Friday, 26 September 2008
DOCTORED PICTURE FROM P.U.M.A.
Yes, of course the picture is doctored. The people
who doctored it (or bought the bib, or something) are from P.U.M.A. (People United
Means Action). As you may have surmised, they are not particularly taken with Barack
I usually wouldn't be passing along an obviously bogus picture. But this one is so funny I thought I'd make
an exception. I'll leave you to figure out what it intends to convey:
"HIGH FUNCTIONING MORON" AND MEDIA BIAS
Last night I watched just a few minutes of Anderson Cooper's show on
CNN. He was moderating a political panel that included among others, paul
begala -- a Democratic operative and one of the most vicious hatchet men who
comes on these shows.
In the course of discussing the financial negotiations that had taken place
during the day, begala referred to President Bush as "a high functioning
No one on the panel called begala on his vicious, disgusting
insult. Not one of them said a word about it.
In other words, a Democratic operative calling the President of the
United States a "high functioning moron" was treated as nothing other than
acceptable commentary. Even the moderator, Anderson Cooper, did
not challenge begala or suggest that it might be over the top.
It was just fine.
Then they wonder why people call them biased.
BLATANT MEDIA BIAS (BMB)
I write a lot about blatant media bias (BMB). Not because I'm working
at finding it, but because it is so prevalent in our mainstream media that it's
Here are two recent examples, both from that well known "neutral"
journalist, Katie Couric.
1. The Party Affiliation Game
Here is a report from Brent Baker of www.newsbusters.org regarding how katie
couric, the CBS news anchor, handled two political corruption stories last
night. See if you notice a difference between the two:
Couric IDs Stevens as 'Senior
Republican,' Didn't Cite Rangel's Party
On Thursday night, CBS anchor Katie Couric
began a short news update on Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska by immediately
highlighting his party affiliation: The senior Republican in the U.S.
Senate went on trial today for corruption... Stevens was appointed to his
seat in 1968. But the night before, in an item on ethical questions
surrounding Congressman Charles Rangel of New York, a House veteran elected
in 1970 who is Chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, Couric
failed to inform viewers he's a Democrat. Though, as his bio recites, he's Chairman
of the Board of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, sans any party
ID Couric announced on Wednesday's CBS Evening News:
The House also plans to investigate one
of its own: New York Congressman Charles Rangel. He's come under fire for,
among other things, failure to pay taxes on a luxury villa he owns in the
Dominican Republic. Rangel has rejected calls that he step down as Chairman of
the House Ways and Means Committee.
Couric on Stevens on Thursday night,
September 25, as she also brought in Alaska's Governor, Sarah Palin:
The senior Republican in the U.S.
Senate went on trial today for corruption -- Ted Stevens of Alaska. Prosecutors say a contractor renovated
Stevens' home for free, but the Senator failed to report it as a gift. The
defense told the court Stevens paid every bill he received for the project and
had no idea the contractor wasn't billing him for all the work. Here in New
York today, reporters asked Alaska Governor Sarah Palin if she supports
Stevens' re-election. She replied, we'll see where his trial goes.
2. The Great Depression Invocation
On Wednesday, Ms. Couric interviewed Sarah Palin and then, later, John
McCain. As you might expect, both interviews aired on her network news
show (in edited form, I believe, but that's another story for another time).
During the Palin interview, Couric asked if "...there's a risk
of another great depression". Here is the verbatim transcript> I
have added what came beforehand, so you know that Couric was the one who
introduced this terminology to the interview:
Couric: But polls have
shown that Sen. Obama has actually gotten a boost as a result of this latest
crisis, with more people feeling that he can handle the situation better than
Palin: I'm not looking at poll numbers. What I
think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look
at track records and see who's more apt to be talking about solutions and
wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who's
actually done it?
Couric: If this doesn't pass, do you think
there's a risk of another Great Depression?
Couric then interviewed John McCain later in the day. If you view
the interview you will find that virtually every question in the 11 minute
segment was negative and designed to reflect badly on Mr. McCain (click here to see for
yourself). That in and of itself, is a good example of BMB. But
it is not the one I'm zeroing in on (how nice to be able to pick and
The question that really struck me was this one:
today, Senator, I spoke with your running mate Sarah Palin and she told me
that if action is not taken a great depression is, quote, the road that
America may find itself on. Do you agree with that
Notice the wording? That is a very artfully constructed sentence that,
almost certainly, caused the vast majority of viewers to think Sarah Palin
was the one who introduced the term "great depression" -- which she
did not. As you saw above, Katie Couric did.
Given the almost immediate proximity of the two interviews, it is highly unlikely that John
McCain was able to fully review the Palin interview before it was his
So what Couric really did was to ambush McCain with a question that invoked
the great depression, and force him to defend his running mate about it when
she didn't even bring the subject up.
BMB folks, pure BMB.
But listen to Ms.Couric squeal like a stuck pig if you call her
DICK MORRIS ON MCCAIN'S STRATEGY
Dick Morris isn't much of a political prognosticator (about this
time last year he told us Hillary Clinton was a shoo-in for the Democratic
nomination and had an 80% probability of becoming the next President).
But he is an excellent political strategist. That is why his analysis
of what John McCain has done is so interesting to me.
Here it is. See what you think of it:
Brilliance of McCain's Move
Commentary by Dick Morris
McCain has transformed a minority in
both houses of Congress and a losing
position in the polls into the key role in the bailout package, the main man
around whom the final package will take shape. He arrived in Washington to find
the Democrats working with the Bush Administration to pass an unpopular $700
billion bailout. The Democrats had already cut their deal with Bush. The Dems
agreed to the price tag while Bush agreed to special aid to families facing
foreclosure, equity for the taxpayers, and limits on executive compensation. But
no sooner had McCain arrived than he derailed the deal.
Knowing how unpopular the bailout
is with the American people, the Democrats are not about to pass anything
without broad Republican support even though their majorities permit them to act
alone. Instead of signing on with the Democratic/Bush package, the House
Republicans are insisting on replacing the purchase of corporate debt with
loans to companies and insurance
paid for by the companies, not by the taxpayers. That, of course, is a popular
position. McCain would be comfortable to debate this issue division all day.
And, if the Dems dont cave into the Republican position, thats probably
exactly what hell do on Friday nights scheduled debate in Mississippi.
But the Democrats are not about to be
stubborn. They know their package is a lemon and need the political cover of
Republican support. So the Republicans can write their own ticketand they will.
John McCain will be at the center of the emerging compromise while Obama is out
on the campaign trail kissing babies. If the deal is cut before Fridays debate,
my bet is that McCain shows up in triumph. If it isnt, he shows up anyway and
flagellates Obama over the differences between the Democratic package and
By Monday, at the latest, the
Democrats have to cave in and pass the Republican version. They dont dare
pass their own without GOP support, so they will have to cave in to the
Then McCain comes out of the
process as the hero who made it happen when the president couldnt and Obama
wouldnt. He becomes the bailout expert.
And, of course, the bailout will
work. With the feds standing behind the bad debt, whether by purchase or loans
and insurance, Wall Street will breathe a sigh of relief. Bears wont dare bet
against the economy with the entire weight of the federal government on the
other side. They may be bears but they are not rabid.
Finally, McCain, as the reigning
expert on bailouts, then can take the tax issue to Obama, saying that a tax
increase, such as the Democrat is pushing, would destroy the bailout, ruin the
economy, and trigger a collapse.
This bold move by McCain is about
to work. Big time.
Do Morris' points sound logical? Yes., But is Morris right?
I have no idea. .
This is certainly worth following closely. Let's talk about it again
next week and see how things shook out.
TURNING A BAILOUT INTO A HARD LEFT BOONDOGGLE
All thanks to Ed Morrissey, formerly of captainsquarters.com and now a
regular writer at www.hotair.com.
He has written a clear, fact-filled explanation of a key reason so many
Republicans will not sign onto the financial bailout deal.
Read it and see what Democrats are trying to pull here. The bold print
The Democratic ACORN bailout; Update: Video
posted at 7:55 am on September 26, 2008 by
House Republicans refused to support the Henry
Paulson/Chris Dodd compromise bailout plan yesterday afternoon, even after the
New York Times
reported that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson got down on one knee to beg Nancy
Pelosi to compromise. One of the sticking points, as
Senator Lindsey Graham
explained later, wasnt a
lack of begging but a poison pill that would push 20% of all profits from the bailout into the Housing Trust Fund a
boondoggle that Democrats in Congress has used to fund political-action groups
like ACORN and the National Council of La Raza:
In the Roosevelt Room after the session, the
Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., literally bent down on one knee as
he pleaded with Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, not to blow it up by
withdrawing her partys support for the package over what Ms. Pelosi derided
as a Republican betrayal.
I didnt know you were Catholic, Ms. Pelosi
said, a wry reference to Mr. Paulsons kneeling, according to someone who
observed the exchange. She went on: Its not me blowing this up, its the
Mr. Paulson sighed. I know. I
Graham told Greta van Susteren that Democrats had
their own priorities, and it wasnt bailing out the financial sector:
And this deal thats on the table now is not a
very good deal. Twenty percent of the money that should go to retire
debt that will be created to solve this problem winds up in a housing
organization called ACORN that is an absolute ill-run enterprise, and I cant
believe we would take money away from debt retirement to put it in a housing
program that doesnt work.
Heres the relevant part of the Dodd proposal:
TRANSFER OF A PERCENTAGE OF PROFITS.
- DEPOSITS.Not less than 20 percent of any
profit realized on the sale of each troubled asset purchased under this Act
shall be deposited as provided in paragraph (2).
- USE OF DEPOSITS.Of the amount referred to in
- 65 percent shall be deposited into the
Housing Trust Fund established under section 1338 of the Federal Housing
Enterprises Regulatory Reform Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4568); and
- 35 percent shall be deposited into the
Capital Magnet Fund established under section 1339 of that Act (12 U.S.C.
REMAINDER DEPOSITED IN THE TREASURY.All amounts
remaining after payments under paragraph (1) shall be paid into the General
Fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt.
Profits? Well be lucky not to take a bath on the
purchase of these toxic assets. If we get 70 cents on the dollar, that would be
That being said, this section proves that the
Democrats in Congress have learned nothing from this financial
collapse. They still want to game the market to pick winners and losers by
funding programs for unqualified and marginally-qualified borrowers to buy
houses they may not be able to afford and thats the innocent
explanation for this clause.
The real purpose of section D is to send more
funds to La Raza and ACORN through housing welfare, via the slush fund of the
HTF. They want to float their political efforts on behalf of Democrats
with public money, which was always the purpose behind the HTF. They did
the same thing in April in the first bailout bill, setting aside $100 million in counseling
that went in large part to ACORN and La Raza, and at least in the former case,
providing taxpayer funding for a group facing criminal charges in more than a dozen states for fraud.
Its bad enough that taxpayers have to pay the
price for Congress decade-long distortions of the lending and investment
markets. If we realize a profit from the bailout, that money should go to
pay down the debt or get returned to taxpayers as dividends from their
investment not to organizations committing voter fraud, and not to
restarting the entire cycle of government meddling in lending markets. Id
support a rational bailout package, but anything that funds the HTF needs to get
Update: Heres the video
Update II: The
Wall Street Journal
reported on the HTF/ACORN/Democratic connections in July:
The housing bill signed Wednesday by President
George W. Bush will provide a stream of billions of dollars for distressed
homeowners and communities and the nonprofit groups that serve
One of the biggest likely beneficiaries,
despite Republican objections: Acorn, a housing advocacy group that also helps
lead ambitious voter-registration efforts benefiting Democrats.
Partly because of the role of Acorn and other
housing advocacy groups, the White House and its allies in Congress resisted
Democrats plans to include money for a new affordable-housing trust fund and
$4 billion in grants to restore housing in devastated neighborhoods. In the
end, the money stayed in the bill; the White House saw little
What most riles Republicans about the
bill is the symbiotic relationship between the Democratic Party and the
housing advocacy groups, of which Acorn is among the biggest. Groups such as
the National Council of La Raza and the National Urban League also lobby to
secure government-funded services for their members and seek to move them to
the voting booth. Acorn has been singled out for criticism because of its
reach, its endorsements of Democrats, and past flaws in its bookkeeping and
voter-registration efforts that its detractors in Congress have seized
Once again, the Democrats want to set up a
self-funding mechanism, this time by exploiting a severe financial crisis.
Over the past year I have talked extensively about ACORN. About all the
fraudulent activities in all the states and all the lawsuits and all the
convictions and admissions of guilt, every one of them involving fraudulent
voter registrations on behalf of Democrats.
So given a situation where we must act, and as quickly as possible?
Democrats try to exploit it to give these dishonest, Democrat-benefitting frauds
untold millions to keep up the good work.
WHERE ARE THE MEDIA ON THIS? The answer is that it goes unreported
because most media in this country are sympathetic to the goals of ACORN -
namely, to use any means necessary, illegal being just fine - to get Democrats
votes and win them elections.
La Raza is an organization dedicated to taking the entire southwest from the
United States. That's right. Taking the southwestern states and
making it a Latino entity. Democrats want to pour money into these people
When Sarah Palin was (dishonestly) connected to the Alaska Independence
Party, media jumped all over the story - and then quietly stopped talking about
it when the story turned out to be 100% untrue.
Here is a major political party trying to fund a group that wants an entire
region of the USA taken away, and not one effing word about it from the same
Frauds. Whores. Liars.
JOHN MCCAIN'S TRACK RECORD ON FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC
You can listen to the spin and BS, or you can know the actual, indisputable
This is John McCain's verbatim statement, made on the floor of the
Senate on May 25, 2006.
The vision is Mr. McCain's. The bold print is mine:
McCain [R-AZ]: Mr. President, this week
Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit
growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically
created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion
The Office of Federal
Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees
deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings
targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of
Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report
shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003
was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial
misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit
restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also
states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort
to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting
problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8
million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated
lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have
demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of
For years I have
been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer
magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market.
OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the
report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs
need to be reformed without delay.
Last Action: Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a
I join as a
cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005,
S. 190, to underscore my
support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does
not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk
that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall
financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my
colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform
There is John McCain laying out the problem and proposing a solution ---
OVER TWO YEARS AGO.
Anyone care to put up what Barack Obama said about Fanny
Mae and Freddy Mac then? Before then? After then? Before last week?
I'll wait.....and it will be one helluva long one.
Remember this when you hear the political operatives laying blame for our financial
problems....and know who was trying to solve them years ago.
I'm tired so this is going to be real quick.
Obama held his own and then some at the beginning, on the economy
issues. He may have won that part of the debate slightly
On the foreign policy issues (about 3/4 of the entire debate) McCain won this
debate and bordered on cleaning Obama's clock altogether.
The two most frequent comments over that period were McCain saying "Senator
Obama doesn't seem to understand....." and Obama saying "Senator McCain is
absolutely right....." That pretty much tells the story.
The most memorable line? During the discussion of
whether a President should meet ahmadinejad without preconditions, when McCain,
with genuine amazement, looked at Obama and said something like "You're going to
sit across the table from him and he tells you he's going to exterminate
Israel. What are you going to say to him, no you can't?" (UPDATE: McCain's exact words were
"So let me get this right. We sit down with Ahmadinejad, and he says, "We're
going to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth," and we say, "No, you're not"?
I also thought McCain had a far more appealing demeanor. Obama seemed
to alternate between visible irritation and a somewhat patronizing
smile/derisive laugh. Arrogance like that usually doesn't play very
The next debate won't feature foreign policy, so Obama will be on stronger
ground then. He'll need it.