Conservatism Today

Donald Luskin on the Proposed Bailout

I admit to not having the expertise to address the issue of the proposed US Treasury bailout in any serious way, so instead I turn to someone whose economic advice I greatly trust, one Donald Luskin, who blogs at the Conspiracy to Keep you Poor and Stupid. This piece appeared at National Review Online. By the way, Luskin's blog made my list of the 24 Best Conservative Blogs.

To arrive at a principled view on this intervention, we must answer three critical questions: Is it necessary? Will it work? And even then, is it morally justifiable?

Unfortunately, we are thwarted at the outset. There’s simply no objective way to know whether the banking system is as close to disaster as top officials at the Treasury and Federal Reserve claim. They themselves don’t really know. This is a “banking crisis,” they say. But then again, other politicians claim there is a “health care crisis,” an “immigration crisis,” an “energy crisis,” and so on....

According to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation there have been 15 bank failures in the U.S. between 2007 and today. We had thousands over a few years in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Since the stock market hit an all-time high last October, the S&P 500 has fallen 23 percent. It fell more than twice that — 49 percent — during the last bear market, between March 2000 to October 2002.

Even if you grant that this really is a “crisis,” and that it justifies an extraordinary intervention, there can be no doubt that the $700 billion authority being sought for the purchase of distressed mortgage-related securities is far too great an amount. Of the $1.26 trillion in non-prime mortgages — that is, “sub-prime” and “Alt-A” mortgages — $743 billion is already either owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, companies that were shored up by a government rescue earlier this month. That leaves $521 billion, which means the Treasury’s $700 billion would be more than enough to buy them all. And that’s even if the Treasury paid full value. In fact, the Treasury will get a steep discount, considering that many of the mortgages in question are in delinquency or default. Does the Treasury really have to buy every single non-prime mortgage — even the healthy ones — twice over?

And if the Treasury’s authority were scaled down to something more in proportion to the size of the asset market it claims to address — say $350 billion — must that authority be granted all those dollars at once? Couldn’t we start with $100 billion and see how it goes, and go back later for more if necessary?

In order to restore confidence in these shaky markets, there’s no doubt the administration would claim that its commitment must be both large and irrevocable. But considering the enormous powers being vested in the discretion of a single unelected official — the Treasury secretary — markets may also find solace in the idea that there will be an accountable process for learning from mistakes and making appropriate corrections.

Which brings us to the next question: Will it work?

Nobody knows. On the face of it, it is plausible that the banking system could be reinvigorated by having unwanted assets taken off its books. With those assets gone, and replaced by government cash, banks could stop worrying about the bad decisions of the past and get back to the business of financing investment and consumption in the American economy.

Yet there is ample room for doubt. The officials advocating this — Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke — are the same ones who, in similar haste, engineered interventions this year in the collapses of Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and American International Group. With each intervention the banking crisis has gotten progressively more severe. Experts differ on this, but it is my professional judgment that these interventions actually made matters worse, because of the unintended consequences that were nearly impossible to forecast at the moment of decision. We simply cannot know what unintended consequences might be unleashed in the process of a massive acquisition of mortgage assets by the federal government....

It seems at first blush that spending $700 billion to buy mortgage-related securities would be a budget buster. But remember, this is not government “spending.” It is government “investment.” The Treasury would issue bonds, pay a low interest rate on those bonds, and use the proceeds to buy mortgage-related bonds that pay a high interest rate and can probably be sold at a profit in the future.

It also seems at first blush that the government ought to not bail out banks that made terrible investments they now regret. But remember, many of these bad investments were the result of government meddling. Would we be experiencing a sharp housing downturn, and a wave of mortgage defaults, if the Federal Reserve had not created a housing bubble and a mortgage bubble in the first place by artificially lowering interest rates to 1 percent in 2003 and 2004? And how much was the housing bubble inflated by the highly leveraged mortgage buying spree of government-sponsored and government-influenced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Shouldn’t the government shoulder some responsibility for its own mistakes?...

In the end, each principled conservative will have to use his or her own judgment to weigh the imponderables here and come to a conclusion, yeah or nay. As of this writing, I’m inclined to support the administration’s proposal, although I wish it could be made smaller, at least at the outset.

Hope that helps. Click the link above to read the rest. 

UPDATE:  More from Luskin on the effects of the bailout, as he predicts that it will be inflationary. You can see all of Luskin's regular appearances on Kudlow & Company at Luskin's blog.

 

Did the Joe Biden Gaffe Machine Exist in 1929?

I'm not sure. But according to Biden the television did, and FDR was President, not Herbert Hoover. As for the Biden Gaffe Machine, it's alive and well in 2008. From Powerline:

We knew we could count on Joe Biden to cheer up the campaign season. He gave Katie Couric this history lesson:

When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed," Biden told Couric. "He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'"

We're beginning to understand why Barack Obama chose Biden: he was the only potential Veep candidate who knows even less about history than Obama.

I'm starting to think he's purposefully trying to force Obama to replace him with Hillary Clinton.

Both Obama's and McCain's Tax Plans are Dangerous

As it stands right now, 33% of filers will have no federal tax liability in 2009. That number will increase sharply if either John McCain or Barack Obama get their plans approved. Under Obama 44% of filers would owe no taxes, while 43% would not owe taxes under McCain.

We are getting dangerously close to the tipping level, where half of the electorate can vote for benefits to be paid for by the other half, and win. In fact, we may already be there. Take the current 33% of people, who likely would vote for any benefit since they don't have to pay for it, add in liberals, and you are probably over 50%.

Nothing is a larger threat to this country right now than a majority of the people receiving benefits that they don't have to pay for. The result would be wealthy Americans leaving the country in droves, and taking their money with them. 

Oh yeah, while I think this is a horrendous change from past history, it sure destroys the GW Bush "tax cuts for the rick" mantra.

According to the most recent IRS statistics for 2006, some 45.6 million tax filers—one-third of all filers—have no tax liability after taking their credits and deductions. For good or ill, this is a dramatic 57 percent increase since 2000 in the number of Americans who pay no personal income taxes....

It is time for a serious public discussion of whether it is desirable to have so many Americans disconnected from the cost of government and what the consequences are of using the tax system as a vehicle for social policy.

Yes, it is time for a serious public discussion. Isn't it always time for a serious public discussion? When has there ever been a serious public discussion? 

Handling Hecklers: Obama vs Reagan

Here's a comparison between the way Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan handled hecklers. Obama: "Come on now, hold on.' Reagan: "Aw, shut up!"

And now the Great Communicator.

Observation Skills do not Equal Racism

The media is attempting to make racism the key factor when Obama loses this year's presidential election. Don't buy it. From the Trunk Report:

Racism is one of the most overhyped problems in America and a tool of the liberal elite to coerce people into their thinking. Most Americans could care less if Obama is black but they do care about his brand of political philosophy. I refuse to accept that mainstream America holds this level of radical racial misgivings. I have highlighted important statements from the Breitbart article that I think are interesting. 

More than a third of all white Democrats and independents—voters Obama can’t win the White House without—agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks, according to the survey, and they are significantly less likely to vote for Obama than those who don’t have such views.

Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20 percent of all whites said the word “violent” strongly applied. Among other words, 22 percent agreed with “boastful,” 29 percent “complaining,” 13 percent “lazy” and 11 percent “irresponsible.” When asked about positive adjectives, whites were more likely to stay on the fence than give a strongly positive assessment.

I agree with Trunk that racism is way over-hyped in America and "a tool of the liberal elite to coerce people into their way of thinking." That is why it is so puzzling to see from his response that he has allowed the liberal elite to coerce him into their thinking on this issue. After noting the numbers above, Trunk says:

Where did they get their sample, the hills of West Virginia? If it is true, I am kind of miffed at these crackers. Who cares about color, give me Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas or Michael Steele any day.

Nobody said anything about caring about color, these people were just asked to pick adjectives that might apply to a general population. And the fact that so few people picked these adjectives tells me that the media has succeeded in making people uncomfortable about simply noting what they know and what they see.

Stereotypes exist for a reason, and they aren't bad when used for what they are worth. And blacks and whites, while getting closer in some ways, still have very different cultures in America. And they are raised very differently, blacks often without a father figure and with less of a focus on education. To think this doesn't impact what many people eventually become is ridiculous.

Let's look at the adjectives. 20% said violent. Let's look at our nations prisoners. Blacks are 9 times more likely to be imprisoned than whites, and lest one think this is a result of racist conservative policies, the difference is much larger in the more liberal states. Is it wrong to assume that there is a bigger problem with violence in the black community than among whites? Who are these brain-dead 80% that said no?

11% said irresponsible. Nearly 70% of black children are born illegitimately, compared to around 30% of whites. The irresponsibility of black males has been cited as a major problem in the black community by Barack Obama, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. 58% of blacks, compared with 23% of whites, are raised by single parents. What is wrong with the 89% of people who didn't see irresponsibility as a problem in the black community? They have been beaten down by a media that refuses to talk straight about the issue.

22% said boastful. The other 78% apparently don't watch the NFL, NBA, MLB or listen to Barack Obama take credit for things he had nothing to do with. Most white people I know grew up in a household where if they ever reacted like Terrell Owens does after scoring a TD, they would have been told that you don't taunt opponents, that you act like you've been there before, and then whipped like Secratariat coming down the home stretch.

Let's face it, there are differences between the black community and the white community in America. We should accept it and work on changing it, not burying our heads in the sand and acting like it's racist to point them out.

And it shouldnt affect your vote. Every person is an individual and needs to be treated as such.

Go ahead, call me a racist. I moved to Phoenix from Wisconsin a week after my best friend was killed in a bar fight by a racist tool who was upset that my friend had the audacity to be black and publicly kiss his own girlfriend, who was white. That is racism. Observation of the facts as they are today is not.  

And as for racism being the difference in this election if Obama loses, one candidate expects to win 90% or more of the votes from one race. Hint: it isn't the white guy.

UPDATE: I miseed Rush today, but I just checked his site to see what he had to say, and as usual, he echoed my views while expanding on them for a view of what we can expect when Obama loses.

They didn't do a poll on Republicans bigots and racists.  They did a poll on Democrat racists and bigots and they found a whole lot of you.  They found enough of you that you could screw the election, you could screw Obama out of winning the election.  If Obama loses, do you understand what AP and Obama have just said, it's going to be you Democrats, you racist, blue-collar, rural union member Democrats are being set up as the explanation for Barry Obama losing the election.  I just find this amazing.  This is a complete setup.  This is a complete setup and an attempt to shame, because if Obama loses we're going to be told it's time for a national reexamination of who and what we are.  I see this coming.  I can just see it.  They will rewrite the outcome not as a difference of policy and experience, but racism winning out over hope and change.  Oh, America, we're still mired in the muck of slavery.  We haven't changed at all.  We still suck as a nation.  This, folks, is as grotesque as it gets.  Meanwhile, whites will not be voting 95% for McCain.  Blacks will be voting 95% for Obama.  And, of course, when you look at this poll and you read the whole thing, the only reason this could possibly be a close election is race.  Obama is not flawed, his radicalism is not flawed, his campaign's not flawed.  No, no, no, no.  His own racism and comments in San Francisco of course are ignored.  His racist appeals to Hispanics, those are ignored.  His sexist approach to Hillary and Palin.  But if he loses, it's only because we're such a racist country, and we're going to have to reexamine who we are and what we are.  

Now, the temptation here may be to demean white Democrats.  That would require accepting the nefarious premise of this entire disgusting media enterprise.  What they're saying is that blue-collar middle class Democrats, the more moderate or conservative part of the Democrat Party, they were the Reagan Democrats, are a bunch of racists.  This is the liberal media turning on blue-collar union members and the like, the very people Obama speared in San Francisco, trying to shame them into not being racists and then if Barry loses, again, it's the country's fault.  It's not because Obama's an empty suit, it's not because Obama's unqualified, it's not because we can't afford Obama, has nothing to do with Obama and his policies, his brilliance.  No.  It will all be because of race and the media will say we knew it, there hasn't been any changes whatsoever.  This country may as well be back in the 1800s.  I can hear it all.

Conservative Blogger Quote of the Day

OK, I got a late start today and missed the news of the Obama camp's dirty smear campaign and Astroturfing efforts. If you missed it too, you can read about it at Ace, Michelle and Jawa. But Ace, who helped expose this effort, wins my quote of the day for this gem, in naming his sources for the story.

Thanks to Brenn, Skiwd, Mr. Right, and, um, "Abu Al-Poopypants."

I have to say, Mr. Al-Poopypants, that your screenname is not exactly adding the credibility we need here.

Another Obama Supporter Damns America

This time it's Dallas Mavericks star Josh Howard. The asshat hates the National Anthem, too. From Rush, complete with translation of the video.

Surprise, Surprise: Palin's Email Hacker is Son of Tennessee Dem Congressman

From Gateway Pundit:

The son of state Rep. Mike Kernell has been contacted by authorities in connection with a probe into the hacking of personal e-mail of vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, Kernell told The Tennessean.

Kernell, a Memphis Democrat, said his 20-year-old son David had been contacted by authorities investigating the hacking of Palin’s personal e-mail account, the newspaper reported on its Web site this afternoon.

The FBI and the Secret Service started a formal investigation Wednesday into the hacking, according to the Associated Press.

Pretty low, even for a Democrat. But at least we know the Dems are still passing along their morality to their kids. Picture of the identity-thief and more, at the link above.

UPDATE: With a hat tip to Ace, here is this guy's blog. "Apocoliptic Visions." Ha! Looks like Daddy must have gotten him into college, because his spelling sure didn't. 

UPDATE: Here's the little tool on his "thinking" behind the hackery:

I read though the emails… ALL OF THEM… before I posted, and what I concluded was anticlimactic, there was nothing there, nothing incriminating, nothing that would derail her campaign as I had hoped, all I saw was personal stuff, some clerical stuff from when she was governor…. And pictures of her family

I then started a topic on /b/, peeps asked for pics or gtfo and I obliged, then it started to get big

Earlier it was just some prank to me, I really wanted to get something incriminating which I was sure there would be, just like all of you anon out there that you think there was some missed opportunity of glory, well there WAS NOTHING, I read everything, every little blackberry confirmation… all the pictures, and there was nothing, and it finally set in, THIS internet was serious business, yes I was behind a proxy, only one, if this shit ever got to the FBI I was fucked, I panicked, i still wanted the stuff out there but I didn’t know how to rapidshit all that stuff, so I posted the pass on /b/, and then promptly deleted everything, and unplugged my internet and just sat there in a comatose state

Obama: The Least Eloquent Speaker Ever to Run for President

At least when he's speaking without a teleprompter.

Snappedshot ran the speech through a tagger and came up with the following word picture. The larger the words appear, the more often they were used in the speech:

Uh, Ronald Reagan he isn't.

I'm Not Worried

Three recent polls give Obama the lead nationwide.

Gallup 48-44

Hotline 46-42

Quinnipiac 49-45

I'm not concerned. This is to be expected after all the media's Palin-bashing of late. More importantly, the individual state polls show McCain doing very well in battleground states. I expect this short-term bounce for Obama to come back relatively quickly.

Either way, it's over once people see the candidates in the debates. Obama without a tele-prompter? Frightening.

Barack Obama: Fannie Mae CEO's Co-Conspirator?

Bill Hennessy notes Barack Obama's unseemly relationship with disgraced former Fannie Mae chair Franklin Raines, which the mainstream media will surely do its best to ignore.

This is an eye-opener.  I’ve simply added Years in Congress and divided total Fraudie Mae and Fraudie Mac donations by that number to rank the top 15 recipients by $ per Year.  Obama is winner by a ton: 

In 2004, after a tip from a whistle blower who was later fired, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (Ofheo) issued a report finding that the government-sponsored entity Fannie Mae had engaged in Enron-like accounting machinations that allowed Fannie to overstate its earnings and underestimate the risk the company faced. The accounting wizardry Fannie engaged in was designed so that Fannie could meet profit targets tomaximize bonus payments to company executives like Clinton administration deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick and Carter administration assistant director for domestic policy Franklin Raines.

Now, this criminal is Barack Obama’s campaign adviser.  Only one member of Congress, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, received more kickbacks from Raines’s Fannie Mae cronies than did Barack Obama–over $120,000 in bribes...

We could face an economic DEPRESSION because of Obama, Dodd, Biden, Frank, Pelosi, Kennedy, and the rest of the Democrat criminals who’ve destroyed the housing market, put families on the streets, and wrecked Wall Street through greed and avarice on a scale unseen since the Roman Empire!

I’ll say it again without any fear of error:  Franklin Raines is  a criminal and Barack Obama is his paid accomplice.  Prove me wrong.

But we won't be hearing about this in the media any time soon. Instead, we'll be hearing the Democrat talking points about McCain being the problem, despite the fact that he predicted this over two years ago and co-sponsored a bill to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Why Socialized Medicine is Wrong for America

There are plenty of good reasons why socialized health care would be a disaster for America that have been covered by many people. From lack of choices, to poor quality, to waiting lines, to increase in government control over our lives, and on and on. I'd rather illustrate my biggest reason for opposing socialized medicine with a personal story. To me, socialism of any kind kills the American spirit.

Six years ago, a series of events changed the course of my life. I am fully convinced that I would not be the person I am today had they not occurred, and had I not responded to them the way I did. Let me start somewhere near the beginning.

I was 26-years old and working as a bill collector in 2001; I was pretty good at the job and made a good living, but I hated it. In the past few years I had gone from being a GM at McDonald's to the same job with Arby's to a short-lived stint in financial planning to this. I had done well at every job I had ever had, but had eventually set all my bridges ablaze like General Sherman on his march. It was at this time that my wife and I made the decision that I should go back to college to do what I always should have been doing, which is writing for a living.

What does this have to do with socialized medicine? Hang with me a minute. When I quit my job to go back to school, I lost my health insurance. I went to my old financial planning company (which was affiliated with AIG, of all places) and got an application for health insurance. And then I signed up for classes. And that application sat on my desk. And it sat. And it sat.

I went back to school, and was enjoying my learning like never before. And still that application for health insurance sat on my desk. Why? Certainly not because my wife didn't remind me to fill it out and send it in often enough. Perhaps, because as someone highly suited for the (now deceased) field of journalism, I don't do anything until a solid deadline is looming. Perhaps because I was young and felt good and saw no reason to waste money on something that I wasn't going to need in the near future. Either way, on my desk the application sat.

Eight months after losing my insurance as an employee, I awoke in the middle of the night. I couldn't move. I had this godawful pain in my stomach, and even breathing hurt. I awoke my wife, and it took us about 20 minutes to get me in the car to go to the hospital. I will never forget the pain I experienced for the rest of that night, nor the lessons that were to come from it.

At the hospital, we learned I needed to have my gall bladder removed. It was the size of a baseball, the doctor said. We told him I had no insurance, and since this is America, I was treated anyways. He told us we would be looking at around $10,000 for the procedure, and we were in no position to decline. 10K was not something we could readily afford, but in this case we would have to liquidate my wife's 401K. We would make it. And we had no choice.

I'm not sure exactly when we got the final bill, but the $10,000 figure had somehow become $32,000. I do remember laying in the hospital, recovering, and hearing Sean Hannity on the radio talking about socialized health care.

In my vicodine-addled state, I still recall thinking for a fleeting moment that if only we had socialized medicine in the United States, I wouldn't be worried about having to quit school and get a job. In this drug-induced state, I was tempted by the illusion that is socialism of any kind, and that, more and more, is found in today's liberalism.

But almost immediately my mind found release from the temptation. I asked myself some questions:

Who's fault is this? Clearly, it was my fault, and only my fault, that I was not insured. I had put off something in favor of spending the money on something else. I had made a choice. And a bad one, indeed.

Why should the American taxpayer pay for my stupidity? Why should the doctor? Why should anyone, involuntarily? There was no rational answer to these questions. I needed to pay it myself, or I needed some voluntary help.

What country did I live in? The good-old US of A. We Americans are known for overcoming difficult situations, for our goodness to those in need and for the opportunity we have to make of our lives whatever we are able to freely do. I had no reason to despair. This would be a minor setback at worst.

So I made a plan. As a former bill collector, I began negotiations with the hospital, and learned that I should be able to get the bill cut in half. With my abilities and knowledge of the system, I should actually be able to do more. I prayed a lot to find a solution. Through the whole process, my wife and I continued to give above and beyond the Biblical tithe (more than 10% of our income) to charity, as we had done for a couple of years. We never stopped believing that there was a better way out.

After a few months, I thought I was going to be able to settle my bill for about $14,000. That seemed a small price to pay for my mistake, and was almost exactly what the hospital would have received had I been insured. (Insurance companies pay far less than the actual billing cost of any procedure.) But, at the last moment, the hospital suggested I apply for a financial hardship.

Let me tell you, there was no hardship, other than my own stupidity. My wife earned enough money that I could afford to go to school and not have to work. Yet our savings didn't reflect my wife's new-found increase in income. But, believing we had been given another shot at this, I filled this application out immediately. Less than one week later I was notified that a private charity, a church I was not affiliated with, had paid our bill in full. It was, literally, a gift from God.

And I saw that my wife and I had helped bring it about. We never wavered in our belief, we never stopped being charitable, and we never gave up on our conservative ( personal freedom-based) outlook on life. In that fleeting moment where I considered succumbing to the easy secuction of socialism, I nearly lost what made me a free human being. I nearly lost my belief in God as the gaurantor of my prosperity and my well-being, and gave it over to man. But I didn't. It made me stronger when I rejected it. And God gave me the way out of my problem when I trusted in Him. 

And this is where the Hillary's and the Obama's and the Biden's don't understand what is unique about America. They preach community, and a giving spirit, but they believe government should do this, not themselves as free people. They would, either unknowingly or out of thirst for power over our lives, destroy community in America.

We have seen in the past week that Obama and Biden talk the talk, but even though they earn 2-3 times more than my family does, they give 20 times less than we do. They don't walk the walk. That's what socialism does to people, it tells us that government is our master, and that government meets needs, not free people under God.

But they are wrong. The United States of America is the most giving country in the world, because of our freedom. That would die forever with the adoption of socialized medicine.

Alexander Hamilton once said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one!"

This realization has changed my life. I took control of it, and began planning to be more than I thought I could be. When I graduated this Spring, I resisted the easy choice of getting a job at a newspaper making a minimum salary and working for a master who would control what I could express. I'm an American, and my rights come from God, as established in our founding documents. I can make it myself, with God's help, and while doing so I can give to help others who truly can't make it by themselves. And so I have.

Socialized medicine might be OK for the Brits and the French and the Canadians. Their Constitutions don't guarantee freedom under God. They have spent most of the last century preparing themselves for a master, and they are well suited for one.

But it is my belief that Americans are not yet so weak as to think that they need government to make them whole. The American spirit, that gift of God and of a mostly-free country, is alive and well. And I trust and pray that we will prove that to the rest of the world once again, and reject the rest of the world's desire that we bow to a government under the leadership of an Obamessiah who promises to right all our wrongs, but doesn't explain how it will be the destruction of us as a free nation. Instead, we will continue to not-so-bitterly cling to a government of and for the free people of the United States of America, under God.

Barack Obama was in Fannie and Freddie's Pockets

From Ace of Spades.

So, lets look at total money received by the candidates from these four companies.

John McCain $170,025
Barack Obama $653,123

That's nearly 4 times more money received by Obama, and about 13 times more to Obama from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

And he wants people to think he is going to change business as usual. Not to mention, John McCain actually predicted this and wrote a bill that could have prevented it.

Conservatism Today Makes Top 15 List

Thanks to Trunk Report for listing me among his Best Conservative Blogs. Click on that link to see the rest, which I pretty much agree with.

Full Disclosure: I met the author of Trunk Report yesterday, so he may be biased. I'll take it, though.

For those of you who have seen my in-depth list of the best conservative blogs, don't be surprised if Trunk Report is in there when I do it again. He has a nice start going, including this piece from earlier today.

Most Obnoxious Quotes About Sarah Palin

John Hawkins of Right Wing News lists his 20 Most Obnoxious Anti-Palin Quotes so far:

Has there ever been a vice-presidential nominee who has inspired as much hatred, fear, and outright sexism as Sarah Palin has in such a short period of time? Keep in mind that quotes about Sarah Palin and her family you are about to read -- many of which are from members of the mainstream media -- have been generated in a mere 3 weeks time. If I missed any, forgive me. I'm not entirely sure it's possible for any one human being to keep up with the amount of bile that's being spewed at Sarah Palin and her family right now by the netroots, liberal celebs, and the mainstream media.

Here is a sampling:

19) "Is our country so divided that the Republicans best hope is a narrow minded, media obsessed homophobe?

...Women have come a long way in the fight to have the choice over what we do with our bodies... And its frightening to see that a woman in 2008 would negate all of that.

Oh, and...Hint Hint Pali Pal- Don't pose for anymore tabloid covers, you're not a celebrity, you're running for office to represent our, your, my COUNTRY!

And in the words of Pamela Anderson, "She can suck it".." -- Lindsay Lohan

16) "They are true believers in the idea that one can be very sexy but also desexualized, which is why Palin is being treated like this giant sex object, because she's got a practiced ability at being f*ckable without showing that she might be the sort who wants to f*ck." -- Former John Edwards's blogger Amanda Marcotte from Pandagon

10) "They shouldn't have the right to call themselves Christian, for they have no Christ-like attributes. I am a feminist and a Christian - and when I see Sarah Palin - I see neither. And it is official. She is evil." -- Margaret Cho

Go to RWN for the rest.

Clinton Afraid of Palin?

Hillary Clinton has dropped a scheduled event to protest against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, after learning that Sarah Palin would be attending the same event.

Clinton aides were furious. They first learned of the plan to have both Clinton and Palin appear when informed by reporters.

"Her attendance was news to us, and this was never billed to us as a partisan political event," said Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines. "Sen. Clinton will therefore not be attending."

A McCain-Palin campaign official, speaking on condition of anonymity because Palin's schedule for Monday has not been announced, said only that Palin tentatively planned to attend the rally.

Apparently, Senator Clinton wasn't too excited about a possibly real-life repeat of this SNL skit (not that they were very nice to Palin either, but it was hilarious):

On Abortion: "A Defining Moment"

I met with London Locke, a reader of Conservatism Today and a fellow Arizona State University student on campus yesterday, and am pleased to report that conservatism is alive and well among the younger crowd. London recently started a blog that, after less than a week's time, is already showing great promise: Trunk Report

London is a committed conservative who lives his ideals and is not afraid to discuss them. Look no further than this piece he allowed me to print here:

Recently my new family, consisting of myself and my wife, had a life defining moment. A defining moment I believe reveals a person’s true nature or beliefs. These moments also test the strength of the principles you supposedly hold dear. The nature of this story is deeply personal but I hope that sharing it will make a difference. 

My wife and I have been married for just under two years. During a majority of that time we were both students at Arizona State University. When my wife graduated her school insurance was terminated with her and her birth control prescription had only a limited number of renewals before she had to see a doctor again. It didn’t seem to be a problem because my wife was to be working as a teacher and would have insurance shortly.  

Unfortunately my wife’s new insurance plan was to start a month after her birth control prescription was to expire. We researched the options and realized that very few were available for use to choose from in our current financial situation.  

As a new family, one that believes that welfare is fundamentally wrong if you don’t need it and one that doesn’t lie on federal aid forms when applying for grants to college, financing a doctor’s visit was a big deal. We literally were broke because we were paying for my college education, my future application to law school, and the basic survival necessities. I am sure those who struggled when they were first married or went to school understand what I am getting at. A couple hundred dollars was a huge deal for us.  

A few of our friends who faced similar circumstances recommended Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood could provide a low cost doctors visit to get a renewal prescription on my wife’s birth control.  

Uneasiness set in immediately regarding Planned Parenthood. Knowing they were responsible for providing abortions and their history made me very uncomfortable with the whole idea, even for just a birth control prescription. Justification also set in and I and my wife decided we were just using them for the prescription and nothing else.  

The day of the appointment came and for days it was eating me alive that we were doing this. I woke up the morning and it was on my mind. The images of aborted babies kept coming to my mind’s eye. I knew my wife was walking in the doors of her appointment and I knew I had to do something about it. 

I called my wife and told her how I felt and that I thought we should not use such services. She agreed and related her experience in the Planned Parenthood waiting room.  

“Young girls littered the room, aging from what it looked to be 14 to 18. Some sat with their boyfriends who looked significantly older and most of them were crying. A bathroom was next to one of the doors with boys and girls shuffling in and out with their urine samples. It was a depressive place that I knew I shouldn’t have been.” 

When we spoke on the phone we both agreed that it wasn’t right supporting a place that murdered innocent life. We knew that by using any of their services we were endorsing their abortion services.  

This story represents a fundamental difference in the values of Americans, especially when it relates to our Presidential election. There is a clear cut difference when it comes to the defining of our values. Obama believes babies are, “a punishment”, where I am grateful to see them as a gift from God. The politics of the left are defined in the ideas of abortion, class warfare, and radical egalitarianism. I am also grateful me and my wife made a relatively small decision not to use Planned Parenthood. A decision that defines in my opinion why conservatism is so great and why it is so important that McCain win the election in November.  

Abortion is not my number one issue, but I appreciate his stand for his beliefs. It takes a lot, especially as a young adult, to have the strength to stand on principles even when it may not be in your best interests at the time. I made a similar stand regarding health insurance that I may share with you when I get a chance.

Let him know here, or at Trunk Report, what you think. If you'd like to see more from London Locke at this site, let me know.

McCain Predicted Freddie/Fannie Debacle Two Years Ago

While Barack Obama lined his own pockets. To quote somebody, "Next time call John McCain."

From HotAir: 

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

I really don't know what to add to this. If people think Barack Obama is better equipped to take on special interests than John McCain, the are sadly mistaken. In fact, Obama was the 2nd most grateful beneficiary of this shadily-run operation.

It (McCain's bill) never made it out of committee.  Chris Dodd, then the ranking member of the Banking Committee and now its chair, was in the middle of receiving preferential loan treatment from Countrywide Mortgage, one of the companies gaming the system in the credit crisis.  Meanwhile, Barack Obama took hundreds of thousands of dollars from the lobbyists McCain mentions in this speech, making him the #2 recipient of Fannie/Freddie money.

Speaking of bills, and Obama... (Crickets chirping)

McCain to Receive Endorsement from DNC Member, Clinton Supporter

Thanks to Chris for the tip. From CNN:

Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a prominent Hillary Clinton supporter and member of the Democratic National Committee’s Platform Committee, will endorse John McCain for president on Wednesday, her spokesman tells CNN...

Forester was a major donor for Clinton earning her the title as a Hillraiser for helping to raise at least $100,000 for the New York Democratic senator’s failed presidential bid.

In an interview with CNN this summer, Forester did not hide her distaste for eventual Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

“This is a hard decision for me personally because frankly I don't like him,” she said of Obama in an interview with CNN’s Joe Johns. “I feel like he is an elitist. I feel like he has not given me reason to trust him.”

  This is pretty bad news for the Obama campaign, and could lead to other major Hillary Clinton supporters taking the next step to go outside the supposed wishes of Hillary Clinton. Back in June, Lynn Forester de Rothschild made it clear that Obama needed to pick Hillary or risk losing the election:

“He’ll lose women, he’ll lose Hispanics, he’ll lose seniors and he’ll lose that working community. If Hillary’s not there, I don’t think they’re going to relate to Barack Obama,” she said.

Some Londoners call her “Lady Lynn de Pushy.”

She has had long been a power player, counting the Clintons and Tony Blair as good friends. Former husband Andrew Stein is former New York City Council president.

“It is less painful to do what she wants than to resist her,” Kissinger told New York magazine.

It looks like Obama made an enemy he didn't need. Judgment.

The Audacity of Obama's Hypocrisy

Yesterday I wrote about Joe Biden's hypocrisy when it comes to helping those who are less fortunate. Today, we turn to Barack Obama's similar hypocrisy. From Boston.com:

On Sept. 8, Fox News broadcast an interview between Obama and Bill O'Reilly that focused on taxation and the economy. Obama repeated his pledge to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans, while raising taxes on the tiny fraction who earn more than $250,000.

"That's class warfare," O'Reilly objected. "You're taking the wealthy in America, the big earners . . . you're taking money away from them and you're giving it to people who don't. That's called income redistribution. It's a socialist tenet. Come on, you know that."

"Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill," Obama replied. "Teddy Roosevelt supported a progressive income tax." He acknowledged that he doesn't enjoy paying taxes either - "you think I like writing the check?" - but that "there are certain things we've got to do." His tax proposal, he explained, was a matter of civility:

"If I am sitting pretty and you've got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can't, what's the big deal for me to say, I'm going to pay a little bit more? That's neighborliness." If that is Obama's rationale for making the tax code even more steeply progressive than it already is, it's no wonder voters are having second thoughts about his economic aptitude.

"Neighborliness." Perhaps that word has a nonstandard meaning to someone whose home adjoined the property of convicted swindler Tony Rezko, but extracting money by force from someone who earned it in order to give it to someone who didn't is not usually spoken of as neighborly. If Citizen Obama, "sitting pretty," reaches into his own pocket and helps out the waitress with a large tip, he has shown a neighborly spirit. But there is nothing neighborly about using the tax code to compel someone else to pay the waitress that tip.

Taxation is not generosity, it is confiscation at gunpoint. Does Obama not understand the difference?

And this is the problem with our liberal friends. They believe in using government to "help" other people, but they don't walk the walk.

Perhaps he doesn't. Eager though he may be to compel "neighborliness" in others, he has not been nearly so avid about demonstrating it himself. Barack and Michelle Obama's tax returns show that from 2000 through 2004, when their adjusted gross income averaged nearly a quarter of a million dollars a year, their annual charitable donations amounted to just $2,154 - less than nine-tenths of 1 percent. Not until he entered the US Senate in 2005 and began to be spoken of as a presidential possibility did the Obamas' "neighborliness" become more evident. (In 2005-2007, they gave 5.5 percent of their income to charity.)

Obama claims his proposal would lower taxes for 95 percent of Americans, but well over 43 million tax returns, one-third of all those filed, already reflect an income tax liability of zero. In fact, Obama says, his plan would eliminate income taxes for an additional 10 million taxpayers. What he is really proposing, therefore, is not tax relief but a bald transfer of cash - $1,000 per family, he pledges - from the wealthiest Americans to everyone else. In 1972, George McGovern advocated something similar - a $1,000 "demogrant" for every US citizen. Just last year, Hillary Clinton suggested that the government start off every new baby with a $5,000 savings account. Voters didn't take the bait when McGovern and Clinton offered it. Here's betting they won't take it now.

So Obama talks a good game, but in his personal life he didn't give any significant amount until he was contemplating a run at the presidency. And he wants to use that office to coerce money from people like you and me, who already give generously, to provide help for the poor.

To amend yesterday's Biden campaign slogan, how about this: "Obama/Biden:  High taxes, the only way to make useless asshats like Barack Obama and Joe Biden help people who are less fortunate."

I Thought it was Conservatives who were Supposed to be Sexist

 But apparently this passes for wit among liberals today. The guy who made this must think the ability to photoshop means he has balls. Palin would chew him up. Stay classy, libs.

Hat tip to Moonbattery.

What ABC Edited out of the Sarah Palin Inteview

Pretty much everything that would have left a good impression. From Mark Levin, the bold-face type was edited out of the interview that we saw.

On dealing with other countries:

GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.

GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.

PALIN: Right.

GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.

PALIN: Right, right.

GIBSON: I’m talking about somebody who’s a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?

PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we’ve got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody’s big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state … these last couple of weeks … it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.

On Russia and Georgia:

Grading Barack Obama's Economy Essay

Flip at Suitably Flip has a hilarious "copy" of the essay on the economy that Barack Obama put up on his website recently. It is four pages long, so you'll have to go there to see it all. Here are pages one and four:

McCain Tied in Pennsylvania

Last week I predicted that John McCain would win in Pennsylvania, a state he has trailed by 5-10 points most of the election. The latest Rasmussen poll shows that (shocker here) I will probably be right, as momentum is all going McCain's way. Note the high favorable ratings for McCain:

The latest Fox News/Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state finds Barack Obama and John McCain each attracting 47% of the vote (demographic crosstabs available for Premium Members). Eighty-three percent (83%) of Obama voters are certain they will vote for him and not change their mind before Election Day. An identical percentage of McCain voters say the same thing.

A week ago, Obama was up by two points after holding five percentage-point leads in August and July.

The latest poll finds the Republican candidate is viewed more a bit more favorably among voters than his opponent. McCain is viewed favorably by 60%, up three points from a week ago. Obama’s ratings are at 52% favorable, down three points.

Pennsylvania went for Gore and Kerry in 2000 and 2004, respectively. A McCain win there, along with likely wins in Ohio and Florida, would pretty much seal the election. If McCain wins those, Obama would probably have to win Virginia, Colorado, Missouri and every other state that is currently leaning to Obama. That ain't happening.

Joe Biden: Stingy Hypocrite Bastard

Joe Biden wants to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. He wants government to do the taking, apparently out of the belief that some rich people are such stingy assholes that they won't help people on their own. And he knows from experience. Here is the info on his charitable giving for the last decade:

                    Adjusted 
                    Gross Income              Charity

1998             $215,432                      $195

1999             $210,797                      $120

2000             $219,953                      $360

2001             $220,712                      $360

2002             $227,811                      $260

2003             $231,375                      $260

2004             $234,271                      $380

2005             $321,379                      $380

2006             $248,459                      $380

2007             $319,853                      $995

Total             $2,450,042                    $3,690

$2.45 million earned in ten years, $3,690 given away in charity. What a tool.

I, on the other hand, don't believe in stealing from the rich to help the poor. My wife and I gave over $8000 to charity last year (a typical year for us) while I was still going to school. Our income was far less than half of Biden's yearly income. And we doubled his giving for a decade in one year.

My wife and I don't give to charity to flaunt our goodness, and that isn't my point. Almost everyone I know gives like we do. But I will definitely take the opportunity to use it to point out Biden's hypocrisy.

Here's a possible slogan for the Obama campaign:

"High taxes: The only way to make useless asshats like Joe Biden help people who are less fortunate."