Obama says He’s to Blame for Bailout Failure

OK, that’s not exactly what he said, so let’s go to the tape…

“Here are the facts: For two weeks I was on the phone everyday with Secretary Paulson and the congressional leaders making sure that the principles that have been ultimately adopted were incorporated in the bill,” Obama said.

Since he was taking credit for shaping the bill — now that it’s failed will he put out a statement saying he’s to blame for not crafting an acceptable solution? Don’t hold your breath.

Willing to take credit, but not accepting responsibility.

Reid, Pelosi and Schumer Fail on Bailout for Economy

Harry the-war-is-lost Reid is trying to shift blame for his failure to move the “bailout” proposal forward. That might work for people who don’t realize it’s the Democrats holding the majority in both the House and Senate; Reid and Pelosi can pass whatever pork bailout bill they want, and the President will surely sign it. They don’t need any Republicans to do so. If a bill isn’t passed, it’s because the Democrats don’t want it passed. Democrats are the majority, they’re responsible for passing the bill and can do so at any time. What Reid meant was he doesn’t want to pass the bill right now, but he’s not the only blame-shifter.

“We need to get the president to get the Republican House in order,” Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., added while on the Senate floor. “Without Republican cooperation, we cannot pass this bill.”

Totally false, plain and simple. Democrats hold majorities in both houses, they don’t need any Republican support to pass this bill, other than the President (who will support it). The only possibility (and a remote one) is a possible Senate filibuster (Pelosi can pass it whenever she wants), which won’t happen. Even if it does, they’d only need a handful of fiscally irresponsible Republicans to go along (which they’d get).

Why won’t Democrats act? What are they waiting for? Could it be they’re posturing for political reasons? Or do Reid/Pelosi simply don’t know they hold the majority, and don’t realize they can pass anything they want? Is it possible Reid/Pelosi/Schumer know the majority of Americans are against the bailout, and want to spread the blame around come November?

Schumer/Read/Pelosi don’t need Republicans to pass the bill, they need them for cover for the upcoming election (so in a sense, Schumer is right, they can’t pass the bill without the cover of Republicans for their pork — they can pass it without Republicans votes, but they’re hoping the blame game works. Politics as usual).

It’s interesting as Obama tries to paint McCain as agreeing with Bush, it’s Obama and the Democrats who walk in lockstep with the President to give $700 Billion of your money to Wall Street (tax and spend yielding to tax and giveaway). Is that what you want? Do you agree with Obama in giving handouts of $700 billion of your money to failing companies? Is Obama correct in taking your money and giving it to corporations who bungled their management? If you’re paying your mortgage on time, do you agree with Obama those exercising fiscal irresponsibility should be rewarded?

It’s McCain and a minority of Republicans who want something different (along with most of the American people). Will Democrats team up with the President to ram a pork bill through? Or will sanity reign and a reasonable approach (loans instead of bailouts and rewards which leave the taxpayer footing the bill) supported by others have a chance?

We’ll see what happens, but don’t buy the lie Reid and Pelosi need any Republicans to go along. They do not as they’re the majority (even if they fail to act like it). Since Obama aligns with Reid 95% of the time, is this the leadership the country looks forward to in an Obama administration? Do you want politics put first? Or country first?

In Washington, it’s a showdown between the representatives of Wall Street and the representatives of Main Street. But have you noticed that the old partisan alliances are reversed? It’s the Democrats who are now the Wall Street Party. And Republicans — with the conspicuous exception of President Bush — are now the Main Street Party.

Consider: President Bush proposed the $700 billion plan; after days of hiding behind the Secretary of Goldman Sachs, Henry Paulson, Bush finally emerged from the sidelines Wednesday night to tout the plan in prime time. Just this morning, he spoke again in favor of his plan, while again taking no questions from pesky reporters.

But the Congressional Democrats, who mostly despise Bush, are also mostly for the Bush plan. Sure, they made some cosmetic changes in the bailout proposal, but they have never wavered in their basic endorsement.

So who’s against the plan? It’s Congressional Republicans who are getting in the way. They are the heroes of the hour. Although outnumbered, these brave Capitol Hill GOPers have stopped official Washington in its tracks.

Why? Because the Democratic majority, supporting the bailout, doesn’t actually dare to vote for it unless they know that most Republicans will vote for it, too. And that’s because the Democrats fear that this bailout legislation is deeply unpopular with the country. So the only way that Democrats can vote for the bill and be safe this November is if Republicans also put their names on the legislative dotted line. Not a profile in courage for Democrats, of course, but it’s smart practical politics for them to demand some ‘cover.’

Reid/Pelosi know they can pass the bill anytime they want. They’re hoping first nobody realizes that, and second, they can stall long enough to cover their collective #!&$ for a bill the American people don’t want.

Bill Clinton on Fannie and Freddie, and the Debate

CHRIS CUOMO, ABC NEWS: A little surprising for you to hear the Democrats saying, “This came out of nowhere, this is all about the Republicans. We had nothing to do with this.” Nancy Pelosi saying it. She signed the ‘99 Gramm Bill. She knew what was going on with the SEC. They’re all sophisticated people. Is that playing politics in this situation?

BILL CLINTON: Well, maybe everybody does that a little bit. I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

And on President Bush’s speech:

The former president thought Bush’s address Wednesday night on the economic crisis had a “positive reaction”.

“I thought it was the clearest statement of why we’re in the fix we’re in, at least what the nature of it is and why some national action is needed,” Clinton said.

And on McCain suspending campaign activities (and perhaps the debate) to focus on the bill in Congress:

“We know he didn’t do it because he’s afraid because Sen. McCain wanted more debates,” Clinton said, adding that he was “encouraged” by the joint statement from McCain and Sen. Barack Obama.

Obama says call me if you need me because I’m busy with my own business of trying to get elected — don’t bother me with the financial meltdown of the country, I’m busy right now. McCain says deal with the crisis — country first, self-interests second.

Which characteristic do you want in a President?

Obama and Earmarks – where’s that $100,000 again?

Oh yeah, it went to the wife of a campaign volunteer, instead of where it was supposed to.

A $100,000 state grant for a botanic garden in Englewood that then-state Sen. Barack Obama awarded in 2001 to a group headed by a onetime campaign volunteer is now under investigation by the Illinois attorney general amid new questions, prompted by Chicago Sun-Times reports, about whether the money might have been misspent.

The garden was never built. And now state records obtained by the Sun-Times show $65,000 of the grant money went to the wife of Kenny B. Smith, the Obama 2000 congressional campaign volunteer who heads the Chicago Better Housing Association, which was in charge of the project for the blighted South Side neighborhood.

Earmarks you can believe in!

The Financial Crisis – Deficit of Decency

Here’s a view of the real financial crisis facing the country, and it can’t be solved by bailouts or regulations.

It’s not AIG, Lehman, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, or even Enron and MCI. It’s not the national debt, budget deficits or politician’s plans for staggering tax increases which will surely damage the already fragile economy. Make no mistake, all those are bad, but they’re only symptoms of the real disease, the cancer eating away at our society — that cancer is as Zell Miller said “A Deficit of Decency” — more specifically, a lack of ethics.

First off, don’t confuse morality with ethics; morality being just an idea of right and wrong, generally coming from some absolute source (many people mistake the concept of morality for “good” morals — i.e. don’t cheat on your wife, but murderers have morality as well, it’s just bad), while ethics is “my word is my bond”. It’s possible to act ethically, but not morally.

For example, few would disagree a crime syndicate performing shake-downs of an innocent business lacks morality (“Gee, that’s a nice business you have there, it would be a shame if something happened to it”); they’re acting immorally, however, the ethics surpass those of politicians and wall street — you can be sure they’ll do what they say and won’t change, if fact, you can count on it.

Ethics and morality aren’t the same, even though they share similarities.

Perhaps the confusion comes as younger people (30 or below) don’t remember a time when a handshake was enough to seal a deal (or a time when the Interweb thingy didn’t exist either, but we digress). Believe it or not, a time existed when your word was sufficient, and people (gasp) did what they promised. They many not have acted with good morals, but their ethics were unquestionable.

That was the prevailing attitude for many, many years. Most business circles were fairly small; you simply couldn’t get away with breaking your word. Perhaps not because people didn’t want to, but because the community simply didn’t tolerate it. Ethical behavior was demanded if you desired to stay in business.

But today, even if you have a contract, it’s who has the most lawyers and $$$ to fight. It’s not about holding up your promise, it’s about grabbing as much money as possible in the fastest way possible. Ethics is thrown under the bus, even as candidates promise “change”, but don’t want you to look behind the curtain to see it’s just business as usual and the ethics continue to disappear.

That’s the real problem in Washington — a lack of ethics. When double-talking politicians try to dodge real questions with slick-talking nuance instead of solutions, and then act differently when the teleprompter turns off, that’s a lack of ethics. The goal in politics becomes how to fool people with slick oratory, but then after election turn against the flowery rhetoric and act oppositely — in their own interests instead of serving the country.

Sacrificing for a greater good (or your country) has become a concept ridiculed and scorned. Just compare the campaigns — one says to act in your own self-interest (thus, vote for the guy promising the most handouts), while the other says country first. But that’s the political arena — the ethics problem infects all corners of society equally; as the Federal bailouts continue, every one actually increases the likelihood of more bailouts. Here’s why.

If you live in a hurricane area, and the floods ravage your house or destroy it but you don’t have insurance, the government pays you anyway. So why have insurance? Your house gets rebuilt no matter if you paid for insurance or not — each bailout increases incentive for homeowners in bad areas not to get insurance. After all, they’ll get paid anyway.

If you bought a ARM or sub-prime mortgage and got stuck with something you knew you couldn’t afford, once again, a bailout is coming your way. So why should others play by the rules and put 20% down? It doesn’t matter as financial ethics becomes discouraged, and the rewards go the people who deliberately skirted responsibility.

If AIG/Lehman/Fannie/Freddie used poor business practices in pursuit of profits, it doesn’t matter as — you guessed it — another bailout heads their way (and sometimes promotions to political campaigns for those involved). There’s even a phrase floating around — they’re “too big to fail”; what motivation do they thus have to act ethically instead of plundering the company leaving shareholders, employees (and taxpayers) left to clean up the mess while they jet off to their vacation homes?

And in elections, they guy who promises the most from the public trough gets the most support. Elections become not about serving the country (“ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”), but who promises the most $$$ from the public treasury. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to determine this pattern can’t continue.

Just take a look at who took the most lobbyist money in the recent Fannie/Freddie collapse, who was on the committee charged with oversight of Fannie and Freddie, and then where those executives ended up after plundering the companies, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill. Should we trust them with advising the president so they can do to the country what they did to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

A democracy can’t exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy … [author unknown, though commonly attributed to Sir Alex Fraser Tytler in 1801]

Of course, who pays for all these bailouts for unethical behavior? The hard-working taxpayer playing by the rules — you know, ethically. They get the privilege of paying for everyone else’s ethical lapses.

The solution is a return to ethical behavior — and that can’t be legislated (in contrast, the only thing which can be legislated is morality — right and wrong. All laws are someones view of what’s right and wrong). But once those laws exist, there’s always people willing to employ legions of lawyers looking for a way to skirt both the spirit and letter of the law and plunder the company while passing the bill to others for their behavior. In other words, unethical.

Each bailout or rescue increases the incentive for unethical behavior — and that’s the real issue facing the country. As money flows from lobbyists to politicians, who then look the other way as companies are destroyed, is it any wonder failures are increasing? No amount of new regulation or financial bailouts will solve the problem. The real issue is where is personal responsibility?

It’s not the billions being spent right now which ultimately will ensure doom, it’s the degradation of ethics which will haunt the country for generations.

The Rest of the Story on Abortion – Gianna Jessen

Obama’s ship is taking on water over the abortion issue — his all-abortion, all-the-time position is considerably out of the mainstream view of Americans. His refusal to give botched aborted babies surviving the procedure medical care (instead of discarding them to die) when it came for a vote — a proposal so non-controversial even Ted Kennedy and Clinton supported it — defies explanation (as Gianna Jessen notes, she herself survived a botched abortion, and Obama’s position would deny her the medical care to save her life); no amount of nuance or spin can change the facts — Obama voted against medical care for children.

The record here is very, very clear. Obama initially said that he opposed the bill in Illinois because it didn’t have the “neutrality clause” included in the federal version of the legislation. As documentation proved, Obama voted against it even with the neutrality clause added. The Obama campaign finally acknowledged that Obama had lied about his position a month ago. Why? Because it would have actually forced doctors to provide care for live infants from abortions — or in other words, it would have worked.

If you’re interested, visit Jill Stanek’s site, a nurse in the Chicago area who witnessed botched aborted babies discarded to die — it’s not an academic discussion, the problem is real, and Obama voted (multiple times) to deny those children medical care — even as the U.S. Senate approved an identical bill 98-0.

No amount of “change” spin can alter the facts — Obama’s votes indicate he’d deny medical care for children after they’re born. The question nobody asks him is simple — if it’s acceptable to kill a baby after it’s born and call it abortion, at what age does the child get bestowed constitutional rights? Can they be “aborted” until 18? Do children count less than other people? When do they get basic human rights? For how long can they be aborted after being born before it becomes a crime? When asked, he provided his (in)famous “above my pay grade” response, which is strange considering he’s running for leader of the country.

It’s not a religious issue, or medical issue, it’s a legal issue he is (supposed) to be qualified to answer. If he can’t answer a legal question, he’s not qualified to run the country. For Obama, the question of when a child gets human rights isn’t answered — it certainly isn’t at birth, but at some mysterious point later — how later he’s not saying.

That’s certainly “change” from mainstream America, unless you believe allowing infants to die in the trash can remotely represents most people’s views. But there’s another view of the issue, and it’s eloquently presented by Paul Harvey in his book “The Rest of the Story” — a good read for lots of reasons if you have time.

When rape results in pregnancy, or when giving birth might cost the mother’s life, few women would fail to consider as an alternative: Abortion.

[...]

Your first expectant mother is Caterina. Caterina is unmarried, obviously in her teens, obviously poor. You ask her age, and she tells you, and at once you realize she has overstated her years by one or two or three.

Caterina is in the first trimester of her pregnancy.

You ask if she has been pregnant before.

Caterina shakes her head.

Studying her, you wonder.

You inquire of her general health; no problems, she says.

And the health of the father?

Caterina shrugs; her eyes fall.

She has lost contact with the father of her unborn child. All she knows is he was twenty-three, a lawyer or a notary or something like that. He lives nearby, she thinks; she is not sure. The affair was over quickly, little more than a one-night stand. No child was expected–nor now is wanted.

What Doctor, is your advice?

Later the same day, you are consulted by a second expectant mother.

Her name is Klara. Klara is twenty-eight, married three years, the wife of a government worker; she has the look of a woman accustomed to anguish.

Concerned for the ultimate health of her unborn, Klara explains that for each year of her marriage she has had a child–and each has died; the first within thirty-one months, the second within sixteen months, the third within several days.

[...]

So what, Doctor, is your advice?

In addition to all immediate considerations–physical, moral, religious–the dilemma of whether to terminate a pregnancy is a philosophical question:

Might this life, if left to live, affect the consciousness or even the destiny of mankind?

Yet if the profundity of this question is diminished by the balance which governs all life, there is evidence in the two true stories you have just heard: the unwed mother with unwanted child; the married mother with the graves of three infants behind her.

For if you, as the hypothetical physician, have opted in both cases for abortion–then you have respectively denied the world the multifaceted genius of Leonardo da Vinci–and spared humanity the terror of Adolf Hitler.

They are THE REST OF THE STORY.

The average person wants to keep abortion legal, but ban partial-birth abortion, and certainly wouldn’t want living babies discarded as trash to die. Yet Obama is so extreme on abortion he voted against bills even Kennedy and Clinton supported.

That’s change nobody believes in.

Politics of Hope – Thrown Under the Bus

Chalk up another position Obama has thrown under the bus (with gun control, FISA, public campaign financing, Israel … you get the idea).

In Elko, Obama tried to anticipate his critics and called on the crowd of about 1,500 to sharpen their elbows, too.

“I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face,” he said.

Hope replaced with argument and confrontation. Sounds like old-school politics, doesn’t it?

Fannie, Freddie and Obama

So who’s in the pocket of lobbyists? As Obama bloviated about economic issues, what does he do behind the scenes? It’s quite a different picture that what he tells the crowds…

When Barack Obama came to congress in 2005 with his extraordinarily inquisitive mind, he had every reason to know that Fannie and Freddie were bad news. So what did the relentless agent of change blessed with the magnificent judgment do? He instantly became the twins’ favorite kissing cousin in congress. Since 1988, only Chris Dodd has raised more money from Fannie and Freddie than Obama, and Dodd had 20 years to shake down the twins where Obama has had only four.

But Obama’s relationship with the twins runs still deeper. The two Fannie CEOs who did the most to corrupt the company, Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, have close ties with Obama. Raines is one of Obama’s ranking economic advisors. Jim Johnson was actually in charge of vetting Obama’s potential running mates until Obama responded to public pressure and threw Johnson under the bus where he now resides comfortably with Tony Rezko.

Obama’s dealings with Fannie and Freddie are consistent with his pattern. He talks a big game about change, and yet his actions belie the bravado. It’s not that Obama merely fails to live up to his reformer rhetoric. Both in Chicago and in Washington, he somehow wound up keeping close company with the least desirable denizens. In both locales, he showed a bewildering combination of poor judgment and rank hypocrisy.

Money Market Fund Busts the Buck

Lost in all the AIG/Fannie/Freddie/Lehman news is perhaps something considerably more important for the average American.

Extraordinary events are piling up on Wall Street so fast, it’s hard to know where to focus. Forgetting the prospective bailout of AIG for a moment, since every media outlet is on that one, the most shocking development of the day for me is news that a $60 billion money market fund “broke the buck” on Monday due to losses in Lehman Brothers paper that it held. So much for the safety of “cash”.

The Reserve Primary Money Fund (RPFXX) has become the first money-market fund in more than a decade to lose money because its board was forced to write down $785 million worth of LEH debt to zero. The fund reportedly has seen assets plunge by 60% to $23 billion in the past two days after holders got wind of the fact that it would have to cut its net asset value to less than its usual $1 per share.

This is perhaps more significant than AIG, Fannie/Freddie, Lehman and so on. For those desiring safety, money market funds are considered the best. Unlike normal mutual funds, their share value is always $1. There’s no guarantee of maintaining $1/share of course, but the idea money market fund’s could be money losers has the chance to alter the financial landscape, if it spreads to other money market funds.

AIG and so on won’t affect the average person much, but if money market funds begin to be losers, that impacts main street a whole lot more than AIG and the others, and has been lost in all the shouting over AIG and sub-prime mortgages.

Palinmania versus Team Obama

It seems someone has out-charismatized Obama, and he doesn’t know how to handle it. But it’s important to temper the enthusiasm for McCain/Palin to avoid being just another celebrity — there’s already one celebrity running, we don’t need another.

The pit pull line was good, as well as playing “Barracuda” at events, but it’s time to focus on reality — Obama is nothing more than a replay of Jimmy Carter, and we remember those years and don’t want to relive them. McCain needs to remind everyone how much Obama acts exactly like Jimmy Carter and his disastrous administration (and how he’s afraid to meet in townhall meetings away from the teleprompter). From windfall profits to pathetic energy policy (which actually makes the problem worse), it’s amazing how similar Obama is to Carter.

Windfall profits tax? (to reduce supply and increase prices) Check.

Ridiculous energy policy? (Wear a sweater vs. inflate your tires). Check.

Horrible foreign policy? (Hostage crisis, surrender, so on) Check.

McCain/Palin win on the issues — national security, taxes, energy, reform, and so on. While Palin’s popularity isn’t a bad thing, it’s important to know it’s on energy, taxes, reform, and security McCain/Palin beat Obama/Biden every time. The more people find out how much taxes will go up, how the no-energy policy will keep gas prices high, and how unprepared Team O is on foreign policy, and how he’s abandoned virtually every promise he made in the primaries (Iraq, public campaign financing, FISA, gun control, new style politics, etc) the less likely they will be to support him.

… we have to guard against the same kind of cult of personality that arose around Obama and continues to this day. We want the large crowds, but we need to have them pay attention to the message. That message can’t just consist of “hockey mom” and “pit bull”, but a coherent public-policy philosophy along with a demonstration of how Palin’s record and experience supports it. …

That means being realistic about Palin’s experience. As governor for only 20 months, she has more executive experience than Barack Obama, but that’s a quip, not an argument. McCain chose her because she has a record of real reform, and of risk-taking in cleaning up politics, that includes more than just her term as Governor. We need to press that message and show how Palin commits McCain to change by outlining her achievements over the last several years, and focus on that rather than the Palin family. …

We’ve been fortunate in one regard: for some reason, Barack Obama has chosen to run against Sarah Palin rather than John McCain in the last two weeks. We win that argument every time in two ways: Obama can’t beat Palin on experience, and McCain winds up looking like the only person running for President. However, we can’t count on that foolishness lasting forever …

When Obama says “lets talk issues”, McCain should repeat his challenge for Obama to join him in town hall style discussions. McCain should immediately run ads repeating the challenge, and use Team O quotes about “focusing on the issues”, and then ask why he’s afraid to talk. McCain should give his schedule for town hall discussions for the next few weeks, and invite Obama to every one (if they want, bring along Biden).

The presidential debates are a joke — too scripted and rehearsed. Want to know if someone can handle the pressure and think on their feet in unscripted moments (you know, like the situation room)? Get ‘em in a townhall style discussion. It would be good for the country for both candidates to travel together and meet daily in townhall discussions. It would also stop some of the attacks — after all, it’s hard to be mean when someone stands right next to you.

Since Obama wants to focus on issues, why does he continue to reject the offer? Could it be he knows he lacks good judgment and lacks ability to think on your feet and improvise? McCain could even offer … ummm … to have … let me say first … teleprompters … umm …. available … you know … umm …. if Team O wants ‘em.

It’s been said by some the first and most important choice of a presidential candidate is the choice of VP. And Biden recently said Hillary would be better for VP.

“Make no mistake about this, Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight,” Biden said testily when a voter told Biden he was glad the Delaware senator had been chosen and not Clinton.

“She’s a truly close personal friend and she is qualified to be President of the United States of America, she’s easily qualified to be Vice President of the United States of America and quite frankly it might have been a better pick than me,” he continued.

Oops. Even Obama’s pick for VP admits Obama didn’t use good judgment in what many people say is a candidate’s most important decision — that of VP.

Ready to lead? Even Obama’s VP says no.

Obama Going Negative to Attack McCain/Palin – The Gloves are Off (Again)

Obama appears rattled and says (again) the gloves are coming off and he’s going on the attack. But isn’t this the “politics of old” he promised us he’s above? Where’s the change? He’s using what he knows — old style Chicago attack politics.

Team O now admits the “hope and change” has been thrown under the bus, and the “new politics” has been replaced by traditional old-school attacks. Trivia question: what promise did Obama make during the primary he’s kept? Public financing? Nope. “New politics”. Out the window. Get us out of Iraq? Not immediately. Filibuster against FISA? Negative.

Obama started this campaign on a promise of New Politics. He betrayed that by breaking his pledge on public financing, and almost immediately afterwards began weeping about the racist Republicans and the John McCain campaign. The farther Obama walks away from his New Politics pledge, the weaker he becomes. Because without that, voters have no reason at all to vote for a man with no experience at all.

Obama’s policies are straight from Jimmy Carter — and we all know how well that worked out. Since he’s abandoned his “new politics” pledge, along with the pledge to support public financing and more, what’s left of Obama is just old-school politics coupled with a lack of experience and judgment.

Democrats Favor Drilling in Alaska

As long as it’s for dirt, not oil.

Democrats understand Sarah Palin is a formidable political force who has upset the Obama victory plan. The latest Washington Post/ABC Poll shows John McCain taking a 12-point lead over Barack Obama among white women, a reversal of Mr. Obama’s eight-point lead last month.

It’s no surprise, then, that Democrats have airdropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers into Anchorage, the state capital Juneau and Mrs. Palin’s hometown of Wasilla to dig into her record and background. My sources report the first wave arrived in Anchorage less than 24 hours after John McCain selected her on August 29.

What happened to rejecting the politics of division and mud slinging? Changing the tone? The politics of hope? It’s all gone, as old-style Chicago attack politics takes over for Team Obama.

What’s left when the change and hope disappears? Nothing but a run of the mill politician with no experience who wants to relive the Carter Administrations’ disastrous policies on energy, foreign policy, and taxes.

Can you say gas lines? Hostage crisis? Wear a sweater? Windfall profits tax? We lived through Carter once, must we suffer it again?

Randi Rhodes says McCain was “well treated” as POW

Another far-left commentator has lost it. It’s one thing to criticize policy, but this is way over the top. But will Team Obama denounce this personal attack? Where is the criticism of old-style attack politics? Isn’t this the sort of thing we’re supposed to “move beyond”?

Normally, we wouldn’t care much about some minor unhinged commentator most people have never heard of. It’s not so much Ms Rhodes bizarre unsubstantiated rant, but isn’t this what Team Obama says we need to get beyond? Where is Team Obama’s denouncement? Don’t hold your breath — this is standard old-school politics, of which Team Obama is a part — allowing someone else to do the smear job.

Of course he (McCain) became very friendly with the Vietnamese. They called him the Prince. He was well treated actually. And he was well treated because he traded these propaganda interviews for good treatment.

Compare an article May 14, 1973 in US News and World Report. Let the reader decide if Ms. Rhodes attack has any validity at all.

Of the many personal accounts coming to light about the almost unbelievably cruel treatment accorded American prisoners of war in Vietnam, none is more dramatic than that of Lieut. Commander John S. McCain III — Navy flier, son of the admiral who commanded the war in the Pacific, and a prisoner who came in “for special attention” during 5 1/2 years of captivity in North Vietnam.

I hit the water and sank to the bottom. I think the lake is about 15 feet deep, maybe 20. I kicked off the bottom. I did not feel any pain at the time, and was able to rise to the surface. I took a breath of air and started sinking again. Of course, I was wearing 50 pounds, at least, of equipment and gear. I went down and managed to kick up to the surface once more. I couldn’t understand why I couldn’t use my right leg or my arm. I was in a dazed condition. I went up to the top again and sank back down. This time I couldn’t get back to the surface. I was wearing an inflatable life-preserver-type thing that looked like water wings. I reached down with my mouth and got the toggle between my teeth and inflated the preserver and finally floated to the top.

Some North Vietnamese swam out and pulled me to the side of the lake and immediately started stripping me, which is their standard procedure. Of course, this being in the center of town, a huge crowd of people gathered, and they were all hollering and screaming and cursing and spitting and kicking at me.

When they had most of my clothes off, I felt a twinge in my right knee. I sat up and looked at it, and my right foot was resting next to my left knee, just in a 90-degree position. I said, “My God–my leg!” That seemed to enrage them — I don’t know why. One of them slammed a rifle butt down on my shoulder, and smashed it pretty badly. Another stuck a bayonet in my foot. The mob was really getting up-tight.

[...]

For the next three or four days, I lapsed from conscious to unconsciousness. During this time, I was taken out to interrogation — which we called a “quiz” — several times. That’s when I was hit with all sorts of war-criminal charges. This started on the first day. I refused to give them anything except my name, rank, serial number and date of birth. They beat me around a little bit. I was in such bad shape that when they hit me it would knock me unconscious. They kept saying, “You will not receive any medical treatment until you talk.”

[...]

After about two weeks, I was given an operation on my leg which was filmed. They never did anything for my broken left arm. It healed by itself. They said I needed two operations on my leg, but because I had a “bad attitude” they wouldn’t give me another one. What kind of job they did on my leg, I do not know. Now that I’m back, an orthopedic surgeon is going to cut in and see. He has already told me that they made the incision wrong and cut all the ligaments on one side.

[...]

… They just told me I’d never go home and I was going to be tried as a war criminal. That was their constant theme for many months.

Suddenly “The Cat” said to me, “Do you want to go home?”

I was astonished, and I tell you frankly that I said that I would have to think about it. I went back to my room, and I thought about it for a long time. At this time I did not have communication with the camp senior ranking officer, so I could get no advice. I was worried whether I could stay alive or not, because I was in rather bad condition. I had been hit with a severe case of dysentery, which kept on for about a year and a half. I was losing weight again.

But I knew that the Code of Conduct says, “You will not accept parole or amnesty,” and that “you will not accept special favors.” For somebody to go home earlier is a special favor. There’s no other way you can cut it.

I went back to him three nights later. He asked again, “Do you want to go home?” I told him “No.” He wanted to know why, and I told him the reason. I said that Alvarez [first American captured] should go first, then enlisted men and that kind of stuff.

[...]

To get back to the story: They took me out of my room to “Slopehead,” who said, “You have violated all the camp regulations. You’re a black criminal. You must confess your crimes.” I said that I wouldn’t do that, and he asked, “Why are you so disrespectful of guards?” I answered, “Because the guards treat me like an animal.”

When I said that, the guards, who were all in the room — about 10 of them — really laid into me. They bounced me from pillar to post, kicking and laughing and scratching. After a few hours of that, ropes were put on me and I sat that night bound with ropes. Then I was taken to a small room. For punishment they would almost always take you to another room where you didn’t have a mosquito net or a bed or any clothes. For the next four days, I was beaten every two to three hours by different guards. My left arm was broken again and my ribs were cracked.

Read the entire article. It’s well-worth the read.

From Across the Pond – Palin & Thatcher, McCain, Reagan and Obama

It would seem that it is only sexist to trash a woman candidate if she is a Woman Candidate, which is to say a liberal.

The London Telegraph notes what liberals in the US state openly — Palin doesn’t represent women because she’s not a liberal. It seems only liberals can represent womens issues, and women only care about liberal issues. Anyone daring to utter a thought against the pro-abortion, all the time position becomes anathema to “womens issues”.

The Telegraph compares Governor Palin to Margaret Thatcher in that the elites simply don’t understand either one — those in the “flyover” states liberal elites have such contempt for represent mainstream America, Republican and Democrat. Sure, some differences on policy exist, but love of country, family values, duty, and personal responsibility are the same for southern Democrats and conservatives alike — and it’s that foundation people want, in spite of the elites wishes.

The Republican party began losing when they abandoned small-town values and teamed with the big-government big-spending control-your-life elites of the Democratic party, casting true conservatives over the edge of the cliff (while asking for donations before citizens hit the rocky cliffs below), and even worse attempting to purge conservatives from the party which founded it — don’t make the mistake the Republican party bears any resemblance to its conservative roots. Conservatives are in the Republican party, but not all Republicans are conservatives.

If Republicans want to make a comeback, they need to move back to the values which made them popular in the first place. It’s interesting after Sarah Palin was introduced as the VP, fundraising sky-rocketed. Why? It’s an admission Republicans lost their way over the last years, and it’s time for a change in direction — back to middle-American values (the “flyover” states) as those voters (Republican AND Democratic) look for someone who relates to them, and doesn’t treat them like mindless sheep needing direction from the One.

Obama’s 95 Percent with Harry Reid – That’s Change?

In his acceptance speech the other night, Barack Obama got big applause when he said that John McCain had voted with President Bush 90 percent of the time, and that he didn’t want to gamble on a 10 percent chance for change.

What Obama didn’t tell you is that he has voted 95 percent of the time with the liberal Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. That would be the same Harry Reid, who along with uberliberal House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, head up a Democratic-led Congress with a sensational 9 percent job approval rating. Obama is part of that liberal Congressional leadership of which 91 percent of the American people disapprove. Obama votes with them 95 percent of the time.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to gamble on just a 5 percent chance on change from that.

And then there is McCain’s new running mate, the Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin. The fact that Democrats are jumping all over her (albeit haltingly because they aren’t sure exactly HOW to attack her), tells you how worried they are. She’s a tax-cutting, pro-drilling, environmentalist, gun-toting, ice-fishing, hockey-playing, pro-life mom of five, with a son about to be deployed to Iraq. She’s one incredibly relatable person. Cool too.

The Democrats and their fellow travelers in the media have tried to attack her for being “inexperienced.” I certainly hope they continue down that path, considering the guy at the TOP of their ticket was approving dog license fees in Chicago 3 years ago.

In a campaign of dueling percentages, Sarah Palin has one that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, even President Bush would walk over their grandmothers for: as Governor, her job approval stands at 80 percent. Even apple pie doesn’t have 80 percent approval.

She is McCain’s secret weapon: solidly conservative, living family values, attractive, warm, and — what do you know? — NORMAL.

Do you like Reid/Pelosi and their Congressional “leadership”? Then Obama’s your guy, and the actions of Congress (like taking a vacation instead of tackling energy problems) will continue into the Presidency; if you like Reid/Pelosi, you’ll be pleased with four years of Obama giving you the same “leadership” as Congress has the last few years. How’s that working out for you? Iraq war ended as they promised? Has the mysterious Pelosi energy policy materialized yet? Oh right, maybe she’ll get to it after vacation.

Obama’s in trouble. If he brings up Palin as inexperienced, it only reinforces how unprepared he is for the job — lacking any management experience at all (only legislative, and only for a few years — and how many “present” votes did he cast when he couldn’t make up his mind?). It’s bizarre Obama’s team is equating his experience with Palin’s — the top of the Democratic comparing with the the bottom of the Republican — and he still comes up short on experience. That inspires confidence — hey look, I’m better than their VP!

If he tries to equate McCain with Bush, it reminds us Obama sides with Harry Reid and the single-digit-approval Congressional leadership (Reid/Pelosi) — the lowest approval ever and about 1/3 that of the President.

Energy? The no-energy plan (failing to increase supply guarantees price increases) verses increasing production and promoting alternatives. But keep your tires inflated (and wear a sweater while you’re at it).

It’s back to vague “hope and change” again, as Obama’s popularity becomes inversely tied to people’s knowledge of his positions. Mainstream American just isn’t that far-left; Obama’s hopes for the oval office hinge on not having his positions become commonly known to voters.

So it seems those Greek pillars just may represent something after all, because in ancient Greece, people were more enamored by rhetoric and passionate presentations than by principled truths and pragmatic solutions. In modern America, these few millenniums later, nothing seems to have changed. I might not be the smartest man on the political block, but I know fluff when I see it (or is it Puff?). Obama conducted his version of a political David Copperfield magic show. Will Americans really not see beyond his illusory performance? America, we are being duped again by fluff and folly, glitz and glamour, and hype and Hollywood.

It’s time for America to wake up before it’s too late! Reawakening our country and making necessary societal changes are the very reasons I’ve fully engaged in the culture wars with my new book (to be released Sept. 7), “Black Belt Patriotism,” available for pre-order from Amazon.com. It is my battle plan for winning back America. But it’s not just my plan; it’s our Founders’ plan, as I turn to them for their old solutions to our new problems.

Where’s the change again?

A Feminist Reaction to Sarah Palin

Democrat Kirsten Powers on Sarah Palin:

If you drive around my home state of Alaska for very long, you’re sure to see a bumper sticker exclaiming, “Alaska girls kick ass.”

Last night, “Sarah Barracuda” more than lived up to that slogan as she fought back at the media and Washington naysayers who’ve ridiculed her as a bimbo bumpkin interloper and showed she isn’t going to be pushed around.

Had the media not been viciously attacking her family for the last few days, the speech might’ve seemed too tough. With that backdrop, it was more than appropriate.

The Obama camp also gave her the perfect chance to smack it around for being elitists – since its first response to John McCain picking her was to ridicule the size of her home town.

On that stage last night, Sarah Palin represented everything the feminist movement claims to strive for: a successful working woman with a happy family life and a husband who helps raise the children. Yet, rather than hailing her accomplishment, the feminist establishment has sat by silently as she’s savaged for being a working mother.

Turns out old feminism is really just a bunch of good ‘ole girls telling you what to think.

Ladies, don’t you worry your pretty little heads about deciding what you believe; the audaciously named National Organization for Women is here to speak on your behalf.

NOW put out a press release saying that Sarah Palin doesn’t speak for women’s rights. That’s NOW’s job.

Except if a conservative woman is being smeared in the media with sexist attacks and held to a completely different standard than her male counterparts. Then NOW has nothing to say about women’s rights.

Sarah Palin – Look, no Teleprompter!

Reports coming in Sarah Palin improvised part of her speech when the teleprompter had problems.

Halfway through Sarah Palin’s speech tonight at the RNC, people following the speech noticed she was deviating from the prepared text.

According to sources close to the McCain campaign, the teleprompter continued scrolling during applause breaks. As a result, half way through the speech, the speech had scrolled significantly from where Governor Palin was in the speech.

Unfazed, Governor Palin continued, from memory [and relying on her printed text, clearly looking down occasionally at the printed page], to deliver her speech without the teleprompter cued to the appropriate point in her speech.

Contrast this to Barack Obama who, when last his teleprompter malfunctioned, was left stuttering before a crowd unable to advance his speech until the problem was resolved.

BTW, I’ve gotten one more clarification from the McCain campaign: by the end of the speech the problem had been resolved. But you can clearly see during the middle Palin looked at her text often.

And again, don’t miss this key point: compare her teleprompter malfunctions to Obama’s.

People notice these things because it’s kind of a sport in political speeches for people to follow along with the previously handed out text (watch a State of the Union speech to see the game in action). If a person strays from the text, people notice.

In this case, it’s likely the full story will never be known as technical issues are an embarrassment nobody wants to admit, and it’s reasonable to assume (and require) a candidate has the ability to improvise and adapt to difficult situations, thinking on their feet — even if the teleprompter had problems, it shouldn’t cause a screeching halt to the speech as long as the person actually knows what they’re talking about.

In other words, nobody should notice if the teleprompter had problems — if somebody does notice (besides obviously deviating a bit from the released text), it says something about the speaker.

If you can think on your feet, the loss of a teleprompter just requires adaptation — people all over the world speak without such a device, instead using handwritten notes and a knowledge of the subject. Teleprompters are a good aid, but reliance on them as a replacement for improvised thinking demonstrates a lack of preparedness, and a lack of knowledge on the subject.

How does the Messiah perform without a Teleprompter? Look … ummmm … no further … let me say … ummm …. well … look beyond … ummm …. consider the Saddleback forum.

Teleprompters in the situation room anyone?

Palin Bashing – Think of the Children!

For todays factoid-that-isn’t, the Washington Post reports Palin “slashed funding for teen moms”. But it’s not true, according to IRS filings by the group for years ending 2006 and 2007 (where government grants totaled 1.2 and 1.3 million, respectively, and Palin approved 3.9 Million), while the Post reports “Palin reduced funding for Covenant House Alaska by more than 20 percent, cutting funds from $5 million to $3.9 million”, the IRS form 990’s paint a different picture, with a three-fold increase in funding.

If you look at Guidestar.org (a charity reporting organization), and read their IRS statements, you’ll note the year ending in 2006 their government grants were 1.2 million dollars, and Palin increased that to 3.9 Million. That’s a “cut” according to the Washington post.

And according to the groups 2007 IRS 990 the 2007 amount was 1.3 million dollars (line 1d), only slightly more than the 2006 amount of 1.2 million dollars. Palin effectively tripled the amount! And that’s a cut? Huh?

If the Washington Post has data to prove otherwise, they should show it and prove the IRS document is incorrect (or forged), and Palin reduced funding instead of about tripling it. Go look at the IRS documents and check it out for yourself.

So when is an increase considered a cut? The shell game works this way. When someone has a budget of $100 million, and the next year the proposal is for $150 million, but the final amount is $120 million, that’s a “cut” of $30 million, not an increase of $20 million.

To which workers everywhere say, “cut” my salary! Please!

Dick Morris (who worked for the Clintons) has a good perspective on the Palin bashing currently in vogue.

Some claim he made a mistake in choosing the Alaska governor. My bet is the reverse – that she’ll turn out to be a big win.

Even if I’m wrong, dropping her now would doom him in November. If McCain lets baseless, sexist smears set his course, he’d turn all the good Palin has already done for him, and should do in the weeks ahead, into a negative – demoralizing the GOP base and losing independents.

Understand: Palin is under attack because she was such a good choice.

Remember the Democrats’ central charge on McCain – “He’s a Bush clone.” By choosing Palin, something George Bush would never have done, McCain showed how really different he is.

Palin has an extensive public record – with more executive experience than Barack Obama or Joe Biden (or McCain, for that matter). She should be judged on her record, same as a man. If she is, she’ll survive these charges in great style.

And then the backlash will set in. Tens of millions of women have had to confront life experiences akin to Palin’s.

After years of electing plasticized creations of political consultants, we have the chance to vote for a real person with real peoples’ problems. In standing by her, McCain speaks volumes about his attitude toward women and his empathy for those who face family troubles. His loyalty illustrates not just his decency, but his sensitivity and good sense.

All of which illustrates the most fundamental point of this convention: That John McCain is no George W. Bush.

Palin actually has executive experience — how much does Obama have? His laughable claim campaigning for president qualifies as experience is … laughable. But will people buy it? How does a few years legislating (and a year campaigning) qualify for the highest office in the land, but a few years executive experience actually managing something not qualify for the second position? As usual, the mainstream media doesn’t ask the tough questions of Obama, giving him a pass.

Obama and the Democrats should tread lightly — methinks they don’t really want to remind everyone just how inexperienced Obama really is. If the election becomes about experience, Obama loses in a landslide.

References:

Foundation Center (IRS form 990).

Guidestar.org.

Hat Tip:

Michelle Malkin

Hot Air

Ronulan Alert!

From the please-go-away category:

The McCain campaign, acting through the Republican National Committee, has been negotiating with Rep. Ron Paul to win his support and acquire the names of his sympathizers among the 4,607 delegates and alternates at the Republican National Convention, according to a senior aide to the Texas congressman.

Mr. Paul has refused to endorse Mr. McCain, and Mr. McCain’s operatives have refused to let him address the Republican National Convention.

As a result, Mr. Paul decided to hold a rally of his own Tuesday billed as the “Campaign for Liberty.

Paul and his disciples continue to miss the point, and it’s the reason they continue to be irrelevant (but quite entertaining, and could be responsible for an increase in popcorn sales). By this time in the election season the choices have been made — either Obama or McCain will be President. You don’t get to choose what you want — the choice becomes picking the best (or least objectionable, if you will) of the two. Which better represents your values?

Real change comes before the primaries. If you want a different tone and different candidates, get involved now for 2012 . Huckabee and Romney each have PAC’s (as well as many others), get involved to influence conservative directions. Or you could just write in Ron Paul, being blissfully ignorant in “the revolution”, and ignore the fact it counts as much as writing in Mickey Mouse (zero). Sorry, guys, wake up to reality — the Republicrats don’t really care about your fringe movement.

The Ronulans are woefully misguided and blissfully ignorant of how politics work. You’ve got to work within the system to make a difference (hint: it takes more than a blimp, although they’ve got no shortage of hot air). To work for 2012, you need to begin now, and work with the national parties. Just being a minority fringe movement will never accomplish anything, as the other 98% of the population just considers it a nuisance, like swatting at a persistent fly. Paul’s disciples believing in the revolution need to wake up to reality — the revolution isn’t over, there never was one.

Ron Paul and his disciples will (generally) never support McCain — as we’ve pointed out before (see Libertarians for Obama), Libertarians (like Paul) are liberal on social policy (legalize drugs, prostitution, and so on), and liberal on foreign policy (isolationist, anti-military, anti-Israel, and so on), while conservative fiscally (return to gold standard, eliminate the Federal Reserve, etc).

A minority of Libertarians want to return to conservative principles, others just use the Libertarians in an attempt to legalize drugs and prostitution, become isolationist, and anti-Israel. The fringes represented by the Libertarian party will always exist, and will always be rejected by 99% of society — the Libertarian party is useless if your goal is to actually change the tone.

However, the saner points of Paul’s fiscal policy have some merit — so what is better, working to move the parties toward fiscal responsibility, splitting off to your own rally, or encouraging the election of tax-and-spend? That all depends on your goal — false feelings about the movement and it’s success, or actually getting something done (hint: Paul and his disciples will accomplish nothing).

If Libertarians desire to actually move the political discourse, they’d be wise to abandon the hero-worship of their leader and philosophy, join the main political parties (as noted, Libertarians can fit either the Republican or Democratic party, depending on social/foreign policy or economic policy) and work for change within the system. Or if they desire to tilt at windmills and fly the blimp, they’ve already got a perfect arrangement to do so (and no shortage of hot air), while resigning themselves to nothing more than the answer to a trivial pursuit question (“What minor candidate held his own convention in the presidential race of 2008″).

The question is, what is the real goal?

Libertarians are hybrids with liberal foreign and social policy, mixed with conservative fiscal policy. It’s an error to believe Libertarians are conservative — if Libertarians emphasized foreign/social policy over fiscal policy, they’d fit right in with the most extreme far-left of the Democratic party. Libertarians are not conservative, and any attempt to appeal to them on a conservative basis is doomed to failure, simply because they’re not conservative, and don’t hold conservative values. Thus if McCain attempts to appeal to Paul’s disciples based on conservative principles, he’ll fail.

That’s the key to understanding Libertarians — they’re a mix of fiscal conservatives, social legalize-all-the-drugs liberals, and foreign policy isolationist anti-military anti-Israel liberals. As such, Libertarians are at home with either Democrats or Republicans, depending on what area they emphasize at the moment.

It’s likely Libertarians will support Obama over McCain. Not all will, but if the polls are correct, Libertarians generally agree with Obama’s far-left liberal views over conservative ones.

Of course, all this makes sense when you realize Libertarians aren’t conservative and don’t hold conservative values, they’re fiscally-conservative liberals who otherwise align much more comfortably with the Kucinich wing of the Democratic party — sharing the same goals, but for different reasons.