Robert Novak: Henry Paulson is Liberal "Democratic Activist"
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:4cWAePY1SoQJ:www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertDNovak/2007/10/01/hank_paulsons_dna+A+former+Goldman+Sachs+colleague+of+Paulson+Mindich+is+a+top-level+Democratic+fundraiser.&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&ie=UTF-8
Hank Paulson's DNA
By Robert D. Novak
Monday, October 1, 2007
Send an email to Robert D. Novak Email It
Print It
Take Action Read Article & Comments (7) Trackbacks Post Your Comments
WASHINGTON -- Eyebrows at the Treasury were raised last Tuesday when Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. named a major Democratic fundraiser to an important advisory role. On the next day, eyebrows were still elevated when Under Secretary Robert K. Steel participated in an event spearheaded by Bill Clinton's two Treasury secretaries.
A longtime Republican office holder now in the Bush administration noted these developments and e-mailed a fellow Republican outside the government: "This leads some to wonder whether this Treasury has become the pre-placed Hillary Clinton team." If she is elected president, it is presumed Sen. Clinton will want her own Treasury team. But she cannot be too unhappy with George W. Bush's current lineup there.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson speaks during the Clinton Global Initiative in New York September 27, 2007. REUTERS/Chip East (UNITED STATES) For a president who in 2001 brought faithful fellow Texans with him to Washington and named Republican activists to key posts, Bush's lame-duck Cabinet has virtual non-partisans heading three important departments. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is an intelligence professional and career bureaucrat. Attorney General-designate Michael Mukasey spent his career as a prosecutor and judge. But while Gates and Mukasey look like non-partisan civil servants, Paulson comes over as politically androgynous.
In his third try, Bush found the heavyweight Treasury secretary he desired in multi-millionaire investment banker Paulson. The tradeoff is that the former Goldman Sachs CEO does not act or sound much like a conservative Republican to the GOP remnant at the Treasury. "It's not in Hank Paulson's DNA," one official told me. Is he loyal to Bush? "Hank is for Hank," he replied.
Paulson marched to his own drummer last Tuesday by naming Eric Mindich, chairman of Eton Park Capital Management, to head the Asset Managers' Committee of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets. A former Goldman Sachs colleague of Paulson's, Mindich is a top-level Democratic fundraiser. He was in Sen. John Kerry's inner circle for the 2004 presidential campaign and backs Sen. Barack Obama for 2008.
Republicans in the administration were amazed that the White House acquiesced in appointing a Democratic activist to lead a group "to develop best practices" for asset managers. These critics wonder why President Bush did not ask Paulson why he could not name a Republican financier for this position. I posed the question last week, and a Treasury spokesman replied that "we were looking for somebody who is well respected in the industry" to fill what is "not really a political position." By that measure, no Treasury job can be considered political.
That includes Bob Steel, under secretary for domestic finance. Last Wednesday, Steel participated in a round-table discussion on "recent financial market disruptions" at the liberal Brookings Institution. Former Secretary Robert Rubin headed the panel that included two of his Clinton administration associates: his successor as secretary, Lawrence Summers, and former Deputy Secretary Roger Altman.
Steel surely did not feel out of place as a Republican stranger in the Democratic paradise at Brookings, for he is no Republican. Brought to the Treasury by Paulson a year ago, Steel is a retired Goldman Sachs vice chairman who worked there with Rubin and Paulson. Federal Election Commission records show no political contributions by Steel since the 2002 cycle, when he gave exclusively to Democrats (including Sen. Charles Schumer of New York). Steel, who is Board of Trustees chairman of Duke University in Durham, N.C., contributed to the North Carolina Democratic Party and its Senate candidates, Dan Blue and Erskine Bowles.
Although Paulson was a generous Republican contributor and prodigious Bush fundraiser (over $100,000) in the 2004 cycle, his earlier political giving was more varied. He contributed to Bill Clinton in 1992, Democrat Bill Bradley's 2000 presidential campaign, the feminist Emily's List and Wall Street's favorite Democrat, Chuck Schumer. Most of the Paulson family's Democratic contributions come from the secretary's wife, Wendy, who has supported Hillary Clinton.
All this was known to Bush in May 2006 when he tapped Paulson as a Treasury chief who would command respect on Wall Street. It should be no surprise then that he is regarded in his own administration as less a true Republican secretary than a transition to the next Democratic Treasury -- a trademark of a lame-duck regime.
Robert Novak is a syndicated columnist and editor of the Evans-Novak Political Report
Be the first to read Robert Novak's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
©Creators Syndicate
Obama is Top Recipient of Henry Paulson's Goldman Sachs
http://wharrison55.newsvine.com/_news/2008/09/15/1868384-obama-raking-in-the-wall-street-cash
Obama Raking In the Wall Street Cash
News Type: Event — Seeded on Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:22 AM EDTArticle Source: Center for Responsive Politicspolitics, barack-obama, john-mccain, wall-street, campaign-finance, small-donor-mythSeeded by Bill Harrison
While Barack Obama's campaign likes to maintain the fiction that he's raising his money from "small" donors the truth shows otherwise. The link above points to the $600K he's collected from Goldman Sachs.
This link shows the nearly $400K raised from Citigroup doubling the amount donated to McCain from that giant.
JPMorgan Chase? Again, double the amount donated to McCain.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000085
Heavy Hitters
Goldman Sachs: Recipients
Select Cycle: 2008 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990
Money to Congress: 2008 Cycle Dems: $2,061,150
Repubs: $631,696
Others: $0
Incumbents: $2,432,141
Non-Incumbents: $260,705
House # of Members Average Contribution Total Contributions
Democrats 92 $3,775 $347,385
Republicans 52 $3,612 $187,851
Independents 0 $0 $0
TOTAL 144 $3,716 $535,236
The US House of Representatives has 435 members.
Senate # of Members Average Contribution Total Contributions
Democrats 21 $70,790 $1,486,610
Republicans 23 $17,838 $410,295
Independents 0 $0 $0
TOTAL 44 $43,111 $1,896,905
The US Senate has 100 members.
Top Recipients
Senate Obama, Barack $691,930
Senate Clinton, Hillary $468,200
Presidential Romney, Mitt $229,675
Senate McCain, John $208,395
House Himes, Jim $114,748
Presidential Giuliani, Rudolph W $111,750
Senate Dodd, Christopher J $105,400
Presidential Edwards, John $66,450
Senate Specter, Arlen $47,600
House Emanuel, Rahm $32,950
Senate Reed, Jack $30,100
Senate Sununu, John E $29,900
Senate Baucus, Max $26,000
Senate Warner, Mark $25,900
Senate Harkin, Tom $24,580
Senate Lautenberg, Frank R $23,300
House Skelly, Michael Peter $22,657
Senate Collins, Susan M $21,400
Senate Landrieu, Mary L $20,700
Senate Durbin, Dick $19,800
See all recipients
Based on data released by the FEC on
Gingrich: Fire Henry Paulson Because a New Bailout Plan is Needed
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/gingrich_fire_paulson/2008/09/30/135977.html
Tuesday, September 30, 2008 3:56 PM
By: Jim Meyers Article Font Size
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says President Bush should fire Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson as Congress struggles to deal with the ongoing financial crisis.
Appearing on Fox News’ “On the Record” Monday night, Gingrich told host Greta Van Susteren: “We want a way to work through this. But I think that it requires a very different approach than Secretary Paulson has been taking.”
Asked if Paulson is “the right guy” for the job, Gingrich responded: “No. I mean, I think that he must have been a terrific deal-maker at Goldman Sachs and a great chairman of Goldman Sachs, but I don't think that's the same job as being a secretary of the Treasury. And I think the president would be much better off if Undersecretary [Bob] Kimmet was now replacing Secretary Paulson.”
Gingrich opined that the bailout bill that failed to pass the House was “badly designed by Secretary Paulson,” and Paulson liked the idea, “as a former chairman of Goldman Sachs, that he would get to spend $700 billion and he wanted the power.”
He also said that “when Secretary Paulson sent up a proposal to allow him to spend $700 billion with no congressional oversight and with no judicial review … he created a negotiating environment that was hopeless.”
Gingrich was particularly critical of Paulson and the New York Federal Reserve’s earlier move, reported by The New York Times, to include Goldman Sachs’ chairman at a meeting about insurance giant AIG’s financial crisis.
“I don't understand how the president can avoid firing the Secretary of the Treasury when you have a former chairman of Goldman Sachs who wants to have unlimited ability to spend money, and you have the current chairman of Goldman Sachs, the only private-sector person in a room,” Gingrich told Van Susteren.
“Two weeks later, the U.S. government put up $85 billion to help AIG, in which Goldman Sachs has a $20 billion exposure…
“When the average American understands this, they are going to be so angry at this Congress if it passes a deal to give Secretary Paulson money…
“I think the president will be far better off to have Bob Kimmet up there, the undersecretary of the Treasury, negotiating this bill than he is to have Secretary Paulson.”
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
As Secret and Foreign Money Floods to Obama he Strongly Backs Bailout
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_bailout_plan/2008/09/30/135929.html
-It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002
-The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_bailout_plan/2008/09/30/135929.html
Obama Strongly Backing Bailout
Tuesday, September 30, 2008 2:00 PM
RENO, Nev. -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is calling for Americans to get behind attempts to salvage a $700 billion rescue plan for the financial sector.
Obama told a crowd at the University of Nevada at Reno on Tuesday that if Wall Street fails, ordinary people will be hurt, too.
The Illinois Democrat warned that if Congress doesn't take action, people will find it tougher to get a mortgage for a home, a loan for college or a loan to buy a car.
Obama is proposing that the limit on federal deposit insurance for bank accounts be raised from $100,000 to $250,000. Increasing that limit, he says, would help small-business owners and reassure nervous Americans as well as help shore up the economy.
© 2008 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/Obama_fundraising_illegal/2008/09/29/135718.html?s=al&promo_code=6BD9-1
Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign
Monday, September 29, 2008 9:23 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman Article Font Size
More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't disclose.
And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate.
Obama has raised nearly twice that of John McCain's campaign, according to new campaign finance report.
But because of Obama’s high expenses during the hotly contested Democratic primary season and an early decision to forgo public campaign money and the spending limits it imposes, all that cash has not translated into a financial advantage — at least, not yet.
The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee began September with $95 million in cash, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
The McCain camp and the Republican National Committee had $94 million, because of an influx of $84 million in public money.
But Obama easily could outpace McCain by $50 million to $100 million or more in new donations before Election Day, thanks to a legion of small contributors whose names and addresses have been kept secret.
Unlike the McCain campaign, which has made its complete donor database available online, the Obama campaign has not identified donors for nearly half the amount he has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).
Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark.
Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold.
“Contributions that come under $200 aggregated per person are not listed,” said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the FEC. “They don’t appear anywhere, so there’s no way of knowing who they are.”
The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.
It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.
Biersack would not comment on whether the FEC was investigating the huge amount of cash that has come into Obama’s coffers with no public reporting.
But Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for CRP, a campaign-finance watchdog group, dismissed the scale of the unreported money.
“We feel comfortable that it isn’t the $20 donations that are corrupting a campaign,” he told Newsmax.
But those small donations have added up to more than $200 million, all of it from unknown and unreported donors.
Ritsch acknowledges that there is skepticism about all the unreported money, especially in the Obama campaign coffers.
“We and seven other watchdog groups asked both campaigns for more information on small donors,” he said. “The Obama campaign never responded,” whereas the McCain campaign “makes all its donor information, including the small donors, available online.”
The rise of the Internet as a campaign funding tool raises new questions about the adequacy of FEC requirements on disclosure. In pre-Internet fundraising, almost all political donations, even small ones, were made by bank check, leaving a paper trail and limiting the amount of fraud.
But credit cards used to make donations on the Internet have allowed for far more abuse.
“While FEC practice is to do a post-election review of all presidential campaigns, given their sluggish metabolism, results can take three or four years,” said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center.
Already, the FEC has noted unusual patterns in Obama campaign donations among donors who have been disclosed because they have gone beyond the $200 minimum.
FEC and Mr. Doodad Pro
When FEC auditors have questions about contributions, they send letters to the campaign’s finance committee requesting additional information, such as the complete address or employment status of the donor.
Many of the FEC letters that Newsmax reviewed instructed the Obama campaign to “redesignate” contributions in excess of the finance limits.
Under campaign finance laws, an individual can donate $2,300 to a candidate for federal office in both the primary and general election, for a total of $4,600. If a donor has topped the limit in the primary, the campaign can “redesignate” the contribution to the general election on its books.
In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as “Will, Good” from Austin, Texas.
Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.”
A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25.
In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375.
Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 — still well over the $4,600 limit.
There can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed these contributions, since Obama’s Sept. 20 report specified that Good Will’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $9,375.
In an e-mailed response to a query from Newsmax, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt pledged that the campaign would return the donations. But given the slowness with which the campaign has responded to earlier FEC queries, there’s no guarantee that the money will be returned before the Nov. 4 election.
Similarly, a donor identified as “Pro, Doodad,” from “Nando, NY,” gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. For most of these donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You,” just as Good Will had done.
But in some of them, he didn’t even go this far, apparently picking letters at random to fill in the blanks on the credit card donation form. In these cases, he said he was employed by “VCX” and that his profession was “VCVC.”
Following FEC requests, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro in February 2008. In all, about $8,425 was charged back to a credit card. But that still left a net total of $11,165 as of Sept. 20, way over the individual limit of $4,600.
Here again, LaBolt pledged that the contributions would be returned but gave no date.
In February, after just 93 donations, Doodad Pro had already gone over the $2,300 limit for the primary. He was over the $4,600 limit for the general election one month later.
In response to FEC complaints, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro even before he reached these limits. But his credit card was the gift that kept on giving. His most recent un-refunded contributions were on July 7, when he made 14 separate donations, apparently by credit card, of $25 each.
Just as with Mr. Good Will, there can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed the contributions, since its Sept. 20 report specified that Doodad’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $10,965.
Foreign Donations
And then there are the overseas donations — at least, the ones that we know about.
The FEC has compiled a separate database of potentially questionable overseas donations that contains more than 11,500 contributions totaling $33.8 million. More than 520 listed their “state” as “IR,” often an abbreviation for Iran. Another 63 listed it as “UK,” the United Kingdom.
More than 1,400 of the overseas entries clearly were U.S. diplomats or military personnel, who gave an APO address overseas. Their total contributions came to just $201,680.
But others came from places as far afield as Abu Dhabi, Addis Ababa, Beijing, Fallujah, Florence, Italy, and a wide selection of towns and cities in France.
Until recently, the Obama Web site allowed a contributor to select the country where he resided from the entire membership of the United Nations, including such friendly places as North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Unlike McCain’s or Sen. Hillary Clinton’s online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton’s presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted.
With such lax vetting of foreign contributions, the Obama campaign may have indirectly contributed to questionable fundraising by foreigners.
In July and August, the head of the Nigeria’s stock market held a series of pro-Obama fundraisers in Lagos, Nigeria’s largest city. The events attracted local Nigerian business owners.
At one event, a table for eight at one fundraising dinner went for $16,800. Nigerian press reports claimed sponsors raked in an estimated $900,000.
The sponsors said the fundraisers were held to help Nigerians attend the Democratic convention in Denver. But the Nigerian press expressed skepticism of that claim, and the Nigerian public anti-fraud commission is now investigating the matter.
Concerns about foreign fundraising have been raised by other anecdotal accounts of illegal activities.
In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a public speech praising Obama, claiming foreign nationals were donating to his campaign.
“All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man,” the Libyan leader said. “They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency..."
Though Gadhafi asserted that fundraising from Arab and African nations were “legitimate,” the fact is that U.S. federal law bans any foreigner from donating to a U.S. election campaign.
The rise of the Internet and use of credit cards have made it easier for foreign nationals to donate to American campaigns, especially if they claim their donation is less than $200.
Campaign spokesman LaBolt cited several measures that the campaign has adopted to “root out fraud,” including a requirement that anyone attending an Obama fundraising event overseas present a valid U.S. passport, and a new requirement that overseas contributors must provide a passport number when donating online.
One new measure that might not appear obvious at first could be frustrating to foreigners wanting to buy campaign paraphernalia such as T-shirts or bumper stickers through the online store.
In response to an investigation conducted by blogger Pamela Geller, who runs the blog Atlas Shrugs, the Obama campaign has locked down the store.
Geller first revealed on July 31 that donors from the Gaza strip had contributed $33,000 to the Obama campaign through bulk purchases of T-shirts they had shipped to Gaza.
The online campaign store allows buyers to complete their purchases by making an additional donation to the Obama campaign.
A pair of Palestinian brothers named Hosam and Monir Edwan contributed more than $31,300 to the Obama campaign in October and November 2007, FEC records show.
Their largesse attracted the attention of the FEC almost immediately. In an April 15, 2008, report that examined the Obama campaign’s year-end figures for 2007, the FEC asked that some of these contributions be reassigned.
The Obama camp complied sluggishly, prompting a more detailed admonishment form the FEC on July 30.
The Edwan brothers listed their address as “GA,” as in Georgia, although they entered “Gaza” or “Rafah Refugee camp” as their city of residence on most of the online contribution forms.
According to the Obama campaign, they wrongly identified themselves as U.S. citizens, via a voluntary check-off box at the time the donations were made.
Many of the Edwan brothers’ contributions have been purged from the FEC database, but they still can be found in archived versions available for CRP and other watchdog groups.
The latest Obama campaign filing shows that $891.11 still has not been refunded to the Edwan brothers, despite repeated FEC warnings and campaign claims that all the money was refunded in December.
A Newsmax review of the Obama campaign finance filings found that the FEC had asked for the redesignation or refund of 53,828 donations, totaling just under $30 million.
But none involves the donors who never appear in the Obama campaign reports, which the CRP estimates at nearly half the $426.8 million the Obama campaign has raised to date.
Many of the small donors participated in online “matching” programs, which allows them to hook up with other Obama supporters and eventually share e-mail addresses and blogs.
The Obama Web site described the matching contribution program as similar to a public radio fundraising drive.
“Our goal is to bring 50,000 new donors into our movement by Friday at midnight,” campaign manager David Plouffe e-mailed supporters on Sept. 15. “And if you make your first online donation today, your gift will go twice as far. A previous donor has promised to match every dollar you donate.”
FEC spokesman Biersack said he was unfamiliar with the matching donation drive. But he said that if donations from another donor were going to be reassigned to a new donor, as the campaign suggested, “the two people must agree” to do so.
This type of matching drive probably would be legal as long as the matching donor had not exceeded the $2,300 per-election limit, he said.
Obama campaign spokesman LaBolt said, “We have more than 2.5 million donors overall, hundreds of thousands of which have participated in this program.”
Until now, the names of those donors and where they live have remained anonymous — and the federal watchdog agency in charge of ensuring that the presidential campaigns play by the same rules has no tools to find out.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Gingrich: Fire Henry Paulson Because a New Bailout Plan is Needed
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/gingrich_fire_paulson/2008/09/30/135977.html
Tuesday, September 30, 2008 3:56 PM
By: Jim Meyers Article Font Size
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says President Bush should fire Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson as Congress struggles to deal with the ongoing financial crisis.
Appearing on Fox News’ “On the Record” Monday night, Gingrich told host Greta Van Susteren: “We want a way to work through this. But I think that it requires a very different approach than Secretary Paulson has been taking.”
Asked if Paulson is “the right guy” for the job, Gingrich responded: “No. I mean, I think that he must have been a terrific deal-maker at Goldman Sachs and a great chairman of Goldman Sachs, but I don't think that's the same job as being a secretary of the Treasury. And I think the president would be much better off if Undersecretary [Bob] Kimmet was now replacing Secretary Paulson.”
Gingrich opined that the bailout bill that failed to pass the House was “badly designed by Secretary Paulson,” and Paulson liked the idea, “as a former chairman of Goldman Sachs, that he would get to spend $700 billion and he wanted the power.”
He also said that “when Secretary Paulson sent up a proposal to allow him to spend $700 billion with no congressional oversight and with no judicial review … he created a negotiating environment that was hopeless.”
Gingrich was particularly critical of Paulson and the New York Federal Reserve’s earlier move, reported by The New York Times, to include Goldman Sachs’ chairman at a meeting about insurance giant AIG’s financial crisis.
“I don't understand how the president can avoid firing the Secretary of the Treasury when you have a former chairman of Goldman Sachs who wants to have unlimited ability to spend money, and you have the current chairman of Goldman Sachs, the only private-sector person in a room,” Gingrich told Van Susteren.
“Two weeks later, the U.S. government put up $85 billion to help AIG, in which Goldman Sachs has a $20 billion exposure…
“When the average American understands this, they are going to be so angry at this Congress if it passes a deal to give Secretary Paulson money…
“I think the president will be far better off to have Bob Kimmet up there, the undersecretary of the Treasury, negotiating this bill than he is to have Secretary Paulson.”
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Conservatives Lack of Confidence in Bush
http://www.newsmax.com/politics/conservatives_bailout/2008/09/30/135920.html
Conservatives Stand Ground Against Bailout
Tuesday, September 30, 2008 12:57 PM
ATLANTA — The failure of a massive Wall Street bailout bill and a steep fall in the stock market were prices worth paying to stand up for principle, some conservatives said on talk radio shows Tuesday.
Conservatives strongly oppose the rescue plan President Bush proposed last week, arguing that it amounts to government intervention in the free market and would misspend taxpayer money to help big banks.
They also say that Congress would have regretted passing the $700 billion bill so hastily and more time should be spent on a search for a solution that adheres to conservative ideals.
"I'm not particularly distressed that the bailout bill did not pass. I want to see this thing (the bill) flesh itself out a little over a period of days," said talk show host Neal Boortz, who describes himself as a libertarian.
The House rejected the package after a majority of Democrats supported it but the majority of Republicans opposed it.
The vote came as a shock to many and prompted one of the biggest plunges in stock prices in Wall Street history, with all sides blaming each other for a failure to reach consensus.
While conservatives said they recognized the seriousness of the market's fall, they would hold fast to their principles that on the economy include low taxes, small government and fiscal responsibility.
"I shouldn't say this, but I'm going to say it anyway. Screw the market!" said conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh as part of his analysis of Monday's events. "OK, I'll take that back, not screw the market but let me tell you something: When the government fails to pass a socialism bill and the market goes south, let it go south. I don't want to pass a socialism bill just to protect the stock market."
Waning Popularity
In an attempt to put further pressure on Congress when it reconvenes later in the week, Bush said on Tuesday the U.S. economy was depending on decisive action from the government or the economic damage could be "painful and lasting."
But part of the problem for some conservatives was a lack of confidence in the president they once saw as a champion of their cause for his commitment to tax cuts and his firm response to the 9/11 attacks.
"I don't trust you (Bush) and when you start screaming now of dire consequences if we don't get a bailout bill, I don't trust you. I need convincing and apparently there are a lot of members of Congress who feel the same way," said Boortz in a view echoed by several of his listeners.
Callers also said they did not appreciate what they saw as scare tactics used by Bush and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson.
"It almost sounds like they are demagoguing and preaching that the sky is falling, which makes me skeptical," said one caller.
Tens of millions of conservatives tune in to AM talk radio and trust its nationally syndicated hosts over media outlets they say have a liberal bias.
Several of the hosts say they are engaged in a long struggle to persuade the Republican Party and the country to return to its conservative roots and they see the bailout bill as an important trial of strength.
After Debate: Obama's Lead Over McCain Narrows in New Poll
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/ABC_Post_Poll_mccain/2008/09/30/136107.html
Obama's Lead Over McCain Narrows in New Poll
Tuesday, September 30, 2008 10:11 PM
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama leads Republican John McCain by 50 percent to 46 percent among likely voters in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, down from a 9-point edge a week earlier.
The new poll released on Tuesday was conducted Saturday through Monday, after the candidates met in their first debate on Friday.
Obama had led McCain by 52 percent to 43 percent in the poll's previous survey released last week.
In the new poll, Obama, an Illinois senator, gained support among independents, closing a substantial gap with McCain who had been favored by crucial swing voters.
McCain, an Arizona senator, now leads Obama 48 percent to 45 percent among independents, the poll found. McCain was 10 points ahead of Obama among independent voters immediately after the Republican convention in early September.
ABC said McCain was laboring under the unpopular legacy of President George W. Bush, a fellow Republican.
Amid the U.S. financial crisis, a record 70 percent of Americans disapprove of Bush's job performance, while only 26 percent approve, a new low for the Bush administration, the poll found.
The telephone poll of 1,070 registered voters and 916 likely voters had a 3-point margin of error.
What Really Happened this Week with McCain
TomRoeser.com ::
The Week Just Past. A New Monday Feature.
Posted: 29 Sep 2008 07:14 AM PDT
McCain Agonistes.
After three days of erratic-appearing fumbles on the bailout crisis, John McCain returned to the debate stage last week the underdog, lucking out in the economic portion but whiffing a real chance to trump his opponent-- rallying on the foreign policy segment, swinging a roundhouse right there-contrasting his grizzled experience with his opponent's naivete-to win the first bout on points. That's my opinion, but surprisingly most polls and focus groups say his opponent won decisively... which might signal the almost irresistible public mood against Republicans.
The cruel rumor spread by his enemies that McCain has a loosened cerebral wire from his 5-year POW encampment, gained followers unjustifiably at the beginning of last week as he gained eye-popping attention following the Wall Street meltdown. When he announced he was suspending his campaign and his participation in the first debate at the University of Mississippi, Republican operatives groaned. Liberal Democrat Chris Matthews on MSNBC said it was because McCain feared to debate "the formidable Barack Obama." But even knowledgeable liberals including David Axelrod (Obama's chief strategist) said privately, "please!" McCain had been taunting Obama to debate for nine months and he was running away now? The cowardice charge spawned only in Catholic pro-abort Matthews' fevered brain-so leftish that even the Democratic shill MSNBC had dropped him from anchor duties next election night.
The real story: As he was preparing for the debate, McCain got word that a huge bloc of Republican House members were unalterably opposed to the Bush-Paulson plan to rescue Wall Street with taxpayers' money... and for good reason. They saw Bush-Paulson as having too little oversight: McCain agreed. They wanted a voice in the deal and felt left out by Bush and Paulson. They insisted on pay curbs for Wall Streeters: McCain not only agreed but insisted, pointing out that no one should be paid more than the president of the U. S., $400,000 a year (although the CEO of Goldman Sachs makes more than that in two days). They pointed out a hidden joker that would convey a slush fund for ACORN: McCain was appalled. They cited favoritism for the trial bar: McCain readily agreed. Most of all they wanted an FDIC-style insurance program for the toxic assets the rescue would address without taxpayer risk. He quickly assented.
Now he saw himself in a dilemma. On one hand, as Republican nominee he could be blamed for leading a party that went along with risking $700 billion to shore up Wall Street multi-millionaires without the aforementioned reforms. On the other, his chestnuts would be in the fire if the package failed due to lack of GOP support and it triggered a Depression. So he did the right thing, decided to temporarily suspend his campaign, ditch the debate, go back to Washington to muscle himself into the negotiating fray to change the package and be seen with sleeves rolled-up working night-and-day while Obama would be seen merely talking. By intervening in behalf of the House Republicans, he saw that most of the issues they cared about got included in the final package. Much of the credit for the improved package should go to McCain-although due to the liberal media's intransigence in blocking it, it won't. But the p.r. he earned was awful.
But It Had to Be Done.
At the time, all McCain's aides disagreed with him, saying this abrupt change in tactics... suspending his campaign, ditching the debate... would give Obama the full stage at Old Miss. But as with so many other things, it is impossible to dislodge the old fighter pilot once he opens the throttle. (No one since Andrew Jackson... ironically the last POW to become president... has operated so freely on instinct as this similarly battle-scarred warrior). So the nation was informed the McCain campaign would be on hold and if the show was to go on at Old Miss it would have to be held without McCain. For this he took a series of salvos, from Democrats and some Republicans.
In a very real sense, it would be, in football terms, a desperate long-range forward pass with a low percentage chance of completion (first named by Dallas Cowboys quarterback Roger Staubach, a Catholic, for his game-winning heave on Dec. 28, 1975 in the NFC semifinal playoff game. Staubach, threw the ball toward the goalposts at the opposite end of the field and breathed this prayer: "Holy Mary/ Full of grace/ I hope someone's down there, someplace." Lo a Cowboy caught it and raced for a touchdown. Such desperate political passes rarely connect. But by signaling he would once again hurl a "Hail Mary"-he gained the onus as more than a maverick, a real wild card of unstable personal demons.
The 2 Prior "Hail Marys."
The first came when, the only vocal supporter of winning the war in Iraq among Republican contenders who were parsing their views, McCain discovered his unpopularity was falling to 4th among the GOP contenders and his money dwindling away precipitously. McCain fired his senior staff, directed his campaign live off the land--and rather than trim his sails called for a surge... more troops to be sent right away to Iraq. Luckily his call coincided with a decision by Bush to shift direction of the fighting to Gen. David Petraeus. Petraeus himself agreed on a surge, sold Bush on it. The surge worked in short range. McCain's forward pass connected. His fortunes rose, money poured in by the zillions and he returned to top billing among the candidates.
The second: All but nominated, he saw his candidacy fading because Obama... fresh-faced, exciting... seemed to have a corner on the issue of "change." While his staff was interfering nice but dull candidates for vice president-Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota-the old man slyly intimated he might pick liberal Democrat Joe Lieberman (Connecticut) or pro-abort Republican Tom Ridge (Pennsylvania) which threw the media off the scent. All the while he had sent a private emissary up to Anchorage to interview a young lady governor McCain had met only a few times but with whom he had been early impressed: an exciting gutsy 5-star social conservative, not only pro-life but who celebrated her 5th baby's birth, an infant with Down syndrome. The pass sent his campaign soaring and baffled the Obama people into a gaffe-ridden three weeks as they hemorrhaged female votes including angry-Hillary supporters like Lynn Forrester de Rothschild the liberal feminist multi-millionaire announcing exuberantly for McCain.
Two long-range passes without a receiver in view in one campaign was scary enough but now McCain had hurled yet another-the decision to suspend his campaign and not show up at the first climactic debate in favor of getting House Republicans to conservatize a rescue package for which he could get the credit. So he said he was pulling his TV commercials and would forsake the debate because of national emergency. But to this Obama responded sagely, brilliantly, saying that the definition of a president for these times is someone who can walk and chew gum at the same time and the idea of suspension was crotchety: therefore he, Obama, would continue. McCain's pass floated in the air seemingly interminably as critics-many of them Republicans-said this was an wildly improbable exercise which Obama was winning on points.
Bush Blocks Interception.
The critics were right. After McCain announced it, the forward pass wobbled, was in danger of falling flat on the field or worse--being intercepted by Obama. Then someone far downfield leapt up to try to save the day. It was, of all people, George W. Bush, a former hated McCain enemy but who, no matter the past, didn't want a Democrat to win the game. Bush jumped for the ball, blocked Democrats from intercepting and invited McCain to attend a White House bipartisan tussle on the package... an attempt to give the grizzled GOPer credit for a high level agreement. Then, brilliantly, Bush also invited Obama to join them in the White House parley as well-mandating that Obama would have to come in off the campaign along with McCain. Obama would but, unlike McCain, never known to fret or work up a sweat even if he were sitting naked in a sauna,, insisted he would keep the Old Miss date. Then he went to a nearby gym to toss buckets.
But What 90 Minutes!
McCain spent only 90 minutes in the Capitol itself. Now he fervently sided with House Republicans who had derailed the deal earlier and kept the House Republican revolt alive. Worried, Democrats by now began to see Republican conspiracy at every turn and reasoned that McCain and Bush would work it to see that McCain would get the credit if the Republicans fell into line. So the Democrats in the personage of the disheveled, rumpled Barney Frank, chairman of the Financial Institutions committee (formerly Banking & Currency) decided to throw a monkey-wrench into the machinery.
The frog-like Frank, bulging eyes with chin perched on his open shirt collar, is the only man since the late Mayor Richard J. Daley who can speak seemingly without moving his lips. I've sat before his hugely cluttered desk and watched him closely: sound comes from his visage down to the last effeminate lisp but I'll be damned if I can identify lip movement with the guttural sound that appears to come from his tightly compressed mouth. It's like a bad film where lip synch is out of whack. That, of course, is the nicest thing to be said of him.
Only in today's decadent culture could a Barney Frank avoid richly deserved public repudiation and humiliation. In all other eras he would have been forced to resign in disgrace and would be censured, even impeached, by a House determined to save its reputation by condemning him. He was found guilty in 1989 of hiring as personal aide a male prostitute and convicted drug possessor, fixing his parking tickets in D. C., letting him live in his apartment which the aide converted into a gay bordello during daylight hours when Frank was in the House. Frank admitted all except knowing his pad was being moonlighted as a gay bordello. The House "Ethics" committee, run by Democrats, exonerated him and Frank trumped the odds to become the leading gay rights advocate in Congress. That one can survive such scandal and indeed trade on it and pronounce on others' ethics is a sickening testimonial to current debased political morality.
Frank charged that McCain's entry into the tag-team wrestle in the White House Roosevelt Room endangered passage of the package. The Capitol Hill media heavily pro-Obama took up the message: McCain was blocking progress. Result: the impression has been made that McCain goofed up the negotiations but actually by intervening he strengthened the conservative hand. McCain, footsore and blamed by Dems and the media, decided he could return to the campaign trail and the debate.
Prepping Cut Short.
On the plane to Mississippi, McCain dawdled with his homework and got to the stage exhausted. In the first half of the debate-on the economy-he dangerously courted disaster. He didn't hit Obama's high tax plan effectively, allowing Obama to get away with the 90% tax cut mythology and didn't call his opponent on the fact that 40 million don't pay taxes at all and what Obama was doing was trying to enact George McGovern's old demigrant idea of $1,000 for every man, woman and child. I clapped a hand to my forehead as that opportunity vanished. Obama blamed Bush for lessened regulation that produced the crisis; McCain didn't bring up a crusher-that he, Bush and Alan Greenspan had supported a plan to cut back on the excesses of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and most of the Democrats including Obama voted the wrong way.
Elementary Debate 101 and he blew it. . But Obama didn't go for the kill and the old man, unaccountably, talked about ending earmarks which has only a peripheral... very peripheral... application to the economy. The economics portion ended with a slight edge for McCain which I don't think he deserved. Round two on foreign-defense policy saw McCain almost perceptibly sigh with relief. Iran was his best overall. Obama tried to say that Henry Kissinger agreed with him-Obama-that a president can go to the table with the president of Iran without preparation. Although being Obama, he shaded his own prior contention and quoted Kissinger correctly that staff should be involved. Kissinger told Christiane Amanpour of CNN "I am in favor of negotiating with Iran...[but] I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level." McCain didn't have that quote handy (incredibly) but he got through it with his own grizzled eminence nevertheless.
The Baffler: Focus Group Support of Obama.
My view... and I gritted my teeth so as to try to screen out partisan bias... is that McCain was lucky on the economic question and did thunderingly well on foreign and national security. I must say I was dismayed by the reports of the polls... Frank Luntz's focus group for Fox which ruled Obama had won... CBS's poll that Obama won and some others. I accept their view but feel that the American public is so tuggingly in favor of a change in the presidency that even a light-pusher like Obama can get the nod.
In summary: McCain had no business lucking out on the economics side of the debate... forgetting to trump Obama's putting blame on Republicans by neglecting to bring up his own support of trimming back Freddie and Fannie... but he did. He HAD the right to win on national security. But the polls show me that this may very well be another election where the man destiny meant to serve in the presidency doesn't get it. The debate was held on the anniversary of the first televised presidential debate in Chicago. Don Hewitt... who by now must be at least 90 years old... ran the TV techniques of the debate. He was interviewed as saying that his breath came in short gasps as he viewed how incomparably handsome JFK was compared to the grey and sallow Nixon.
Hewitt is still marveling at Kennedy's handsomeness. He hasn't learned anything in his 90 years, has he? Handsome Kennedy botching the Bay of Pigs by losing his nerve and canceling air cover... leading Khrushchev to decide Kennedy was not up to the presidency... leading to the Berlin Wall being built... and the Summit after which Kennedy confessed to James Reston that the Soviet leader believed he didn't have requisite toughness... Kennedy saying that to prove it, we would have to reintensify our troop buildup in Vietnam.
But godammit, Kennedy was a handsome lad, wasn't he? Obama is the Prince of Cool, isn't he? Can you see history begin to repeat?
That's what I fear.
You are subscribed to email updates from TomRoeser.com ::
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email delivery powered by Google
Inbox too full? Subscribe to the feed version of TomRoeser.com :: in a feed reader.
If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: TomRoeser.com ::, c/o Google, 20 W Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610
Ron Paul: Bailout Supporters "Propaganda to Sort of Frighten Members of Congress into Voting for it"
http://townhall.com/columnists/BillSteigerwald/2008/09/29/no_cheers_for_the_bailout_ron_paul_interview?page=full&comments=true
No Cheers for the Bailout: Ron Paul Interview
by Bill Steigerwald
You can't pin any blame for the country's financial meltdown on Congressman Ron Paul. The libertarian Texas Republican and former Pittsburgher has been warning for two decades about the unhappy -- and inevitable -- economic consequences of a loose monetary policy, fiscal irresponsibility and too much meddling in the marketplace by the federal government.
Not surprisingly, Rep. Paul says he is "positively opposed" to what he calls the Bush administration's "slipshod" $700 billion bailout plan. As Paul warned the House of Representatives Wednesday, "Our economy faces a bleak future, particularly if the latest $700 billion bailout plan ends up passing. We risk committing the same errors that prolonged the misery of the Great Depression, namely keeping prices from falling."
I talked to Paul by phone from Washington early Thursday evening as the Beltway political powers were still meeting and trying to agree on how to fix the problem they are largely responsible for creating.
Q: I suspect we won't hear you cheering about the bailout -- or "The Rescue" -- as they are trying to call it?
A: No way. I think that it's just going to bring more problems. You can't stop a problem of too much spending and too much deficits and too much monetary inflation with more of it. So I’m positively opposed to the bailout and believe it will just delay the correction that is required. We need to correct the imbalances and if you interfere, you just delay it and make it more difficult and make the problems worse for ourselves.
Q: Did you see President Bush’s 15-minute speech on the economic crisis Thursday night?
A: I did see part of it.
Q: Do you think he is telling the story as straight as he should be or is he glossing over some things?
A: Well, I’m sure he’s glossing over. I imagine he believes what he’s saying. But you know I was just on the (House) floor and a couple other members came over and showed me some articles and letters they’ve received. One was from a banker who’s involved with 1,500 banks in the South. He was positively opposed to the bailout. He said, “Why punish all of us when just a few people have really messed up?” Someone else came along with a chart that showed that credit has not frozen up and that there’s as much credit available in the last couple weeks as there was in the last six months. So that means the (bailout supporters) are working on some propaganda to sort of frighten members of Congress into voting for it. If you don’t vote for it, and there’s a problem, then you’re going to be blamed for it.
Q: Is this truly a national crisis? So many of national crises really are regionalized or localized problems.
A: I think of it as a crisis. I've been talking about it for a long time and have said we will have a financial disruption and an attack on the dollar. But I think the way they are talking is that if you don't pass it this weekend then by Monday the market might go down 10,000 points. I think it's not that type of crisis, but I think it's very significant that if we continue our ways we'll eventually destroy the dollar. Yet what they are doing is bringing that on because they are doing the wrong thing.
Q: You pin most of the blame for this crisis on government.
A: Oh yeah. More specifically, the Federal Reserve. (It's) responsible for the booms and the busts. You can't have this type of a boom cycle without a Federal Reserve and a central bank and it can be bounded with other parts of the government. Legislation might push an excessive amount of money into certain areas in addition to the easy-money system, and that's what I think happened. There were these affirmative action programs where banks were literally encouraged or told they had to make bad loans. The Community Reinvestment Act tells them they can be fined a lot of money for denying loans that are risky. It's sort of ironic.
And if one looks at the total problem of inflation, in which prices go up because of the increases in the money supply, certain areas go up much faster than others. So medical care and education and houses went up much faster but then there has to be corrections. They get out of whack and these prices have to come down. So we see the correction and the sooner you get the prices down, the better it is for everybody.
Q: From what I understand the major problem goes back to housing, housing, housing. Home prices were inflated and now the bubble has burst and you argue that prices should be allowed to fall to whatever their real level should be and not be propped up by a federal bailout.
A: That's right, and I accuse (Federal Reserve Chairman Ben) Bernanke of being a price-fixer. He wants to buy these illiquid assets and keep the price up and they may be worthless. So they want you to limit your thinking to the immediate problem -- the downturn in the housing market. But they don't want to talk about who caused the upturn and the excesses in the housing market -- and that was government. They don't talk about the cause. They just say, "We're here now. What are we going to do about it?" In medicine, you can't really treat a disease very well if you don't know the exact cause.
Q: The $700 billion figure. If you multiply roughly 3 million homes in foreclosure by $100,000 -- assuming they are underwater on their mortgages by an average of $100,000 -- that's "only" $300 billion.
A: So where's all this money going, huh?
Q: Yes.
A: Propping up derivatives; that's the scam. It's the so-called "illiquid assets." I think that's a misnomer. I think it's "worthless assets" that are being bought up so some of these big guys don't get wiped out.
Q: You say a $700 billion bailout is only a temporary fix.
A: Yeah, it is. If you come to the conclusion that you have to liquidate debt, the faster you get it over with the sooner the economy goes back to work. So they're propping up the prices artificially on houses and at the same time they are saying, "How can we stimulate housing growth?" Well, there are too many houses. You want the supply and demand of houses to adjust, so you let the prices of houses come down and let the houses get in the hands of people who really want them and can afford them and you quit building houses for a while.
So, yeah, you have a booming economy when you deceive the people and you stimulate the economy with easy credit. But you've got to make up for it eventually, and that's the part that nobody likes. We have prevented any attempt at correction essentially over the past 20 years. So we have a bigger bubble than ever before, which means we'll have a bigger correction than ever before. So the only question is, should it be a short, tough correction or a very long, tough correction?
Q: What is your solution for avoiding this kind of sudden national emergency?
A: You need to allow a liquidation of debt, which means bankruptcies. You should treat it like Lehman Brothers -- let them go broke and the good assets will be bought up. But you should restore confidence and encourage business activity. It isn't a lack of regulation that was the problem, it was the lack of the market being allowed to work.
We don't need more Sarbanes-Oxley (financial reporting) regulations like those that came out of Enron. But we should assure the markets that we are going to live within our means. I think the federal budget ought to be balanced. You could do that rather quickly by changing our foreign policy. But people aren't quite willing to give up the welfare-warfare state. But if you did that, things could come back very quickly.
Dick Morris: "McCain can still Win [but] He needs to Deploy the Tax Issue"
http://townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2008/09/30/mccain_needs_to_get_his_campaign_back_on_track
McCain Needs To Get His Campaign Back On Track
by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
John McCain isn't dead in the water. But he sure is dying. He lost the debate and the polls are dismal. Gallup has him down 50-42. Rasmussen has Obama ahead 50-44. And both polls are only partially after the debate. Obama won the debate. When the polls come in fully after the debate, the picture won't get any prettier for those of us who favor McCain.
His gambit of suspending his campaign and going to Washington has failed because he did not think it through adequately or correlate it with what was happening in Congress. The Republicans teed up a perfect shot for him. He took the bat but went back to the dugout without even swinging. McCain should have gone into the debate challenging Obama on his $700 billion taxpayer bailout of financial institutions. He should have pushed the Republican alternative. He could have said, plain and simple, that Obama wants to make Americans pay for $700 billion in bad mortgages and McCain wants to make businesses pay for their own bailout through loans and insurance premiums. It would have been a straight shot. But McCain copped out and mumbled something about the deal being the "end of the beginning" and said he hoped to vote for the bailout. It was a failure that may have cost him his best shot at the presidency.
But not his only shot. McCain can still win.
He needs to deploy the tax issue. His campaign has to stop the scattershot web ads and focus instead on a sustained attack on Obama's plans for tax increases. Stop the pinpricks and go for the jugular. It is only through the tax issue that McCain can win this campaign.
Voters understand that our economy is vulnerable and teetering on the brink of a black hole. McCain needs to capitalize on this new sense of vulnerability and hammer away at the Obama tax proposals. He needs to say that our system is starving for capital. Raising capital gains taxes, much less doubling it as Obama proposed during the primaries (but now is trying to backtrack), is like taxing water in the desert. McCain has to talk about Obama's spending proposals and mock the idea that he can spend a trillion and still give "95% of Americans" a tax increase.
McCain should take a page out of the playbook of the endgame of the Bush 1992 campaign. With Bill Clinton holding a solid lead, Bush was reluctant to attack him for his record of tax increases, especially given his violation of his 1988 "read my lips" pledge not to raise taxes. So the campaign sent Vice President Dan Quayle out to attack Clinton, day after day, for raising taxes. And the results were clear in the polls. Bush gained each day and, four days before Election Day, Bush took a lead over Clinton in the tracking polls. Clinton was saved by the announcement by Iran Contra Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh that he was planning to indict Cap Weinberger, Bush's Defense Secretary. Clinton surged ahead and won the election. But the tax issue had almost reversed his lead in the polls.
If McCain pounds away at taxes, taxes, taxes he can still win this election. By tying the Obama tax plans to the possibility of massive depression, he can pull this out.
Remember: Whenever we raised taxes amidst a downturn, we triggered a massive falloff. It was the tax increases of the early 30s that worsened the Great Depression and it was Bush's 1990 tax increase that created the 1991 recession that cost him his job. America understands that we can't raise taxes now. American grasps that Obama will not just raise taxes on a handful of rich people but will raise them on everybody. And we understand that Obama has no real answer to this charge. McCain just needs to begin to make this central attack his campaign theme from now on.
Republican Hensarling: “Once the Government Socializes Losses, it will soon Socialize Profits"
http://conniebryan.wordpress.com/2008/09/29/house-of-reps-rejects-bail-out-bill/
House Of Reps Rejects Bail Out BillAds by Google
Bailout & Job Security
Find Jobs paying over $100,000. Search 70,000 New Opportunities
www.TheLadders.com
Wow…there’s still at least a shred of democracy left in America! The House of Representatives appears to have actually LISTENED to the American people and rejected this corrupt ‘bail out’ of Wall Street. Let me just say the ONLY ‘bail out’ that should even be considered ought to only involve the JUDICIAL branch, not the legislative and executive branch…It should only involve a federal judge trying to figure out whether or not all of these corrupt Wall Street executives responsible for their criminal corporate fraud should be allowed to be ‘BAILED OUT’ of JAIL!
I heard a guest of George Noory’s on “Coast to Coast” on the radio point out that if the purpose of this $700 Billion bail out is to strengthen the economy and help all of us struggling common folk, then it could much more wisely be used by giving it directly in portions to every American citizen 18 and older. Then we would all as consumers be able to spend and spend, save our mortgages, pay our credit cards down, buy new cars and lots of purses and shoes, splurge on chocolate at the mall (as you can see I added a couple the guest left out), go out to dinner a lot, etc. This guest pointed out that $700 billion would be a grossly excessive number for such a ‘bail out’ of Americans, as that number would actually come to more than a million dollars per adult (that’s how much money that is)!! In other words, a much smaller number portioned out to Americans would accomplish the job of saving the economy.
But the truth is this ‘bail out’ has nothing to do with helping MAIN STREET, and everything to do with helping a select, fair-haired corrupt few elite CEO’s and executives on WALL STREET. The American people have had it with this corruption. We would rather see the whole ‘house of cards’ (they’re all JOKERS by the way) come tumbling down, and start over the way our forefathers intended…we’d rather that happen than to ‘bail out’ the people whose corporate fraud and greed caused their own bankruptcies.
The hypocrisy in all of this is, these ‘jokers’ would scream like banchees if the government ever tried to regulate how much PROFIT they made, yet they scream like banchees demanding the government not just regulate their LOSSES, but REVERSE THEM and hand them upwards of a TRILLION dollars (when you include the government’s takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the bail out already of A.I.G.)! Look at this quote from Texas Republican Representative Jeb Hensarling, in voting to reject the bail out: “Once the government socializes losses, it will soon socialize profits. If we lose our ability to fail, we will soon lose our ability to succeed. If we bail out risky behavior, we will soon see riskier behavior.”
I’m proud of Rep. Hensarling for taking a stand that Democrats like Nancy Pelosi should have taken from the beginning. But even Rep. Hensarling is sugar coating this a bit by using the word ‘risky’ instead of ‘dirty’… or ‘corrupt’… or ‘fraudulent’… or ‘criminal’.
What has been going on on Wall Street…what has been subsidized for too long by corrupt politicians in bed with these ‘jokers’ who have created this house of cards, has been destroying the AMERICAN DREAM for Amerians on Main Street. In other words, Wall Street (and Walmart) have been destroying everything that our founding fathers intended for America. They did not intend for ‘free enterprise’ to be ‘FRAUD ENTERPRISE’ or a threat to small business. The American Dream was MEANT for Main Street. Now it is almost unacheivable because of NAFTA, CAFTA, the outsourcing of almost all our manufacturing jobs, the destructions of Mom and Pops by Costco and Walmart that sell almost entirely Chinese made cheap products in order to kill small business and competition. The result of this is that Wall Street executives who’ve masterminded this, along with their elite stockholders, many of whom don’t even live in the U.S. and have offshore tax shelters, reap huge profits while you think of taking a third part time job as a door greeter for one of the un-American companies that is at the root-cause of the destruction of the American Dream.
This issue goes beyond partisan politics, and can unite Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens and Independents alike. That is because Wall Street has become the biggest threat to that American Dream that is common to all of us across all party lines. I thinkmany Democrats have supported this ‘bail out’ when they shouldn’t have because they bought into the scary rhetoric by the Bush administration that it was needed to help Americans. This is a lie, just like the scary rhetoric used by the same administration to catipult us against the wishes of the G-8 and the U.N. into the War in Iraq. Again, an act that severly hurt America both economically and foreign policy-wise. What WOULD help Americans is not to ‘bail out’ the current ‘crackhead’ model of Wall Street, but to mount a huge ‘intervention’ and REHABILITATE Wall Street! A return to a Wall Street that is once again all about Main Street… American jobs, small business and manufacturing, instead of about OUTSOURCING jobs, BIG BOX MONOPOLY MOM and POP KILLERS, and ‘derivative speculation’ (in other words, usually fraud).
It’s time for a new, non-violent revolution to take America, and the American Dream, back from Wall Street and WalMart. Maybe our House of Representatives have fired the first shot, figuratively speaking, thanks to so many of you who rang their phones off the hook. DON’T STOP NOW!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gingrich: McCain Against Bailout could Reverse Poll Numbers
http://paxalles.blogs.com/paxalles/2008/09/newt-gingrich-w.html
Newt Gingrich With Laura Ingraham
Laura Ingraham hosted former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, on his new book Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less.
Gingrich said that if McCain came out against the bailout and for the taxpayers, he could reverse the poll numbers. Gingrich said that McCain's numbers are down due to being in the party that has mismanaged the economy so grossly. He said energy is a huge issue and with Palin on the ticket it assists McCain with this parallel issue with the economy - and this helped the Democrats cave on the drilling issue.
Gingrich says that a workout rather than a bailout is the answer. He said the debate needs to be restated for the people.
Why is the Corrupt Elite Attacking Palin?
She might do to them what she did to the corrupt elite in Alaska.
Fred
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTIzYjBhNmRmYmExMzIzMmYxMGI5ZWQ4ZDAyYmNhMTM=
Laura Ingraham vs. David Brooks [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
From her daily e-blast:
THE CONSERVATIVE ELITES ATTACK!
In today's New York Times, David Brooks launches a critique of Sarah Palin, essentially concluding that her populist appeal is dangerous and ill-conceived. He yearns for the day when "conservatism was once a frankly elitist movment," one that stressed "classical education, hard-earned knowledged, experience, and prudence." Brooks, like a handful of other conservative intellectuals, believes Palin "compensates for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness."
Well, at the risk of appearing brash, let me say that I am glad to see my old friend finally pushed to the point where he has to make an overt defense of elitism, after years of demonstrating covert support for elitism. We conservatives who believe Governor Palin represents a solid vice-presidential pick should be extremely comfortable engaging this issue.
Brooks's main argument against Palin is that she lacks the type of experience and historical understanding that led President Bush to a 26 percent approval rating in his final months in office. Yet the notion that the Bush Administration got into trouble because it didn't have enough "experience" is absurd. George W. Bush was governor of Texas for six years. His father was president. His primary advisors on matters of foreign policy were Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell. In 2000, it could hardly have been possible to find a more experienced team to head up a GOP administration. Brooks's notion that the Bush Administration was "the anti-establishment attitude put into executive practice" is simply ludicrous. Does anyone believe that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld count as "anti-establishment"?
Of course, we could also consider the Nixon Administration. Who had more experience than Richard Nixon? How'd that work out? What about George H.W. Bush? How did his administration do? What about Herbert Hoover — who had vast experience both in terms of dealing with foreign countries during World War I and in terms of dealing with the U.S. economy as secretary of Commerce? How did he do? The truth is that Brooks's basic claim — that experienced leaders are necessarily better than inexperienced leaders — simply doesn't hold water.
Now let's look at the broader issue of elitism versus populism. For Brooks to be right, his elites have to make better policy judgments than average Americans. But he overlooks the fact that in America we have a particularly bad elite, an elite that holds most Americans in contempt and has no sympathy for the history and traditions that make us great. And that elite has been wrong on issue after issue for most of the last 40 years. Who was more right about the Soviet Union, the elites or the people? Who was more right about the need to cut taxes in the 1970s, the elites or the people? Who was more right about the need to get tough on crime, the elites in black robes with life tenure, or the folks cheering for Dirty Harry? Who would Brooks trust to decide critical issues regarding the War on Terror today, the voters or the inside-the-Beltway types who lose sleep over tough interrogation tactics? Elites — particularly our American elite — are much more likely to go for the latest fad, for seek to apply whatever notion is currently trendy in the salons of Europe. To find true Burkean conservatism in this country — to find citizens who are both respectful of our country's traditions and anxious to see our country remain a world leader — you have to turn to the voters.
The truth is that it is no longer possible to govern this country through a conservative elite. We have a radical elite, an elite that believes in climate change, gay marriage, unrestricted abortions, and the United Nations. We have an elite that intends to make massive, liberal changes to every aspect of American life. This elite ruins almost everything it touches — from the schools, to the media, to the universities. Giving more power to the elites means watching the United States become more and more like Europe.
Populism rests on two great insights. First, it understands that the people (taken as a whole) are often wiser and more prudent than the elites. Average people are almost always respectful of tradition, while elites tend to act like an angry mob trying to tear down the old idols. Second, populism understands that it's not enough to actually have the right policy ideas, you have to have the will to take on the elites who will try to prevent those ideas from going into place. In order to get anything accomplished, the GOP is going to have to use public opinion to override the objections of liberals, including liberals in the media.
Does Sarah Palin have the political skills to successfully govern this country from a populist perspective? It's far too early to say. She is certainly the most promising such figure to come along since the elites were denouncing Ronald Reagan. And therefore we should all wish her well. It is silly to criticize her at this early stage until we know a lot more about her abilities as a leader. I am glad to say that her instincts appear to be sound.
Dick Morris: McCain Should Not Support Bailout
http://www.newsmax.com/morris/mccain_against_bailout/2008/09/29/135431.html
McCain Should Not Support Bailout
Monday, September 29, 2008 10:05 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size
During Friday's debate, John McCain assiduously and inexplicably avoided using the issue that might have won him the debate and the presidency: opposition to a taxpayer-funded bailout of the financial crisis.
Congress is about to pass, and the president is about to sign, a bill that the American people detest by 2-to-1 margins. When Americans realize that there is, indeed, an alternative to handing over $700 billion to financial institutions as a reward for their failure, opposition to the idea will swell even further.
The bailout ideas proposed by the House Republicans and trumpeted by former Speaker Newt Gingrich make eminent sense. Indeed, they make so much sense that it is as if the roles of the parties have been reversed.
It is the Republicans who are demanding that the banks and financial institutions pay for their own bailout, granting them only a mixture of loans and premium-paid insurance, while the Democrats want to pass the hat among the taxpayers to buy their dirty paper.
In an unusual act of political foresight and skill, the normally dead-headed House Republican leadership has crafted a platform that can carry the party to victory in November. All that remains is for the party's candidate, and perhaps even its president and Treasury secretary, to get on board.
McCain can recover at the negotiating table the economy issue he lost in Friday's debate. He needs to have the courage of his convictions and insist on a bailout without requiring taxpayer-funded purchase of defunct mortgages from failing institutions.
The difference in the bailout plans is, of course, largely cosmetic. Dead paper is dead paper whether it is on the books of the government, purchased from banks, or on the books of the banks, insured by the government. The game is the same: Loans or grants fund the deficient debt service on the defaulted mortgages until homes can recover their value in the cyclical real estate market.
But it makes all the difference in the world politically if this task is accomplished by buying bad debt or by lending the bankers the money to cover their current losses while they keep their bad debts on their books and by insuring them against future losses.
Loans are politically viable. Purchase of bad debt with tax money is not.
The Democrats and our politically-challenged president have failed to appreciate the difference between spending and lending. Treasury Secretary Paulson can be excused for not realizing it. Politics is not his thing.
But John McCain must realize the crucial distinction and must use his leverage to stop a taxpayer-funded bailout, insisting instead on loans and insurance.
If McCain stands firm, the Democrats will either have to pass the bailout package on their own, without Republican votes, and rely on Bush's signature on the bill to provide a fig leaf of bipartisanship, or they will have to cave in and pass the Republican package.
Either way, McCain comes out ahead.
If he gets his way, he gets credit for the bailout. If he doesn't, he can spend the campaign attacking Obama and the Democrats for spending $700 billion of taxpayer money.
If the Democrats don't adopt either course and play a game of chicken with the Republicans, their congressional status as the majority party dooms them to taking the blame for any ensuing collapse.
Voters can count.
They know that Reid and Pelosi are Democrats and that they control Congress. With this power comes responsibility.
And if the Democrats do nothing — that is, if they fail to use their majorities to pass a bailout or to cooperate with the Republicans in adopting the GOP version of the package — it is they who will get the blame for the catastrophe which will follow.
The Democrats don't dare take that chance.
The cards are dealt for John McCain. All he has to do is have the guts to do what he didn't have the courage to do in the debate: Play the hand.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Schlafly:"Sarah Palin is an Outstanding Governor, an Exemplar of all that is Good and True"
Phyllis Schlafly's Compelling, Pro-Family Voice Inspires
ST. LOUIS, Sept. 29 /Christian Newswire/ -- One week before Senator John McCain announced Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate, pro-family leader Phyllis Schlafly was working behind the scenes with GOP leaders in St. Paul, MN to insure the pro-life plank remained in the Republican platform. As President of Eagle Forum and Chairman of the Republican National Coalition for Life, Schlafly is an influential voice on issues and policies shaping the political, spiritual and moral landscape of America. In October, The Phyllis Schlafly Report, her daily radio broadcast, will celebrate 25 years on the air.
The Phyllis Schlafly Report has become three of the most important minutes in radio. Heard on more than 550 U.S. stations, the daily news and information feature delivers concise and clear coverage of the most relevant issues of our day. Recently, Schlafly has devoted programs to affirm the sanctity of life, resist the gay and feminist agendas, call for stronger borders, stand up to activist judges, protect homeschoolers' rights, warn parents about the liberal bias of the NEA and most university professors, and expose the dangers of trade with China.
"We've never hesitated to address controversial issues over these 25 years on the air," said Schlafly, who Ladies' Home Journal named one of the 100 most important women of the 20th century. "Our victories reflect the strength of the American people and the vision of our Founding Fathers."
Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family recently expressed his appreciation of Schlafly's enduring work. "You've been a voice for conservative, biblical values for more than four decades. Thanks for fighting the good fight through all these years. "
In 1983, Dick Bott, Founder of the Bott Radio Network, encouraged Schlafly to launch a radio program after reading her biography by Carol Felsenthal, The Sweetheart of the Silent Majority. Bott appreciated Schlafly's positive perspective. He said, "The book pointed out her values, beliefs and strong faith. I thought she ought to be telling her story in her own words."
Bott connected Schlafly with Domain Communications in Carol Stream, IL. After more than 6,500 broadcasts, the partnership continues to deliver fresh content every weekday.
When asked to weigh in on Senator McCain's recent nomination of the strong female, pro-life Governor, Schlafly responded enthusiastically, "Sarah Palin is an outstanding governor, an exemplar of all that is good and true."
For more on Phyllis Schlafly, please visit www.eagleforum.org.
Christian Newswire
Viguerie Predicts Bailout Supporters Will Be Challenged, Defeated In Primaries, General Elections
Viguerie Predicts Bailout Supporters Will Be Challenged, Defeated In Primaries, General Elections
MANASSAS, Virginia, September 29 /Christian Newswire/ -- Many members of Congress who vote for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout will come to regret it, Richard A. Viguerie, the Chairman of ConservativeHQ.com, said. "They will be targeted for defeat in primaries and general elections in the years to come, and a good number will lose their seats."
"At the same time, those who fight this bailout will be seen by conservatives and most Americans as heroes."
Viguerie based his prediction on conversations with grassroots leaders across the country and on public response to the bailout proposal.
"The bailout will be the 'Panama Canal issue' of the 21st Century," he predicted. "In 1977, the Senate narrowly approved the treaty giving away the Panama Canal. In 1978 and 1980, 21 Senators who voted for the treaty were defeated, compared to one who voted against it. That shift changed the face of American politics."
He added: "This isn't a Republican-vs.-Democrat issue. This is an issue of 'Whose side are you on? The corrupt Washington establishment and its wealthy cronies on Wall Street - or the taxpayer, the working person, the small business person who will pay the price for this bailout, the Fannie Mae bailout, the Detroit bailout, and all the many bailouts yet to come?'
"Republicans and Democrats alike who support this monstrosity will face the wrath of the voters if they stand side-by-side with predatory politicians and bureaucrats and their greedy friends who got us in this mess."
Christian Newswire
Bailout Defeat Shows Power of New and Alternative Media
Richard Viguerie: Bailout Defeat Shows Power of New and Alternative Media and is Evidence of 'A Permanent Shift in Power from the Establishment to the People'
MANASSAS, Virginia, September 29 /Christian Newswire/ -- The defeat of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout "shows the power of the New and Alternative Media," said Richard A. Viguerie, the Chairman of ConservativeHQ.com. "It is the clearest evidence yet of a shift in power from the Washington/Wall Street establishment to the American people."
He noted, "Just last year, the people rose up to defeat amnesty for illegal aliens. Now they have risen up to defeat this monstrosity. Not in the last 50 years has the establishment had two such massive defeats so close together. I believe that the Internet, talk radio, direct mail, and cable news have changed American politics forever."
"The bailout had the support of every power-broker and special-interest lobbyist in Washington; it had the support of virtually every fat cat campaign contributor; it had the support of the mainstream media, who told us ad nauseam that everyone - everyone! - supported a bailout.
"John McCain missed a major opportunity to be a hero to grassroots Americans. His lack of leadership, combined with his support of this socialist bailout of a corrupt and incompetent establishment, has done damage to him politically.
"Today, the people are using the New and Alternative Media to educate themselves, organize themselves, and let their voices be heard.
"At the grassroots level, Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, and liberals were all disappointed by their political leaders. Because of a leadership vacuum, there is a tremendous opportunity for new leaders to present themselves - leaders unburdened by ties to the Big Government and Big Business interests that got us into the current mess.
"The bailout defeat, on the heels of the amnesty defeat, signifies the dawn of a new day in American politics," Viguerie said.
"Everyone acknowledges something must be done with the financial situation, but the bailout bill was not what Americans wanted. After the vote in the House, I looked out my window and the sky had not fallen, so America indeed has yet another day to resolve this mess." Viguerie said.
Christian Newswire
Gov. Matt Blunt: Obama's "Police State Tactics"
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76438
ELECTION 2008
Backlash to Obama officials squelching political speech
Law enforcement threats, intimidation likened to 'police-state tactics,' by Missouri governor
September 27, 2008
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Gov Matt Blunt
Following legal threats by Missouri state law-enforcement officials supporting Barack Obama against presidential campaign ads that appeared to be false or misleading, Gov. Matt Blunt today likened the intimidation to "police state tactics."
"St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign," said Blunt in a statement released today. "What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment."
The statement came after the law enforcement officials pledged to form a "truth squad" to halt ads that, among other things, claimed Obama was not a Christian or that he was not planning to cut taxes on Americans other than the wealthy.
"If they're not going to tell the truth, somebody's got to step up and say, 'That's not the truth. This is the truth,'" McCullogh told KMOV-TV in St. Louis.
The effort appeared to be part of a move by the Obama campaign to block advertisements to which it objects. The campaign also sent "threatening" letters to several news agencies in Pennsylvania and Ohio demanding they stop airing ads exposing Obama's gun stance, according to the National Rifle Association.
"This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson," said Blunt. "I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson's thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election."
Blunt concluded: "Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts – not a free society."
The NRA's Political Victory Fund also condemned the effort as censorship.
"Barack Obama and his campaign are terrified of the truth," said Chris W. Cox, chairman of organization. "Sen. Obama's statements and support for restricting access to firearms, raising taxes on guns and ammunition and voting against the use of firearms for self-defense in the home are a matter of public record. NRA-PVF will make sure that everyone knows of Obama's abysmal record on guns and hunting."
The Obama campaign declined to respond to a WND request for comment.
The NRA said Obama sent "cease and desist letters" to news outlets in the two states, "denouncing the ads and demanding their removal from the airwaves."
"Barack Obama would be the most anti-gun president in our nation's history. That's the truth," said Cox. "NRA-PVF has the facts on our side. No amount of running from or lying about his record and then intimidating news outlets in the hope of deceiving American gun owners and hunters is going to work. Those strong arm tactics may work in Chicago, but not in Pennsylvania and Ohio, and not as long as NRA-PVF has anything to say about it."
The warnings were from Obama lawyer Robert Bauer, who told station managers that in order to stay in the Federal Communication commission's good graces, they should not air the ads.
Josh Marquis, an Oregon prosecutor who serves as a spokesman for the NDAA, said the comments from Missouri don't sound like the McCulloch he knows.
"I'm really surprised. I know Bob," Marquis told WND.
The KMOV report said the Obama campaign asked members of Missouri's law enforcement to target anyone who "lies" or issues misleading television ads. Formation of the Obama "Truth Squad" was the result, the report said.
McCulloch declined to return a call from WND seeking comment.
The KMOV report said the campaign was being conducted by McCulloch and another prosecutor, Jennifer Joyce, along with a number of sheriffs throughout the state.
"They will be reminding voters that Barack Obama is a Christian who wants to cut taxes for anyone who makes less than $250,000 a year. They also say they plan to respond immediately to any ads and statements that violate Missouri's ethics laws," the report said.
"We want to keep this campaign focused on issues," Joyce told the station. "We don't want people to get distracted. Missourians don't want to be distracted by the divisive character attacks."
The campaign was assembled to "set the record straight," they said.
Officials with the Missouri Sheriff's Association declined to talk about any sheriffs who might be involved in the campaign.
At the blog Gateway Pundit, the reaction was immediate.
"St. Louis and Missouri Democrat sheriffs and top prosecutors are planning to go after anyone who makes false statements against Obama during his campaign. This is so one-sided I can't even [begin] to describe how wrong this agenda is," writes blogger Jim Hoft.
Hoft said Joyce and McCulloch "are threatening to bring libel charges against those who speak out falsely against Barack Obama."
Missouri blogger Doctor Bulldog commented: "Don't think they will stop with just the local radio and television stations. Oh, no. We bloggers are NEXT on the chopping block! It doesn't matter if it is the truth. It only matters if Obama deems it a lie (i.e. – something that can cause damage to his bid to be president). Basically, NO ONE is free to criticize Obama here in Missouri!!!"
In the St. Louis Examiner, a commentary said, "Look, politicians are all about lies. It may be annoying (I find it entertaining), but that's for their opponents and good-government groups to counter – not law enforcement. ... Even if the officeholders joining the 'truth squad' are nominally stepping out of their official roles in order to put on their (political) party hats and play politics, it's inappropriate. They wield too much power to use it to wag their fingers at people who say un-nice things about political hopefuls. Prosecutors and sheriffs are, after all, normally thought of as people with the clout to put their targets behind bars."
Marquis told WND politicians keep their right to have a political opinion and express it, but the DA's organization strives hard not to be partisan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.worldnetdailycom/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76308
ELECTION 2008
Prosecutors for Obama hunting for 'lying ads'
'Truth Squad' using sheriffs, DAs to police bias against candidate
September 26, 2008
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Missouri prosecutor Bob McCulloch
A team of Obama-supporting prosecutors and sheriffs in Missouri is preparing to pursue legal challenges to any presidential campaign ads deemed to be false or misleading.
KMOV-TV in St. Louis reports District Attorney Robert McCulloch, a past president of the National District Attorneys Association, said that whether the ads could be attributed to an opponent's campaign itself, or another organization, "If they're not going to tell the truth, somebody's got to step up and say, 'That's not the truth. This is the truth.'"
The effort appeared to be part of a move by the Obama campaign to block advertisements to which it objects. The campaign also sent "threatening" letters to several news agencies in Pennsylvania and Ohio demanding they stop airing ads exposing Obama's gun stance, according to the National Rifle Association.
The NRA's Political Victory Fund condemned the attempt at censorship.
"Barack Obama and his campaign are terrified of the truth," said Chris W. Cox, chairman of organization. "Sen. Obama's statements and support for restricting access to firearms, raising taxes on guns and ammunition and voting against the use of firearms for self-defense in the home are a matter of public record. NRA-PVF will make sure that everyone knows of Obama's abysmal record on guns and hunting."
The Obama campaign declined to respond to a WND request for comment.
The NRA said Obama sent "cease and desist letters" to news outlets in the two states, "denouncing the ads and demanding their removal from the airwaves."
"Barack Obama would be the most anti-gun president in our nation's history. That's the truth," said Cox. "NRA-PVF has the facts on our side. No amount of running from or lying about his record and then intimidating news outlets in the hope of deceiving American gun owners and hunters is going to work. Those strong arm tactics may work in Chicago, but not in Pennsylvania and Ohio, and not as long as NRA-PVF has anything to say about it."
The warnings were from Obama lawyer Robert Bauer, who told station managers that in order to stay in the Federal Communication Commission's good graces, they should not air the ads.
Missouri prosecutor Jennifer Joyce
Josh Marquis, an Oregon prosecutor who serves as a spokesman for the NDAA, said the comments from Missouri don't sound like the McCulloch he knows.
"I'm really surprised. I know Bob," Marquis told WND.
The KMOV report said the Obama campaign asked members of Missouri's law enforcement to target anyone who "lies" or issues misleading television ads. Formation of the Obama "Truth Squad" was the result, the report said.
McCulloch declined to return a call from WND seeking comment.
The KMOV report said the campaign was being conducted by McCulloch and another prosecutor, Jennifer Joyce, along with a number of sheriffs throughout the state.
"They will be reminding voters that Barack Obama is a Christian who wants to cut taxes for anyone who makes less than $250,000 a year. They also say they plan to respond immediately to any ads and statements that violate Missouri's ethics laws," the report said.
"We want to keep this campaign focused on issues," Joyce told the station. "We don't want people to get distracted. Missourians don't want to be distracted by the divisive character attacks."
The campaign was assembled to "set the record straight," they said.
Officials with the Missouri Sheriff's Association declined to talk about any sheriffs who might be involved in the campaign.
At the blog Gateway Pundit, the reaction was immediate.
"St. Louis and Missouri Democrat sheriffs and top prosecutors are planning to go after anyone who makes false statements against Obama during his campaign. This is so one sided I can't even being to describe how wrong this agenda is," writes blogger Jim Hoft.
Hoft said Joyce and McCulloch "are threatening to bring libel charges against those who speak out falsely against Barack Obama."
Missouri blogger Doctor Bulldog commented: "Don't think they will stop with just the local radio and television stations. Oh, no. We bloggers are NEXT on the chopping block! It doesn't matter if it is the truth. It only matters if Obama deems it a lie (i.e. – something that can cause damage to his bid to be president). Basically, NO ONE is free to criticize Obama here in Missouri"!!!"
In the St. Louis Examiner, a commentary said, "Look, politicians are all about lies. It may be annoying (I find it entertaining), but that's for their opponents and good-government groups to counter – not law enforcement. … Even if the officeholders joining the 'truth squad' are nominally stepping out of their official roles in order to put on their (political) party hats and play politics, it's inappropriate. They wield too much power to use it to wag their fingers at people who say un-nice things about political hopefuls. Prosecutors and sheriffs are, after all, normally thought of as people with the clout to put their targets behind bars."
Marquis told WND politicians keep their right to have a political opinion and express it, but the DA's organization strives hard not to be partisan.
