"How many people have early voted?" Obama said, eliciting cheers from people bundled up in fleece. "That's what I'm talking about. No point in waiting in lines if you don't have to. You know who you're going to vote for."
Allow me to translate:
"Please, please, please go ahead and cast your ballot for me now, because I'm deathly afraid that some of the bad stuff I've been hiding won't stay hidden until election day. I want you to vote for me now, so you can't undo it later or change your mind."
26 October 2008
03 October 2008
A visit to Mr. Webster...
Pondering in my spare time this afternoon how the Democrats, Bush, and Paulson managed to get the "lipstick on the pig" of the bailout bill, my mind wandered to a phrase I first heard in business school some 20 years ago. While it's not a phrase I use every day, I still find it useful in many circumstances. After considering the matter, I thought it apropos to revisit today.
Main Entry: due diligence (n.)
1 : the care that a reasonable person exercises under the circumstances to avoid harm to other persons or their property 2 : research and analysis of a company or organization done in preparation for a business transaction (as a corporate merger or purchase of securities)
Example: Congress failed to exercise due diligence in passing the recent bailout bill.
As I noted to a colleague this afternoon when the subject turned to the bailout (she's a flaming lib, while I'm not so much), while I think this bill is a huge stinker in general, my biggest issue is that they passed the bill without exercising the same basic investigatory standard that even the most rudimentary businesspeople use: Get the facts, assess the pros and cons, and get some expert help when you need it. Instead, Congresspersons became instant economists, capable of understanding all sides of this complex issue (heck, they couldn't even come to consensus on who was at fault) and the effects of their actions both on the underlying issue itself and on the world's financial markets. In their rush to show that they were Doing Something, they couldn't be bothered to slow down a bit and listen to those with some expertise who might have counseled them just to Do Nothing For A While; after all, Doing Nothing doesn't sell, while Doing Something is a proven winner, even if it's the Wrong Thing.
Main Entry: due diligence (n.)
1 : the care that a reasonable person exercises under the circumstances to avoid harm to other persons or their property 2 : research and analysis of a company or organization done in preparation for a business transaction (as a corporate merger or purchase of securities)
Example: Congress failed to exercise due diligence in passing the recent bailout bill.
As I noted to a colleague this afternoon when the subject turned to the bailout (she's a flaming lib, while I'm not so much), while I think this bill is a huge stinker in general, my biggest issue is that they passed the bill without exercising the same basic investigatory standard that even the most rudimentary businesspeople use: Get the facts, assess the pros and cons, and get some expert help when you need it. Instead, Congresspersons became instant economists, capable of understanding all sides of this complex issue (heck, they couldn't even come to consensus on who was at fault) and the effects of their actions both on the underlying issue itself and on the world's financial markets. In their rush to show that they were Doing Something, they couldn't be bothered to slow down a bit and listen to those with some expertise who might have counseled them just to Do Nothing For A While; after all, Doing Nothing doesn't sell, while Doing Something is a proven winner, even if it's the Wrong Thing.
01 October 2008
What I'd say if I were smarter...
This is what I'd blog if I were smarter. As I read it, I found myself nodding along and thinking, "That's it, precisely!" It hits all the high notes on my concerns about McCain, as well as my general frustration that he and his fellow Republicans seem content to stay "above the fray," as it were, and consistently refuse to place blame where blame is due. (Credit: americanthinker.com)
---------------------
October 01, 2008
Time for McCain to Name Names
By C. Edmund Wright
There is but one issue in the 2008 election. The economy. Or more to the point, the economic meltdown. Whoever wins this debate will win the election. Or perhaps more accurately, whoever loses this debate will lose the election. Period.
It is important to understand this for anyone trying not to lose this upcoming election. That would ostensibly include Arizona Senator John McCain. And it may not be as simple as what side of the Paulson Plan debate you are on. The housing-mortgage virus is eating up billions of dollars of wealth daily and this tends to irritate those who are losing the wealth. That would now include everyone in the country who owns any stock, mutual fund shares or real estate. In other words, a large share of voters. (Note: This doesn't include me, though I understand the writer's logic. I'd prefer that McCain oppose the bailout, but I'm picking my battles here.)
When folks are this angry, there is hell to pay and "hell to pay" includes figuring out who to blame. For all of McCain's wanting to stay "above the fray" and his too-clever-by-half comment that now is not the time to assign blame, he is not hearing the public. It is indeed time to assign blame. With this kind of financial destruction on the part of most American families, someone is going to get blamed. You can count on it.
Let me repeat. Someone will get blamed. You will either enter that debate or you will lose that debate. Period.
And short of properly assigning blame to the liberal policies and politicians who are responsible for this mess, the blame will automatically fall to the current Presidential administration and by extension, his party. Right or wrong, that's how our politics play out. McCain simply has no choice now. He will start doing what he claims he loves to do related to government corruption -- naming names -- or he will be thrown on the ash heap of electoral shame alongside Bob Dole, George H. W. Bush and so on.
The good news for McCain, should he decide to grasp it, is that the party against which he is (supposed to be) running can easily be pegged with the lion's share of the blame regarding our economic meltdown. There is no doubt that liberal policies on energy and housing have combined to put the country in this situation, and only unwinding these policies will lead the nation out of this problem. Naming names properly will name a whole lot of folks with "D" beside their names.
Congress, of course, is now led by the very people who put us into this mess to begin with. If McCain thinks he can thread the needle in a bi-partisan fashion here, he is sadly mistaken. If he does not point out the facts, then his party will take the blame for and he will not win the election. It cannot happen. As far as he has run from President Bush, he will never get as far away from Bush as Obama can.
Bush has actually been on the right side of the energy production debate and the Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac regulation debate all along. The President has been a feckless advocate of the correct positions on these issues to be sure, but at least one can legitimately claim that the administration was intellectually correct on Fannie, Freddie and oil.
McCain himself eloquently and correctly pointed out problems with Fannie and Freddie back in 2005 and 2006, only to have the reforms he wanted defeated by Democrats in Congress. President Bush was with McCain on these issues. Obama meanwhile, garnering more Fannie Mae contributions in two years than all other senators not named Chris Dodd in the last nine, has been on the wrong side of these issues. This is a slam dunk waiting for McCain simply to take advantage of it.
Recently he has been out rambling on about government spending, CEO pay and earmarks. Yawn. None of this is pertinent unless you point out that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were Democrat earmarks and that the worst CEO pay abuse in recent memory is Franklin Raines' incentive compensation from Fannie triggered by fraudulent accounting. McCain did not bother to point any of that out of course. We must not "assign blame."
The simple fact is this: if the Democrats do not get their deserved blame for this economic situation, Republicans will experience a bloodbath on Election Day. The way our elections work, it is up to McCain to make that happen. The fact that he seems not to understand it is why many conservatives loathed the idea of a McCain nomination to begin with.
It can be argued that if McCain will not assign blame, he will not win the White House. He says he wants to lead. That sometimes mean calling out friends and colleagues in the opposition.
We soon will see whether McCain has it in him to put his country ahead of his instinct to reach across the aisle. If he does not show this ability, he will never occupy the Oval Office.
---------------------
October 01, 2008
Time for McCain to Name Names
By C. Edmund Wright
There is but one issue in the 2008 election. The economy. Or more to the point, the economic meltdown. Whoever wins this debate will win the election. Or perhaps more accurately, whoever loses this debate will lose the election. Period.
It is important to understand this for anyone trying not to lose this upcoming election. That would ostensibly include Arizona Senator John McCain. And it may not be as simple as what side of the Paulson Plan debate you are on. The housing-mortgage virus is eating up billions of dollars of wealth daily and this tends to irritate those who are losing the wealth. That would now include everyone in the country who owns any stock, mutual fund shares or real estate. In other words, a large share of voters. (Note: This doesn't include me, though I understand the writer's logic. I'd prefer that McCain oppose the bailout, but I'm picking my battles here.)
When folks are this angry, there is hell to pay and "hell to pay" includes figuring out who to blame. For all of McCain's wanting to stay "above the fray" and his too-clever-by-half comment that now is not the time to assign blame, he is not hearing the public. It is indeed time to assign blame. With this kind of financial destruction on the part of most American families, someone is going to get blamed. You can count on it.
Let me repeat. Someone will get blamed. You will either enter that debate or you will lose that debate. Period.
And short of properly assigning blame to the liberal policies and politicians who are responsible for this mess, the blame will automatically fall to the current Presidential administration and by extension, his party. Right or wrong, that's how our politics play out. McCain simply has no choice now. He will start doing what he claims he loves to do related to government corruption -- naming names -- or he will be thrown on the ash heap of electoral shame alongside Bob Dole, George H. W. Bush and so on.
The good news for McCain, should he decide to grasp it, is that the party against which he is (supposed to be) running can easily be pegged with the lion's share of the blame regarding our economic meltdown. There is no doubt that liberal policies on energy and housing have combined to put the country in this situation, and only unwinding these policies will lead the nation out of this problem. Naming names properly will name a whole lot of folks with "D" beside their names.
Congress, of course, is now led by the very people who put us into this mess to begin with. If McCain thinks he can thread the needle in a bi-partisan fashion here, he is sadly mistaken. If he does not point out the facts, then his party will take the blame for and he will not win the election. It cannot happen. As far as he has run from President Bush, he will never get as far away from Bush as Obama can.
Bush has actually been on the right side of the energy production debate and the Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac regulation debate all along. The President has been a feckless advocate of the correct positions on these issues to be sure, but at least one can legitimately claim that the administration was intellectually correct on Fannie, Freddie and oil.
McCain himself eloquently and correctly pointed out problems with Fannie and Freddie back in 2005 and 2006, only to have the reforms he wanted defeated by Democrats in Congress. President Bush was with McCain on these issues. Obama meanwhile, garnering more Fannie Mae contributions in two years than all other senators not named Chris Dodd in the last nine, has been on the wrong side of these issues. This is a slam dunk waiting for McCain simply to take advantage of it.
Recently he has been out rambling on about government spending, CEO pay and earmarks. Yawn. None of this is pertinent unless you point out that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were Democrat earmarks and that the worst CEO pay abuse in recent memory is Franklin Raines' incentive compensation from Fannie triggered by fraudulent accounting. McCain did not bother to point any of that out of course. We must not "assign blame."
The simple fact is this: if the Democrats do not get their deserved blame for this economic situation, Republicans will experience a bloodbath on Election Day. The way our elections work, it is up to McCain to make that happen. The fact that he seems not to understand it is why many conservatives loathed the idea of a McCain nomination to begin with.
It can be argued that if McCain will not assign blame, he will not win the White House. He says he wants to lead. That sometimes mean calling out friends and colleagues in the opposition.
We soon will see whether McCain has it in him to put his country ahead of his instinct to reach across the aisle. If he does not show this ability, he will never occupy the Oval Office.
30 September 2008
RINO on the loose...
WHY does Lindsay Graham continue to say stupid things??? Here's the latest, regarding the bailout bill:
"I have never been more disappointed in the Congress than I am today. I hope every member of the House of Representatives -- Republican and Democrat -- who voted against this legislation will work in the next twenty-four hours to improve the bill. Now is the time to put the national interest above the self interest."
For the life of me, I thought he ran as a conservative Republican six years ago. Apparently I was mistaken, or else he's working off of a very different definition of conservatism than I do. I understand that politics is sometimes about finding common ground through compromise in order to serve the greater good, but Graham appears to be a man literally compelled to compromise, particularly on what we conservatives see as mission-critical issues (e.g., amnesty).
Note to Sen. Graham: In this case, the national interest is best served by opposing the bailout, not by allowing Treasury Secretary Paulson and his staff of wild-guessers to throw out a number to which we all must ascribe in order to ensure that those who actively drove the market to the point it is at today don't suffer from their greed and short-sightedness. Interestingly enough, I would say that the national interest also serves my long-term self-interest to avoid leaving my children and their children (and their children) a huge heap of debt because we couldn't live within our means as a nation.
I'm no economist, but the market generally corrects itself, given sufficient time, because Adam Smith's "invisible hand" sees to it. Will there be loss, pain, and suffering while that happens? Most assuredly, and it may even be worse than we can imagine right now. But I am dead certain that government interference will cause more pain and suffering in the long run, because it is the government that got us into this mess to begin with. (Think Carter and the CRA...and then Clinton and the strongarming of our banking system to make loans to unqualified borrowers, and let your imagination go from there as you envision how Big Government will "fix it" for us.)
As for me, I can't envision pulling the lever for Graham again, until he either (a) learns to be true to his election-year espousal of conservatism, or (b) comes clean and calls himself what he is...a centrist who talks a good game about being conservative but has no intention of delivering on that claim. At least then I'll know he's being straight with us about who he is, and I can decide for myself what I can live with.
"I have never been more disappointed in the Congress than I am today. I hope every member of the House of Representatives -- Republican and Democrat -- who voted against this legislation will work in the next twenty-four hours to improve the bill. Now is the time to put the national interest above the self interest."
For the life of me, I thought he ran as a conservative Republican six years ago. Apparently I was mistaken, or else he's working off of a very different definition of conservatism than I do. I understand that politics is sometimes about finding common ground through compromise in order to serve the greater good, but Graham appears to be a man literally compelled to compromise, particularly on what we conservatives see as mission-critical issues (e.g., amnesty).
Note to Sen. Graham: In this case, the national interest is best served by opposing the bailout, not by allowing Treasury Secretary Paulson and his staff of wild-guessers to throw out a number to which we all must ascribe in order to ensure that those who actively drove the market to the point it is at today don't suffer from their greed and short-sightedness. Interestingly enough, I would say that the national interest also serves my long-term self-interest to avoid leaving my children and their children (and their children) a huge heap of debt because we couldn't live within our means as a nation.
I'm no economist, but the market generally corrects itself, given sufficient time, because Adam Smith's "invisible hand" sees to it. Will there be loss, pain, and suffering while that happens? Most assuredly, and it may even be worse than we can imagine right now. But I am dead certain that government interference will cause more pain and suffering in the long run, because it is the government that got us into this mess to begin with. (Think Carter and the CRA...and then Clinton and the strongarming of our banking system to make loans to unqualified borrowers, and let your imagination go from there as you envision how Big Government will "fix it" for us.)
As for me, I can't envision pulling the lever for Graham again, until he either (a) learns to be true to his election-year espousal of conservatism, or (b) comes clean and calls himself what he is...a centrist who talks a good game about being conservative but has no intention of delivering on that claim. At least then I'll know he's being straight with us about who he is, and I can decide for myself what I can live with.
Somewhere, Pigs are Flying...
To my shock and pleasant surprise, someone at CNN gets it (at least on the bailout issue).
So why do I, a middle class homeowner with a 401(k) and much more to lose than gain if the market goes belly-up, oppose the bailout? Here's why. We stand at the most significant crossroads of my adult life, both with the bailout issue and the upcoming election, and the decisions that We the People make in the next two months will in every conceivable way dictate the quality of our lives for the foreseeable future. With a wife and two young children in tow, and retirement not even looming on the horizon yet, I'm going to hitch my wagon to the "no Marxism" star.
So why do I, a middle class homeowner with a 401(k) and much more to lose than gain if the market goes belly-up, oppose the bailout? Here's why. We stand at the most significant crossroads of my adult life, both with the bailout issue and the upcoming election, and the decisions that We the People make in the next two months will in every conceivable way dictate the quality of our lives for the foreseeable future. With a wife and two young children in tow, and retirement not even looming on the horizon yet, I'm going to hitch my wagon to the "no Marxism" star.
29 September 2008
An open message to Rep. Henry Brown
Note: While researching HR 3997 (the bailout bill), I discovered that my Congressman, Rep. Henry Brown, voted for the bill. This is a copy of a message I sent to Rep. Brown tonight through his re-election campaign website, www.henrybrownforcongress.com.
------------------------------------
Dear Rep. Brown:
Shame on you, sir, for voting "Aye" on HR 3997, otherwise known as "the bailout bill." Knowing what we do about the genesis of the problems that have brought us to the point of a potential economic crisis, I cannot believe that you, as a conservative Republican, can justify your support for this horrible bill. HR 3997 has absolutely no redeeming qualities, and the American people deserve better than to be handed a bill that will extend significant economic consequences several generations into the future as our thanks for taking individual responsibility for our own finances. Your support is especially egregious when one considers that the number attached to the bailout -- over $700 million -- was admittedly pulled from thin air to serve as a large number that drew attention to the issue. Sir, your constituents deserve better leadership on this extremely important issue than you have shown with your vote today.
I have been a supporter of yours for many years, but I am incredibly disappointed that you chose to support this reprehensible piece of legislation that has no business even being considered in the halls of the United States Congress. Rest assured that I will reconsider my support for your re-election efforts this year, and will encourage my friends, colleagues, and associates to form their own opinions regarding your support of HR 3997.
If you can shed any light on your reasons for voting "Aye" on this bill, please do so. While it is unlikely that I will agree with your reasons, I would prefer to know your mind on the matter than to ascribe my own motives to your actions.
A disappointed constituent,
Michael Lisle
------------------------------------
Dear Rep. Brown:
Shame on you, sir, for voting "Aye" on HR 3997, otherwise known as "the bailout bill." Knowing what we do about the genesis of the problems that have brought us to the point of a potential economic crisis, I cannot believe that you, as a conservative Republican, can justify your support for this horrible bill. HR 3997 has absolutely no redeeming qualities, and the American people deserve better than to be handed a bill that will extend significant economic consequences several generations into the future as our thanks for taking individual responsibility for our own finances. Your support is especially egregious when one considers that the number attached to the bailout -- over $700 million -- was admittedly pulled from thin air to serve as a large number that drew attention to the issue. Sir, your constituents deserve better leadership on this extremely important issue than you have shown with your vote today.
I have been a supporter of yours for many years, but I am incredibly disappointed that you chose to support this reprehensible piece of legislation that has no business even being considered in the halls of the United States Congress. Rest assured that I will reconsider my support for your re-election efforts this year, and will encourage my friends, colleagues, and associates to form their own opinions regarding your support of HR 3997.
If you can shed any light on your reasons for voting "Aye" on this bill, please do so. While it is unlikely that I will agree with your reasons, I would prefer to know your mind on the matter than to ascribe my own motives to your actions.
A disappointed constituent,
Michael Lisle
Hoisted on their own petard...
House Democrats, led by the indefatigably partisan Nancy Pelosi and her right-hand man, Steny Hoyer, poisoned their own well just before today's momentous vote regarding the $730 billion bailout package. By all accounts, the votes were in place to secure bipartisan support for the bailout, until Nasty Nancy decided to rub Republicans' faces in it by addressing the House and saying, "When was the last time someone asked you for $700 billion? It is a number that is staggering, but tells us only the costs of the Bush administration's failed economic policies — policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision and no discipline in the system." Appropriately disgusted by her partisanship, enough of the House Republicans who had agreed to cast their vote for it decided not to.
A few things jump out at me that I feel need to be addressed. First, too many in Congress would rather be effective partisans than effective legislators. This is true of both parties, but it seems particularly true of the current Democratic leadership. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have never seen an issue that they couldn't inject with some unnecessary partisanship (see John McCain's recent decision to suspend his campaign in an attempt to bring leadership to the bailout bill), and today's vote is a perfect example. One would think that, with public approval for Congress at all-time lows, both would make a more concerted effort to act in ways that actually engender public support for the institution. Instead, they seem more determined than ever to prove that they couldn't care less about, much less relate to, the needs of most of us.
Second, if this particular bill was really the answer (it wasn't), then why did the Democrats even need Republican votes? The Dems outnumber the Reps 235-199 in the House. Hardly a veto-proof majority, but more than enough to ensure passage of this bill. Even if every Republican had voted against this bill, the Democrats could still have passed the bill if they so desired. The reality is that the Dems wanted bipartisanship on this bill so that if (when) it failed, they would have others on whom to blame the failure. That's the M.O. for the party of jackasses (the symbol, although there are other accurate interpretations...): Ensure enough "coverage" with Republican votes that a level of plausible deniability is maintained, and you can dissemble, divert attention, and generally fool most of the people most of the time. Then you can say, presumably with a straight face, things such as:
Third, and I have to absolutely belly laugh at this, I hope The O is enjoying the feeling of the egg on his face. After insisting on Face the Nation yesterday that McCain deserved absolutely no credit for the bill, and that the key provisions were really those that he'd been whispering in Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's ear for the past two weeks, his own party could (would?) not deliver it for him. To McCain's credit, he took the high road on the issue of credit; in truth, I can't blame him, as I wouldn't want to be associated with it either.
Finally, I am incredibly disappointed with President Bush's lack of leadership on this issue. I suppose it's possible that he was offering McCain some political coverage on this hot potato issue, but I don't think so. I think, at long last, that he is just that out of touch with average Americans. He's earned the benefit of the doubt, so I'm not questioning that he thinks he's doing what's best, but in this case I disagree with him on the cure for the ill and find myself wishing that someone besides Paulson had his ear on this issue.
In the end, how much does this particular vote matter? I think it's the most important vote Congress has taken in my lifetime, because of the far-reaching effects of the bill. It is a seminal moment in American history, and I tried tonight to help my soon-to-be 11-year-old daughter understand just why it was so important. The lesson I learned from that effort is one that Pelosi, Reid, and their cronies have already learned and count on as gospel: Most folks don't have enough interest to pay attention for long.
A few things jump out at me that I feel need to be addressed. First, too many in Congress would rather be effective partisans than effective legislators. This is true of both parties, but it seems particularly true of the current Democratic leadership. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have never seen an issue that they couldn't inject with some unnecessary partisanship (see John McCain's recent decision to suspend his campaign in an attempt to bring leadership to the bailout bill), and today's vote is a perfect example. One would think that, with public approval for Congress at all-time lows, both would make a more concerted effort to act in ways that actually engender public support for the institution. Instead, they seem more determined than ever to prove that they couldn't care less about, much less relate to, the needs of most of us.
Second, if this particular bill was really the answer (it wasn't), then why did the Democrats even need Republican votes? The Dems outnumber the Reps 235-199 in the House. Hardly a veto-proof majority, but more than enough to ensure passage of this bill. Even if every Republican had voted against this bill, the Democrats could still have passed the bill if they so desired. The reality is that the Dems wanted bipartisanship on this bill so that if (when) it failed, they would have others on whom to blame the failure. That's the M.O. for the party of jackasses (the symbol, although there are other accurate interpretations...): Ensure enough "coverage" with Republican votes that a level of plausible deniability is maintained, and you can dissemble, divert attention, and generally fool most of the people most of the time. Then you can say, presumably with a straight face, things such as:
- "Because somebody hurt [Republicans'] feelings they decide to punish the country. ... I mean, that's hardly plausible." -- Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA
- "We delivered on our side of the bargain." -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, congratulating Democrats on getting 60% of their caucus to vote for the bill.
- "We did our part. As I said on the floor, this is a bipartisan responsibility and we think (Democrats) met our responsibility." -- Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-MD
- Interestingly, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Sen. Chris "Countrywide" Dodd (D-CT) either weren't able to find a camera or didn't say anything worth reporting.
Third, and I have to absolutely belly laugh at this, I hope The O is enjoying the feeling of the egg on his face. After insisting on Face the Nation yesterday that McCain deserved absolutely no credit for the bill, and that the key provisions were really those that he'd been whispering in Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's ear for the past two weeks, his own party could (would?) not deliver it for him. To McCain's credit, he took the high road on the issue of credit; in truth, I can't blame him, as I wouldn't want to be associated with it either.
Finally, I am incredibly disappointed with President Bush's lack of leadership on this issue. I suppose it's possible that he was offering McCain some political coverage on this hot potato issue, but I don't think so. I think, at long last, that he is just that out of touch with average Americans. He's earned the benefit of the doubt, so I'm not questioning that he thinks he's doing what's best, but in this case I disagree with him on the cure for the ill and find myself wishing that someone besides Paulson had his ear on this issue.
In the end, how much does this particular vote matter? I think it's the most important vote Congress has taken in my lifetime, because of the far-reaching effects of the bill. It is a seminal moment in American history, and I tried tonight to help my soon-to-be 11-year-old daughter understand just why it was so important. The lesson I learned from that effort is one that Pelosi, Reid, and their cronies have already learned and count on as gospel: Most folks don't have enough interest to pay attention for long.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
