday at 42 cents.

[...]

If we let A.I.G. fail, said Seamus P. McMahon, a banking expert at Booz & Company, other institutions, including pension funds and American and European banks “will face their own capital and liquidity crisis, and we could have a domino effect.” A bailout of A.I.G. is really a bailout of its trading partners — which essentially constitutes the entire Western banking system.

Something in this excerpt struck me.  As I understand it, the economy can’t even begin to recover until our banking system is restored.  By that, I guess I mean that consumers and businesses need to have faith in the system and the system itself needs to be viable again for this to happen (forget for the moment, whether the flow of credit has improved, LIBOR spreads are favorable, etc.)  For this to happen, something has to be done about the “toxic assets” that are sucking the wind from the banks’ balance sheets.  According to the Times article, the Treasury has been buying up these securities from AIG for months now. 

The original goal of the TARP was for the Treasury to be able to buy these assets from said banks and, apparently, that didn’t work out so well.  But according to the Times piece, the Treasury have been buying toxic assets to help AIG.  From this, I can assume one of two things.  First, the Treasury believes that it is successful buying up these securities and is ascribing some sort of  floor for these assets by determining a value, which would help AIG in the short term as they are insuring said assets.  Or second, and most likely, the Treasury has no clue what they’re doing and that by going this route, they are merely staving off the ultimate disaster.

I guess my real question is—why does the Treasury assume it can buy these assets off of AIG, but not Citigroup or Bank of America?  And, if by the incredulous assumption that this process actually is working, why isn’t it doing so?  Or am I just confusing everything?

(UPDATE)

In anticipation of a record $60 billion quarterly loss, AIG has reached a deal with the Feds.  According to reports, the deal involves lowering the interest rate on its existing credit facility and an additional equity investment. (via Memeorandum).

It appears that AIG is being rewarded for failure.  But as I alluded to in my original post, it seems that shoveling money to AIG is an act of desperation, in lieu of an even bigger financial disaster, one that seems to go beyond the politics of Republican vs. Democrats.  Republicans started this bailout mess, and the Democrats in the White House and on Capitol Hill intend on continuing the trend.

(UPDATE II)

Justin Fox sums it up:

Essentially, AIG got into the business of insuring much of the world’s financial system against the consequences of a global financial meltdown. It turned out to be incapable of delivering on that insurance-no private company could deliver on it, which is one reason why AIG’s business of selling credit default swaps was a scam. And so government has stepped in as the ultimate insurer.

Providing insurance where private institutions can’t is one of the most important and essential roles of government. Washington’s failure to understand its role as insurer that was one of the key things that made the Great Depression great. But there’s insurance that follows proper underwriting standards and insurance that does not. Our government’s current experiment in insurance provision most certainly does not.

 So, essentially the US government is the de facto largest insurer in the world. 

(UPDATE III)

Back in the fall, there was no question–not one–that a government response to the financial crisis was the way to solve the financial crisis.  Republicans and Democrats alike, at the behest of the Treasury, all were screaming about the end of the world unless they did something.   All we heard was that a bailout was necessary—Fannie and Freddy, AIG, etc.  And NOW they’re scratching their heads wondering why the bailouts continue to be “necessary”.  (Via)

Who’s In Charge Of AIG?

Why executive experience matters:

In 1990, I was asked to assume the CEO position at the management consulting firm Bain & Co., then in acute financial distress. The need to restructure was paramount or else the company would fail, leaving 1,000 employees without a job. We renegotiated debt with bankers. We rewrote leases with landlords. We designed a whole new governing system. We also had to convince the founding partners to turn back profits they had already taken out of the company. Of course, we had no legal basis for making such a request, but without a shared sacrifice we couldn’t keep the company alive. Generously, the founders returned the money, putting us on a path to stabilizing the firm and turning it over to new leadership. It’s difficult to understand why the same lesson about shared sacrifice is lost on AIG’s executive team and their government overseers.

Instead of taking a principled stance on the AIG bonus fiasco, the Obama Administration is intent on playing chicken.  There are certain parts of actually governing that involve more than just teleprompted speeches, populist rhetoric, nominating czars and approving billions and billions of dollars in government spending.  Governing, it seems, is a lot more than organizing communities.

You Don’t Say…

The most intelligent thing anyone has said at the AIG hearings today came from Congressman Tom Price (R-GA): 

“This is exactly why the federal government should not be bailing out private companies,” Price said. “The bonus money distributed by AIG is indefensible, but the taxpayer bailout afforded to AIG by the government is remarkably more egregious.”

Brilliant.  And an awkward relief to know that there is a Republican out there who, unlike Paul Ryan, actually believes that the smaller the government is, the better. 

The rest of the hearing is more or less faux populism.  More kabuki theaterto distract us from our would- be political leaders, who incidentally, are partially to blame for the financial mess we’re in to begin with.  The very same blowhards who are scolding AIG for the lack of corporate ethics, while they themselves are not beholden to constituents shareholders and do not know the first thing about managing private capital.  And oh yeah, these are the same clowns who forced the AIG/TARP/Fannie and Freddie bailouts down our throats voted for the bailout back in the fall; otherwise, you know, the entire financial system as we knew it would collapse.

If Paul Krugman Said It…

Then it MUST be true:

This administration, elected on the promise of change, has already managed, in an astonishingly short time, to create the impression that it’s owned by the wheeler-dealers. And that leaves it with no ability to counter crude populism.

 Who knew? The altruistic, all-knowing President-of-the-people Barack Obama?  Led around by the nose by Wall Street executives, donors and the Greenwich hobnobbers?  Wasn’t this the domain of greedy, white Republicans?  Who would’ve thought?

House GOP Soils Itself (UPDATE)

Last week at this time, the imbeciles in congress were falling all over themselves trying to voice their share of fake populist angst over the AIG bonus debacle.  Even the President, after learning of the bonuses which he effectively signed into law, took the bold and courageous step of flying off to LA, and voice his concern on the Jay Leno show.  Congress immediately hastily made an attempt to wipe themselves with the US Constitution, passing a confiscatory tax bill in the House, which would levy a 90% tax to recoup the bonuses.  After that initial dry-heave, the fever for banana-republicanism has apparently died down:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid vowed on Monday to push to recoup millions of dollars in executive bonuses at taxpayer-funded insurer American International Group, but the legislation appeared to be losing momentum in the Senate.

In fact, most of the bonus money has been returned, albeit under the veiled threats of current New York AG and gubenatorial-wannabe, Andrew Cuomo.

The good news for Republicans is that bonuses were allowed under a provision of the hastily-rushed-through-Congress stimulus bill back in February, where not a single House Republican voted “aye” and all but 3 Senate Republicans voted “nay”.  The embarrassingly frustrating wall-punching bad news is that about 85 House Republicans voted FOR the AIG bonus-tax bill last week.  These included Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan, two of the alleged future “leaders” of the GOP (see the roll call here). 

With leaders like this, the GOP might as well fold up the tent and sign on for a second Obama term, because that’s where this is headed.  There’s a reason why conservatives leave the establishment, beltway-entrenched Republican party, and its because of pathetic displays of rudderless and weak-willed actions like the vote AIG bonus bill.  

Republicans in Washington seem to forget that they are the minority party and that their party is in shambles, both politically and philosophically.  I’ve noted several times how Paul Ryan has a similar voting record to most Democrats in the House, for example, despite being touted in various media outlets as “rising star” of the party.  If that is the case, I want no part of the Republican party.  And Eric Cantor? A major misstep in voting for this bonus tax bill, as far as I’m concerned.  As House whip, he obviously didn’t feel the need to show a united front in this mess, as leader Boehner voted against the bill.  So much for unity.   And so much for differentiation.   One of the ways you sell your agenda to American voters is to explain—not with words, but with ACTION—how you’re party benefits them versus Democrats, you know, the differences between the two.  With this pathetic display of faux populist outrage, the Republican party failed to even that—again.

(UPDATE)

Glenn Thrush’s piece in Politico goes further on the Eric Cantor issue:

Cantor, of course, is a victim of his own success. This was the guy who took the back-slaps in mustering unanimous GOP opposition to the stimulus bill and anything that falls short of that performance is bound to raise questions about his effectiveness.

That’s why the unseemly rift among House Republicans over the AIG bonus tax — with Cantor voting “yes” and a grouchy Minority Leader John Boehner voting against — was widely viewed as a Cantor setback.

I’ve said it several times—the GOP rot runs deep—and this is evident on the AIG tax bill vote.  Split between populists (including members in tough re-election bids) and free-marketeers, the DC Republicans don’t even know what they stand for.  And even if they did, there doesn’t appear to be anyone who can lead them.

An Uprising Of Four

Over at memeorandum, the uppity types are hyperventilating about this piece in The Hill, with the blaring headline: “Go Back Into Hiding, GOP Begs Dick Cheney”.

Who exactly is rallying the GOP against Dick Cheney?  Michael Steele?  Newt Gingrich?  Limbaugh?  Think again.  The Hill quotes six Republican congressman in the article:  John Duncan, Mark Kirk, Zach Wamp, Peter King, Thaddeus McCotter and an “anonymous lawmaker”.  Not exactly a bastion of Republican power-brokers.   In fact Duncan, Kirk, Wamp and Congressman X criticized Cheney.  Congressmen King and McCotter defended him, the latter having the money quote, noting the “story” as “irrelevant”.   Again, not exactly a scathing rebuke of Mr. Cheney. 

But that doesn’t stop the purveyors of idiocy on the left from vehemently tapping away at their keyboards in self-aggrandizement.  See? SEE?!?  Even the GOP hates Cheney.  Quick! Arrest him!  Nothing gets the sheeple going like some fake red meat.  The lemmings will be pleased. 

Over at Washington Monthly:

Some of the GOP lawmakers were reluctant to criticize Cheney on the record, but a few didn’t hold back.

Actually, only one—yes, ONE—lawmaker requested anonymity.  One of the four.  But don’t let that stop the narrative of overwhelming Republican angst.  Yglesias chimes in saying that Republicans are “pushing back” against Cheney’s audacity to speak as a private citizen.  Interesting.  Most amusing, is this from John Cole:

The story then goes on to list a number of Republicans who are basically telling the former Vice President to shut up and Cheney himself.

A number of Republicans? The number would be three, plus Mr. X.  Again, hardly a party-wide condemnation of a vice-president who inspires such bile and hatred moreso from the left than anyone of significance on the right.  It’s a shame really.  Even the saner lefty bloggers are apparently becoming more entrenched in the left-wing echo chamber with each passing day, buying into the very media narratives that they claim to abhor. 

And the lemmings applauded.

 

“What are they doing right?…”

Jim Rogers appeared on the Fox Business Channel this week and, as usual, is spot on:

The fun begins at about 5:20—Rogers begins a smack-down of Alexis Glick and her ignorant line of assumptions and questioning.  The money quote:

…[T]he idea that you can solve a problem of too much debt and too much spending with more debt and more spending…that is absolute insanity to anybody who is logical and rational — unless you’re trying to save your friends on Wall Street

What begins as a question of China’s economic prospects turns into an embarrassing rebuke of the implied simplicity of “economic stimulus”; the false notion that government spending, while tacking on insane amounts of debt to an already debt-laden economy–in order to finance that spending, can lead us to economic prosperity.  Rogers does a great job of pointing out this insanity—he always has.  Its a shame that economic and financial logic and reason gets tossed out in the worst (and best) of times.

Krugman Increases The Shrill Factor

Kudos to Paul Krugman for making it onto the cover of Newsweek and, as a result, effectively jumping the shark.  Once the traditional media decides to showcase the latest cultural or political noise, it’s pretty much a done deal—it’s all downhill from here.  Newsweek’s editor rationalizes the choice thusly:

Every once in a while, though, a critic emerges who is more than a chatterer-a critic with credibility whose views seem more than a little plausible and who manages to rankle those in power in more than passing ways.

Fair enough.  But in my opinion, Krugman is a dual personality of  bona fide “chatterer” and “credible critic”.   As the financial markets imploded over the past several months, Krugman has been a credible read and I’ve looked forward to reading his arguments in favor of nationalizing the banks, for example.  Not that I’ve agreed with them, but he’s been readable nonetheless.  Then there’s the “chatterer” Krugman—the political pundit and liberal fanatic.  His criticisms of President Bush over the better part of his two terms were short of vitriol and insanely partisan to take seriously.  Also, his clamoring for an increasingly bigger and therefore, “better” stimulus, was unbearable. 

Take for example, his latest column in Friday’s Times.  He despairs over the securitization taking place in financial markets today, and longs for the US financial system of the ’50s and ’60s, when banking was “simple”—banks taking deposits and making loans…and that’s it:

And the financial system wasn’t just boring. It was also, by today’s standards, small. Even during the “go-go years,” the bull market of the 1960s, finance and insurance together accounted for less than 4 percent of G.D.P. The relative unimportance of finance was reflected in the list of stocks making up the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which until 1982 contained not a single financial company.

It all sounds primitive by today’s standards. Yet that boring, primitive financial system serviced an economy that doubled living standards over the course of a generation.

Everything was unicorns and rainbows.  Until, of course, the evil, greedy Republicans took control of the White House in 1980, and everything began to crumble:

After 1980, of course, a very different financial system emerged. In the deregulation-minded Reagan era, old-fashioned banking was increasingly replaced by wheeling and dealing on a grand scale

[...]

Underlying the glamorous new world of finance was the process of securitization. Loans no longer stayed with the lender. Instead, they were sold on to others, who sliced, diced and puréed individual debts to synthesize new assets. Subprime mortgages, credit card debts, car loans – all went into the financial system’s juicer. Out the other end, supposedly, came sweet-tasting AAA investments.

As if it was President Reagan who signed the law repealing the Glass-Steagall Act.  The column is essentially Krugman pounding the table, demanding that the financial world of the 1950’s was contributed to our economic utopia and that current state of our financial industry should be reduced to said levels.  Of course, he provides no facts to back up his hyperbole.  It’s almost as if the implicit genius behind a Nobel prize precludes factual justification for his writing.   

Krugman in recent months has been whining a little more often than not, and becoming more of a “chatterer”.  His pearl-clutching continues as his grandiose plans for nationalizing the banks are good enough to be ignored by the Obama administration.  You can almost get the feeling that he’s seeing his window to liberal utopia slowly creeping shut. 

The problem with his columns of despair is that, well, we’re not living in 1955 anymore.  The economy is a lot more dynamic, a lot more complex than the toaster-in-exchange-for-your-deposits mentality of another era.  Technology has allowed billions of dollars in capital to change hands with a single key-stroke, in the blink of an eye.  Perhaps, just maybe  the securitization that has proliferated in the financial markets over the last decade or so is necessary to keep up with the demands of an increasingly global financial system.  Securitization doesn’t provide liquidity to mortgage lenders only, but to providers of student loans, credit cards, among others.  Without securitization, these markets dry up and would make today’s credit crisis seem pale in comparison.  I guess that would suit Krugman just fine.

The Ultimate Authority

It was about a month ago that Senator Robert Byrd expressed concern about a presumptive power grab by President Obama.  The proliferation of “czars” for several cabinet departments rang the alarm:

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the longest-serving Democratic senator, is criticizing President Obama’s appointment of White House “czars” to oversee federal policy, saying these executive positions amount to a power grab by the executive branch.

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd complained about Obama’s decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”

Constitutional republics be damned!  Today the President announced that GM’s CEO Rick Wagoner was  forced to walk the plank ”stepping aside” for the benefit of the company and the industry.  Actually, it boils down to the President and his coterie of former investment bankers “auto task force” deeming the continued presence of Wagoner to be unecessary:

The administration’s auto team announced the departure of Mr. Wagoner on Sunday. In a summary of its findings, the task force added that it doesn’t believe Chrysler is viable as a stand-alone company, and suggested that the best chance for success for both GM and Chrysler “may well require utilizing the bankruptcy code in a quick and surgical way 

The Big Three automakers of course, represent a sizable percentage of the regional economy in the Great Lakes and Midwest, so naturally the decision to oust the CEO of one of these companies was not made on the fly as it were.  Of course, the President and his task force discussed these impending decisions with lawmakers in the area right?……..RIGHT?  Think again:

President Obama didn’t want any advice from Congress on the decision to ask GM CEO Rick Wagoner to resign, according to Carl Levin (D), Michigan’s senior senator.

“He didn’t ask us about it, he informed us,” Levin told reporters in a conference call Monday afternoon. “The president said he’d already decided.”

Levin said he and three other lawmakers were informed of the decision in a phone call Obama made from the Oval Office. Obama told the members of Congress that Wagoner needed to resign so that the administration could show the public it was making an effort at a fresh start with helping the auto industry, according to Levin.

No consultation with congress.  No oversight.  Meh.  Senator Byrd is just some senile old coot.  What does he know anyway?

Oversight Disconnect

As the AIG bonus debacle was heating up, Robert Gibbs had this exchange with Jake Tapper during a White House press briefing (emphasis added):

TAPPER:  But do you not see that — are you confident that the oversight process at Treasury is working properly?
   
GIBBS:  I am confident the oversight process is working.  Am I confident — what I’m — what I think the president and all of America are outraged about is the message that any bonus like this sends, that — as I said yesterday and as the president said, it offends our common sense.  It offends our values. It sends the wrong message by giving and rewarding the very entities which took a company like AIG with a hedge fund placed on top of it and ran the entire company into the ground to the point where taxpayers have had to inject $170 billion.  I think everybody is offended by every aspect of that.

Sounds plausible.  I mean, this IS the Obama Administration after all.  All transparent and full of hope and change.  The “overseers” are feeling good about themselves.  It’s the overseen that have the problems with the oversight, or lack thereof:

The officials charged with overseeing the $700 billion financial bailout told lawmakers Tuesday that the Treasury Department must do more to ensure that taxpayer dollars are properly spent and that the public is kept in the loop.

The officials were particularly angered about a lack of accounting for the sprawling program, complaining that Treasury didn’t make any effort to monitor money that went to the 364 banks its has invested in, despite requests for information by oversight panels.

“Either you get Treasury to get some religion on this point and get some standards … or Congress [will be] forced to step in,” said Harvard Law professor Elizabeth Warren, chairman of the Congressional Oversight Panel, at a Senate Banking Committee hearing.

Neil Barofsky, special inspector general, said that some banks “co-mingled” their bailout money and couldn’t break out exactly what it was used for. But other banks kept their TARP money separate and could point to new loans that had been issued due to government help

The office of Inspector General for the TARP program, one of the oversight groups, did its own survey of banks that received money, and every bank that got money responded.

What’s that again about accountability in Washington?  I understand that the spigot of unprecedented government intrusion in the form of federal bailouts of private industry began under the previous administration.  But this is supposed to be a new era of “transparency and accountability”.  Supposedly, the grown-ups have regained control of Washington.  Apparently, nothing much has changed because the federal government under Barack Obama is as incompetent and inept as ever.

GOP Is In No Position To Take Advantage of Dodd’s Weakness

AIG bonuses and VIP loans from Countrywide are apparently weighing down on Senator Chris Dodd, on the eve of his run for re-election in 2010.  This, naturally has the GOP giggling over the prospects of being able to get a Republican elected to the Senate in next year’s midterms.  Not so fast.  Via Phillip Klein:

While Republicans are no doubt salivating at their oppourtunity here, they shouldn’t get too far ahead of themselves. If things continue to look this bad for Dodd, he’ll most likely be challenged in the Democratic primaries, perhaps by Ned Lamont, who of course won the 2006 Democratic primary against Joe Lieberman before Lieberman became an independent. And in an overwhelmingly Democratic state, a Democrat without Dodd’s baggage would have a good chance of holding the seat, especially because ads will Rebulicanize somebody like Simmons in a general election. 

Republicans are in no position to assume that they have the political strength and capital to take advantage of situations like this.  Politics has a lot to do with perception, and right now, the public’s perception of Republicans is not so great, in case anyone forgot.  Michael Steele hasn’t exactly fortified the party (a little over two months into his tenure at the RNC is still a short period of time, but he doesn’t inspire any confidence for the future).  Congressional Republicans are stumbling out of the gate so far in terms of giving the voters an alternative to rampant liberalism from the White House. 

As Klein alludes to, Dodd will most likely be primaried by a stronger Democrat who will most likely beat anyone the GOP puts out there.  It’s a matter of organization.  The Democrats have such a well-oiled machine at state party level all across the country (albeit, there are some cracks, there always will be) that this result is inevitable, barring any extraordinary events.  If the President’s popularity continues into next year, expect Democrats to retain that Senate seat. 

The RNC  shouldn’t ignore the regional politics at play either.  If Republicans are not already extinct in the Northeast, then they’re an endangered species.  Take Tuesday’s election to replace Kirsten Gillibrand in New York’s 20thCongressional District.  About a month ago, Republican Jim Tedisco was leading by about 12 points in local polls, with the lead beginning to shrink.   Democrats sprang into action, with ads and a plug by Obama, with  Democrat Scott Murphy pulling ahead down the stretch.  As of today, the election is too close to call, with absentee ballots expected to claim a winner.  For Republicans, it probably never should have been that close.  The fact that it is, pretty much confirms what I’d thought about the GOP in the region—that it’s been completely vanquished. 

In past election cycles, in past mid-terms, the GOP had the organization and the message to take advantage of political aberrations like the Dodd situation and New York’s 20-CD special election, and capitalize on them.  Unfortunately for Republicans and conservatives, the GOP has neither an organization nor a credible message.

(UPDATE)

As the vote-count settles, Tedisco has pulled ahead of Murphy by about 12 votes (via Ace).    Daniel Larison comments on the GOP’s “strategy”:

Honestly, I don’t understand the electoral strategy over the last couple of cycles. Instead of localizing all of the House races and focusing on the virtues of their own candidates, national Republicans have repeatedly, unsuccessfully tried to link everyone from Jim Webb to Heath Shuler to Travis Childers with liberal wine-and-cheesers from San Francisco and, of course, with Nancy Pelosi. This was never a credible line of attack, and in pretty much every case it backfired. I sometimes wonder whether these folks ever leave Washington and its vicinity, outside of which most people don’t know much about Pelosi if they know anything at all. Nonetheless, time and again they try to paint Blue Dog recruits as Pelosi’s lapdogs, as if this has any significance for people in the rest of the country.

[...]

One of the interesting things about this race, then, is the degree to which economic issues have completely overwhelmed the old politics of national security and terrorism on which the GOP relied since ‘02, and they have done so even in one of the more culturally conservative districts in that part of the country.

 Even if the Tedisco pulls this one out, the GOP still loses.  To be sure, a Tedisco victory is already being hailed by some as “good news” or a triumph.  But they would be mistaken, if only for the reasons that Larison points out in his post.  A not-so-strong showing by the GOP by any stretch, to be kind.

Follow The Idiotic Narrative

It’s been well documented that SC Governor Mark Sanford has stood out as one of a handful of Republican governors trying to reject President Obama’s economic stimulus money and the restrictions it imposes on individual state budgets.   Sanford has agreed to most of the allocation, but he has requested that $700 million of the money be used to pay down South Carolina’s state debt.  Appearing on Fox News earlier this week, here are Sanford’s thoughts on the stimulus money:

This is the ultimate in nanny-state, when you have an unelected superintendent of education at the federal level, dictating to an elected governor and an elected House and Senate,what they’re going to do and how they’re going to do it. I would secondly say, what we’ve said was, wait a minute. Since we don’t have any of this money that’s now being dispensed from Washington, DC; since we’re going out and printing money and we’re issuing debt to solve a problem mind you that was created by too much debt; since that’s taking place, and since those costs will be borne by the next generation, in fact it is sort of fiscal child abuse to do what we’re doing.

Well, the nutroots are having none of it.  Nope.  To them, fulfilling Obama’s vision of a neo-socialist utopia built on borrowed federal funds is a priority.  When Mark Sanford isn’t being subjected to the wail of race-baiting by self-loathing members of the Democratic party leadership, he’s pretty much criticized with more baseless babble from the internets.  The squealing goes as such:

No, Mr. Sanford, it’s not “nanny-state.” It’s money that will help thousands of teachers keep their jobs, that will help repair crumbling schools, which, newsflash, will also create jobs.

That’s right.  Take that federal “stimulus” money, otherwise you hate teachers and their students.  This is how they develop the narrative.  No facts.  No substantiation.  Just accept and move on.  Stimulus is good because it “creates jobs”—that’s all we need to know.  Facts be damned.       

Forget that the states can’t just print money to fund whatever federal bureaucracy that stirs your fantasies on any given day.  Forget that governors have an obligation to their citizens to balance their budgets.   Forget even, that for some, billions of federal “stimulus” will, never be enough.  I thought the era of Obama was the clarion call for a new dawn in American politics.  A new era of responsibility in Washington.  Forcing states into future debt for the sake of political expediency in 2009 is not very responsible.  Just like the nutroots, it’s quite idiotic.

Warren Buffett Benefits From TARP

Most Democrats are glad that President Obama is around to clean up the financial mess.  He said the buck stops with him and he means it, dammit.  Under the oversight of his administration, the TARP will eventually allow the credit markets to ease up and get credit flowing to people who really need it the most.  You know, people like Warren Buffet, one of the wealthiest people in the world:

Just 28 companies received more than 90 percent of the funds so far disbursed to financial firms by the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

Buffett’s holding company, Berkshire Hathaway Inc., did not directly receive any of that aid. But Berkshire is the largest shareholder of San Francisco-based Wells Fargo & Co., which got $25 billion – 91 percent of TARP funds invested in institutions headquartered in California.

Overall, Berkshire owns more than $13 billion of stock in the top recipients of TARP funds – including Goldman Sachs Group Inc., US Bancorp, American Express Co. and Bank of America Corp., all considered by analysts to be in deep trouble before the federal infusion. The more the bailout props up these financial companies, the more secure Berkshire’s investments.

That total, The [Sacramento] Bee found, ranks Berkshire fifth among all investors in TARP-assisted companies. Berkshire’s TARP holdings constitute 30 percent of its publicly disclosed stock portfolio. That proportion reflects at least twice as much dependence on bailed-out banks as any other large investor.

“Buffett, whose company also is the largest investor in Goldman Sachs and American Express, declined to be interviewed. In a February letter to Berkshire shareholders, he said that without government intervention, the consequences would have been “cataclysmic.”

“Like it or not,” he wrote, “the inhabitants of Wall Street, Main Street and the various Side Streets of America were all in the same boat.”

The same boat?  Let’s not get crazy now.  Granted, that’s one expensive boat he’s talking about—a boat that let’s you rub elbows with all sorts of interesting people—but nevertheless,  a boat that most of us peons are very unfamiliar with.  Apparently, being a rich, greedy capitalist is held in high regard when you’re cut from the Democrat cloth—the moonbats will praise you for that.  It’s those rich and greedy Republicans you have to be worried about.

My Mets Feelings Exactly

Every year as baseball season begins, I generally feel somewhat optimistic on the New York Mets (as I’m sure most baseball fans feel about their teams).  Baseball tends to do that.  But this year, I’m getting a bit queasy as the new season starts.  Will Leitch of New York magazine wrote a piece in a recent issue that pretty much matches my sentiments.  Aptly titled “The Hurt That Hasn’t Healed”, here are some excerpts which stuck out, beginning with a recollection of the dreaded 2006 NLCS 9smphasis added for my own sanity):

The anticipated-no, expected-Mets championship never happened. Mets fans had forgotten that part of the Mets’ identity is to fail in the most grueling way possible. They were about to be reminded, again, and again.

With that loss, [author of Faith and Fear In Flushing, Greg] Prince writes, “the Mets dug themselves into a hole from which they’ve never climbed out. It’s always October 19, 2006. Ownership and general management has proceeded as if this is forever a World Series club in every sense but that of accomplishment.” The evidence bears him out. Two years ago there was the “we’ll get it this time” off-season, with few moves made, management assuming the team would just repeat what it did the year before. Last year was the “we just need one starting pitcher” off-season, with the acquisition of Johan Santana masking the dam holes quietly tearing open everywhere else. Now the “we just need to fix the bullpen” off-season has been concluded, with J. J. Putz and Francisco Rodriguez hauled in and pretty much everything else left intact. General manager Omar Minaya has acted like his team is perpetually one piece away, while other pieces, the ones he wasn’t looking at, slowly erode. And he’s just about out of time.

[...]

But eventually the season’s going to start, and the Mets are going to lose a game they probably should have won, and The Fear will return. It’s never been a more perilous time to be a Mets fan.

[...]

At a certain level, Mets fans’ love of their underdog status in New York has never made sense. The Mets had the second-highest payroll in baseball last year and employ three of the most expensive players in the game. When they wanted Johan Santana, they just went out and got him. This will never happen for the Kansas City Royals or, for that matter, any team that doesn’t play in New York, Chicago, Boston, or Los Angeles. The Mets fans have embraced their status as the Other team in New York, because it salves their wounds with meaning: Watching the Mets continuously fail to push the rock up the hill gives cheering for the franchise gravitas and depth, as opposed to the arrogance they perceive in their Yankee-fan counterparts.

But it’s a fallacy, and one wonders, with a shiny new ballpark, how long they’ll be able to keep up the illusion. It’s a lot easier to pretend to be the scrappy overachievers when you’re playing in a rotting Robert Moses relic with an upper deck so high you could wave to the people in planes passing overhead. Can Mets fans keep this up when their team is selling Belgian frites in the cheap seats and offering “multiple sit-down, climate-controlled restaurants, bars, clubs, and lounges”? I posit that this center cannot hold. What if the Mets aren’t the cursed underdogs their fans believe them to be? What if they’re simply disappointing millionaires holding out for new contracts while the rest of us watch our retirement plans evaporate? What if the warm fuzzies fade? What if enough is enough? What then?

Usually, I spend the cold and gray off-season months reading anything about the upcoming Mets spring training and trades that I can get my hands.  This off-season was different.  I stayed away as much as possible to try and erase as much of the aggravation of the 2008 season as I could.  Only recently did I start following up on spring training updates and the like, when I read Leitch’s article.  It was like a punch to the head.  I can only give so much slack to Omar Minaya.  Here’s a GM who came to the Mets with a lot of fanfare, a lot of expectations (granted in the wake of the Kazmir/Zambrano trade, bringing a chimpanzee in as GM would’ve been a reason for optimism), but whose priority seemed to be ticket sales more than building a lasting dynasty.  I remember the advertising onslaught that came with Pedro Martinez, who can never—EVER—replace Mike Piazza as a face of the Mets franchise.  And as the article notes, Omar Minaya seems to be floundering as GM of the Mets.  In his four full years as GM, he’s signed three of the biggest free agents available (Pedro, Beltran and Santana) and has no championships for all his trouble.  Sure there will be some who say that is asking for a lot.  But how about being competitive?  Let’s not forget two of the biggest fade jobs in recent regular season baseball history (I will exclude the Yankees epic collapse in the 2004 ALCS for now).  At the hands of the same team, the annoying Florida Marlins, no less!  All while watching the Phillies win a World Series and two consecutive NL East titles. 

Leitch is right in his assessment of Omar and in my opinion, Mets management/ownership need to be held accountable if this season goes down the toilet.  Within a week of last season’s debacle, how do the Wilpons justify giving Minaya a multi-year extension and Manuel a new contract??  Randolph having been axed months before, here were Minaya and Manuel, holdovers from the 2007-2008 collapses, given new contracts.  Let’s just say I was a bit infuriated.  Something’s got to give with this team.  And I’m still holding out on going to Citifield for my first game this season.  Last season still lingers in my brain.  Let’s go Mets…

Opening Day – 2009

On what was a cold, wet and dreary Opening Day for baseball here in New Jersey, the New York Mets came through with a gritty National League-like victory today, beating the Cincinatti Reds 2-1 at the Great American Ballpark.  I’m guessing it was the game that Fred, Omar and Jerry have been envisioning since last fall—Santana to Green to Putz to K-Rod—and a victory for the Mets. 

Yes, I know it’s opening day, but I need something to hang my hat on here.  Only because there’s an Ollie Perez start on the horizon, with Maine and Pelfrey coming up Wednesday and Thursday.  Make no mistake, the Mets can easily drop those two games with the pitching the Reds have in the queue.   And despite today’s sharp performance by Mets pitching, they still left a small city on the base-paths (12 Mets LOB), which is eerily reminiscent of 2008 and most of 2007.  Yes, I also know that the Mets scored the second most runs in the league last season so the offense “wasn’t the problem”, right?  All I can say is: 5 runs scored in 3 games down the strectch, with the playoffs on the line.   But—it’s a new season, a clean slate.  And Dan Murphy looks like he can be a hitting machine–and he also made a great catch in left today.  

Yep, the Mets won and the Phillies lost, which makes it all the more sweet.

Semantics

Asbolute idiocy.  This is your brain on stupid:

You know what would help with marriage equality? For gay couples who have committed themselves to each other to call each other “husband” and “wife”. I still hear “my partner” way too much. The more people get used to men talking about their husbands, and women talking about their wives, the easier it’ll be to change the culture and, ultimately, the law.

It’s kind of like, if you don’t call it “the war on terror”, they won’t get offended.  Or something.

Foreign Policy Fail

The President is now back in the United States, after a whirlwind of a trip to the G-20 economic summit, France, Turkey, and surprise visit to American forces in Iraq.  And what a trip it was.  Apologizing for American “arrogance” and assuming Europe will subsequently acquiesce to our demands going forward, is not only not “smart foreign policy“, its pretty embarrassing.  Note the request for additional troop support in Afghanistan.  How did our European “friends” reward Obama’s new openness and humility when he asked for some troops to help in Afghanistan?   A kick in the groin and a pat on the back. 

They loved hearing him tell them how evil and arrogant the US has been in the past, but when push came to shove, they weren’t willing to help any more than they helped Bush, who they hated so much.  So once again, the US military will have to bear most of the burden in fighting for our national interests.  And for that, I’m sure the Europeans won’t hesitate to label us arrogant once again somewhere down the road. 

No sooner had this trip ended did an even greater embarrassment take place.  The Congressional Black Caucus flew down to Havana to kiss the kneecaps of fellow comrades meet with the Castro brothers.  The delegation lauded the communist dictator and said dictator responded in kind. 

The fawning that took place over a brutal dictator is baffling, idiotic, and again, embarrassing.  Via Politico:

[California Representative Barbara] Lee and others heaped praise on Castro, calling him warm and receptive during their discussion. But the lawmakers disputed Castro’s later statement that members of the congressional delegation said American society is still racist.

“It was quite a moment to behold,” Lee said, recalling her moments with Castro.

“It was almost like listening to an old friend,” said Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Il.), adding that he found Castro’s home to be modest and Castro’s wife to be particularly hospitable.

“In my household I told Castro he is known as the ultimate survivor,” Rush said.

Rep. Laura Richardson (D-Ca.) said Castro was receptive to President Obama’s message of turning the page in American foreign policy.

“He listened. He said the exact same thing” about turning the page “as President Obama said,” said Richardson.

It really can’t get more pathetic.  .  This is a prime example of  why the right talks about the extremist fringes of the left as hating America.  They fly down to Cuba to heap praise on a brutal, oppressive dictator of a country, who openly hates the United States–a country with no free speech and an economy that is backwards to be kind, where millions live in abject poverty and fear of their government.  What a shining example of hope and change.  Obama’s foreign policy appears to take us down a path of coddling and appeasing dictators, of lowering our country’s image in the world to one of a spineless has-been.  The world has to be laughing at the complete ignorance of our current leadership.

Nick Adenhart

This is terrible:

ANAHEIM, Calif. (AP) – Los Angeles Angels pitcher Nick Adenhart and two other people were killed Thursday by a suspected drunk driver just hours after the rookie made his first start of the season. The Angels postponed Thursday night’s game with Oakland and players planned to gather to remember their teammate, manager Mike Scioscia said. “It is a tragedy that will never be forgotten,” he said at an Angel Stadium news conference.

The 22-year-old Adenhart was a passenger in a silver Mitsubishi Eclipse that was broadsided in an intersection about 12:30 a.m. by a minivan that apparently ran a red light, police said.

The impact spun around both vehicles, and one then struck another car but that driver was not hurt, police said.

The minivan driver fled the crash scene on foot and was captured a half-hour later. Police identified him as Andrew Thomas Gallo, 22, of Riverside, and said he had a suspended license because of a previous drunken driving conviction.

Preliminary results indicated Gallo’s blood-alcohol level was above the legal limit, police Lt. Kevin Hamilton said.

He could face charges including vehicular manslaughter or possibly murder, Hamilton said.

Such a young and talented player, I can’t even imagine what his family is going through.  Adenhart will never be able to realize the talent he had, unlike some other baseball players.  You know, the players who know they have the talent, but just decide to act like morons nonetheless.  It’s idiots like them that give the real athletes a bad name.  I have no tolerance for this crap and I hope Mr. Gallo pays for this with plenty of time in a cold, dark and lonely jail cell.

Stressing Out

From todays NYT, on banking regulators and the so-called stress-tests on the nation’s leading banks:

What they are discovering may come as a relief to both the financial industry and the public: the banking industry, broadly speaking, seems to be in better shape than many people think, officials involved in the examinations say.

That is the good news. The bad news is that many of the largest American lenders, despite all those bailouts, probably need to be bailed out again, either by private investors or, more likely, the federal government. After receiving many millions, and in some cases, many billions of taxpayer dollars, banks still need more capital, these officials say.

 This makes no sense.  The banks are passing stress tests, but still need more capital?   The piece  goes on:

But the tests, which are expected to be completed by the end of this month, are being conducted out of public view. Federal law prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of the results of any bank examination, including the stress tests. Some investors wonder if the new tests are rigorous enough, given the potential problems lurking inside the banking industry.

Regulators recognize that for the tests to be credible, not all of the banks can be winners. And it is becoming increasingly clear, industry insiders say, that the government will use its findings to press certain banks to sell troubled assets. The hope is that by cleansing their balance sheets, banks will be able to lure private capital, stabilizing the entire industry.

 Fair enough.  But then I remember this interesting piece of news from Reuters earlier this week (emphasis added):

WASHINGTON, April 7 (Reuters) – The U.S. Treasury Department is planning to delay the release of any completed bank stress test results until after the first-quarter earnings season to avoid complicating stock market reaction, a source familiar with Treasury’s discussions said on Tuesday.

The Treasury is still talking about how results of the regulatory stress tests on the 19 largest U.S. banks will be released, and may disclose them as summary results that are not institution-specific, the source said.

Officials realize it may be hard to keep the results under wraps, and they are looking for ways the banks could disclose some details without unduly disturbing the markets. They are also looking at providing some summary information about how the banks fared.

The last thing Treasury wants to do is set off a panic, the source said.

[...]

The tests are designed to determine the depth of banks’ capital holes if conditions deteriorate further. After the tests are completed, the banks will have six months to either raise private capital to compensate, or accept government funds.

But officials are worried about how the market will react to the stress test results if there is not a clear recovery path for a bank that is deemed to have a large capital need.

So, the US Treasury (which, let’s face it, hasn’t exactly been the shining light on the hill in finding solutions to the financial crisis) are conducting these stress tests in order to shore up the banking system, by dtermining which of the biggest banks are viable if and when the recession gets worse.  In other words, the tests will determine how big the holes are that are in the banks’ balance sheets and how much it would take to plug them up, if necessary.  Fine.  But why would the Treasury feel the need to delay releasing the findings of the tests “until after the first-quarter earnings season”, which normally lasts into May. 

A few weeks ago, Vikram Pandit  noted in an internal memo that Citigroup is, in fact,  having a good first quarter and I believe Ken Lewis said the same of Bank of America.  But seriously, how much does anyone trust them now?  It’s no secret that these guys stroke the media to assuage markets in the short-term; their ”revelations” are probably more to that end than anything else.  And today’s profit news for Wells Fargo runs along that theme, sending the markets higher. 

So, is the banking sector turning a corner?  Probably not.  The interest rate environment right now is so advantageous to banks that a monkey could get Citigroup to turn a profit.  Cost of funds are so low right now that the banks are borrowing from the government for free, and with a prime rate of 3.25%, banks should realize hefty margins.  Banks with sizable lending infrastructures such as Wells, Citi, etc., should be printing cash flow right now.  But even with lower dividend payments, my guess is that they still won’t generate enough cash flow to fill the gaping holes in their balance sheets.  Could the Treasury be seeing some not-so-pretty results from these stress tests that it doesn’t want to cause panic, as the Reuters piece noted?  If that’s the case then the Treasury is doing the markets a disservice.  The situation is so dire, they say, enough to justify unprecedented expansion of government “oversight” of the financial system.  If it’s that dire, they should be upfront with the market, with good news or bad.

Stressing Out, Pt. 2

Continuing the theme from yesterday’s post on the stress-tests, I see this on Bloomberg this morning:

Fed Said to Order Banks to Stay Mum on ‘Stress Test’ Results

April 10 (Bloomberg)– The U.S. Federal Reserve has told Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Citigroup Inc. and other banks to keep mum on the results of “stress tests” that will gauge their ability to weather the recession, people familiar with the matter said.

The Fed wants to ensure that the report cards don’t leak during earnings conference calls scheduled for this month. Such a scenario might push stock prices lower for banks perceived as weak and interfere with the government’s plan to release the results in an orderly fashion later this month.

“If you allow banks to talk about it, people are just going to assume that the ones that don’t comment about it failed,” said Paul Miller, an analyst at FBR Capital Markets in Arlington, Virginia.

Banks should stay silent because a focus on the tests would be “a harmful distraction” from earnings, said Scott Talbott, senior vice president for government affairs at the Financial Services Roundtable in Washington.

“It is premature for banks to talk about the stress tests,” Talbott said yesterday. “They aren’t finalized yet and there is no framework to evaluate the results.”

Good grief.  A “distraction” from earnings?  I could be way off base here, but it seems to me that the inability to remain a viable bank during an economic downturn would be something shareholders would want to know about during a conference call with investors.  These calls are not used merely to report earnings, but to bring investors up to speed with any new developments on the status of your company, financial or otherwise. 

There is a fiduciary responsibility on the part of management to relay to shareholders their company’s financial status.  The US government is now telling management to forget about these obligations and continue to play this game of chicken, for the sake of some the next Treasury/Obama photo-op, where the President can assure the public that government is doing the “right thing.”  And the lemmings will applaud.  It’s insanity.  Supposedly, we are in the age of transparency and accountability.  There’s nothing transparent going on here.  Just another kick in the head to the investor class.

Man of Sorrows

Good Friday’s bible readings contained one of my favorite biblical chapters, Isaiah 53.  The chapter contains the most overt and direct prophecies of the suffering of Jesus and more importantly, the essence of the Passion—the suffering for our sins. 

After the opening credits of Mel Gibson’s masterful The Passion Of The Christ, and before the first scene, a written excerpt of this chapter opens up the film.  To me, this added to the power of the film and jump-started the barrage of emotions that flows from the movie.

Here is Isaiah 53 in it’s entirety:

Isaiah 53 (King James Version)

Isaiah 53
1Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?

2For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

3He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

8He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

9And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

11He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

12Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Good Friday is a day of reflection and of rememberance, but unfortunately, Good Friday 2009 is even more so due to recent events. 

Read Pope Benedict’s Good Friday address here; the homily is not up on the Vatican website, but The Anchoress has a link to a transcript.

The image on this post is of from the famous Deesis mosaic at the Hagia Sophia, Turkey.

Good news from the banks? Caveat emptor…

April was bound to be an interesting month for the stock market.  First quarter earnings results are just beginning to be released and  investors should be getting the results of the government-imposed stress tests on the nation’s biggest banks, all while the market continues a strong bounce from the dreary lows of early March. 

What’s concerning me a bit is the “turning the corner” talk in the media, traditional or otherwise, that has gained momentum over the past few weeks.  Even Abbey Joseph Cohen, the very same of Goldman Sachs, the same AJC who cheered on the tech-bubble of the late 1990s all the way to the top, has indicated that the “worst may be over” for the stock market.   Indeed.

Wells Fargo kicked off a rally last Thursday by reporting what seemed to be a stellar quarter.  As I noted in an earlier post, turning a profit in banking these days is ridiculously simple.  Like President Obama and snuffing out pirates on the high seas, lenders really just have to do nothing more than stay out of the way in this favorable interest rate environment.  Profits are one thing.  Having adequate capital is another.  Turns out, Wells Fargo has a big hole to fill on it s balance sheet:

Wells Fargo May Need $50 Billion in Capital, KBW Says

April 13 (Bloomberg)– Wells Fargo & Co., the second- biggest U.S. home lender, may need $50 billion to pay back the federal government and cover loan losses as the economic slump deepens, according to KBW Inc.’s Frederick Cannon.

KBW expects $120 billion of “stress” losses at Wells Fargo, assuming the recession continues through the first quarter of 2010 and unemployment reaches 12 percent, Cannon wrote today in a report. The San Francisco-based bank may need to raise $25 billion on top of the $25 billion it owes the U.S. Treasury for the industry bailout plan, he wrote.

First-quarter net income rose 50 percent to about $3 billion, Wells Fargo said last week in announcing preliminary results that topped the most optimistic Wall Street estimates and sparked a 32 percent jump in the stock. The bank attributed the profit to a surge in mortgage originations and revenue from Wachovia Corp., acquired in December. Full results are scheduled for April 22.

“Details were scarce and we believe that much of the positive news in the preliminary results had to do with merger accounting, revised accounting standards and mortgage default moratoriums, rather than underlying trends,” wrote Cannon, who downgraded the shares to “underperform” from “market perform.” “We expect earnings and capital to be under pressure due to continued economic weakness.”

[...]

“Given rising unemployment, continued home price declines and general macroeconomic headwinds, WFC’s consumer and commercial portfolios remain at risk for meaningfully higher credit losses over 2009 and 2010,” [Credit Suisse analyst Moshe] Orenbuch wrote.

 Ouch. 

Goldman Sachs issued fun earnings news earlier today, kicking off a week of earnings reports from some major banks, and did not disappoint.  But then again, Goldman Sachs lives in an alternate universe when it comes to earnings.  Lloyd Blankfein could shovel horse manure from Central Park’s handsome cabs, pack it in a box and pronounce it as “earnings” and Wall Street would applaud and genuflect accordingly.  Judging by CNBC’s reaction to the earnings earlier this evening, they have already begun the cheer-leading (only the potential dilution of a $5 billion share offering has sent GS down in after-hours).  And this earnings report is no different.  The first three months of 2009 have been extremely volatile, and judging from a perusal of its report, Goldman has benefited handsomely from trading that market.  It’s up to investors to determine the quality of these earnings and how much of it was derived from AIG money-laundering “counterparty transactions”, and the like. 

The short-term market direction really isn’t a concern for me;  I don’t particularly care which direction it’s going, as long as I’m on the right side of the trade.  I try—TRY–to  ignore all the hype and the hyperventilating about banks with huge capital holes and bailout shell-games among the big banks and their correspondent institutions, having turned corners and such. Plus, it doesn’t help that the Treasury is being run by an uber-manager and not a real Treasury secretary.  The same department that’s been giving investors mixed signals about the stress tests, and what to expect or what not to expect, plus what they’re doing with the massive power grab they’ve been undertaking since the fall.  It’s a tricky time to be an asset-holder.  So caveat emptor, and all that.

(UPDATE)

The Pragmatic Capitalist pretty much sums up what was in my head, albeit in much more eloquent prose and more to the point:

To the government’s credit, I must admit – this is a very clever litte scheme to try to raise capital from the public. It goes like this: change the accounting rules, funnel funds to the banks via AIG boosting Q1 earnings, announce the PPIP, announce the stress tests, leak the results and the fact that all banks will pass and then let the earnings do the talking. Then hit the market with billions in capital raises so that the banks can raise capital from the public (something they are now concerned about being able to do through their various taxpayer programs and let’s not forget that the possibility of raising more money from Congress is entirely out of the question now that taxpayers are fully onto the scams that are occurring at their expense). Tim Geithner is a clever man, but it’s only a matter of time before the tide goes out and the banks are again exposed as being undercapitalized government run ponzi schemes.

Couldn’t have said it better.

Out At Home

No surprise here, but the Mets dropped their season home-opener to the San Diego Padres 6-5, and rained all over the debut of Citifield.  This is the moment I’ve been dreading since I left Shea Stadium on September 28, 2008, after that final game versus the Marlins, officially ending a season that was already on life-support. 

I swore I wouldn’t spend one more dime on the Mets for a long time, especially not opening day at Citifield.  True to my own word I watched the game from home. 

Pelfrey began the festivities by allowing a lead-off HR in the first inning, into the right field seats by Jody Gerut (??) of all people.  After trailing 5-1, the Metsscored in the bottom of the fifth with a single by Dan Murphy to make it 5-2.  Later, with two runners on, David Wright hits the first home run by a Met at Citifield to tie the game at 5-5.   At this point, you could feel the electricity at Citifield.  Ok, I thought, maybe.  Then, top of the 6th with a runner on third, Pedro Feliciano balks.  BALKS.  Balks in the go-ahead run.   And the Padres never looked back.  Duaner Sanchez mows down the  Mets in the eighth and Heath Bell gets the save.  And, oh yeah, Mike Pelfrey fell off the mound. 

This is what it’s like being a Mets fan.  I know it’s only 7 games in, but this was a game Pelfrey and the Mets had to win.  No excuses here.  Wright’s home-run to me, was an Endy Chavez-in-the-NLCS moment.  After that, you just knew the Mets were going to win, because that’s what plays like that do to your team.  They generate momentum.  But no.  For the Mets, it’s about following that up with a balk that scores the go-ahead run.  It’s about watching  Duaner Sanchez in a Padres uniform suddenly finding the strengh to throw over 90 mph again.  And it’s about watching former Met Heath Bell slam the door on your ballpark’s inaugural game.   Oh, the pain.

Bank of America Still Infected

Add Bank of America to the list of banks with suspect balance sheets:

April 14 (Bloomberg)– Bank of America Corp., the largest U.S. bank, is not as well capitalized as most of its peers and has “precious little wiggle room” before it may be forced to sell new stock, according to Wachovia Capital Markets LLC.

Bank of America retains “sizeable exposures to what we would deem are worrisome assets,” including $148 billion in home equity loans and credit lines and $111.5 billion in credit- card and other revolving loans, Wachovia’s Matthew Burnell said in a report dated yesterday.

 When it rains, it pours for these banks

Obama’s moratorium fantasy fail

The left vilifies and pushes hard against the free markets and common sense, but eventually those fundamentals will always win out:

Some of the nation’s largest mortgage companies are stepping up foreclosures on delinquent homeowners. That will likely lead to more Americans losing their homes just as the Obama administration’s housing-rescue plan gets into gear.

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Co., Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac all say they have increased foreclosure activity in recent weeks. Those companies say they have lifted internal moratoriums which temporarily halted foreclosures.

[...]

The resulting increase in the supply of foreclosed homes could further depress home prices and put additional pressure on bank earnings as troubled loans are written off.

[...]

Foreclosure sales had dropped in the second half of 2008 as mortgage companies delayed taking action against delinquent borrowers. But sales have been edging up this year, according to LPS Applied Analytics, which tracks loan performance. Foreclosure-related filings increased by nearly 6% in February from the month earlier, and were up almost 30% from February 2008, according to RealtyTrac. The backlog of seriously delinquent loans has been growing.

To be clear, then-candidate Obama made foreclosure moratoriums a part of his “plan” to alleviate the housing crisis (after trashing fellow candidate Hillary Clinton for proposing the same plan).  As is typical of liberals, it was and still is, more empty, populist rhetoric.  A false solution to real problems.  But it makes good fodder for whipping up the populist frenzy on the campaign trail.  Earlier this year, in what was a essentially a PR move, the banks acquiesced to Obama’s request that they suspend foreclosures.  Again, make no mistake, this was part of the president’s save-the-homeowners narrative.  Stop the greedy, white bankers from kicking defaulting borrowers from their homes—despite the fact that by defaulting they’ve essentially broken a legal contract.  The banks have every right to do what they need to do.  But that doesn’t work in Obama’s alternate unicorns and rainbow universe. 

The biggest side effect of these moratoriums is that it encourages already weak borrowers to continue to procrastinating making payments.  Instead of doing what needs to be done to find a way to keep up with payments or to make lower payments, the moratorium will encourage defaults further.  The WSJ article bears this out.  One way or another, a deadbeat borrower is a deadbeat borrower. 

On the other side of the transaction, the lenders incur higher costs to service defaulting loans.  These are facts of economic life that liberals conveniently neglect.  In their world, the president stays halt foreclosures—and it may work temporarily.  In the real world, bankers have to service loans and borrowers should pay them.

Left-wing fantasies about an altruistic government somehow mandating that their alternate economic universe applies to real-word situations have never been sound economic policy and they won’t begin to make sense now.

Tea Party (UPDATE)

Just a note about these Tea Party protests taking place today.  Apparently, Paul Ryan feels a bit left out of today’s taxpayer protests and wants in at the Tea Parties.  Feeling a bit irrelevant and left out perhaps?  He deserves it.  These are the type of “conservatives” that real conservatives should steer clear of right now.

UPDATE:  It’s not just about Democrats (via):

In Madison, Wisconsin, GOP Rep. Paul Ryan – hyped as a conservative “rockstar” – was well-received. But I heard from staunch fiscal conservative constituents who refused to be silent about Ryan’s complicity. He gave one of the most hysterical speeches in the rush to pass TARP last fall; voted for the auto bailout; and voted with the Barney Frank/Nancy Pelosi AIG bonus-bashing stampede. Milwaukee blogger Nick Schweitzer wrote: “He ought to be apologizing for his previous votes, not pretending he was being responsible the entire time, but I don’t see one bit of regret for what he did previously. And I’ll be damned if I’m going to let him get away with it.”

Other Tea Party participants pointed out that Newt Gingrich, who jumped aboard the bandwagon, flip-flopped on TARP in the space of a week last September and made common cause with Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi in ads calling for immediate action on “climate change.”

That Paul Ryan felt the need to show his face at the Tea Parties is a disgrace.  Why is it such a disgrace?  See my previous reasons here, here, here and here. 

The fact that he’s still welcome as a “rising star” of conservatism only alludes to the dearth of real conservative leaders in the Republican party right now.  There is a significant rot in the GOP establishment right now and for that to be torn down, conservatives need to retake the party from the Beltway crowd.  The Tea Parties appear to have been a good start, but what’s important is what happens today, tomorrow, next month and in the next year or so, to build a true grassroots movement and for it to be sustainable.  We don’t need the Ryans and the Gingriches of the world to show up for a photo-op, and then stab the movement in the back when nobody’s looking.   

Tea and Biscuits

The Tea Party protests have come and gone.  From what I’ve seen on the blogs and on television, the protests have made their point—people are mad at what’s going on in Washington.  Some interesting observations I’ve seen.  First,  Marc Ambinder writes over at the Atlantic (via Memeorandum):

The right looks more ridiculous than the left at this point, if only because conservatives don’t have much muscle memory when it comes to protesting en masse. But the tea parties really are something. Their origins — organic, programmatic, accidental or otherwise — don’t matter much anymore. If — and we’ll have to see the numbers at the end of the day — 100,000 Americans show up to protest their taxes, the onus to dismiss them as a nascent political force shifts to the Democrats. There’s no evidence that official Republican strategists connected with the Republican National Committee, John Boehner’s office or the NRSC had the insight to conceive of these events, much less to try and bigfoot the organizers.

Radley Balko notes the similaritybetween the Tea Partiers and the Iraq War protesters:

I tend to agree with them, but they make it very difficult to take them seriously. And like the anti-war folks, they’re letting their cause get hijacked by a variety of other causes, too, including anti-immigration and anti-gay protesters, and, now, many of the mainstream GOP hacks that had no problem growing the federal government back when they were in power.

And via OTB, Brian Knapp notes why such protests don’t work in 2009:

Where large mainstream media networks once held a monopoly on what people learned of and became aware to, individuals have a much easier time sharing ideas and commenting quickly and quite effectively now with the advent of blogs, tweeting, text messaging, social networking sites and email.

As Ambinder alludes to, the jury’s still out on whether the number of people who participated is enough to make these protests relevant, which is to say if they can affect change in Washington and spciefically, to the Republican Party platform.  I’m not holding my breath.  I’ve read that protest organizers have refused to showcase establishment Republicans (even though Paul Ryan appears to have squeezed his way in somehow, which is a disgrace).  And like Ambinder says, I think it’s ridiculous to see things like this from John Boehner who, about six months ago, was asking conservatives to check their principles at the door so they could vote for TARP—when George W. Bush was still president.

Balko brings up a good point, as the Tea Parties became a platform seccession talk in Texas, for example.  The anti-tax, limited government message gets somewhat diluted, and kind of kills the potency of the whole exercise.  And, to Brian Knapp’s point, does anyone really take any protests seriously anymore? 

More importantly, the Tea Party is over.  Tomorrow is April 16th.  What happens to the movement now?  Is this grass-roots effort over now that the protests are over?  Does the organizing continue, or were today’s protests just and aberration?  Time will tell.

The bottom line is I think the protests made their point.  If only because the lefty blogosphere, who were happily ignoring the upcoming protests a few weeks ago, seemed to have undertaken some concerned pearl-clutching  the past few days.  As if you can’t protest in this country unless you’re either pro-abortion, gay, black, unemployed or a coke-head….or all of the above.  Seems to me, that liberals can protest about fictitious war crimes and constantly whine about Bush and Cheney going to jail for reasons only they can think of on non-existent charges, or for a woman’s right to infanticide, I guess those are all “legitimate” reasons to protest. And why not?  It tidily fits into their tedious narrative.  And they’re getting down right bitchy about it all, to the point where they’re projecting their insecurities and abnormal tendencies onto others in a fit of anger, is all they have.  And that suits me just fine.  The only complaint they have is the “well, nobody complained about George Bush so why protest now” argument—which doesn’t hold much water.  Not speaking up five years ago shouldn’t preclude anyone from speaking up now.  And supposedly, the “people” despised George Bush despite re-electing him with a significant margin in 2004—-and this was AFTER the Abu Gharib revelations and after the Iraq war began, and all the supposed deregulation, and on and on and on.  So so much for that. 

All in all, who knows how the Tea Parties will affect our politics.  Unfortunately for me, with all this talk of tea the past few weeks…lots of tea…all I could think of was this:

“I have had tea…lots of tea…and biscuits”

JP Morgan’s Lessons Learned

Looks like Jamie Dimon isn’t too fond of the Treausry sponsored PPIP plan which is intended to help banks get rid of their toxic assets.  Seems like he’s not too fond of encroaching statism either:

April 16 (Bloomberg)– JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon, who today reported first-quarter profit that beat analysts’ expectations, said his firm could repay U.S. government rescue funds “tomorrow.”

Dimon, calling money received through the Troubled Asset Relief Program “a scarlet letter” and “the TARP baby,” said on a conference call today that the New York-based bank is awaiting guidance from the U.S. Treasury Department. “We could pay it back tomorrow,” he said.

[...]

Dimon said the bank, which bought about $34 billion in mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities in the quarter, doesn’t expect to participate as either a buyer or seller in the Treasury’s Public-Private Investment Program, known as PPIP. “We learned our lesson” about borrowing from the government, said Dimon, who expects PPIP to benefit the financial system as a whole. 

What is Jamie Dimon seeing that the Treasury does not?  The potential for disaster:  

This risk to the banks is particularly acute when dealing with whole loans that the banks currently say they have no plans to sell. These loans are often carried at 100 cents on the dollar, because loans classified as held to maturity don’t have to be marked to market. Even subsidized buyers won’t likely be willing to pay anywhere near 100 cents on the dollar for these loans. So, here, the writedowns could potentially be huge.

And then there’s another problem:

If the banks go through the exercise of putting assets up for sale only to have the bids come in at, say, 40 cents instead of the 60 cents on the books, the banks’ accountants and/or federal regulators might notice. So even if the banks recoil in horror and refuse to sell at 40 cents, someone somewhere might insist that assets now carried at 60 cents be written down to 40 cents (after all, they won’t have the “temporary illiquidity discount” excuse anymore, will they?). This will blow another huge hole in the banks’ balance sheets.

JP Morgan is arguably one of the stronger banks right now, if not the strongest, in terms of capitalization and stability.  When the government needed to find a suitor for what was left of Bear Stearns, it went to JPM.  The notion that one of the biggest banks in the country essentially thumbed its nose at government rescue plans and the stifling restrictions that came after the fact with it probably won’t sit well with the Treasury or the Administration, which are dealing with an already tepid response to PPIP.  Far as I know, Black Rock and PIMCO are signed on, but from the other side, not too many banks are as eager to sell at prices that would give the banks significant capital haircuts. 

Dimon is smarter than that, knowing he could keep the assets on his books and sell them when they’re ready to sell them.  As opposed to engaging in a futile bidding for the assets via the PPIP, by bidders that could bid on assets with virtually no risk and no skin in the game, but stand to profit significnatly.  Dimon is no fool.  He’ll take the invisible hand of the free market before the wretched claw of government anyday.  And JPM shareholders will be better off for it.

Stay Classy Libs…

Like I alluded to in last night’s post about the Tea Parties, one sign that the protests were effective is that it’s driving the liberal blogosphere and the mainstream media up a wall.  You can search the blogs and the news sites for the derangement, the absolute degeneracy of these supposed patriots and free-speech huggers.  As is always the case with liberals, they resort to profanity and downright idiocy.  But, that’s just what liberals are all about.  That’s how you know the opposition is making a dent in their tender egos.  Michelle Malkin has a good sampling here.

Obama’s Auto Czar Named In Kickback Scheme

So Obama likes to appoint “czars” to his administration.  The beauty of having a “czar” is that they’re accountable to nobody but the President.  No congressional hearings.  No votes required.  No accountability.  Which makes it all the more disturbing when you see things like this:

The Treasury’s car czar, Steve Rattner, has been dragged into the New York State retirement fund kickback scandal that led to several arrests earlier this week.

Rattner’s private equity firm, Quadrangle, paid a finder’s fee to one of the defendants in the kickback scheme for a $100 million investment the state retirement fund made in one of Quadrangle’s funds.

More troublingly, one of Quadrangle’s affiliate companies also paid $88,000 to acquire the DVD distribution rights for a movie produced by the New York State official who made the investment decision and his brothers. Quadrangle made this DVD payment during the time the state was considering making the investment.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Steve Rattner is the Quadrangle executive described in the SEC complaint we’ve excerpted below. The complaint says Rattner was personally involved in both the payment of the finder’s fee and the acquisition of the movie rights.

Just a little background on Rattner.  He’s a former journalist  who is very friendly with Arthur Sulzberger Jr., publisher and chairman of the New York Times.  Switching to a career in finance, he developed a sizable rolodex with contacts in New York’s political scene, including Mike Bloomberg, and is a big donor to….wait for it….the Democratic Party. 

So let’s recap.  A Wall Street PE executive, with contacts at one of the biggest liberal voices in the news media, a contributor to the Democratic Party, with no business experience outside of Wall Street, is given a cushy job in the Obama administration to oversee the government takeover of the auto industry.  And his PE firm has been named in an investigation into kickbacks with the NY state pension fund. 

Thank goodness for Obama and his czars.  Because, you know, we need some transparency and accountability after eight long years of greedy, corrupt Repubicans and their fat-cat Wall Street cronies.

Obama Takes A Scalpel To The Budget

And the joke is on us:

President Obama convened his Cabinet for the first time today and instructed department heads to trim their budgets by a combined $100 million over the next 90 days.

Although the cuts would account to a minuscule portion of the federal budget, they are intended to signal the president’s determination to trim spending and reform government, a senior administration official said.

“As part of his commitment to go line by line through the budget to cut spending and reform government, he will challenge his Cabinet to cut a collective 100 million dollars in the next 90 days,” the White House said in a statement issued before the meeting.

The statement identified a variety of cost-cutting measures it said agencies have already begun to implement, ranging from a crackdown on improper farm subsidy payments by the Agriculture Department to bulk purchases of office supplies by the Homeland Security Department and the use of energy-efficient vehicles. 

Of course, the proposed cuts are completely irrelevant.  How irrelevant are they?  Greg Mankiw sums it up:

To put those numbers in perspective, imagine that the head of a household with annual spending of $100,000 called everyone in the family together to deal with a $34,000 budget shortfall. How much would he or she announce that spending had be cut? By $3 over the course of the year–approximately the cost of one latte at Starbucks. The other $33,997? We can put that on the family credit card and worry about it next year

This is amusing considering the $787 billion stimulus bill, the $410 billion omnibus spending bill and the $3.5 trillion budget proposed by the administration.  Just like the phantom tax-cut for 95% of Amercians, this exercise is no doubt intended to placate the talking point narrative along the lines of “see how fiscally responsible we are? See? SEE?!?”  It’s not only attempt at futility, it’s near insulting to every tax-paying American.

Gallup: Government is the bigger threat

Earlier today, Rasmussen released a poll revealing that 51% of the country viewed the Tea Party protests favorably which included 32% who viewed the protests “Very favorably”.  Considering all of the vitriol spewed from the left side of the blogosphere and all of the energy spent to discredit the protests, the polling numbers are impressive.  I expected some more of that behavior after these numbers came out, but looking over at Memeorandum, not much is going on. 

Liberals will tell us, of course, that Rasmussen is not to be believed.  It’s a shill for the right wingers, so it’s to be ignored.  The real polls–the truly credible polls–are conducted by reputable polling firms.  You know, like Gallup.  It seems Gallup has a poll of its own out today as well.  About that government expansion?  We’re not to crazy about it:

Asked whether “big government”, “big labor” or “big business” posed the biggest threat to the future of the country, 55 percent said “big government” while 32 percent chose “big business” and 10 percent opted for “big labor”.

 

Now, I never take polls too seriously.  But liberals love to quote polls every chance they get, to somehow justify their nonsense.  The media is constantly deluging viewers with polls to justify the week’s talking point.  And if a poll says something to the contrary of their memes then, well, the poll must be rigged somehow.  Either that, or they resort to the old liberal saw, the “you’re too stupid” defense.  See, government knows what’s best for us, not the individual—so goes the narrative—therefore, you must be a moron for not accepting the cold, stifling hand of government in your life or your business.  Case in point:

I suspect many people just repeat the ear worms they’ve heard for decades when asked these questions. Three decades of propaganda have so inculcated the anti “big government” theme in their minds that they just accept it without thinking. The true conservatives among those asked really believe it, of course, but the Independents and Democrats who answered that way probably don’t buy into the implications of that statement.

Exactly.  Americans?  We’re just too dumb to think that the political virtue of government expansion for your own benefit is pure—all that propaganda and all.  That must be the answer.  Democrats?  Meh. They’ll come around eventually.  The rest of us?  What a bunch of rubes.  We’re just too brainless to know that what’s been happening over the last three months is for our own benefit and for the progress of mankind. 

Since the election (and most of 2008) all we’ve heard from liberals was how the “people” are clamoring for more government.  Obama has more than obliged, forging ahead on a three month orgy of expanding the already bloated reach of government (set in place by President Bush, to be fair).  Allegedly, the ”people” want government to ration health care, prop up the value of their homes,  keep them from defaulting on their mortgage, blackmail the automakers to design the ultimate green car,  increase the value of their 401(k) plans,  prosecute phantom war crimes on past administrations, to fund Hamas and so on and so on.  And all along the way, XYZ company’s polling data “confirmed” as much.  

Gallup’s poll puts some chink in that tin-foil armor.

Left-wing bloviation tanks Maddow’s ratings

The L.A. Times ran this story about uber-liberal Rachel Maddow’s cliff-diving ratings on MSNBC.  This part me laugh:

And even though Maddow’s ratings slipped last month, she still beat out CNN’s “Larry King Live,” a consistent cable news heavyweight, among the 25- to 54-year-old demographic. And, on some nights, she bested King in total viewers.

MSNBC long ago gave up its title of “news channel” and has settled into being a propaganda tool for the demented fringes of liberalism and Democrat talking points (that’s probably redundant).  Liberals in the blogosphere don’t even try to hide it anymore.  They pride themselves in that it’s become their sounding board.  When Maddow was hired over the summer,  the left was ecstatic:

The Olbermann-Maddow 1-2 punch will be potent. Now, if we could get a decent lead-in for Olbermann, we’d have a serious block of programming on our hands.

Yes.  So potent that nobody even bothers to watch.  So potent that her ratings have to surpass those of Larry King to be considered a “success”.  The same Larry King who, in an attempt to score some extra eyeballs will parade mainstream intellectuals like sleazebag Perez Hilton to debate their side of the day’s issues.  Kind of like that.   And what about that “lead-in” for Olbermann?  The geniuses at MSNBC decide wannabe-populist and blowhard Ed Schultz was the right man for that job.  That brilliant idea isn’t turning out as “potent” as liberals would like us to believe either.  

Liberals will never admit that most Americans, really don’t want to see a bunch of smug, sanctimonious and left-wing extremists bloviate about their fake populism, force-feeding us their radical talking points.  Sure, Maddow got a bump in viewership before the election, that’s only natural.  People are curious and they want to see what the fuss is usually about.  But like everything else from the left, the more that people see, the more mainstream America tunes out. 

 (Via)

(UPDATE)

Fox News continues its ratings domination over the other liberal propaganda cable news channels:

How’s this for cable news domination – Fox News beat CNN and MSNBC combined in every hour from 6amET to MidnightET in both Total Viewers and the A25-54 demo for April 2009.

FNC had the top 11 cable news programs in Total Viewers and 12 of the top 15 in the demo. FNC is the #2 network in Total Viewers on all of cable.

From 9amET on, every program grew by more than 60% in the demo. The 5pmET hour, now occupied by Glenn Beck, is up 212% in the demo and up 128% in Total Viewers. Your World with Neil Cavuto is up 102% in the demo and up 60% in Total Viewers. On the Record with Greta Van Susteren is up 75% in demo and up 55% in Total Viewers. Also in demo: FOX Report is up 75%, Special Report 70%, The O’Reilly Factor 74% and Hannity 64%.

( Via Hot Air Headlines)

The RNC Braintrust

This is the current priority for state Republicans (via Politico):

A conservative faction of the Republican National Committee is urging the GOP to take a harder line against both Democrats and wayward Republicans, drafting a resolution to rename the opposition the “Democrat Socialist Party” and moving to rebuke the three Republican senators who supported the stimulus package.

[...]

In addition to the effort to refer to Democrats as “Socialists,” the conservative RNC members are also proposing resolutions urging Republican members of Congress to stop accepting earmarks and praising those in the party who have opposed the bailouts and Obama’s spending plans.

 In a related piece at the Washington Times:

Conservatives on the RNC acknowledge that the Republicans lost credibility as the party of small government and fiscal discipline under the Bush administration, and fear that there is no credible counterforce to what they regard as the leftward tilt of the ruling Democrats.

Of course there’s no “credible counterforce” to the Democrats and their creeping statism!  The “counterforce” is too busy calling the other side names and patting themselves on the back for playing the roles of wannabe conservatives.  I’m not a big fan of Michael Steele as RNC Chairman but I tip my hat to him, as he obviously thinks this is a horrible idea as well. 

The rot in the establishment GOP is deeper than I thought.  Does the RNC have a clue?  Is this all they have left?  Is this how Republicans plan to differentiate themselves from liberal Democrats?  What is the theme for 2010 going to be:   “JUST CALL THEM SOCIALISTS”??

Rasmussen: Releasing memos endangers America

Despite the recent uproar from the leftist fringes, most Americans really couldn’t care less about the “legal rights” of terrorism suspects, and more about the security of our nation:

Fifty-eight percent (58%) believe the Obama administration’s recent release of CIA memos about the harsh interrogation methods used on terrorism suspects endangers the national security of the United States. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 28% believe the release of the memos helps America’s image abroad.Thirty-seven percent (37%) of voters now believe the U.S. legal system worries too much about protecting individual rights when national security is at stake. But 21% say the legal system is too concerned about protecting national security. Thirty-three percent (33%) say the balance between the two is about right.

This reflects a significant shift over the past couple of years. In several surveys conducted during 2008, Americans were fairly evenly divided as to whether our legal system worried too much about individual rights or too much about protecting national security

The hypocrisy from the left is amazing.  Most people really don’t want to see the benefits and rights that the US Constitution gives to our citizens, bestowed upon foreign nationals who would do us harm.  I see no ACLU indictments of Al Queda, Hezbollah, Iran, etc. 

It will be interesting to see how this plays out politically for the Obama administration.  Obama rarely embarks on an agenda unless the polling is in his favor—that’s what Karl Rove David Axelrod is for.  As the left-wing of the Democratic party turns up the heat to hold hearings, appoint independent investigations or whatever, to prosecute those behind the Bush-era torture memos, Obama might have to call off the dogs, while maintaining the proper narrative.  The tug from the left maybe too much to bear.

(UPDATE)

Patterico on Obama’s flip-flop regarding a truth commission:

Pres. Obama does not want a “truth commission” looking into the Bush Administration’s harsh interrogation of high-value enemy combatants. People may think his flip-flop on having the Justice Dept. look into the matter is a cave to hysterical, Sullivan-esque self-soilers, but that is only half-accurate. The point of fobbing this issue off on Holder & Co. is precisely to try to remove everyone else from the equation, including the media. This was a common tactic of the Clinton Administration: “Sorry, as you know, this matter is under investigation, so I am not at liberty to comment.”

 As with everything else Obama does, politics rules the day.

US Department of Loan Sharking

Via Hot Air, this interesting piece about a TARP-infested bank, paying back it’s TARP money, but not without some payback:

TCF Financial Corporation announced Wednesday that it had completed the repurchase of its TARP preferred stock from the U.S. Treasury. It paid a redemption price of $361.2 million plus accrued dividends of $3.4 million.

TCF Chairman and CEO William A. Cooper said the bank had maintained a strong capital position over the last year through its own operations, and it didn’t need to rely on the public capital infusion to continue its traditional lending pace. Cooper said TCF is the largest bank to pay back TARP funds to the U.S. Treasury.

TCF’s executives had complained that Treasury and the U.S. Congress had subverted the TARP program by changing its rules after banks had joined. Those rules added controls over compensation and dividends programs, and Cooper said those changes contributed to a stigma of weakness and reliance on public support – a stigma that didn’t reflect his bank’s condition.

As part of the agreement for withdrawing from the program, TCF also agreed to reduce its first-quarter dividend from 25 cents to 5 cents.

It’s interesting.  For equity holders who invest for dividend growth, 2008 was a bad year, to be kind, as companies try to conserve cash by slashing dividends.  The first quarter of 2009 alone was worse than all of 2008.  According to Barron’s, dividends were cut by $40.6 billion in 2008—the first quarter saw a $42 billion cut.  That’s nearly $85 billion in income slashed from the economy–not to mention the opportunity cost of wealth not realized from dividend re-investments.  These are part of the risks that investors—those considered wealthy, those with 401(k) plans, public retirement funds, etc— take when investing. 

The TCF story raises eyebrows for an altogether different reason.  The investor class, the driver of our economy, is under attack by a partisan government insistent on waging a vindictive war on risk-takers and capital.  Here is the government, nudging the banks into accepting public funds for the “benefit” of bolstering the banking system.  No strings attached, the only stipulation was that they “start lending”.  But then the strings start to appear.  The government begins moving the goalposts mid-game.  All this by an administration that preaches “transparency” and “accountability”.  This is more than just a ransom.  This is Chicago-style governance.  How is this any different from a federally-funded loan sharking operation?  It isn’t.  This is what conservatives mean when they say that capitalism and the free-markets are under attack.

This is your government on stupid

Thank goodness we have really, REALLY smart people in the White House right now.  Because only morons would be dumb enough to fly a 747, trailed by F-16 fighter jets, over downtown Manhattan.  The reason?  So that Air Force photographers could take photos of Air Force One over the New York Harbor.

Relax, folks, just walk away.  Nothing to see here.  Just some boneheaded incompetence, courtesy of the White House. 

Via the New York Times (emphasis added):

But the exercise – conducted without any notification to the public- caused momentary panic in some quarters and led to the evacuation of several buildings in Lower Manhattan and Jersey City. By the afternoon, the situation had turned into a political fuse box, with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg saying that he was “furious” that he had not been told in advance about the flyover.

Apparently, Mayor Bloomberg was not even informed of the fly-over, which makes this whole thing even more insane.  Who are the geniuses that approved something like this?  And is it too much to ask that whoever allowed this to happen be fired?  Idiots. 

(Video via Hot Air)

Specter Remains a Democrat

Arlen Specter last month:

“I’m staying a Republican because I think I have a more important role to play there,” he said. “I think the United States very desperately needs a two-party system. … And I’m afraid that we’re becoming a one-party system, with Republicans becoming just a regional party.”

Michael Steele issues a statement, with some welcome chutzpah for a change (via Crittenden/via Gateway Pundit):

Some in the Republican Party are happy about this. I am not. Let’s be honest-Senator Specter didn’t leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record. Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don’t do it first.

Why the backtracking?  Political reality.  But, as Steele alludes to, expect the Democrats to be flush with big labor money to primary a real liberal against Specter in the 2010, which essentially leaves a true liberal vs a true conservative in the 2010 general election.  But for now, with liberal degenerate Franken’s seating as senator just about inevitable, the Democrats will have their filibuster-proof, magic number of 60 in the Senate.  Which means….no more blaming the GOP for anything.  One could argue, that with Specter switching sides, the Democrats officially own and take tutelage over the government, the economy, etc.  No more excuses.  But then again, these are Democrats—whining is their specialty.  As the economy begins its descent into Obama collectivism, expect a lot of whining to come down the pike.   

And oh yeah, great job by the NRSC for backing Specter in 2010.  As if we needed more proof that the establishment GOP is clueless.

(UPDATE)

Via AmSpec’s blog, Specter wasn’t too happy when Jim Jeffords switched to an Independent back in 2001.

Obama Agitates Over Tea Parties

President Obama isn’t too fond of the Tea Partiers (via):

At his 100th-day town hall meeting in St. Louis Wednesday, President Barack Obama took direct aim at the anti-tax “tea party” demonstrations that have cropped up over the last month and took a veiled shot at the Fox News Channel, the cable news network closely associated with the protests.

Asked about fiscal discipline and entitlements reform, Obama seemed to be repressing a smile as he jabbed critics of his spending plans.

“Those of you who are watching certain news channels on which I’m not very popular, and you see folks waving tea bags around, Obama said, “let me just remind them that I am happy to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care costs down over the long term, how we are going to stabilize Social Security.”

This is how Alinsky-style politics works: personify and ridicule your political obstacles and detractors.   See, Obama is a “community organizer”, which is a layman’s term for radical agitator.  In order to agitate effectively, if at all, the agitator needs an enemy. The opponent must be marginalized and/or made to look foolish.   We saw it during the campaign.  George W Bush was the opposition in that case, despite the fact that Bush wasn’t running—his second term was complete.  Even during the stretch run of the campaign, Obama did everything they could to tie Bush to McCain—despite McCain and Bush being miles apart politically.    The more serious the potential threat of the opponent to the agitator’s plans, the deeper and stronger the attack. 

Here is video of today’s town-hall meeting in Missouri:

 

To the agitator, ridiculing and focusing on your enemy du jour is imperative, especially if the enemy gains traction.  This is what happened with Rush Limbaugh earlier this year as Obama, out of nowhere, tagged Congressional Republicans with the talk show host.  We found out after the fact that his Democrat party operatives realized that Limbaugh’s polling wasn’t so hot, so his affiliation with the GOP was given its blessing and the narrative began.  (Tying issues to Bush was temporarily ineffective, as Obama had just been inaugurated). 

Previously, Obama denied knowing of the Tea Party protests.  This was most likely a lie.  Obama is no fool, and is politically astute.  I find it hard to believe he wasn’t aware of the protests, especially since one of the tea parties took place in Washington DC.  By acknowledging them today and deriding them as he did (I understand there was a mini-protest outside of the town-hall meeting, via Gateway Pundit), he obviously sees the premise of  the Tea Parties as an issue. 

(Video via Allahpundit)

Bea Arthur, RIP

Bea Arthur died last weekend.  I’ll never utter these words again, but this is my favorite Bea Arthur moment–in fact, it’s my only Bea Arthur moment:

 

And of course, a fitting tribute as per Family Guy:

RIP

Teachers unions are bad for children? Who knew?

I recently finished reading the book Outliers: The Story of Success  by Malcolm Gladwell.   It explores the reasons why certain people (or groups of people) are successful and why others never reach their potential.  The author writes a chapter on the success of the charter school known as KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program).    KIPP is a privately funded charter school program located primarily in low income areas and caters to primarily minority students.  The focus of the school is to improve the quality of education with longer school hours (including Saturday sessions and summer classes) and raising the bar on academic performance (which they wouldn’t normally receive in their public schools).   By all accounts the KIPP schools outperform the public schools in their respective areas. 

The New York Times recently published a piece focusing on how the teachers unions are obviously threatened by the non-union KIPP and its successes (via Sean Paige):

After months of soul-searching, Kashi Nelson left her career as an assistant principal in North Carolina at the start of 2008 to teach seventh- and eighth-grade social studies at a Brooklyn charter school, convinced that the freedom to innovate would translate into better education for students.

[...]

So this spring Ms. Nelson, 39, once skeptical about unions, helped lead an effort to unionize the teachers at the school, KIPP AMP, thinking that a contract would provide a clearer idea of expectations and consequences.

But now, with the state’s labor board scheduled to vote Wednesday on whether to certify a union at the school, Ms. Nelson has changed her mind again, withdrawing her support from a unionization drive that she says is proving to be a distraction and more about power than children.

“I am a teacher and I can’t waste energy — all I want to do is make the school better,” she said in an interview. “I saw early on that the union was not, in my opinion, looking to have amicable conversations with the administration. We were being encouraged to be even more miserable, and if I can avoid misery, I want to do that.”

Ms. Nelson’s shift from union skeptic to supporter and back again provides a glimpse of the complicated and tense dance between charter schools and unions unfolding across the country.

As the number of charter schools in New York City and elsewhere swells, unions have become increasingly aggressive in trying to organize their teachers. These two major forces in education politics, having long faced off in ideological opposition, have begun in some places to enter tentative and cautious partnerships, and in others to engage in fierce combat. New York City’s teachers’ union now runs two charter schools in Brooklyn and workers have organized at many more, including more than a dozen across New York State.

Some of the most adamant supporters of charter schools say that the teachers’ union is simply trying to stymie their growth by increasing the regulations on their operation; union leaders, on the other hand, say they are just trying to ensure that teachers are given fair pay and clear guidelines for how and why they could be dismissed.

The teachers union?  More about power than children?  Who would’ve thought?   The real shame here is that the teachers unions are using children as pawns in their power grabs.   As Paige alludes to, the teachers union obviously feels threatened by the success enjoyed by charter schools.  While the public schools are not able to compete with schools like KIPP, they figure they are better off stifling their success with their bureaucracy.  Because that’s essentially what unions are—a bureaucracy that for the most part doesn’t benefit its members so much as those in charge of the union.  Whether it’s the AFT or the UAW, the result is the same—a bad product, a bloated bureaucracy and union heads with their hands in the till.

ABC reveals names of CIA consultants

ABC News just published a story which profiles the two psychologists who helped developed the CIA’s interrogation program–waterboarding and all.  In classic left-wing media fashion, the piece includes names and pictures.   The article was written in part by Matthew Cole, “a freelance national security reporter,” whatever the hell that means.  I have no clue who this is, but Goldfarb has an idea:

The network apparently outsourced this report to a freelancer named Matthew Cole, whose record in Nexis includes just three bylines — two stories for Salon (one of which about “how Bush administration aid to Pakistan helps fund insurgents who kill U.S. troops”), and one for the San Jose Mercury News just two days after 9/11 reporting “anxiety about a backlash” among Muslims, who assure the reporter that the attack “has nothing to do with Islam.”

In other words, Cole is a left-wing partisan with questionable reporting chops. This is obvious from the quality of the story tonight. Cole repeats the now throughly debunked claim that Zubaydah and KSM were waterboarded 83 and 183 times respectively. He posts video of the two refusing to answer questions in what is staged as a faux perp walk with no discernible news value other than to portray them as criminals. And, most amazingly, Cole indicts the two men for not having any experience prior to their work for the CIA — as though being “previously involved in the U.S. military program to train pilots how to survive behind enemy lines and resist brutal tactics” isn’t relevant.

He sums up his post with the question:

Will the Obama administration investigate who leaked their identities? Or is it now open-season on Americans who were only doing what their government asked of them in order to protect their country from attack?

With all due respect to Goldfarb, it’s a silly question.  Of course, it’s open season.  It’s open season on anyone or any group even remotely seen as a political impediment to our government’s far left agenda–which in this case, follows the narrative of “everything the Bush Administration did is bad, as per the nutroots”.  This is how a partisan government and complicit media interact and enforce their bankrupt notions of “patriotism”  That ABC allowed this to run is absolutely deplorable and careless, to be kind.  Now these two gentlemen will be the targets of radical jihadis here and abroad, not to mention the liberal nutroots.

(via Ace)

(UPDATE)

Allahpundit suggests a method to ABC’s madness insanity:

They got burned two years ago when an agent wrongly told them Zubaydah had been waterboarded only once and now it smells like they’re trying to atone by throwing Mitchell and Jessen to the wolves.

Hold the camera steady

The media did some heavy-duty reporting yesterday as Obama and Biden “snuck out” for a burger run in DC, for an obvious photo-op.  That the media took the Obama bait, hook-line-and-sinker, playing on the “wow, he’s such a normal guy” narrative, is not a surprise—-and who really cares?   But Nick Gillepsie over at Reason brings up an interesting point:

These sorts of ultra-lame, super-calculated P.R. stunts really chap my hide. They’re simply the obverse of official stories that Kim Jong-il doesn’t ever go to the bathroom or that Mussolini could beat even Italian champs at tennis, clearly phony embellishments to alternately make leaders either superhuman or super-normal.

He then cites a WaPo piece on the “story”  referring to a witness to the scene, who opined that “…it shows that he’s in touch with the people…a real person…”

Uh, yeah.

What a bunch of suckers.  There’s nothing spontaneous here.  In fact, just about everything Obama does is a carefully planned, photo-op.  Image is important when you’re trying to ram unfettered liberalism down the throats of an unwilling American public (emphasis added):

Like a reality show set on the glorified soundstage at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., the details of one family’s life have captivated the country — if not the world — making the Obamas seem within reach, an ordinary family that just happens to be living an extraordinary existence.

These glimpses into President Barack Obama’s household are far from spontaneous. Instead, they are part of a careful strategy that has helped bolster the new president’s popularity and political clout — even as he promotes some economic policies, such as bailouts for banks and automakers, that lack broad appeal.

The White House, eager to cultivate an image-making media machine that thrives on personality, has invited coverage from such outlets as television’s “Access Hollywood” and “Extra.” Aides dole out exclusives accordingly, acutely aware of the shelf life for cover stories in glamor and celebrity magazines.

Administration officials have even studied the economics of paparazzi photography, strategically releasing images of the family to diminish the monetary value of unauthorized pictures and give the White House more control over how the family is portrayed. In return for access, celebrity news outlets must refuse to publish unauthorized pictures — or risk being cut off by the White House.

“If there are no images, then you create a supply-and-demand problem where the supply is none and the demand is huge,” said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. “If there is at least some supply that continues in a way that is respectful to who [the Obamas] are, you drive down the price and the paparazzi is not part of the equation.”

The economics of paparazzi photography?  This is some creepy stuff, but it’s really not surprising.  We now have an Access Hollywood president, catering to pop-culture junkies, numbing their minds to the effects of confiscatory taxation and stifling government expansion.  Polling numbers don’t support nationalizing health care?  Quick! Release some photos of Michelle playing with Bo in the vegetable garden!  And most important of all, it just confirms my assertion that Obama is one self-absorbed narcissist. 

(Via Memeorandum)

The general manager

It’s been about a month since the beginning of this baseball season, and the one thing I can take from the 2009 Mets is that they’re not much different from the 2008 Mets—they never score in Santana’s starts, their 3,4 and 5 starters are adventures, and they leave small countries of runners on base.  The Mets never–never–leave me wanting for agita.  So the aggravation is normal.  But reading this in the NY Post this morning, really ticked me off:

Disturbed by the Mets’ disappointing 9-12 mark in April, [Omar Minaya] mouthed off to FOXsports.com on Thursday that his club’s core stars lack a certain “edge.”

“We have good guys, solid professionals,” Minaya told the Web site. “There is a smile on David Wright’s face, a smile on Jose Reyes’ face. But there is not an edge to them.

“Some people see edge as leadership. Sometimes, you need a little meanness to your game. Some people perceive leadership as meanness. I couldn’t tell you that we have that type of guy. We have leaders. But everyone’s perception of leadership is different.”

It was that perceived lack of an edge, Minaya said, that prompted him to sign veteran shortstop Alex Cora in the offseason and 40-year-old slugger Gary Sheffield at the end of spring training.

“When you add guys like Sheffield, guys like Cora, they give you something different,” Minaya told Ken Rosenthal of FOXsports.com. “We needed that. I think it will pay off in the end.”

Let me be clear.  I’ve done nothing but rail on the players on this team since the season ended in 2006.  The disaster of 2007 and its sequel in 2008 made them more than deserving of every Mets fans’ ire.  And I’ll admit it–I supported Omar and felt like he would really get this team to turn a corner.  And for one brief moment on a cold October night in 2006, it seemed like they had.  Of course that came crashing down.  But I tried to give Omar the benefit of the doubt.

That being said, the worm has turned.  Let’s get this straight.  Since 2004, Omar has brought over three of the game’s biggest free agents: Beltran, Pedro and Johan.  That’s besides having two home-grown All-Star infielders and trading for Delgado in 2006 to play first base.  With all of these trades and contracts, Omar never hesitated to take credit for it all, as Wright and Reyes became the faces of the franchise.  He has no problem with plastering Wright’s smiling mug all over Mets ticket solicitations and merchandise to get fans through the turnstiles.   

So now, even with all of this talent, Omar STILL needs a few more pieces (that’s besides the other “pieces” like a headcase of a pitcher with an insane $36 million contract, and a knee-less 2nd baseman with an equally absurd 4 year contract).  He needs those with an “edge”.   A 40 year- old , pain in the rear-end malcontent, past his prime who’s currently batting .196, and a washed up 33 year-old infielder with a career .245 average.   I wonder, exactly how will this “pay off” in the end for the New York Mets? 

Omar essentially threw Reyes and Wright under the bus with these ridiculous comments.  So ridiculous that he naturally had to backtrack.  I wouldn’t be surprised if the there’s some animosity brewing in that clubhouse right now, the results of which we (the fans) probably won’t notice for another few weeks, and I will not hesitate to place any blame on the general manager, because now he deserves a ton.

Purity for me, but not for thee

With Arlen Specter’s defection to the Democratic party last week, there was great joy on the left.  The moonbats on the left began chiding the GOP for their perceived insistence on ideological purity, you know, like nominating a right-wing extremist like John McCain for president last year.  No room for moderates! A party of right-wing, bigoted, intolerant extremists!  Blah blah blah. 

But being on the cusp of attaining the magical 60 votes needed to stop filibusters and such, means (gasp!) that Democrats actually have to govern!  And they better govern the right way.  Writes David Sirota in a Salon piece:

Sixty Senate votes do seem beautiful … until 10 bought-off, right-wing and/or weak-kneed Democrats decide to keep helping Republicans make the upper chamber our nation’s single most powerful obstacle to “real change.” When that happens, 60 votes become an ugly flame that sears the electoral flesh off politicians who technically have the power to act, but whose subsequent failure to deliver exposes their dishonesty.

 Hold on a second.  If I’ve heard the moonbats correctly over the last few years, the Democrats have come to power on this tsunami of progressive momentum.  We are no longer center-right after all, right?   Isn’t everyone in the Democratic caucus on board the Hope and Change express?  Gay-marriage, abortion on demand, government taking over private industry to benefit the proletariat, card check, and all the rest?  And they’re building a foothold in the SCOTUS, no matter how much Crittenden prays.  What a joke they are, these liberals.

Already there are grumblings in the Democratic caucus about their new friend, Arlen Specter.  No mistake about it, the GOP has a massive task ahead of them in the next few years—2010 is not looking so bright for Republicans no matter which direction Michael Steele wears his cap.  But Democrats should stop offering unsolicited and idiotic advice to Republicans, and get their own ideologically pure house in order, lest their house of cards progressive utopia will collapse before it’s even built.

Jack Kemp, RIP

Via WaPo, Jack Kemp has died:

WASHINGTON — Jack Kemp, the ex-quarterback, congressman, one-time vice-presidential nominee and self-described “bleeding-heart conservative” died Saturday.

His spokeswoman Bona Park and longtime friend and former campaign adviser Edwin J. Feulner confirmed that Kemp died after a lengthy illness.

Kemp had announced in January 2009 that he had been diagnosed with cancer. He said he was undergoing tests but gave no other detail.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell called Kemp “one of the nation’s most distinguished public servants, Jack was a powerful voice in American politics for more than four decades.”

Kemp, a former quarterback for the Buffalo Bills, represented western New York for nine terms in Congress, leaving the House for an unsuccessful presidential bid in 1988.

Eight years later, after serving a term as President George H.W. Bush’s housing secretary, he made it onto the national ticket as Bob Dole’s running-mate.

With that loss, the Republican bowed out of political office, but not out of politics. In speaking engagements and a syndicated column, he continued to advocate for the tax reform and supply-side policies _ the idea that the more taxes are cut the more the economy will grow _ that he pioneered.

Months ago, I read this piece on Jack Kemp over at AmSpec (thanks to Hot Air for helping me where I had read it), and it certainly deserves another read.  This excerpt stands out, in light of today’s rudderless Republican party:

With what Washington would eventually realize was the typical Kemp passion, Kemp took an idea about tax cuts and made of it a gospel. In legislative form it became what was called Kemp-Roth, named respectively after Kemp the House sponsor and Delaware GOP Senator William Roth, its Senate champion. At its core, the idea proposed to slash personal income tax rates — and cut them big time by 30 percent over three years.

It was 1978, the middle of the Carter malaise years, and after what Bartley calls a “stormy debate” the bill failed in a conference committee. Kemp kept going. By 1980 he had convinced candidate Ronald Reagan, and the concept was written into the 1980 Republican platform. By August of 1981 President Ronald Reagan was signing Kemp’s cause into law.

By 1983, the American economy had begun to shake off recession and, in a startling reversal, roared to life. The results were so powerful that Reagan later said France’s Socialist President François Mitterrand, Reagan’s guest at the 1983 Williamsburg G-7 Summit, wanted to know just exactly what went into America’s blossoming and quite vivid economic growth.

Kemp was a fervent believer in the individual, a conservative stalwart and one of the foot-soldiers in Reagan’s economic revolution.  But no matter which side of the political spectrum you reside, and listening to Kemp speak, it’s hard to mistake his enthusiasm and overall love of our country.

Rest In Peace.

We Must Be Morons

The Senate voted down the mortgage cramdown bill on Thursday.  The bill allows bankruptcy judges to require lenders to reduce the principal mortgage balance or interest rates on residential mortgages.  Kudos are due to the Senate Republicans for holding the fort against the bill.  And I got a good chuckle that the newest Democrat, Arlen Specter, voted with 11 other Democrats to vote in the negative.  They stood with Republicans to deny President Obama one of the pillars of his plans to further extend the reach of the federal government into the private sector.

What most disturbed me, was this excerpt from WaPo’s story:

Added Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.): “It is confounding that the banks opposed this to the very end since the proposal would have helped them by finding a floor in the housing market. Clearly the banks had enough clout to defeat this bill, certainly more than the 1.7 million homeowners who would have been helped by it.”

The issue gained some momentum this year after Citigroup, the troubled New York bank, broke with the rest of the financial services industry and threw its support behind the provision. Even some financial services industry executives privately acknowledged that bankruptcy modification appeared likely to become law. The Obama administration characterized the measure as the stick in its housing program that would encourage lenders to help borrowers stay in their homes.

First, the notion that Citigroup “threw its support” behind the bill implies that it was volunteering to help.  With billions in government bailout money and hundreds of billions in government guarantees, it really doesn’t take a genius to see why Citigroup is “volunteering” its services. 

What raises my eyebrows is Schumer’s comments, which are blatant in their pomposity and arrogance.  How dare the banks refuse the helping hand of the state! This proposal creates a floor and thus, the end of the recession in the housing market!  Millions will suffer!

One of the arguments against the initial financial industry bailout was the precedent that it would set, the results of which we are seeing now.  When would it stop?  Then came the auto industry.  When would that end?  Now, we have a partisan government drunk on their own self-aggrandizement.  Notice the wording:  “…the proposal would have helped them by finding a floor in the housing market.”  Schumer is delusional.  How can he believe this tripe, when there has been clear evidence that mortgage modifications only intensify the foreclosure problem, they won’t abate it.  More foreclosures, by the way, increases an still bloated housing inventory which would keep downward pressure on prices. 

What hubris.  Everyone but Chuck Schumer must be a moron, because here we have a piece of legislation that, despite trashing the basic tenets of contract law, magically puts a floor on the housing market.  Wow.  We’re such idiots.

Got totalitarianism?

The Community-Organizer-In-Chief Obama has decreed, via the AP:  

WASHINGTON – Wall Street is not going to play as dominant a role in the economy as regulations reduce “some of the massive leveraging and the massive risk-taking that had become so common,” President Barack Obama says.

The changes in the role of Wall Street and the huge profits that came from that risk-taking could mean other adjustments as well, Obama said in an interview in this week’s New York Times Magazine.

“That means that more talent, more resources will be going to other sectors of the economy,” he said. “I actually think that’s healthy. We don’t want every single college grad with mathematical aptitude to become a derivatives trader. We want some of them to go into engineering, and we want some of them to be going into computer design.”

The Obama administration is trying to restore more regulations on the financial sector to avoid some of the risk-taking that helped cause the current economic problems.

“Wall Street will remain a big, important part of our economy, just as it was in the ’70s and the ’80s,” he said. “It just won’t be half of our economy.”

This is not so startling to me as I’ve known that this is what Obama and his vision of  is all about.  Molding and shaping our society into his own vision of a Euro-style, left-leaning utopia, where private investors and achievers are the villain.  Here is the president of the United States essentially admitting that he will use the power of the state to shape our economy.  He and his band of redistributionists will  determine which industries thrive and which industries are contracted, with the power of the bureaucracy behind him.

Ideological Purity

It’s amazing what’s considered political virtue these days.  Last week, Arlen Specter’s defection to the Democratic party had the left-wingers tee-heeing like little schoolgirls.  They’re just loving the demise of the Republican party over there.  Here was proof, they said, that the Republican party is too rigid, too strict in its ideological purity and beholden to Christian conservatives.  On Tom Ridge’s potential bid for the Republican nomination in the primary next year, John Cole gushes:

[...] Specter, who voted with the Republicans 70% of the time, was essentially pushed out of the party for his stimulus vote. They will then run the reactionary lunatic Pat Toomey, who can never win the general election. Deciding that doesn’t make sense after seeing polling data suggesting Ridge will be more competitive, the idea of Ridge running is floated. Small problem. Ridge isn’t an anti-abortion fanatic, which means that he is also a dread RINO. This will be fun to watch.

This would make sense only if it were true.  Exactly how was Specter “pushed out of the party”?  Because Pat Toomey wanted to challenge him to a primary in 2010?  Or that Specter saw his selfish political ambitions blocked by the political reality of pathetically weak polling numbers and decided to jump ship?    But don’t think about it too much.  Let’s just blindly accept the left-wing narrative of the Republican party being held hostage by bible-thumping extremists down south.    

The implication here, of course, is that the Democratic party is virtuous in its agenda, that it welcomes a vast array of political voices bringing different ideas to the table and are only at the mercy of their beloved constituents, the American people.  Yeah, ok. 

In less than a week, Specter appears to be headed towards a primary in 2010 anyway, despite having the support of Governor  Rendell and the President.  Why?  Maybe because he’s already voted against a Democratic budget proposal, has voiced opposition to one of Obama’s key health care initiatives and…most importantly, his insistence that he is not voting for EFCA—Big Labor’s crown jewel of left-wing union power grabs.  It’s getting so testy that the President has had to reiterate his supportof Specter.  Congressman Joe Sestak (PA-3)  is threatening a primary (emphasis added):

Sestak said he will be closely monitoring Specter’s statements and votes over the coming months, to make sure he’s helping the country move forward on areas including healthcare expansions and national defense.

“Arlen has a lot of questions to answer. If they aren’t answered appropriately, I do believe we should have someone else carrying the banner for the Democratic Party, and for all Pennsylvanians,” he said.

Answered appropriately?  Sounds pretty rigid.  And the corrupt labor unions pulling the strings Democrat constituents are not too happy either:

The Democratic establishment may be lining up behind Sen. Arlen Specter — but some who control the ground troops aren’t so ready to fall into line.

On today’s “Top Line,” Richard Trumka, the secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO, warned that union leaders may drop their longstanding support for Specter, D-Pa., if — as he has promised to do — he votes against them on their legislative priority, the Employee Free Choice Act.

But worst of all. WORST of all, the crazy Dr. Dean, the Grand Wizard of Liberal Moonbats, cracks the whip and warns Specter to behave:

“I’m pleased that he saw the light and decided he would be a better fit for the Democratic Party and I think you have to allow for his political views to evolve,” said former DNC chairman Howard Dean in an interview with the Huffington Post. “But he won’t win the Democratic primary by taking the position that you should not have [the Employee Free Choice Act] or a public option for health insurance… If he takes these kinds of views, of course there is going to be a Democratic primary.” 

Ouch.   But Arlen Specter will be fine in the party of inclusion and new ideas.  Just as long as he’s in line with the priorities of the party’s Big Labor special interests while denying the average worker a secret ballot, votes for Obama’s plan to squeeze out private health insurers to commence the nationalization of health care and whatever else the extremist fringe decides to bring to the Senate floor.   Those are some pretty stringent and straight forward demands coming from some powerful Democratic movers and shakers.  And ideologically pure to boot.

(UPDATE)

Tom Ridge has decided not to run against Pat Toomey for the Republican nomination for Senate (via).  This little excerpt from the official statement stood out:

He expressed a desire to still be involved in the party’s development.

That’s. Just. Great.

Being the first black First Lady has its benefits

You get to be slobbered over by the likes of Oprah Winfrey, the yentas over at The View and ABC’s Diane Sawyer.  JWF mops up the drool from a UN Mission event in NYC yesterday.  The money quote by Sawyer:

In many ways were just getting to know all that she can and will do

What exactly does that mean?  The Obamas are people of no accomplishment, no record of producing anything for society.  What exactly does Sawyer see here? 

And Winfrey:

Michelle is the greatest First Lady we’ve ever known

Surely because she is African-American, there really is nothing else there to make Winfrey so delusional.  And what is it about liberals that they love to prostrate themselves before the political class so much?

Via Cassy Fiano:

Really, all of this is sickening. And it’s disrespectful and demeaning to the history of our country, to the men and women who have fought and sacrificed and directed this country. Michelle has accomplished nothing as First Lady, yet we’re supposed to deify her. Disgusting.

What a great idea

It’s no big surprise that the House GOP are having a hard time dealing with Barney Frank when it comes to proposing legislation and bringing them to debate and votes.  The House Financial Services ranking minority member Spencer Bachus, hasn’t exactly been a bastion of leadership over the past 12 months anyway.  But this is interesting and amusing at the same time:

Bachus said he enlisted his deputy ranking member, Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas), to organize weekly meetings with the subcommittee’s top minority members to “make sure that we have a message as to what we’re for and what we’re against and that we’re smart and have a coordinated effort to what we bring to the hearings.”

Neugebauer said, “We all recognize, particularly [with] what happened in the markets in the fall and in the spring right now, that the Financial Services Committee is in the eye of the hurricane, and I think it’s important that we step up.”

It might be to late to stop the liberal assault on limited government going on in the halls of Congress under Democrat leadership right now.  Nevertheless, this might be an inkling of a sign that congressional Republicans might be making a decent attempt to get their act together.  A coherent message articulated by a unified party?  It’s a miracle it took them this long to realize this.  Let’s just hope the  message doesn’t include calling Democrats socialists but rather a debate on the issues.

Our road to serfdom

I happened to see this in USA Today and it should be raising everyone’s eyebrows.   The states are increasingly dependent on federal money for their financial viability:

Federal aid is top revenue for states

In a historic first, Uncle Sam has supplanted sales, property and income taxes as the biggest source of revenue for state and local governments.

The shift shows how deeply the recession is cutting. Federal stimulus money aimed at reviving the economy and a sharp drop in tax collections have altered, at least temporarily, the traditional balance of how states, cities, counties and schools pay for their operations.

The sales tax had been the No. 1 source of state and local revenue since the mid-1970s, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Before that, property taxes were the primary source. That changed in the first three months of 2009.

Forget for a minute that this is financially unsustainable and a recipie for disaster.  One of the assumptions of the liberal ideology is that there is a bottomless pit of money just waiting to be shoveled to various federal bureaucracies.  So it was no surprise that liberals were telling everyone, running around like lunatics to note that part of the reason that the stimulus was “necessary” was because the shortfalls in state budgets were preventing payouts for unemployment, paying teachers, etc., the usual fare for liberal hysteria. 

The line we heard from the Democratic Party our government as they fast-tracked the with it’s “economic stimulus”, was that some of the funds would be used to help governors plug the holes in their state budgets, if necessary, to meet these alleged necessities.  Sounds good?  This is Obama, we were told—Obama is a new politician, ushering in a new era of responsibility in Washington and good intentions from our beloved masters in DC.  What could be so bad about that?  Plenty:

The Obama administration is threatening to rescind billions of dollars in federal stimulus money if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers do not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers approved in February as part of the budget.

Schwarzenegger’s office was advised this week by federal health officials that the wage reduction, which will save California $74 million, violates provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Failure to revoke the scheduled wage cut before it takes effect July 1 could cost California $6.8 billion in stimulus money, according to state officials.

The wages at issue involve workers who care for some 440,000 low-income disabled and elderly Californians. The workers, who collectively contribute millions of dollars in dues each month to the influential Service Employees International Union and the United Domestic Workers, will see the state’s contribution to their wages cut from a maximum of $12.10 per hour to a maximum of $10.10.

The SEIU said in a statement that it had asked the Obama administration for the ruling.

We should thank our lucky stars that not only three two Republicans in both chambers of Congress voted for the stimulus bill, because now voters get to see exactly which party is responsible for this egregious federal power grab.  It’s no secret that the state of California is a fiscal cess-pool, with ruinous spending sending the state to the verge of bankruptcy.  The receipt of stimulus funds to the states was touted in the press as a graceful, understanding and supportive act on behalf of the federal government to help with the economic crisis.  But now the state of California is finding itself forced into more fiscal irresponsibility—literally at the demand of the executive branch.  Leader Obama is making budget decisions for one of the largest states in the nation at the behest and to the benefit of his politcal enablers. 

The highlighted portion of the excerpt is deeply troubling.  The SEIU/ACORN, is one of Obama’s biggest politcal supporters and apparently has the ability to go over the head of California’s state government, directly to the Community-Organizer-In-Chief, to whine about its demands.  This is exactly what conservatives and the Tea Partiers were talking about—-the unfettered growth and reach of the federal government, picking winners and losers, all to the benefit of a select few.  This is the road to collapse for the republic.   

At what point do we start referring to the 50 states as fiefdoms, rather than the autonomous bodies of government, where the governors and state legislatures are responsible for their own budgets, carefully minding revenues and expenditures?   Because that’s what California has become—genuflecting before King Obama and thanking him for financially supporting their tract of land, but only when the serfs do the King’s bidding.  Which fiefdom will be next?

(UPDATE) 

Apparently, California state officials are not too happy about the president’s political donors and their interference:

The officials say they are particularly troubled that the Service Employees International Union, which lobbied the federal government to step in, was included in a conference call in which state and federal officials reviewed the wage cut and the terms of the stimulus package

[...]

California Secretary of Health and Human Services Kim Belshe said she could not recall another instance in which the federal government invited a significant stakeholder group into such government-to-government negotiations.

“The involvement of a stakeholder in this kind of state-federal deliberative process is unusual at best,” she said. “This was really atypical and outside any norm I am familiar with.”

In addition to several state and federal officials, participants in the April 15 conference call included an SEIU associate general counsel in Washington, a lobbyist for SEIU in California and a representative from SEIU’s policy staff in California, according to a list provided by the Schwarzenegger administration.

[...]

The California officials on the call, who requested anonymity for fear of antagonizing the Obama administration, said they needed the savings to help balance the state budget.

This is what genuflecting to Obama and the checkbook controlled by the Pelosi/Reid politburo will get you—a figurative kick in the groin. 

What’s so disturbing is the precedent of fear and thuggery being set by this Administration.  We saw it in the Chrysler debacle and we’re seeing it now with the parcelling out of the stimulus funds.   Why should government officials in any state, where one of their primary functions is fiscal responsibility–balancing the budget and such, fear the federal government for doing their job? 

 I’m not a fanof Schwarzenegger’s liberal brand of Republicanism—it’s precisely that brand of governance that has turned California into a Euro-socialist state on its own.  But this blatant attempt and political cronyism from the federal government is inexcusable and should raise the ire of every tax-paying American citizen.  The power of the Constitution’s 10th Amendment is being usurped by a partisan left-wing government, including the President, who apparently has no desire to understand the tenets of fiscal responsibility, nor to govern with those tenets.  The tone has been set, a little over 100 days into the reign of Obama, that paying off his political benefactors takes precedence over governing the republic as set forth in the Constitution.

(Via)

(UPDATE II)

Sister Toldjah is outraged at the lack of outrage.

Time to charge Barack Obama with war crimes

When can we start the proceedings?:

BAGHDAD — American soldiers shot and killed two people in the northern city of Mosul, one of them a 12-year-old boy the military said had thrown a hand grenade at a passing patrol, according to a United States military statement on Friday.

A United States military spokesman said that the confrontation might reflect a new insurgent tactic of paying children to commit violent acts against American and Iraqi troops.

“We have legitimate concerns that insurgent forces are paying children to conduct these attacks and placing them in harm’s way,” Maj. Derrick Cheng, a United States military spokesman, said in a statement on Friday.

This is the kind of stuff that drove the media into hysterics over the last eight years, when the Commander in Chief was named Bush and not Obama.  That being said, I wouldn’t expect this story to get much airtime, despite the report of the US military allegedly shooting a 12 year old boy.  It doesn’t really fit well into the “Democrats-can-only-do-good-things” narrative and the CIC isn’t a blood-thirsty Republican anymore.

WSJ: Paul Ryan is dreamy

The WSJ prostrates itself before the faux conservative temple of Paul Ryan.  The paper opens its piece entitled “Wisconsin Lawmaker Emerges as GOP Seeks New Voices” as follows:

WASHINGTON — As Republicans search for messengers to reintroduce the beleaguered party to disaffected voters, they could do worse than Rep. Paul Ryan.

The 39-year-old from Wisconsin, who is the top Republican on the House Budget Committee, cruised to re-election last year in a district that voted for Barack Obama for president. The 6-foot-2, blue-eyed lawmaker was recently named one of the “50 most beautiful people on Capitol Hill” by the Hill newspaper, and his shock of black hair stands out in Congress’s sea of gray

The piece goes on along the usual narrative of younger, fresher voices of the party, new blood, etc., and then this sticks out:

As Republicans search for a path to power, Mr. Ryan says the GOP must re-establish itself as the party of economic common sense, rather than a group seen as overly focused on rewarding its supporters and contributors.

I’ve been reading the Journal for years, and it’s reporting is still insightful and credible.  But let’s be clear—this was a fluff piece on Paul Ryan.  It mentions a Wisconsin Democratic party leader refuting the point of the piece, that Ryan represents a fresh face of conservatism.  But that’s it.  Nowhere in the article does it mention that Paul Ryan voted for the original TARP, the use of TARP funds to bail out the auto industry and the 90% tax on AIG bonuses.

 If it was trying to publish a fair and credible debate on the merits of Paul Ryan as a conservative, then the Journal does its readers a disservice by failing to note any of these votes.  Anyone voting for any of these measures is not voting for “economic common sense”, let alone committing to tenets of fiscal conservatism.

Spending. And more spending.

The blogosphere was abuzz today with news that President Obama has decreed that something is wrong with the state of health care in our nation and as such, he has appointed himself to repair said industry. 

Actually, the diktat is innovative and cost-effective—an industrial breakthrough unlike any other.  As expected, the media lapdogs genuflected and thanked Obama for his generosity.

But unfortunately for us taxpayers who don’t live in Obama’s socialist utopia (not yet anyway), the real news today is our government’s insistence on spending our way into indentured servitude for generations.    The sobering details:

The director of the Congressional Budget Office today updated his projections for the budget and economic outlook and is now anticipating a $1.8 trillion deficit this year, and $1.4 trillion in 2010.

This is up from CBO director Douglas W. Elmendorf’s January 2009 projection of a $1.2 trillion deficit this year. In short, the US government is borrowing 50 cents for every dollar it spends.

The new projected deficit is four times the 2008 deficit, which was a record high for its time.

And it adds some interesting context to the $17 billion President Obama announced he would seek to cut from the $3.55 trillion budget he presented Congress last week.

You know, the whole “fiscal responsibility” and “we’re here to change Washington”  thing, right before our eyes.

Health care silliness

Keith Hennessey sums up today’s health-care-reform photo-op silliness:

This is one of the sillier White House announcements I have seen. Let me draw a sports parallel.

Imagine if the mayor of your nearest big city were to hold a press conference with the General Manager of the city’s Major League Baseball team. The Mayor announces that the GM, working with the coaches and players, has committed that he will work to develop plans for the team to hit the Mayor’s new goal of winning 40 more games this season than they otherwise would have won. Those plans will improve the team’s hitting, pitching, and fielding. The Mayor also announces that the manager’s plans, combined with the Mayor’s new policy initiative for better parking at the stadium, will make fans happier and help the team win more games.

Baseball fans would reply, “Great, I’m all for it.” They might then ask a few questions:

• What do you mean the GM “will develop plans”? Doesn’t he have any specific plans yet? How will he improve hitting, pitching, and fielding?
• How are we supposed to verify that the team won 40 more games than they otherwise would have, since we will never know how many games they would have won?
• Other than picking the number 40, why is the Mayor involved in this press conference? What does the Mayor’s new parking initiative have to do with the coaching changes, and how will the new parking initiative help the team win more games?
• If this is such a good idea, what has changed to make it happen now? Is the Mayor claiming that his persuasive powers alone are worth 40 more wins? Why didn’t the GM make these changes before?

The only substance to this announcement is that the manager agreed to the Mayor’s target of winning 40 more games. Everything else is fluff or unrelated.

[...]

This is the parallel to the baseball manager saying he will improve the team’s performance by improving their hitting, pitching, and fielding. Everyone agrees that it makes sense, and everyone wants to know how he’s going to do it. The same applies here. Without specifics, these are empty promises. Nothing in this list is concrete enough to translate into specific actions by anyone.

As with everything else attempted by the Wizard of Hope and Change, pay no attention to the midget behind the curtain.

(via)

One-Ring Circus

Mike Duffy has a piece on Dick Cheney’s latest rounds on the talk show circuit and this stuck out:

In any case, Cheney’s reappearance has delighted Democrats — “Bring it on!” quipped a White House official on Tuesday afternoon, when asked about Cheney’s re-emergence — and dismayed Republicans. Said one: “We’re trying to turn the page, and he’s climbing out of the grave to haunt us.”

I read that early this morning.  Later, I see this breaking news story:

A member of the Republican National Committee told me Tuesday that when the RNC meets in an extraordinary special session next week, it will approve a resolution rebranding Democrats as the “Democrat Socialist Party.”

[...]

[RNC Chairman Michael] Steele wrote a memo last month opposing the resolution. Steele said that while he believes Democrats “are indeed marching America toward European-style socialism,” he also said in a (rare) flash of insight that officially referring to them as the Democrat Socialist Party “will accomplish little than to give the media and our opponents the opportunity to mischaracterize Republicans.”

I find it hard to believe that the anonymous source in the Time article was actually serious when they implied that the Republican Party is actually trying to move on—to “turn the page”.   They CANNOT be serious when you see the political freak show that has become the establishment Republican Party.  Even Michael Steele seems appalled by what’s passing for “rebranding” in the RNC.  This is what they consider turning the page?!  Name-calling? 

The Beltway GOP is proving that it is a bunch of incompetent cowards.  Jon Cornyn over at the NRSC decided to endorse Arlen Specter a week before his defection, and now backs Gov. Crist in Florida—both times turning their backs on decidedly more conservative contenders, just to placate to the moderates of the party—moderates that are more likely to vote for Obama liberalism than conservative principles.  And now, the RNC’s answer to our problems is to call the Democrats “socialists”—-not in a hushed tone, but by covering their ears and screaming even louder. 

This is the state of the Republican Party in 2009.   Instead of confronting Obama and the Democrats on their tax and spend policies, instead of supporting candidates that would actually provide an alternative to those policies, they are either moving towards the left themselves or just calling the other side names.  Literally.

How do we know the stimulus is working?

Because Joe Biden says so:

In his first quarterly report on implementing the stimulus, Vice President Joe Biden reported that the recovery program is “ahead of schedule in most programs and, due to efficiencies and sound management, many projects are coming in under budget.”

[...]

A release from Biden’s office says that in the first 77 days of the two-year program (through May 5), “150,000 jobs have been created or saved … Over 3,000 transportation construction projects have been funded in 52 states and territories … Thirteen states have qualified for State Fiscal Stabilization Funds to improve education programs and save education-related jobs.”

That’s fantastic.  But I wish the Obama administration would be more transparent and open about exactly how they “saved” 150,000 jobs.  How is that number calculated?  Because it appears that it’s just another Obama charade:

Nearly three months after President Obama approved a $787 billion economic stimulus package, intended to create or save jobs, the federal government has paid out less than 6 percent of the money, largely in the form of social service payments to states.

[...]

There has been skepticism of the administration’s claim of creating or saving 150,000 jobs. While it can be difficult to count jobs that were saved, as opposed to those that were created, Peter Morici, an economist at the University of Maryland, said that trends in state and local government employment “just do not support that claim.” Other economists have been more supportive of the administration.

The first thing that comes to my mind here, is that the notion of Joe Biden being in charge to administer $800 billion , and in charge of what is essentially a new layer of governnment bureaucracy, should worry every single taxpayer in this country.  Actually, Joe Biden managing a Dunkin Donuts is a scary proposition. 

What I remember most about the stimulus debate was the insane sense of urgency.  Something had to be done that very second or the world was going to implode.  It’s really no surprise that once Congress approved the money, the government would come to a crawl in administering the money.  Because this is what the government does best—bogging down in bureaucracy, red tape and inefficiency.  Where are all the “shovel-ready” projects we were told about?  Only 6% of the stimulus money has been paid out, despite all of the urgency and headless chicken runs.    And Biden says we’re ahead of schedule? 

I can’t wait until the government takes over the health care industry.

(UPDATE)

Via Don Surber’s blog, the Associated Press does some fact-checking on Biden’s report.   More on the false “saved jobs” claim:

THE WHITE HOUSE SAID: The stimulus has created or saved 150,000 jobs.

THE FACTS:  Since February, the nation has lost more than 1.3 million jobs, according to the Department of Labor. To make the case that the country created jobs over that same stretch, the White House has put forward a benchmark of jobs created “or saved.” The argument is that the job numbers would have been even worse had it not been for the stimulus, and the difference between those numbers is a net positive.

To visualize that disconnect, consider this: The administration has promised to create or save 600,000 more jobs in the next 100 days. Even if the nation loses another 5 million jobs during that span (a highly unlikely prospect) the White House could still claim success.

Perhaps if Biden speaks louder, or posts the report in a bold font, it might make his ridiculous claims more in line with reality.  Our government is lying to us, people. 

(UPDATE II)

Ed Morrissey speculates that Biden makes a great fall guy for the administration.

Health care reform

Last week, the White House trumpeted the news that the health-care industry was willing to try and implement cost-cutting measures that would lower health-care costs by approximately $2 trillion over the next 10 years.  This was lauded as a significant step towards the Obama Administration’s goal of implementing significant reform—a “watershed event”, as the president noted.

The harmony between government and industry proved to be short-lived however, as the industry clarified their position later in the week, saying that their intentions had been “misstated” by the administration:

The president of the American Hospital Association said Thursday that a deal with the White House to cut the growth in health care spending has been “spun way away from the original intent.”

[AMA President] Richard Umbdenstock told 230 member organizations that the agreement had been misrepresented. The groups, he said, had agreed to gradually ramp up to the 1.5 percentage-point target over 10 years — not to reduce spending by that much in each of the 10 years.

“There has been a tremendous amount of confusion and frankly a lot of political spin,” Umbdenstock said on the call. “And I want to assure you that the American Hospital Association is at the table and a responsible part of this, but that we’ve been very clear on what we have committed to.”

Kevin Drum calls out the industry:

Look: I never believed the $2 trillion number. But after weeks of work and a big public announcement, it’s just pure mendacity to pretend that they were taken by surprise and had never agreed to anything beyond a “general commitment to be part of bending the cost curve.” Spare me.

These guys are never going to be partners in any kind of real reform of healthcare. Never. Beneath the smiles and the photo-ops, I sure hope the Obama team understands this.

That the industry reps decided to partake in a smiling photo-op while having no intentions to embark on serious cost-cutting measures is no surprise.  Health care reform will most likely never come from a voluntary effort by the industry (at least the type of reforms that Obama and most liberals are looking for).  But I think Drum somewhat underestimates Obama’s political acumen here. 

Obama was participating in a photo-op as well.  As with every Obama initiative, whether it be health-care reform, mortgage relief or whatever else, there is a pattern.  A photo-op with a meticulously worded statement where Obama sets the stage for what the administration expects to happen, developing the narrative. 

One of the key tenets underlying health care reform, Obama-style, emphasizes cost-reduction.  That’s why the industry reps were paraded out, having been tapped to cut costs, thereby implicitly going along with the ambiguous plan of “reform”.  Whether they go along or not is a different story.  Of course, it’s looking like it will be a battle between the Administration and the industry, but I also believe Obama is aware of that and has prepared accordingly.

Joe Klein brings the stupid

In an interview with Politico, Time magazine’s Joe Klein writes about Charles Krauthammer:

He became ground zero among the neo-cons, but he’s vastly smarter than most of them,” said Time’s Joe Klein, an admirer and critic who praised Krauthammer’s “writing skills and polemical skills” as “so far above almost anybody writing columns today.”

“There’s something tragic about him, too,” Klein said, referring to Krauthammer’s confinement to a wheelchair, the result of a diving accident during his first year of medical school. “His work would have a lot more nuance if he were able to see the situations he’s writing about.”

That Klein took time from licking Obama’s knee-caps to engage in this sort of tripe is probably no surprise.  I guess Joe Klein’s brand of journalism has more “nuance” as he’s able to physically travel to the corners of the globe that most liberal pundits claim to know all about, yet never visit. 

Crittenden has a suggestion:

Looking past this unwarranted attack on a man’s life-changing injury, I extend to him the same challenge I extend to everyone who raises the chickenhawk argument. Like peace? Hate Yankee Imperialist warmongery. Human shield. Go plant yourself in front of the Afghan villagers the next time the Taliban take them hostage in a firefight. There are still carbombs going off in Mosul, Baghdad and Baquba, plenty of opportunity to sacrifice yourself for George Bush’s crimes. Or just take up residence in a barrage balloon over downtown Manhattan.

And Podhoretz:

The self-infatuation this quote reveals about Klein’s own celebration of his own passport stamps—the words of a lesser author and thinker about one who so surpasses him in clarity and insight that a wiser Klein would have been better off just admitting that he can’t hold a candle to Krauthammer and let it go at that—is striking enough. But let’s face it. This is simply disgusting, no matter how you slice it. Perhaps men and women in wheelchairs, or who are blind, or deaf, or have other infirmities that make their ability to get on a plane and go to Iraq should simply forbear any sort of opinion about such things. They should, instead, be left to Joe Klein.

Hammer, meet nail.

Political reality trounces hope and change

The Democrat-controlled Senate voted for a modicum of sanity for national security in the Obama era:

The Senate voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to cut from a war spending bill the $80 million requested by President Obama to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and to bar the transfer of detainees to the United States and its territories.

The vote, which complicates Mr. Obama’s efforts to shutter the prison by his deadline of Jan. 22, 2010, was 90 to 6. Republicans voted unanimously in favor of cutting the money.

This, of course, is causing all sorts of hand-wringing and consternation on the left, because the alleged illegality of detaining terrorist suspects who want nothing more than to kill Americans, and prosecuting Bush, Cheney, et al, for phantom war crimes, is an orgasmic pillar of the progressive movement which helped to get Obama elected.

But alas, political reality is a bitch. 

This is what happens when leftist anger and extremist ideology is mistaken for a “mainstream” political platform.  A smackdown.  No Democratic senator facing re-election in 2010 or 2012 wants to be on record as having supported closing Gitmo without ensuring that they won’t be “housed” anywhere on US soil.  

Make no mistake, this is a losing issue for the bitter, progressive fringe of the Democratic party. It doesn’t play well to people who actually want a reality-based solution to this issue rather than one rooted in hatred foe Bush/Cheney  and nothing but pure vitriol. 

Get over it already.

Cheney Brings It

A lot is being said today about Dick Cheney’s speech at the AEI, which ran almost simultaneously to the President’s speech on national security.  Liberals are wondering how Cheney could have the gall to speak at the same time as the President (this being a free country notwithstanding), or even have the audacity to be speaking at all.  Steve Benen quips:

Cheney probably thought it would raise his stature to speak after the president on the same subject. The strategy was half-successful — he got the media to characterize this as some kind of showdown between relative equals. But the other half was a humiliating failure — Cheney came across as a small, petty man, trying a little too hard to undermine the nation’s elected leadership while salvaging some shred of personal credibility.

And John Cole gets pissy:

[B]ut I do find it kind of amazing that Cheney is offering up a national security speech. It is just weird to have a former VP outthere openly sabotaging a new administration, and make no mistake about it, that is what Cheney is doing. He is openly attempting to damage or deny this current administration’s ability to craft national security policy.

The fact that Cheney’s speech was scheduled weeks before doesn’t even occur to these people.  In fact, Obama only recently scheduled his speech at the Hall of Records, most likely to preempt Cheney’s speech—and not the other way around.  But that would get in the way of a nifty narrative from the left.  

That narrative is typical left-wing fare—personal attacks mixed in with baseless notions that Cheney is somehow trying to “undermine” the administration.   And oh yeah, Cheney is an evil, evil man. 

Apparently, they didn’t bother to listen or read the speech, because Cheney specifically lays out the reasoning behind the interrogations.  Specifically, Cheney laid out the specific reason why there is even any debate at all:

When President Obama makes wise decisions, as I believe he has done in some respects on Afghanistan, and in reversing his plan to release incendiary photos, he deserves our support. And when he faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer.

[...]

And whatever choices he makes concerning the defense of this country, those choices should not be based on slogans and campaign rhetoric, but on a truthful telling of history.

Cheney did just that today.  If anything, he makes it very clear that the Obama administration is not being straightforward and honest with the American people.  Releasing certain interrogation memos that were redacted, while not releasing documents that would support Cheney’s claims, is dishonest at the least.  There’s nothing honest there—the only reason Obama even released the memos was to placate the left-wing fringes of the party.  If that was not the case, why not release all of the memos? 

The “speeches duel” idea was media fluff that was building over the past 32 hours or so.  But Obama could have ended this yesterday if he wanted to, by releasing all of the memos.  But that wasn’t going to happen, as it would have blown the whole “waterboarding KSM is bad” narrative, a styrofoampillar of the liberal argument on the issue.  And that would open another Pandora’s box—the idea that crimes were committed. 

Beating the drum constantly, the moonbats insist that Cheney/Bush, Bush’s OLC, et al, are guilty of “war crimes”.   There was no crime here—nothing illegal was committed.  Even Eric Holder, who is completely in the tank for the White House, has been trying to find something with which to prosecute yet is constantly coming up short.  All we see are empty threats to disbar the OLC attorneys behind the memos.  

No, what fuels this issue is the utter and complete disdain the left has for Bush/Cheney and their administration.  Nothing but pure vitriol and hatred for people whose only “crime” is a different political viewpoint.  These are not a basis for legal action….they are policy disagreements.

That’s why this is issue is a dead-end for progressives and liberals.  Good luck trying to explain to the American people exactly why waterboarding KSM, and two other of the world’s most dangerous terrorists, to obtain vital information pertinent to the safety of innocent Americans, was not a good course of action.  Keep biting on that pillow.

(UPDATE)

Almost forgot.  Obama gave a speech today also.  Here’s an abstract:

I blame Bush (but, uh, I will follow his “lost way” on preventive detention. Just in a kinder, gentler, more, uh, moral way).

More Dick Cheney, please

If for anything, because it induces partisan hacks like Lawrence O’Donnell into hysterics.  Appearing on Chris Matthew’s show after Cheney’s speech to the AEI, he couldn’t help himself from losing it and going off on our former Vice-President:

LAWRENCE O’DONNELL: Well, he came today to — obviously to do nothing much other than defend torture, which he calls ‘tough questioning.’ This was as sleazy a presentation by a vice president as we’ve had since Spiro Agnew. This was an absolute abomination. He cannot, ever, frame the other side’s position honestly.

***

He pretends that all we did was tough questioning. He says that 9/11 — he says that 9/11 made everyone take a second look at the threat. That is a lie. Dick Cheney and the President were in possession of memos that said this threat was present, this particular methodology was going to come, that they were going to use airliners. He and the President failed in their first nine months in office to pay any attention to the A.Q. Khan network, who he now wants to take credit for dismantling.

Ah, yes—the tolerant left.  What’s amusing is that of the two speeches, only Cheney’s made the clear case for his argument, pointing out the historical perspective and the realities of the decisions that had to be made.  Obama’s speech was nothing but a recycled campaign speech—blame Bush for everything, but Obama will make it better, etc, and full of rhetorical fluff—the typical Obama diatribe.

And for the record, the memos O’Donnell refers to indeed indicated that Al Queda was planning to attack US interests by hijacking airplanes.  But the memos gave no indicati