The Way Out - revisited

The weekend results from the collective wisdom of Congress has been published and is available for review in its entirety at www.financialservices.house.gov  (106 pages, by the way - but six page summary is also published there).  As expected, the Congress has been able to take Secretary Paulson's three piece manifesto and expand it until it sounds like legislation (and no one can read or understand it).  The bill now includes insurance of assets but still includes direct purchase - which I oppose.

They speak of a Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).  But I am sorry, I still only see a Corporate Revolving Asset Program. (an unfortunate acronym)

I am still very uncomfortable with the program and want to consider other possible approaches and try for a more comprehensive solution.  But I am sensitive to the fact that Washington Mutual went down since we started talking about this and there should be concerns that foreign investors might begin to remove their money from our markets if we do not act quickly. 

But I have two goals - first to solve the current liquidity issues in the financial markets while helping the financial institutions to solve their solvency problems.  Second, I am trying to elect a Republican President and as many Republican Congressmen and Senators as possible.

Senator McCain, in my opinion, did the right thing last week by centering his attention on the financial crisis in Washington.  As usual, he did not go far enough, however.  When he returned to the debate on Friday night, he should have made a statement in the beginning moments that he had asked Senator Obama to delay the debate - but that Obama had refused.  So that he was reluctantly forced to participate, but would immediately return to Washington.  He then should have had a strong opinion about what is wrong with the program as it stood last Friday and what he hoped Congressional Republicans and Democrats would do to change the bill.  By taking a public position at the broadly watched debate, McCain could have broadened the discussion by Congressional negotiators this weekend.

I favor the approach - put forth by House Republicans -  of insuring the non-performing mortgages and the mortgage backed securities that are now a problem for the markets.  The government must stand behind the financial market system in this country, but without direct purchase and nationalization of 700 billion dollars of equities.  But In addition, a comprehensive energy program would go far to restore confidence in our economy in the eyes of the world and our own citizens and fits into the current discussion.  The public is enraged by this bailout of Wall Street and there is political horsepower in the public unrest if a leader will propose a solution that is acceptable to the voters - Republican and Democrat.

Speaker Newt Gingrich has railed against this bailout all week.  In a report by Teddy Davis of ABC News, Gingrich called upon McCain to support the public interest by taking on the "Obama-Bush Establishment" (source)

Gingrich goes further and describes four major points that should accompany any bailout program:

Gingrich's four-point plan includes: (1) suspending immediately mark to market provisions (the accounting practice of valuing a financial position in an investment at its current market price) in the hopes of stopping the downward spiral in asset values and eventually replacing it with a three year rolling average; (2) repealing immediately Sarbanes-Oxley, the 2002 accounting law Gingrich described as "an enormous drag on small business"; (3) setting the capital gains tax rate at zero "matching the Chinese and Singapore" (to encourage private capital to flood into the market picking up properties without the taxpayers being at risk); and (4) passing an "extraordinarily powerful" energy bill ("to return $500 billion a year to the American economy that are currently going overseas").  (source and full coverage)

Dick Morris and wife, Eileen McGann have written in today's New York Post (source) an excellent strategy for Senator McCain and the Republicans to follow.  Read the article in full <here>

Morris calls upon Senator MCcain to have the courage of his convictions and have him call for House Republicans to not agree to a plan that calls for the taxpayer-funded purchase of bad mortgages.  Although the effect is much the same, a plan that calls for insurance by the government of bad paper and loans to the struggling financial institutions is politically preferable - and much more acceptable to the public.  The addition of the energy provisions, tax cuts and bookkeeping changes would create a stronger bill, would strengthen the markets and would be politically advantageous.

The Democrats are looking for political cover here.  They are the majority party in both houses and can pass their bill and send it to the President.  But they want Republicans to sign on and they are backing the wrong plan.  McCain can lead the House Republicans to present a better solution and the Democrats must accept their bill or pass their own.  If they take the Republican version, they will give more credit to the Republicans than they want.  If they pass their own bill without Republican support, they will be out on a limb if the bill doesn't work - and it is already unpopular with the public. 

McCain and the Republicans have an opportunity to be on the right side of a popular issue and to do the right thing in the process.  But the time is now.  The House will take up the compromise bill this morning.

 

 

 

 

Criticism of THE Plan

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich continues his strong criticism of the administration’s economic rescue plan.  As the politicians continue to bob and weave, I note that Washington Mutual Bank went under today with FDIC stepping in and promptly selling off assets and some locations to J P Morgan. 

Newt offered the following advice on Fox News Network (Hannity and Colmes) yesterday.

I think, first of all, they should replace the current snapshot to market with a rolling three-year average.

I think, second, they should change the current loan reserve pattern so it's not pro-cyclical.

I think, third, they should zero capital gains.

I think, fourth, they need to adopt an energy plan to keep about $500 billion a year here at home instead of going overseas.

But on a practical level, if they need to open up a window to loan money to treasury plus 2 percent, and people want to come in and borrow the money and the responsibility (ph) of a workout not a bailout, and those people want to work their way out over the next three to five years. I'm comfortable saying this is a liquidity crisis; let's meet it; let's loan the money. But let's make sure they are responsible for their bad debt, and they're going to work their way out.

This idea that we're going to buy the paper and some bureaucrat in Washington is going to be responsible for $700 billion in bad paper, I think, is socialism at its worst. I can't imagine why this administration is doing it. I think it is profoundly wrong, and I hope it is defeated if it comes to the floor in this form.

Read the entire interview with Speaker Gingrich <here>

 

Nikon brings it on with the D90

New product announcements from Canon or Nikon are greeted like new model year introductions in the auto world.  But this year the announcement if the Nikon D90 seems to hit the sweet spot for serious consumers and semi-pro photographers in industries like Real Estate where we rely on digital images as a primary marketing tool.  The D90 is just reaching stores – my comments are based upon reviews only.

The Nikon D90 body is priced under $1000.  An available 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED AF-S VR DX Nikkor Zoom kit Lens adds approximately $300 to the package.  On board servor motor permits use of all Nikkor auto-focus lenses.

The new D90 will bump its predecessor the excellent D80 to the scrap heap of history with significant improvements in all phases of specification and operation.  The more accurate comparison may be against the more pricey D3 and D300 in the line.  Unless you are a professional where the ruggedness of the metal body is of importance, the reviewers seem to think that the D90 is a very capable package indeed. 

Major improvements include the 12 mp sensor; a brilliant 3” high resolution view screen – with live view so that you can view and compose your shot in the viewer rather than having to use the eye piece view finder; higher speed continuous shooting (4.5 frames per second; enhanced in camera retouch capability; and a new video mode permitting HD capture at 24 frames per second (mono sound only).

The Movie Mode is getting a lot of attention – and should appeal to the real estate market.  As a video camera with interchangeable lenses it is a low price entry into the cinematic world.  But there seem to be limitations.  The camera must be focused manually while in Movie Mode and the sound capability is mono only. 

If you seek the capability that comes with interchangeable lenses, off camera and multi-flash lighting and larger sensor formats of the Digital SLR cameras, this may be the one to choose. 

Reviews: Simon Johnson August 2008, Nikon site, Ken Rockwell August 2008.

Enjoy

McCain takes the Initiative

In the continuing saga of unusual campaign events for this season, Senator McCain announced that he was suspending his campaign in order to return to Washington to concentrate on the economic crisis and he challenged Senator Obama to do the same.  A stunt, perhaps, certainly with a lot of political calculation attached.

First, I do not approve of McCain suspending advertising and fund raising – this is pure politics and an attempt to get Senator Obama to give up some of his advantage in advertising spending and fund raising.  There is no reason why McCain cannot concentrate on Washington issues while ads continue to play.  So this is transparent politics in my view, and will be viewed as such by the public.

However, from here it gets more interesting.  Senator Obama is staying very Presidential and continuing his schedule (and prep for the Friday debate) saying that he can do more than one thing at once.  I believe Senator Obama is on thin ice here and is giving McCain an advantage.

The economic situation is being touted as the most important economic crisis since the great depression and is clearly a significant event.  One of these two candidates will have to deal with the clean up of this mess after January 20.  I believe that both of them should be in Washington and should be inserted into the political process that is going on between the present administration and the Congress.  Both of their input should be heard and considered at this time.  Further Both of these men are US Senators and are being paid to do the country’s business in the Senate and to represent their respective constituencies in Illinois and Arizona.  Both (and Senator Biden) should be in the halls of Congress working with their colleagues on this vital situation. 

Senator McCain should be responding to Senator Obama that he is not President yet and he needs to be back in Washington doing his job as a Senator – for which the taxpayers are paying him.  They have certainly not gotten their money’s worth so far.

As for Friday’s debate, at a minimum I believe that the subject matter should be changed to the economy and hold foreign affairs for another debate night.  If there is a bill passed by Friday morning, I would have no problem with the debate as scheduled – but if the work is not done, both Senators have more important things to be doing than making televised pleas for votes. 

Senator McCain is showing proper concern for a major situation – not unlike his decision to stay the opening of the Republican Convention out of respect for the gravity of the potential harm for the Gulf Coast during a hurricane.  But McCain should not have included advertising and fund raising in his announcement because they are irrelevant and political.  He will succeed in changing the dialog at a critical point in the campaign and possibly make up for lost points last week.

Senator Obama is taking a chance on being perceived as putting Presidential politics above his obligations as Senator and the serious nature of the emergency in Washington.  I believe he is vulnerable on this issue, as currently expressed. 

Watch the polls for the impact of these games and the perceptions that will attach to the motives of both candidates. 

In my view – advantage McCain

 

The Way Ahead

This has not been an uneventful week in the news.  Unprecedented actions are being urged upon us by a Republican administration.  While I am generally pleased to see bipartisan support for almost anything in Washington – I am getting a gag reflex from this proposal that I cannot ignore.  I have spend several days trying to get my own hands around the nature of the problem.  I have listened to commentators and politicians on the right and the left (and Dr Ron Paul who may not fit either description). I had the pleasure of participating in an excellent conference call this morning with AR member Mike Morgan presenting his views.

I have seen several threats to our way of life in the last decade.  I support the war on terror – but my first reaction to the 9–11 attacks was that we would lose civil rights in an effort to seek security and that, once lost, we would never get them back.  I have been concerned at some of the provisions of the Patriot Act, but compared with the intrusions into our lives by technology and routine business practices, the intrusion of government surveillance is almost insignificant. 

And now, Treasury Secretary Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke and SEC Chairman Cox have come before the American public with an urgent proposal of such far reaching significance as to challenge our basic definitions of governance. 

First, let me look at Secretary Paulson as he is the point man for the administration in this matter.  Henry Paulson has government experience in the Nixon administration and a strong career at Goldman Sachs.  On the plus side, he is experienced and well respected by the financial markets.  On the negative side, Paulson is a part of the financial market structure that brought us to this point.  Despite his repeated assurances that there was no immediate structural dangers and 300 billion dollars pledged to support the secondary mortgage markets by propping up FNMA and FHMC  (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), Secretary Paulson comes to Congress with the most urgent message since Chicken Little cried out that the sky is falling.  The sub-prime mortgage problem has been on the table for several years now.  The mortgage backed securities and financial products that have carried the infection into other segments of the financial markets were created during Paulson’s time at Goldman Sachs so he should be completely familiar with the dangers that lurked below the surface.  Warren Buffet warned more than five years ago that derivatives and other sophisticated financial instruments were a danger in that neither investment banks nor regulators understood the workings of the products nor their impact on the financial markets. 

How can Secretary Paulson bring a plan for a trillion dollar reorganization of the financial markets to Congress and tell them he needs to have emergency powers authorization passed within a week.  How could a situation of such enormity (and I use the word intentionally) be brought forth from the administration without warning in the last six weeks before a Presidential election. 

I have read the legislative proposal for Treasury authority to purchase mortgage related assets vesting unprecedented power in the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury for a two year period.  Section 8 of the proposal reads, “Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”  There is that gag reflex again.

I understand (that may be slightly overstated) the delicate balance in which financial institutions operate.  The public confidence is an essential part of their operating environment.  As I have commented previously in these pages, no bank in our system carries sufficient reserves to sustain  the bank against a prolonged run on the bank – or the banking system.  But I am not sure why the guarantee of the stability of the secondary market for mortgages by the federal takeover of Freddie and Fannie is not stabilizing to the markets.  If the Federal government is providing adequate liquidity to the mortgage market and assuming responsibility for the half of the home mortgages already held by Freddie and Fannie – why doesn’t that buy us time to take a better look at the problem.  How many times are we required to purchase the same piece of paper (the underlying mortgages). 

Our system of government is not designed to commit a trillion dollars of tax dollars to the unsupervised control of a single un-elected official on unbelievably short notice.  While I am not a fan of endless Congressional hearings, the Congress should receive  the opinions of government and non-government experts to define the problems so that a reasonable solution can be enacted into law.  With all due respect to Secretary Paulson, there is concern that the beneficiaries of this program are the old boy network in financial services of which Secretary Paulson is a member.  If the forces that precipitated this situation really was not visible to Secretary Paulson until we were at the abyss, then perhaps he is not the appropriate soldier to lead us out of the forest. 

On balance, I urge caution and restraint in moving forward.  I understand that decisive government action may be called for to reassure the world wide financial markets.  But prompt and decisive is not a replacement for reasoned and correct.  This situation calls for protection of the public interest and an accounting for the apparent lack of concern for common sense and the public interest up to this point.  Whatever solution is enacted by the Congress must include accountability and oversight to prevent a deepening of the crisis.  The public will not stand for protection of the financial houses without assurance that the plan provides protection for the taxpayers who are becoming victims of every action taken by government lately.  Further, the plan will not pass the smell test with the public if some action is not taken to prevent golden parachute compensation packages to the executives who have piloted the financial ship onto the rocks.

It is likely that the political forces at work will turn Secretary Paulson’s sleek race horse into a camel before any substantive bill is passed.  Perhaps distaste for the outcome of the legislative process will cause the Congress to  look more carefully at the desired results and the means to attain them.  I would like to be reassured that there is not another alternative course of action before I support this legislation.   If time permits, I would like to withhold action until the next President is at least identified by election, if not sworn in on January 20.  Unless absolutely necessary, it may not be reasonable to bind the next president in such a way as to prevent his input now. 

I welcome your comments.

Another Opinion

It has not been an uneventful week in the news. 

But before I consider the import of the financial news, I would like present another opinion on the US Presidential race – which although being crowded off the front pages for a day or two, has not become irrelevant. 

The rhetoric of Senator Obama has not changed after the conventions.  I had hoped that he would become more specific in his speeches and start to discuss the direction his “Change” would take and the vision that he has of America after the election.  It is easy to promise change if the press does not ask the tougher follow up questions.  And there appears to be little chance of that.

The televised debates may offer some glimpse into the candidates that will be helpful for Americans to make their decision 43 days from now.

My source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYEiwR2KklM

And Now the Rest of the Story

Another of my favorite authors chimed in today to talk about the financial problems. Neal Boortz is an Atlanta talk show host who is more Libertarian than Conservative.  He is not always polite to his telephone guests, but you always know where you stand with Neal.  He is an attorney and a very opinionated man.  I like listening to him.  I do not always agree, but that is true of all of the commentators.

In his column this week Neal addresses the factors which led to the glut of sub-prime mortgages which is the front end of the problems we are seeing today.  Pay attention – he makes some good points.  I know the questions we face now are more complicated than this, but this is a major part of the history.

It is pure sophistry for Senator Obama to place Senator McCain in the spotlight here.  I believe the Democrats need to address issues in their positions rather than merely point a fingers at President Bush and claim that McCain is just four more years.  President Bush is not on the ballot this year and not part of his administration is approved for positions in a new Republican administration. 

My source: http://townhall.com/columnists/NealBoortz/2008/09/19/the_rest_of_the_meltdown_story

Friday, September 19, 2008

The Rest of the Meltdown Story

by Neal Boortz

What in the world is going on here?

You’ve seen the headlines, and you heard of the failures and buyouts. Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, AIG; all big names and all in big trouble. Then those mysterious quasi-government agencies with names like Freddie and Fannie become wards of the state and you learn that you and your fellow taxpayers are potentially on the hook for tens of billions of dollars. At the end of the week Washington Mutual is looking for a buyer, and you start to wonder about the security of your own bank and your own savings account. Let’s change that ad copy to WaMu -- boo hoo.

Somewhere in the back of your mind you understand that this is all tied somehow to bad mortgages. If you start reading a bit further to enhance your understanding you run into terms like Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) and credit-default swaps, whatever in the world those are. Read further and you find out that a combination of falling home prices and mortgage defaults have put many investment banks and other financial institutions in deep puddin’. All this reading, all this watching the talking heads on TV, and you still don’t really know what in the world is going on here.

Fear not. I’m here to help. I know … I’m just another talk show host; but the fact is that when the stage was being set for the problems we’re seeing today I was making most of my money as a real estate lawyer .. closing loans for some of the very institutions that are the tank today. This rather unique combination – closing lawyer and radio talk show host – gave me a front row seat to the politicization of mortgage loans that led us to today’s headlines.

OK .. so we all know that a lot of really bad real estate loans were made. The political class would sure love for us to believe that the blame here rests squarely on “greedy” (try to define that word) mortgage brokers and lenders. The truth is that most of the blame rests on political meddling in the credit decisions of these mortgage lenders.

Twenty years ago the buzz-word in the media was “redlining.” Newspapers across the country were filled with hard-hitting investigative reports about evil and racist mortgage lenders refusing to make real estate loans to various minorities and to applicants who lived in lower-income neighborhoods. There I was closing these loans in the afternoons, and in the mornings offering a counter-argument on the radio to these absurd “redlining” claims. Frankly, the claims that evil mortgage lenders were systematically denying loans to blacks and other minorities were a lot sexier on the radio than my claims that when credit histories, job stability, loan-to-value ratios and income levels were considered there was no evident racial discrimination.

Political correctness won the day. Washington made it clear to banks and other lending institutions that if they did not do something .. and fast .. to bring more minorities and low-income Americans into the world of home ownership there would be a heavy price to pay. Congress set up processes (Research the Community Redevelopment Act) whereby community activist groups and organizers could effectively stop a bank’s efforts to grow if that bank didn’t make loans to unqualified borrowers. Enter, stage left, the “subprime” mortgage. These lenders knew that a very high percentage of these loans would turn to garbage – but it was a price that had to be paid if the bank was to expand and grow. We should note that among the community groups browbeating banks into making these bad loans was an outfit called ACORN. There is one certain presidential candidate that did a lot of community organizing for ACORN. I won’t mention his name so as to avoid politicizing this column.

These garbage loans to unqualified borrowers were then bundled up and sold. The expectation was that the loans would be eventually paid off when rising home values led some borrowers to access their equity through re-financing and others to sell and move on up the ladder. Oops.

Right now this crisis is being sold to the American public by the left as evidence the failure of the free market and capitalism. Not so. What we’re seeing is the inevitable result of political interference in free market economics. Acme bank didn’t want to loan money to Joe Homebuyer because Joe had a spotty job history, owed too much money on his credit cards, and wasn’t all that good at making payments on time. The politicians told Acme Bank to figure out a way to make that loan, because, after all, Joe is a bona-fide minority-American, or forget about opening that new branch office on the Southside. The loan was made under politicial pressure; the loan, with millions like it, failed – and now we are left to enjoy today’s headlines.

So … why aren’t you reading the whole story in the mainstream media? Come on, are you kidding me? Do you really expect the media to blame this mess on deadbeat borrowers and political interference in the free market when it is so easy to put the blame on greedy lenders and evil capitalists? Remember … there’s an election going on. One candidate is decidedly anti-capitalist. Do the math.

 

A few words to Remember

I am recently reminded of one of my favorite John F Kennedy speeches  The quotation is from John Kennedy’s commencement speech to the American University in Washington DC in June of 1963 and is, in my view, one of his most eloquent statements.  It remains as true today as it was in 1963. 

"So, let us not be blind to our differences - But let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal."

Video of portions of the speech (time 5:25)

my source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8gpi1Xlcos

McCain in the Sunshine

I am offering a second dose of Larry Thornberry this week because of the campaign visit to Florida by Senator John McCain and Larry’s coverage of the Tampa event as a journalist. 

Senator McCain was traveling without his secret weapon this week as Governor Palin returned to Alaska to supervise and commemorate the deployment of units of the Alaska National Guard including her son on an assignment that will lead to a tour of duty in Iraq. 

I am concerned with the political posturing by many officials. including Senator McCain, about the current economic problems.  Government regulation is not the only answer and is frequently not the right answer.  So I am not pleased with speeches from Senator Obama or Senator McCain at the moment. 

Senator McCain is on much stronger ground on the subject of energy.  The Democrats are way out of touch with the public on the energy issues.  Senator McCain offers the only comprehensive program to include exploration for petroleum and nuclear alternatives in addition to other new technologies for alternative energy.  He needs to give way on ANWR – perhaps Governor Palin can persuade him.

Larry is able to give some local color to his reporting of the diversity of the crowd in attendance in Tampa.  Enjoy his writing style.

My source: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13901

Campaign Crawlers McCain in the Sunshine By Larry Thornberry Published 9/17/2008 12:08:28 AM TAMPA -- John McCain made what is surely just the first of many pre-election stops in the Tampa Bay Area Tuesday when he gave a pep talk to more than 4,000 of his closest friends at the Tampa Bay Convention Center. Sarah Palin was not with McCain yesterday, but the enthusiasm she's helped generate was clearly there, and he seemed to recognize this when he opened his remarks by saying, "If Governor Palin and I are elected in 49 days, we're not going to waste a moment in changing the way Washington does business." Sounding populist notes, McCain spent two-thirds of his 15-minute presentation on the "reckless conduct and unbridled greed" that has led to the current problems on Wall Street, and said the alphabet soup of federal agencies that failed to head off the current mess would perform better under a McCain administration. He vowed to make the financial services sector, including Wall Street, "more worthy of America's trust." He chided Wall Street for "dreaming up investment schemes so complicated they don't even understand them." McCain didn't say how he was going to make Wall Street fly right, or how promised regulation in this area would have fewer negative and unintended consequences than past attempts Washington has made to set corporate America straight (see Sarbanes-Oxley). But the congregation was cheering too hard to notice. McCain bragged a bit on the American worker, one of the economic fundamentals McCain says is sound, and then moved on briefly to the themes he always hits in his talks: a promise to put an end to earmarks and pork-barrel spending in Washington, as well as a promise to push for energy independence by pursuing alternative energy sources as well as ramping up traditional sources such as fossil fuels and nuclear. "We can store spent nuclear fuel," McCain said. "The Japanese do it. The Germans do it. The French do it. We can do it." He ridiculed the prospects of Obama's anti-fossil fuel, anti-nuclear energy policies solving the nation's energy problems. "You can't get there from here," he said. When McCain got to the "drill, baby, drill," part of the speech, the audience took up the chant enthusiastically, giving clear evidence to any politician paying the slightest attention how much regular voters want to expand our domestic oil supply. MORE INSTRUCTIVE THAN anything McCain said during his short address, which was mostly stuff he had said many times before, was the style and texture of the whole affair. The audience, which began filing in when doors opened at 0930 for McCain's high-noon presentation, was overwhelmingly middle-class and middle-America. Normal patriotic people. Lots of kids, from toddlers to high school age, and plenty of red, white, and blue. There were lots of cowboy hats, not to mention baseball caps (worn with the bill forward) emblazoned with the name of the ship, the military unit, or the war the old geezer wearing it served in. Dress ran heavily to shorts (Florida heat is NOT a dry heat -- and mid-September is mid-summer in Tampa). Plenty of Hawaiian shirts, as well a sprinkling of business types in coats and ties. Thanks to the Florida heat and the relatively early morning hour, there were few protesters out front. Two grim-looking college-aged women held two ends of a sign that said, "War pig welcoming party." Charming. A large guy who mumbled a lot carried a sign that said "not a hero -- not a war." Two other women held a sign saying, "McCain voted against equal pay for women," which would have been a surprise to McCain if he he'd seen the sign. Inside the signs were less confrontational, and the patriotism was palpable. Chants of "USA, USA, USA," broke out frequently. A group of young people, including soloist Mary Olive Gauthier, who appears to be about 12, sang the national anthem powerfully and straight, and got a thunderous ovation for their trouble. About a dozen adolescent girls combined on a medley of songs, including "Sweet Home, Alabama," "Lean on Me," "America," and "Born in the USA" (and they seemed happier about this fact than what's-his-name from New Jersey). Warm-up speakers hit the patriotic theme, and made it clear how much they respect and appreciate Americans who serve in the military. Former naval aviator Richard Tangeman, who spent time in the Hanoi Hilton with McCain, spoke of how McCain inspired his fellow prisoners and how he more than once saved other prisoners from being brutalized by calling attention to himself. THESE AFFAIRS WOULDN'T be complete without a large press contingent. You can always spot this lot. They're the bored looking bunch wearing dog-tags and either key-stroking away on their lap tops or staring at their BlackBerries while ignoring everything and everyone around them. I took one look at this crew and decided to hang out with the civilians. Attendees had to go through metal detectors, which resulted in a long wait in line for everyone before they could get into the event room. There was hardly any griping about this, and I was fortunate to wind up in line next to a retired engineer, one Umberto Capela, who made it to Tampa by way of Spain and Cuba. He served two terms in Vietnam as an NCO in the Seabees, where his unit built fire bases for the Marines and many times came under enemy fire. Capela told me he appreciates McCain for his service to country and because what motivates him "seems to come from inside," rather than coming from political consultants and focus groups. Capela, who escaped from Cuba in 1960, said he's unimpressed with Obama's campaign theme of unspecified change. He pointed out that Fidel brought a lot of change to Cuba. As the faithful filed out, there were a lot more rat-bags in front of the convention center. Some of the new signs, mostly carried by college-age females, included such as: "John McCain is a fossil fool," "Same s--t, different Republican," "McWar coming to a town near you," and "Flush the John." Must be nice to have a lot of time on your hands. One hostile male carrying a peace sign tried to bait McCain supporters into arguing with him. But those who had just gotten the message were in too good a mood to rise to the bait and mostly just laughed at him. What's a burnt-out case to do? These McCain people are just no fun.

Hurricane Sarah

I have included the views of Larry Thornberry, a writer friend of mine living in Tampa, in these pages before.  I usually agree with him and I always enjoy his writing style. 

In a recent article for the American Spectator Larry talks about the remarkable enthusiasm generated by the selection of Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as the Vice-Presidential running mate for Republican Senator John McCain.

It is easy to come under the spell of Governor Palin.  She connects with voters and audience members of every stripe.  Her values and political policies seem to flow naturally from her every day life.  From all accounts she seems to live by these values in addition to preaching them.  Not your usual candidate. 

My source: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13881

Special Report
Hurricane Sarah
By Larry Thornberry
Published 9/15/2008 12:08:21 AM

TAMPA -- It's storm season in Florida, and elsewhere around the Gulf of Mexico, as the very bad weekend news out of Texas underlines. But local Republicans are more focused on Hurricane Sarah than they are on the blow-dried meteorologists and perky weather-babes who come on at six and 11 to speak of storms and rumors of storms.

As most know by now, the choice of Sarah Palin for VP has injected turbo excitement into a formerly charisma-challenged McCain campaign that almost certainly would have been DOA Nov. 4 without the considerable boost she's provided. Floridians are as susceptible to Palin's charms, her very real conservative convictions, and her leadership skills as folks everywhere seem to be.

I shared a cup of kindness (maybe two) after work Thursday with the Tampa Downtown Republicans, a group of a few dozen young to middling professionals (not to mention the odd writer or retired sergeant major), and the buzz, no surprise, was all about Sarah. I've never seen this bunch so animated or optimistic.

The airy mood made much of the conversation fanciful. One comely real estate professional, with a glass of house cabernet in her hand, suggested that one presidential debate be replaced by a one-on-one game of hoops between Sarah and Obama. "She'd hip-check him," was the approving response to laughter all around. "He'd be a changed man," another Sarah fan contributed.

OK, pretty giddy stuff, and not be taken seriously. But it's the first time this bunch has had any fun with this election cycle since it began in the misty past.

A more reasonable conclusion, arrived at during less febrile moments, was the prediction that after the vice-presidential debate on October 8, Joe Biden will never again consider the winsome Sarah as just another pretty face. This gal has a fastball.


THE ENTHUSIASM IS NOT JUST among Republicans. Greg Truax, co-chair of the McCain campaign in Hillsborough County (Tampa), says after the Palin speech at the Republican convention he's had not only more Republicans but also independents and even some Democrats volunteer to be volunteers in the local McCain campaign. The same thing is happening across Florida and the Southeast, though for reasons known only to themselves, folks at McCain's Southeast regional headquarters don't wish to be quoted by name saying this. "Tremendous," was all Mat Diaz, communications director for McCain Southeast, would say on the record.

"I've never seen anything like this," said Truax, a veteran of many campaigns. "We're energized and fired up. And it's mainly the Palin effect."

The other Hillsborough McCain co-chair, Hillsborough County Commissioner Mark Sharpe, said, "Sarah is bigger than a hurricane; she's a tsunami. Women who come to the commission meetings who I know are antagonistic toward Bush tell me they love Sarah. She's one of us, they say."

Now you'd expect McCain campaign guys to say stuff like this, but this testimony (almost sounds like Baptist witnessing) comports with some pretty dramatic polling results. Gallup is reporting that support for McCain among independents nationally went from 40 percent at the end of August to 52 percent after the convention. In another category called "pure independents," those who report they lean neither liberal nor conservative (the radical middle?), McCain's support went from 20 percent before the convention to 39 percent after.

National polls are showing McCain with a small national lead for the first time. He's gained ground in the so-called battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico. Quinnipiac showed McCain with a 50-43 lead over Obama in Florida on Sept. 11, with large numbers of white female voters making a bee-line to the McCain side. McCain now leads Obama 47-45 among women in Florida. The first time Obama has trailed among women here.

The Palin factor has to be the major part of this change. McCain's acceptance speech was pretty good, especially the rousing "stand-up-and-kick-some-butt" peroration. (Some viewers were hearing McCain's moving personal story for the first time.) And, of course, an aggressive, smart-alacky, New Yawk cheeky speech from Rudy Giuliani is always fun. But no one with a pulse was moved to man the ramparts by hearing from orators like former Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge and Florida U.S. Senator Mel Martinez. (I can't help but believe convention doors were locked from the outside while these two spoke -- just the fact that most delegates were awake at the end of these two speeches shows how tough and focused Republicans can be.) It had to be Sarah who primed the pump.


OF COURSE, DEMOCRATS and cultural lefties, since the Sarah phenomenon exploded on the national scene, have spent a good deal of time either on their fainting couches or beavering away passing on Sarah groin shots from the liberal blogosphere. The "Slime Sarah" movement is as active in Florida as it has been across the country. But it hasn't gotten any more traction here than it has elsewhere.

Folks who didn't care a fig about the "Troopergate" story when it had to do with Bill Clinton are trying to pump some life into a Sarah Palin Troopergate. Otherwise bright people are trying to whoop up brain-dead stories about Sarah Palin such as Sarah the book burner, complete with an attached list of books Palin allegedly tried to have removed from the Wasilla Library, some of which were published years after Palin was mayor there.

Nothing is too preposterous for a desperate left, horrified that a strong and successful woman who has chosen a large family, belongs to the NRA, and sees the global warming scam as the crock that it is, is wildly popular among walking around Americans. "Hey, did you hear? She drinks the blood of flies for breakfast, and snatches food from the mouths of hungry widows and orphans."

McCain will appear at the Tampa Convention Center Tuesday morning. The McCain campaign here is having no trouble getting up a crowd to fill the center. Many among the Thursday night group will be there Tuesday. But there's palpable disappointment among them that Sarah won't be there too.

Could this be love?

Political sophisticates here, and across the country, are asking if the Palin phenomena is personal or political. Are voters attracted to Palin because of her positions on issues, her political skills, her courage in pushing reforms and going after political bad actors, and her leadership ability? Or are voters attracted to Palin by her good looks, her stage skills, her beautiful family, and her compelling personal story? Around here, seven weeks from the election, the answer to both of these questions appears to be yes.

 

Who Speaks for Islam ?

It is an established talking point on the left that we have created our own problems with our conflict in Iraq.  Our presence in Iraq is the greatest recruitment tool of the terror groups world wide, they say. Today’s reading presents cogent and scholarly arguments to the contrary.

Dinesh D’Souza in his Townhall.com article today talks about a recent book, Who Speaks for Islam, written by a leading Islamic scholar and the head of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies.  The data presented in the book is sometimes surprising and very important for our world view and our view of Islam.  Backed by empirical evidence, the authors state that traditional Muslims who make up the bulk of every Muslim country strongly identify with “the Western principles of rule of law, self government and religious tolerance.” 

The book compiles data from thousands of face to face surveys of Muslims in 35 countries.  The data challenges some conservative views which portray Muslims as violent theocrats rejecting science , capitalism and democracy.  And it shows that modern Muslims do reject 1960’s style liberal pop culture libertine ideas of the West.  So the conclusions are that the values of the cultural left are alienating Muslims.  America can engage the Muslim countries if we show that the traditional values of America are real not the Hollywood values.  Also that left wing groups such as planned parenthood and amnesty international should stop pushing feminism, gay marriage and libertine values to Muslim countries. 

But the most important conclusion of the book is that the American intervention in Iraq has not caused resentment and terrorism recruitment in Muslim countries – quite the contrary.  the perception is that in Iraq, America is allowing an elected Muslim government to rule according to Muslim interests and Muslim values.  As advertised, Iraq is the only country in the Middle East where the Muslim population actually chose there own rulers.  The perception is that we are not the problem.  This is a huge difference from the typical media spin and goes a long way toward vindicating the Bush Iraq policies in my view. 

Read Dinesh D’Souza’s article in its entirety <here>

The Esposito and Mogahed Book is available from <Amazon.com>

 

 

Perhaps the Teacher should learn a Lesson

I don’t mean to overdose on Charles Krauthammer today, but as I watched him in the round table discussion on Fox News this evening, he caught my attention again. 

In discussing the Sarah Palin interview with Charles Gibson of ABC, Krauthammer said he felt that Gibson’s gotcha question about the Bush Doctrine was wrong – and that he (Krauthammer) should know something about the Bush Doctrine as he (Krauthammer) was the first to coin the phrase in 2001. 

I have found the Charles Krauthammer blog article in which he lays the groundwork concerning the Gibson interview.  Krauthammer then goes on to explain that the phrase “Bush Doctrine” has evolved through four separate and distinct meanings over the eight years of the Bush Administration.

He characterizes Charles Gibson’s demeanor as the typical media snob talking down to the country bumkin while being inadequately informed himself on the subject of his lecture. 

My source: http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/09/13/charlie_gibsons_gaffee?page=full&comments=true

Saturday, September 13, 2008

Charlie Gibson's Gaffee

by Charles Krauthammer

"Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of `anticipatory self-defense.'" -- New York Times, Sept. 12

WASHINGTON -- Informed her? Rubbish.

The Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today.

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, he grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of The Weekly Standard titled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to Congress nine days later, Bush declared: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush Doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq War was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of pre-emptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of Bush foreign policy and the one that most distinctively defines it: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden ... to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points.

If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking about Bush's grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda.

Not the Gibson doctrine of pre-emption.

Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.

Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.

Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines, which came out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.

Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.

Yes, Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the phenom who presumes to play on their stage.

 

We Report - You Decide

As I read my own posts (boring and long – what can I say) I find that as we draw nearer to the election I am becoming more partisan.  It is not that I no longer respect the opinions of others – I do.  But I have listened and argued and discussed for months now and I see clearly the objective on November 4, at least from my point of view.  And the differences which divide the liberals and the conservatives are not changing.  Nor are my opinions.

Senators McCain and Obama participated in a forum on public service last night.  I was not able to watch it all, but was interested in the moderators pushing the concept of voluntary service driven by government action.  I was pleased to see Senator McCain agreeing with their goals but adding that a significant voluntary service effort needs to (and does) originate in the private sector. 

And this is my primary concern with the ideas presented by Senator Obama.  I want most of the needs of the society to be met by private sector action – whether that be voluntary service, employment, health care or technology.  The military continues to be the only endeavor that is more efficiently handled by the government rather than the private sector. 

The second concern I have with Mr Obama is that while he has inspired millions to see the importance of our selves, our communities and our political institutions and has appealed to the better angels of our natures, he is still long on style and short on substance.  He has not been specific about his programs other than to promise the moon and promise to make someone else pay for it.  It is my belief that when you soak the rich, everybody gets wet.  It seems clear to me that when the economy is weak and certain sectors of the economy are struggling – you do not talk about raising taxes.  I do not think that that makes me the equivalent of four more years of George Bush policies, but that is what Senator Obama will tell you.  Enough already, Senator.  What is your plan and what have you done as a member of the United States Senate to advance your plan other than run for higher office. 

I do not wish to refer to Senator Obama as an empty suit – because  it is not the way I see him.  I have commented many times that the Senate is not the best experience for the job of President – but that is all we have this year to choose from.  So as I look at Senator McCain’s career in the Senate I see effort and accomplishment to get something done.  I see a willingness to cross the aisle to build a consensus on controversial topics to get something done.  I do not always agree with the result – but he has been willing to compromise and to move a bill along through the system.  I do not see this in Senator Obama yet.  I have to recall the words of Hillary Clinton in the campaign – she claimed she had the experience to answer the three O’clock AM emergency call – she admitted that Senator McCain had that experience – but Senator Obama gave a speech while a member of the Illinois legislature.

And my last redundant and repetitive point for today is that Senator Obama was faced with a serious choice in the selection of his running mate.  He could have chosen Hillary Clinton with all her baggage and united his party and assured his election.  Had he done so, I would be writing today about how I was going to try to protect my conservative agenda during an Obama Presidency.  He did not make the tough choice he needed to make - and I believe he is vulnerable in the election because of it. 

See you at the polls.

I have also commented in previous posts that Senator Obama seems to have peaked in April.  Charles Krauthammer comments today with his typical wit and wisdom on that topic.  When I feature a post from another author I include a link to the original source for the article – sometimes I have not included the entire article – but also you may want to follow the link to see the comments that have been written to the author’s blog.  Sometimes interesting – sometimes scary – but usually worth clicking on the link to explore more ideas about the subject of the article. 

My source: http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/09/12/obamas_race_to_lose_-_and_he_might

Friday, September 12, 2008
Obama's Race to Lose - And He Might
by Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- The Democrats are in a panic. In a presidential race that is impossible to lose, they are behind. Obama devotees are frantically giving advice. Tom Friedman tells him to "start slamming down some phones." Camille Paglia suggests, "be boring!"

Meanwhile, a posse of Democratic lawyers, mainstream reporters, lefty bloggers and various other Obamaphiles are scouring the vast tundra of Alaska for something, anything, to bring down Sarah Palin: her daughter's pregnancy, her ex-brother-in-law problem, her $60 per diem, and now her religion. (CNN reports -- news flash! -- that she apparently has never spoken in tongues.) Not since Henry II asked if no one would rid him of his turbulent priest, have so many so urgently volunteered for duty.

But Palin is not just a problem for Obama. She is also a symptom of what ails him. Before Palin, Obama was the ultimate celebrity candidate. For no presidential nominee in living memory had the gap between adulation and achievement been so great. Which is why McCain's Paris Hilton ads struck such a nerve. Obama's meteoric rise was based not on issues -- there was not a dime's worth of difference between him and Hillary on issues -- but on narrative, on eloquence, on charisma.

The unease at the Denver convention, the feeling of buyer's remorse, was the Democrats' realization that the arc of Obama's celebrity had peaked -- and had now entered a period of its steepest decline. That Palin could so instantly steal the celebrity spotlight is a reflection of that decline.

It was inevitable. Obama had managed to stay aloft for four full years. But no one can levitate forever.

Five speeches map Obama's trajectory.

Obama burst into celebrityhood with his brilliant and moving 2004 Democratic convention speech (#1). It turned an obscure state senator into a national figure and legitimate presidential candidate.

His next and highest moment (#2) was the night of his Iowa caucus victory when he gave an equally stirring speech of the highest tones that dazzled a national audience just tuning in.

The problem is that Obama began believing in his own magical powers -- the chants, the swoons, the "we are the ones" self-infatuation. Like Ronald Reagan, he was leading a movement, but one entirely driven by personality. Reagan's revolution was rooted in concrete political ideas (supply-side economics, welfare-state deregulation, national strength) that transcended one man. For Obama's movement, the man is the transcendence.

Which gave the Obama campaign a cult-like tinge. With every primary and every repetition of the high-flown, self-referential rhetoric, the campaign's insubstantiality became clear. By the time it was repeated yet again on the night of the last primary (#3), the tropes were tired and flat. To top himself, Obama had to reach. Hence his triumphal declaration that history would note that night, his victory, his ascension, as "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

Clang. But Obama heard only the cheers of the invited crowd. Not yet seeing how the pseudo-messianism was wearing thin, he did Berlin (#4) and finally jumped the shark. That grandiloquent proclamation of universalist puffery popped the bubble. The grandiosity had become bizarre.

From there it was but a short step to Paris Hilton. Finally, the Obama people understood. Which is why the next data point (#5) is so different. Obama's Denver acceptance speech was deliberately pedestrian, State-of-the-Union-ish, programmatic and only briefly (that lovely coda recalling the March on Washington) lyrical.

The problem, however, was that Obama had announced the Invesco Field setting for the speech during the pre-Berlin flush of hubris. They were stuck with the Greek columns, the circus atmosphere, the rock star fireworks farewell -- as opposed to the warmer, traditional, balloon-filled convention-hall hug-a-thon. The incongruity between text and context was apparent. Obama was trying to make himself ordinary -- and serious -- but could hardly remember how.

One star fades, another is born. The very next morning McCain picks Sarah Palin and a new celebrity is launched. And in the celebrity game, novelty is trump. With her narrative, her persona, her charisma carrying the McCain campaign to places it has never been and by all logic has no right to be, she's pulling an Obama.

But her job is easier. She only has to remain airborne for seven more weeks. Obama maintained altitude for an astonishing four years. In politics, as in all games, however, it's the finish that counts.

 

Avon calling ! - Who ordered all this lipstick ?

Well, my spin on the Lipstick capers is a bit different, as usual.  I believe the lipstick comment was intentional (particularly since I believe I heard a commentator say that Senator Biden had also made a lipstick comment during the day - but I haven't had time to search for it).  But I believe the momentary insult to Governor Palin was incidental.  What I believe was Senator Obama's plan was to get the Republicans to respond so that he could launch again into his "there they go again" rant about how the Republican's always take an innocent comment out of context, gin up false indignation, and attack the Democrats for nothing more than debating points.  His intent is to trivialize the Republican Party and their candidate. 

Senator Obama has the option of delivering his campaign speeches with detailed programs and inspired discussions about his issues of choice.  He prefers to wander in the wilderness and blame his lack of any sense of direction on the Republicans. He is free to travel the high road of ideas and leave the response to the petty Republican attacks to his attack dog, Senator Biden, or other surrogates.  The problem is he doesn’t want to talk about his ideas.  He has come to the point in the road that many liberals come to when they can’t tell you what they want to do without losing your votes. 

Senator Obama ran for almost two years as the candidate against the Iraq war.  He is the lone dissenter in the land who opposed the war speaking from his chair in the Illinois Legislature.  Senator McCain’s support for the war clearly shows that he is unfit to be President because of his lack of judgment.  He ignores the fact that the Congress - and particularly the Senate voted overwhelmingly to support the war in Iraq – to include Senators Clinton and Biden.  And by the way, the Senators had access to classified information which they may not have thought to send to the Illinois legislature.  Senator Biden’s judgment was so poor on this issue that Obama selected him as his running mate.  And Team Obama doesn’t talk much about Iraq any more – because they would have to admit that the terrible investment of lives, resources and effort has begun to pay  dividends and that the long term goals for which those soldiers died are closer to being achieved. 

The junior Senator from Illinois is going to be the agent of change in Washington DC despite the fact he has demonstrated no record of change except in his own campaign.  And when he came to make his most critical decision so far in his campaign for the Presidency he selected Mr Liberal Establishment in the Senate as his running mate.  When he takes time out from talking about McCain being a fossil in the Senate, he picks a running mate with more time in the Senate than McCain.  Now there is change for you. 

All I hear from Team Obama is how Senator McCain represents a third term for George Bush.  Well – why aren’t we looking at Senator McCain’s record by himself rather than complaining about the guy who isn’t running for anything this year.  There are many instances of Senator McCain opposing George Bush and trying to cooperate with the other side of the aisle to move a legislative initiative forward.  I do not personally agree with some of those hybrid proposals on immigration, campaign finance reform and others – but at least Senator McCain was trying to reach a consensus and do something about issues that concerned him and his constituents.  Senator Obama has yet to roll up his sleeves in the Senate and write any legislation on issues of concern to him.  Senator Obama has not taken any action in the Senate on the blazing issues he speaks of in his campaign – of course he hasn’t been here very long. 

He is on the wrong side of gun control and the Second Amendment, abortion, energy and environmental agendas, income redistribution, taxation and the economy and the role of government. Since the first of April when Team Obama no longer had Hillary to fight, he seemed to see a lot of the air going out of his campaign.  His brilliant campaign against an icon of Democrat politics seemed to come to a glorious end without a good understanding of how to continue the fight against John McCain – a very different sort of opponent.  By becoming the nominee of his party – Senator Obama is now the establishment and he needs to be able to explain exactly what he is going to do to bring about all this change he speaks about.  And while Senator Obama doesn’t want to see any remnants of George Bush in a McCain administration – I certainly don’t want to see the policies of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid carried into the White House by our friend from Illinois. 

Senator Obama is truthfully a gifted and dedicated man.  While it is my hope that he remains in the Senate after the next election, I expect that he will continue to grow and influence the policies of this nation for a generation - regardless of the outcome of this election.  I wish him well.  His is a voice that we all need to hear from time to time.  But my choice for President this year is the other guy.

As I began to consider my response to the “Great Lipstick Scandal” I was pleased to find an article by Ken Blackwell which began with the thought that Senator Obama had uttered a sentence that would haunt him through election day and beyond.  When I realized he was not talking about lipstick – I knew I had found my featured article for today.  Ken Blackwell is a pretty interesting guy with distinguished credits in journalism, diplomatic service, federal service and local elected office (including terms as Mayor of Cincinnati).  I hope his voice will be heard in his home state of Ohio – very much a battleground state needed for a McCain victory in the Electoral College. Ken continues my theme of Senator Obama being a one-dimensional candidate on issues for this state of the campaign. 

My source: http://townhall.com/columnists/KenBlackwell/2008/09/11/words_obama_will_regret?page=full&comments=true

Thursday, September 11, 2008
Words Obama Will Regret
by Ken Blackwell

On Monday, Senator Obama uttered one sentence that could haunt him until Election Day. He said of Senator McCain and Governor Palin telling voters they would bring change, “they must think you’re stupid.” Given his stances on the surge, social issues, and his past, Mr. Obama will regret those words.

Let’s start with social issues like Second Amendment freedoms. Mr. Obama denies that he’s ever supported banning handguns, right after the landmark Heller case where the Supreme Court struck down Washington D.C.’s handgun ban.

When a 1996 questionnaire surfaced that had asked if Mr. Obama supported banning all handguns, his one-word written answer was “yes.” He said an unnamed staffer must have filled it out without his knowledge. Then another copy surfaced — this one with his handwriting on it. He says he must not have read that particular question. Sure.

On the hot-button issue of abortion, last month saw a growing concern over Mr. Obama’s opposition to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which states if an abortion is botched and a live birth results, the baby is entitled to medical care. The federal version of this law unanimously passed the U.S. Senate.

However, when a version of this bill came to the Illinois Senate, Mr. Obama opposed it. When confronted last month with the fact that the federal version of this bill had been supported by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer, Mr. Obama said the he would have supported the federal version. Those suggesting otherwise were lying, he said. Then it was revealed that a second bill was introduced in the Illinois Senate, and this one was identical to the federal version. Mr. Obama opposed that bill as well. He has yet to come up with an explanation on that one.

And there are Mr. Obama’s associations. Let’s start with the infamous Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Mr. Obama expressed shock that Rev. Wright would say things like “God damn America” and say the American government created AIDS to commit genocide against black people. Yet he belonged to that church for 20 years. He was married by Rev. Wright, had his children baptized by him, and even took his book title from one of the good reverend’s sermons.

When Rev. Wright’s outrageous diatribes surfaced, Mr. Obama refused to renounce him. Then when Rev. Wright repeated the same statements at the National Press Club, and Mr. Obama had clinched the nomination, suddenly he denounced him. Why? He said Rev. Wright’s statements in D.C. were unlike anything he had heard before and he was shocked. But those statements had been in the news for months. Are we to believe that Mr. Obama had not read or heard any of the news for weeks? Or that he never heard anything similar in more than 20-years of listening to Rev. Wright’s sermons? Hmm.

Bill Ayers is another stunner. Mr. Ayers bombed a police station and the Pentagon, and recently said he wished he had done more. He is an unrepentant terrorist, but is popular among the ultra-left in Chicago. When Mr. Obama was asked about Mr. Ayers, he implied that he barely knew him.

But once again facts have surfaced. We now know that Mr. Ayers hosted a fundraiser for Mr. Obama. They served for years together on a board with only a few people, and they worked closely on financial matters during those years. Does that sound like someone he barely knows?

And then we have the Iraq war. Congress authorized war against Iraq in 2002. The vote in the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate was an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 77-23. The intelligence provided to Congress was profoundly flawed, but based on the intelligence presented, Congress voted for war. That is why those voting for the war included John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton,and — yes — Joe Biden.

Yet Mr. Obama, who was in the Illinois Senate at the time and thus had no vote, opposed the war. He says that this shows his superior judgment, and that those voting for the war, like John McCain, lack the judgment to be president. But his vice presidential pick Joe Biden voted for the war, and Mr. Obama says Mr. Biden has the judgment to be president. How do you reconcile that?

And finally we have the surge. Mr. Obama opposed it, saying it was doomed to fail. Yet the troop surge has succeeded brilliantly, and all but the most dedicated diehards admit it. Now Mr. Obama acknowledges that it succeeded, but does not admit his predictions of failure were wrong. How were they not wrong?

These actions have made a pattern. Mr. Obama has changed his position on numerous occasions, cannot explain why he has done so, and yet his campaign expects us to believe that he never changed his mind on any of those issues.

He must think we’re stupid.

 

Surely that is not what they intended

We all get caught up in the moment and words don’t quite fit together.  Here are two examples.

And don’t call me Shirley…

My source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YooKkyikXw0

My source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbP7qQ_7Ieg

Have a safe weekend.

 

 

 

How low do we Go

There are some times that I really dislike American Politics.  This appears to be one of those times.

An anonymous commentor on a friends blog post <link> concerning the McCain speech last night has stated that a lawsuit has been filed alleging that Senator Obama is Constitutionally ineligible to serve as President.  Simon confirmed that a press release was available that confirmed that service of process had been accomplished. 

The Constitution requires few qualifications to be President.  Article II Section 1 states, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States”

I really do not want to dignify the allegations being made.   But certainly the case is of significant interest.  So I will provide links to a Washington Times news article dated 8/28/2008 <link here> and a purported copy of the actual complaint filed in the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  <link here> Note that the allegations contained in the complaint are not evidence and do not prove anything.

I express no opinion of the data which I am reading – some of which I am linking for your examination.  There is no evidence being presented here.  I expressed concern last December that the archaic language of the Constitution (the reference to natural born citizen) was a time bomb which should be addressed by Constitutional amendment before our election system hosts a disaster.  There are no Supreme Court precedents and  limited data which can be used to determine what the language means.  At the time I was unable to find such language in use after about 1800.  The irony is that I was looking at the circumstances of Senator McCain’s birth at a Military Hospital in the Canal Zone of Panama while his father was a serving Naval officer.  I had not seen any of this material referring to Senator Obama until today. 

The problem, of course, is that the allegations purported to be addressed in this case have apparently been around for a while.  Senator Obama’s Fight the Smears site pages claim to show a copy of the Senator’s birth certificate in responses to earlier allegations.  <link here>

If the jurisdiction and standing issues can be satisfied for this case at this late date, then the case could have been filed during the primary season months ago.  The filing of this case at this time seems to me to be a smear on our electoral system, as well as the integrity of the Senator.  Even if the allegations are supported – I do not want to win this way.  I can only hope that a Court of competent jurisdiction reviews whatever evidence is available and renders a clear and ringing verdict as soon as possible so we can concentrate on the issues facing our society.  This is not productive, no matter what the outcome. 

 

 

Browser Wars Continue

In the beginnings of the latest episode of Browser Wars, the Microsoft Empire Strikes Back with the introduction of Internet Explorer 8. Currently in Beta 2 version, IE8 is available for download and use. Remember that this is a beta version of the program and I recommend backing up your computer before you install any beta software.

The link for information and download is <here>

Those who, like me, use Maxthon – a front end which builds on IE for additional capabilities with IE compatibility for MLS applications – there is an upgrade available to work with the IE8 beta 2 release.

Information and download link for Maxthon <here>

Perhaps the most interesting release is the Beta version of the new Google browser – Chrome

I have been reading about the coming Google browser for a while and am excited to get my hands on it. This is an open source project and will change greatly over the coming months and years – but the first Beta release is interesting. I have just installed and have not had time to test extensively so I cannot address subjects like MLS compatibility yet. I will get back to you unless others post additional information that answers questions that will come up with a new product.

I will say this. Chrome appears to be the fastest browser in my stable so far.

Additional information on Chrome from Google and free download can be found <here>

All of these products are new - all are free but all are beta versions. And finally, all are Windows based. Chrome release for Mac is coming. So if you are interested in the cutting edge in Browsers and are a bit of a techie so that beta versions do not concern you, there are the latest in Browser toys.

Enjoy

Quo Vadis - Where are we (Republicans) going now?

The Republican National Convention is now part of history.  Tomorrow we begin the 60 day sprint to the November 4 election.  History has been made by both parties with the nomination by the primary system of Senator Obama – arguably the most inexperienced candidate in modern history – and the nomination by candidate selection of Governor Palin – also a newcomer to the national scene. 

Charles Krauthammer in his opinion piece, Incumbents for Change?, feels that the selection of Governor Palin fatally undermines the best line of attack against Obama – that is his relative youth and inexperience.  I have expressed that concern previously but I now have revised my argument to reflect re-examination of events.  You may read Charles’ article <here>

The primary election process, in my view, eliminated the experience argument.  In a year when the incumbent administration is totally unrepresented in this election – because of the baggage of the last eight years, Hillary made the fatal mistake of attaching her future to the experience argument and ceded the higher ground of change to Obama in the primaries.  Hillary could have run for change as the first woman candidate for President but she chose to claim that her experience in the administration of her husband gave her a mantle of an experienced incumbent.  The claim was ridiculous and she consigned her campaign to the scrap heap of history.  Senator McCain needs to pay attention (and he has).  The voters in the primaries rejected the inexperience card.

Then, in my view, Senator Obama made his fatal mistake.  He made the most traditional selection of Senator Biden for his running mate.  Biden is a six term senator with years of experience on the foreign relations committee – but also several poor showings as a national vote getter with multiple abortive attempts in Presidential elections.  Obama went, in my view, from being the young exciting candidate for change to being the candidate of the establishment with the most liberal Senator joining with the third most liberal Senator as running mate who also is one of the more senior on the block.  I believe that the intervention of history, that is the invasion of former Soviet Georgia by Vladimir Putin, may have caused Senator Obama to realize that the question of foreign policy experience might rear its ugly head and spotlight his thin resume.  His admission of his own weakness may have led him to a critical decision.

I think it is also a victory of arrogance and personalities over politics.  Obama could have chosen Hillary as VP and gotten the benefit of her star power and elements of change she might represent on account of gender.  I believe he was overconfident and was already looking forward to taking office without Hillary camping out in the West Wing.  Bill Clinton had the star power that Obama has.  But Bill ran as (and is) a more moderate democrat which Obama (and Biden) is not. 

Finally, it appears to me that the Obama campaign may have peaked back in June when he became the presumptive nominee.  His campaign floundered as he no longer had Hillary to fight.  Then on the eve of the convention, Obama may have taken a step backward with his selection of the establishment figure, Joe Biden, as his wing man.

In the meantime, John McCain takes an uncharacteristic, bold step which changes the race in a variety of ways.  Knowing that the primary voters have opted for change rather than experience on the Democrat side, Senator McCain selects a woman – and a gutsy, bright, formidable woman at that – as his running mate.  Suddenly McCain, the older, establishment figure on the right becomes the agent for change and shakes up the election process with his selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.   

Fate also takes a hand with the intervention of Hurricane Gustav.  I believe that the delay of the Republican convention will be beneficial to the candidate and his party at the minor expense of an extra day of electioneering (although Adam Putnam, Florida Congressman in whom I have an interest lost his opportunity to speak to the National Convention audience).  In addition to avoiding the possible Dr Zhivago images of the Republican party of the wealthy partying in Minnesota while New Orleans – site of one of the real failures of the Bush Presidency – faced potential destruction again, Gustav also showed the efficiency of the Republican administration of Bobby Jindal and the President with the FEMA and DHS departments of the federal government as they faultlessly and efficiently evacuated two million residents out of harms way during the approach of the storm.  I believe that this series of events subtly changed the memories of Katrina  and cast the Republicans in a sensitive and humanitarian light (well at least briefly). Delaying the convention was not only the right thing to do, but it was good politics too. 

It happens that a number of other issues are significantly improving as the Bush administration enters its final days.  Relations with Europe are at high levels, making the Democrat line of damage to relations with foreign allies sound disingenuous and incorrect.  Progress is being made in the Middle East as Israel and the Palestinians approach (cautiously) the possibility of agreements.  Secretary of State Rice will pay a visit to Libya next week - the first visit by an American SecState since 1953.  There appears to be progress in Iraq (I note the Anbar province - a major success story - has been turned over to Iraqi control) and Afghanistan.  Minor incursions into Pakistan border areas appear to be applying pressure on the new government there.  Signs of economic recovery are beginning to appear.  If relative success can be maintained for two months, The Bush administration should be going out on a series of high notes, muting much of the criticism of the over-anxious media and team Obama. Some of these situations are in a delicate balance and bad news is possible too.

Last Friday, Sarah Palin greeted the national audience with a very strong performance in Ohio in her first joint appearance with John McCain.  The leftist media countered with a series of despicable personal attacks that centered around the personal life of one of her daughters.  Not only did the media look into the personal life of the children, they suggested that Mom ought to stay home and tend her own house rather than entertain visions of the White House and Washington politics.  The clear sexist message should bring waves of condemnation from working mothers everywhere.  The media is clearly asking questions that would never be asked of a man.  Is any male politician considered unfit for election because they have children ?  If the stories talked of Governor Palin as a working mom instead of a Vice Presidential candidate, would the question have any validity.  This is a serious challenge to our concepts of gender equality and women everywhere should feel some empathy with Governor Palin.  Can that be converted to votes in November ?

Then we have the powerhouse performance of Governor Palin in her Convention speech last night.  Despite the pressure of the media attacks, she appeared to be composed, articulate, competent, professional and in control.  She told her story, laid out some of her accomplishments and policies and took some satisfying swings at team Obama.  She continued to display the WOW factor that has been her stock in trade, completely won the hearts of the thousands of party faithful housed in the Convention Center and reassured the home audience of 37 million people that she was a force to be reckoned with and a champion in her own right and on the McCain-Palin ticket.  It was fun to watch.

So where do we go from here.  The experience argument should fade slightly.  Where pursued, the new line is that the Republicans have their training program at the bottom of their ticket – the Democrats have theirs at the top.  But it is time to start talking about issues and policies.  There is a mere 60 days – a short sprint – to the November 4 election.  Money favors the democrats, momentum, I believe, now favors the Republicans.  The dynamics of the race have changed dramatically.  Governor Palin can cater to the conservative base while Senator McCain can concentrate on the independent voters and moderate democrats that he needs to win.  Both will concentrate on the battleground states of the Electoral College map.  I hope Governor Palin can find time to make appearances in support of Senate and House candidates to try to extend some coat tails (skirt tails?) to salvage the Congress and at least stop the bleeding, if not regain some control of the Senate. 

Another dynamic may change in favor of the Republicans.  Governor Palin is news – and she will get more coverage than a typical Vice Presidential candidate (time will reveal if that is the good news or the bad news).  She will now have to perform in all the other venues that she has not seen yet.  The one on one interviews, the gotcha sessions, the unscripted town hall meetings, the Vice Presidential debate, the Sunday morning talk shows.  Sarah Palin will have to continue to perform at the high level of expectations she has now set in forums where she will not control the agenda.  I believe she will continue to impress and will strongly contribute to the success of the McCain-Palin ticket.  It is a heavy burden for the Governor, but for eight weeks, she will carry the weight of the Republican Party on her shoulders.  I believe she will be up to the task if she can demonstrate the poise, skill and substance in the small venues that she has already brought to the blockbuster events. 

Game on.

Since I have already subjected you to 1500 words, I will merely provide a link to the Charles Krauthammer article referred to above.  I disagree with Charles on some points this week, but, as always, find him to be a knowledgeable analyst and an excellent writer.  Read his article today at Townhall.com at this <link>.