RedPurpleBlue

Stimulus or Porkulus or Political Game?

2009-01-27T06:55:00.002-05:00

President Obama and Co. want to push through Congress an $825 billion (plus) "stimulus" package to be "a quick jolt the economy." This is on top of the nearly $1 trillion "emergency economic recovery" package Congress rammed through in 2008 at the behest of former President Bush.

In 2008 it was absolutely "imperative" that the "emergency economic recovery" package be passed because allegedly the economy was in dire peril. The passage of the package was supposed to "unlock the credit markets" and help us avoid a long, drawn-out recession.

Has anyone noticed that it didn't work?

In fact, barely 1/3 of the appropriated funds have been disbursed, mostly to banks which ended up going on a buying spree to merge with other banks that were in trouble.

Yesterday, over 50,000 layoffs were announced. 50,000 in one day.

Hello, recession!

So now Congress and the president want to spend another $825 billion. But what's this from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

In 2009, the new "stimulus" package will result in total spending of barely $26 billion of the $825 billion. That's about 3.2% of the total "stimulus." How is that supposed to jolt the economy?

In 2010 -- the year of the mid-term elections -- another $110 billion will be spent or 13.3%.

So in two years only 16.5% of the $825 billion will have been spent; that leaves 83.5% of the money left to spend in the last 2 years of Obama's administration.

That's a whopping $688.9 billion to spend right before this administration faces a reelection.

The timing is not a coincidence. It is nothing more than a political ploy.

Worse still is what the CBO reports as the benefits of this "stimulus" package. Consider:

Only $30 billion or 3.6% will be spent on roads and highways.

Only 2% will be spent on development of "clean" energy.

Where is the majority of the money going: federal programs -- to buy new computers and replace federal cars with more energy-efficient ones; to help fund Amtrak and buy new uniforms for the TSA; several million is going to NASA and billions are being poured into federal programs that have yet and may never produce one single job.

What the president and the Democrats in Congress are doing is using FEAR to get Americans to support a political power grab that is sure to entrench the Democrats in power for decades to come.

FEAR -- False Evidence Appearing Real

Don't fall for their ploy. Don't accept their false evidence. Demand accountability. Demand real bipartsianship.

Bipartisanship We Can Believe, Part II

2009-01-26T09:41:00.004-05:00

Illinois, unlike Washington, DC, has discovered true bipartianship. We can thank Gov. Rod Blagojevich ("Blago") for this.

The governor's impeachment trial begins today at noon in Springfield, IL. The IL State Senate will sit in judgement of Blago for his alleged crime spree which includes his attempt to sell former Senator Obama's seat to the highest bidder. There are other "abuses of power" alleged by the IL House in its impeachment report, most of them spanning both terms of the governor.

It was the attempted sale of the Senate seat that finally spurred the IL General Assembly to action. Well, that and the arrest of Blago in the early morning hours of December 9th. Had the arrest not occurred, I seriously doubt Blago would be facing the state senate today.

In point of fact, however, he's decided NOT to face the state senators. In a bizarro claim of constitutional malfeasance and injustice, Blago is instead making the media rounds today, trying to present his case directly to the people. I doubt most Americans much care what happens in IL, but Blago makes interesting TV and radio. He has a vaunted media team on his side, despite the fact that his primary lawyer basically fired him as a client last week.

What's up with the craziness? First, the conclusion of the IL State Senate trial is a foregone conclusion. Blago will be found guilty, probably by the end of this week, since he is choosing not to mount any defense. The senators will easily meet the informal deadline of removing Blago from office before Lincoln's 200th birthday on Feb. 12th.

Mounting a defense in the state senate is virtually pointless for Blago. At best he might sway 1, possibly 2 votes away from conviction, but that'd be a real long shot. He has no family or friends in that chamber, unlike a sister-in-law in the IL House (she was the only representative to vote against his impeachment).

Better to spend his time making a case about injustice and unfairness via the media. Appeal directly to the potential jury pool that will be called when his federal criminal trial begins later this year or in 2010. It's an absurd attempt, assuming people will remember this months or years from now. But what else has the man got to do in the waning days and hours of his administration?

A better answer is that Blago is instead delivering a calculated message to IL politicians and a few in the Obama administration, too. If he goes down, he will not go down alone. His abuses of power were not solo acts and like any good politician, he knows where more than a few skeletons are buried.

Blago is certain to lose his job as governor -- no amount of threats will stop that. He will certainly be barred from seeking public office in IL again. A worse fate though awaits him in his federal trial: prison.

He will not go down easily or quietly. His demands to be able to call witnesses in his impeachment trial this week like Rahm Emmanual, Valerie Jarrett and Jesse Jackson, Jr. are not so subtle signals to the powers that be that he is more than willing to say anything and implicate anyone else to save his own skin. He knows much and is willing to spill it to get whatever deal he can get.

The Blago drama will not end with his removal from office. That's only Act I in this drama.

Bipartisanship We Can Believe

2009-01-26T06:26:00.002-05:00

From a campaign filled with the words hope, change and bipartisanship to an administration filled with:

"I won."

"I will trump you on that."

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."

Wow, what a change a week makes. Well, actually less than a week. I suppose the honeymoon's over before it ever began. And so is all the talk and hype from the campaign to stamp out the partisan bickering in Washington.

Welcome to the reality of the Obama administration. He's actually using a rather clever strategy to isolate Republicans and even some moderate to leaning conservative Democrats (if any exist). The idea is to follow Rule 11 of Saul Alinksy's "Rules for Radicals" (http://www.vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/rules.html):

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

Obama is following this tactic to the letter.

Don't allow debate about the actual topic, in this case, the nearly TRILLION dollar "stimulus" package Obama wants to ram through Congress. Instead create a distraction, such as Rush Limbaugh, or polarize it by claiming to be able to trump any opposition. If this doesn't work, then denigrate the private sector. Excoriate Merrill Lynch for spending $1.2 million to rennovate an executive suite, even though such action provided numerous jobs for contractors, designers, laborers, decorators -- all direct stimulation to the economy.

Obama's stimulus plan is truly just a "pork-ulus" plan. The Office of Management and Budget has rejected this plan and says the vast majority of this stuff is not going to get spent 'til after 2010 or 2011, and 2010 just happens to be reelection year.

We've already passed one stimulus plan that has done nothing to rescue the country from recession and now we are getting ready to spend another trillion dollars. Why? Because the government simply cannot understand that it is impossible for them to spend their way to prosperity.

Sadly, Obama is right. He won. He has the votes to pass whatever he wants, despite the lame opposition that Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid voiced. Their bleating that they will not be a rubber stamp for the Obama administration is like dust in the wind. Whatever Obama asks for, Congress will pass.

That's the new bipartisanship in Washington.

I won. So get over it and just give me what I want.

And like the reporters in the White House press room discovered last Thursday, don't dare question the president. "I didn't come down here today to answer questions."

Remember... this is truly an imperial presidency. Obama rules, reporters drool.

Hopium: the Opiate of the People

2009-01-23T07:40:00.003-05:00

("Hopium" is not original to me. I have borrowed it from John Kass, a columnist for the Chicago Tribune.)

Karl Marx once opined: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

Karl Marx was quite wrong. It isn't religion; it is "Hopium."

Hopium is what the Obama administration is selling the masses by the brick and in some cases, where there is financial hardship, giving it away for nothing. Hopium is the new opium of a reborn America.

Like any other drug, hopium is seductively addictive and provides users with feelings of euphoria in the midst of day-to-day drudgery. Hopium provides instant insight into a fantasy world where we arrive at "that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around ... when yellow will be mellow ... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right." (from Rev. Joseph Lowery's inaugural benediction)

Sadly, few care to see or recognize the true results of hopium dependency. However, one does not need a crystal ball or fortune teller or psychic hotline to see where a country addicted to hopium will end up.

Rather we need only to look to history, to the words of the Marquis de Sade in his play "Juliette." He said it much more eloquently that I ever could.

Though nature lavishes much upon your people, their circumstances are strait. But this is not the effect of their laziness; this general paralysis has its source in your policy which, from maintaining the people in dependence, shuts them out from wealth; their ills are thus rendered beyond remedy, and the political state is in a situation no less grave than the civil government, since it must seek its strength in its very weakness. Your apprehension, Ferdinand, lest someone discover the things I have been telling you leads you to exile arts and talents from your realm. You fear the powerful eye of genius, that is why you encourage ignorance. Tis opium you feed your people, so that, drugged, they do not feel their hurts, inflicted by you. And that is why where you reign no establishments are to be found giving great men to the homeland; the rewards due knowledge are unknown here, and as there is neither honor nor profit in being wise, nobody seeks after wisdom.

I have studied your civil laws, they are good, but poorly enforced, and as a result they sink into ever further decay. And the consequences thereof? A man prefers to live amidst their corruption rather than plead for their reform, because he fears, and with reason, that this reform will engender infinitely more abuses than it will do away with; things are left as they are. Nevertheless, everything goes askew and awry and as a career in government has no more attractions than one in the arts, nobody involves himself in public affairs; and for all this compensation is offered in the form of luxury, of frivolity, of entertainments. So it is that among you a taste for trivial things replaces a taste for great ones, that the time which ought to be devoted to the latter is frittered away on futilities, and that you will be subjegated sooner or later and again and again by any foe who bothers to make the effort.

Don't Ask If Government Is Too Big

2009-01-22T07:00:00.002-05:00

It's the new patriotism as defined by President Obama in his inaugural speech. "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified."

Don't question whether government is too big because that is not patriotic, not appropriate, not right.

We must be willing to allow government to become whatever it needs to be in order to provide for every man, woman and child in America what government believes they need. This is the way America should work, must work and will work. This is the new, rebuilt America.

Such blind faith in government is faith that is not only blind but woefully misplaced. It requires us to cast aside our own beliefs to accept someone else's beliefs. No room for disagreement, debate or disillusionment.

It is time for a new America where an all-powerful, all-compassionate, all-knowing government dispenses economic prosperity for one and all. This is the new popular sentiment as the MSM describes it. It is a message as from almighty God for our weary and war-torn nation.

It is interesting that Obama's speech yet included this line: "To those who cling to power through corruption, to those who cling to power through deceit, to those who cling to power through the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history."

To whom was he referring? I could offer a multitude of names from both sides of the aisle and from all corners and crevices of Washington. What of those who would cling to power through the silencing of dissent? Is that not what President Obama himself is calling for in his speech?

For nearly 8 years I've listened to the liberals and leftists throwing around one of Teddy Roosevelt's famous lines in reference to their dissent and even disrespect of former President Bush.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

I hope the MSM, the liberals, the Democrats, the Repubicans in name only and leftists are prepared to have this quote tossed back in their faces -- frequently. It will be a pleasure to return the favor.

Spending Our Way To Prosperity

2009-01-21T08:28:00.002-05:00

According to Time, we are now looking at FDR redux. Supposedly, President Obama will now lead our country to a new era of success and prosperity. Rather high expectations if you ask me.

Yet it reflects the standard liberal myth that the government is the primary catalyst for the economy. If the government spends enough money, it will jump-start a sluggish economy back on the road to prosperity for all.

Sadly, too many people believe or rather buy into this myth.

What they fail to realize is that the government is a huge non-profit enterprise that produces nothing of value in goods and services.

It is, for all intents and purposes, just a giantic charity that has been given the right to siphon money from the pockets of hard-working Americans to support its free-spending habits.

Imagine for a moment any other charity with this ability: the Red Cross or Make A Wish or Juvenile Diabetes or American Cancer Society. All of these and many more are certainly worthy charities.

Yet they are supported by free will donations from individuals and companies. They depend, as it were, on the kindness of strangers.

Not so the government. It has the right to take from every working American long before you see the first dime of the money you worked so hard to earn.

Before you even see your paycheck, the government has snatched its hefty cut, leaving you to subsist on the meager remains.

No other charity or non-profit organization in the world operates like that.

And no other one spends as wildly and with reckless abandon as does the government. So much so that we have topped the TRILLION mark for a deficit for the first time in history.

Last year Congress voted to spend trillions of your dollars ... money you worked hard to provide for you and your families' food, shelter and clothing. Much of it was given away to programs that show little if any value or return on investment.

That giant sucking sound you hear is the money being flushed down a toilet... which is basically what happens to 90% of our tax dollars.

Yesterday, President Obama said we shouldn't ask how big government is but whether or not it works.

That's all fine, well and good. As long as when the answer comes back that no it isn't working, they do something to fix it.

The first 100 days have started.

What will be fixed? What will be left alone? How much more money will be wasted before this waste is stopped?

Not Just Another Day in Washington, D.C.

2009-01-20T07:01:00.002-05:00

January 20, 2009. A truly historic day in many respects and for many reasons. While most marvel and celebrate what is called an historic occasion, which I do not deny, I would choose to marvel and celebrate something else.

The inauguration of this nation's first black president is truly historic and certainly it was not something I ever expected to see in my lifetime. It is a great moment for our country, but there is something far greater happening today.

I refer to the peaceful and orderly transition of power. After 8 years in office, President Bush will hand over the duties and office of the President of the United States at 12 noon today to his successor, Barack H. Obama. At 12:01 p.m., we will have a new president and the former president will become just that -- another former president.

It is a remarkable event full of pomp and ceremony. Yet, it is remarkable even more so when one considers that in many other countries this would never happen. In some countries, the transition of governments is accomplished via gunfire and bloodshed. The concept of democracy is a sham and government leaders serve as long as they can maintain their stranglehold on power.

Not so in America, despite what a few paranoid people would have us believe. There've been no last-minute presidential orders declaring a state of emergency so that President Bush can remain in power indefinitely. A new Congress was sworn in and nearly all the elected or appointed Senators are serving.

The Bush family has already moved all their personal possessions out of the White House. All that remains are some suitcases of their clothes. President and Mrs. Bush are ready to resume a semi-private life in a suburb of Dallas, TX this afternoon. The Obama family will begin settling in at the White House this evening.

This is a remarkable historic day for us. For the 44th time in our history, we change administrations. Not with bullets and cannons, but with the ballot box.

That's the way democracy works and it is a dream that many countries would love to emulate.

What A Difference One Letter Makes

2009-01-15T05:38:00.002-05:00

In the American alphabet, one would think that like all men & women, all letters are created equal. While I hate being the bearer of bad news, it pains me to say this is simply not true.

In politics and the media, the letter "D" is much more powerful, attractive, respected and admired than the letter "R". That's just the way it is.

Consider...

In 2005 the media had fits of anguish that the incoming Bush administration was spending $40 million on inaugural ceremonies. Words such as "disgrace" and "wasteful" were used. Writers asked how that money could be better spent on things like tsunami relief or for move Humvees for the war. Such spending was considered unseemly and extragavant when the nation faced a then record deficit of $412 billion.

BTW, there was the letter "R" to designate with which party that administration was affiliated.

Fast forward to 2009 and the incoming Obama administration is spending more than three times what was spent in 2005. Because the letter "D" is used to designate this administration, the rhetoric is far different. We hear words like "historic", "celebration", "glitz" and "momentous."

Amazingly there are no stories about how many armored vests $150 million would buy or how many starving children in Africa could be fed. Not one word about a new record deficit, record home foreclosures, and high unemployment.

All because of the letter "D".

Consider the number of scandals and problems that have plagued the Obama transition team: Blago, Richardson, Giethner, Clinton, et. al. If there were an "R" after any of these names, there'd be a shortage of trees and lumber in a 5 state area surrounding Washington as that other political party and the media built pyres on which to burn their opponents.

Yet, we hear that it's just some "honest mistakes" or nothing to worry about. What a difference a letter makes.

The hypocrisy is so deep I'm fearful my hip-waders won't keep me dry much longer.

Happy Days Are Here Again

2009-01-09T14:09:00.002-05:00

Happy days are here again
Blago's impeached by the IL House
Soon he'll be the ex-governor
Happy days are here again!

By a vote of 114-1 (with 1 person voting Present -- probably in honor of President-elect Barack H. Obama), the Illinois House approved the impeachment of Gov. Rod. Blagojevich (D-IL). The one person who voted "No" said he didn't have any first-hand knowledge of the evidence.

That probably means he failed to get his "pay" for play. Bummer!

The Democrats effectively control the IL General Assembly and have for over 6 years enabled Blago to practice the venerable political art of "pay for play." If anyone thinks for a moment that this art form is particular to Illinois, let me assure you nothing is further from the truth. Just look at the current examples from NY and NM which hit the news.

Pay for play in politics is everywhere. Usually, it's not uncovered, not discussed, and not prosecuted. Because that's how politics works in America. And how it works in IL.

So what makes this case so different? Gov. Blago violated the cardinal rule of pay for play: When you pay for play in IL (or any state for that matter), it STAYS in the state.

You don't go trying to expand your little fiefdom outside the borders of the state, especially not at the federal level. That was Rod's big mistake -- he got too greedy. He thought he could score the "Big One" -- the pay for play of all time: a Senate seat.

Greed got him caught. And now he's going to pay. Finally.

Sadly, those who've enabled him and participated in other pay for play schemes are -- so far -- untouched. It remains to be seen what Blago will say in the coming months to save his sorry posterior. So far he's kept quiet, but now the heat is being turned up. Blago may be greedy, but it is also a cunning politician.

On January 14th, Blago will perform one more duty as governor of IL: he will convene the IL State Senate into session -- the same session that will conduct his impeachment trial.

There is speculation that Rod might run that day, just like he did this morning as the IL House voted to impeach him. By refusing to convene the IL Senate, he might hope to delay his inevitable trial and removal from office.

Democrat leaders in IL are prepared to order the IL State Police to arrest Blago and bring him, under arrest, to the state senate chambers if necessary.

If you think this scenario is not probable, you probably don't live in Illinois. I am not sure what the over/under is on this scenario, but I'd be willing to wager that he will pull something next Wednesday.

The trial is expected to last 3 weeks. Yes, it will run through Jan. 20th and sadly will cast a shadow over that momentous day. Sadly that cannot be helped.

Hopefully, however, IL will be rid of Blago as governor before February 12, Lincoln's 200th birthday.

If that happens, I imagine old Abe would smile.

Silent Night, Barry's Quiet

2009-01-08T07:31:00.002-05:00

Silent night, Barry's quiet,
Rockets roar at Hamas' doors,
Israel invades the Gaza Strip
Hamas lobs more rockets quick,
Why is Barry so silent
On this issue of import(ance).

Seriously, folks, it seems odd to me that few in the MSM are asking why President-elect Barack H. Obama is willing to stomp all over domestic/economic policy but is incredibly deferential and oddly silent on foreign policy. Obama's answer:

"We can't have two administrations running foreign policy at the same time. Until I take office, it would be imprudent of me to start sending out signals that somehow we are running foreign policy when I am not legally authorized to do so."

So let me get this straight: it's imprudent to talk about foreign policy as president-elect, but it is perfectly fine to address domestic policy. On domestic issues, it's acceptable to have 2 administrations running at the same time. On foreign issues, not so much. Huh?

Chuck Todd from NBC, asked, "The situation in Gaza is getting worse out there, fighting's resumed this morning. When are you gonna talk about? What are you going to do about it?" That's when he got Obama's two administrations at the same time answer.

Odd that Obama feels legally authorized to not just send signals, but practically make demands about a $1 trillion+ stimulus package, especially when the country is facing a $1 trillion deficit. He is all over Washington twisting arms and pumping hands to get his domestic agenda going. Supposedly, the logic is the country's financial woes cannot wait until 12:01 p.m. January 20, 2009. His work -- his mighty mission -- must start now. Money must be allocated and printed and prepared to be spent. Money talks. Money greases the wheels of the economy. Gotta act today.

However, Palestinian and Israeli men, women and worse still, children are being killed every hour since 12/27/08 and Obama has not uttered so much as a peep about it.

Obama can utter a lot of statements about whether or not Roland Burris should be keeping his old Senate seat warm. Obama was against Burris before he was for Burris -- but what's a little waffling among friends.

It's OK to have 2 presidents on domestic issues, especially when it concerns money and Senate seats. But not when it involves human life.

Chuck Todd, NBC: "Are you worried that the Palestinians, though, are interpreting your silence in --" (here the president-elect cuts him off mid-thought)

Obama: "Chuck, as a -- you know, there are -- I can't control how people interpret, uh, what I'm saying, other than to repeat what I've said, and hope that they hear what I'm say, uh -- hear my message."

What message is that? You have not said anything, so what is the world supposed to hear from the sounds of silence. The only logical interpretation anyone can come to is that you support Israel's actions. Which it not a bad thing in my mind, except that Obama seems so terribly reluctant to actually say it aloud.

To be fair, Obama did continue his non-answer answer: "The silence is not as a consequence of a lack of concern. In fact, it's not silence. I've explained very clearly exactly what institutional constraints I'm under when it comes to this issue."

Gotcha! Silence is not silence when you speak to give a non-answer answer.

More change we can believe in, folks, straight from the president-elect's own mouth.

At least we now have a clear understanding of his priorities.

#1 priority: MONEY

Lowest, least, last priority: HUMAN LIFE

More Democrat Backpedaling

2009-01-08T05:27:00.003-05:00

Yesterday, I referenced Lester Maddox, a late former governor of Georgia, who was well known for a somewhat unique skill: he was able to ride a bicycle backwards somewhat easily. What that had to do with politics I don't know, but it provides a nice backdrop for what the Senate Democrats and the president-elect are now doing.

It's called back-pedaling and they could take some lessons from old Lester.

The entire Roland (I'm the magic man) Burris fiasco could have been avoided easily. Eight days ago, Obama and Senate Democrat leaders saw Gov. Blagojevich (D-IL) as so politically damaged that they announced they would reject anyone he appointed to finish Obama's term. Every Democrat senator signed a letter to the same effect.

Bad move. Now, in private, many are admitting the same. Let the backpedaling begin!

The Senate underestimated Blago's cunning. He may be wounded, but he is also cornered. It's never a good idea to mess with a wounded and cornered politician. Those who have little or nothing left to lose can leave some nasty marks on their opponents.

The Democrats attempted to use a play from the 2008 Republican political playbook: guilt by association. Blago is accused of trying to sell Obama's seat to the highest bidder, therefore, Burris -- appointed by Blago -- is guilty by association or "tainted."

They already figured that Burris would be a weak candidate in 2010 for election, thus making this seat available for a Republican to pick up. Reid and company wanted a stronger candidate, giving them a better chance at the highly desired supermajority.

They didn't count on Rep. Bobby Rush coming in as a wild card to throw down the race card. They also didn't expect Burris to assume the role of the martyr in this drama. Both wild cards made Burris a sympathetic figure in the national media.

Immediately the question was raised: how can the Senate Democrats refuse to seat another Democrat who is black and is replacing the only black Senator?

Further, no one has been able to dig up any dirt or sleaze on Burris -- not even so much as a parking ticket. The man is so politically clean he probably squeaks. In the media he comes across as likable and non-confrontational.

Quite unlike Reid and friends.

Quickly the Democrats resolve began to crumble as their plans fell apart. Seeing the writing on the wall, Reid hastily arranged a meeting with Burris probably to patch things up. Seeking to turn the spotlight off his own missteps, Reid tossed the ball back to the IL Supreme Court to wait on their decision on whether Sec. of State Jesse White's signature was needed.

Reid and friends don't want to take responsibility for waiving their own rules.

How many more hurdles will Burris need to overcome to be seated? For some odd reason, Reid seems insistent that the entire Senate vote to seat Burris. It will be interesting to see if the same standard is applied to Al Franken or to whomever is appointed from CO, NY and DE. If not, I wonder if anyone will dare question Reid as to why a vote on Burris but no one else?

In assessing his behavior in all this, Reid seemed a bit petulant. "How are we supposed to react? We've acted in a very reasonable way."

Right. I suppose the same could be said for every child's (or childish) temper tantrum.

Update on yesterday's prediction: Burris is unlikely to be seated by the end of this week, although signs point to Blago being impeached by week's end. I now believe Burris will be sworn in and seated by the end of January. Ideally, by Jan. 19th, but only if Obama puts some pressure on Reid. Blago will be removed from office before Lincoln's birthday.

Political Hypocrisy On All Sides

2009-01-07T05:30:00.006-05:00

It's not red, blue or purple. Political hypocrisy comes in all colors and flavors served up regularly for our country and world to see. Sometimes one has to laugh about it to keep from crying. A few noteworthy items of late...

Item 1: The Great Unasked Question

A politician proposes new spending plans, tax cuts, government hiring programs. What is the reaction of the main stream media and those who populate Washington?

If the politician in question has the letter "R" beside their name, as in Republican, the hue and cry rises from shore to shore: How are we going to pay for this?

If the politician in question has the letter "D" beside their name, as in Democrat, the reaction is the sound of silence.

President-elect Obama has proposed nearly $1 trillion more in spending, nearly 600,000 new government jobs and $300 billion in tax cuts. Amazingly not a single politician, pundit, journalist, or talking head has asked the How are we going to pay for this question.

Why not?

Item 2: Practice what you preach

A politician appears to win a tight election by a narrow victory and in the acceptance speech calls on the opponent to "do the right thing" and step aside. Unfortunately, the narrow victory requires a recount, which appears to overturn the original outcome. The original winner, instead of accepting defeat and stepping aside, now threatens to file lawsuits.

Thank you, Sen. Norm Coleman, for providing a fine "red" example of hypocrisy. When you were winning it was all well and good to expect Al Franken to just step aside and forgo filing any lawsuits over the election.

Now the tables are turned and instead of graciously accepting the will (and abject stupidity) of the people of MN, you are going to file a lawsuit over the recount. A margin of victory of 200+ votes is small, but if certified by the state, it is final. Do the right thing, Sen. Coleman, and be gracious in defeat. In six years you can try again.

Item 3: Lester Maddox Redux (sans the Axe Handle)

If you are too young, you will need to Google "Lester Maddox" to understand this item. (Go ahead -- the blog will be here when you get back.)

Sen. (Dingy) Harry Reid pulled a "Lester Maddox" in slamming the door in Senator-designate Roland Burris' face yesterday. The only thing missing was the infamous axe handle, but given Reid's and the Democrat Party's record of hypocrisy an axe handle is superfluous. Reid and the Dems are very pro-minority -- well, at least as long as the minorities in question keep their place, if you know what I mean.

It appears that Senator-wannabe Burris was getting a bit too uppidy for Sen. Reid, so Reid had to put Burris in his place. At least on behalf of the current all lily-white Senate, that is.

Of course, there are "Rules" to uphold and the lack of a signature on some paperwork is an overwhelming affront to the dignity and decorum of such an august body.

Nevermind the fact that Reid made it abundantly clear to the IL governor that replacing a black male senator with another black male was unacceptable. He might be able to tolerate a woman, but a black man would simply not do.

Once again Democrat hyprocrisy on display in all its glory.

My prediction: Burris will be sworn in and seated before the end of this week. Reid's iron grip is already crumbling with Sen. Feinstein leaving the fold. A couple of meetings today and I expect an announcement in time for the evening news.

The Senate Dems really should look for a new majority leader. Reid is nothing but an embarrassment.

Hyprocrisy... we're all guilty at one time or another. It's just that some displays are so blatant.

UPDATE: CBS reports: "Senate Democrats plan to accept Roland Burris for President-elect Barack Obama's vacant seat.Burris was scheduled to meet Wednesday with the Senate's top two Democrats -- Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and assistant leader Dick Durbin of Illinois -- on Wednesday, a day after his paperwork was rejected at the opening of the 111th Congress. Senate officials in both parties, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly for Senate members, said there is a growing expectation on Capitol Hill that the saga will end with Burris being seated. "

With Apologies to Frank Capra, et. al.

2009-01-06T05:35:00.005-05:00

It's the headline du jour: "Mr. Burris Goes To Washington", referring obviously to Senator-hopeful Roland Burris (D-IL), appointee and political foil/sacrificial lamb/human shield of Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-IL). Sadly enough, Burris is no Jimmy Stewart/Mr. Smith and mores the pity. The Senate could use a few dozen Mr. Smith's right now.

This political circus plays out at a time when America is finally throwing out the old race-baiting political playbooks of the past. For the first time in our history, the country anticipates the inauguration of our first black president. Illinois has led the country in sending minority politicans to Washington, including the last two black Senators.

Yet to the dismay of most of us, Blago has dug deep into the political trash to pull out chapter 1 of race-baiting politics in appointing Burris to fill Obama's unfinished term. In a sad, perverse way he tweaks the nose of the now all-white Senate by daring them not to seat its only black member. Caught between a rock and a hard place, the Senate is now scrambling to find (or negotiate) a way out of this impasse.

A simple solution to end this carnival side show is for IL Secretary of State Jesse White to simply certify the legal appointment of Burris. Certainly White will have to hold his nose while signing the certification paperwork. No one wants to send a politically tainted appointee to the Senate and Burris is just that.

Nonetheless, Gov. Blagojevich, although under investigation, having been arrested, soon to be impeached and most likely indicted by April, remains the governor of IL. Per the state's constitution he has the authority to make this appointment, distasteful as it may be. Anyone with a modicum of morality knows Blago's actions in trying to sell the seat to the highest bidder was wrong.

However, the IL Democrats sat on their hands for years while Blago wildly exercised and abused his powers as governor. The IL Sen. Majority Leader, Mike Madigan, even chaired Blago's reelection committee, helping him to a 2nd term and basically approving his "pay-to-play" political games.

So all their bluster and condemnation today of Blago's activities is beyond hypocritical. Even after he was arrested, the Democrats sat on their hands and did nothing to strip him of his appointment powers or call for a special election. They are complicit in this circus of madness.

It was for all intents and purposes a legal appointment and should be recognized, as disgusting as that may be. Burris is all too anxious to add "U.S. Senator" to his political tombstone, so why should anyone stand in his way. Once seated, there are no Constitutional requirements that he be given any committee appointments or responsibilities. Any legislation he writes can easily be bottled up or killed in committee. He can serve until 2010, when the people of IL will gladly return him to his political exile.

Sadly, Roland Burris is a 20-watt bulb in a 100-watt world. His own pronouncements over the past few days amply demonstrate this:

"We are the junior senator from Illinois."
"No one is more qualified for this job than me."
"I am the magic man."
"This is all politics and theater, but I am the junior senator according to every law book in the nation."
"I am a United States senator. They can't stop me from doing my senatorial duties."
"We are hoping and praying that they will not be able to deny what the Lord has ordained."

What more can be said? MN appears poised to send Al Franken to the Senate and IL is trying its darndest to send Burris.

Now more than ever the Senate truly is looking more and more like a carnival side show.

2009: A Good Year To Be Red

2009-01-05T07:27:00.003-05:00

2009 is already starting out to be a good year to be "red." In IL, Gov. Blago continues to make a spectacle of himself and the Democrats by trying (in vain) to be the head of state. The impeachment proceedings roll on with the Lt. Governor, Pat Quinn, openly hoping that Blago will be removed by Feb. 12th -- honest Abe's 200th birthday.

We can only hope.

In NM, Bill Richardson is facing his own "pay to play" scandal and did the appropriate thing: he withdrew his name for Secretary of Commerce and handed the incoming administration its first embarrassing moment. A federal grand jury is investigating how a California company that contributed to Richardson's political activities won a lucrative New Mexico state contract. Seems that Republicans are not the only ones who can goof up vetting.

Then there's the ongoing saga of Charlie ("Ethics are for schmucks") Rangel. The latest ethical lapse he's accused of swirls around how he sought a donation for a public service center built in his honor from a firm with business before his committee. The House ethics committee continues to struggle with Charlie's ideas of what is and is not proper behavior for a Congressperson.

The Clinton's are back in the news, too. The NY Times reports: "An upstate New York developer donated $100,000 to former President Bill Clinton’s foundation in November 2004, around the same time that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton helped secure millions of dollars in federal assistance for the businessman’s mall project. Mrs. Clinton helped enact legislation allowing the developer, Robert J. Congel, to use tax-exempt bonds to help finance the construction of the Destiny USA entertainment and shopping complex, an expansion of the Carousel Center in Syracuse. Mrs. Clinton also helped secure a provision in a highway bill that set aside $5 million for Destiny USA roadway construction. The bill with the tax-free bonds provision became law in October 2004, weeks before the donation, and the highway bill with the set-aside became law in August 2005, about nine months after the donation."

Incredibly coincidental timing as always with the Clintons.

Meanwhile, Fox News is reporting that Sen. Harry Reid was active in attempting to influence Gov. Blagojevich's Senate seat selection. It is reported that Reid made it clear he did NOT want Jesse Jackson, Jr. in the vacant seat. The phone call (one and only one) took place on Dec. 3 -- six days before Blago was arrested. As usual, Reid is at a loss to explain his actions or why he was so concerned about keeping Jackson, Jr. out of the Senate.

NY's governor is juggling the difficult decision of which caretaker to appoint to Hillary's soon-to-be-open Senate seat: her husband or Caroline ("I'm entitled by birth") Kennedy. Either way, NY loses.

Roland ("I'm not electable to any office") Burris is heading to Washington to claim his Senate seat. Rather than drag this out for months with Senate inquiries and lawsuits, Reid and the Senate Democrats should just seat him. Roland ("We are the junior Senator from IL") Burris (his quote, not mine BTW) is an empty suit and quite capable of fulfilling the only task for which he is imminently qualified: keeping a seat warm for a couple of years. Yes, he will go down in defeat in 2010, but the people of IL have suffered with a part-time junior Senator for most of the last 4 years. At least Burris has the desire to show up for work on a regular basis.

Finally, but not laughably, it appears Al Franken is headed to the Senate. As if that institution were not already enough of a joke, the good people of MN saw fit to share Franken with the entire country. Maybe Reid can find a committee position worthy of Mr. Franken's immeasurable talents -- something along the lines of chairman of the sub-committee on waste disposal. Franken has outstanding qualifications in that area.

It's going to be a very good year to be "red."

Bailouts Are Bad Business

2008-12-31T08:21:00.002-05:00

Thanks to a bout with insomnia, I happened upon an interesting BBC America show, Dragon's Den. The premise of the show is that inventors of almost anything make a pitch to 5 multimillionares. These 5 individuals are in their own right accomplished businesspeople in their own fields. These individuals may choose to invest in the inventor's company, if the inventor can convince them of their product's worth.

If only we had our own Dragon's Den for the Big 3 automakers. Alas, we instead have Congress and more's the pity.

Politicians are incredibly poor businesspeople. I considered the way the congressional committees questioned the Big 3 CEO's against how the Dragon's Den 5 questioned the inventors.

Politicians unfortunately play to the camera and to the soundbite. They and their staffs strive to elicit the day's quote or media moment that might propel the politician into the evening news spotlight for a few seconds. Why else do they flock to an open microphone like vultures to a rotting carcass? They know nothing and care not about gross sales figures, net profits, unit production costs or wholesale prices.

Those are just some of the questions the so-called "dragons" posed to the brave inventors who entered their den. Those who were prepared with the information fared better than those who stumbled. The inventors -- few though they may be -- who left with actual investments did so because they proved they had completed their homework.

They had done their market analysis.
They had successfully prototyped and initially marketed a useful or necessary product.
They had done the math, run the numbers, performed critical analysis of projected sales.
They knew their competition and their audience.

Not so with the Big 3, especially Chrysler. Their full page ads in newspapers across the country this week -- thanking America for the bailout -- simply shows how out of touch they are.

Do they think we are so naive as to believe that in 3 months they will do what they have not accomplished in over 3 decades?

Bailouts are inherently anti-capitalistic. In a true free market, capitalist economy, success is rewarded and failure is punished.

In America, we reward failure with bailouts so the company (or individuals) can continue the failure.

We are too stupid to learn from our mistakes so we are forever doomed to repeat them.

We are too complacent with our elected officials so we continue to re-elect them so they can continue to reward failure.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Most animals can be trained to perform or avoid behaviors with effective positive or negative reinforcements.

Unfortunately, we are too far evolved for that.

The Audacity of Arrogance

2008-12-30T16:50:00.003-05:00

So Gov. Blago (D-IL) has rejected the wise counsel offered him both publicly and privately to forego appointing anyone to President-elect Obama's vacant Senate seat. This afternoon, the governor seemed to proudly announce his appointment of Roland Burris to this seat. As many in IL would tell you, this would be the only route that Burris would ever find to acquiring a Senate seat, his electoral chances being two: slim and none.

Let's not ignore his campaigning for this seat with Gov. Blago. Burris made it more than abundantly clear what his aspirations were and sadly the governor was more than willing to listen. Then act.

Neither the governor nor Burris seemed remotely concerned by the fact that previously and again today, the IL Secretary of State, Jesse White, said he would not certify this appointment. This is not some rubber stamp of approval, but rather a legal requirement for someone who is appointed to the Senate. Without Secretary White's imprimatur, Blago's appointment has all the legal weight of a helium-filled balloon.

I hope Mr. Burris has not been apartment-hunting in D.C. just yet.

Another hurdle that is seemingly impossible to overcome is the Senate itself, which announced that it would vote not to seat Burris should the unthinkable happen and Sec. White's signature find its way on the appropriate paperwork (forgery notwithstanding).

I hope Mr. Burris purchased refundable tickets for his flight to D.C. I'm just saying...

The incredible arrogance displayed by the governor in light of the impending impeachment, the calls for his resignation, and the impossibility of his appointment being fulfilled is beyond astounding. But such is politics in Illinois, the land of Lincoln and now Obama.

Blago is but one pimple on a political face ravaged and pock-marked by terminal acne. IL politics has been corrupt for so long that it exists almost outside of time and space. The political machine in IL has its tentacles wrapped so tightly around almost everything that happens in this state that it is practically impossible to get anything done via legal means anymore.

The sadder truth is this is the birthplace of the political career of President-elect Obama and this is the political birthright bestowed upon him. He cut his political teeth in the machine politics in IL and leveraged it's power to vault from the IL General Assembly to the Senate. Those who may believe that he escaped the taint of the political corruption that oozes and squirts from every political pore and pimple in this state are beyond naive.

Gov. Blago is simply the latest IL pol to have been caught flaunting his excesses. As much as power corrupts, it also breeds contempt, which the governor has displayed amply today by his actions. Yet it is the same contempt which most politicians hold, but are usually wiser in avoiding displays of it.

Contempt, corruption and arrogance... all on display in one single, futile act of a politically drowning governor. As I sat watching the movie Frost/Nixon today, I couldn't help but think of the similarities between Nixon and Blago. Different levels to be sure, but similar in their thought processes, arrogance and utter disregard for the people.

Elections Have Consequences

2008-12-23T02:31:00.005-05:00

This title is not original to me; it comes from Rush Limbaugh. I don't always agree with everything Rush says, but this one thought does resonate with me. Elections do have consequences.

By electing Obama as our next president, we have effectively laid low the argument that the president needs to be a person of experience. Not any more. In the past, the American people have broken a number of barriers, but always seemed to select a person with a lengthy resume. It seems that is no longer necessary.

Obama's election opened a seat in the Senate which led to the downfall of yet another IL governor. Although he refuses to resign, Gov. Blago's days are numbered as the IL General Assembly contemplates impeachment.

Obama's open Senate seat also led to IL becoming fodder for late night talk show hosts and comedians everywhere. But far worse, it exposed the dirty underbelly of IL pay-for-play politics to the country and the world. One can hope that this scandal will result in change, but I've lived in IL for too many years to hold out much hope.

Elections have consequences.

Obama's election resulted in another open Senate seat -- this one in NY. With Hillary moving to SecState, Caroline Kennedy is poised to join her uncle Ted in the Senate. Qualifications be damned, experience remember means nothing anymore in politics. The fact that Caroline's resume could fit on a 3 by 5 card with room left for Grandma's secret recipe for a super-juicy turkey AND her pumpkin pie should not be a problem. What experience did Hillary bring to the job and it seems NY was happy with her.

Elections have consequences.

In MN, where people are shivering in sub-zero cold even as I type, the recount battle for one of their 2 Senate seats rages on. Al Franken may be within grasping distance of actually claiming that seat -- as frightening a prospect as that is for anyone with a modicum of sense. There is talk that even some Democrats in the Senate are fearful of a Senator Al Franken.

Elections have consequences.

Before Nov. 4th, we were told that Obama was the one we had been waiting for and hoping for. He would right wrongs, fix the economy, end the war, heal the sick, make the lame walk... well, at least some of that.

Now those high expectations are being quickly deflated with talk of more troops going to Iraq, a 16 month withdrawal timetable. and lately discussions that the economy may take up to 4 years to recover. Umm, that'd be the entire first Obama term. Of course, that'd be an economic first -- a 4+ year recession. I hope he was just joking.

Elections have consequences.

We get what we vote for although what we vote for often turns out to be something other that what we really wanted. That's the funny thing about elections and politicians. What we see is never quite what we get. Promises made are promises forgotten. Still we listen and believe and vote.

Obama's first 100 days will come and go -- rather quickly but not without notice. We will begin to see what we will really get... what we really voted for. When that starts to happen, please remember one thing:

Elections have consequences.

What Price for Tolerance

2008-12-22T11:12:00.002-05:00

My liberal friends (and yes, I have a few) tell me that my conservative views make me "less tolerant" or that I need to learn to be "more tolerant" -- I suppose, like they are when they trash conservative views or religious beliefs. This is not to say that they all do this and that none of them share some of my views or beliefs.

But it does seem to me quite often that tolerance practiced is a one-way street.

The Left is great at preaching tolerance. We're supposed to be tolerant of all sorts of things that go against the grain. If one does not believe in or support gay marriage, then one is labeled intolerant or bigoted.

Consider the latest dust-up over someone's alleged acts of intolerance: the invitation of Pastor Rick Warren, from Saddleback Church, to give the inaugural invocation on January 20th. I thought that President-elect Obama made a courageous choice of Rev. Warren in asking him to participate.

Apparently, I was wrong. At least according to Barney Frank among others.

"Giving that kind of mark of approval and honor to someone who has frankly spoken in ways I and many others have found personally very offensive, I thought that was a mistake for the president-elect to do,” said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat.

To his credit, Obama, speaking at a Dec. 18 news conference, said he doesn’t share Warren’s views on gay rights and wants to create an atmosphere “where we can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans.”

Wow -- disagree without being disagreeable -- sort of sounds like tolerance to me.

To his credit, Warren had the following response on Saturday: "You don't have to see eye to eye to walk hand in hand."

Gee, once again sounds like tolerance to me.

And to balance things out on Jan. 20th, Obama invited invited Joseph Lowery, a Methodist minister and civil rights leader who supports same-sex marriage and gay rights, to deliver the benediction.

I'm not sure what more those who have their knickers in a knot over this would want, except obviously the ouster of Warren from the program.

But that would be -- umm-- intolerant, wouldn't it?

But I tend to forget... the Left gets to preach all about tolerance, and in doing so it relieves them from ever having to actually practice it in real life. They just demand that from everyone else who happens to disagree with them.

How very tolerant of them.

Tuesday Thoughts

2008-12-16T06:20:00.002-05:00

** As expected the Supreme Court tossed yet another birth certificate lawsuit against the now official President-elect Obama. CNN reports: "The justices without comment on Monday refused to intervene in the November 4 presidential election, dismissing the claims of Cort Wrotnowski, a resident of Greenwich, Connecticut. In his appeal, Wrotnowski claimed that because Obama’s father was a Kenyan-born British subject, the president-elect does meet the Constitution’s requirement that the president be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. His mother was a U.S. citizen, born in the United States." How many more of these are out there?

** There is a "strong buy" rating on ILlaughingstock (ILLS) with super heavy buying over this past weekend. The future outlook is that ILLS will be shorted soon by ILimpeach (IMPECH) and Consolidated Victory (ConVict). Make your money while you can folks.

** According to the global warming theorists, the sudden bursts of icy cold and snow that is blanketing much of the U.S. this week is ample proof of global warming. This morning I started my car in 6 degree cold -- wind chill of -10. I could use some real warming right now.

** NY looks to implement a "fat" tax on non-diet soft drinks. $404 million in income expected. Just another wonderful example of government gone wild.

** Will Obama release the information about his transition team/staff contacts with IL Governor Rod Blagojevich? Right now all we have is his statement that there was no "inappropriate" contact. Show us the supporting evidence, Mr. President-elect.

** After 8 years of dodging the media, the pundits, the talking heads, the lawyers, Congress, the Supreme Court, et. al., is anyone really surprised that President Bush was so quick and so capable of dodging a couple of Iraqi shoes? Practice makes perfect folks!

** Why is Joe Biden still hanging onto his Senate seat? Is he planning to double-dip come Jan. 20th? I realize the office of VP is "not worth a bucket of warm spit", but it will come with a paycheck, Joe. Heck, IL is making do with one Senator and DE already has your replacement in hand. Let it go, Joe!

** A word of advice to Chicago/IL politicians from someone who knows -- Chicago's own Edward (Fast Eddie) Vrdolyak, a former Chicago alderman. "Talk to everyone like they're wearing a wire, even (your) wife!" Like several other corrupt Chicago/IL pols (are there any other kind?), Fast Eddie will be spending some time in jail. Apparently, he forgot his own advice.

IL Is #18, But We Try Harder!

2008-12-12T10:44:00.002-05:00

According to today's USA Today, Illinois is only the 18th most corrupt state in the union, based on federal crime convictions per capita. Yes, we have machine-style politics, greased palms, and it's probably easier to go to prison if you're an IL governor than a murderer... but we're not even in the big leagues of corruption.

We really have to try harder!

The #1 most corrupt state -- North Dakota.

Well that makes sense -- there's nothing much to do up there except practice corruption and freeze to death.

But seriously, USA Today reports that N.D. has 8.3 convictions per 100,000 people. Even Alaska and Louisiana fare worse than IL. We have only 3.9 convictions per 100,000 people.

Maybe the truth is we are just better at concealing our greed and corruption. After all only 3 of our governors in the last 35 years went to prison. Several got off scot-free!

And we even had a year recently when not a single Chicago alderman went to jail! Now if that doesn't restore your belief in miracles, then you are just too jaded for words.

We may be #18 today, but it's a solid 18 with a bullet. If he keeps working at it, Patrick Fitzgerald can uncover a huge cesspool of corruption with trails leading all through IL.

In 2009 we should easily break the top 10. We might even give ND a real run for the money for the #1 slot.

By the way, Nebraska -- the Corn Husker State -- is #50 with less than 0.5 convictions per 100,000 people.

If you'd like to check out the stats, go here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-12-10-corruptstates_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Thursday Red Bullets

2008-12-11T07:09:00.003-05:00

** All the pundits have diagnosed Gov. Blagojevich (D-IL) as a nut case, sociopath, lunatic, crazy person. Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but Blago is as sane as all the other IL politicians. This is how IL politics is done. Don't let the Obama cult of personality fool you. Obama is the exception that proves the rule.

** Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) apparently didn't listen to his father closely enough. Identified as "Senate candidate 5" -- the one who allegedly offered $1 million for Obama's seat -- "Jr." as he is known in these parts is steadfastly denying the allegations. His deft denial, however, is classic Jackson. His attorney confirms his denial, but slyly added that Jackson still wants the Senate seat. The attorney, James Montgomery, said, “He’s campaigned for it, he wants it, he’s qualified for it.” And the Jackson's have quick and easy access to the $1 million, too. I'm just saying...

** The investigations continue and the body count grows. One of Blago's deputy governors quietly resigned yesterday. No explanation why. Also Blago's attorney, Bill Quinlan, has been questioned by the Feds.

** What happens next? The calls for Blago's resignation are mounting, but he will not fall on his sword. Only Republicans do that; Democrats have to be torn from office kicking and screaming. Although there are calls for impeachment, it probably will not happen in the special session of the IL General Assembly next week. The main heads of the Dems in IL are remaining strangely silent and a new Assembly convenes in January. Any impeachment action might occur then.

** Can Blago still appoint an IL senator? Sure can! But the Sec. of State Jesse White would have to confirm the appointment (unlikely). The Senate would have to seat the appointee (possible), but then they'd probably vote to expel him/her. Most likely: a special election in February '09. Expect Jackson Jr. to be on that ballot.

** What happened to Chicago's 2016 Olympic hopes? Hear that giant flushing sound? Remember the FBI's Robert Grant quote of the day from Tuesday: "If [Illinois] isn't the most corrupt state in the United States, it's one hell of a competitor." YIKES!

** If you have not read the complaint, read it here: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/
I'm having a hard time selecting my "favorite" section. I enjoyed his musing about being appointed an ambassador -- that's sort of classic. The whole thing will give you a good look inside the way IL politics really works. If you live in IL, it just makes you sick. If you don't, it'll make you glad you live elsewhere.

Land of Lincoln or Land of Corruption?

2008-12-10T06:25:00.003-05:00

Gov. Blagojevich (D) of my home state (IL) is charged with a "political corruption crime spree." Why am I not surprised?

In IL, if you are a politician that is not under investigation, you probably should be investigated. Political corruption is a way of life in IL. The IL "combine" does not refer to farm equipment -- it's the term used to describe the machine politics that spilled out of Chicago into Springfield (the state capitol).

The "nice" thing about political corruption in IL -- it's bipartisan! Our previous governor, a Republican, is serving time in prison for a licenses for bribes scandal. His greed led to the deaths of a van of innocent children who were literally burned to death. Their van struck some debris that fell off a truck driven by someone who paid a bribe to get a trucker's license in IL. Now George Ryan spends his retirement in prison.

Three governors in 35 years went from the governor's mansion to prison. The others probably escaped by being only slightly more artful in their corruption.

Gov. Blago was just plain ham-handed. Beside the blatant attempt to literally sell the open Senate seat, Blago and his chief of staff reportedly attempted to shake down dozens of people for campaign contributions. The most shocking accusation was his threat to withhold funding for the Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago because the CEO was not fast enough in coughing up a $50,000 campaign "contribution." Apparently, that's the price tag for making sure innocent children get the critical medical care they need in IL.

Selling favors and contracts, seeking a Cabinet position and a board of directors spot for his wife, Blagojevich was way more interested in padding his post-governor lifestyle than in serving the people of IL. Most politicians are greedy, but Blagojevich has taken greed to a completely new level.

As bad as all that is, he is recorded on tape musing about appointing himself to the vacant Senate seat. His approval rating in IL is in the single digits, so he thought that jumping to the Senate would give him a chance to improve his image and run for prez in 2016.

If it isn't the most corrupt state in the United States, it's certainly one hell of a competitor," said Robert Grant, special agent in charge of the FBI's Chicago office.

The people of IL are not surprised though -- this is what we live with every day. There's an unwritten agreement between the people and the pols -- as long as they don't go overboard in their corruption, the people will turn a blind eye to it. Apparently, Blago couldn't be satisfied just sticking a couple of fingers in the cookie jar -- he had to break the jar open, grab all the cookies and then demand even more -- all the while denying that he'd done anything wrong.

Grant had the privilege of standing outside Blagojevich's home about 6 a.m. Tuesday and calling the sleepy governor to say federal agents were outside, waiting to arrest him quietly. "I could tell I woke him up," Grant said. "And the first thing he said was, 'Is this a joke?' "

Even knowing that he was under investigation for the last 2+ years, Blago continued his blatant and obvious selling of anything he could lay his hands on to fill his insatiable money lust. When it all fell down around him like a house of cards, he asks, "Is this a joke?"

Sadly, Blagojevich was elected governor on the reform ticket, promising to clean up the state and end business as usual. He managed to get re-elected even though the clouds were forming over his head.

In his own words: "I'm going to keep this Senate option for me a real possibility, you know, and therefore I can drive a hard bargain," Blagojevich allegedly said on tape. "You hear what I'm saying? And if I don't get what I want, and I'm not satisfied with it, then I'll just take the Senate seat myself." Obama's Senate seat, Blagojevich allegedly said, "is a [expletive] valuable thing. You don't just give it away for nothing." Then, on Nov. 5, he allegedly said, "I've got this thing, and it's [expletive] golden and, uh, I'm just not going to give it up for [expletive] nothing. I'm not gonna do it. And I can always use it, I can parachute me there."

In the midst of all this is the irony of Sen. Dick Durbin's request last week for President Bush to pardon or commute the sentence of former Gov. George Ryan. I suppose that was Durbin's way of suggesting that they make room in the prison system for IL's current governor and his aides.

I agree with what U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said yesterday: Lincoln is, indeed, turning over in his grave, if not, spinning.

It's Always Darkest Before The Bottom Falls Out

2008-12-09T06:00:00.004-05:00

The Chicken Little syndrome is in full effect in Washington, DC. The sky is falling; the end is near; time to circle the wagons and nationalize everything in the private sector because only the federal government can save us now.

Or so we are being led to believe. The "too big to fail" mentality has gone extreme.

Congress is proposing taking a 20% stake in the Big 3 automakers. Not content to allow the genuises who have for decades refused to rethink, revamp, restructure and retool themselves, Congress believes that it can take over and do a better job of producing cars that America will buy.

Anyone remember the Edsel?

Now we have the President-elect Obama telling us that it's going to get worse before it gets better. Talk about managing expectations!

So to help the incoming prez wants to resurrect an old failure -- the public works programs of FDR. Not content with rebuilding roads and bridges, the incoming administration has set its sights on "modernizing" schools as well as "giving every American access to an electronic medical record as part of an “economic recovery plan."

FDR's WPA was a bureaucratic inefficient mess that ate up massive resources with minimal productivity. Time and again the private sector has proven it can do a better quality job at a lower price than the federal government can.

Yet one can't tell that to the Obama administration.

Let's expand the government's role beyond anything that was envisioned by the Constitution. As Ed Morrissey writes in his blog, Hot Air, "The federal government should work on interstate highways and its bridges, and state governments should remain responsible for their transportation infrastructure." I totally agree.

As for health records on the Internet, that's already happening under HIPAA, so I'm not sure what more the Obama administration thinks it can do. It just demonstrates that this incoming administration is willing to turn a blind eye to history in an attempt to sell "change."

This kind of "change" when the country is tettering on the edge of financial disaster is nothing short of madness. It's like a person declaring bankruptcy and then rushing out to apply for more credit cards and loans to continue a wild, reckless spending spree. Ed Morrissey summarized it best when he wrote:

Recreating the WPA and proposing even more massive spending programs in the face of our precarious financial condition and debt load finds its equivalent only perhaps in the apocryphal fiddling of Nero while Rome burned.

Bailout Madness

2008-12-05T13:18:00.002-05:00

They're back!

Ford, GM, and Chrysler returned to Washington, DC yesterday. They came not as brash and cocky CEOs, but more as penitents who had learned a lesson in how to beg for a bailout.

Instead of high-priced corporate jets, they drove to DC in allegedly fuel-efficient cars. They claimed they would also be driving home. I wonder how far out of Washington they got before ditching the cars for the corporate jet.

They came, hat in hand, asking for an additional $35 billion. That's on top of the $25 billion that was carved out of the TARP -- remember that money that was supposed to help homeowners who were in danger of losing their homes, but which has not yet made its way there.

GM said it would settle for a measly $4 billion now. Otherwise, it'd have to lock its doors on December 31.

Wahhh!

Come Jan. 31 they'd need more money. They are burning through $2 billion a MONTH now. They lose $1,500 on every car they manufacture. Not sell -- MANUFACTURE.

Their cars roll off the factory floor onto the truck to a dealer at a LOSS. This doesn't count the drastic markdowns the dealers are making to try to get their aging inventory off their lots.

Today the question was finally asked that had been on everyone's mind: Would it help the Big 3 if the federal gov't. were to take over their medical and pension benefits plans?

Well, duh! Why not just take over the whole industry! Everyone can see what an incredible job the federal gov't. has done managing such programs as Social Security, Medicare, Amtrak among others. I'm sure the genuises in Washington could handle managing the Big 3 just as well.

Some want to attach strings to the Big 3 bailout. Well, at least they learned something from the $700 billion gaffe they recently passed. Sadly, any oversight of the Big 3 would simply create more government requiring more spending requiring more of OUR money. Sounds like a winning plan to me. Not!

The Big 3 have had decades to revamp, restructure, retool and rethink. Instead they surrendered repeatedly to the unions which ran them into the ground with increasing wages, benefits, unemployment and pension programs. Now the unions are saying they might be willing to make some concessions. Thanks, but no thanks.

Allow the Big 3 to pre-arrange a bankruptcy so that under court protection and supervision they can do what they should have done 2 or 3 decades ago.

It's time to end the bailout madness once and for all. Continuing it will only delay the inevitable and extend the recession. It needs to stop now.

Red Bullets

2008-12-04T10:05:00.002-05:00

* Sen. Harry (Dirty) Reid to America: "You stink!" "My staff tells me not to say this, but I'm going to say it anyway," said Reid in his remarks. "In the summer because of the heat and high humidity, you could literally smell the tourists coming into the Capitol. It may be descriptive but it's true." Next time, Sen. Reid, listen to your staff. They obviously have more common sense and decorum than you do.

* I suppose I should not be surprised, but Obama's campaign promises, quickly removed from the transition team's Change.gov website, are being thrown under the bus faster than... well Jeremiah Wright and his racist sermons. I'll leave it to Rick Moran's blog, Right Wing Nuthouse, to do a better job than I can of detailing the carnage. Read "Obama, The Promise Breaker" (http://rightwingnuthouse.com/)

*The Minnesota Senate race just gets goofier and stranger by the moment. Missing ballots, dismissed ballots, miscounted ballots and lawsuits galore. Somehow I doubt this is going to end anytime soon. Undoubtedly, no one will be pleased with the outcome and this is simply another sad example of how we seem unable to effectively practice democracy.

* Tomorrow the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether to hear the case of Donofrio v. Wells. What makes this case of any special note? Leo Donofrio is suing the NJ Secretary of State Nina Wells for failing to stop NJ from participating in the November 4th general election. The basis for the suit: an accusation that Barack Obama does not qualify to be elected president because he is not a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. It is highly unlikely that Donofrio v. Wells will be granted cert. Maybe by tossing this the Supreme Court can once and for all close the case on this absurd accusation.

* What will happen when "Obamamania" peaks and begins to subside? And has it already started to subside? After all, you can elect the first black president only one time. I mentioned yesterday that the GA Senate run-off was the first test and it seems clear the MSM agree that the Obama coalition failed this test miserably. Such is the problem with cults of personality. When the personality is not present, the cult tends to fall apart.

Finally Some Good News (Maybe) for Republicans

2008-12-03T06:22:00.003-05:00

Fortunately for the country, there will be no filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Sen. Saxby Chambliss won his runoff election in GA, a firmly set red state.

I added "maybe" in the title because Sen. Chambliss has a couple of problems with his Senate voting record. He voted for the $700 billion bailout (sellout) and for the 2007 guest worker program. In some conservative circles that was getting him plastered with the RINO (Republican in Name Only) label.

However, seeing the threat of handing the Democrats a blank check to do as they will in Washington, DC, the people of GA thought about the good of the country.

One wonders if there is more of a message in Jim Martin's loss? Obama's absence from this campaign was obvious, except for some robocalls and a single radio ad.

Did Obama suddenly forget all those lessons learned in his rough and tumble days working the Chicago political machine?

Has he already lost his coattails? Is the vaunted Obama coalition sustainable or is it truly, as some have suggested, simply a cult of personality? Is there something beyond Obama the man?

Maybe there isn't. Chambliss captured 60% of the votes to Martin's 40%. Admittedly, turnout for this run-off was light. The GA Secretary of State estimated turnout to be 18 to 20% -- a huge drop from the 65% turnout on November 4th.

However, the stakes here were just as high and maybe higher. The ability to solidify a supermajority in the Senate was in the balance. Looks like Republicans took that much more seriously than the Democrats did.

Donald Fowler, a former DNC chairman said Obama "has a political army that is truly impressive, but that kind of loyalty to a person rather than to an institution is not as transferable." Martin's campaign should have listened more closely, since he chose to wrap himself in everything Obama for his campaign. He ran ads that included footage of Obama's victory speech in Chicago and borrowed lines from several Obama speeches, trying to make them his own.

Looks like it didn't work for him. One cannot try to become the Obama.

Seems more like a cult of personality all the time.

Despite his win, Chambliss should take note of the message GA Republicans sent him. Analysts believe the main reason for the runoff was that a large number of Republicans voted for the Libertarian candidate to protest Chambliss' support for the immigration reform compromise and financial services bailout.

However, given the prospect of a 60-vote Democrat supermajority in the Senate, the Republicans returned to the polls to soundly prevent that tragedy.

We'll have to see if the Obama Machine can get itself in gear to hold onto their Congressional seats in 2010. If history is any indicator, they may have a tough time.

One More Comment About Corporate Bailouts

2008-12-03T05:23:00.002-05:00

Will Obama & the Democrats Ignore the Constitution?

2008-12-02T06:44:00.004-05:00

As for soon to be President-elect Obama, the answer is yes. Consider...

Article 1, Section 6: "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time."

However, Mr. Obama has appointed Sen. Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State. Unfortunately, during her tenure as a U.S. Senator, the salary for the Secretary of State was increased, making her appointment unconstitutional.

Has anyone in the Obama transition team noticed yet? Has any Democrat (or Republican) in Congress noticed yet?

And President Bush has been accused of shredding the Constitution!

Maybe there's an end run that's possible!

According to Prof. Michael Stokes Paulsen as quoted in The Volokh Conspiracy (a conservative blog -- http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_11_23-2008_11_29.shtml#1227562708 )

"So, "Is Hillary Clinton Unconstitutional?" In a word, Yes -- or, to be more precise, a Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be unconstitutional.

"As I understand it, President Bush's executive order from earlier this year "encreased" the "Emoluments" (salary) of the office of Secretary of State. Last I checked, Hillary Clinton was an elected Senator from New York at the time. Were she to be appointed to the civil Office of Secretary of State, she would be being appointed to an office for which "the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased" during the time for which she was elected to serve as Senator. The plain language of the Emoluments Clause would thus appear to bar her appointment ... if the Constitution is taken seriously (which it more than occasionally isn't on these matters, of course).

"Are there any legitimate escape hatches to this constitutional bar? Let's consider them quickly.

"First, does the fact that the emoluments of the office were increased by executive order, pursuant to a general authorizing statute, take the case out of the Emoluments Clause rule? Plainly not. The clause is written in the delightfully ambiguous passive voice that we always discourage in our law students. "shall have been encreased ... by whom, exactly?!" The clause does not limit the application of its rule to direct statutory enactments.

"In the world in which legislation may be accomplished by delegation of general quasi-lawmaking authority to executive branch officials, there is no difference in legal principle between a direct legislative enactment and an executive order pursuant to specific legislative authorization. If pay increases may be accomplished, legally, by executive order, then those increases in emoluments fit within Article I, section 6's rule. If those increases occurred during the time for which Hillary Clinton was elected to the U.S. Senate, they disqualify her, regardless of when the general statutory authorization for such increases was enacted.

"But wait! Wasn't the (probable) purpose of the Emoluments Clause to prevent congressional self-dealing in the form of creation of offices (or increasing their emoluments) and hoping to profit thereby by being appointed to such office? And isn't that purpose plainly inapplicable here? Perhaps. But the content of the rule here is broader than its purpose. And the rule is the rule; the purpose is not the rule.

"As I wrote in something of a sequel to Lloyd, if purposes were taken as rules, and if the meaning of texts "evolve" over time, then "thirty-five years of age" does not mean "thirty-five years of age" but stands instead for an evolving principle of maturity. In 1996, this would have meant that the lawful President of the United States was Strom Thurmond, not Bill Clinton. (Michael Stokes Paulsen, Is Bill Clinton Unconstitutional? The Case for President Strom Thurmond, 13 Const. Comment. 217 (1996).) So too, the fact that the Emoluments Clause catches in its snare the (possibly) blameless (for this at least) Hillary Clinton does not mean that its constitutional command can be ignored with impunity.

"Then there's the infamous "Saxbe Fix" precedent, which I discuss in Lloyd. Couldn't Congress pass a repealing statute, or President Bush (or even President Obama) rescind the executive order, selectively, as to Hillary and make everybody happy? Nope: The clause forbids the appointment of someone to an office the emoluments whereof "shall have been encreased." A "fix" can rescind the salary, but it cannot repeal historical events. The emoluments of the office had been increased. The rule specified in the text still controls.

"Unless one views the Constitution's rules as rules that may be dispensed with when inconvenient; or as not really stating rules at all (but "standards" or "principles" to be viewed at more-convenient levels of generality); or as not applicable where a lawsuit might not be brought; or as not applicable to Democratic administrations, then the plain linguistic meaning of this chunk of constitutional text forbids the appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. I wouldn't bet on this actually preventing the appointment, however. It didn't stop Lloyd Bentsen from becoming Secretary of State. But it does make an interesting first test of how serious Barack Obama will be about taking the Constitution's actual words seriously. We know he thinks the Constitution should be viewed as authorizing judicial redistribution of wealth. But we don't know what he thinks about provisions of the Constitution that do not need to be invented, but are actually there in the document.

"There is one last chance for Hillary. The Emoluments Clause provides that its rule applies to any senator or representative, "during the Time for which he was elected." Perhaps the rule of the Emoluments Clause does not apply to female U.S. Senators. It's an out-there argument, of course (Hillary and I both went to Yale Law School). But I think I would prefer even this (unpersuasive) pronoun pounce to the Saxbe Fix, or to ignoring the text of the Constitution entirely."

This will be a very interesting test of the new administration and it's creed of "Change we can believe."

Does Our Economy Need a "Jolt"?

2008-11-25T10:46:00.003-05:00

To believe the current media hype, the American economy is facing the greatest disaster since the Great Depression of the 1930's. Really?

National output has declined by only 0.5%; unemployment, while rising, is no where near the 25% mark during the Great Depression. National output at that time declined by one-third or 33%.

So what is happening? Sadly, it is a man-made political opportunity for a spending spree the likes of which this country has not seen since FDR. Indeed, the media is portraying the president-elect as FDR-redux.

But do we really need another FDR to save us from economic collapse?

We've already given one politician free rein with over $700 billion and so far it has done little to nothing to resolve the problems that got us here. The only tangible result is that all sorts of businesses are now claiming to be "too big to fail" and are sticking out their hands for a bailout.

American history is replete with examples of how the government has intervened in the economy, attempting to micromanage it and inevitably making a bigger mess than the one that started it all. Thomas Sowell writes today, "Even in the case of the Great Depression of the 1930s, increasing numbers of economists and historians who have looked back at that era have concluded that, on net balance, government intervention prolonged the Great Depression."

Consider this: Did that economic crisis end sooner than any other in American history? The answer is a resounding No. Sowell writes, "The Great Depression of the 1930s was in fact the longest-lasting of all our depressions."

Do we face severe challenges today? Certainly, but they will assuredly be made worse by the micromanging and tinkering of politicians who think they can outsmart the market.

If our history is worth anything, it is a valuable lesson to teach us to keep politicians hands off the economy.

Sadly, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

It appears the Democrats and some Republicans are turning a blind eye to history.

Will There Be Anything Left to Bailout Christmas?

2008-11-24T12:44:00.004-05:00

$750 billion to bailout toxic mortgages and unfreeze the credit markets.

Add another $150 - 200 billion in pork projects.

Ford, GM and Chrysler want $25 - 50 billion to tide them over.

Citigroup already received $25 billion and is getting another $20 billion "infusion."

Now the major TV networks are claiming they may need a bailout too because ad revenues are starting to decline.

This weekend the Democrats in Congress began tossing around figures for yet another economic stimulus package to have on the president's desk on Jan. 20th (I presume it will arrive after 12 noon Washington, DC time).

The price tag on that is between $300 - 500 billion. Today.

And we've not even celebrated Thanksgiving yet.

The economic crisis has already erased over $23 trillion in assets from the books and brought down 3 major Wall Street firms.

The current tab for the bailout program as calculated by the Fed, Treasury and FDIC is $3.8 trillion with the final bill estimated currently at a whopping $7.4 trillion.

Our money.

Will anything be left to bailout Christmas because Christmas is too big to fail!

Maybe someone can point me to where the end of the bailout line is. Since everyone else is getting help, I'd like to get my bailout, too.

Unless I'm too little to fail.

Because like most U.S. taxpayers, we don't really matter.

Only our money matters.

To those we elected to represent us, but who instead spend like there's no tomorrow.

To save those too big to fail.

Laying the Blame for Market Meltdown

2008-11-21T08:09:00.002-05:00

The headlines are scary enough: Dow down another 400; S&P 500 at lowest level in years; Citigroup below $5; stocks plunging; fear stalks world markets.

In the midst of all the gloom and doom (and ever-declining 401Ks) comes news that oil has dropped below $50/barrel. Whoo-hoo -- I was able to fill my tank yesterday for under $2 a gallon. That felt amazingly good.

Back to the markets -- who's to blame? Some fingers are pointing at the President-elect.

I'm reminded of an adage about finger-pointing: whenever you point a finger at someone, take note of how many fingers are pointed back at you. Typically it's 3-to-1 in favor of the target.

To date President-elect Obama has done nothing to which one could pin the blame for this continued market crash. Yet, for some odd reason, he's being charged with it.

Maybe it's because of what he said he would do once in office.

OK, but let's keep in mind that President-elect Obama is first and foremost a politician. Politicians will say almost anything, especially if it is what their audience wants to hear.

Remember this: with politicians, words mean nothing. Their actions mean everything.

So far we have no real actions from President-elect Obama that could impact the markets. All we have is a lot of rhetoric.

But what about his votes as a Senator? OK, we can examine his previous votes and determine that he is definitely a liberal. Some of those votes may have contributed to the financial crises we face today.

However, he is not 100% responsible for it. He might bear 1/100% or even less.

The real blame lies not with the politicians, but with those who have allowed fear to take over and drive them from the market. Those people who at the first hint of possible trouble want to grab their cash and head for the nearest mattress.

Should we be afraid of the incoming Obama administration? Based solely on the rhetoric so far, there are ample reasons to be concerned.

Still, I've left my money exactly where it is at. No changes, no withdrawals... only additions.

I do not intend to succumb to fear. Now or in the future.

I suggest others might do the same.

In the meantime, let's stop with the misplaced blame. There will be plenty of time to lay blame on the Obama administration later.

We'll have 4 years to do that.

For now, let's allow him to do the transition.

The Audacity of Congress

2008-11-20T06:12:00.004-05:00

A telling quote from Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-MI): "It's not your money. It belongs to Congress, and they’ll do whatever they want with it." By the way, he's talking about taxes.

You know -- the money that's sucked out of your paycheck long before you get to cash it.

Bet you didn't know it's not your money.

And a number of conservative and ultra-conservative talking heads were warning us of Obama's desire to redistribute wealth! Welcome to Republican redistribution.

Obama wants to redistribute wealth from the successful to those without based on class.

Knollenberg wants to redistribute wealth from everyone to subsidize corporate failure.

Too many in Congress believe as Knollenberg does, but they are a little less blatant about it. They believe that they (Congress) are the source of your money. Government is the center of their universe.

Government starts new businesses. Government enables people to buy houses and they graciously allow those who to to deduct the mortgage interest. Government creates jobs that allow you and I to work, therefore, every dollar in this country is owned by the government.

They are the beginning and end of all things.

You and I are simply a cost to them.

Congress needs to learn a simple lesson: taxes belong to the people. The wealth that you and I create as a result of our labor and sweat belongs to us; it is our property.

We the people consent to give the government a portion of what we earn expecting that this investment will return tangible results.

Homeland protection. Clean air. Pure water. Safe roads and bridges. Help and care for those who truly need it, not for everyone who just doesn't feel like getting out of their recliner to do some honest labor.

Tangible results do not include bailouts of auto companies whose corporate chiefs travel to/from Washington on private jets at an average cost of $20,000 per trip. A commerical first class ticket -- round trip -- would cost under $1,000.

Tangible results do not include payback to greedy unions who use the money to fund political campaigns and line the pockets of fat cats who care only about whether their next house will be in the Hamptons or their next car a Bentley.

Any elected official who does not learn these lessons should be shown the door the next time they ask for your vote.

Red Bullets

2008-11-19T05:31:00.003-05:00

** While I do not cheer the addition of yet another Democrat to the Senate, I do admire and respect the people of Alaska for their decision to oust Sen. Stevens. It is sad that it took so long and required a federal felony conviction to do it, but Stevens long reign in the Senate will soon be over. The citizens of AK spared the Senate from the inevitable task of forcing Stevens out, a man who seemed destined to hang on to power by hook or by crook (the latter is not intended as a pun -- well, maybe a little).

** Sunday night's 60 Minutes interview with President-elect Obama has been dissected enough now. I used to respect the show, even if I disagreed with it frequently. However, I hope that this fawning interview is not a portent of things to come from the media. With all the talk and hype over "Camelot II", let us not forget that the original "Camelot" was fraught with crises, some handled well (Cuban Missile Crisis) and others not so well (Bay of Pigs). I hope the the incoming president makes some wise choices for his advisors because he will need them.

** The cluelessness in Washington is on classic display. Rep. Barney Frank continues to foam at the mouth over the $700 billion bailout plan. They give SecTreas Paulson dictatorial control over the money and then fuss and fume when he fails to act as their puppet. Yesterday, Paulson rejected using the government's financial-rescue program as a "panacea'' for economic difficulties, clashing with lawmakers who want the funds to help beleaguered homeowners and automakers. "The rescue package was not intended to be an economic stimulus or an economic recovery package,'' Paulson said in testimony to the House Financial Services Committee in Washington. The $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program was designed to stabilize financial markets and the flow of credit and "is not a panacea for all our economic difficulties.'' Why is anyone surprised at this? Next time, Congress, read the legislation before you vote.

** Sen. Lieberman is trying to play both sides against the middle. Pre-election he hedged his bets by siddling up with McCain and taking some cheap shots at Obama, now he's back snuggling up with the Dems in an effort to keep his committee chairmanships intact. He got a minor slap on the wrist (he lost his subcommittee seat on the Environment and Public Works Committee). Leiberman's comment: "My colleagues voted to support a resolution which I believe was fair and forward leaning. It's a resolution that not only resolves the current dilemma, but it's a resolution of reconciliation and not retribution. And I appreciate it." Dilemma? Reconciliation? The only dilemma facing the Dems was keeping Leiberman in line.

** 11/18/2008 will go down in history as a sad day for the left's wingnuts. Not only was Lieberman not flogged for leaving the reservation, but advisors in the incoming Obama administration said there is little, if any, chance the Justice Department will bring criminal charges against Bush officials who authorized or engaged in harsh interrogations of the terrorists at Club Gitmo. On top of this, Sen. Leahy confirmed this in a interview on VT public radio. Asked if Bush administration officials would be brought up on war crimes charges, Leahy said, "In the United States, no." In a sample of the looney left's reaction, Michael Ratner is a professor at Columbia school of law: "I don't see how we regain our moral stature by allowing those who were intimately involved in the torture programs to simply walk off the stage and lead lives where they're not held accountable." And that was one of the few rational reactions to this news.

** I leave you with a quote: "All the President is is a glorified public relations man who spends his time flattering, kissing and kicking people to get them to do what they are supposed to do anyway." -- Harry S. Truman

No Bailout for You!

2008-11-18T07:42:00.002-05:00

Well, at least not today anyway.

Seems that a stalemate of sorts has significantly dimmed the prospects of Congressional Democrats whose palms are itching to spend another $25 billion of your money. They would love to call it a "bailout", but the reality is its a payback to the UAW and Detroit for election favors. I suppose $25 billion is a small price to pay to extend one party's stranglehold on power for another couple of years.

The truth is $25 billion will not bail-out the Big Three. The fair market value of all three companies may be in the neighborhood of $10 billion, give or take a couple of billion. For less than half of the cost of this payback, we could buy the U.S. auto industry. Then again, do we really want the "geniuses" in Washington to make another attempt at running a business? Need I remind anyone of how great a job Washington did running Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae?

'Nuff said.

Beyond that, it would be an incredibly stupid purchase to make. We only have figures on GM's and Ford's debt (combined it is over $220 billion). Guesstimate Chrysler's debt at another $35 billion or so and you have an industry that is valued by the market at about $10 billion but that is carrying nearly a quarter trillion in debt.

And you thought your home's equity was under water?

The big question to ask is what in the world do these "genius" Democrats think they are doing by tossing $25 billion to Detroit. It's not even a drop in the bucket toward their debt -- not when GM is losing over $800 on every car they sell and Ford loses over $1,300 on every car they sell.

Those figures alone tell me there is something terribly wrong with their business model.

The answer is to send the Big Three to bankruptcy court to reorganize. A number of large companies (Delta for example) have gone through the process. People still purchased tickets on a "bankrupt" airline and Delta emerged from the process.

The Big Three have to face reality. There's no amount of money that can continue to prop up a failed business model. It must change. Now.

If not, then they will go the way of other failed automakers like Edsel and American Motors.

Seems like America has done fairly well without either of those companies.

Saving the Aveo

2008-11-17T05:40:00.004-05:00

Detroit has its hand outstretched and the Democrat leaders in Congress want to make sure that hand does not remain empty. Call them Santa if you want, but they are anxious to spend more of your money (where does it end?) in an ill-informed attempt to save the Chevrolet Aveo and a host of other poorly designed, badly manufactured and not wanted cars. After all it's not their fault that they've had a run of bad luck for the past 35 - 40 years. The reality is that neither Detroit nor the Democrats in Congress can accept the grim reality: Detroit has made and continues to make a product that the American consumer doesn't want.

For decades now Americans have been expressing their dissatisfaction with American made cars but the Big Three automakers have insistently turned a deaf ear. All we ask for is a well designed car that runs well, gets good gas mileage and is easy to maintain -- meaning it won't cost an arm, leg and our firstborn child to replace a fuel pump after only 10,000 miles.

What do we hear from the Big Three? Incessent whining about union contracts and unfair competition. Yet who is to blame for these things? Who negotiated the contracts that require ever higher salaries, benefits and pensions for auto workers? Who is it that refused for years to retool, redesign, reinvent in the face of growing successful competition? Detroit created the mess it is in today and now wants the American taxpayer to bail them out.

If they cannot get your money through normal sales, they will take it by force.

Maybe they've forgotten the basic concept of captialism -- you have to give the consumer what they want or else you go out of business. Every day businesses throughout America discover this harsh truth and they don't get bailed out. Why should Detroit be any different?

The argument that they are too big to fail doesn't hold water. The Democrats want to hand over a mere $25 billion to an industry that has squandered many times that amount over the years through myopic management. They have stubbornly resisted the call for change even as they watched their market share slip away year after year. Now, instead of facing the problems they created head on and solving them through ingenuity and elbow grease, they want to take the easy way out. I say no way!

In an effort to show that they are listening to the consumer, GM started producing a new line -- the Chevrolet Aveo. A nice car if you like driving around in an underpowered cracker box with your knees in your chest and no place for your luggage or groceries. The Aveo is Detroit's idea of ingenuity and innovation. America's lowest price car starts at $13,000.00.

By the way, for that price you get such innovations as door handles, brakes, headlights, seat belts, a steering column and wheel, tires, and even an engine. Add another $2,000.00 and Detroit will throw in floor mats. For an additional $4,000.00 they'll make sure the seats are covered in cloth. And they'll include the "Driver Information Center" -- this nice feature tells you what the temperature is outside. Wow!

Thousands of American workers have already lost jobs in the auto industry and many tens of thousands more stand to lose their jobs if the Big Three go belly up. It's not their fault that their leaders are so deaf and dumb that they refuse to change.

However, it's not the American taxpayers responsibility to bail out every business that makes stupid mistakes and refuses to learn from them. There's just not enough money to keep doing this. It's time to just say no. No bailout for Detroit. No salvation for the Aveo.

So This Is Change, Huh

2008-11-14T07:20:00.002-05:00

From Barack Obama, November 2007: "One year from now, we have the chance to tell all those corporate lobbyists that the days of them setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race - and I’ve won. I don’t take a dime of their money, and when I am President, they won’t find a job in my White House."

Well, they may not be in the White House, but they seem more than welcome on the transition team. From the L.A. Times: "To burnish Obama’s reformist credentials, Podesta on Tuesday rolled out what he billed as a tough set of ethics rules targeting professional lobbyists. But there was a loophole: Lobbyists could work on the transition as long as they stayed away from the policy areas that their lobbying involved."

So this is what change looks like, huh?

It gets better. This week Bloomberg News took a close look at Obama's Transition Economic Advisory Board. This is a team that was pulled together to advise the president-elect on how to manage the worst financial crisis to hit this country since the Great Depression. Who did they find on the team? Let's just call them the "Bailout Bunch." It's a Who's Who of people who helped put us in this mess and have some of the dirtest hands around.

Robert Rubin -- chairman of Citigroup Inc.’s executive committee when the bank pushed bogus analyst researcg, helped Enron Corp. cook the books, and got caught faking his own! To top it off, Rubin was a director from 2000 to 2006 at Ford Motor Co., which also committed accounting fouls and now is begging Uncle Sam for bailout cash.

Anne Mulcahy -- another Citigroup board member & Xerox CEO

Richard Parsons -- Citigroup board member and CEO of Time Warner. BTW, both Xerox and Time Warner were pinched years ago by the SEC for accounting frauds (which Mulcahy and Parsons were execs there). And get this: Mulchay and Parsons also served on the board of ... Fannie Mae.

William Daley -- member of the executive committee at JP Morgan Chase -- one of nine banks to snag $125 billion of the bailout cash already.

Laura Tyson -- director at Morgan Stanley, which in 2004 got slapped for accounting violations by the SEC and a month ago got $10 billion from Treasury.

Penny Pritzker -- member of the holding company for subprime lender Superior Bank FSB. The Chicago-area thrift, in which her family held a 50 percent stake, was seized by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. in 2001. The thrift’s owners agreed to pay the government $460 million over 15 years to help cover the FDIC’s losses.

Even Warren Buffet and William Donaldson have past associations with companies that were charged with accounting violations and misleading investors.

Half of this team have held fiduciary positions at companies that, to one degree or another, either fried their financial statements, helped send the world into an economic tailspin, or both.

Change we can believe in?

I Hate To Say It...

2008-11-13T07:15:00.003-05:00

Well, not really. But I along with many others told you so.

“I’d like to see them use more of the money in TARP to help homeowners,” said Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. “I think we’ve given them more authority than they have used.”

Really, Mr. Frank? (Snicker) It seems that this is exactly the problem that many people pointed out about the legislation that was raced through Congress because of the criticial financial crisis we faced. The legislation could not wait. No time to read it or consider the implications of what was being passed. No time to debate or raise questions.

On October 2, I wrote the following: Section Two: Purposes: "Purposes of this act are to immediately provide authority and facilities that the secretary of the Treasury can use to restore liquidity and stability to the financial system of the United States." Why is Congress investing in ONE PERSON this power and authority? To ensure that such authority and such facilities are used in a manner that, A, protects home values, college funds, retirement accounts, and life savings." The Secretary of the Treasury -- an unelected, appointed Cabinet officer is being given this authority and facility? How is this remotely constitutional? And they're giving this power to Paulson under whose watch this mess began! Unless rescinded, this power will pass to succeeding SecTreas -- appointed, not elected officials.

Here's the problem: SecTreas Paulson now has practically unlimited discretion in deciding how to dole out nearly $1 trillion of your money. Like I said, this was a big mistake. No sooner had Pres. Bush's signature dried on the bill word was out that there was "free money" to be had. Now almost everyone who was involved in a business that is "Too Big to Fail." The halls of the Treasury Dept. were soon filled with people looking for their slice of the pie.

From the NY Times (11/11): The Treasury Department is under siege by an army of hired guns for banks, savings and loan associations and insurers — as well as for improbable candidates like a Hispanic business group representing plumbing and home-heating specialists. That last group wants the Treasury to hire its members as contractors to take care of houses that the government may end up owning through buying distressed mortgages.

The lobbying frenzy worries many traditional bankers — the original targets of the rescue program — who fear that it could blur, or even undermine, the government’s effort to stabilize the financial system after its worst crisis since the 1930s.

Among the most rattled are community bankers.

“By the time they get to the community banks, there may not be enough money left,” said Edward L. Yingling, the president of the American Bankers Association. “The marketplace is looking at this so rapidly that those who have the money first may have some advantage.”

Adding to the frenzy is the possibility that the next Congress and White House could change the rules further. President-elect Barack Obama has added his voice by proposing that the struggling automakers get federal aid, which could mean giving them access to the fund — something the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., has resisted.

Add to this line of supplicants Detroit automakers -- yes, the people who gave us cars that no one wanted along with cars we do want, but cost a fortune, break down every day, guzzle gas like water and cost more to repair than they are worth. They want a bailout, too.

Sadly, there is no end to the depth of greed, incompetence, failure and abject stupidity that the federal government will not reward.

What of the original intent of the economic rescue plan? "I’d like to see them use more of the money in TARP to help homeowners," said Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

Yeah, Barney, so would a lot of homeowners. The question is will there be any money left after the government bails out everyone else with the money intended for homeowners.

Veteran's Day 2008

2008-11-11T07:06:00.002-05:00

Thank you, veterans, both alive and dead, for your service to our country to help preserve our life, our liberty and our pursuits of happiness. Thank you soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen, National Guard, Coast Guard and reservists.

To those serving today, my prayer is that you come home safely and whole, every one of you, to a country that owes you a debt it can never fully repay.

The Soldier

It is the soldier, not the reporter,
who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet,
who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the campus organizer,
who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.

It is the soldier, not the lawyer,
who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the soldier, who salutes the flag,
who serves under the flag,
and whose coffin is draped by the flag,
who allows the protester to burn the flag.

-- Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, USMC

So on Veteran's Day, we each have the opportunity -- the obligation -- to thank all the Soldiers, the Marines, the Sailors, the Airmen, and the members of the Coast Guard, National Guard and Reserves who have served and are serving today to protect us -- whether they fought or just stood on the Wall.

To all those who raised their hand, swore the oath and said, "This we'll defend", from the bottom of our hearts, we thank you.

Contest Update / Election Thoughts Update

2008-11-10T14:30:00.002-05:00

.
I just wanted to post a quick update to the contest results. There are still a total of FOUR races left to be decided, and that will make the difference between who wins and who loses the election contest. With races still to go in Missouri (president), and the Minnesota, Georgia, and Alaska senate, Amanda has a 1 pick lead, but needs McCain to hold onto Missouri, Begich to come from behind to beat Stevens in Alaska, and Chamblis to beat Martin in the runoff down there. Honestly, almost all of the entries are still in the running, and nobody got fewer than 10 right out of the 16 so far decided. I'll update again as soon as something is decided on those races.

As for my election thoughts, since I haven't posted since that historic night...I'm still coming to terms with it, to be honest, and trying to find the words to describe everything I'm thinking. I'll post something later this week with my post-election rundown.

Can or Will The Media Recover?

2008-11-10T08:21:00.003-05:00

It's hardly a surprise to anyone that much of the media/press was "in the tank" for Obama. A few days late, the Washington Post owned up, but sadly it was published on a weekend to make sure to minimize the negative feedback. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html?sub=AR

"The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts."

Well, at least the Wash Post attempted a half-hearted apology, while others just praised the idea of jettisoning all journalistic objectiveness in favor of political expediency (http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/How_media_bias_saved_America.html).

It may seem naive to some to expect objectiveness in journalism any more. The lines between editorializing and reporting have been becoming more and more blurred over the years. With this past election we watched the final efforts to officially erase that line and in doing so remove the final shreds of credibility that the media were attempting to retain.

In Chicago at the Grant Park celebration Election Night, the media areas were jammed to overflowing. When the first projections came in putting Obama over the magic number of 270 electoral votes, the cheers and high-fives from the media gallery nearly overwhelmed the sound from the crowd. It would only have been ironic had they unfurled a banner emblazoned with "Mission Accomplished!"

However, that would probably come back to bite them as it did the current administration. As Chris Matthews points out, their job is not over. Now that they got him elected, Matthews muses, it's their job to "help" the new president. Silly me... thinking it was the press's job to report on what is happening in Washington, not to shill for it.

I believe it's time for the media to begin their own 12-step program and the first step is admitting that there is a problem. With all the drama lately over a renewal of the "fairness doctrine", the media would do well to keep in mind that that sword is double-edged. Government imposed "balance" can quickly lead to censorship and abuse. That would not be the best solution for what ails the media today.

The media needs to examine its history and return to a time when opinion was labeled as such and not pushed out as "analysis" or as cheerily written fluff pieces. Balance the reporting and investigate all sides thoroughly, because "we the people" do not have the same resources and must depend on the media to do this. Rediscover some basic concepts from Journalism 101. Absolute objectivity is probably never possible, but it is a worthy ideal to strive toward.

It's not too late for the media to wake up and smell the coffee.

Post-Election

2008-11-08T12:19:00.004-05:00

I thought this was touching and I truly hope our nation can get past this urban vs. rural, red vs blue, wealthy vs. poor, and Black vs White that we have been suffering from for the last decade.

Great Editorial Cartoons

2008-11-07T09:09:00.004-05:00

Still A Proud American

2008-11-05T05:53:00.003-05:00

Not for the first time in my life or the last (knock on wood), I wake up this morning as a proud American. Once again, we the people spoke as the world listened anxiously. And in this election, we literally roared.

My candidate didn't win, but I am still excited, hopeful and most of all proud. Yesterday, America showed that together we can take a major step forward in our social evolution as a country peacefully and with strength and courage and determination. I remain a proud American.

Today we wake up to the same challenges locally, nationally and globally that we faced yesterday. Yet there is a new future to look forward to with new leadership and hopefully new ideas. My hope is we can discover some common ground on which to work to begin to solve the problems that plague us. We will not always agree on the solution, but we can begin to work together to find the right one.

The euphoria of victory will pass as the reality of governing sets in. It will not be easy -- change never is because it's not in human nature to embrace change. We naturally prefer the comfort of the status quo. Last night, America finally delivered on a promise long hoped for and dreamed of and waited on. We gave birth to change and now its up to each of us together to properly manage and nurture it.

Today all of us should be proud to be Americans. We made a dramatic, historical change yesterday. But that is just the beginning... now comes the hard work. There are no magic formulas to fix what ails us. No instant cure-alls to help us through our economic and global hangovers.

Today, however, we have a new beginning. A new start. A president-elect with a clean slate. A historic change of which we can all be justly proud and happy.

Congratulations to President-elect Obama! I wish you much success in the difficult job you face.

Time for all of us to get to work.

Now It's Our Turn

2008-11-04T06:36:00.003-05:00

Today "we the people" finally get to speak, notwithstanding all the early voting that took place in some states. Today is Election Day -- the day when average Mr., Mrs., Miss, Ms. or whatever American get to have their say at the ballot box. We've endured a seemingly endless parade of pundits, polls and politicians for what has felt like an eternity. Now comes our turn to exercise the most precious right and freedom we have.

IL allowed early voting and I was tempted, but resisted. There's something about Election Day that just feels right and proper. For better or worse, my business is closing at 2 p.m. due to the Obama Rally in Chicago (I suppose I should thank Sen. Obama for the early departure). Sometime after that I'll arrive at my polling place -- a local elementary school -- to cast my ballot.

This is a historical election in many ways. Finally, we are taking a major step forward in our social evolution. No matter what the outcome tonight or early tomorrow, we can be a proud nation today. Today some huge barriers are falling, hopefully never to rise again. Today we can truly say to any child -- You can grow up to the president of the United States -- and finally mean it without the unspoken caveat that you must be a white male.

I also hope the talking heads are right and that we will see a historic turnout of voters for this election. It is always distressing to go to my polling place and see the thick books of registrations hardly touched. Seeing hundreds, maybe thousands of votes not cast for whatever reason. Maybe this election will be the one to shake us loose from our complacency.

Whatever happens at the ballot box today, we should all be incredibly proud today of our country. Whatever the outcome we have a brighter future to look forward to tomorrow, because every election brings about change, no matter who wins.

Get up. Get out. Vote!

Election Contest

2008-10-30T09:53:00.004-04:00

.
With the election just around the corner, I thought it might be fun to try to put together a contest to see which of us really knows what he or she is talking about. And so, without further ado, I would like to introduce the RedPurpleBlue 2008 Election Contest!

Rules: Your entry MUST be submitted by no later than 11:59PM, eastern time, on Monday, November 3rd. Everyone is eligible to win, whether they are a contributor to this blog or just a reader. Only one entry per person. If you do not have an e-mail address associated with your account, please post it along with your entry so that I can contact you if you win anything (use the janedoeATyahooDOTcom format so that you won't set yourself up to get a bunch of junk mail). Also, though I don't expect to get ALL that many entries, just in CASE we get flooded, the contest will be limited to the first 50 people that enter, so get those entries in as soon as you can.

Prize: If we get 5 - 9 entries, First Prize will be a $20 Amazon gift certificate. If we get more than 10 entries, there will also be a second prize of a $10 Amazon gift certificate. Winners will be announced by the end of next week, or as soon as I can after the election results are official.

Instructions: Pick one winner in each of the categories listed below, and post your entry into the comments of this post. For the tiebreaker, pick the total number of electoral votes that the winner of the election will have. (Don't forget to add your e-mail info if it's not associated with your account here)

1 - President (overall winner)
2 - President (winner of North Carolina)
3 - President (winner of Missouri)
4 - President (winner of Indiana)
5 - President (winner of Florida)
6 - President (winner of Ohio)
7 - President (winner of Virginia)
8 - President (winner of North Dakota)
9 - President (winner of Nevada)
10 - President (winner of Montana)
11 - Senate - Minnesota - Al Franken(D) or Norm Coleman(R)
12 - Senate - Kentucky - Bruce Lunsford(D) or Mitch McConnell(R)
13 - Senate - North Carolina - Kay Hagan(D) or Elizabeth Dole(R)
14 - Senate - Georgia - Jim Martin(D) or Saxby Chambliss(R)
15 - Senate - Alaska - Mark Begich(D) or Ted Stevens(R)
16 - House - Minnesota 6th- Elwyn Tinklenberg(D) or Michele Bachman(R)
17 - House - Connecticut 4th - Jim Himes(D) or Chris Shays(R)
18 - House - Washington 8th - Darcy Burner(D) or Dave Reichert(R)
19 - Initiative - California Proposition 8 Banning Gay Marriage (pass or fail)
20 - Initiative - Florida Amendment 2 Banning Gay Marriage (pass or fail)

Tiebreaker: Pick the number of electoral votes win by the winning candidate for president.

I will be posting my own entry sometime today, and it will not count against the limit of 50 (but will count as 1 of the entries that could get us over 10 so that we have prizes for 1st and 2nd place).

Good luck, everyone!!!

RIP The GOP: 1854 - 2008

2008-10-29T11:34:00.002-04:00

.
After the election of 2006, when Republicans lost in almost unprecedented numbers, many people started wondering if the party was going to have to change in order to win back the American voter.

Flash forward to 2008, and no such change has occurred. The party of John McCain looks sadly familiar to the party of George W. Bush, and the election next week looks like it could be a loss for the party on an even greater scale than that of 2006.

But why is this happening? Has there been a massive shift in the beliefs of society? Is it just single-party animosity...people tired of one party running things in all branches of government?

My belief is that it is another reason all together: The party is fracturing. When Bush ran in 2000, the Republicans were still - largely - a party of fiscal conservatives. Oh, sure...the Falwell crowd was starting to make noise, and they were basically the ones that got Bush elected. But the Republicans were still the conservative party. They were still the "lower taxes" and "eliminate waste" types of Barry Goldwater, if not to that extent.

But under Bush's leadership - and I use the term very loosely - those fiscally conservative, small government types were basically told to sit down and shut up, while the lunatic fringe of the party held sway. The "neo-cons" wanted a government just small enough to fit in the bedroom, and they didn't much care about the financial cost of little things like war, massive deregulation, and lowered taxes. The Bush Republicans were still paying lip service to things like personal responsibility and fiscal restraint, but they didn't practice what they preached (much like Falwell and the rest of his crowd). It used to be that you could tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats by their opinions on the military: Dems wanted a tiny military but wanted to use it everywhere, while Republicans wanted a massive military and didn't want to use it anywhere. Now, the New Republicans not only want a massive military, they want to use it everywhere at once, no matter how thinly stretched it might be.

So today, we have essentially two parties in one. You have the social conservative religious types, and the fiscally conservative types that have been outvoted. In fact, the Republican ticket for the presidential election demonstrates that duality very clearly, with McCain representing the fiscal conservatives (if I hear him talk about earmarks one more time, my ears might fall off) and Sarah Palin representing the social loonies (uneducated, yet feeling "entitled" to having their opinions matter as much as those educated on any given subject).

My thought is that this division will be the end of the Republican Party as we know it. Simply put, they are a house divided. One side wants small government, while the other side wants government to be able to control the most personal of decisions. One side cares about such things as the deficit, while the other doesn't care what it costs to "spread democracy" at the end of an M-16. Neither side seems to see the hypocrisy within their own party, and the only thing they seem to have in common is a shared distaste in losing that is so great that they have no problem completely giving away any honor or integrity their presidential candidate used to have if it means they still have a chance to win.

The sad fact is that conservatives can not allow the party to fracture, because if it does they'll stand no chance at the white house for quite a long time to come. Instead, they must continue on as some freakish hybrid of conservative thought and religious belief. If they ever hope to get back into power, they need to find a way to moderate the second part of that equation. If they don't, then the ass-kicking they are about to take at virtually every level of government is something they should start getting used to.

6 Days on the Road

2008-10-29T10:55:00.002-04:00

.
Just 6 days remain until the 2008 election, and there are a lot of things still up in the air. So...here are a few things I think I think as the final days wind down:

- This "redistribution of wealth" thing isn't working for McCain, but I doubt the reason is what it should be. See, the Republicans are targeting the "EITC" as if it were something evil. But it's funny...the president at the time the EITC was passed out of congress had this to say about it:

“It's the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.”

That president just happened to be John McCain's hero...one Ronald Reagan.

- You have to think that McCain is unbelievably pissed that he was talked into taking Sarah Palin as his running mate. One McCain advisor has gone so far as to call her a "whack job", and there are leaks all over the place saying that she has "gone rogue" on the campaign trail, essentially trying to set herself up for 2012 instead of campaigning for the office she's currently running for. If McCain had gone with his intincts, this race might still be a toss-up, as selecting Joe Liebermann - while it would have pissed off the more looney on the right - would have attracted many moderates that have been turned off by Palin's lack of credentials and horrid performance...not to mention her looney right politics.

- If you get a chance, go check out electoral-vote.com. They have a story today comparing the polls from the Tuesday before election day in 2004 and yesterday, and it's really bad news for McCain. Obama is outperforming Kerry in 41 states, and their current projection is that he wins with well over 350 electoral votes.

- As an avid Obama supporter, I have to admit that I'm a bit nervous about his program tonight that will be broadcast on most of the major networks. If the race was close or if he was behind, I'd love the idea, as it gives him the opportunity to speak directly to the American public, uniterrupted and unfiltered, for a significant period of time. But he's not behind...he's WAY ahead, to the point that it looks like only a huge blunder could possibly derail his ride to the white house. But this event is about the only opportunity left for him to make such a blunder. Let me be clear...I have great confidence in him and in his campaign to avoid that kind of game-changing mistake. But at this point, I think I'd prefer if the opportunity to make it wasn't there in the first place.

- So..."Joe the Plumber" isn't actually named Joe, isn't actually a licensed plumber, and isn't actually able to do what he was asking Obama about in the first place, which was buying his business that makes more than $250,000 per year. And someone in the McCain campaign thought it would be a good idea to build their entire message around this person for the last month? Seriously? I mean...I know McCain has made a lot of enemies in Washington over the years due to his temper, so is it possible those people are somehow getting back at him by getting his campaign staff to make him look like a complete and total idiot intentionally? Now going so far as having the idiot campaign with McCain in Miami, Florida today?

- Poor ol' Teddy Stevens just can't catch a break, can he? First he gets convicted on corruption charges, then a Sarah Palin aide said that the Governor didn't know if she'd vote for him, now Democratic and Republican Senators are lining up calling for his resignation. GOP Minority Leader Mitch McConnell joined the ever-growing crowd today, going so far as to say that Stevens "would be expelled" if he didn't do the honorable thing. Still...the Republicans are in a pinch here, because if Stevens drops out of the election, it guarantees another Democratic seat, and they are scrambling as it is to keep at least 41 to hold onto the threat of a fillibuster. If Stevens wins his race, there would be a runoff..........which could very possibly lead to SENATOR SARAH PALIN!!!

- If you're an American worker, John McCain wants your vote, but doesn't much care about doing anything to get it. He's anti-union (see his opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act), he's against raising the minimum wage (going so far as to pay a visit to one company currently under investigation for refusing to comply with minimum wage laws), he's against Equal Pay legislation...in short, he couldn't care less about the issues actually affecting your life, other than doing what he can to get tax breaks for the company you work for if they offshore your job to India. Just a little something to keep in mind as you head to the polls next week.

More later....

Compare and Contrast

2008-10-29T05:55:00.003-04:00

Some pre-election comparisons and contrasts between the 2008 Democrat Platform and quotes from some Founding Fathers.

Democrats on Economic Stewardship

Since the time of our Founders, we have struggled to balance the same forces that confronted Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson–self-interest and community; markets and democracy; the concentration of wealth and power, and the necessity of transparency and opportunity for each and every American.

But the American experiment has worked in large part because we have guided the market’s invisible hand with a higher principle. Our free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it. That is why we have put in place rules of the road to make competition fair, open, and honest. We have done this not to stifle–but rather to advance – prosperity and liberty.

For families making more than $250,000, we’ll ask them to give back a portion of the Bush tax cuts to invest in health care and other key priorities. We will end the penalty within the current Social Security system for public service that exists in several states. We will expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, and dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans can do their taxes in less than five minutes.

We do not believe that government should stand in the way of innovation, or turn back the clock to an older era of regulation. But we do believe that government has a role to play in advancing our common prosperity: by providing stable macroeconomic and financial conditions for sustained growth; by demanding transparency; and by ensuring fair competition in the marketplace. We will reform and modernize our regulatory structures and will work to promote a shift in the cultures of our financial institutions and our regulatory agencies.

Founding Fathers

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” — James Madison in a letter to James Robertson

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794

“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison

Senator Stevens: Resign Now!

2008-10-28T10:23:00.002-04:00

Like guests who stay too long and 3-day old fish, some members of Congress don't know when it is time to exit -- either stage left or stage right, whatever their political affiliation may be. Sadly, Sen. Stevens (R-AK) is one of these.

Now a convicted felon, Stevens, who is 84, is refusing to resign his seat. His response: "I will fight this unjust verdict with every ounce of energy I have." Yeah, it's always an unjust verdict when it goes against you.

Seven counts of corruption for lying about free home renovations and other gifts from a wealthy oil contractor. Admittedly, it is Alaska, but when a senator turns a small mountain cabin into a 2-story house complete with a sauna and wraparound porches, he better know that someone somewhere is going to ask questions. Claiming to have paid $160,000 for the rennovations, Stevens also decided it prudent to throw his wife under the bus, blaming her for managing their finances and paying all the bills. What a guy! At least as they left court, she gave him a peck on the cheek. I suppose the divorce papers will be served in private.

In what is a rich irony, Senate rules do not require Stevens to resign. Guess what -- you can be a convicted felon and still serve as a U.S. Senator! That might be tough given that he faces up to 35 years in prison. Maybe he can vote in absentia? Why worry, senator -- you probably won't serve a day behind bars. While other felons rot in prison, convicted felons/senators probably get a slap on the wrist.

What's still amazing is that in a week Stevens could be reelected, given that the race in AK is still a toss-up. In Steven's own words: "I am not stepping down. I'm going to run through, and I'm going to win this election."

Birds of a feather? Alaska Rep. Don Young called it "a very sad day for Alaska," but urged Alaskans to "rally behind him with their support." Huh? Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, too, released a statement calling Stevens an "honorable, hard-working Alaskan" and said she looks forward to his appeal. "He stood with Alaskans for 40 years, and I plan to continue to stand with him," she said. I suppose knowing that what you are doing is wrong and ignoring that fact is OK with AK elected officials.

Sen. Stevens is just another smear on the Republican Party and yet another reason why they will lose big Nov. 4th. Lacking all sense of honor and integrity, Stevens continues to refuse to do the right thing and resign.

Hopefully, AK voters will wake up, smell the coffee and help the senator move into retirement.

Be Careful What You Vote For

2008-10-28T06:39:00.002-04:00

Transcripts and recordings of radio interviews that Sen. Obama gave in 2001 are suddenly surfacing on YouTube. Is this the "October Surprise" we've been waiting for?

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."

"I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way."

You can listen to more of the senator on Chicago's NPR: http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/Search.aspx?q=obama

Maybe the good senator fails to understand the purpose of the Constitution. Maybe it is a document of "negative liberties", but that was done on purpose. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution as a limiting document -- it is specifically designed to curtail the power of a federal government versus the several states and individual Americans. The scope and reach of the federal government was supposed to be limited.

It is not the federal, state or local government's responsibility to redistribute wealth or anything else for that matter. What is redistribution of wealth but just another way of saying “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” -- an economic/political/social philosophy that has failed miserably everytime is has been attempted.

But is Obama seeking to overturn the Constitution and remake America into a Marxist state? I think not!

Instead Obama seeks to change the basic social contract that exists between we the people and the government. This is not a revolution as much as it is "reform" -- a restructuring of the way you and I interact with Washington. The result: more dependence, less freedom, an imposed "community", more restrictions on the economy and a new war on "greed."

The Obama America is not based on Constitutional principles and tradition. Instead it is a "progressive democracy" that believes the government can be made perfect through the use of sociology and psychology. Then the government can establish a Utopian "community" where equality is imposed on everyone whether they want it or not.

If you do not yet believe this, maybe the senator's own words from this so-called closing argument in the race:

"I don't believe that government can or should try to solve all our problems. You don't believe that, either. But I do believe that government should do that which we cannot do for ourselves. It should ensure a shot at success, not just for those with money and power and influence, but for every single American who's willing to work. That's how we create not just more millionaires, or more billionaires, but how we create more middle-class families. That's how we've always grown the American economy, from the bottom up. John McCain calls this socialism. I call it opportunity, and there's nothing more American than that!"

An Electoral Laugh

2008-10-27T12:08:00.002-04:00

With election tensions running so high, we could all stand a good laugh right now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6-SM2Ecshw

Enjoy!

Honestly Now, Did Anyone Expect Anything Different?

2008-10-27T05:44:00.003-04:00

The "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" was touted as a way to bring relief to a frozen credit market and a "troubled asset relief program" designed to buy bad debt, primarily mortgages to help the U.S. economy -- well, stablize.

But wait...

Then the idea was floated to buy stakes in banks to help prop them up. Then Friday insurance company stocks started to soar on news that some of the nearly $1 trillion may be available for them. Even though $25 billion in loans was approved for automakers, they are now starting to look for their share of the bailout pie.

All this within 3 weeks of President Bush signing the plan into law and not one dime has been spent to help people with troubled mortgages. Yet this was a crisis that could not wait for action, so the plan was rushed through Congress and signed into law with little to no debate, much less reading what was in the law.

This is exactly the problem that many said would happen when Congress gave so much power to one individual: SecTreas Paulson. It was his idea to divert $250 billion of the bailout into banks, supposedly to help unfreeze more lending.

The banks, of course, had other ideas. Like holding onto the money or giving bonuses and raises to employees or pursuing acquisitions of other banks. Everything but apply it to unlocking the credit markets. For example, PNC Financial Services Group Inc. received $7.7 billion in return for company stock. What did they do: they announced acquisition of National City Corp. for $5.8 billion. I wonder where that acquisition money came from?

Other banks plan to use bailout funds to pay dividends on common stock. Now as Congress howls about these abuses, the Treasury Dept. gently reminded them that "there are few strings attached to the capital-infusion program because too many rules would discourage financial institutions from participating." The few strings that do exist in the program are there simply to create loopholes big enough to drive an armored car loaded with bailout cash through.

Another troubling bit of news from the Paulson team: They hired the Bank of NY Mellon Corp. as the custodian of the troubled asset purchase program. No problem there, right? Wrong! Seems that Bank of NY Mellon Corp is also a beneficiary of the bailout program to the tune of over $3 billion. The bank hired to be the primary custodian of the program is a beneficiary of it. Swell!

Now with the election just barely a week away, Congress is anxious to remind the administration of the primary intent of the legislation. That was to help distressed homeowners by offering federal guarantees to mortgages renegotiated down to lower monthly payments. You see there are a number of people in Congress who voted for this plan whose seats are up for grabs. Time to help the people who will be voting next Tuesday.

You gotta love the government's response. "Sheila Bair, who heads the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., responded that her agency is working "closely and creatively" with Treasury officials to "realize the potential benefits of this authority."

Did anyone truly expect anything different to happen?

Vote with Conviction, Not Fear

2008-10-24T05:56:00.002-04:00

I am old enough to remember a number of presidential elections -- maybe too many. However, 2008 brings back some haunting memories of the mid-60's when fear became the bludgeoning tool of choice to drive voters to the polls. In 1964, we watched a political ad by LBJ showing a little girl holding a daisy. Then a huge mushroom cloud erupts on the screen -- a nuclear explosion. The message -- electing Goldwater as President would lead to nuclear annihilation. Fear won that election.

In 2008 fear appears to be a driving factor for too many people. Fear about our economy, the credit crisis, unemployment, the war in Iraq, terrorism, illegal immigration, signing orders, executive orders, and government intent. The old cliche of "voting for the lesser of two evils" is taking on a whole new meaning for too many.

Have we reduced our selection of this nation's chief executive to a process of voting AGAINST the person we despise the least?

We've allowed both major party campaigns to generate a level of fear and uncertainty about the other that is nearly unprecedented. Sure, no one's revisiting the LBJ nuclear bomb ad again, but the campaigns have tiptoed up to the ragged edge of it.

My fear is that too many voters are becoming turned off by the entire process. Reading blogs and message boards the disaffection with the entire electoral process is rampant. I wonder how many people will choose not to vote at all -- they've become too cynical or jaded to care anymore.

We are told and too easily believe that we have only 2 choices: McCain or Obama. But in the vast majority of states, this is not true. There are other minor party candidates running for president. The Green Party, Liberterian Party, Constitution Party and Independent Party are four additional choices.

We do have a choice.

When you cast your ballot for president, it should be a vote for someone. It should be a vote for your beliefs, your convictions. It should be a vote for the person you believe should lead this country, not the lesser of two "evils." It should not be a vote cast from fear of what "the other side" might do.

We all have a choice.

Voting for a 3rd party candidate is not throwing your vote away. It is the act of casting a ballot with courage, conviction and faith in our electoral system. It also sends a message to the two major parties that it is time to change the way we run campaigns in America. It's time to end the campaigns of fearmongering.

We have a choice and it is not the lesser of two evils.

This is a quote from CJ Graham in the blog "The American President":

"Given the ratcheting up of fear mongering, the pressure to capitulate against the obvious will of the American tax payer voter and use of media to hype and manipulate American citizens, we have an obligation to seek out and vote for the candidate that we believe will best serve our nation.

"I take this obligation most seriously as I believe our nation is now standing on a precipice and may soon pass a point of no return which we will all grieve most dearly."

We have a choice. We can all vote for someone we believe it. It simply requires a little effort to do a little research.

I have my candidate, someone I can vote for, not against. I may not agree with every plank on the party platform, but there is enough common ground for me to be comfortable. I am voting for Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party, for president.

I am not throwing my vote away, but instead casting it and making a statement about what I believe in. It's an act that I can live with.

Because I choose to no longer vote against someone.

Or be forced to choose the lesser of two evils.

You Gotta See This!

2008-10-23T15:06:00.001-04:00

.
This was just too funny not to share:

See more Ron Howard videos at Funny or Die

Questions for Caribou Barbie

2008-10-23T09:59:00.003-04:00

.
It's a well-known fact that Sarah Palin doesn't take questions from the press. In the month or so since she's been on the ticket, she's yet to hold a real press conference, and it's obvious that there are no plans to do so anytime soon. But let's pretend, just for a moment, that the Republicans weren't terrified of unleashing the ignorant moose-hunter, for fear she'd, you know, actually say what she stood for. Here are a few questions I'd like to see posed:

1) A pharmacy in northern Virginia has recently stopped selling any type of birth control, and refuses to forward the prescriptions it receives for women that go there. Do you support this practice?

2) You've made comments in the past that seem to indicate you would be a very active Vice President, somewhat in the mold of what Dick Cheney has been in the Bush administration. Do you believe Dick Cheney has been a good Vice President, and could you explain why you feel the way you do?

3) The word "transparency" has become somewhat of a buzzword during this campaign, and both you and Senator McCain have used it on numerous occasions. Yet, as Governor of Alaska, you utilized private e-mail addresses to do government business, and have argued that these private e-mails should not be reviewable by the state congress. Why should voters believe you when you say the McCain administration would be one of transparency when you fought against such transparency as Governor of Alaska?

4) On several occasions, you have noted Alaska's proximity to Russia as one of your foreign policy credentials, even going so far - during the Katie Couric interview - as implying that it was your responsibility should Russian aircraft invade US airspace. Yet...no such incursion has ever actually occurred, and even if it did it wouldn't be a state issue, but a federal one that would be handled from Elmindorf Air Base, and you would merely be "informed" of the occurence, not actually handling it from the Governor's office. How do you explain this discrepency?

5) At several points, you have signalled agreement with your opponent's comment about acting on intelligence inside Pakistan if the government there is unwilling or unable to act on our behalf. Yet, your running mate has consistently criticized Barack Obama for stating this position, going so far as calling Senator Obama "naive". Is this a difference of opinion between you and Senator McCain and, if so, is it one that you've discussed with him at any point?

6) Many conservative pundits with which you have done interviews, including Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, have stated that General Colin Powell's endorsement of Senator Obama was based solely on their shared skin color, not on qualifications. Do you agree with that sentiment and, if so, how do you feel General Powell has misjudged Senator Obama?

7) Congresswoman Bachman from Minnesota has stated that she believes the media ought to investigate the liberal members of Congress to determine if they hold "anti-American" views. This seems to agree with your comments that there are some "pro-America" parts of the country, implying that there are also some "anti-America". Isn't this the type of devisive politics that both you and Senator McCain have denounced on the campaign trail? And do you agree with the Congresswoman that there are anti-Americans working in the halls of Congress?

8) Senator McCain has repeatedly said that he "doesn't care about Bill Ayers", yet both of you continue to bring up Ayers in nearly every rally. Additionally, the McCain campaign recently hired the very robocalling firm that was used to smear him for "fathering an interracial child out of wedlock" in his 2000 primary campaign against George Bush. Doesn't the hypocrisy of these types of actions speak to the trustworthiness of your campaign, and is it an indicator of how you would govern should you win the election?

9) Word has recently gotten out about your $150,000 shopping sprees at Nieman-Marcus and Sachs Fifth Avenue, and some donors to your campaign have said they'd like their money back. How do you justify that kind of expenditure to an American public in which $150,000 is more than most people make in three years of full time work?

10) "Joe the Plumber" has gotten a lot of play from your campaign of late, yet independent studies show that, under the Obama tax plan, Joe would actually receive a tax cut, while under the McCain plan he may end up spending more due to McCain's intention to tax health care benefits. Can you please explain, in detail, how the McCain tax plan benefits "Joe the Plumber" more than the Obama tax plan?

Is there anyone out there that actually thinks she would answer any of these questions with more than a platitude or talking point? If so...I've got some oceanfront property to sell you, right here in West Virginia. Still....it'd be nice if people would at least ASK her the questions, don't you think?

Got a question you'd like to see posed to the governor? Or even one you'd like to see Obama, McCain, or Biden answer? Post it here.

The Fat Lady's Warming Up

2008-10-23T08:44:00.004-04:00

Even though Yogi Berra said, "It's not over till it's over", the proverbial "fat lady" is warming up in the wings for her grande finale. The song that looks to be sung is "The Swan Song of the GOP." Maybe it is just as well, since the Republican Party seems to have dismissed traditional conservatism for a warmed over pablum of spend the country into bankruptcy and screw the middle class.

Despite Rush's exhortations not to trust the polls, it is difficult to discount the tsunami of excitement that is driving people to early voting (in states like IL where this is allowed). States like FL, OH and NC also allow early voting and the African-American and young turnouts are huge -- much bigger than in 2004 or 2004. This year could see an unprecedented turnout of 18 - 24 year olds with some predicting a 60% turnout.

Even factoring in the margins of error in the polls, Obama is well ahead in key states McCain must hold to win: CO, MO, NC and VA. Other polls put him ahead in IA, NV and NM. IN and ND are practically a dead heat.

But the killer is the poll internals -- looking at the individual questions and answers people are being asked. Over 40% see McCain as having "poor judgment." Only 37% see McCain as "inspiring." 34% say McCain is "too old." (Consider in 1996 32% said the same of Bob Dole and he lost.) 56% say McCain is "too personally critical" of Obama. Only 33% of independents express support for McCain. This is very bad news because McCain would have to get at least 50% of the independent vote in order to win.

The latest polls show between 19 - 23% of people remaining "undecided" at this late date. These swing votes could break for McCain, but the question is would it be enough to close the gap with Obama.

The news in Congressional races is equally bad. Conservative blogs are admitting at least a +12 seat GOP loss in the House with some projections of a GOP loss of 20+ seats. The Senate looks bleaker: a loss of 11 seats and the GOP's ability to filibuster anything. Essentially, Congress could become filibuster and veto proof on Nov. 4th.

At this point, I believe the signs are good that America is making a definitive decision to move to the left in a big way. If the GOP rout is as big as it appears to be, it will mean that the GOP will remain the minority party for several decades.

Sadly, they have only themselves to blame.

Why So Serious?!?

2008-10-21T15:19:00.005-04:00

A few funnies to lighten up the afternoon:

These have become fairly popular around the web, but I think these three are my favorites that I've seen:

Also, tons of plays on the silly McCain pics from the debate last week:

This made me literally LOL:

I don't know whether to laugh at these idiots or cry that they share this country:

This is a little bit terrifying:

This was fairly amusing:

But the one thing sure to make the day a helluva lot brighter for my blue brethren:

Currently, that reads: Obama 364 - McCain 171, with North Dakota shown as tied...and news is starting to leak that McCain is giving up on Iowa, Colorado, and New Mexico, which would mean his only path to the presidency would be through Pennsylvania...where he currently trails by double digits in virtually every poll. The news is GREAT my blue friends! But let's keep up the work for another two weeks, and put an end to the divisive politics of the last 8 years for once and for all!

To My Fellow Conservatives

2008-10-21T13:26:00.003-04:00

Last week I spent a week devoid of the Internet and most of the media. My wife and I vacationed in Callaway Gardens in Pine Mountain, GA. By choice I left my laptop at home and deliberately avoided watching, listening or reading the news. It was a wonderfully relaxing week spent enjoying the beauty of nature and some excellent southern cooking (thank heavens for grits, fried okra, black-eyed peas, cornbread and southern style green beans).

It was a chance to clear my head and renew my spirit. It also helped me see what is happening with this election in a different perspective.

For nearly 8 years, conservatives have listened to the left tossing about accusations that our efforts are aimed at destroying the Constitution, rewriting the Bill of Rights, limiting basic freedoms, and bringing about the end of America as we know it. That none of these have the slightest foundation in truth matters not; it is easier to wrest power via fear than through most other legitimate means.

Sadly, I see many on the conservative side of the aisle resorting to the same sad tactics with a different target. Have we learned nothing?

If we wake up on Jan. 21st with President Obama, we will not see the dawn of American gulags or re-education camps for conservatives. President Obama just as President Bush does not have the power to rewrite the Constitution or take away our basic freedoms. The America we know and love will still exist. We will face some of the same challenges we do now and certainly some new ones will crop up.

We do not need to sink to the level of fear-mongering that some others do in order to win an election. We should be able to reclaim the optimism of President Ronald Reagan who in 1984 saw "morning in America again."

Is Obama a far left liberal? Certainly and his presidency will mean that changes will occur, but it won't be a revolution. Obama's agenda is typical liberal boilerplate. But it isn't communism, Marxism or socialism. He simply believes, unlike conservatives, that big government can solve all problems and create a utopian society. He is too young and too brash to understand the folly of his views.

Liberalism, unfortunately, is as essential to American politics as conservativism is. On occasion, it can actually do some good for society despite being wrongheaded, stubborn, class conscious and weak on foreign policy. Liberalism has helped America work through a number of tough issues with age, sex, and race -- issues that, sadly, conservatives ignored and/or accepted as the status quo.

We need the Obama's of America just as much as we need the McCain's. We need the regular push and pull of the differing perspectives because it is this tension that forces us to confront our problems and begin to find solutions. Just as our economy thrives on free enterprise, so does politics. Neither one could or should be shut down.

On Nov. 4th there will be change. And that is what elections are about because as a country we are always moving forward. Maybe not in the direction you or I want to go, but we are always moving. With each election we take a step into the future -- either toward the left or toward the right. The direction is chosen, usually, by a majority and together we stumble ahead, hopefully finding a firm footing and coming out ahead of the game.

I believe it's time to put away the horror tales and scary stories about a future that will never come to pass.

We need only keep in mind that whomever is elected President on Nov. 4th has a term of only 4 years. 2012 is not that far away.

There's always another election to look forward to.

Economic Diabetes

2008-10-21T13:07:00.003-04:00

Congress and the two major presidential candidates are on a spending binge that is the equivalent of a diabetic eating himself/herself into a coma. Speaking as someone who has diabetes, it's not the sugar that's the danger, it's the carbs in food that will get you. As a diabetic, I have to count carbohydrates with each meal, exercise, and monitor my blood sugar levels. It's easy to get caught up in a carb binge where you think you are craving carbs, but actually you're just shoveling in too much food.

That is what Congress and Obama and McCain are on. It started with the so-called Economic Rescue Plan with a price tag of nearly $1 TRILLION. That was like binging on a huge Thanksgiving feast and forgetting to take any medications or inject any insulin to counteract the carb loading.

Next up: Nancy Pelosi and the House are talking about ANOTHER stimulus package. The last one didn't do enough and the $1 TRILLION spend already is not enough. It's like the diabetic leaving the Thanksgiving feast and heading to Baker's Square to begin sampling all the available pies and desserts. You see, once you start giving into the carb binge, it's very hard to stop. Just like for politicians -- once they start spending billions and trillions of OUR tax dollars, it's equally hard to stop.

Obama comes along promising something along the lines of $60 to $115 billion -- the numbers change daily. And John McCain has to get his licks in also -- he's offering up $300 billion in mortgage relief.

And even all that might not be enough.

A trillion here; a couple hundred billion there -- pretty soon it starts adding up to some real money. Money we don't have. Spending like there's no tomorrow is just as bad as a diabetic eating like there's no tomorrow.

The diabetic will end up in a coma or worse, dead.

Our country -- our debt will continue to rise and sometime in the future we'll pay -- well, not us exactly, but our grandchildren or great-great grandchildren will.

It's time for us to tell Congress to put down the fork and climb on the exercise bike ... or better yet, take a long walk!

For the health of the country.

WTF?!?!?

2008-10-20T10:53:00.002-04:00

A few things that have left me saying, "What the......" over the past few days:

- In case you missed it, batshit crazy Rep. Michele Bachmann from Minnesota declared on Hardball Friday that there ought to be an investigation into "extreme leftist liberals" in the congress who hold "anti-American" views. In other news, Bachmann's Democratic challenger in her formerly non-competitive race raised more than half a million dollars in the 48 hours following her comments.

- The tearing down of Colin Powell has begun from the right, with first Rush "Pill Poppin' Daddy" Limbaugh, then George Will, and then Pat Buchanon claiming Powell's endorsement of Obama was based solely on race. Then today, McCain's campaign manager has been appearing on the morning talk shows saying that he doesn't think all that highly of Powell's "political acumen". I wish I could say I was surprised by any of this.

- Oh, and speaking of the Powell endorsement, the McCain campaign countered it with a high powered endorsement of their own. Was it a military leader? A usually liberal newspaper? A prominant political figure? Nope. It was a soap opera actress. Again, I couldn't make up something that ridiculous if I wanted to.

- Joe the Plumber has done more interviews than Sarah Palin. I really wish I were kidding about that.

- She did open up in an interview with the freaking 700 club (real tough journalism there, I'm sure). In the process, she said she hadn't heard people making negative comments at her rallies. Ah hell...I'll just quote her entire answer, since no amount of mangling the language on my part could really compare to her expertise:

"Reporter": Let me ask you a little bit about some of these rallies. I know that some, some people, John McCain have called them fringe out there who has said some things out there about Barack Obama at his rallies. Do you feel a responsibility when those are said to say enough of this type of talk?

Palin: Absolutely. But what we have heard through some mainstream media is that folks have hollered out some pretty atrocious and unacceptable things like "kill him" or some, we have not heard that. If I ever were to hear that standing up there at the podium with the mic, I would call 'em out on that, and I would tell these people, no, that's unacceptable, let's rise about that please. We haven't heard that. What I have heard though is even in the other camp though some negativity that has been injected in the campaign with the candidate himself, with Barack Obama telling his supporter to get out there and quote "get in their face, argue with them." That, you know, that's kind of inciting and a bit negative and John McCain and I will have nothing to do with that, but it is unacceptable if we were ever to hear the shout outs that are so negative that we have heard being reported, if I were to hear that I would say no, we don't stand for that.

So...there you have it. Apparently, not only is she stupid, she's also blind and deaf.

- I live in the "pro-America" part of America, how about you? Not sure? Then maybe you should contact the McCain / Palin campaign and ask them, since they seem to have a handle on it. From what I gather, if you're not in one of them fancy "cities", then you're probably pro-America. But, again, you'd have to ask them to be sure, since they are the ones pushing this nonsense. And no...it wasn't just from Caribou Barbie. Other McCain surrogates have made similar comments, including his brother calling Northern Virginia "communist country" and another surrogate saying that the area wasn't part of the "real Virginia".

- Approximately 18 papers across the country that endorsed Bush in 2004 have now come out and endorsed Barack Obama. These include such "liberal rags" - to borrow the McCain name for any print media that doesn't agree with them - as the Salt Lake Tribune, The Denver Post, and the Chicago Tribune, which was endorsing a Democrat for the first time in its 117 year history.

- If you haven't had a chance to see the two candidates at the Al Smith benefit dinner last week, I highly recommend you check it out (McCain starts speaking at around the 6:30 mark, and Obama immediately follows him). In my opinion, McCain was probably the funnier of the two overall, but Obama had the line of the night when he told that one gentleman, "I obviously didn't know your great grandfather, but according to Senator McCain...." It's definitely a vidio worth seeing.

- Amidst all the cries of "fraud" from the GOP in terms of ACORN and those nasty voter registrars, I'll give you three guesses from which party the first arrest of voter fraud came...and the first two don't count. That's right...it was a member of the California REPUBLICAN party that was illegally registering voters, even changing people's voter registration to register them as Republicans rather than as Democrats or Independants as they'd requested.

- Remember the John McCain of 2000? The man that many of us - and I mean many DEMOCRATS - respected so much for saying that he would never run the kind of campaign that made robocalls and called into question the parentage of his "mixed race" child? Well guess which firm it is that McCain just hired to blast robocalls all over the south? That's right, ladies and gentlemen...McCain has officially sunk further than even the most pessimistic of us believed possible.

Blue Bullets

2008-10-16T10:35:00.003-04:00

A few things I think I think on the morning after the final presidential debate:

- First off, an apology...to those of you that have been loyal readers of this blog since its inception a few months ago. Real life has intruded over the past few weeks, and that - combined with the exodus of at least one of our "red" posters because of hurt feelings, apparently - has caused this blog to lag considerably, often going days without a single post. I can't promise to completely remedy that on my own, as those "real life" issues are still present, but I will certainly endeavor to post more frequently. Also, I would like to encourage all of my co-contributors to this blog to start posting again. At our high point, this site was getting over a hundred hits a day, and I see no reason why we can't get back to that, if all of us pitch in.

Now...on to the real reason people come to this site:

- If you haven't seen the pics from the debate last night that are making their way around the interwebs, I highly encourage you to check them out, as laughter is definitely good for the soul. I think this one is my personal favorite:

- McCain is a LOUSY debater, I think that's a pretty safe statement to make at this point. Take his references to "Joe the Plumber" last night. Personalizing an issue can be a good thing, and McCain's initial reference had some chance of "scoring points" with undecided voters. Unfortunately, he made so many references to Mr. Asscrack that the point was lost in the volume. One or two references makes the point, and gets people interested. 21 - the count according to one site I read this morning - references to "my friend Joe" combined with the rather creepy "heynheyn" cackle when telling Joe he was rich turns it into a punchline.

- Has the McCain campaign ever heard of people that call themselves "image consultants"? I mean...there has to be somebody out there that can tell the Senior Senator that he looks like an angry old curmudgeon when he's rolling his eyes and doing that weird eyebrow thing while Obama is talking. One pundit last night compared it to Gore's rather arrogant performance in his first debate against Shrub. The difference being - in my opinion - that McCain wasn't going up against someone that sounded like they didn't know what they were talking about, so his reactions looked "out of touch" and angry rather than snobbish. "Angry old man yells at cloud" indeed.

- Obama was very slick in not answering the question about Caribou Barbie's qualifications. Personally, I don't think I could have kept a straight face while talking about her "accomplishments." Also, I'd probably have said something like the following in response to McCain's continued talk about how much Palin knows about raising a special needs child: "John, she's been raising a child with Down's Syndrome for a grand total of 6 months. Can we please stop pretending she's Mother Theresa?" Maybe that's why I'm not a politician, huh?

- My mom called me towards the end of the debate and was a little concerned (she's an Obama supporter as well). I told her to calm down and watch the post-debate analysis, because McCain was getting his ass handed to him, and she was only getting the impression that it was the other way around because McCain was spending so much time on the attack. She didn't believe me, and thought that the pundits would say that McCain won the debate. A little while ago this morning, she called and said she'd never doubt me again...lol. (If only I could get everyone else to see that I'm always right, the world would be a much better place :-) ).

- Early voting started here in WV yesterday, and my mom also just happens to be friends with the county clerk that is in charge of the election. She spoke to her last night to ask how it went yesterday, and the clerk's response was "I hope to hell it rains tomorrow"...lol...Apparently, they were absolutely SWAMPED with people wanting to cast their votes. My view: that is seriously bad news for McCain. If turnout is high around the country, he doesn't stand a chance, simply because of the demographics involved (most "new" voters are either young people or those that have been disaffected by the very politics McCain represents, meaning they are MUCH more likely to be voting for Obama).

- Apparently, along with going for the presidency, McCain was also campaigning for "Asshat of the Year" with his comments (supply your own air quotes) about the mother's health being a concern in late term abortion decisions. I mean...has he completely given up on trying to win ANY independent votes? I wonder what the disaffected Hillary voters (the idiot PUMA's, in other words) thought of "their guy" saying that the mother's health isn't really a consideration, but just a ploy by which evil liberal baby-killers can extend the time abortions are available?

- Electoral-vote.com currently has the electoral vote at 352 - 171 for Obama, with North Carolina listed as a dead heat. Pollster.com has it at 333 - 155 for Obama, with six states (all states won by Bush in 2004 and about half of which are trending Obama) up in the air. The right-leaning RealClearPolitics.com has it at 286 - 158 for Obama, but projects a final total of 364 - 174 when factoring in trends for their currently listed "toss-up" states. Not a single polling site I've been able to find has McCain within 100 electoral votes if the election were held today. The message in all of that? Well...I think one of CNN's analysts put it best last night when asked what McCain can do the rest of the election cycle: "He can try to go out with what remains of his dignity intact." That is...if it's not already too late for even that.

- Finally, the one-liner that everyone was talking about from McCain was his rather lame "I'm not George Bush" line. I told my wife when he said that he was making a HUGE mistake, because of not only his voting record, but because he's said things in the past like, "...And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush."

The people running Obama's campaign are sheer genius, and McCain just keeps shooting himself in the foot. One of the Republican spin people last night said that they "finally saw McCain the fighter pilot" in the debate last night, and the truth is, I agree with that sentiment. We saw the type of pilot McCain was alright...he crashed and burned.

Hasta La Vista, Babies!

2008-10-10T16:52:00.002-04:00

So long! Farewell! Goodbye! I'm outta here! ;)

Well, for a week anyway. My wife and I are taking a much needed vacation next week and for good or bad I am leaving my laptop at home. So no Internet access starting Sunday morning until I get home the following Saturday night.

I'm not certain I will retain my sanity, but it'll be a fun experiment!

As MacArthur said, I shall return! Hopefully relaxed and refreshed and ready to blog some more (as if anyone really cares... LOL!)

I hope everyone has a terrific weekend and a great week next week. I know mine is going to be wonderful!

No Matter What, America Will Survive

2008-10-09T12:59:00.003-04:00

It's been this way since John Adams ran for president against Thomas Jefferson in the election of 1800. The country was still in figurative diapers and campaigning for elected office was still something of a novelty. Yet, we learned quickly how to leverage fear against an opponent. John Adams painted Jefferson as an “infidel Deist,” whose godlessness would destroy the country. It mattered not that Adams was a Unitarian who shared most, if not all, of Jefferson’s religious views and who held the conservative evangelicals whose votes he was trying to win in contempt as ignorant fools. The point was it was more important to win the election than to maintain the truth.

It happens with every presidential election. It is probably inevitable given what is at stake. Both sides stand to either gain or lose much on November 4th depending on the outcome. Control of the White House and Congress as well as the ability to direct the tenor of judiciary throughout the country is in the balance.

So the wild-eyed charges are flung back and forth. Never mind that both campaigns and both sides blithely ignore simple things like truth, the Constitution, the basic separation of powers, the whole system of checks and balances that exist within our government and have worked so well for over 225 years. These things be damned, because the ultimate aphrodiasic hangs so tantalizingly close: power.

Whether real or imagined, this lure will lead people to do and say the craziest things. Elect Obama and we are absolutely guaranteed to become a socialist, communist country -- never mind that both of those ideologies are completely different. Once again, truth be damned if it helps prevent someone from being elected.

Elect McCain and we are absolutely guaranteed to endure the utter collapse of our moral integrity and not only own own but the entire global economy. Either that or we will usher in the Age of Palin where gun-toting, animal-killing throngs will fill the streets will blood and gore as civilization as we know it collapses around us.

Every presidential candidate since Jefferson has been accused of having the ability and willingness to "destroy this country" or at least some variation thereof. So far, none of the 43 individuals who've held that office have managed to even come remotely close to accomplishing this goal. We can argue about intent and accomplishments, but in the end it is history that sorts it all out and renders the final verdict.

My point is simply this: the fearmongering from all sides is unnecessary. No matter who wins on Nov. 4 we will be OK. The sun will continue to rise. The earth will continue to revolve on its axis. We will continue to face local, national and world crises of all shapes and sizes. America will go on -- maybe a little worse for wear. And we will soon forget the utter nastiness of this campaign.

I doubt few beyond historians would even recall the accusations flung back and forth by Adams' and Jefferson's campaigns in 1800. Our children will not remember much of what was said in this presidential campaign.

What will matter is how we move forward after it is all over.

Betty Makes A Funny

2008-10-09T12:50:00.000-04:00

This was too funny not to share with you guys...

Condescension 101

2008-10-08T15:57:00.002-04:00

I just have one thing to say about that debate last night:

Presidential Snoozefest... (ahem) Debate... BINGO!

2008-10-08T05:46:00.002-04:00

I must offer thanks to the Chicago Sum-Times for the presidential debate bingo cards. Without those two buddies, I would have slept through last nights snoozefest.

The McCain camp has got to find a better makeup team. The senator simply did not look good last night and it just added to the concerns about his health. Obama, on the other hand, looked refreshed and vibrant. Nonverbal signs add a lot to the overall impression about a person and based on that alone, Obama won hands down.

On specifics: McCain won here. He aptly summarized Obama's positions this way: "You know, nailing down Sen. Obama's various tax proposals is like nailing Jell-O to the wall.'' He could have used that analogy all night long. If this were a game of bob, duck and weave, Obama would have easily won. But it wasn't -- in providing specifics, Obama was seriously lacking. But that seems to be SOP for his campaign.

On a fact check: let's say both sides continued to misspeak. Both gentlemen inflated figures and counts while accusing the other of engaging in some less than honorable activities. Fortunately, William Ayers and the Keating 5 were left on the bus last night, but the fact checkers will be working overtime today.

Sen. McCain should well know we are not spending $700 billion a year on foreign oil and to countries that don't like us. At least 1/3 of what we spend goes to countries friendly to the US.

Sen. Obama knows full well that the current financial crisis is not the sole result of the economic policies of the last 8 years. If he truly believes that, then he proves himself to be an incredibly poor student of American history.

Sen. McCain certainly knows that Obama's health plan initiative is not going to impose "fines and mandates on small businesses." If not, then it shows his campaign is unwilling or unable to read, only willing to twist.

McCain should watch the accusations of Obama's guilt by association with Fannie and Freddie. People in glass houses don't do well with rocks.

Obama's claim to cut more than he plans to spend -- again, long on claims with precious few specifics. All I hear about is taxing the wealthy and cutting defense spending -- certainly not enough to fund his ambitious plans and balance the budget.

The so-called debate probably changed no one's mind and did little more than interrupt normal network programming. Again, thank goodness for presidential debate bingo. Although, even with that, it was hard to stay fully engaged for the entire thing.

Although... the Tivo of it might prove especially helpful when insomnia stikes...

Presidential Limbo

2008-10-07T12:38:00.003-04:00

.
You know...the "Limbo"...as in, "how low can you go?"

Over the past three days, the Grampa / Gidget campaign has decided to "turn the page" on the economy in an effort to try to make this election come down to who knows the least sleazy people. Personally, I think anyone with an official congressional censure on their record should probably try to stay away from this kind of debate, but hey...things weren't goin' so well for them on the issues, so their only real option given their failure to "dazzle them with brilliance" was to "baffle them with bullshit".

In response, the Obama camp released this statement: "Sooner or later people are going to figure out that if all you run is negative attack ads you don't have much of a vision for the future, or you're not ready to articulate it."

Oops...no, I'm sorry...that wasn't the Obama campaign. That was John McCain back in 2000. You remember that John McCain, don't you? The one that was attacked for having a "mixed race" child? He railed and railed against that kind of political sleaze. But this new version? Well...all you should have to hear is that the architect of that particularly noxious smear was recently HIRED by the McCain campaign.

How can people still defend this dishonorable man? Yes, I said dishonorable...to HELL with "We honor his service..." and all the other politically correct claptrap with which we're supposed to preface any negative commentary about McCain. Honorable men simply don't behave this way in order to win an election, and he ought to be ashamed of himself. The McCain of 2000 certainly would be.

Debate Bingo

2008-10-07T05:47:00.003-04:00

I've always found presidential debates to be rather boring events with candidates spouting the same old talking points they use on the campaign trail. At the end, their spin teams get busy clarifying what they really meant to say as though the average Joe American is too stupid to understand what the candidate's just said.

Anyway, thankfully one of my local newspapers has a solution. Debate Bingo. And it's FREE! (You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to be able to download and display these files.)

To get your Obama Bingo card, go here: http://media1.suntimes.com/multimedia/obamabingo100708pdf.pdf_20081007_00_53_28_169.imageContent

For the McCain Bingo card, go here:
http://media1.suntimes.com/multimedia/mccainbingo100708.pdf_20081007_00_53_03_168.imageContent

The rules are simple. Before the debate tonight, print your cards and carefully review them. Each one contains specific words, catchphrases or names that are typical to the candidate. The candidate's picture square is your "Free" square.

Anytime a candidate uses something from their card, mark it off. Just like Bingo, mark 5 consecutive squares in a row (up, down or diagonally) and you WIN!!!

Now I'm not offering any prizes, but the Chicago Sun-Times is. Go here to read their rules about entering the Presidential Debate Bingo Contest: http://www.suntimes.com/rules/debatebingo.static

I just thought this will add a little fun to the snoozefest scheduled for tonight. Enjoy!

Possibly The Funniest Thing I've Ever Seen

2008-10-05T19:35:00.000-04:00

Palin's Truthiness Problem

2008-10-03T08:20:00.002-04:00

.
Looked at from a purely "expectations" standpoint, it could easily be said that Sarah Palin won the debate last night, since she didn't - as many of us expected - go into her "Miss Teen Alaska" mode and talk, such as, about all us U.S. Americans needing more maps. You've gotta give her credit...the lady can memorize a talking point with the best of 'em.

But aside from showing - as one McCain spinmeister put it - a "mastery of the issues at the level of an average person" (I can't decide if that's an insult or a compliment, all things considered), if looked at on equal footing with her opponent, it wasn't even close, by any measure.

For one thing, Sarah seems to have a little problem telling the truth:

- She lied about troop levels in Iraq being back to pre-surge levels (a campaign talking point).
- She lied about Obama voting to raise taxes on families making $42,000 a year.
- She lied about McCain's health care plan, which independent analysts predict will cost around $1.3 TRILLION over the next 10 years...almost as much as Obama's plan, in other words, but covering 29 MILLION fewer people.
- She lied about the number of small businesses that would see an increase in taxes under Obama.
- She lied about General McKiernan's comments saying that "surge" principles would not work in Afghanistan...and she got his name wrong, just to add insult to injury.
- She lied about Obama's comments suggesting that "all we're doing" in Afghanistan is killing civilians, which he did not say in that context.
- She lied about "sending $700 billion to other countries" for foreign oil, repeating an oft told lie by that campaign. The correct number is about half that amount.

Viewed objectively with no prior knowledge of the two candidates, there's no real doubt that Biden wiped the floor with his smirking, winking, coloquial joke of an opponent. He was far more effective in pointing out the problems at the top of the Republican ticket than Palin was in attacking Obama, time and again showing that the "I've only been at this, what, six weeks or so" Governor was out of her depth. The question remains, however, as to whether or not Americans will view Palin in a more positive light, simply because she didn't completely fall on her face.

On a final note, away from the debates, I just finished reading an outstanding article in Rolling Stone about the real John McCain, and I highly recommend everyone take a look. If you think John McCain is some kind of "maverick", you really need to see this article: Make Believe Maverick.

Pork To The Rescue!

2008-10-03T05:55:00.002-04:00

The 451-page "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" carries a fairly hefty price tag. The amount of $700 billion (which is difficult enough to imagine) is bandied about by politicans and media, yet something is missing. It's the "October Surprise." The current price tag on the bill is more like $850 billion -- when you include all the earmarks and pork packed into this bill. By the time this bill winds through the House, the final price tag will be over 1 trillion dollars. Of your money.

Look at the bill that passed the Senate and there are some amazing items required to "stablize" the economy. If you own an auto race track, you stand to collect a portion of $128 million. Maybe you own a corporation that operates in American Samoa -- get ready to grab your share of $33 million. If you manufacture children's wooden arrows -- they get a paltry $6 million. But for the big money -- Puerto Rican and Virgin Island rum producers -- they stand to get $192 million. I didn't realize that rum producers were that cash-strapped. But they didn't forget the little people like you and me. If we choose to start taking a bicycle to get to work each day, our employer can get a $300 tax break. Sweet! Well, at least for my employer. I suppose my benefit is what... better health or bigger thighs.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will add $112 billion to the already ballooning budget deficits. Oh, but that doesn't matter because since this was passed by a majority Democrat Senate during a Republican adminstration, then the Republican president will get the blame. How's that for twisted logic.

Just a few short days ago this was a crisis that could not wait for a fix. Congress had to act immediately or financial Armageddon would occur. Congress didn't act immediately and lo and behold, no finanical Armageddon occurred. Why? Because this is a sham crisis concocted to scare the public 5 weeks prior to the election.

A crisis and panic is generated over the markets doing what they have to do in a free market economy. This is your "October Surprise." This is the price tag on the 2008 election -- so far, $850 BILLION and climbing. This after the government earlier this year pumped over $152 billion into the economy with stimulus checks. During the summer another $300 billion is pumped in. That's fully 1/2 of what this bill costs so far and we have a "crisis."

If history teaches us anything, it should be that we should NEVER trust the hype associated with every so-called crisis. I'm old enough to remember bomb shelters during the Cold War, the dire predictions of another Ice Age during the 70's, and the last great doomsday event that never happened: Y2K. At the time these concerns were all anyone would think or talk about. There was tremendous hype and hoopla over these. Again and again we come to realize that they weren't worth all the fear and hoopla then.

However, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Sadly, ad infinitum.

Bound and Determined

2008-10-02T06:02:00.003-04:00

Congress is filled with idiots who either cannot or will not learn from history. Such is the case as they rush headlong and hellbent toward creating a socialist state in America with the renamed "rescue bill" -- a 451-page novel full of "sweeteners" (aka earmarks, aka "pork", aka waste) to encourage the House to pass it and Bush to sign it. Like a child who has never learned that touching a hot stove results in getting burned, Congress once again seeks to meddle in areas it would be best to steer clear.

Here is a link to the actual bill as passed by the Senate last night. http://senateconservatives.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/ayo08c32_xml.pdf

This bill is full of tax breaks, tax cuts, alternative minimum tax relief -- designed to appeal to Republicans. To attract Democrats, the bill includes a mental health and addiction bill named after the late Sen. Paul Wellstone. What does this have to do with the "financial rescue"? Nothing! This bill is a Christmas tree with everyone and their brother hanging their "ornaments" (earmarks) on it because they know it will pass. It doesn't matter than just days ago everyone in Congress was pledging not to use this bill as a "Christmas tree", but we can see how well our elected officials keep their word. At 451-pages this bill has gotta contain a lot of junk unrelated to the bailout.

Section Two: Purposes: "Purposes of this act are to immediately provide authority and facilities that the secretary of the Treasury can use to restore liquidity and stability to the financial system of the United States." Why is Congress investing in ONE PERSON this power and authority? To ensure that such authority and such facilities are used in a manner that, A, protects home values, college funds, retirement accounts, and life savings." The Secretary of the Treasury -- an unelected, appointed Cabinet officer is being given this authority and facility? How is this remotely constitutional? And they're giving this power to Paulson under whose watch this mess began! Unless rescinded, this power will pass to succeeding SecTreas -- appointed, not elected officials.

Section B Purposes: "Preserves home ownership and promotes jobs and economic growth." How is Paulson supposed to perserve home ownership and promote jobs? Is he going to pay my mortgage now? That's what it sounds like. Maybe he's going to start hiring people who are out of work. I'd love a cushy gov't job.

Section C of Purposes number two: "The Treasury Secretary has the authority to maximize overall returns to the taxpayers of the United States." If Paulson or any SecTreasury can accomplish this, they'd be nothing short of miracle-workers. Hey, no more investment risk because the SecTreas will guarantee maximized returns to every taxpayer. Hallelujah, let the money start rolling in!

Section D, Purposes number two: "The Treasury Secretary will provide public accountability for the exercise of such authority." So as a taxpayer, I can fire Paulson if he doesn't accomplish everything this bill promises? Probably not.

That's just 1/2 of 1 page of this bill. I wonder how many Senators actually read the entire bill before voting. I doubt many, if any, did. But they passed it and most likely the House will, too.

And the taxpayers will once again take it in the posterior because of the incompetency of the US government.

Debate Musings / Really Stupid Alaskan Beauty Queens / Blue Bullets

2008-09-30T09:09:00.002-04:00

.
A few thoughts on the political goings on of the past week:

- There is really no question that Obama won the debate on Friday. Why do I say that so assuredly? Because...the "question" many people had about Obama was whether he could really have the experience to appear to belong on the same stage as an old warhorse like McCain, and that wasn't in doubt by the end of the night. Whether you agreed with his positions or not, the point was that he had a position, and it was well reasoned on his part. A "tie" - which seems to be what the media have agreed to call it, despite poll numbers from every source suggesting otherwise - was a win for him on John McCain's supposed area of expertise.

- Someone should really work with the VERY senior senator on his debate techniques. First of all, you don't treat your opponent with contempt, because that just pisses people off and makes you look like an elite douchebag. Secondly, he needs to cut out the stupid jokes. We've had 8 years of "folksy" and look no further than my last post to see where that's gotten us. And lastly, he should probably work on pronouncing those big words before he attempts them on national television in front of 50 million people. As Obama said, Ahmadinijhad is a "tough one", but if you're going to demagogue about the guy, you could at least say his name correctly.

- Moving on from the debate, the news gets better and better from the Sarah Palin front (or worse and worse if you're a McCain supporter). After her disastrous interview with Katie Couric last week (How disastrous was it? Saturday Night Live lampooned it...by not changing a single word of her answer), you wouldn't think it could get much worse. Well...it turns out that there were some unaired portions of that interview that make her look even more like a Miss Teen USA contestant fumbling to explain why Americans, such as, need more maps. Included in this unaired footage is a question about the Supreme Court in which Ms. Palin is unable to name even a single court case the Court has ever decided...other than Roe v. Wade, of course. This is the person Mr. "Country First" thinks is best suited to run our country in the event of his death? Seriously?

- In further embarrassing news to Ms. Palin, the McCain campaign is trying to work the refs already for her sure to be hilarious debate appearance on Thursday, saying that the moderator should refrain from asking Miss Congeniality too many foreign politcy questions. Seriously...this is a woman who thinks being able to see Russia from part of her state gives her foreign policy credentials, despite never having actually talked with anybody from that nation. Word is starting to leak that Biden plans to "take it easy" on Palin during the debate, but frankly, I hope that is incorrect. Personally, I hope Joe sends her off the stage in tears, because this woman does not deserve to be on the national stage.

- After McCain's premature victory lap yesterday, the failure of congress to act on the bailout is not good news for his campaign. Essentially, McCain tried to take credit for getting a deal done...when there was obviously no deal in place. Oh, the House Republicans are all whining and crying about mean ol' Nancy Pelosi picking on them, but the real failure here is going to be on McCain, since he is the one trying to claim that he "led" these talks (without, you know, actually even saying anything or even offering an opinion on whether or not he would vote for the bailout himself). Shows a lot of "courage" on his part, don't you think?

- In other news, the McCain "Straight Talk Express" is off the rails once again, banning reporters that don't bow down and give them the coverage they want. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd has been banned from the McCain press corps' airplane for, apparently, not writing about what a great guy McCain is. It should be obvious that this is nothing more than a ploy by the McCain camp to try to cow the rest of the press pool into giving them more positive coverage.

- The stock market dipped a record 770+ points yesterday. In related news - and I swear I'm not making this up - canned food producer Campbell's was one of the few stocks that actually went up in value. Coincidence?

Let There Be No Doubt

2008-09-30T08:51:00.002-04:00

.
It's an argument sure to continue for years among historians, but I don't think that, at this point, there can be any real doubt: George Walker Bush is the worst president in our nation's history. With this one last crisis during his presidency - a crisis in which even his own party abandoned him - it has become clear that the frat-boy president has been a disaster at every level, both foreign and domestic. A comprehensive list of his failures would simply take up too much bandwidth, so let's just hit a few of the highlights:

- The worst terrorist attack on American soil, despite being warned ahead of time.

- An invasion of a country that did nothing to provoke such action; a first in American history.

- The outing of a CIA operative for purely political purposes.

- The nomination to the Supreme Court of a woman so unqualified that she's often referred to in late night jokes as "Bush's cleaning lady."

- A complete failure of the Emergency Management Agency while a major city was damn near wiped off the map and the entire nation watched on television.

- The failure to capture the one man that was put up as the person responsible for the 9/11 attacks, despite cowboy bravado calling for his capture "dead or alive."

- American credibility around the world completely shredded by the lies that were told leading to the invasion of Iraq.

- Allowing North Korea to become a nuclear state.

- Allowing genocide to occur in Darfur and genocidal violence to reign unchecked throughout the third world.

- The national debt has grown 71.9% during his presidency, the most by any president in history.

- And now, the worst single day drop in the history of the stock market.

It is absolutely amazing to me that polling shows about 1 in 4 people still support this imbecile. Hopefully, in the future - and I include November in this statement as well - people will think twice before voting for the guy they'd "like to have a beer with" and vote for the person that can actually do the damn job!

Now We Have Time To Rethink The Bailout

2008-09-30T06:32:00.005-04:00

Thankfully, over 220 representatives yesterday -- for whatever reason -- decided that rushing through a $700 billion bail-out bill through Congress was not a good idea. I hope every one of these brave people is reelected in November. They voted "no" to mortgaging our economy and future in some twisted effort to salvage the stock market and avoid a recession.

Sadly (and I write this as a staunch Republican) the administration along with some idiots in Congress were doing their best this past weekend to sell us an ramshackle outhouse calling it the Taj Mahal. We were told this was our only opportunity to make this important "investment" in our future. The time to buy is now -- this deal won't be available tomorrow. Heck, at prices like this, we can't afford NOT to buy.

Whenever I hear a sales pitch like that, I turn and run away as fast as I can. Why? Because it's usually too good to be true. There are some serious problems with what Paulson wants to do. Mary Anastasia O'Grady in the WSJ wrote: "The main problem with buying distressed and hard-to-value assets from a bank is that, if the bank is to attract new capital, it is necessary for the government to overpay. And while the value of those assets may eventually move higher, the taxpayer is exposed to great risk, risk that really belongs to the bank and its shareholders. Such a huge federal expenditure also raises the risk of inflation. A further problem is that the Treasury is itself engaging in hedge-fund speculation. This expands the role of the state in the economy at a time when downsizing that role is more important than ever."

Why can we not learn from history? The Japanese tried to prop up failed banks in the aftermath of the bursting of their twin bubbles and the result was 15 years of stagnation. Why are we emulating a strategy that is a demonstrable failure? A better alternative would be to allow capitalism to work as it should and stop the interventions of the Fed in the money market. Trust capitalism. It works.

Some final thoughts from Dick Armey:

"Indeed, many proponents of the bailout have tried to put the blame for this massive government intervention squarely on the market, asserting that free market capitalism has somehow failed and the only solution is more government intervention. Yet markets do not operate in a vacuum. In fact, government institutions can have a strong - and too often corrupting - influence on markets. In the specific predicament financial markets face today, there is a long history of government actions that have led to what is most accurately described as a government, not market, failure.

"Some point to "unbridled greed" as the root cause of the crisis. There are plenty of bad actors to point to, but self-interest is in the very nature of human action, a constant that cannot provide an accurate explanation of the extraordinary distortions in the housing and financial markets. Self interest does indeed drive private economic behavior and the invisible hand of the market, but it equally drives so-called "public" political action. A more serious examination of the current financial meltdown suggests government excesses, not unbridled markets, played a determinant role in today's market meltdown.

"As a Public Choice professor, I used to begin class each semester with Armey's Axiom number one: "The market is rational and the government is dumb." Those quick to call for more regulation forget the power of markets, and refuse to acknowledge government culpability in the current mess. Time and again, governments the world over have attempted to outsmart the market and the current legislation is no exception. And time after time, markets respond, toppling the best-laid government plans as they move to correctly price the underlying assets in exchange."

Maybe with some time to think, our government will finally see the light.

My Reactions to Last Nights Debate

2008-09-27T13:09:00.001-04:00

Let me start this by saying - I already a decided voter for Obama.

I think McCain did well - it bothered me that he never once looked at Obama in the eye but that's a small nit pick.

McCain never once mentioned the middle class or the struggles of the middle class in this economy.

I think Obama got McCain on more "gotcha" points. The bracelet thing - McCain isn't the only one who talks to the mothers of our troops, the voting against military funding - Obama made the clarification that what he disagreed with was writing Bush a blank check (only 20 minutes after McCain bitched about how spending is out of control). The fact that McCain said that Iraq would be quick and easy, greated as liberators, and so and McCain was wrong on all of that - and the muddling through Afganistan. Over 26 years McCain voted against alternative energy funding 23 times - after he stated we need energy independence.

As far as appearances - McCain's $5000.00 make-up artist is doing an amazing job - he looked great for the first time in awhile. I absolutely do not like smirking, and laughing when your other opponent is making a point, or in response to a point. To me that is elitist bullshit - I'll just laugh because you're foolish rather then actually explaining why I disagree. Obama at times came across as wooden, I thought he avoided the ums, and aws that he seems prone to when he is off the teleprompter. Wish he would have addressed Senator McCain more formally as sometimes his "John..." came across as condscending. For all the hoop-la made over flag pins - where was McCain's? I don't really care, just thought it was interesting he didn't have one.

All in all I think it was pretty even - McCain looked better then Obama in the beginning - I think Obama trumped him a bit in the middle with the gotcha's - and on foreign policy with Russia and so on - I thought they ended up even. A little annoyed with the "Obama doesn't understand" punch line that McCain kept using - felt that he was so focused on pointing out that Obama was wrong rather then focusing on what John McCain would do - I think he missed some big points by worrying about Obama's answers rather then focusing on McCain's answers.

Glad we had a debate, looking forward to the next.

~Amanda

Had to Share

2008-09-26T16:03:00.002-04:00

Thought you guys would get a kick outta this:

The Ant and The Grasshopper: A Fable Revisited

2008-09-26T11:34:00.000-04:00

From Michelle Malkin:

In a meadow on a hot summer's day, a Grasshopper was chirping and carousing his time away. He watched scornfully as an Ant nearby struggled to store up large kernels of food and build a secure nest. The Ant pulled overtime shifts to pay off his loans and accumulate retirement funds for the future.

"Give it a rest," the Grasshopper said. "Why bother saving and slaving and toiling and moiling? Let's party!" The Ant demurred: "I am planning ahead for winter, and you should do the same." The Grasshopper blew off the Ant, squandered his supplies the rest of the season and abandoned his home while on vacation (paid for by tapping every last cent of his home equity gain) instead of holding down a job.

When winter came, the Grasshopper's pantry was empty, and his shelter ruined from neglect. The Ant, weary from planting, harvesting, and stocking up for months, was dining comfortably in his nest.

Cold, hungry, jobless, facing foreclosure and up to his two pairs of eyeballs in debt, the Grasshopper limped to the Association of Community Winged Insects for Rescue Now and demanded recourse. The office was swamped with thousands just like him. ACWIRN immediately put the Grasshopper to work registering dead ants as new voters.

Funded with tax dollars from the rest of the meadow's residents, ACWIRN organized mass protests at the Bank of Antamerica, ambushed its top officials at their private homes, harassed their children and demanded that the meadow's politicians halt all foreclosures ("We must keep Grasshoppers in their houses!") and outlaw discriminatory lending practices against starving, homeless Grasshoppers ("Well-stocked shelters are basic insect rights!")

The banking industry capitulated; the Orthoptera Lobby secured hundreds of millions of dollars in housing earmarks, grants and counseling subsidies to support the Grasshoppers with the shadiest credit and employment histories. Antie Mae, the meadow's government-backed home lending giant, fueled the push for increased insect homeownership in the name of biodiversity. Its executives cooked the books and headed for the hills. Katie Cricket and the Mainstream Meadow Media joined the grievance-for-profit circus, profiling Grasshopper sob stories and drumming up ratings as bewildered Ants wondered who was looking out for them.

The banks drowned in toxic debt. More Grasshoppers fell behind on their mortgage payments. Bailout mania and panic gripped the meadow.

Our little Ant, minding his own business, heard a knock on his door one late winter night a year later. It was his old, sneering Grasshopper neighbor. With ACWIRN's presidential candidate, Barack Cicada, now in office, the Grasshopper had been hired by the meadow as a tax collector.
"I'm here to take your provisions," the Grasshopper cackled.

But it was the Ant who had the last laugh. "I've learned my lesson," he told his shiftless friend. "Why bother saving and slaving and toiling and moiling? I've spent all my savings. I'm walking away from my mortgage. Thrift is for suckers," the Ant said as he headed out the door, leaving the Grasshopper empty-handed.

Just Say No To the Bailout

2008-09-26T08:13:00.002-04:00

Fortunately, an agreement on a bailout and the attempt to change our country to the United Socialist States of America failed to gel. Some Republicans finally grew a pair and decided not to blindly support mortgaging the country's future for generations to come. This despite the fact that Paulson and Bernanke continue to predict dire consequences if their plans don't come to pass. But aren't these some of the same people under whose watch this whole mess began, festered and exploded?

The bailout plan exposes every American to crushing liability for bad debt; it would nationalize the biggest money-losing portion of our economy; it would benefit only those people whose stupidity and inepitude (and let's face it -- pure and simple greed) led us to this place. Haven't we had enough bad decisions?

What scares me most about this plan is that it adds huge liabilities to the federal government that like so many Americans is living way, way, way beyond their means. Further, it gives enormous power to appointed officials whose past performance in managing financial matters would probably get them fired from some companies. Finally, the plan offers no means for the government to carefully assess what it is purchasing -- they could end up buying the most toxic mortgages available.

It seems like many in Washington are crying "wolf." Paulson tells the Senate, "Last week, our credit markets froze. If that situation persists, it would threaten all parts of our economy." Really? According to several newspapers, rates of 30-year mortgages dropped last week. For the most part, the markets were functioning at tolerable levels. Merrill Lynch saw the light and unloaded itself at a bargain price. So what's the scare about?

As mentioned yesterday -- the "R"-word and greed. Those companies still holding junk mortgages want to sell them for a premium and the government is making a premium offer. And the administration is willing to back this super-expensive plan in an all-out effort to avoid a recession. Politics and greed, working together to destroy America.

This bailout would severely damage the economy by rewarding companies for making bad decisions. In a free-market system, you don't save companies from their mistakes. Saving companies from their errors destroys the basic concepts of captialism, the very concepts that make it so innovative and efficient.

A group of 122 economists, including at least two Nobel laureates, signed a letter this week summarizing the danger: "If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, America's dynamic and innovative private capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted."

Real Republicans support the concept of "limited government" -- the idea that less is more in terms of the power of the federal government. We do not want and do not need Washington involved in running America's business. I am sure that Paulson and Bernanke and the others pushing this bailout believe it is for America's good. However, I am reminded of Ronald Reagan's favorite quote about the federal government. "The nine most dangerous words: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

More Blue Bullets

2008-09-25T14:57:00.003-04:00

.
A few things I think I think on the verge of depression or recession or whatever the hell dark economic catastrophe they're predicting today:

- McCain suspending his campaign yesterday has to rank up there with the all-time boneheaded moves by a presidential candidate. For one thing, Obama is 100% right when pointing out that presidents kinda need to be able to walk and chew bubblegum at the same time. If McCain can't deal with this (via phone or that new-fangled interweb thingy with the tubes) without having to drop everything else and rush back to Washington, how the hell is he going to deal with the daily grind and rapid fire problems that come up in the White House?

- It turns out that the proposal in front of Congress is so important that McCain had to rush back to Washington...but not important enough for him to, you know, actually read the damn thing. That's right...McCain was rushing back to help out in getting legislation passed that he hadn't even bothered reading first. Hmm...rushing to "fix" a problem without even having the information in front of you. Where have I seen that before?

- Sarah Palin is now apparently finished with her speed-dating tour of the UN. Not a bad couple days for her. She completely alienated the press, was unable to answer a direct question about McCain's record, and got hit on by the president of Pakistan....and she didn't once mention being able to see Russia from her house.

- Late breaking news out of Washington....a deal has been reached on the bailout plan, and all without Grampa even stepping foot in Washington. So...any bets on what excuse he'll come up with now to avoid debating Obama?

- You guys may remember way back during primary season when Republicans were blasting John Edwards over his $400 haircut. I wonder what those people are thinking now that news has leaked that McCain has paid $5,000 to a former American Idol make-up artist to make him pretty for television appearances?

- Speaking of leaks, word came this morning that the McCain campaign was trying to get this Friday's debate moved back to next Thursday...which just happens to be the day that Sarah Palin is set to debate Joe Biden. Seriously, do they not have ANY strategists on that campaign staff that told them how this would look to the public after they've spent most of the last month hiding her from the press?

- If you haven't seen Letterman's blasting of McCain after the Republican cancelled his appearance on that show in favor of going on CBS with Katie Couric, I highly recommend it. Letterman definitely takes the gloves off, joking at one point that "I think someone's putting something in his metamucil."

- This week's lie of choice from the Republicon is that his campaign manager Rick Davis has had no ties to his lobbying firm (the firm that bears his freaking name, for crying out loud) for two years. Now comes evidence that, you guessed it, Davis is still the treasurer and a corporate officer at the firm that was still receiving $15,000 per month from Freddie Mac right up through last month. At what point does the McCain campaign just become a complete farce that NOBODY is dumb enough to take seriously anymore? (That's a rhetorical question...with 1 in 4 people still thinking Dubya has done a good job as president, it's obvious that some people are just too far gone to reach).

No "Happily Ever After"

2008-09-25T07:08:00.003-04:00

I remember watching "The West Wing" on TV and being amused at how Bartlet's staff resolutely avoided using the dreaded "R"-word: recession. Somehow, saying the R-word in the White House was a sure-fire way to make it a reality. Welcome to reality as last night President Bush used the R-word in a dire warning to the country. If we're not already in a recession, we are certainly headed for one. Quite honestly, better now than attempt to mortgage it for later. The bitter dose of economic castor oil now would be far easier to swallow than the result of the nasty pill being proposed before Congress.

It is amazing that politicians are all for capitalism when the economy is booming. However, let it teeter or totter or as in the current situation begin to meltdown, and suddenly Washington's religion of capitalism changes to socialism. The $700 billion plan is not a bail-out; it is a buy-out of America's mortgage industry. Personally, I don't want Henry Paulson -- of Goldman Sachs fame -- in charge of this buy-out. I don't want the federal government -- who has a proven track record of screwing up EVERYTHING it touches -- in charge of the mortgage industry. The bail-outs/buy-outs are not stopping there. Auto makers are clamoring for their bail-out with Ford and GM at the head of the line. Where does the spending end?

The same people who are clamoring loudest today to fix this mess are the exact same people whose indecision and obstruction put us here. They should all resign in disgrace, starting with Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer and the rest of Congress who were warned repeatedly that this was coming, but decided to do nothing. It was so very important to give every American -- whether they could afford it or not -- the opportunity to own a home, so damn the torpedos, full steam ahead toward economic ruin. These bozos along with Paulson and his crew should resign immediately.

As much as it will hurt millions of people, I don't believe Congress should bail-out Fannie and Freddie. We should be willing to take our medicine now instead of putting a huge downpayment on a mortgage our country will never, ever be able to repay. Congress is on the verge of doing the very thing they encouraged Fannie and Freddie to do: buy more than we the people can afford.

If this happens, Wall Street will rejoice and the credit markets will start to recover. We may even avoid a full-blown recession for now. We might even be able to make the mortgage payments for several years... until the balloon payment comes due. We won't be able to pay that one. And the foreclosure proceedings will start. And we won't just face a full-blown recession then. It will be much, much worse.

But like Nero, today we fiddle while the economy burns.

Blue Bullets

2008-09-23T09:04:00.003-04:00

.
A few things I think I think this Tuesday morning:

- There's not much on which I would ever agree with George Will. Though he is about as sensible as any Right Wing Pundit I've ever seen, his ideology is still well to the right of my own. But in today's Washington Post, Will says that McCain is behaving "like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high." McCain's message has jumped all over the place for the last week, and he can't seem to keep his story straight, as one day he's against something that the next day he's adamantly supporting.

- In an interview with Katie Couric, Joe Biden yesterday strongly criticized a recent negative campaign commercial...by the Obama campaign. Righties are painting this as some kind of gaffe, but in reality, it comes off simply as a lament for how far things have gone on both sides. So...kudos to Senator Biden for taking some of the blame.

- In contrast, the McCain camp held a conference call yesterday to slam the New york Times for daring to print the truth about a member of the McCain campaign that made hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying for Fannie and Freddie. Not once during the call did they challenge the facts of the story. No...they were too busy whining about the Times not publishing enough negative stories on Obama. So...McCain is "tough enough" to stand up to foreign leaders and the terrorists that want to harm us...but a little negative press in the paper of record is enough to send his surrogates whining to the rest of the press?

- Meredith Vieira yesterday confronted McCain over his continued slamming of CEO's that take huge payoffs ("golden parachutes") by asking him about one of his senior staff and chief advocates (at least, until she said he wasn't qualified to run a company like HP) Carly Fiorina, who took a multi-million dollar payoff when she was fired for poor performance. McCain - the "straight talker" - immediately admitted that it was wrong and that Ms. Fiorina should be ashamed of herself.....................yeah, of COURSE he didn't do that. He excused her completely, since he "didn't know the details of her contract".

- Given that last bullet and McCain's ass kicking last week, why does it seem that The View has become the new Jim Lehrer Report? True, Meredith is no longer with the show, but how embarrassed should the rest of the mainstream media be that the toughest questions McCain has faced to date have come from what should be such a lightweight source?

- John McCain owns 13 cars. Why does that matter? It doesn't....except that, while campaigning in Michigan, McCain has bragged about how he has "always bought American" and that he "has been buying American for 30 years." Um...somebody might want to remind the Senator that several of the cars in his fleet have names like "Volkswagon" and "Honda". Again...not really an important issue, but it does go to show that McCain can't even tell the truth about the small stuff.

- Or, maybe he's just forgetting. In another striking contrast between the young, athletic Obama and the old, tired McCain, stories are beginning to circulate about how the two are prepping for Friday's debate. Obama is practicing with a debate partner (DC lawyer Greg Craig) and playing hoops and working out to blow off steam. McCain...is hosting a "town hall" and.....taking naps. This bullet brought to you by that liberal rag known as....the Wall Street Journal.

Enough Blame To Go Around?

2008-09-23T08:51:00.002-04:00

The truth is that capitalism is still alive, despite our government's attempts to the contrary. The financial mess we face today is not the fault of capitalism and it is not due to any lack of regulation. Here's the Barney Frank quote. "The private sector got us into this mess; the government has to get us out of it. We do want to do it carefully." No sir, Congressman Frank, it is not the complete fault of the private sector. The government had a huge hand in creating this fiasco.

On 08/05/2008, The Village Voice had this headline: "How the Youngest Housing and Urban Development Secretary in History Gave Birth to the Mortgage Crisis." In 2000, Andrew Cuomo, son of Mario Cuomo, as HUD Secretary under Bill Clinton, required Fannie and Freddie to greatly increase the number of affordable, low-to-moderate-income loans that the two mortgage banks would have to buy. Under Cuomo's predecessor, in 1995 they were required to make certain that 42% of their mortgages served "low- and moderate-income families." Cuomo raised that to 50%. He also required that they buy mortgages in underserved neighborhoods and for the "very-low-income."

Hello the start of today's fiscal meltdown. Many people thought this demand for "flexible" loan terms and standards was a positive step for low-income and minority families. It would give them the American dream of home ownership -- despite the fact that they could not afford it, even with the super-flexible loan terms. Still a few wise people warned of the potentially dangerous consequences of moving Freddie and Fannie into very risky territory.

So where are we at now. In January 2007, the Democrats took control of the House and Senate. The Dow was a 12,400. Comsumer Confidence Index was at 110.3. Unemployment was at 4.6%. A gallon of gas cost an average of $2.20.

Last Thursday: Dow is down to 10,500 -- a 15% drop. Consumer Confidence Index -- 56.9%, a drop of 48%. Unemployment rate is now 6.1%. Gasoline now tops $4 a gallon in most places -- a 68% increase. Financial crisis that has been unheard of before now.

Who do we have to thank for this? The answer seems obvious.

Too Funny Not To Share

2008-09-17T13:58:00.002-04:00

.
Saw a few of these around the interwebs and decided they were too funny not to share.

The resemblance is uncanny!

Sarah Palin....

...or the teacher / stripper from "Varsity Blues"?

I'm surprised they haven't used this yet.

If only....

I just love it when the morans come out...

And one final piece of advice for my blue brothers and sisters:

One Liners, Missteps, and WTF?!?

2008-09-17T08:09:00.003-04:00

.
In the wake of John McCain's claim that the fundamentals of the economy are strong - on the very day that one of America's largest investment banks failed and virtually every economic expert is saying there is a major crisis in the American economy - I thought I'd take a look at some of the other funny / stupid / ridiculous things to come from the Republican ticket in the last few days (along with a couple other things that made me laugh, sigh, or shake my head in wonder that anyone could vote for the Geezer / Gidget ticket):

- Oh yeah, about that McCain statement...he now claims that he was talking about the American Worker, and nothing else. It's an interesting attempt at spin, but I'm not sure it's going to work with anybody not already drinking the kool aid.

- In other economic news, McCain blamed "Wall Street fat cats" who treated the market "like a casino and need to be held accountable." Considering those very "fat cats" are some of McCain's biggest contributors, both in money (employees from Merrill Lynch alone have donated nearly $300,000 to McCain's campaign) and in face time (witness Wall Street fat cat and McCain surrogate and advisor Carly Fiorina, the former HP CEO who walked away with around $42,000,000 after being fired for poor performance), you have to take McCain's claim with a grain of salt roughly the same size as the iceberg that sank the Titanic. You know...kinda like his claim that lobbyists will no longer run Washington, despite the fact that they just happen to be running his campaign.

- Oops....speaking of Fiorina, it seems the McCain camp had itself a little hissy fit over her comments yesterday stating that neither John McCain nor Sarah Palin were really qualified to run a large company. The campaign has cancelled three scheduled interviews that Fiorina was supposed to do this week, and has stated that she won't be doing any more press for a while. Of course, I'm not really sure what her qualifications were for judging that anyway, considering her complete and utter failure as a CEO herself.

- My Blackberry has been on the fritz ever since we got back from vacation. Does anyone have John McCain's number so I can call him to complain? (If you don't know what I'm talking about, read here)

- While campaigning in Ohio yesterday, McCain blasted Obama for "hanging out with his Hollywood friends" at a fundraiser. McCain said that there was no place he'd rather be than right there in Ohio. Presumably, this is because McCain already held his Hollywood fundraiser, attended by such A-list stars as Wilford Brimley, Stephen Baldwin, and Pat Boone. Yeah, on second thought, I think I'd probably rather be in Ohio, too.

- Remember Sarah Palin's "stirring" praise of small town values in her acceptance speech ("We grow good people in our small towns...")? Turns out, she was quoting someone else. That's not really a big deal, except that the person she was quoting was fascist writer Westbrook Pegler, the famous anti-Semite who once said sadly that a would-be assassin "hit the wrong man" when trying to kill FDR, and - even worse, if you can believe it - once expressed his hope about Robert Kennedy that "some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow flies." Your Republican Vice Presidential Nominee, ladies and gentlemen!

- As part of his "experience", McCain cites his former leadership of the Senate Commerce Committee, which, according to McCain, "oversights every part of our economy." Umm...there's only one slight problem with that....it's completely false, as the commerce committee has no jurisdiction over the banking industry (that would be the, um, Senate BANKING Committee) which happens to be at the center of the current crisis. John McCain, ladies and gentleman, did not even understand what his own committee does.

The wheels are coming off the Republican bus, folks. In a Newsweek tracking poll, the favorability of the ticket went down around 3 or 4 points, and the unfavorability went up 5 or 6....meaning there has been a 10 point loss for the republicans....since Saturday! That is nearly unprecedented in their polling, but I guess that's what happens when you lie, and lie, and lie, and lie some more and the media finally gets tired of repeating your bullshit and calls you out on it. The Palin "bubble" has burst and people are getting past her looks and the funny accent to ask wht qualifications she has, and I don't think they like being treated like idiots when the Republicans claim it's a foreign policy qualification because you can see Russia from one part of Alaska.

In other words...it's gonna be an interesting few weeks leading up to the election. If McCain and Palin both don't absolutely park their debate performances (and I mean that in the "hit it out of the..." sense), I honestly don't think this election is even going to be close.

Why Does Obama Want To Prolong the Iraq War

2008-09-16T08:41:00.003-04:00

Apparently, Obama was against the Iraq war before he was for it. It seems -- unfortunately not widely reported -- that while publicly campaigning for a quick withdrawl from Iraq, the senator was privately negotiating with Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on troop withdrawals. This little detail from the senator's Iraq trip was revealed by Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari. Apparently, according to Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July. "He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

So far only the NY Post appears to have picked up this story which is incredibly damaging to the Obama camp. However, despite this revelation, the Obama campaign appears to be more concerned about what Chicago radio, WGN, is broadcasting about Obama. Apparently, last night another not so favorable Obama book was showcased from 7 - 9 p.m. which prompted another email and call-in campaign by Obama supporters to stifle free speech. Why is the Obama campaign so concerned about people who are critical of the nominee? They obviously don't seem too concerned with protecting the reputation of their opponents.

That he would portray a two-faced front on these issues is hardly surprising. He needs to cater to the looney left wing of the Democrat Party, but at the same time he wants to hedge his bets by delaying any troop withdrawal so he can keep that as a campaign issue. According to the NY Post, "Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet. Supposing he wins, Obama's administration wouldn't be fully operational before February - and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still. By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June."

Very strange way for the senator to operate -- speaking out of both sides of his mouth like that. I wonder if this is what we can expect from an Obama administration. I'm sure his supporters will have a cheery explanation for us.

Blue Bullets

2008-09-16T08:10:00.002-04:00

.
A few things I think I think this Tuesday morning:

- "The fundamentals of our economy are strong." A lot has been made of McCain making that comment a couple months ago, as it shows just how out of touch the 72 year old multi-millionaire actually is with mainstream America. So, how does he follow it up? By saying yesterday - on a day when the stock market took it's biggest tumble since September 11th - the same thing, word for word. So much for all the wisdom he's supposedly gained from his "experience" in Washington.

- The Obama camp has definitely taken off the gloves, and as much as I appreciate him for trying hard not to get into the mudslinging, I appreciate that much more that he is fighting to win. McCain and the Rovian politics his campaign is using may have just picked one too many fights with this particular Democrat, as evidenced by commercials like this one and speeches like this.

- That great Alaskan "reformer" Sarah Palin has refused to cooperate with the ethics investigation currently looking into whether she abused her power by attempting to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from his job as a state police officer. And this is a surprise because.....why, again? I mean...isn't that all Republicans in Executive branches do these days? Refuse to cooperate with their Legislative branches?

- Here is an interesting little video showing a little more McCain / Palin hypocrisy. Seriously, can you believe anything that comes out of that man's mouth?

- Oh yeah...you know that "lipstick" "controversy" from last week? McCain doesn't even believe it. Of course, that didn't stop his slimy campaign from running an ad about it, now did it?

- The McCain campaign is now branching out to telling lies in Spanish! In a new ad targeting the Latino community, McCain's campaign accuses Obama and the Democrats of being "ready to block immugration reform" as well as stopping any pathway to citizenship for immigrants. Umm...WTF?!? The Democrats are responsible for this? Seriously...McCain is so full of shit these days it's amazing his hair hasn't turned brown.

Quote of the Election Year (So Far)

2008-09-14T20:56:00.002-04:00

.
Had to share this, in case any of you missed it:

"In case anyone was still wondering whether John McCain is running the sleaziest, most dishonest campaign in history, today Karl Rove - the man who held the previous record - said McCain's ads have gone too far," said Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor.

Thought that pretty well summed it up.

John McCain, ladies and gentlemen...the man that would rather lose his integrity than lose an election.

God forbid we discuss politics!

2008-09-14T15:50:00.003-04:00

Lets face it in an election year politics gets discussed more then it doesn't. Last night my husband and I got together with some of our friends to watch the USC vs. OSU game (still crying over the loss) the mix was mostly Obama supporters, some typically conservative but can't bring themselves to vote for McCain supporters, and some vigilant McCain supporters.

No one said anything controversial, no one said anything offensive and while we disagreed on some issues - on many others we all agreed. That being said - 2 or 3 people (my husband included) kept trying to steer the conversation away from politics or out right openly requesting the conversation come ot an end. This is the 2nd time in a setting this has happened with me, and I see it on the internet all the time.

As I pulled my husband aside at the party and basically threatened him with sleeping outside on the porch if he ever treated me that way in front of our friends again, I couldn't help but show my irritation. I mean - no one ever tells the OSU fan and the Michigan fan to stop discussing which team is the better team. When the men sit at the bar and discuss HD vs Blue-Ray no one begs them to stop. So why is that when intelligent, respectable people begin to discuss politics people start to clam up?

On a few message boards I lurk and post people go onto political threads and then proceed to post about how they wish election season was over. I know the feeling - i feel that way every NASCAR season but I keep it to myself. I also don't open those threads.

As I told my husband last night - at least with discussing politics you are discussing something IMPORTANT. Politics shape this country and decisions made while those elected are in office. Which is why it is important to consider all sides of the candidates who are being elected. I enjoy discussing politics becasue there are times when I learn something new. And that new tidbit may or may not sway my vote come election day.

I realize discussing politics isn't for everyone so here's some advice - don't open those threads, learn to walk away from a conversation rather then heckle those who are having it, and for the love of God - if you don't have an opinion keep your mouth shut. Those of us who do enjoy discussing politics and the candidates would like to carry on our conversation in peace, at least until the game starts.

SNL Hits It Out Of The Park

2008-09-14T09:44:00.002-04:00

.
It's really kind of scary how much Tina Fey looks like Palin, and she nailed the accent. You have to wonder if Hillary was watching and thinking to herself, "Damn...they read my mind."

B-Links

2008-09-13T21:35:00.002-04:00

.
A few things I wanted to make sure my blue friends didn't miss:

- The NY Times has done a front page story on Sarah Palin. Turns out, she makes Dick Cheney look like a choir boy.

- If you haven't seen Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson, you really should. Anybody arguing that this person is fit to view the white house on a tour - much less in the office of the Vice President - doesn't know what they're talking about. Hey, at least her next interview is with Faux News, so I'm sure she'll have the questions well in advance and she can have someone find out the answers for her so that she won't look like such an idiot.

- So...John "Maverick" McCain is going to take Washington back from the lobbyists, huh? Then why is it that his campaign is being run by those very same lobbyists? What...they suddenly agree with him that they should lose all their power? Yeah...right...and atheists are the ones campaigning to have the ten commandments in every courtroom.

- Did you hear that, in the midst of getting his ass kicked by the ladies on The View, McCain offered a challenge? He said that "nobody can name" anything he's flip flopped on. Umm...how about torture? How about the Bush Tax Cuts? How about those "agents of intolerance" that you're now buddy-buddy with? The list (found here) goes on and on. So, the question becomes...is McCain senile, stupid, or just so full of shit that he doesn't even know what he's saying anymore?

- The Gibson - Palin interview (henceforth to be known as the gift that keeps on giving) also featured Palin admitting to the lie about the bridge to nowhere. Unfortunately, she started telling a new lie, as she stated that she'd "called up" the Alaskan National Guard to "help in other states". Sorry, Sarah...you've never done any such thing, Also, every VP for the past thirty years has, indeed, met a foreign leader before they took office. Of course...they weren't "hockey moms", so they obviously didn't have your qualifications.

- Does a Moose-huntin' "bulldog in lipstick's" rapid rise to the verge of the White House strike you like a bad Disney movie? You're not the only one.

- Oh yeah...I mentioned McCain getting his ass kicked on The View...if you haven't seen it, I give it four stars. It's just a shame that it takes a talk show to do the mainstream media's job for it.

Have a good rest of the weekend, everyone!

A Not So Great Week for the Blue Team

2008-09-12T10:24:00.005-04:00

Between hand-wringing over poll numbers and trying to gaffe-proof their VP nominee, the Democrats have not had a very good week. It started out with a big bounce for Mc-Palin, which reportedly sent more than a liver shiver through the ranks of the Democratic Party. I can imagine not a few beginning to second-guess their coronation of the Obiden ticket and wondering what happened to their post-convention bounce (you know, the one that never happened).

As if that was not enough, Sen. Biden suggested that the ticket might have been better off as Obama/Clinton. "Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America," Biden said Wednesday in Nashua, New Hampshire. "Quite frankly it might have been a better pick than me." Maybe a moment of extreme clarity for 1/2 the ticket? Surprisingly absent was any spin or clarification of this from the campaign. Does the silence mean agreement?

Then the big blunder of the week. The Republicans may have put up the wrong picture behind McCain, but Sen. Biden takes the cake for asking a paraplegic state official to stand up to be recognized. "Chuck, stand up, let the people see you," Biden shouted to State Senator Chuck Graham, before realizing, to his horror, that Graham uses a wheelchair. "Oh, God love ya," Biden said. "What am I talking about?" What indeed, Senator!

According to David Wade, a campaign staffer assigned to help the gaffe-prone Biden, these misstatements simply show how human Biden is. They help him relate to voters. Maybe the ones who only change the foot currently stuck in their mouth.

Last week in Florida, Biden once again attempted to slip himself to the top of the ticket in referring to the "Biden administration," before quickly correcting himself to say the "Obama-Biden administration." "Believe me, that wasn't a Freudian slip," he said, laughing and crossing himself. "Oh lordy day, I tell ya."

The next 50 or so days should be very interesting indeed.

WTF?!?

2008-09-12T08:56:00.006-04:00

.
A few "WTF?!?" moments from the blue side of the aisle this week:

- Seriously? "Lipstick on a pig" causes the McCain camp to have conniptions when there is plenty of video of McCain himself using the phrase? How about saving the bullshit fake outrage for something that is, you know, actually outrageous?

- If you haven't heard, the McCain camp released a sleazy ad this week accusing Obama of wanting to teach sex education to kindergartners. This was in reference to a program Obama instituted in Illinois to teach "age appropriate" things like inappropriate touching to kids in school. So...teaching kids that they should tell someone if they're being sexually molested is a bad thing?

- Up until yesterday, the McCain camp was still using the "thanks but no thanks to that bridge to nowhere" line in Sarah Palin's speeches. It took a full week for them to FINALLY pull the lie from her stump speech, and it probably wouldn't have happened if the media hadn't gotten off their collective asses to go and find out that she not only didn't say "no thanks", she accepted millions of dollars in pork for the project and then redirected it to other things in Alaska, rather than giving it back. Maybe they'll get around to pointing out that Alaska, under Palin, accepts more pork per capita than any other state in the union. Nah...that'd require some actual work.

- Did you catch Palin's interview with her hand-picked reporter yesterday (more coming today)? I'm thinking they might have shoulda picked someone else. In the interview, it became clear that Palin doesn't understand the Bush Doctrine (of preventative war), doesn't understand the consequences of adding Georgia to NATO, has never met a single world leader, has been out of the country (not counting Mexico and Canada) a grand total of once in her entire life, thinks Israel should have free reign in the middle east to do pretty much whatever the hell they feel like doing, and believes that the 9/11 hijackers attacked us for our freedoms...and we're supposed to believe John McCain picked her because of her qualifications?

- Hey...did you know that Osama bin Ladin wasn't actually the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks? Yep...came as a surprise to me to. But that the line the White House is pushing now...that it wasn't really bin Ladin but Khalid Sheik Mohommed (who we just happen to have in jail). I guess that's the reason Bush "doesn't think much" about bin Ladin...'cause he wasn't really even involved.

- The McCain campaign has hired a "White House Transition Head" to begin planning for a transition into the white house should he win the election in November. This, of course, comes just weeks after ripping Obama as "presumptive" for doing the exact same thing. I'm starting to wonder if the John McCain from 2000 was kidnapped and replaced with one of the pod people. How does a formerly honorable man sink this far into hypocrisy and dishonesty?

- I'm curious...when the McCain camp was "vetting" Sarah Palin, did they know that, as mayor, she advocated that rape victims be charged for the rape kits used on them? Did they know that she was embroiled in a scandal over abuse of power? Did they know that her husband once belonged to a party that advocated secession from the union for Alaska? Did they know that she opposed abortion even in the case of rape or incest? Did they know that she advocated the teaching of creationism in schools? Did they know anything about this person other than she happened to be young, female, and conservative?

- (Updated) McCain appeared last night on a forum discussing "service". During the discussion, he was asked about his opinion on community organizers, and he said that he respects them. He then went on to excuse his running mate's belittling of that service as "just defending herself from criticism over inexperience." No mention of the sarcastic nature of her remarks, of the other speakers snide comments about community organizers or the laughter in the room following both. At what point does McCain even begin to disgust himself, I wonder?

- Finally, I'm sure several people were, like me, wondering why the Republicans had McCain appearing in front of a picture of some anonymous building during his speech last week accepting his party's nomination. Well...it turns out that was a picture of Walter Reed. No, no...not the veteran's hospital in Maryland.........Walter Reed Middle School in North Hollywood, California. Yes...that's right....the Republicans got the wrong picture!!!! I guess when McCain said he didn't know how to use the internet, he also meant that nobody in his party knew how to do a freaking Google image search, either. Your 2008 Republican Party, ladies and gentlemen.....

Ingrained In My Memory

2008-09-11T12:03:00.002-04:00

.
The image 99% of people remember from 9/11/01 is that of the towers falling, and, indeed, that is one of the images that I will never forget. But it's not even close to being the one that comes to mind first, for me.

On September 11th, 2001, I was working for Verizon doing desktop computer support in their Charleston, WV offices. I don't even remember what time it was when my phone rang, and my wife told me that a plane had hit one of the towers. Like everyone else, I just thought it was some kind of tragic accident, but I wandered into one of the call centers in the Verizon building where televisions were tuned to the news...and I saw the second plane hit. There was no mistake, now...we were under attack.

I'll never forget the hysteria that gripped this country during those attacks. The rumors flying about everything from car bombs (my personal nightmare, as there is no way to defend against them) to concerns about some kind of biological agent being released from the explosion of the planes.

But still...it was a somewhat distant threat at that point. I mean...I live in West Virginia, and we're fairly far removed from the towering skyline of New York or Chicago. Oh, there are pretty massive chemical plants near here (one in which they store the same thing that killed all those people in Bopal, India years ago....hence my fear of car bombs), but in reality we aren't much of a target. So, while my shock and horror and eventual anger were real, they weren't personal, if that makes any sense.

Then came news that the Pentagon had been hit....and that did it. For any of you that don't know, I worked in that building every weekday (and not a few weekends) for about 5 years (Biggus Rickus, another contributor to this blog, did as well). If the attack had happened back in the mid 90's, I'd have most likely been there when that plane skipped off a helopad that sat outside one of the offices we supported and destroyed a major portion of the E, D, and C rings down that corridor.

I watched a retrospective the other night about that particular part of the 9/11 attacks, and I just kept wondering to myself what I'd have done had I been there. Would I have left the building the way so many others did? Or would I have run towards the danger, knowing that there were people there that needed help? I hope the answer is the latter, but I also hope to never have to find out.

Always Remember...

2008-09-11T09:46:00.002-04:00

On 09/11/2001 our world changed dramatically. Shortly before 9 a.m. Chicago time, my boss walked by my cubicle to announce that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center in NYC. Being somewhat new to the job, I thought he was pulling my leg -- maybe this was a setup to some joke. No, he replied... he was quite serious.

I stuck my head up from my cube to see co-workers gathering in small groups. I jumped on the Internet and starting looking for news. The connection was bogged down as many of us at work tried to log onto news sites. A little while later the word spread quickly... a 2nd plane had slammed into the WTC. Both buildings were on fire.

I'll never forget the panic and rumors that sprang up so quickly. Our office was near the Sears Tower in Chicago. Was that a target, too? Rumors of planes crashing began circulating as other cities were named: Cleveland, Atlanta, Denver... Then someone would squelch those rumors and try to calm people down.

Then came the news of a plane crashing into the Pentagon. And another in PA. The announcement went out that employees were free to go home if they didn't feel safe at work. I stood by a window for a while watching the mass exodus of people in downtown Chicago. The streets were crowded, the commuter trains crammed full, the expressways overflowing with people trying to get away from the city.

As the day went on the news got worse and worse. The sounds and worse still the images of that day are burned into our collective memory forever. As with some horrendous events, the memory of where we were and what we were doing is forever etched into memory never to be forgotton.

The terrible sadness of that day was lessened to some degree by the stories of incredible heroism by so many people. Firefighters and police officers running into a burning and collapsing building trying to save people. Regular citizens doing what they could to help total strangers. People trying to comfort one another as we attempted to wrap our minds around the horror.

09/11/2001 brought the war on terror to our doorstep and stripped away the thin veneer of innocence and safety we cherished.

The next day like many others I got up, showered, shaved and dressed. I drove to the commuter train and rode to work. Caught the bus and went back to my cubicle. Back to work. But not the same. Never the same again.

I will always remember that day. We will always remember the sacrifices made that day. I pray for the families who lost so many loved ones that day. I pray for our country and our world that we might one day end these acts of senseless violence.

Always remember...

Lest We Forget

2008-09-11T08:05:00.002-04:00

Everyone remember where they were 7 years ago? I was sitting at my desk, with the only radio in the office. Everyone was crowded around, silent and in complete shock. When the second plane hit, one of the DJ's said: "We are at War" and I remember feeling like my stomach had dropped out. I remember my co-worker frantically trying to reach his wife who worked in Lower Manhattan-she was lucky, it only took her 6 hours to get home, but she got home. I remember our CEO walking through the office, checking to see if we were all ok, and telling us to "Go home...hug your loved ones and pray." I remember driving up Route 80 West and watching emergency vehicles from all over Northwest NJ screaming by on the eastbound side-rushing to do anything to help. My parents called from a BJ's in Ocala, Florida. They were standing with a crowd of people in front of the big screen TV's-they'd been there over 2 hours but nobody could pull themselves away. I remember watching the members of Congress standing on the steps of the Capital singing "God Bless America" and crying for the people we'd lost and how life would never be the same for any of us. I was lucky, I didn't lose anyone I loved that day-but I was one step away from plenty of people that did. My friend's daughter lost her fiance, my co-worker lost 2 friends he'd had since kindergarten, a member of my parish lost her husband, a Port Authority policeman. My best friend played at funerals for weeks. Every day the NY radio station told us where the firefighters funerals were, and people who never knew them went and mourned them. My DN's boyfriend worked on The Pile as an EMT.

So, let's all take an example from McCain and Obama today and take the day off from the usual political crap. Let's remember those who died, and their loved ones, and remember that we are more than Left and Right-we are Americans.

Of Lipstick and Leadership

2008-09-10T10:01:00.004-04:00

With what our country is facing in 2009 and beyond, the American people (dare I presume to speak for them) are looking for leadership in Washington. It's time for both Congress and the White House -- whoever ends up controlling them -- to get off their posteriors and come up with solutions. Real solutions. Not the stop-gap, band-aid, half-assed measures that politicians want to spin as solutions.

To that end, the latest dust-up over lipstick of all things threatens to drag this campaign season back past grade-school antics. So what if Sen. Obama said put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig. It's a phrase that's been used time and again. Note to McCain campaign: Sen. McCain used this same phrase in the past. So get over it already!

This is what the electorate (dare I again presume to speak for it) is so exhausted with -- this stupid, petty tit for tat back and forth of the campaigns. No one was offended by this comment, least of all a candidate whose previous nickname was Sarah Barracuda! She's already likened herself to a pitbull with lipstick. So give up trying to get some leverage off this comment.

Another poster on here suggested that those of us who participate in this blog attempt to elevate the level of discourse here. At first, I thought to decline, but after some serious reflection, I realized she had a point. While the cutsey names are funny (maybe just one-time funny jokes), their repeated use does nothing to help either side's efforts. And admittedly, it just contributes to the grade-school nature of campaigning. So, I've made an effort to at least reduce my use.

If nothing else, that may provide me with some small square inch of moral high ground on which to stand on tiptoe and ask that BOTH campaigns relent from the gotcha's of campaigning. Try spending time promoting your goals and plans, not taking snide swipes at each other. It's nothing more than school children defacing each other's class president campaign posters with rude remarks or drawing stupid moustaches on each other's pictures. We are supposed to be adults after all; maybe if I can try to act like one, you can, too.

Stupidity We Can Believe In

2008-09-10T07:00:00.003-04:00

From the Financial Times, 09/09/08: Peter Orszag, CBO (Congressional Budget Office) director, said: “It is the CBO view that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be directly incorporated into the federal budget.”

Yet another WTF moment!

Freddie and Fannie have been quasi-government entities for years: part government but at the same time part private. An absurd concoction to be sure, but just another stupid idea from a federal gov't. that is chock-full of stupid ideas and having way too much time and money to implement same.

As a private entity, Freddie and Fannie should be able to make a profit, which is a good thing. That's what capitalism is all about. Free market -- free enterprise. Yet, they are also a government entity, which essentially means there is no risk. If Freddie or Fannie screw up, you and I are there to be their safety net... or at least our money is. And we are now being called upon to rescue them -- a stupid creation that made stupid mistakes because they knew full well that they could without incurring any risk of failure. That's not something you or I could ever do.

So now the CBO recommends that Freddie and Fannie become 100% government. This puts the feds in a bit of a pickle because the CBO is regarded as "the leading independent authority on US finances and its assessments guide spending decisions by Congress" according to the FT. But why worry... it's not like they (the CBO) are worried about the money they spend. It's not like they are having to foot this bill.

At the same time the CBO recommends this, they also announced a revision to the budget deficit -- up to $407 billion this year and $436 next year.

You and I are probably going to be saddled with a bail-out tax. It won't hit the income taxes, but it will hit in interest rates and dividend/captial gains taxes. We're going to pay for this bail-out... for quite some time. Some estimates say it will cost $25 billion in the next fiscal year alone. I wonder if that includes the golden parachutes offered to the "doofs" who ran Freddie and Fannie into the ground?

And now the CBO recommends a complete gov't. takeover. This is one bad idea on top of another. I've yet to see even one successful gov't. program and the feds had a 50% opportunity of doing this right the first time and failed. Now they want a 100% chance? Heaven help us because the inmates are in control of the asylum.

Capitalism At Risk

2008-09-09T08:44:00.003-04:00

I spent last week partially on vacation, partially recovering from a stomach virus and paying partial attention to the Republican love fest in St. Paul. Wowzers, Palin can give a speech (just like every other politician can). Wowzers, McCain didn't put the place to sleep -- although he certainly tried with his alleged "rousing" speech. If he had gotten any more enthusiastic, he might have been mistaken for being alive.

And McCain-Palin got their convention bump in the polls and as expected the pundits and wags are wringing their hands over Obama's chances in November -- a bit odd given that the election is 57 days away and it's only September 9th. If one were to crawl out of a cave this morning and listen to the news, it wouldn't be surprising to conclude it was all over -- except that no one has cast a ballot yet and all these polls are sampling a few thousand so-called likely voters. Out of the millions who will actually vote on November 4th. But I digress...

As I listened to the speeches over the past couple of weeks and then read the transcripts, I began to have more unease with both candidates. It seems that both parties are bound and determined to undermine the very thing that has made this country so great. Capitalism. The free market economy. Supply and demand.

Over the weekend a Republican (less gov't. is more) administration ran to bail out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Another federal bailout, using your money and mine, to save some portion of our system. Just like we've done before and given the way the candidates have been talking just like we plan to continue doing in the future.

It's the same stupidity that administrations have been practicing in foreign policy for decades: dole money out to other countries in the name of foreign aid because it's supposedly the right thing to do. Except for the fact that it has gotten us nothing but grief. We've doled out trillions of dollars in foreign aid and have diddly squat to show for it. We'd do just as well flushing the money down a huge toilet.

Now we're going to spend over $200 BILLION to bail out Freddie and Fannie. After spending billions to bail out other private sector companies over the years and decades. We are doing our best to take all risk out of the free market. Start a business -- take a risk -- engage in stupid, mindnumbingly absurd behaviors and Uncle Sammie will be there to rescue you because heaven forbid we allow capitalism to simply work and allow people to suffer the consequences of their stupidity.

What would happen if Uncle Sam didn't come to the rescue? Sure, it would hurt. It'd hurt a lot and hurt a lot of people. But maybe we need to wake up and accept the consequences of these stupid actions. Because bailing all these companies out is becoming addictive. We're like a bunch of wild-eyed crackheads rushing from one bail-out high to the next. Yesterday, the Dow went soaring on the news of another bailout. What's up with that?

We're quickly replacing capitalism with a guaranteed federal bailout program designed more to support stockholders instead of allowing the market to take its own course. We've become so afraid of the normal economic ebb and flow that we are willing to sell our souls for another financial "high."

I just wonder what happens when the final bill comes due and we don't have the money for the next huge bailout. There's going to be hell to pay then.

Purple Political Humor

2008-09-08T10:56:00.003-04:00

Some humor at the expense of both major political campaigns. (None of this is original to me.)

If John McCain is elected President of the United States then the French will immediately surrender to us. If Barack Obama is elected President then the French will immediately invade us.

Here an interesting fact: If you add John McCain's age and Barack Obama's age together you'll get the number of times Obama usually says "uh" when answering a question.

The age disparity between the two candidates in the upcoming election is significant. John McCain is 71 years old. By contrast, Barack Obama is 322 years old in dog years.

Q. Why did John McCain cross the road? A. There was an Old Town Buffet on the other side.
Q. Why did Barack Obama cross the road? A. To help the other side.

After Barack Obama claimed to have campaigned in 57 states, John McCain should have sent him the name of a good Alzheimer’s specialist.

John McCain rolled up his sleeves and went offshore in the Gulf of Mexico looking for oil for American drivers. Barack Obama responded by going to the shores of Hawaii, taking off his shirt and oiling up his torso for American soccer moms.

Barack Obama's camp claims that John McCain was cheating in their first forum appearance because he actually gave straight answers to the questions. Politicians aren't supposed to do that.

Any candidate that John McCain picks to be his vice president will necessarily be a younger candidate than he is. Any candidate Barack Obama picks to be his vice president will necessarily be better candidate than he is.

It's a hard election for conservatives this year. They'll have to hold their noses tight in order to cast a vote for John McCain. But they'll have to hold on even tighter to their wallets if Obama gets elected.

The sad fact is that if John McCain is elected President he might not last another four more years. A sadder fact is that if Barack Obama is elected President then America might not last another four more years.