Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Well President Bush, if you are looking for public approval of bankruptcy for the auto industry you can start here. Yes, bankruptcy however viewed and the difficulties attached to it is a long standing method for repairing failing companies as well as an option for individuals who find themselves in critical financial failure. There are more than several forms of bankruptcy and Chapter 11 is common and has been used many times to restructure failing companies and have them emerge later stronger for the effort. Certainly there have been those who have failed even with the option of bankruptcy. But if the auto industry is sincere in their expressed interest to save jobs and the businesses they represent as well as having an honest and practical plan for restoring the companies they operate, bankruptcy is the answer.

To receive public funding and risk taxpayer’s money with the probability they will not honor their obligations or be required to by the federal government, a bailout would do more harm to consumer confidence and to that of the markets if they are allowed a free pass on their dismal records at other’s expense. There should not be this much discussion on the subject which indicates the whole matter has become political and should be concluded with bankruptcy.

As for the article below, President Bush is right. The warnings were given and ignored. The subprime mortgage mess was the prime mover in the financial meltdown. Much needs to be repaired and the bailout frenzy is part of that. No one is as concerned, Mr President, about your legacy as they are the economic strength of the nation. Please use your remaining time if office to help fix the economy in a prudent manner. By default that will help shape your legacy in a way you will like as well as the rest of us.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Bush Says Economic Meltdown Forced Aggressive Intervention

President Bush says the ongoing financial crisis has forced him to endorse aggressive government intervention in numerous economic sectors in spite of his core, free market principles. President Bush restated his desire to prevent the U.S. auto industry from going bankrupt, while stressing that federal intervention should be temporary.

President Bush came into office eight years ago with an agenda of low taxes and limited government. But, in a wide ranging discussion in Washington, Mr. Bush admitted that the economic meltdown of the last year has forced him to set some of those principles aside.

The latest example is a rescue package the administration is contemplating for troubled U.S. automakers. An earlier attempt at a rescue plan passed the U.S. House of Representatives, but the measure failed in the Senate.

Mr. Bush noted that the U.S. auto industry employs millions of people, and that it is on the brink of collapse. “I am worried about a disorderly bankruptcy and what it would do to the psychology and the markets,” he said.

Mr. Bush said he intends to act, but has yet to decide how best to do so.

Earlier this year, Congress approved a $700-billion financial rescue package. Mr. Bush said he disliked the idea of such massive government expenditure and intervention, but that he had been warned of a possible economic catastrophe worse than the Great Depression if no action were taken.

The president was speaking at a gathering of the free market policy organization, the American Enterprise Institute. He was asked to respond to accusations from Democrats that his economic agenda sowed the seeds of the financial crisis.

“I’m looking forward to the true history of this financial crisis being written,” said Mr.Bush. “No question part of the crisis came about because of excesses in lending in the housing market. My administration early on expressed concern about implicit government guarantees in the mortgage industry, in Fannie and Freddie.”

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government-sponsored mortgage insurers that have benefited from the financial rescue package.

Mr. Bush added that he understands the frustrations of ordinary Americans whose tax dollars are propping up corporations because of what he described as the “excesses on Wall Street.”

The president, whose term ends next month, also expressed disappointment that free trade pacts with Colombia and Panama have not been ratified during his time in office.

With the President-elect’s choices to fill vacancies for a new administration heavy on former Clinton cronies and the often heard criticism of this being a third Clinton term the ‘change’ mantra of the Dems or ‘change you can believe in’ slogan from the Obama campaign suggest that all you can do is invoke the other Dems mantra….. hope. Not an impressive beginning for the next Presidential Administration but those who support the next President urge withholding criticism until he has had a chance to lead.

If not from the Clinton clan the choices for vacancies in the coming Obama Administration seem to focus on Illinois or Chicago politics. President-elect Barack Obama announced Arne Duncan, the head of the Chicago school system, as education secretary Tuesday and declared that failing to improve classroom instruction is “morally unacceptable for our children.” Relying on Illinois for filling vacancies may be a little risky. One example would be from the press announcement linked just above. A reporter was ‘cutoff’ when inquiring about Rahm Emanuel being on a federal wiretap discussing the Senate vacancy with the Blagojevich camp. All just mentioned are tied to Illinois and Chicago politics. It has been suggested that Blagojevich is not stepping down in hopes of negotiating deals for himself and his wife without which he might use whatever he has to damage Obama or Mayor Daley.

The only change seen so far appears to be 60 or so members of the freshman class for the 111th Congress. Al Franken is still engaged in the recount fight with Norm Coleman in Minnesota. The process, at the outset anyway, was grindingly slow. In the first two hours, the board had ruled on 46 votes challenged by Franken. Of those, the board awarded 26 votes to Coleman, 7 to Franken and 13 to the pile for ballots where intend couldn’t be determined or were disqualified because of marks that might identify the voter.

And Caroline Kennedy has decided to follow in the family tradition seeking to fill the US Senate vacancy left by Hillary Clinton in NY. And of course there is the vacancy in an Illinois seat for the US Senate that surrounds the soap opera that is Governor Blagojevich. The controversy for Kennedy lies in the fact that she emphatically endorsed Obama early in the campaign and now wants Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat. On top of that there are those who publicly question her credentials for being a senator. One quote addressing her name recognition suggested J Lo has name recognition too. She has taken a different path in her life to this point than many in her famous family and that fact was even complimented on this blog in the past. Now that the family’s political prominence may be fading is that the driving force behind her decision?

Then there is the real Democratic party situation which is ‘no change’. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is still, well, Nancy Pelosi. Quick to make statements and predictions as in her forecast that Congress will pass a $600 billion stimulus package early next year but says hopes of accomplishing anything yet this year is fading. For Nancy, that certainly is not new. Continue to predict what will happen and when it does not blame the opposition party. In other words, we did nothing again this time but just wait until next time. Ya, whatever. And BTW Nancy, where is all the money coming from anyway? What happens when it runs out? Are you just going to start printing more?

More of no change from the Dems finds Dianne Feinstein as head of the Senate Intelligence Committee and John Kerry to head the foreign relations committee. Nothing new there and nothing to get excited about unless you are interested in worrying about what will go wrong next. Feinstein’s questionable conflicts of interest with her husband engaged in the defense business and her post on MILCON, the military construction appropriations subcommittee, never saw the light of day even though she resigned that post when allegations surfaced and claims to be an ethics reformer with earmarks transparency legislation. And John Kerry fancies himself some kind of major player in politics. He has seen his share of controversy but that does not necessarily translate into a stellar resume’. Failed attempts at a White House bid and running errands for the Dems elite does not propel a career. It would appear the committee assignment is a consolation prize for not getting Secretary of State after doing the party’s bidding.

The final note in this post on recent news features more irony from the Dems. It would be humorous if not so pathetic. The very people responsible for promoting policies that ignited the subprime mortgage mess are now complaining that the White House has not done enough to relieve homeowners in or near foreclosure.

“Absolutely nothing has been done to respect that part of the legislation,” Pelosi, a California Democrat, told reporters as she discussed the House’s agenda in coming weeks.

She and Frank have talked about “legislation that insists that the provisions of the (TARP) law be honored, before we release any more funds,” Pelosi said.

Legislation demanding more foreclosure mitigation will be ready within the next couple of weeks, said Steven Adamske, an aide to Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who chairs the House Financial Services Committee.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd said last month he was willing to legislate if the financial sector failed to do more to curb foreclosures, restrain executive pay and modify mortgages to help struggling homeowners.

The GOP has made some progress in returning to conservative principles including fiscal restraint by opposing more bailout programs but the effort is not entirely convincing. The White House seems content to negotiate a legacy by spending us into oblivion and the Dems are right behind them with a $600 billion stimulus package with no end in sight.

It might be fair to say that leaders in both the public and private sectors have lost their collective minds except for the fact these sort of dealings are not new. It is just the small matter of the numbers being used do not fit any reasonable equation. The math is not working. Politics and business as usual have run into a severe problem with reality. How large a burden is the American taxpayer expected to bear. It is understood that the small percentage of wealthy taxpayers at the top pay the majority of taxes in this country. But that is small consolation to the unemployed or those whose own budgets are strained to the breaking point even while employed. Not that we don’t all share in the problems currently faced. But those in a position to affect the most change toward solutions seem to be slightly out of touch with reality. Unless the only reality is to use their influence for their own gain and the rest be damned.

Merry Christmas

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from White House Press Secretary Dana Perino:

It is disappointing that while appropriate and effective legislation to assist and restructure troubled automakers received majority support in both houses, Congress nevertheless failed to pass final legislation. The approach in that legislation provided an opportunity to use funds already appropriated for automakers, and presented the best chance to avoid a disorderly bankruptcy while ensuring taxpayer funds go only to firms whose stakeholders were prepared to make the difficult decisions to become viable, competitive firms in the future.

Under normal economic conditions we would prefer that markets determine the ultimate fate of private firms. However, given the current weakened state of the U.S. economy, we will consider other options if necessary - including use of the TARP program — to prevent a collapse of troubled automakers. A precipitous collapse of this industry would have a severe impact on our economy, and it would be irresponsible to further weaken and destabilize our economy at this time.

While the federal government may need to step in to prevent an immediate failure, the auto companies, their labor unions, and all other stakeholders must be prepared to make the meaningful concessions necessary to become viable.

# # #

Does anyone else smell the White House caving to the auto industry?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Dear White House: No means no (Michelle Malkin) 

Another classic situation of two competing arguments vying for taxpayer money.  Those who claim the sky is falling and not bailing out the auto industry will offer chaos to the American economy and the other argument which says ‘not so fast’.  The typical ploy of describing impending doom as a method to gain support for a dumb idea is once again at the heart of the discussion in Washington DC.

Rather than spending more taxpayer dollars and then trying to get them back if the auto industry continues to fail, forcing them into bankruptcy, take bankruptcy now. The auto industry would certainly not be the first business to accept such a fate.  And if successfully emerging from Chapter 11 at some point in the future they would not be the first to do that either.

Enough with the frenzied approach to use taxpayer dollars to bail out everyone who has failed.  Stop the insanity now.  Let those who are failing or those who have failed use standard measures to fix their problems rather than making those problems ours.

Good for you, Senate Republicans opposing the auto industry bailout.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Senate Republicans Vow to Block Aid to US Automakers

Tate report - Download (MP3)
Tate report - Listen (MP3)

Congressional Democrats say they have reached agreement with the White House on a deal to give U.S. automakers billions of dollars in loans and require the companies to restructure to stay competitive in the global marketplace.  Although the deal has wide support in the House of Representatives, but its fate remains unclear in the Senate, where Republicans say the measure does not go far enough to force the industry to reform.

The proposal would make $14 billion in loans immediately available to General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford to help shore up the beleaguered automakers through March. The loans would come from already-appropriated money.

In return, by the end of March the companies would have to submit a restructuring plan to achieve long-term viability and international competitiveness.

Some Senate Republicans were quick to express their opposition to the plan. They argue that giving automakers money first and then demanding that they restructure is the wrong approach.

Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama is among several Republicans who are vowing to block the bill from advancing in the Senate.

“Unless Chrysler, Ford and General Motors become lean and innovative and competitive in the marketplace, this is only delaying their funeral,” he said.

But Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, the state where the automakers are based, warns that if one or more of the companies go bankrupt, millions of jobs would be lost - further harming a U.S. economy, which is already in recession.

“This is more than just penalizing a company that you are mad at. This is about the underpinnings of our economy, and fundamentally whether we are going to compete with every other country and make things in an advanced, manufacturing economy,” said Stabenov.

At the White House, Deputy Chief of Staff Joel Kaplan says President Bush would be in touch with individual Republican lawmakers to win their support for the plan.

“We wanted to make sure that it was tough and that this was not a bridge financing to nowhere, that we could look these members in the eye, and we could look the American people in the eye and say that this measure gives these companies a chance and their stakeholders a chance, but its not a lifeline to continue with bad management and a bad business plan,” said Kaplan.
The plan also calls for the president to appoint a so-called “car czar”, someone to oversee the loans and monitor the companies’ progress toward reforming.

Congress and the American automobile industry’s CEOs from GM, Ford and Chrysler continue their kabuki dance in Washington. In public view it would appear that politics and business as usual are responsible for avoiding a sensible approach. From concerns about an initial bailout of 25 or more billion taxpayer dollars being offered as an early Christmas present for automakers the latest figure in the press seems to be 15 billion with oversight. Is that the Congressional effort to make the whole thing more palatable to the general public? Lowball the front end offering and when things quiet down hand them more money when no one is looking? Why are the carmakers not being required to use the typical restructuring plan of bankruptcy available to all troubled businesses?

Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) stopped just short of advocating bankruptcy for the automakers. His plan concludes with the following statement. “These are the same types of conditions a bankruptcy judge might require to ensure that these companies become viable and sustainable into the future, and if they will agree to these terms then we have something to talk about. The process I have suggested would allow them to avoid the problems and stigma that accompany a formal bankruptcy, while forcing them to do the things they need to do to be successful companies.”

The ‘problems and stigma’ Senator Corker states pale in comparison to the refusal of automakers to accept the fact they have done little to remain competitive over the last few decades. Bankruptcy is exactly the course that should be taken. It requires the same entities who were involved in this failure, the automakers and their creditors, to arrange for salvaging the situation they all contributed to without involving the American taxpayer. The same could be said for other bailouts on the public dime but it is probably too late for that but no reason for allowing the insanity to continue.

Progress made in bailout plan for Big 3 automakers
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS – 6 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional negotiators continue hammering out legislation that would dole out billions to automakers — but promises to yank back the money if a government-run board and overseer decided the companies weren’t taking steps to overhaul themselves.

The plan would draw the emergency aid from an existing loan program meant to help the automakers build fuel-efficient vehicles. The size of the package hasn’t been finalized, but it is expected to be about $15 billion, several congressional aides said.

The unnamed Congressional negotiators and aides as well as the attempt to convince the public their money will be carefully utilized to save the auto industry provide little comfort based on Washington’s track record for decision making to date. It would not be a surprise if the politicians and business ‘leaders’ in this particular scenario employ the time tested tradition of dragging this out until the average citizen loses interest and they have no fear of public outrage to do what they planned from the beginning. Let the public pay for the fiasco. Perhaps that is why they always express concern for the ‘middle class’ as that is the group who shoulders the burden of paying for politics as usual.

Not that the general public shares no responsibility for the current economic problems and the bailout frenzy active in the nation’s capitol but they are not in as strong a position as those who control government and corporate America when it comes to influencing the outcome of public affairs. If the current problems and their implications for the future strength of the American economy are not sufficient to cause the public to change that fact it is likely nothing ever will.

(A Monday report from Reuters suggests a deal may be completed today. Wonderful, just wonderful

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The same pair of politicians responsible for Democratic party leadership in both the House and Senate are at it again. The same two people who blame everything on President Bush and the GOP in general are content to continue with politics as usual even though their brand of leadership has kept the Congressional approval rating in the tank. Did Harry Reid tell Nancy Pelosi to issue a release on December 1st about ‘their’ economic recovery plan or is she so accustomed to repeating herself that it just comes naturally? Regardless of the topic these two always point to the opposition party when things fail. And with their failure rate and lack of public approval the finger pointing is nearly non-stop.

If you had your doubts about whether or not the DNC is socialism in America, the statements by Reid and Pelosi express their intent for government run everything. If that is not socialism, what is? Oh, the economy is in the tank, let the government fix it. Oh, we need more jobs, let the government fix it. We need to wean ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, forget domestic production, let the government fund alternative fuels. And with all this spending on top of what the GOP and Dems allowed over the last years we’ll even promise a tax cut. Yup, drain the treasury bailing out everybody and drive government spending up even more and promise a tax cut. How the hell is all this supposed to work?

Reid’s revelation that we all knew it was a recession before (below) the NBER announced it is not accurate. Given the psychological nature of financial markets it is not unreasonable to suggest the MSM and lefty politicians crying recession helped drive the economy down. A previous post on this blog points to the dubious nature of the NBER and its ‘recession dating’. In reaction to this near self-fulfilling prophecy the Senate Majority Leader and House Speaker suggest government spending to renew ‘confidence’ in the markets. If you believe in psychology for lifting the markets you have to believe in the reverse. So Harry, Nancy, how about it? Did you and your accomplices stress the economy during the 2008 campaign as a two-fold strategy? Make the economy the main issue since you lost the one on the war. While using it in the campaign you hoped your constant lament of how bad things were would wreak havoc on the financial landscape. There ya go. Wreck the economy in an effort to win an election and then spend the nation into oblivion bailing out everything you wrecked in pursuit of the socialist idea of government run everything

It’s almost genius in terms of political strategy but hard to believe it came from the same people who presided over the loser 110th Congress.

December 1, 2008
Reid: Confirmation That U.S. Economy Is In Recession Is Hardly News To American Families

Washington, DC—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made the following statement today after the National Bureau of Economic Research announced the American economy has been in recession since December 2007:

“To American families struggling every day, today’s announcement that we have been in a recession for the past year is hardly news. The announcement simply makes official what we have long known – with rising costs of living, rising unemployment, record foreclosures and depleted savings, we must do more to help families make ends meet. Those efforts must include a substantial economic recovery package that creates good-paying jobs here in America, cuts taxes for the middle class and instills confidence to stabilize a volatile market. With the cooperation of our Republican colleagues, we intend to send a plan to the White House as soon as possible following President-elect Obama’s inauguration next month.”

###

12/01/2008
Pelosi: Economic Report a Clear Signal for Republicans to Drop Opposition to Economic Recovery Package

Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement today in reaction to the National Bureau of Economic Research’s announcement that the American economy entered recession in December 2007.

“Today’s report from the National Bureau of Economic Research comes as no surprise to America’s families and underscores the need for immediate, bipartisan action to create jobs and get America moving again.

“The report is a clear signal to President Bush and Senate Republicans to drop their opposition to the House-passed economic recovery package that will help lift our economy and begin creating jobs again.

“Congress will continue our commitment to new jobs and opportunity by working with President-elect Obama to enact bold economic recovery and job creation legislation in January that will cut taxes, invest in a cleaner and independent energy future, rebuild and modernize schools, roads, and bridges, and expand 21st century communications and energy infrastructure across the nation.”

11/26/2008
Pelosi: Economic News Makes Clear President Must Drop Opposition to House-Passed Recovery Package

Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi today issued the following statement in reaction to the latest economic news that 529,000 Americans filed for jobless claims last week, consumer spending declined by 1% in October and the number of Americans on food stamps could exceed 30 million for the first time.

“The latest economic news makes clear that President Bush and Senate Republicans must drop their opposition to the House-passed economic recovery legislation that would provide a down payment on creating jobs, helping states avoid deep cuts to health care and essential services, and deliver emergency nutrition assistance to struggling families. Democrats again call on President Bush and Senate Republicans to work with us to enact this legislation in December.

“Congress will continue to work with President-elect Obama on bold economic recovery and job creation legislation that will cut taxes, invest in a cleaner energy future, and rebuild schools, roads and bridges. The 111th Congress will act immediately on this legislation to restore consumer and market confidence and ensure America’s global competitiveness.”

Boehner Statement on the National Bureau of Economic Research Announcement that the U.S. Economy is in a Recession

Washington, Dec 1 - House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today issued the following statement on the announcement by the National Bureau of Economic Research that the U.S. economy has been in recession since December 2007:

“The economic scorekeepers at the National Bureau of Economic Research have now confirmed what working families and small businesses have known for quite a while: the United States is in a recession. Clearly, we need to respond, but the American people know that the answer to this challenge is not out-dated policies that do nothing but increase Washington spending. We need a real plan that puts the American people – not bureaucrats – first. Congress should enact an economic growth plan that would double the child tax credit, suspend the capital gains tax to help people rebuild their 401(k)s, reduce tax rates that drive businesses overseas, stop unnecessary lawsuits that destroy jobs, and create a million new jobs by developing America’s energy resources. I look forward to working with the new President and his economic team as we confront this serious situation.”

NOTE: To respond to the economic downturn, Boehner has introduced a Rapid Recovery Plan for economic growth that emphasizes pro-growth policies such as energy reforms that would create one million new jobs, stronger 401(k)s, and tax relief rather than new government spending.

#####

There is the argument that when Reagan took office as President with a dismal economic situation his tax cuts raised government revenue and stimulated the economy to a point rarely seen in the past. House Minority Leader John Boehner seems to be playing on that theme with the same regularity that the Dems express their stand on the issue. With the exception of the lawsuit item his comments are reasonable based on past experience. But rather than publish press releases both parties should restrict most of this debate to meetings between Congressional leaders and committee members with the sole purpose of finding effective solutions and stop wasting time.

There is little point in politicians invoking typical expressions of gridlock or politics as usual or bipartisan or hope or change. The best chance for restoring confidence in the markets and helping Americans through tough economic times is for Washington politicians not to make things worse. Action from Washington is more often a hindrance than a help. Just throwing taxpayer money at problems is not the answer. Similar to problems faced by the public at large and private sector enterprise the government needs to get their own house in order. Stop talking about doing things differently and let results speak for themselves. If those in Washington perform effectively their will be no need for politics as usual and the rest of what disgusts Americans about our government. Now the question is, are they up to the task. History would suggest that is not the case.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

“The economic recovery plan we are going to bring in January has to be big enough to deal with the huge problem we face, to do the range of things we need to do - not just to get out of our problems in the short-term, but to build our economy in the long-term,” said David Axelrod. “Our hope is the new Congress begins work on this as soon as they take office in January, because we do not have time to waste.”

Given a contracting economy with rising unemployment and a plummeting stock market, Mr. Obama clearly believes that aggressive government action is required to reverse America’s financial slide.

Has everyone lost their mind? While President Bush attends to tasks generally expected by a president in the final days of an administration and likewise President-elect Barack Obama attends to the tasks of a president about to take office, some of what the Obama transition team is suggesting coupled with what is happening at the Treasury, Congress and the Bush White House has certainly grabbed the public’s attention.

What was once measured in millions and then billions is now being moved in the trillions of dollars. To hell with partisan politics and Washington gridlock because they have all lost any evidence of reason in proposals and decision making. This country cannot continue to spend money like it grows on trees or we can print it. Okay, we can print it but that won’t help either. At some point you have to pay the price for or consequences of prior actions. From Wall Street to the corporate boardrooms to Congress, the White House and all our houses the time to correct the excesses of the past and present is long overdue. Continuing to spend trillions of dollars we don’t have will not solve the problems but make them worse. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Probably the most often expressed excuse for government action and corporate begging in the current financial troubles reported from around the world is that banking or financial systems must be protected and large corporate interests are too large to fail. The follow up to that as an excuse for the massive spending of taxpayer money suggests that the solutions presented are flawed but it has to be done to prevent something worse from happening. Why are those kind of statements not being challenged?

The only challenge submitted so far seems to be Congress requiring the group of automotive manufacturers who have gotten in line to participate in the taxpayer money gravy train to provide business plans before receiving any funds to ‘bail’ them out. But that may just be a typical ploy of politicians to appear responsible. There is nothing in place to oversee their analysis of whatever is presented to them by the private jet execs who balked at adjusting their annual compensation as a good faith gesture for admittance to the public money train. So both sides of that discussion bought a little time to cover their collective butts as they approach the predetermined outcome for the exchange of money from public coffers to private treasuries. Someone has to pay those multimillion dollar salaries.

So the well-heeled politicians and corporate warlords with plenty of economic security at taxpayer’s expense can continue business as usual while the rest of us are left to fend for ourselves. Not that most of us mind doing it but when the pols and CEOs are living off the fruits of our labor they should not be entitled to enrich their own lives while adding risk to ours.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The fish wrap NYT has an account of the Bailout/Sellout bill approved on the second attempt in the House after a political stunt of approving it in the Senate earlier this week. Pelosi and Boehner were heard supporting the bill and in the report excerpt below several things are clear. President Bush strong armed a few dozen GOP members and Paulson calls it ‘a vote to protect America.’ So where were all these fine people while the storm was brewing or before? But the part that needs to be looked at is the ‘portfolio’ of tax provisions included in the agreed upon version that the President signed.

The Democrats get to cover their complicity in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meltdowns and everyone is still cozy with the crowd on Wall Street. Another serious flaw in our federal government will ignored if the bailout and all that goes with it is covered over by Washington and their accomplices during execution of this so-called bailout plan. And what does it do to avoid such malfeasance in the future? The answer is probably nothing.

More posts on this coming soon.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A significant number of Republicans changed their votes from last Monday, when only 65 voted in favor. President Bush spoke to “about three dozen” House members this week to try to persuade them to switch from “no” to “yes,” the White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.

Another kind of persuasion surrounded the Senate deliberations of the bill. A portfolio of popular tax provisions was added before the Senate voted in favor of the program on Wednesday night by 74 to 25.

Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. said agency workers were already working on details to put the rescue plan into effect, so that no time will be lost now that the president had signed the legislation. Mr. Paulson called the House action “a vote to protect the American people — and their jobs.”

Mr. Paulson, who appeared with President Bush in the Rose Garden, was asked how he felt now that the rescue plan has cleared Congress.

“Better,” Mr. Paulson replied.

Remember how it all started for John McCain’s VP selection? Christians applauded her piety, gun-lovers her love of guns and pro-lifers the Down’s syndrome baby she calls “perfect”. And nearly everyone warmed to her moose-skinning authenticity. “I give her extreme credit for being a mother of five and a governor. I’m a mother of five. And I can barely keep milk in the house,” said Kelley McDonald of New Jersey. John McCain was both applauded for selecting a woman as his running mate in view of the Democratic party’s refusal to pair up their two largest vote getters, Obama and Clinton (Hillary) and criticized for not selecting either Lieberman, Pawlenty or Ridge.

So some of the sheen surrounding the selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as John McCain’s Vice-Presidential nominee has worn off. Introduced as an ideal compliment to the maverick style of John McCain, accolades from many in the GOP touted her courage for challenging her own party, fighting the good fight against big oil and opposing the bridge to nowhere as well as placing the state jet on Ebay. Since then she has been accused of supporting the bridge to nowhere, conspiring with big oil, losing money on the sale of the jet and fund raising for Ted Stevens. About the only thing her detractors have not attacked is her rating as the most popular governor in the country. Although some have said they’re not so sure about that either.

In keeping with the tradition of late night talk show hosts poking fun at public figures, Tina Fey has made a living off of Sarah Palin lately but one has to wonder if that is simply using what is popular for comedic fodder or using one’s own popularity to promote a political agenda. Some of it is funny and credit is due for that but how much of it is more of the same from Hollywood lefties. Speaking of lefties, how about the kook fringe and their over the top practices?

The Economist went to press before Mr McCain’s speech on September 4th. Both he and Mr Obama say they want to unite their country, but their two parties’ conventions showed a gaping cultural gulf. In Denver abortion-rights advocates handed out condoms with the logo “Protect yourself from John McCain”, while Obamaphiles wore badges that substituted “Obama” for “God” in the motto “In God We Trust”. Evangelicals in St Paul sighed that secular Democrats probably did not realise how offensive this was.

And the GOP convention had more wonderful attempts from the kook fringe of the DNC. Outside the Republican convention, largely peaceful protests were marred by a few thugs who smashed windows. More violent disruptions were avoided, however, because police informants infiltrated a gang of anarchists who were allegedly planning them. Police seized weapons and buckets of urine, apparently intended for throwing at people. Lawyers for some of those arrested demanded the return of their possessions. “Who should we return the urine to?” asked the judge, according to the Star-Tribune, a local paper.

The less than inspiring tactics of the kook fringe were not lost on their Messiah either as one of his campaign ads criticized John McCain as being out of touch for not using technology like the PC and email. Did they really not know that Mr McCain is not able to do some of those things as a result of injuries sustained while a POW? McCain was also criticized for referencing his service to country by what those critics claimed was overuse of the topic. Perhaps the reason why they did this is that their own candidate has no similar history to report. And the Messiah is all too willing to sidestep questions about his affiliations with domestic terrorist William Ayers as well as Rev Wright and Tony Rezko. Which makes it hard to believe that his campaign reference to ‘lipstick on a pig’ was not a shot directed at Sarah Palin especially when he used it so soon after her campaign quip about hockey mom’s and pitbulls.

The MSM is equally guilty of conspiring against Sarah Palin in support of their left side agenda. Pouring out an abundance of trash such as whether or not her baby she calls ‘perfect’ is her’s or her daughter’s. Focusing on the pregnancy of one of Sarah Palin’s daughter and questioning the Governor’s parenting skills as well as criticism of her career choices and having it all when the same criteria is not applied to men. What the hell does any of that have to do with Sarah Palin running for Vice-President of the United States?

The one and only VP debate for this year may put an end to the attacks on Sarah Palin but that is doubtful even if she is viewed as a decisive winner after the competition. What appears to be the reason for all the Palin bashing is the rift within the DNC for not nominating Hillary Clinton or inviting her to join the ticket after nominating Barack Obama. That the Clintons are expected to fully support Barack Obama for President is a purely political demand from the Democratic party. It is also understandable given the dominance of party politics in this country in addition to there only really being two parties in existance in terms of real power. It would be fair to say that neither Presidential candidate is ideal as viewed by the majority of party voters in the US. Things being what they are, how often has any candidate been popular enough to ignite genuine overwhelming support from thier party followers and independents? The pont is this year as in most years past you make a selection from two choices and you may wish you had a viable third option.

By luck of the draw Obama is seeing some renewed interest as the polls may suggest simply because the current financial troubles favor the opponents of the party occupying the White House. Considering the fierce battle between Bush and McCain in the 2000 primaries it is hard to fathom how anyone really sees the two as similar. Obama’s reference to McCain voting with the White House ninety percent of the time is a lame argument. If you study the voting records of most politicians that will be the likely result. Most politicians vote with their party unless they need political cover. Sort of like the Senate voting for a bailout when the House did not. House members are mostly up for re-election while that is not the case in the Senate.

If you let the curent financial crisis determine your vote this November as you blame John McCain for it you should first consider that he supported an attempt to avoid this crisis in 2005. The Democratic party has a much more vested interest in the subprime mortgage mess, Fannie and Freddie and folks like Chris Dodd who are in the pocket of the aforementioned GSE’s or government sponsored enterprises.

As for the hope and change mantra from the DNC, et al, hope buys you nothing and change will come no matter who is elected since George Bush of course was term limited and Cheney was never interested in a run for President. The truth is the Democratic party is mostly to blame for the current financial problems. Those problems will only increase if Obama is elected and is allowed to continnue the party agenda that is responsible for the subprime mess inspired by the Community Reinvestment Act (Carter), the deregulation of banking (Clinton) and the support of Fannie and Freddie (Dodd and cronies).

Have a nice time watching the VP debate. Think it through before you vote. Let not the idea of change misguide your selection for President this fall.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Sound bites, shifting positions, the search for political cover and more delays from Washington which may prove to be the best medicine for for the so-called financial crisis. One quote from John McCain offered by the press relates to the need for the government to do something.

“This is something that all of us will swallow hard and go forward with,” McCain said on ABC’s “This Week.” “The option of doing nothing is simply not an acceptable option.”

The same goes for a quote from Barack Obama on Face the Nation last Sunday. “My inclination is to support it,” said Obama…”While I look forward to reviewing the language of the legislation, it appears that the tentative deal embraces these principles.” What principles? Oh is doesn’t matter. There are more sound bites and reports to muddy the water. But Obama’s ‘inclination’ is what may best describe Obama, unsure on most things. The Reuters’ source for these quotes had this title, ‘McCain, Obama tentatively support bailout plan.’ .

McCain said he had urged Bush in a morning call to use the Treasury’s Exchange Stabilization Fund to expand the financial services it guarantees beyond money market accounts. He also said he urged Bush to require the Treasury use its roughly trillion-dollar authority to shore up mortgage values. This is a little more to the point and shows McCain wants taxpayer bank deposits, etc., protected and to keep property values from free falling. But the USA Today’s report excerpt is not a quote. It is the paper interpreting what McCain said. The only quotes in the piece say nothing like what is stated above. The McCain quotes offered mostly speak in generalities while the only specifics express a desire to raise FDIC insurance which both McCain and Obama support. Perhaps that is what the title ‘McCain urges Bush action on crisis‘ really means rather than what it suggests and what USA Today interprets from thin air.

RENO, Nev. (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is calling for Americans to get behind attempts to salvage a $700 billion rescue plan for the financial sector.

Not to provide any cover for Barack Obama but no where in the brief AP report referenced above is there a quote from Obama saying anything like what is in the excerpt shown here. The MSM is helping the Democratic party in their search for political cover for complicity in the subprime mortgage mess which people are now calling the financial crisis, meltdown or biggest disaster since the Great Depression.

And headlines or titles from both Google and CNN in the next piece also cloud the issues. ‘McCain, Obama: Raise deposit insurance to $250000′ while true, Google, is not the title of the piece at CNN to which your link points.

McCain, Obama: Raise deposit insurance to $250000
CNN - 4 hours ago
(CNN) — The $700 billion economic rescue plan failed in the House of Representatives because people don’t think it will do anything for them, Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain told CNN’s “American Morning…..

And CNN’s title to their report is misleading as well. McCain: I ‘may fail,’ but Congress has to ‘get the job done’ Later in the piece a more complete quote from McCain is presented. “But if I think I can do some good, I’ll do it. I may fail a first or second or third time, but we have to get this job done for America.”

No where have these reports shown what they are trying to claim. That Senator John McCain supports the 700 billion boondoggle.is not accurate. He supports action, he supports, as does Obama, of raising FDIC insurance coverage and what needs to be done to repair the damage done by the subprime mortgage failures.

Here’s a view for you. Who is responsible for allowing the bank deregulation? The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act broke down barriers between banks, securities firms, mortgage lenders and insurance companies. That deregulation repealed Great Depression-era bank regulations with the approval of former president Bill Clinton.

The House version of the bill was passed by 205 Republicans and 138 Democrats. The Senate bill was passed on a party line vote with Republicans voting yes and Democrats voting no. President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law.

As posted here earlier Senator Chuck Hagel and Senator Elizabeth Dole, both on the Senate Banking Committee as well as co-sponsor Senator John McCain offered a bill to correct problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, etc., and the bill died in their own committee. That was 2005. Senator Dodd is on the committee and has been Chairman since the Democratic majority was won in the 2006 midterms. He gets lots of money from banking interests as well as other members of Congress. How is it that not until the subprime mortgage mess exploded in the markets his chairmanship and the complicity of many other Democrats with Fannie and Freddie has not been front and center in the discussion?

The Community Reinvestment Act while not in itself a root cause to the subprime mess had its effect on the problem. Having banks lend money in areas from which they receive deposits, including low income areas, is a good thing. The Dems signed on as it is right up their alley in terms of their claim to champion the little guy and help the less fortunate. So Fannie and Freddie begin increasing their involvement with low income lending. Over the years money flowed to Dems from Fannie and Freddie, more loans were packaged and as the real estate market bubbled and prices rose dramatically. When the classic good credit market was saturated, deregulated banks, Fannie and Freddie and others expanded whom they would lend to and reduced minimums to cover just about everyone. And the money kept pouring into the Dems wallets. While everyone looked the other way and got fat and happy the bubble burst.

So now who isn’t holding bad paper? Who is too big to fail? How is all this going to be paid for? Can Dems get political cover by convincing the GOP to vote with them?

Is there enough blame to go around? Certainly, there always is. But the Dems are backing the 700 billion boondoggle or as Michelle Malkin calls it, crap sandwich, and most Republicans are not in favor of it. 2/3 of the GOP voted against the bill this week. A surprising number of Dems voted against it. But a boat load of Dems and one third of the GOP in the House voted for it. Barney wants it. Chris wants it. Harry wants it. Nancy wants it. And go figure, GeeDubya wants it.

The Democratic party and their New Direction for America won the majority in Congress in November 2006. Their candidate for President, Barack Obama was firmly connected to ACORN. Beyond voter fraud, ‘community organizing’ and ACORN have a vested interest in the subprime mess. Dems in general have a vested interest in outfits like Fannie and Freddie. Chris Dodd and the Banking Committee had their chance since 2006 and before to head off this problem. And now they want you to do it for them.

So to whom does the majority of the subprime mess blame belong. You guessed it, the Democratic majority in Congress whose New Direction for America had plenty of opportunity to avoid the problem and did nothing.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Whether intended or not several article titles at the Hill Dot Com may sum up the status on Washington’s efforts to do whatever they will regarding the financial troubles of late. The first title suggests Obama gave the GOP ‘an opening’ for movement on the bailout and that they might take it. But the second and third titles report Harry Reid says Congress will be in session next week and the White House hopes for a deal by Monday.

So what does that tell you? Today Washington is no closer to fixing the mess than they were at the beginning of the week. So will the Presidential debate go on as schedules this evening. Various broadcast schedules around the planet suggest the TV networks are counting on it.

Then there is the Hill’s Congress blog that adds some entertainment to the day. By virtue of chronological order a Dems Congressman says we need to stop overpaying Wall Street followed by a GOP Congressman saying we need to clean things up in Washington. Does it get any more pointless than that? Yes, it does. In the midst of several national issues a Dems Congressman from TN reminds us their farmers have no water for crops. Not that his stated concern is unimportant but a regional farming issue that is not uncommon as an obstacle to successful farming seems a bit out of place at least this week.

Then there is a Republican from Congress echoing a typical sentiment directed toward the Iranian thug President and a need other nations to interrupt his mission. After that at least the sequence of bloggers turn the attention to finance. One asks how the bailout will affect Americans and the other reviews the crisis. Okay, we don’t have a bailout yet so there would be some serious guessing going on there and the review touches on a more popular theme that ‘crony’ capitalism is the root of all evil in the meltdown and how checking history could keep us from repeating this in the future. To that is humbly offered this point. The S&L Crisis of the 80’s and the current financial failures such as AIG, etc., are only about 20 years removed from each other. So what are the odds under any circumstance that we will not see this again?

An article from The Economist may offer one of the more reasoned views on the topic:

Experience, at home and abroad, is a poor guide. In past episodes authorities have typically not committed public money to their financial systems until bank failures and insolvency have become widespread. The first wave of savings-and-loan failures came in the early 1980s; the Resolution Trust Corporation was not created to dispose of their assets until 1989. Japan’s banks began to fail in 1991, but a mechanism for taking over large, insolvent banks was not set up until 1998. Mr Paulson and Mr Bernanke are attempting to prevent the crisis from reaching that stage. “The firms we’re dealing with now are not necessarily failing, but they are contracting, they are deleveraging,” Mr Bernanke told Congress. They are unable to raise capital and are refusing to lend, and that, he said, is squeezing the economy.

One risk with such a pre-emptive bail-out is that to congressmen the benefits are hypothetical whereas the fiscal and political costs, five weeks before an election, are all too real. In polls voters waver between opposition and support depending on how the question is asked.

Yes, you are encouraged to read the rest.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The approach of the general election featuring the selection of a new President in the United States has seen an incredible amount of turmoil surrounding the current political season. The war on terror while producing success such as the troop surge in Iraq has fallen on the deaf ears and blind eyes of the Democratic party as they criticize the party occupying the White House in the form of President Bush and also offer no congratulations that the US has suffered no further attacks on American soil during his watch. Struggles in the financial sector are also blamed solely on the President and his party by the members of the political opposition.

These situations are not an entirely American ordeal of course as the leaders of Russia in the form of Vladamir Putin and Dmitri Medvedev are experiencing similar controversy. The report below may suggest a change in tone from the Kremlin although recent events are more reminiscent of the Cold War than not. Two Russian Tu-160 bombers left Venezuela this week after conducting air patrol flights in the region. They may return in November for a joint exercise that hasn’t been seen since the Cold War that Putin claims he doesn’t want to be ‘dragged into with the West.’

Just like in the old days of the Cold War, Russia flexed its muscle in a small way with the Tupolev jets but in a more symbolic but provocative way with its nearly simultaneous testing of a new ICBM. The Bulava carries six warheads and can travel 10,000 km. Not surprisingly the Russian media expressed the missiles ability to penetrate any future missile shield. A statement likely directed against the US plans to install missile shields in Poland or elsewhere to protect allies from the likes of Iran or other ‘rogue’ nations bent on expanding their influence through terrorist actions.

The apparent change in tone from Mr Putin was not likely in response to European Union members limp challenge to Russia’s thumping of nearby Georgia. After ruling out sanctions, the EU held a meeting and then condemned Russia for the move. Do you suppose they are somewhat timid due to Russia’s control over so much of their oil supply?

Almost mirroring US financial sector woes Russian President Medvedev blamed the move on Georgia as risking the orderly flow of business in the financial markets of Russia. More turmoil and upheaval in Russia may be faced by the ‘privileged class‘ with ties to the West, international finance centers and of all things NATO complicating their agenda. It may be difficult to tell if the Georgian conflict and repercussions from it were responsible for the need to prop up their markets with this week’s 20 billion cash infusion or if Russia was simply experiencing the same problems the rest of the world was.

Perhaps after some time to digest current events and take the world’s temperature, Putin took a different approach to public affairs in the report below. Just like the financial woes in the US and elsewhere, politicians may be making too much of it too soon. If in six months we’re hearing no more of it the proof that most of the talk was purely political will be obvious. Just as obvious as the players doing nothing to prevent future problems and that they were just being politicians.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Putin Rejects Cold War, Backs Economic Integration

By VOA News
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin says his nation is seeking full integration into the world economy and will not be dragged into another Cold War era with the West.

Mr. Putin was speaking to Russian officials and business leaders in the Black Sea resort of Sochi.

On Thursday, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Russia is becoming “increasingly authoritarian” and “aggressive.” At an event hosted by the German Marshall fund, Rice delivered her strongest comments to date about Russia’s invasion of Georgia and other recent actions.

She said the U.S. goal is to make clear to Russia’s leaders that their choices are putting Russia, in her words, “on a one-way path to self-imposed isolation and international irrelevance.”

She said that for Russia to reach its full potential, it must be fully integrated into the international political and economic order. She said Russia is in the “precarious position of being half in and half out.”

In Moscow, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev said Thursday that relations with the United States remain a priority for Russia. He said it would be politically short-sighted to squander the achievements and potential in relations by reviving stereotypes of the past.

Some information for this report was provided by AFP and Reuters.

It was easy to pause when Charlie Gibson asked GOP VP nominee Gov Sarah Palin about the Bush Doctrine in his interview with her on ABC News and wonder to which part Charlie was referring. That thought became more comfortable when Sarah Palin asked ‘in what respect?’. In a report from the LA Times Top of the Ticket Blog, this entire thought was not lost on Charles Krauthammer who may know something about it from personal experience. Even though he suggests Palin was not versed on the topic, most people could have had vague memory of the doctrine and not have been sure about what specifically Gibson was asking. Sure, we’re not running for elected office but either way a person knowing it as well as Krauthammer claims may have had the same need for a detailed question. But let’s concede that point to the critics and say Sarah Palin knew nothing of the doctrine. How sad is the plight of the MSM, including Gibson, to offer the smug ‘gotcha’ look to Palin as he was as lost on the topic as anyone else and did not appear to be aware of it.

When the personnel changes visited the broadcast network news and among them was Katie Couric anchoring CBS with Williams at NBC and Gibson at ABC the leaning at this blog was for Gibson thinking he seemed level headed in any work seen to that point. If you would guess that the opinion has been altered you would be correct. Not an impressive performance from any of them has been seen to date.

So, looks like it was Charlie Gibson’s gaffe on Bush doctrine, not Sarah Palin’s

Charles Krauthammer, the conservative columnist, writes this morning that it was ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson who actually bobbled a question on the Bush doctrine during one of his recent interviews with new Republican vice presidential nominee Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

So far the broadcast networks and the NYT are not places that this blog would ever suggest as sources for news. The only reason to check their stories is to call them on their bias and the disservice they bestow on the public.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

It is one report on speculation about Sarah Palin’s effect on voters or more correctly, asks a question on what her effect will be. Specifically from the standpoint of those who supported Hillary Clinton and perhaps the gender vote. As an aside, while preparing this post other sources of this AP report were viewed with an interesting result. The links to the sources are offered below the AP report excerpt. KGET in ‘the Bay Area’ and KRON have what can only be a truncated or edited version of the AP report. The content they provided along with the original AP report title convey a much different idea than the original. And the MSM wonders why they are being criticized. (more on that later)

Reference to an ABC News Poll suggests Palin attracts 6% to McCain while Biden attracts 12% to Obama. That information, on its own, is of limited usefulness except to say that shortly after her appearance on the national political stage, Sarah Palin is already drawing half as many voters to McCain as Biden is to Obama. And Biden is a much more known quantity in US politics. Another interesting poll result from Gallup suggests 8/10 Clinton supporters will vote for Obama but that information was gathered after the McCain VP announcement. Number one, things may have changed since then. Number two, where is the information about the other 20%? Are we to assume they are voting for McCain/Palin? Or are there intentions something different than voting for either major party ticket?

If there are the now famous 18 million Clinton voters from the primary elections and 20%, or 3.6 million are not voting for Obama, that could mean McCain/Palin had close to 4 million of Obama’s party voting for them simply by announcing the selection of Palin or even without her on the ticket. But that is the problem with bits and pieces of polling data. It always leaves you needing more information about the data and it is hard to tell what significance, if any, is demonstrated by polling data.

A repeat or additional set of comments by or from Gloria Steinem and Ellen Moran from Emily’s List present some generalizations that may play or be rejected by anyone reading the report. The concern on this blog is that their sort of ’sound bites’ may play and influence unsuspecting voters. The disaffected Clinton vote, gender vote or whatever subgroup Steinem or Moran are talking about is not likely a 100% up or down vote on either major ticket. For either commenter to suggest that there are very few or no liberal voters selecting McCain/Palin this year is as much hogwash as saying no conservatives are voting for the Democratic party ticket. The more compelling question is which ticket will succeed in drawing the largest segment of voters from the other ticket’s core voters or base? Even after the election we may not really know based on how skimpy the MSM is with real facts and data that can be validated. Ya, I know, another shot at the fourth estate or whatever the artist formerly known as journalism calls itself these days.

Which brings to mind one of the fine examples of the few remaining journalistic practitioners on the planet; George Will. If you already read columns by George Will you need no prodding by this blog to continue. If you are not familiar or have not read his material, you should. The style of writing alone is enough to bring back readers. Combine that with inspiring viewpoints, apparent knowledge and historical references provided, George Will is a must read. In these days with an abundance of media hacks, it suggests there may be hope for journalism yet. (Okay, enough uncompensated plugging for George Will)

The last comment in the AP piece is especially telling about people’s viewpoints and how twisted they can get in politics as well as other parts of life on the planet. A woman not fond of Palin suggests that the ‘18 million cracks’ in the glass ceiling did not include Sarah Palin. Oh, I get it, some die-hard liberals don’t really believe their own Kook Aid about championing the cause for the people and apparently if you don’t share their viewpoints you do not qualify as a ‘people’.

If Hillary Clinton’s challenge for the Democratic Party’s Presidential nominee furthered the cause for women and the ‘glass ceiling’ issue, it applies to Sarah Palin as well as any other woman. Or do liberals apply their own sniff test as to whether or not any person qualifies to be treated fairly? You know, you only get rights if you submit to the Liberal Kool Aid Acid Test and pass as a certified kook fringe far left liberal.

Rant concluded. The central point for offering this post besides a few shots at the MSM and liberals was to suggest that polling data is of limited usefulness and it is just as reasonble to suggest that McCain/Palin is benefiting from the Democratic party division more than the liberal commentary may be willing to admit.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Most Clinton backers say Palin’s too far a stretch
By JOCELYN NOVECK – 21 hours ago

Sandy Goodman was deeply disappointed when Hillary Rodham Clinton didn’t get the Democratic nomination, then again when she was bypassed for the VP spot. So Goodman, a longtime Florida Democrat, flirted with thoughts of shunning Barack Obama, and perhaps even voting Republican.

Then John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, and suddenly things became clear to Goodman: The Republicans had no place for her.

“Boy, you are sure not talking to ME!” Goodman, 61, says she thought when she heard Palin’s views on issues like abortion rights. Now, Goodman is volunteering for Obama.

But then there’s Chrissie Peters. The 37-year-old librarian from Bristol, Tenn. has always voted Democratic and supported Clinton. She assumed she’d vote for Obama — until she saw Palin speak. Now she’s voting Republican.

“She was so down-to-earth, a regular person,” says Peters. “She hasn’t been in politics her whole life, so she isn’t jaded or tainted. And I love that she’s a mom. Yes, I disagree with some of her positions, but that’s what this country is about.”

One of the most intriguing questions about the Alaska governor’s sudden arrival on the national scene has been what impact it’ll have on women voters — especially those who supported Clinton.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iYQV5v00aLCnUUTZpVfPejgbPeZQD930Q53G0
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/06/most-clinton-backers-say-palins-too-far-a-stretch/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080905/ap_on_el_pr/from_clinton_to_palin

http://www.kron.com/Global/story.asp?S=8961814
http://www.kget.com/political/story.aspx?content_id=e5886927-8f3c-4d73-b0dc-7f1ab051eb02

It is beginning to show that President Bush is aware his tenure is almost over and little time is left to pursue remaining tasks. Some very critical objectives were successfully accomplished during his watch but not without a series of flawed actions or policies. It is likely historians years from now will be more sympathetic in analyzing his Presidency than current observers.

As an example the economy is the number one issue entering the November elections. When has it not been in a Presidential election. And it is unfair to characterize the economic climate a recession as it does not pass the test of two consecutive quarters of decline in the GDP. For all the noise made about decisions leading up to the war in Iraq including prosecution of the war pre-troop surge, the antiwar left has been relatively quiet compared to this time last year. There were plenty of mistakes for sure, but the clamor over them has ignored the achievements of the Bush Administration. Not the least of which was to neutralize a Democratic Congress and avoid a larger mess if the liberals had there way.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Bush Expected to Maintain US Troop Level in Iraq through 2008

By Al Pessin
Pentagon
Pessin report - Download (MP3)
Pessin report - Listen (MP3)

The White House says next week President Bush will announce his plans for U.S. troop levels in Iraq for the rest of his time in office, an announcement that will also affect how many additional troops he can send to Afghanistan. Officials say senior military officers have recommended no further Iraq withdrawals this year, and only a small one early next year, which could make it difficult for commanders to address the increased attacks by insurgents in Afghanistan. VOA’s Al Pessin reports from the Pentagon.

President George W. Bush

President Bush’s long-awaited announcement is expected next Monday or Tuesday, before Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the top U.S. military officer Admiral Mike Mullen testify before a congressional committee on Wednesday. Those men gave their recommendations to the president two days ago, and officials say they included the views of the top coalition commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus. They also included the views of the heads of the U.S. military services, who have been particularly concerned about the stress on the force caused by multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

On condition of anonymity, officials have told news reporters the recommendation is for no further reduction in the 140,000-strong U.S. contingent in Iraq this year, and for a small reduction of between 3,000 and 5,000 troops in January, just before President Bush leaves office.

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino hinted at the go-slow approach on Friday, saying the president does not want to do anything that could reverse the security gains made in Iraq during the past year.

“The question in the president’s mind has been, ‘How do we make sure that we cement those gains and not jeopardize those gains?’ and be able to continue the process of ‘Return on Success.’ He’s obviously talking to his national security team and he’ll be consulting with members of congress before we move forward,” she said.

Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Schloesser (file photo)

American officials have long said they would like to increase the U.S. and international troop presence in Afghanistan, but that the United States does not have many troops to send as long as its commitment in Iraq remains high. So President Bush’s expected announcement may not be good news for the U.S. commander in eastern Afghanistan, Major General Jeffrey Schloesser, who spoke to reporters at the Pentagon Friday via satellite.

“I’m going to ask for more troops,” said General Schloesser. “I think it’s pretty commonly known that I already have. And I’m optimistic that we’ll potentially see them in the coming months.”

Officials have said commanders in Afghanistan want 10,000 more troops, but General Schloesser says he may only get a couple of thousand, at least in his area. But the general says it is not an emergency, in spite of the increase of insurgent attacks. He says allied forces are not losing in eastern Afghanistan, but they are not winning as quickly as he would like.

“It’s a slow win,” he said. “I want to make it into a solid, strong win. It’s going to take time no matter what. But I’d like to do it in a more robust way.”

U.S. officials have called the Afghanistan war an “economy of force” operation, because not enough troops have been available to send. General Schloesser says that needs to change.

The general says U.S., NATO and Afghan forces face a complex group of between seven and 11,000 insurgents, who, he says, have increased their attacks in his sector by 20 to 30 percent this year and are trying to develop what he called “spectacular” attacks. He plans a winter offensive to try to prevent the insurgents from bringing in supplies to prepare for next spring’s fighting season, and also an increase in development assistance for local Afghan communities.