Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Tax evasion and lobbying interests aside Tom Daschle’s withdrawal is most likely a matter of Obama telling him to hit the road than any remorseful evaluation of proceeding through the nomination process. But let’s not forget that Tim Geithner was confirmed with similar tax evasion problem and is now in charge of the Treasury. The upside for Daschle is if the suggestion by some that health care reform in the Obama Administration will be delayed on his withdrawal more money will be available from his lobbying consulting business. This attests to the sad fact that if you are connected in Washington you stand to profit no matter which way the winds blow.

Tom Daschle is a lobbyist even though he calls it consulting. His current wife, Linda, is a lobbyist who left her lobbyist employer to start her own lobbying business. And the wife of Daschle’s son, Nathan, has a business known as JD Consulting which lobbies as well. Some information indicates she lobbied for Freddie Mac. Imagine that, another liberal connected to lobbying for Freddie Mac.

The problem is with the loyal opposition and how loyal are they? The GOP has displayed a mixed bag since the beginning of the 111th Congress. How would they have responded to the Daschle nomination had it gone to hearings? The same can be asked about the Richardson nomination since he also withdrew due to a grand jury investigation. But we know how they responded to Tim Geithner and that is not as expected. The same goes for Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. For all the bashing the GOP took for the Abramoff scandal and other falls from grace from members of their party it is clear the Democrats are not squeaky clean. GOP opposition to the House pork stimulus bill was noteworthy but not a defining moment in terms of proof of a return to conservative principles.

You could say that neither party will effectively police themselves. So one of the few benefits of the two party system we have is counting on the other party to do the policing. Fair or not it is about all we have. The Dems took plenty of pleasure from the troubles of the GOP from the likes of Mark Foley, Tom Delay, Duke Cunningham and the Abramoff scandal to name a few. It is time for the proverbial shoe to be placed on the other foot. On nominations the loyal opposition is not performing well. Richardson and Daschle’s departures cannot be credited to the GOP unless private discussions or backroom deals sealed the fate of these nominees. That would be hard to believe with the ease of nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Tim Geithner and Eric Holder. Yet the fact remains that AG, State and Treasury trump Commerce and HHS so it is not inconceivable that Obama would concede to private objections from the GOP.

Separating fact from fiction or politics from principled governing is becoming more difficult. Simply reviewing voting records for instance does not provide a definitive answer on a politician’s performance. While voting for or against the bailouts are clear indicators of the position members of Congress take on spending and pork other voting is less enlightening. It may be an enormous task to be successful in the minority position the GOP finds themselves. But it is what they have after squandering the opportunity as the majority party. So get on with it already and start routinely proving you have what it takes and that principle is the guiding light.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Tom Daschle

U.S. President Barack Obama’s nominee for health secretary has withdrawn his candidacy after being questioned about his late payment of more than $120,000 in taxes.

The White House says President Obama accepted the withdrawal of Tom Daschle “with sadness and regret.”

On Monday, Daschle sent a letter to the Senate Finance Committee apologizing for what he called “unintentional” mistakes on his taxes. The former Senate Democratic leader said he was “deeply embarrassed and disappointed” by the errors.

Daschle says he mistakenly failed to pay $120,000 in back taxes involving unreported income for consulting work, the use of a car service and charitable contributions.

Daschle since has filed amended tax returns to pay the back taxes and penalties.

He is not the first high-profile nominee for Obama’s cabinet to run into trouble with taxes. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s nomination also was criticized for his late payment of $34,000 in taxes.

Daschle withdraws: DLTDHYOTWO! (Michelle Malkin)

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

The United States Senate is scheduled to deal with HR1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, at 2 pm Monday February 2, 2009. By a count from the senate website there are 56 Democrats, 1 independent, 1 independent Democrat and 41 Republicans currently seated. For matters only requiring a simple majority vote to pass party line votes give victories to the Democratic majority. For voting requiring 3/5 or 2/3 majorities a party line vote alone won’t get it done.

Without covering all the possibilities and/or procedures like filibusters and cloture it is fair to say some of that will have to come into play to stop the passage of HR1. The view from this blog finds stated opposition of the bill by the GOP as the only event in which Republicans have tried to stand their ground since the November 2008 elections or longer. Rubber stamping confirmations of White House nominations is the other notable activity of the GOP so far this year.

Based on the report below and Senator Kyl’s record during the shamnesty votes of 2007 little confidence is found in his statements or assessment. For the same reasons Senator DeMint instills more confidence than the former. These are truly defining moments for the GOP and perhaps the DNC as well. By the end of the first 100 days of the Obama Administration, a typical early measure of US Presidents, one party or the other will have the upper hand. The Democratic party majority in Congress and a Democrat in the White House do not make it a foregone conclusion.

One note on the comment of Barney Frank in the story below indicating he never saw ‘ a tax cut fix a bridge.’ As little attention as liberals ever direct to tax cuts it would be easy to say that is the reason for his statement. But it shows his failure or refusal to understand the numbers. Governments do not create wealth. Free people and free markets do. Allowing the private sector to use more of the wealth created to expand economies and jobs through tax cuts also increases revenue to the government. That Mr Frank is how a tax cut fixes a bridge without extra burden on taxpayers. He also failed to tell you that massive spending by the government during these economic hard times will require tax increases afterwards.

It is better to equip the private sector to drive the economy rather than fund short sighted jobs bills with taxpayer money for the reasons stated. But we will see who wins the arguments and how many others the GOP is able to convince to vote against HR1 in its current form.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Opposition Republican Party senators are warning they likely will vote against U.S. President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus plan unless it is revised to create more jobs.

The party’s second-ranking Senate member, Jon Kyl of Arizona, told U.S. television Fox News Sunday the legislation needs to be reconstructed. Kyl and other Republicans say the estimated $820-billion bill wastes money on programs that will not stimulate the economy. They are calling for more tax cuts and infrastructure building.

Another influential Republican senator, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, called the legislation a “spending plan,” not a “stimulus plan.” He said on ABC’s This Week it is “temporary” and “wasteful.”

The other chamber of Congress, the House of Representatives, already has approved the plan. The Senate is to begin debating the legislation this week.

President Obama says the stimulus plan is necessary to save or create three million jobs.

Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois expressed support for Mr. Obama’s plan in a television interview on Fox News. He said lawmakers need to pull together and avoid delaying the rescue plan further, because the United States is facing one of the most serious economic crises in its history.

Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, also defended the bill he voted for last week. Frank said the package includes necessary spending on infrastructure, like bridges. He said sarcastically that he never saw a “tax cut fix a bridge.”

The U.S. economy - the world’s biggest - is in a recession. The country lost 2.6 million jobs last year and already has seen tens of thousands more layoffs this year.

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

So much changes and so much stays the same. While visions of Chinagate danced in her head. Hillary Rodham Clinton figured the scandal was dead. Opponents claim with evidence to support. Obama is a third Clinton term with more espionage to thwart. Right outta the Gates warning of preparedness with who flung poo, Clinton seeks more with China as if selling secrets is not taboo.

A Clinton Administration via President Obama is not a suggestion off the mark based on staffing since The One assumed office. A little background refresher of only one chapter from the Clinton book of scandals raises serious questions about a new Secretary of State focusing on China after Chinagate.

Try to make the argument that this is not something about which we should be concerned. For those of you who voted for Clinton and/or Obama in the 2008 campaign and/or election, did you consider this before entering the voting booth, mailing your ballot, doing the driveby or letting ACORN vote for you?

There are reports available suggesting President Clinton supported transferring sensitive technology as a method to insure no single nation had military dominance over the others. Liberals are a nightmare even terrorists could appreciate…… and do.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Exhibit 1
From approximately 1994 to 1998, Bernard Schwartz, who was the chairman of Loral Space & Communication Ltd., became the single largest donor to the Democratic Party by making contributions totaling approximately $1.5 million to various Democratic Party entities, including President Clinton’s 1996 reelection campaign.

Exhibit 1a
Congressional and other related investigations subsequently found that, when a Chinese rocket attempting to launch a Loral-manufactured satellite failed, Loral helped China to identify the cause of the failure, thereby advancing China’s missile program and threatening U.S. national security. Loral subsequently paid a $14 million fine relating to this transfer of sensitive U.S. technology.

Exhibit 1b
“The Amended Complaint alleges that Hillary Rodham Clinton devised, agreed to participate in and implemented this unlawful scheme, and that President Clinton and Vice-President Al Gore authorized, agreed to participate in, and also implemented the scheme.”

For the lazy among you…..

The Idiot’s Guide to Chinagate (from Newsmax)

Exhibit 2
This is the same Justice Department that has botched up the investigation of the theft of information on the W-88 warhead, that has refused to appoint an independent counsel to investigate campaign fundraising illegalities, and that continues to cover up vital information in defiantly refusing to release the LaBella and Freeh memos suggesting that crimes may have been committed in the Chinagate scandal.

Exhibit 2a
Is this the first time the Clinton administration has been involved in lawbreaking and corruption? Hardly. It has almost become a way of life: Travelgate, Filegate, Buddhist Temple fundraisers, illegal foreign campaign contributions, the compromise of high-technology nuclear secrets to China, not to mention perjury and obstruction of justice–the list goes on and on.

Exhibit 2b
On the one hand, there is the mind-boggling story of how the Clinton administration deliberately changed almost 50 years of bipartisan security policies–relaxing export restrictions, signing waivers to allow technology transfers, ignoring China’s violation of arms control agreements, and its theft of our nuclear secrets, opening up even more nuclear and high technology floodgates to China and others–thus harming U.S. national security.

On the other hand, there is the continuing coverup–the effort to hide from Congress and the American people the true damage that has been done to national security and the Clinton administration’s central role in allowing so much of it to happen on their watch.

A face only an anarchist could love.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called for a “comprehensive dialogue” with China, extending beyond economic issues.

Secretary Clinton Tuesday said U.S. economic problems mean that people are losing jobs not only in America but also in China. So Clinton said that while the economy will always be a centerpiece of the U.S. relationship with China, the new U.S. administration wants it to be part of a broader agenda.

She said the Bush administration turned the strategic dialogue with China into an economic one.

Clinton did not mention what other issues she would bring up with the government in Beijing.

Human rights activists have called for renewed U.S. pressure on China to improve its human rights record and freedom of expression.

The French news agency said groups such as Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders, and veteran Chinese dissident Harry Wu expressed hope at a U.S. congressional hearing Tuesday that President Barack Obama will give China’s human rights problem a high priority.

The Associated Press quoted Defense Secretary Robert Gates as telling a Senate hearing Tuesday that the United States is ready to handle any foreseeable military threat from China.

Some information for this report was provided by AFP, AP and Reuters.
Trackposted to Rosemary’s Thoughts, Allie is Wired, third world county, Political Byline, The World According to Carl, DragonLady’s World, Wingless - Cuba: Beautiful Country, People…Not so Beautiful System…, Rosemary’s News and Ideas, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

The only winners from the bailout and stimulus package and just about anything else to come out of the new Obama Administration will be corporations, lobbyists and other special interests not including the average American citizen. A hint at that may have come from the Obama/Pelosi video embedded on this blog. She could not contain her unrestrained jubilation while at the same time saying ‘the American people are hurting’. A little piece from The Hill demonstrates how everything bailout and stimulus starts at K Street for Obama. Like you did not suspect this all by yourself. But it helps to have corroboration. Here’s a teaser from The Hill article.

K Street lobbyists expect a bonanza this year because of the aggressive agenda of President Obama and congressional Democrats.

“Big government is back,” said Mark Ruge, who heads the policy group at K&L Gates. “It’s going to be a very, very active Congress.”

Corporations also recognize, however, that they can’t afford to cut expenses on K Street. They need lobbyists to grab their piece of the government-spending pie and to make sure that Obama and his Democratic allies do not enact policies that would disadvantage them.

Obama was only mildly criticized after pledging to use public funds for the campaign and then pulling the old switcheroo after bundling, ACORN and his admittedly successful internet scam to lure nearly about a half billion dollars from unknown sources. That’s what he calls change you can believe in. Yes we can. We can play this any way we want cuz everybody’s in love with us. Not so fast Mr Obama, there are plenty of us who have not consumed the Kool Aid.

Aside from damage that could be done to our fine country the next worse thing Obama could do is have a failed presidency with record breaking scandals to taint the historic first term of this country’s first black President. Okay, black and white president but that’s not the point. The point is an historic event that really needs to be handled correctly. But this is politics. What are the odds?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

You can usually count on James Carville to provide a quote that gets passed around. In this case he may be offering advanced excuses for more liberal scandals in the days ahead. Does he know something or does it just make sense to ease the burden of the coming scandals? Carville expects a streak of scandals for the Democratic party. His reasoning offered is not complicated. “With two big Democratic elections in a row, Democrats now hold a larger majority — 340 U.S. representatives, senators and governors. Simple math and history point to the fact that the more elected officials a party has in office, the more likely its politicians will get caught up in some sort of scandal.”

That’s great Mr Carville but you should have gone one step further. Just pick the percentage. If there is a 10% chance that would mean 10 politicians out of 100 or 20 out of 200, etc. That would also follow your logic of more politicians, more chance for scandal. Not a large leap for anyone to come up with this prediction. Gee, the more criminals there are the more crime there will be. That’s a tough concept to understand, NOT. Would it be fair to say it’s the percentages, stupid?

At first it appeared that the distinguished jurist Chief Justice Roberts had abandoned any consideration for decorum when publicly ‘begging’ for a pay raise. After a review of his case (snicker, snicker) it turns out he may have a point. “I must renew the judiciary’s modest petition: Simply provide cost-of-living increases that have been unfairly denied,” Roberts said in his annual year-end report on the federal judiciary.

Alone among federal employees, judges will not receive a cost-of-living allowance in 2009. Members of Congress are getting a 2.8 percent boost, worth $4,700. But they refused before Christmas to give an identical increase to judges.

Federal trial judges are paid $169,300 a year. Appellate judges make more, ranging up to Roberts’ salary of $217,400. The salaries pale in comparison to what top lawyers earn in private practice.

Yup, the Chieft Justice has a point. But part of that being a reminder of how twisted the thinking is in Congress does not help his case. The question of pay for services rendered is not a new topic. A popular set of common arguments hold that either you cannot recruit worthy talent without adequate pay countered with you should seek other employement if income is a higher priority than service. Both arguments have flaws but the point is at 200K plus federal benefits and pensions, etc., there are not that many people who will feel sympathy for Roberts or his colleagues.

Should have known that a story about moderate Republicans being the most popular politicians had nothing to do with their faithful support of conservative principles combined with a statesman-like demeanor and the ability to affect reasoned compromise. Quite the contrary as it would appear their popularity comes from the fact they are targets to be bought off if the Dems cannot overcome the lack of a filibuster-proof Senate requiring a 60 seat majority.

Just like the battles over immigration reform, in this case again, weasel Arlan Specter features prominent in the story. Although he thinks there are so few ‘moderate’ Republicans, sometimes referred to as RINOs, that they could all fit in a phonebooth it is more likely they could easily fill a corporate board room.

“The power of moderates is declining in the country: They are fewer in number and the country has polarized,” said Thomas F. Schaller, a political scientist at the University of Maryland. “But in any vote where you are down to one to two votes there are always going to be people in the middle who have decisive power.”

There in lies the rub. If there were no moderates and it never came down to buying off a vote the measure in question would fail because it should. Instead we get the crap legislation that comes with politicians who won’t stand their ground. The same problem is found with pork, earmarks, lobbyists and amendments. All they do is load someone’s wallet for a vote.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

One of the excuses given by the federal government, aka President Bush and his Democrats as well as Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, for providing bailout money on behalf of failed corporations like the auto industry was to restore investor confidence on Wall Street and consumer confidence on Main Street. While most consumers oppose the bailout frenzy, last check showed 60% or more oppose it, Wall Street is apparently no more confident than Main Street.

Dec. 23 (Bloomberg) — General Motors Corp. Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner said the biggest U.S. automaker got “what we asked for” with $9.4 billion in U.S. loans over the next 24 days. Investors bet that it’s not enough.

So why are investors growing more pessimistic about the auto industry bailout? One reason might be the following information from the same Bloomberg report. GM tumbled the most in more than a month yesterday in New York trading, while credit-default swaps on the company’s bonds jumped 2 percentage points in a sign of increasing concern that the Bush administration’s bailout may end in a default.

You have to just love the assortment of derivatives and other schemes available on Wall Street. Credit-default swaps or collateralized debt obligations or any number of derivatives available on Wall Street do complicate keeping score. Which by the way is really what investors using these products are doing. Not really investing, just keeping score and betting on the outcome. What do you mean it sounds like Vegas? An article surprisingly enough from TIME magazine has an interesting take on the subject. You can read it here.

“It’s almost impossible for a management that invested in the assets, that hired the people, that put forth the strategy, to change so dramatically in such a short period of time,” That quote from Edward Altman, a finance professor at New York University, may best describe much of what the rest of us have been thinking. If GM, Chrysler and/or Ford cannot avoid bankruptcy under normal circumstances, what good is a huge taxpayer funded bailout going to change?

Here’s the take at this point from GM’s CEO. Wagoner said last week that having secured the federal loans, GM’s biggest challenges would be working with debt holders on debt-for-equity exchanges and negotiating cost-saving agreements with unions. What he is really saying is what we all know. Everyone else will have to give something up or lose something for GM to possibly avoid bankruptcy. Something Wall Street and Main Street are convinced will happen anyway. All the numbers point that way.

Another item that stinks according to the view on this blog is that Ford is the only one of the three described as not in as much trouble as the other two. Yet their American competitors are being handed public money to delay the inevitable. Maybe if the likely outcome was not being interfered with by politicians Ford could survive by being slightly smarter than the other two companies. More evidence that the auto industry is in trouble comes from the foreign competitors.

Toyota has expressed it may be facing its first ever operating loss. That is big news and another indication of systemic problems for manufacturing in the turmoil that is the global financial crisis. Japanese car companies are typically considered leaner and more efficient than their American counterparts but whether true or not it gives credence to the notion that whatever the condition of this industry, harsh economic reality in terms of a global recession may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Dec. 23 (Bloomberg) — The worst U.S. auto market since the early 1990s may force Toyota Motor Corp. to do something that was once unthinkable: cut its North American payroll. Read the rest of the article to view the losses and negative forecast. This thing may just be heating up.

Even Russia is in the auto industry loop with concerns and money for fixing what may be unfixable. Russian citizens are protesting tariff increases on imported ‘used cars’ while the Russian government is offering assistance to car buyers. It is always a little different in Russia. But what is the same is auto industry troubles.

All over the globe car makers are retreating. The South Korean car makers yesterday said they will reduce output in December by an average of four hours a day per plant as the global recession saps auto demand. Toyota also joined Honda Motor Co. in cutting its earnings forecast because of the slowdown. And it just keeps getting worse for the automotive manufacturers and related business.

So the frequently expressed concern is again directed at those in Washington who push the bailouts with taxpayer funds. What the hell are you thinking?

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

After the publishing of the press release recounting the announcement of an economic team and corresponding speech by President-elect Obama on Monday November 24, 2008, a follow-up post is required. As with any speech from a radical new leader the injection of a little fear is a good way to get people’s attention.

‘if we do not act swiftly and boldly, most experts now believe that we could lose millions of jobs next year.’

After a relatively vague fear tactic short on reasons why a severe job loss may happen beyond the understanding that the economy is declining comes the equally vague list of solutions to the vague fear tactic predicting impending doom.

‘move forward in a new direction to create new jobs, reform our financial system’

Even John McCain began using the liberal phrase from the 2006 midterms, ‘new direction’, and it made no more sense when he did it. Hope, change, new direction, they’re all rather useless beyond speech fodder for the feeble-minded.

‘We know this won’t be easy, and it won’t happen overnight’

The little quote above is another speech requirement to give advance notice of a solutions failure. That is so it can be brought up later when the providers of the solution that didn’t work regroup to try again.

Below is the first really scary part of the speech. It is a description of the members of the economic team in Obama’s words. The key is the ‘bold new ideas.’ Yes, the word will be used now. Socialism is a bold new idea in a democratic republic. That is because it does not belong. Taking one step further in the quote below one could interpret, as it may be intended, that if main street or the ordinary citizens, workers, working class or proletariat suffer, the aristocrats or wealthy class or upper class featured here as ‘wall street’ cannot thrive. Sure, you could assume he means wall street should not succeed at the expense of main street. But that is not what he said. And one can just as easily understand his words to mean his earlier talking points where the redistribution of wealth is a good thing.

‘a depth of experience and a wealth of bold new ideas — and most of all, who share my fundamental belief that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers’

Whether Mr Geithner knows it or not he may be getting setup to take the heat. Later in the speech Obama indicates the team will present recommendations on ‘the plan’ to those in Washington, etc. That may indicate the economic plan is already assembled and the ‘team’ is merely who will get the credit for it if it fails and a pat on the back from the President-elect if it succeeds as they just helped him implement ‘his’ plan. Why do you suppose he says they share his vision or their ideas compliment his ‘core’ values or visa versa?

On Geithner….
‘He will start his first day on the job with a unique insight into the failures of today’s markets — and a clear vision of the steps we must take to revive them.’

Below is a little reminder of the sitting down with no preconditions with any leader of any country and caving or appeasing to push the Obama agenda. It is no different than listening to the United Nations press statements and we know how their agendas work out.

‘we will need to reach out to countries around the world to craft a global response’

on Larry Summers…..
‘He also championed a range of measures — from tax credits to enhanced lending programs to consumer financial protections — that greatly benefited middle income families.’

Larry Summers has actually received compliment from others in the public sphere on both sides of partisan politics. But the troubling mention of tax credits and ‘enhanced lending programs’ smells like promoting social policy that got us in the subprime mess in the first place. You know, the Community Reinvestment Act in the Carter years, followed by Fannie and Freddie and Franklin Raines, Chris Dodd, Rahm Emanuel, Barney Frank, community organizing, Valerie Jarrett and a host of other accomplices including Tony Rezko that are featured in the Obama rise to power.

But the primary indicator of Obama’s agenda was glimpsed by the following excerpt from this speech.

‘As a thought leader, Larry has urged us to confront the problems of income inequality and the middle class squeeze, consistently arguing that the key to a strong economy is a strong and growing middle class. This idea is the core of my own economic philosophy and will be the foundation for all of my economic policies.’

Did Larry really urge the President-elect to tinker with the social experiment of income inequality or class struggle or other socialist or Marxist doctrine? This is where Barack Obama can be blunt since he already won the election and may believe one term as a socialist President is adequate to shape this country into his own little kingdom. If he has enough accomplices he may just pull it off. That is what should worry you.

The New Deal is alive and well in the Obama Administration. What twists will be added along those lines based on his statements about Christina Romer?

‘perhaps best known for her work on America’s recovery from the Great Depression and the robust economic expansion that followed.’

Yes, let’s see if we can destroy all the mechanisms in place to restore strength to the economy and return to soup kitchens and the government running everything. Then as they don’t tell you in the speech we can enter another wartime economy like WWII and by much pain and suffering embark on a post war economic boom which by the way featured the baby boom who is now retiring and you know the rest of the story.

‘Finally, we know that rebuilding our economy will require action on a wide array of policy matters — from education and health care to energy and Social Security. Without sound policies in these areas, we can neither enjoy sustained economic growth nor realize our full potential as a people.’

In the quote above, more spending targets are featured along with the rhetorical reference to his socialist agenda and reaching THAT full potential.

‘So I am pleased that Melody Barnes, one of the most respected policy experts in America, will be serving as Director of my Domestic Policy Council’…..

Together with health care lobbyist consultant Tom Daschle, Barnes will tweak the Obama health care issue for all of us. Barack Obama is connecting it with the agenda on economics. And her other social programs will be born from the following description of her work.

‘As Executive Vice President for Policy at the Center for American Progress, Melody directed a network of policy experts dedicated to finding solutions for struggling middle class families. She also served as Chief Counsel to the great Senator Ted Kennedy on the Senate Judiciary Committee, working on issues ranging from crime to immigration to bankruptcy, and fighting tirelessly to protect civil rights, women’s rights and religious freedom. ‘

It may sound good to some but one must translate the rhetoric in terms of how it will be used later. When complaints roll in that the Obama agenda does not reflect campaign pledges besides the tired old excuse that things have changed (part of the change mantra) the Obama Administration will remind us all that this was laid out when the economic team was announced and we weren’t paying attention.

Here’s another scary insight from Barack Obama on Melody Barnes and his domestic (socialist) policy.

‘ Melody’s brilliant legal mind — and her long experience working to secure the liberties on which this nation was founded and secure opportunity for those left behind — make her a perfect fit for DPC Director.’

The quote below is a reminder that socialism is not all upside for those in the worker class supporting such notions. The belt tightening for families and businesses will result from the government interfering in just about everything.

‘the turmoil on Wall Street means a new round of belt-tightening for families and businesses on Main Street’

The quote below is another out for Obama so he can continue on certain items and if they fail use the same argument from the campaign that all the bad was caused by President Bush. If anyone in Congress from the GOP opposes him they will receive blame for failures too. But there is nothing new in that.

‘And my Administration will honor the public commitments made by the current Administration to address this crisis.’

An entire paragraph is cited to indicate what is in store for this country when the ‘new direction’ Obama agenda really gets moving

‘Further, beyond any immediate actions we may take, we need a recovery plan for both Wall Street and Main Street — a plan that stabilizes our financial system and gets credit flowing again, while at the same time addressing our growing foreclosure crisis, helping our struggling auto industry, and creating and saving 2.5 million jobs — jobs rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, modernizing our schools, and creating the clean energy infrastructure of the twenty-first century. Because at this moment, we must both restore confidence in our markets — and restore the confidence of middle-class families, who find themselves working harder, earning less, and falling further and further behind.’

Not in sequential order but the first reaction points to the overuse of the terms middle-class and families ‘finding themselves’….’falling further and further behind’. During the Clinton Administration, Mr Clinton had stated that incomes were decreasing in value for average Americans for a long time. The Obama characterization suggests this is something new as if to blame it on President Bush. While it still remains does not mean it started recently.

It is too lengthy a task for one post to detail all the spending, policy and legislative plans indicated by the Obama speech paragraph quoted above. It should be sufficient to say each issue included in that paragraph represents a combination of proposals or initiatives that based on other parts of the speech need no development but are already available to be viewed as new ideas from the most recent hires to the Obama team. This has been the announcement of socialism to come and the smoke screen to allow the uninformed to sign on to the audacity of hope and mantra of change with yes we can as the collective acceptance witnessed in the election of this mystery man as the next American President.

In the remaining parts of the speech Mr Obama again forgets his expression that we have one president at a time by having this team ‘consult’ with everyone in Washington and saying he will be briefed daily and tell us all what is being done in the next few weeks and months on his agenda before inauguration. Maybe a little premature for his role as President. Adding that Americans cannot wait and hope for solutions contradicts that liberal mainstay slogan of hope and change.

When he says ‘to scour our federal budget, line-by-line, and make meaningful cuts and sacrifices as well — something I’ll be discussing further tomorrow’ you can be confident his spending ideas will replace those already on the books. While cutting spending is a good idea, merely replacing one spending item with an equal sized substitute changes nothing in the equation. But it means where Obama wants to spend will replace where others want to spend. That is no guarantee of an improvement contrary to the belief of some. More money remaining with the taxpayer for them to use as they see fit is a better idea.

Could it be that in closing the speech his opinion of setting aside partisan politics and working together and planning to do so as President really means others have to concede and submit to his wishes? If you think this is being unfair and is not giving Barack Obama a chance to be President consider this. The closer the President-elect gets to inauguration the more hints, clues and parts of his agenda are featured in his words. They are becoming less vague and more specific. And with each new item exposed by the one some refer to as the Messiah another tidbit of socialism is supported.

The overuse of middle-class can easily sound like historic speeches and doctrine of others when they used working class, under-class or even proletariat. Wall Street can be replaced with aristocrat or the wealth-class or upper-class. Don’t so easily dismiss the criticism of others raising the issue of class warfare. A plan for both Wall Street and Main Street can as easily mean two plans as one. With the bailouts by taxpayer money of private sector entities directed by the public sector the notion of government run businesses is a socialist idea not far from the actions of this republic’s democratic leaders’ actions.

The jury may still be out but the evidence is piling up suggesting what may be feared in an Obama Administration will come true. If being fair requires ignoring the scrutiny required and expressing disfavor of the plans a newly elected President puts forward then being unfair is the appropriate action to take. It is often said the people get the government they deserve. For those who did not vote for this President-elect is the responsibility to hold him accountable for doing what is right for the nation in order to get a government we deserve. The manner in which this nation has survived as a republic through good and bad must be preserved. If a president intends to do something that would not preserve, protect and defend the Constitution it would be a violation of the oath of office. To radically change this democracy would violate that oath. Especially if that radical change included socialism or Marxism. Not a stretch for the uber liberal in this country.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Bank Holding Act of 1956 was referenced in a post on Michelle Malkin’s website prompting some minor research at this blog. While typing this post another news report was heard on the radio announcing the past week’s unemployment figures up 27,000 from the week before and the highest number reported since the recession of 1992. This information and other reports on the condition of financial matters in the US plus looking into the BHA of 1956 and related legislation draws attention to previous actions which may be at least in part responsible for where we are right now.

Some may rightly question who was minding the store all this time for the situation to become so dire? Is it fair to single out individuals for their contribution to the economic, banking and financial problems the country faces now? Only if you can clearly compile a complete list and support it with equally complete and valid evidence. That is a task which may be beyond anyone’s capacity if it is to be presented before this entire mess is nothing more than a historical footnote. But some information will be presented here in hopes that someone will take note and add it to the list of items to review when the time comes to establish real protections to avoid another failure like this in the future. While the possibility of producing adequate protections for this purpose is remote the effort should be attempted.

RIEGLE-NEAL INTERSTATE BANKING AND BRANCHING EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1994 is legislation which amended the Bank Holding Act of 1956. One of the items included in this measure required a Study and Report on the United States Financial System. The Secretary of the Treasury was to chair or designate someone else to chair an Advisory Commission made up of people who were not government employees. Together with input from nine related government entities from the Board of Governors to the Office of Thrift Supervision and HUD, to name three, a report was to be submitted within 15 months of the law being enacted and the group terminated 30 days after giving the report to the President pro tempore and the Speaker of the House.

The very problem facing the country today was what this report was intended to prevent. All manner of financial concerns were to be addressed and steps taken to correct any deficiencies found. The report would circulate sufficiently that all pertinent agencies, departments, groups and individuals responsible for oversight and subsequent action to maintain the health of the country’s financial system would be in the loop.

One would think such a mechanism would have already been in place and that we would still have this type of mechanism operating. The particular one noted above was to be terminated after its initial report. Not unlike following the activities of Congress or any other government entity, the quantity of reports and analysis published present a formidable and time consuming task of retrieval and review. That may be by design or simply the way it works out. The easiest report or analysis of the present situation was of course available from the MSM and two representative links are offered here as examples.

Ahead of the Bell: Financial Services (AP)

The item above cites an analyst’s report on the debts of financial companies and what they believe is required to solve the problem. Mentioning the US financial system has $37 trillion in debt can get your attention and renew the concern that this problem is beyond huge. The analyst calls for more government intervention to promote confidence in the system and return investors to the markets, etc. That comes as no surprise.

A TARP Report Card (Fortune)

Another item linked above is no more surprising than the first one but for other reasons. It seems the article cannot make up its mind whether to hop on the Paulson bashing bandwagon or not. To give the Treasury Secretary applause for not just submitting a plan but moving on it quickly is equivalent to saying do something even if it is wrong. And wrong seems to be the dominant opinion on TARP so far.

Offering the minor research indicated at the top of this post may be as deficient as the efforts employed to date to fix the financial crisis. The Riegle-Neal bill presented in this post demonstrates only one action in a long list of measures related to finance and banking which promoted more options for this sector of the economy that exposed the nation to this crisis. Mention also of the report connected to that legislation indicates everyone in government has the opportunity and responsibility to discharge their duties and successfully respond to potential problems that lead to the very situation we have that the mechanisms were intended to prevent.

All the taxpayer money being offered to those in financial trouble may only serve to delay the inevitable. With no hint of corrections coming from legislators to eliminate their previous actions which allowed the crisis to develop the main problem appears to be two-fold. TARP will not provide the necessary solution to lead the economy and financial system away from further decline and needed corrections in current law will not be delivered in Congress.

It may be all that is happening so far will only delay a further meltdown in which we may hit bottom and then be able at some point to recover through a more natural process. Hold on for a bumpy ride in 2009. As if you didn’t already know it was coming.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A brief time out for a news break to see where the hell we are today. One could say Joe Lieberman won after the Dems took away a subcommittee chairmanship but left him as Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. Conventional wisdom says Obama pressured Dems including Harry Reid to do what it takes to keep Joe Lieberman in the Dems caucus for his vote. Rush Limbaugh just stated his opinion that Lieberman will grovel to stay in the Dems good graces. This blog has a different take. The Dems as well as the GOP do not know for sure how the undecided Senate races will play out. While there may be other Senators who could consider switching sides in the aftermath to adjust the majority, Lieberman remains a wild card. To defect from the Dems to the GOP now would be premature as the Senate majority may not reach supermajority after the remaining races are decided. Don’t be surprised if Lieberman becomes a Republican if a supermajority results from the outcome of the other Senate races.

The 42/13 vote favoring keeping Lieberman in his Senate chairmanship raises a question. 42 Dems were either going to vote to keep Joe or were feeling pressure from the President-elect or some combination of those two scenarios. The question is how the 13 who voted against him will vote on subsequent issues in the Senate? Depending on what Senate Dems view as necessity between loyalty to their base or brokering deals with the President-elect it is reasonable to expect the performance of Congress and their approval rating from this point forward will mirror that of the 110th Congress or dismal.

Another good point expressed by Limbaugh today was Congressional posturing with the bailout scams. They gave carte blanche to Hank Paulson in hopes of looking good regarding the economy and other financial matters. Now that their bills including oversight have come under fire along with Paulson the ’spectator’ Congress is scrambling for cover and likely searching for scapegoats to take the heat.

This blog has long held Presidents have little effect on the markets or the economy with few exceptions. Granted, a President can effect a day or week’s trading by statements or actions originating from the White House but they usually have about the same effect as published earnings reports for bellwether stocks reported on a quarterly basis. That could be extended to economic reports such as the PPI, CPI, jobs, etc. But one still has to wonder what the impact was over the 2008 campaign reality that the next President would be either Obama or McCain with a marginally different layout in Congress after the dismal performance between the 110th and the Bush Administration beyond the success of the troop surge in Iraq?

As there always is, there will be winners and losers in the public and private sector including ‘main street’ and the public at large while the major issues play out over the next year or two. Besides obsessing over possible extreme and lasting outcomes of the current economic climate in this country it is likely the nation will survive this latest test. The question is will we learn anything from it and act differently in the future? As an addendum to this post, few seem to be analyzing the actions of other countries to the current global economic ‘meltdown’ in terms of the US response thus far. All seem to be injecting cash into the situation or in other words throwing good money after bad just like the US. What does this say about the allegation we are becoming more socialist in our approach to solving problems? Or is it just that Hank Paulson was in a position to assist those he knows on Wall Street and took it? Not like Congress would mind sharing in that effort. After all, how many of them were in part responsible for the subprime mess that started it all?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Rosemary’s News and Ideas, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Faultline USA, third world county, and Dumb Ox Daily News, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe

In the midst of near financial hysteria worldwide and certainly in the US one of the players, in the crisis that goes by many names, is Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd. He may not be getting all the credit he so richly deserves. When the Democrats won back the majority in Congress in the 2006 midterms and Dodd became Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee as well as his party’s claim that they would achieve a New Direction for America, Dodd offered the following quote.

“At the end of my tenure on this committee,” Dodd said in early 2007, “I want it to be said that the safety and soundness of our financial institutions was not weakened on my watch.” So how’s that working for you so far, Senator Dodd? “I’m proud of my chairmanship,” Dodd said in an interview Friday. He said he considered himself a pro-consumer lawmaker and said campaign cash plays no role in his thinking. Can a person with a minimum of average intelligence believe that campaign cash from banking and other financial interests plays no role in a politician’s thinking?

A year and a half later, Dodd acknowledges that the nation’s finances are in an “economic maelstrom.” Even for a politician, denying the financial meltdown caused by unscrupulous members of both the private and public sector is beyond absurd. Just the three quotes from Dodd presented so far raises the question of how much money did Senator Dodd receive while heading the banking committee and before?

During the past 20 years, PACs and employees of finance-related firms have contributed more than $13 million to Dodd’s election efforts, including nearly $6 million in the past two years. Among members of Congress, only leading presidential candidates — Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain and John Kerry — have collected more money from the sector.

Dodd has received more money from the donors in the financial sector than Presidential candidates! Hillary Clinton and John Kerry may not be an issue in this based on their failed attempts for the White House. John McCain is at least on record in 2005 for supporting S. 190 to provide increased oversight, etc., in the housing market. The bill was sponsored by Chuck Hagel and co-sponsored by Elizabeth Dole and John McCain but apparently died in committee on which Dodd, Hagel and Dole serve. And since then Dodd became Chairman. Obama claims to have supported such legislation but no evidence was found before publishing this post.

Dodd claims to have sounded the alarm on the meltdown but that was in 2007 when it was already underway. Sort of like setting the house on fire and then calling the Fire Dept. So how does one, in good conscience, take massive amounts of campaign contributions from financial interests, claim it does not influence your decisions and in addition claim you warned people about the problem but not until it was too late while the committee you chair did little or nothing to avoid the problem?

While preparing this post something that occurs from time to time happened again. But this time it seemed a little strange and suggested someone had second thoughts about raising the bar on this issue. An interesting hit returned on a Google search found the source announcing the content had been removed from their database and was not available for viewing or purchase. Thanks to the cache at Google it is presented here as found for readers to consider.

Is Sen. Dodd More Hero Or Villian In The Current Financial Crisis?
Published on 9/28/2008

THE ISSUE

As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd has played a lead role in working to develop a compromise bill that would provide relief to the troubled investment industry, while also providing more protections to homeowners facing foreclosure. He has been a regular fixture on the news networks. When this section went to print Friday, the relief package, estimated at $700 billion, was still being debated. THE DEBATE

Sen. Dodd’s critics, however, contend he played a big role in creating the problem that he is now working to solve with taxpayer money. Dodd’s committee should have been reining in Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac nearly two years ago when he became chairman, say the critics. And they note the finance, insurance and real estate industries gave nearly $6 million toward his failed run for the presidency.

THE QUESTION

So how do you see Sen. Dodd? Have his attempts to provide relief to struggling homeowners been heroic or his failure to control the financial giants sooner villainous? Or has he been both?

The question of the week is: Has Sen. Dodd been more hero or villain in the current financial crisis?

Feel free to comment on the above since it appears it won’t be happening at the original source. It could cause one to wonder why it was removed.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Crap Sandwich, Crap Numbers (Michlelle Malkin)

The public funding of campaigns will not be the only campaign pledge that Barack Obama abandons. Never mind the connections to William Ayers, Rev Wright or Tony Rezko since many of you have already. From pandering to the antiwar Dems along with his colleagues in the Presidential primary to a newer surrender or defeat or withdrawal strategy stuck on 16 months, the list continues to grow.

In the first Presidential debate Barack Obama redefined his flawed foreign policy of direct talks with rogue nations like Iran by redefining ‘preconditions’ as ‘preparations’ and claiming McCain’s long time friend and advisor, Henry Kissinger, agreed with him which has been since been shown to be flat wrong. His additional error to appear genuinely moved by the receipt of ‘the bracelet’ from the mother of a fallen soldier can be dismissed by his failure to even remember the soldier’s name.

While abandoning a pledge to use public financing in his campaign may pale in comparison to other Obama flaws, it demonstrates the real ambition of Barack Obama. Win at any cost and if that means raising money by any means necessary, so be it. As stated below, lobbyists are creative and will have no trouble peddling their agendas with Barack Obama if he is in the White House.

Obama’s Lunch Money

Like money, such influence always finds a way in Washington, as Mr. Obama well knows. In June, he wriggled out of an early promise to accept campaign spending limits, becoming the first candidate since the laws were passed in the 1970s not to take public funds for the general election. Mr. Obama supported these rules right up until the minute he didn’t, once it became clear that he’d be giving up his fund-raising advantage over John McCain. Lobbyists are creative people too, and in an Obama Administration they won’t have more trouble than they do now eluding the latest lobbying nannies.

Wasn’t it none other than the Messiah, Senator Barack Obama who criticized Senator John McCain for having lobbyist connections on his campaign staff? Wasn’t it Barack Obama who said things have to change in Washington and the lobbyists can no longer be allowed to control the nation’s capitol? So you have to ask at least one question about Barack Obama and lobbyists. If Obama has three dozen lobbyist lawyers on his fund raising staff and it is said a great deal of his campaign donations come from individual donors, could these donors be employees of companies who pay lobbyists to run Washington? Maybe Mr Innocent is not so innocent.

Obama tied to lobbyists, but boasts of not taking money

By Ken Dilanian, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Barack Obama often boasts he is “the only candidate who isn’t taking a dime from Washington lobbyists,” yet his fundraising team includes 38 members of law firms that were paid $138 million last year to lobby the federal government, records show.

Ah yes, the ‘Washington Democratic establishment’ and a ’stealthy operation’ on K Street are just the ticket for Obama. Whether he is taking lobbyist money right now or not, the quiet assembly of a network of top politicians and lobbyists, the marriage made in hell, will serve him well if elected. When voters have long forgotten all his abandoned principles spoken of and broken during the campaign, life will go on with business as usual in Washington. That’s a nightmare we could all do without. A far left Democratic politician with an unlimited wallet to pursue his socialist agenda and push America closer to the abyss.

Obama’s K Street project

Williams is actively building support for Obama among lobbyists and the corporate clients they represent. While other Obama supporters have described him as a leading activist, Williams demurs: “I wouldn’t want to put my position as a spearhead.” He acknowledges that the gains Obama is making among Washington’s Democratic establishment are hard to see because Obama’s K Street supporters have kept a low profile. As a result, Obama’s K Street network is a stealthy operation.

Just like the community organizing affiliation with the corrupt and voter fraud filled ACORN and the Annenberg project ripoff of Obama and Ayers for over 100 million dollars, the Democratic party nominee for President has used lobbyists in his state legislative experience as well as ‘granting’ money to former volunteers that are now under investigation. How does the story below bode for an Obama health care initiative otherwise known as socialized medicine run by the government and your tax dollars?

In Illinois, Obama dealt with lobbyists

The wrangling over the healthcare measure, which narrowly passed and became law in 2004, illustrates how Obama, during his eight years in the Illinois Senate, was able to shepherd major legislation by negotiating competing interests in Springfield, the state capital. But it also shows how Obama’s own experience in lawmaking involved dealings with the kinds of lobbyists and special interests he now demonizes on the campaign trail.

A hundred grand to a former campaign volunteer who spread some to his wife and the project never saw the light of day. Perhaps the investigation will but it is doubtful what with a Democratic Attorney General investigating it and already saying Obama providing the grant is not part of the case.

Obama grant being probed

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

As a parting note, what about all those Obama earmarks and the fact that John McCain’s earmarks are zero? Folks, the information is out there, you just have to look for it as the MSM will not help you. (Well, not much)

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Wal-Mart lobbies above retail value
Dec 26, 12:28 PM EST
By DIBYA SARKAR
AP Business Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — Wal-Mart’s message to America is “Save money. Live better.” Its motto in Washington might best be summed up another way: Spend more. Lobby harder.

The world’s largest retailer spent nearly $1.8 million in the first six months of 2007 and is on pace to break the nearly $2.5 million it spent for all of 2006.

While overall spending on lobbying appears to be slowing a bit, some industries, such as private equity, and companies, such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc., are bucking the trend.

Still criticized for pay and benefits that often require employees to seek government sponsored alternatives to group insurance, Wal-Mart’s save money, live better slogan has taxpayers picking up the tab. There support of amnesty and keep wages lower to reduce prices as well as strong arming offshore vendors for their inventory contradict the idea of a well run business that offers quality at competitive prices.

Mega increases in lobbying expenditures may account for the quieter response to Wal-Mart practices in Washington. But don’t take this at face value, read the rest of this report and do a little research about the Walton family business.

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog
FaultlineUSA
Conservative Thoughts

What would you expect from a group without the sense to understand the ‘larger issue’ they now claim as the excuse for actions denounced by anyone with a backbone? That’s right. More discussion of MoveOn since they so richly deserve every criticism directed at them. Was this said before? There are certain lines you don’t cross. And here is how MoveOn responds to their wake up call to do the right thing.

Yesterday, an organization so small its 17 employees don’t even have a central office, found itself under attack by not only President Bush, who said the ad was “disgusting,” but also by the Democratic-controlled Senate, which passed a resolution 72 to 25 expressing its own outrage. Many Democrats blamed the group for giving moderate Republicans a ready excuse for staying with Bush and for giving Bush and his supporters a way to divert attention away from the war.

In an e-mail to its members last night, the group acknowledged that the content of the ad might have angered its allies but argued that a larger issue is at stake. “Maybe you liked our General Petraeus ad. Maybe you thought the language went too far,” they wrote. “But make no mistake: this is much bigger than one ad.”

This is the single largest example of the far left fringe base of the Democratic party that is being appeased and accommodated by the likes of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Richardson, Dodd and many other Democrats who refused to acknowledge their over the top use of an ad in a national publication and the baseless attack on General Petraeus. A man with more honor and character than MoveOn could ever hope to achieve. But then, honorable achievements is obviously not something of which MoveOn would be interested.

Condemning MoveOn is the closest Congress has come to effortless bipartisan effectiveness since the performance ratings fell in the basement. Perhaps the Democratic party majority could seize the opportunity to acknowledge victory in Iraq is in this country’s best interest. Showing there is apolitical incentive to do the right thing might become contagious. Then the two parties could actually get something worthwhile completed and watch their numbers go up. Continuing to cozy up to MoveOn is not a recipe for success.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Stop the ACLU, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson’s Website, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Big Dog’s Weblog, Right Truth, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, Wake Up America, Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Church and State, 123beta, DeMediacratic Nation, Adam’s Blog, Nuke’s News & Views, Phastidio.net, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, Blue Star Chronicles, Republican National Convention Blog, High Desert Wanderer, Public Eye, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Ah, takin’s it easy again. It is nice when someone else provides a pleasant rebuttal to Hillary Rodham Clinton touting Hillary Rodham Clinton. HRC’s HCII is so preposterous as to inflict upon the American people the largest insult to the collective intelligence as may ever have been witnessed. Oh, no, that’s right, this is the late summer rerun of Hillary Care I. This sequel must be designed to pay off lobbyists favored by HRC and voters who have not payed attention or are too young or too old to remember early nineties with any precision.

H/T to The Wall Street Journal’s Opinion Journal for saving anyone interested in getting the word out the time and tedium of assembling a review of HCII.

HillaryCare’s New Clothes

Different means but the same political destination.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

No liberal reform would be complete without repealing the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003; Mrs. Clinton would foot the bill for her plan with this tax increase. The rest of the estimated $110 billion per year in new government spending would be achieved by “modernizing” health-care delivery and “promoting wellness,” though this $35 billion in savings is speculative, if not fanciful. Further tax hikes would be required: That $110 billion is a back-of-the-envelope calculation, and Team Hillary is keeping the specifics in its pocket.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com