2008 Presidential Debate #2 Post-Mortem

9:37: Another reader responds to Matt B.'s idea about John McCain appointing Mitt Romney as "economic czar":

Oh man, I LOVE the Romney idea. Why not do it? The more I think about it, the more I love it. two vice presidents (for all intents and purposes)

9:22: Mark Steyn on John McCain's proposed mortgage bailout plan (this pretty much sums up how I feel about it too):

A fellow New Hampshirite writes:

Nina Easton nailed it by referring to McCain's mortgage buy up plan as a death knell for free market capitalism. Out in California Reagan is spinning in his grave.

No argument from me. As NR's resident demography bore, I often make the point that one of the reasons why America has a healthier birth rate than any other western nation is because it's the cheapest one in which to buy a four-bedroom house on a nice big lot. You look at how the Dutch and Germans live and it's no wonder they're in no hurry to have kids. So I value a sane, affordable housing market more than, say, the British version - in which you buy a half-million-pound basement flat in a seedy rundown East End slum, install a cat flap in the back door, and sell it two months later for 1.3 million.

Will massive government intervention restore the health of the American property market? It's not clear to me why the government needs to buy up all these mortgages. We talk of "keeping people in their homes", but in what sense are they "their homes"? Many of these home "owners" obtained such ridiculous mortgages that they have minimal equity in them: Losing "their homes" is, in that sense, little more in cash terms than losing the security deposit on your rental apartment. Listening to all these proposed government interventions designed to stave off reality, I'd rather leave it to the market.

But then, as Andy put it, we have a non-conservative making the conservative case in this election, which is why McCain and Obama seemed, in that first 45 minutes, to share so many basic assumptions.

9:16: Dick Morris: 'Bill Ayers taught that the purpose of college education was to radicalize students politically--and then he put Barack Obama in charge of dispersing $50 million to that end.'

This is an interesting take on the association: Ignore the friendship and 'guilt by association,' and focus instead on the fact that they both agreed, philosophically, that the purpose of education should be to radicalize students.

9:09: Robert Gibbs was on with Sean Hannity and accused him of being an anti-semite because he had an anti-semite on his show. This was in response to questions Hannity raised about Obama's assocations with Bill Ayers & Jeremiah Wright.

The difference, of course, is that Sean Hannity is a journalist while Barack Obama is a Senator and candidate for President.

(if someone can find me video of this exchange, I'd appreciate it.)

8:57: Erick Erickson of RedState, who is a class act, on CNN's "analysis" of the debate and the state of the race:

First there was David Gergen tonight who said, "It's too early to declare it over because Barack Obama is black." Yes, he thinks the "Bradley Effect" could cost Obama 5 to 6 points.

James Carville then chimed in and subtly hinted at massive riots if Obama loses going into the election ahead in the opinion polls.

Then Paul Begala piled on calling Sarah Palin's attacks on Obama "dangerous." He had the nerve to cite the AP calling her attacks "racially tinged" saying "That's the AP, not a Demcrat."

Begala then said Palin's praise of small town America hints at racism, the South, and killing Obama.

That, ladies and gentlemen, was actual political commentary on CNN.

8:52: Awesome Amanda Carpenter (Townhall) on a key moment in the debate:

OBAMA: "This is the guy who sang bomb, bomb, bomb Iran...who called for the annhilation of North Korea...who said, 'next up Baghdad!"

MCCAIN: "I understand what it's like to send young Americans into harms way. I was joking with a veteran about going into Iran...I'll get Osama Bin Laden my friends, I'll get him no matter what...but I'm not going to telegraph my punches."

Obama was flippant and arrogant. The libs will love it, the conservatives will hate it and the independents will be uncomfortable.

8:24: Matt B., who texted earlier, emails to make his Romney point perfectly clear:

If I were McCain with the first economic question of the night I would have stood up and said that "when I am elected I will appoint Governor Romney as our economic czar.....having said that here is our economic plan of how we are going to fix this thing.....this is how it works, this is what it is going to do and this is why Obama is naive and his plan is dangerous and the wrong path to prosperity."

Then I would send out Romney, who still has a great base to all of the TV shows, even stumping, and explain the plan and why Obama's is dangerous and naive. This would create essentially a McCain-Palin and Romney ticket. McCain could continue and focus on what he is good at (the war and foreign policy), Palin could focus on what she is good at (attacking and calling a spade a spade), and finally Romney could do what he is good at (economic growth and superiority).

It would be unprecedented, game-changing, and I would predict a landslide in November.

8:08: McCain's plan to nationalize mortgages? I hate it. Is that strong enough language? It wasn't enough to nationalize the bad debt of our banks, now we're supposed to buy and renegotiate the mortgages of people who bought homes they couldn't afford?

Once again, responsible America pays for the mistakes of foolish America.

8:05: Ace:

Ugh. Barack Obama is a lying c... country western singer, but no game changer, so effectively he wins.

McCain has one debate and two weeks of serious negative campaigning left. That's all that can help.

7:58: Another reader, responding to Romney's advocacy of the McCain economic plan, texts:

If I were McCain I would have stood up tonight and named Romney the economic czar and [then I would] send him on every news show from here to November talking about the McCain economic plan ... thus creating a McCain-Palin & Romney ticket.

And discrediting Obama's economic plan as dangerous and the wrong path to prosperity.

7:55: Jason Steorts on debate strategy:

Politics requires you to look people in the eye and earnestly say things that you know to be tendentious.

7:44pm PDT: What the hell is going on with Frank Luntz's focus groups? Before he was on camera they told him they thought John McCain had done better on the economy. But then, when asked on camera who did better, only 3-4 of them raised their hands.

Tell me again: Why do we even listen to these focus groups?

I agree with Bill Kristol, Tom Brokaw did a disservice to the country by sanitizing all of the questions and making this a re-hash of talking points we'd heard before. And that was disappointing. For the most part, I heard all the same things I've heard from both of these guys before.

I hoped they would get into a fight about Fannie/Freddie and the causes of the economic crisis and except for a few minutes at the beginning, we didn't hear it.



If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

2008 Presidential Debate Live Blog #2

7:34: For the first 25 mintues, John McCain was ill at ease and Barack Obama was smooth and fluid. He sharpened in the middle (where Obama seemed flustered) and stayed strong to the end. That said, I'm not sure we'll derive any game-changing soundbites from this debate. Though, after their respective campaigns get done combing through the video, I could be wrong.

7:30: Mark Steyn on Obama's Darfur position:

If it's "the right thing to do" to save Darfur, why is it suddenly the wrong thing to do if the Russian guy declines to stick his hand up at the Security Council?

This is poseur moralism, the kind of limp-wristed passivity that finds Obama referring earlier to "the tragedy of 9/11". A tsunami is a tragedy, a terrorist attack that kills thousands of people is an act of war - and a president ought to understand the difference.

7:25: McCain: "Everything I learned about leadership, I learned from a Chief Petty Officer." That's a good moment for John McCain.

7:23: Is Russia an Evil Empire under Putin? Clever answer by John McCain: Yes means it's another Cold War. No means I'm ignoring Putin's bad behavior.

7:20: If Barack Obama won't even acknowledge the success of The Surge, how can we expect him to execute it and support it in Afghanistan? Or, if he doesn't believe The Surge worked in Iraq, why does he believe it will work in Afghanistan, as he has suggested?

There are serious inconsistencies in Obama's respective policies towards Iraq and Afghanistan.

7:18: Barack Obama's position on Iraq changes before my very eyes: 'withdraw over a period of time.' If my ears don't deceive me, it sounds like a re-characterization of his short timeline withdrawal.

7:13: I don't doubt that Obama is correctly pronouncing "Pakistan." But I have always found accent-affecting, like Barack Obama, to be off-putting.

7:11: Obama: 'If Osama is in our sights and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to get him, then we'll kill him.'

I like it, but think: Put those words in George Bush's mouth and the leftists would be all up in arms. Hell, not just the leftists, but most of the MSM and other liberal pundits.

What will they say when they hear those words fall from Barack Obama's lips?

7:08: Katie asks what is, in my opinion, the first good audience question of the night: What about Pakistani sovreignty? How does it compare to Cambodia during Vietnam? Should we attack?

Underlying all of this is, what is the principle?

Again, Barack Obama sounds a lot like George Bush on how he would decide to attack. This is a strange, hawkish position from a Democrat. Obviously, I agree with it, but I don't believe that Barack Obama actually means it.

7:05: Obama's criterion for intervention sounds vaguely familiar. It sounds like the moralistic Bush, neocon doctrine. Only he wouldn't have intervened in Iraq. Even though pulling out of Iraq would have made it look like Darfur and Rwanda.

There is no coherence or cogency to Obama's foreign policy because there is no core principle.

What do the polls say? That's how Obama would govern our foreign policy.

7:04: What is the Obama doctrine? About time someone asks Obama what his position is rather than what he is against. Outline your position, Senator.

7:02: [Obama's canned response on "I don't understand" prepped by Axelrod & co. after the last debate when McCain pointed out that Obama didn't understand a lot of things.]

7:00: McCain: "America is the greatest force for good in the history of the world."

6:58: Obama: 'Banks and credit cards go to Delaware (Joe Biden, anyone) because of their loose regulations.'

6:56: It's important, on health care, that McCain clearly state that he is not defending the status quo. He needs to acknowledge, upfront, that there are problems, but that government provided health care--DMV health care--is not the answer.

6:52: Obama: 'McCain is going to strip away the regulation that makes sure you get your mammograms and maternity [whatever].'

Thank goodness for that.

Snark aside, this raises an interesting point. This is what government health plans do. They fixate on particular procedures regardless of whether they are the most effective or efficient. Recent studies, incidentally, have shown that there is a more effective way of detecting breast cancer than mammograms.

Government mandated health care is not flexible the way a free market solution would be and is.

6:46: Obama: "It's easy for us to talk about this during a campaign [...]"

Yeah, Senator Obama, it is. Why, then, should be believe anything you tell us during the campaign?

6:44: McCain has finally hit his stride. Why does it take him so long to get to this point? Who knows? Slow starter, perhaps. Either way, he's finally there and Obama is flustered.

6:42: Record vs. rhetoric. This is a clever way to answer anything Obama says on taxes because it casts everything Obama says as empty rhetoric--especially when contrasted with his record. He says he wants to cut taxes. His record says he has never cut taxes--despite promises to do so when he ran for the Senate.

6:41: Same reader texts: "Obama sounding too nuanced and labored with his tax talk. This is where we want him." Yes.

6:36: John McCain: ' I'm not in favor of tax cuts for the rich. I am in favor of leaving tax rates alone and expanding tax credits for families.'

Finally, John McCain talks about taxes and hits his stride. This is the best I've seen McCain all night and clearly frustrated Barack Obama who wants, now, to for-go the rules and respond to McCain's answer on taxes.

A reader texts: "Re: taxes--Finally, McCain sounds on his game."

6:31: Barack Obama is talking about the 'spending side and the revenue side': The Econ guys will like this.

6:27pm: Thus far, Obama is more coherent and organized in his responses. I wonder how this plays to Joe Sixpack and Hockey Moms across America?

6:23pm: Just over 20 minutes into the debate and John McCain is doing himself no favors. Could we get Sarah Palin as a proxy debater for John McCain? The opening to hammer Barack Obama on Fannie Mae was clearly there, but John McCain let Barack Obama off the hook.

It's not looking good.

6:15pm PDT: Barack Obam, Master History Re-Writer. "I never promoted Fannie Mae."

Why then, pray tell, did Fannie Mae make you, in 3 short years, the 2nd highest recipient of their campaign donations?

6:12pm PDT: "Senator Obama and his cronies." There it is. The opening Fannie/Freddie salvo.

6:07pm PDT: McCain: On stabilizing home values.

Didn't see that one coming.

6:03pm PDT: Obama starts things with his tried and untrue blame of the 'economic policies of the last 8 years.' How will McCain respond? Me too populism or hard-hitting criticism of Obama's friendship-in-aid of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac?

6:00pm PDT: Andy McCarthy on how McCain should greet Obama:

The initial greeting between the candidates is something people watch closely. If McCain treats Obama like he's a pal and then goes for the jugular, he will look terrible and be seen as phony. The idea is to shake hands in a way that conveys, "I'm polite but I'd rather be having a root canal than shaking hands with you."

5:57pm PDT: One reader tells me: 'I hope John McCain asks Barack Obama about Bill Ayers.'

Hopefully he does more than ask about Bill Ayers.

5:50pm PDT: Thanks to Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit for the link.

5:47pm PDT: What is Barack Obama's plan tonight? Drive home what everyone knows--this is a change environment. Everything is change. Look the questioner in the eye. If McCain wants to talk about the past, Obama wants to talk about your future (ed. note: unless it's George Bush & Iraq, of course).

5:37pm PDT: The reason the SNL sketch was taken down, supposedly. According to this report, Herb & Marion Sandler are real people and the SNL sketch said they should be shot.

5:22pm PDT: Beware Axelrod's astroturfing on the townhall attendees and the preselected questions. This is what he does. And he's good at it (creating an alternative reality, completely separate to the one people actually live in).

Welcome to the 3rd OL&L live blog of this election season and 2nd Presidential Debate live blog. I'm switching back and forth between MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN.

Like everyone else, I agree that John McCain needs to hit Barack Obama on his obstruction of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac regulation. Here's how I think he should do it:

- Wait for Obama to try and pin the blame for the current economic crisis on the 'Bush/McCain philosophy of the last 8 years.'
- Once he raises the regulation specter, John McCain should specifically cite Bush's attempt to regulate Fannie/Freddie in 2003 and his own attempt in 2005.
- And then he needs to pound Obama and Congressional Democrats for opposing and stonewalling every attempt to reform Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac.

Waiting for Obama to take the first shot puts McCain in position to make the counterpunch. This way he doesn't appear to be the aggressor.

The facts are on John McCain's side. Thus far, Obama has successfully used the narrative of this nebulous 'philosophy' which he says is to blame for the crisis. It's simple, but wrong and unconvincing. McCain needs to make the case, backed by facts anyone can see on youtube, that Obama and his Democrat friends are responsible for the crisis.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Who Are Obama's Supporters?

Add this to "who is the real Obama?" John Fund in yesterday's WSJ Political Diary, reports on Obama's "grassroots" financial supporters--you know, all the small-time donors that supposedly made Obama a new kind of politician. Turns out Obama (read: Axelrod) won't turn over the information related to these donations. Legally, he doesn't have to, but McCain did and we're able to find out that none of his were shady in the least. Meanwhile, Obama ...

More than 2.5 million Americans have contributed to Barack Obama's campaign, an impressive accomplishment. But are all of them Americans, as required by law?

John McCain's campaign has identified its entire donor base, including those contributing under $200, whose names are not required to be legally disclosed. But the Obama campaign hasn't identified individual donors for nearly half of the $427 million his campaign has raised. Small donations account for much more of Mr. Obama's donation take than most candidates.

That concerns the Republican National Committee, which cites Federal Election Commission records that show some 11,500 Obama donors trigger one or more warning flags that they may be foreign nationals -- including use of a foreign bank account or foreign address. About one out of seven of the donors in question are clearly U.S. diplomats or military personnel since they used an APO address overseas. But the others may be worthy of inquiry, especially given the tale of Palestinian brothers Hosam and Monir Edwan, who contributed more than $31,300 in small increments to the Obama coffers even though they are residents of the Gaza Authority. The FEC flagged their donations and alerted the Obama campaign, which acted in slow motion to refund the money. Almost a year after the last donation by the two brothers, the campaign has still failed to return $891 of their contributions.

The problems with possible foreign donations could have been resolved if the Obama campaign had simply agreed to the transparency rules suggested by the Center for Responsive Politics and seven other watchdog groups. "We asked both campaigns for more information on small donors," Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for the Center, told Newsmax's Ken Timmerman. "The Obama campaign never responded," she notes, while the McCain campaign has made all of its small donor data available online.

For its part, the Obama campaign responds to questions about its small donors by saying "we will continue to review our fundraising procedures to ensure that we are taking every available step to root-out improper contributions." No mention of why it won't post the names of donors online.

The FEC will eventually unravel the mystery, but it usually requires three to four years to finish any probe. Should Mr. Obama become president, the full extent to which his 2008 campaign may have skirted the law will be known about the time he seeks re-election.

(emphasis added)

My position on campaign finance reform is the same it has always been: I disagree with McCain's signature piece of legislation, McCain-Feingold. I think it's a horrible, anti-speech bill. I say let anyone donate any amount to anyone, but let there be transparency. Also, limit donations to American donors (though I can be persuaded on this point).

This way we wouldn't have shady 527s accepting donations from who knows where and run by who knows what group with no responsibility to anyone. This way, if there is an ad in bad faith, we would know who to castigate.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Vote For Bronco

Bronco Mendenhall, a football coach everyone (except yewts) can believe in.

Coach Mendenhall is currently one of the leading vote-getters in the Liberty Mutual Coach of the Year contest. I don't exactly know what anyone wins if they win, but they do have a cool video of Lavell Edwards up on the site right now, so there's that.

Anyway, click here to vote and do so daily.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

'Lazy Generation To The Rescue'

"[W]e're financially wrecked, and our forefathers don't have the slightest clue how to get us out of this mess-up. . . . I feel forced into action. As a 21-year-old, here is what I have decided I will do: Work. Hard. It pains me to type that. You must understand that this is no easy statement from someone born into the Lazy Generation. My hands have never bled before, at least not because of work, and I prefer to keep my brain nice and cozy, bathed in a pleasant solution of hard alcohol and Judge Judy. But no more. I'm beginning to feel desperate, and people in dire situations do crazy things."

- Jason Zabel in "The Lazy Generation to the Rescue"

(h/t WSJ Political Diary)


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Programming Note: Liveblogging Presidential Debate #2

Per usual, I'll be live blogging tonight's Presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain. The debate itself starts at 6pm PDT so I'll start covering the pre-debate stuff at 5pm PDT.

Also per usual, tell 10 of your friends.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Ryan Cleveland, BYU Alum & Bainbridge, GA, District Attorney Candidate

For my Georgian readers (state, not country), take a look at the District Attorney's race in Bainbridge. Reader and fellow BYU alum, Ryan Cleveland, is running against a popular Democrat for the position. He (Cleveland) seems well qualified and capable.

Should you find that Cleveland's conservative priorities match your own, I encourage you to donate to his campaign or otherwise help out in any way you can.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Mostly Democrats Talking About Fannie & Freddie

Who said what, when? The Wall Street Journal has at least a partial answer to the question.

House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 10, 2003:

Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.): I worry, frankly, that there's a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios. . . .

Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.), speaking to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez:

Secretary Martinez, if it ain't broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs [government-sponsored enterprises] ever missed their housing goals?

* * *

House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:

Rep. Frank: I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. . . .

* * *

House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:

Rep. Gregory Meeks, (D., N.Y.): . . . I am just pissed off at Ofheo [Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight] because if it wasn't for you I don't think that we would be here in the first place.

And Freddie Mac, who on its own, you know, came out front and indicated it is wrong, and now the problem that we have and that we are faced with is maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place, you have given them an excuse to try to have this forum so that we can talk about it and maybe change the direction and the mission of what the GSEs had, which they have done a tremendous job. . .

Ofheo Director Armando Falcon Jr.: Congressman, Ofheo did not improperly apply accounting rules; Freddie Mac did. Ofheo did not try to manage earnings improperly; Freddie Mac did. So this isn't about the agency's engagement in improper conduct, it is about Freddie Mac. Let me just correct the record on that. . . . I have been asking for these additional authorities for four years now. I have been asking for additional resources, the independent appropriations assessment powers.

This is not a matter of the agency engaging in any misconduct. . . .

Rep. Waters: However, I have sat through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke. Housing is the economic engine of our economy, and in no community does this engine need to work more than in mine. With last week's hurricane and the drain on the economy from the war in Iraq, we should do no harm to these GSEs. We should be enhancing regulation, not making fundamental change.

Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines. Everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. . . .

Rep. Frank: Let me ask [George] Gould and [Franklin] Raines on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, do you feel that over the past years you have been substantially under-regulated?

Mr. Raines?

Mr. Raines: No, sir.

Mr. Frank: Mr. Gould?

Mr. Gould: No, sir. . . .

Mr. Frank: OK. Then I am not entirely sure why we are here. . . .

Rep. Frank: I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness than, in fact, exists.

* * *

Senate Banking Committee, Oct. 16, 2003:

Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): And my worry is that we're using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie's mission. And I don't think there is any doubt that there are some in the administration who don't believe in Fannie and Freddie altogether, say let the private sector do it. That would be sort of an ideological position.

Mr. Raines: But more importantly, banks are in a far more risky business than we are.

* * *

Senate Banking Committee, Feb. 24-25, 2004:

Sen. Thomas Carper (D., Del.): What is the wrong that we're trying to right here? What is the potential harm that we're trying to avert?

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan: Well, I think that that is a very good question, senator.

What we're trying to avert is we have in our financial system right now two very large and growing financial institutions which are very effective and are essentially capable of gaining market shares in a very major market to a large extent as a consequence of what is perceived to be a subsidy that prevents the markets from adjusting appropriately, prevents competition and the normal adjustment processes that we see on a day-by-day basis from functioning in a way that creates stability. . . . And so what we have is a structure here in which a very rapidly growing organization, holding assets and financing them by subsidized debt, is growing in a manner which really does not in and of itself contribute to either home ownership or necessarily liquidity or other aspects of the financial markets. . . .

Sen. Richard Shelby (R., Ala.): [T]he federal government has [an] ambiguous relationship with the GSEs. And how do we actually get rid of that ambiguity is a complicated, tricky thing. I don't know how we do it.

I mean, you've alluded to it a little bit, but how do we define the relationship? It's important, is it not?

Mr. Greenspan: Yes. Of all the issues that have been discussed today, I think that is the most difficult one. Because you cannot have, in a rational government or a rational society, two fundamentally different views as to what will happen under a certain event. Because it invites crisis, and it invites instability. . .

Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.): I, just briefly will say, Mr. Chairman, obviously, like most of us here, this is one of the great success stories of all time. And we don't want to lose sight of that and [what] has been pointed out by all of our witnesses here, obviously, the 70% of Americans who own their own homes today, in no small measure, due because of the work that's been done here. And that shouldn't be lost in this debate and discussion. . . .

* * *

Senate Banking Committee, April 6, 2005:

Sen. Schumer: I'll lay my marker down right now, Mr. Chairman. I think Fannie and Freddie need some changes, but I don't think they need dramatic restructuring in terms of their mission, in terms of their role in the secondary mortgage market, et cetera. Change some of the accounting and regulatory issues, yes, but don't undo Fannie and Freddie.

* * *

Senate Banking Committee, June 15, 2006:

Sen. Robert Bennett (R., Utah): I think we do need a strong regulator. I think we do need a piece of legislation. But I think we do need also to be careful that we don't overreact.

I know the press, particularly, keeps saying this is another Enron, which it clearly is not. Fannie Mae has taken its lumps. Fannie Mae is paying a very large fine. Fannie Mae is under a very, very strong microscope, which it needs to be. . . . So let's not do nothing, and at the same time, let's not overreact. . .

Sen. Jack Reed (D., R.I.): I think a lot of people are being opportunistic, . . . throwing out the baby with the bathwater, saying, "Let's dramatically restructure Fannie and Freddie," when that is not what's called for as a result of what's happened here. . . .

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.): Mr. Chairman, what we're dealing with is an astounding failure of management and board responsibility, driven clearly by self interest and greed. And when we reference this issue in the context of -- the best we can say is, "It's no Enron." Now, that's a hell of a high standard.

(h/t Ryan D.)


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

'This Cartoon Is Inherently Racist'

Subtitle: "Because Bill Ayers Is White."

(image link)

Jim Treacher is funny. If you don't get it, it's because you're a leftist and you take yourself too seriously.

Treacher has been involved in some of the recent dustups with SNL. 10 days ago they used a joke eerily similar to one Treacher posted on his blog a week earlier.

Yesterday, they deleted online video evidence of a sketch that sent up the link between Barack Obama and Fannie Mae. Guess that joke hit a little close to home--the funniest jokes always do.

I don't mind Tina Fey's Sarah Palin parody. I find it as funny as the rest of America. But I do find it a little unfair that they would upload the Palin parody while deleting the Obama one. It's as if SNL preferred one candidate over the other. And we all know that can't be true.

Just remember: Be careful what you say about Obama. Any criticism, no matter how valid, is maybe probably definitely racially tinged which means it's racist which means you're a racist whether you know it or not. Of course.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

John McCain Strikes Back

The conservative blogosphere has been pounding away at Democrats and Barack Obama on Fannie/Freddie since the start of the current crisis. For whatever reason (because he wanted to lose the election?), John McCain had refused to go there. Well, he finally joined the fight--pounding Barack Obama on exactly the types of things that should concern the middle class voter Obama claims to defend.

If John McCain had associates--close associates--in his past who were the conservative equivalent (is there one?) of Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, & Jeremiah Wright, the MSM would have hounded him right out of the race. With friends like those, he wouldn't have made it past the Republican primary.

But with the MSM defending him at every turn or simply framing the story or avoiding other stories and carrying Obama's water by attacking McCain, they are doing everything they can to make sure he gets into the White House.

In 2004, when 80% of the press voted for John Kerry and he lost, they collectively said, "NEVER AGAIN." And vowed to do all they could to put a Democrat in the White House in 2008. The evidences are everwhere and daily. We chronicle as many has we have time for over at NewsBusters. But we don't get to all of them--and we can only highlight the most blatant anti-McCain abuses.

What about the pro-Obama lapses in coverage? How many times do they look the other way or refuse to run a story about Obama's Fannie-gate record or his association with terrorist Bill Ayers or convicted felon and all-around sleazeball, Tony Rezko, or America-hater Jeremiah Wright.

If you think the media is unbiased or, at worst, moderately biased, ask yourself one question: If the shoe were on the other foot and John McCain had these skeletons in his closet, do you honestly believe he would get the same coverage Barack Obama gets day after day?

If you're a Barack Obama supporter and just stumbled on this blog on the first time, ask yourself this question: How much do you really know about the real Barack Obama?


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Programming Note: Travel Advisory

Today I will be traveling as a part of a larger week of moving and relocation. Regular posting will resume tonight through Wednesday and then be scarce again until probably Friday.

In the meantime, read Ace.

I've decided to take Susan Sarandon up on her challenge. She and many of her Hollywood friends have threatened (every election) to move to some other country (usually Canada) if their favored candidate (Democrat) didn't win.

I noted the 2008 iteration of this last May.

And now, I'm prepared to take them up on their challenge--call it a bet. If John McCain wins, follow through on your promise and get out. If Barack Obama wins, I promise to rid you of my continuous presence for the next 2-3 years.

Any takers?


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

O'Reilly Unloads On Barney Frank

If you missed it on Friday, here's the video of Bill O'Reilly lambasting barney Frank over his role in the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac mess.



Also, Ace points out that Barney Frank's "partner" is an executive at Fannie Mae. Ah, hypocritical conflict of interest. (Caution: Language alert)


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Iowahawk On Gwen Ifill

Earlier this week, conservative funnyman, Iowahawk, turned his sights on Gwen Ifill, moderator of the Vice Presidential Debate. The results were, predictably, hilarious. A sample:

Ifill Ethics Commission Clears Ifill

By Gwen Ifill
PBS Chief Political Correspondent
and Gwen Ifill
President, Ifill Center for Media Ethics
and Gwen Ifill
Editor, BarackBeat Fanzine

WASHINGTON - As expected, a blue ribbon panel from the Ifill Center for Media Ethics cleared award-winning political journalist Gwen Ifill of all charges today, ending a lengthy 20 minute investigation into "ethics" charges that most observers believe were motivated by politics and racism. Ifill, like dynamic groundbreaking President-in-Waiting Barack Obama, is Black. The complete exoneration clears the way for Ifill to moderate the Vice Presidential debate tonight between respected Senate veteran Joe Biden and former beauty pageant loser Sarah Palin.

"I would like to thank Ms.Ifill for her complete cooperation into this unnecessary politically-motivated witch hunt," said Commission Chairperson Gwen Ifill. "On behalf of the entire panel, I would like to offer my sincere apologies for dragging her in and wasting her valuable time on the basis of such obviously flimsy and bogus allegations."

Displaying her famous grace, Ifill said she harbored no ill will toward the inquiry.

Like so many other situations, all liberals/Obamaniacs have to do to understand is think about what their response would be if the shoe were on the other foot. What if, for example, Brit Hume were the moderator and he were writing a book about John McCain to be released on inauguration day? How would you feel about that?

That's what I thought.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Joe Biden, BS Artist

Jonah Goldberg on Joe Biden:

What struck me the most about the debate – and it probably helped having quintessential Obamaphiles in the room – was how Biden’s “gravitas” is derived almost entirely from the fact that he can lie with absolute passion and conviction. He just plain made stuff up tonight. I read a long list tonight in my debate with Beinart here at Wash U, we can visit the details tomorrow.

Just a few: Flatly asserting that Obama never said he’d meet with Achmenijad; that absolute nonsense about spending more in a month in Iraq than we’ve spent in Afghanistan (“let me say it again,” he said as if he was hammering home a real fact); the bit about McCain voting with Obama on raising taxes; his vote in favor of the war etc.

It’s amazing how the impulse to see Biden as the more qualified and serious guy stems almost entirely from his ability to be a convincing b.s. artist. I’m not saying Palin was always honest or unrehearsed, but when she offers up a catchphrase or a talking point, you can tell. When Biden spews up a warm fog of deceitful gassbaggery the response seems to be “what a great grasp of the issues he has!”

His ability, nay his eagerness, to fake not only the “facts” but his sincerity is so shameless many pundits seem either mesmerized by it or scared to call him on it. I’d call his fakery passive aggressive except it’s actually just aggressive aggressive. Beyond being a tool of trial lawyers, I never saw much similarity between Biden and John Edwards, but tonight I was really struck by how alike the two are. Edwards fakes being an everyman, and Biden does too. But his real fraud is intellectual seriousness. He talks like an intellectually mature person, but that’s all it is – talk

(emphasis added)


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Jonah Goldberg, Defender Of American Principles

Wednesday night I attended a debate between Jonah Goldberg and Peter Beinart at Salt Lake Community College. It was a great debate from which I came away thinking: I wish John McCain would shrug off his native populism and be a strong advocate of conservatism like Jonah Goldberg.

Probably the most impactful thing I heard from Goldberg was a point he made regarding "rights." The Bill of Rights is a negative guarantor of rights--as in, it limits what government can do to the individual. Liberals have turned rights into "positive" things. The right to health care, a job, etc.

As Goldberg pointed out, anything the government gives, it can take away. And rights that are native to the individual--inalienable, God-given--cannot be given or taken away by government.

This is classic liberalism at its best.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Christmas Lights On A Pig

(image location)


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

John McCain Is A Free Trader

Courtesy, Mary Kissel, WSJ Political Diary:

HONG KONG -- One of the two guys now running in the U.S. will be president, so the rest of the world is hungry for signs about what the election means for them. Quietly, the McCain campaign has set out an Asia policy that's worth paying attention to.

In an op-ed piece for The Australian newspaper last week, Mr. McCain put heavy emphasis on building traditional alliances with Asian democracies. The 100-year-old U.S.-Australian alliance "sets the standard," he says. Mr. McCain also laid down a strong call for "American leadership" on trade, noting that free trade agreements with Australia and Singapore "are critical building blocks for an open and inclusive economic order in the Asia-Pacific region." In a statement voters back home might like to hear, he added: "America has never won respect or created jobs by hiding behind protectionist walls and I will continue making the case for free trade, regardless of political expediency."

Right-thinking Australians loved the op-ed. The Lowy Institute's Andrew Shearer lauded Mr. McCain's "deeply personal engagement in the alliance and our shared history," and recalled that Mr. McCain's grandfather and father had served "side by side with the Royal Australian Navy" in the Pacific during World War II.

Mr. McCain is the only presidential candidate so far who has put forth a coherent foreign policy vision for engagement with Asia, one of the world's most volatile regions. His strong endorsement of free trade was especially welcome to Asians who frequently understand better than Americans how much it has contributed to the world's prosperity.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Jack Welch On The Crisis

Listen to Jack Welch tell it like it is.

Murder on the Financial Express

Who is to blame for the great U.S. financial meltdown of 2008? BusinessWeek columnists Jack and Suzy Welch believe there are many culprits who deserve to reap bitter rewards. And they discuss why investment banks' going public contributed to the problem.

(h/t Scott L.)

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Peggy Noonan On Sarah Palin's Performance

Noonan is the grand dame of American conservatism. And she has not, at any point, been the unabashed Palin cheerleader you've seen from some of us on the right. I think that gives her a certain degree of credibility when she says, as she does in this clip, that Sarah Palin "killed [it]" tonight.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

2008 Vice Presidential Debate Post-Mortem

11:38pm: Amanda Carpenter, who is awesome, gives her "Wrap Up Thoughts":

Sarah Palin was shaky at times tonight, but never lost her footing. She even managed to trip up her debate veteran opponent Joe Biden on occasion.

And, wow, what a closing statement. (With the surprise invitation to have more events...?!?!)

Ironically, Palin was at her strongest debating Biden on foreign policy, the very subject of which he is considered an expert. Palin deftly reminded viewers, over and over, Biden had openly criticized Barack Obama’s positions on the war, funding and withdrawal throughout the Democratic primaries. “I watched those debates, so I know what that was about,” she grinned. She knowingly gave the media an open invitation to replay those old tapes against the contradictory statements Biden made this evening.

At another point she fiercely labeled Obama’s withdrawal plan, “the white flag of surrender” and promised John McCain knows how to win. Gutsy.

On the negative side, she awkwardly ducked a question on complex bankruptcy law and dodged a few other questions that appeared to be over her head. Instead, she referred to her extensive experience in the energy industry and status as a reformer. Not a bad distraction.

[...]

(emphasis added)

11:33pm: Susan Davis in the WSJ Washington Wire writes about the VP debate word count:

A quick word count of the 90 minute face-off tonight between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden shows that the words “maverick,” “taxes,” and “middle class” popped up frequently in the debate.

“Now, what I’ve done as a governor and as a mayor is truly had that track record of reform, and I’ve joined this team that is a team of mavericks, with John McCain,” Palin said, kicking off a “maverick” count that topped off at 15.

However, Biden used the word more often, 9-6 to Palin, and sought to use it as a negative against McCain. “He’s been a maverick on some issues. But he has been no maverick on the things that matter to people’s lives,” he said.

The word “tax” or “taxes” took top billing with at least 35 references by Biden and 32 by Palin. The tax issue is a cornerstone of the rival campaigns’ appeal to the middle class—Barack Obama says he will cut them for the middle class, and McCain says Obama will raise them on everybody.

11:22pm: Mary Katherine Ham:

Oddly enough, Sarah Palin was masterful tonight at exactly what she was incapable of doing in the Gibson and Couric interviews. Tonight, she was able to answer questions the way she wanted to answer them instead of doing it the way Ifill wanted her to. In particular, when asked what her Achilles heel was, she simply chose to talk about her strengths instead. It was the classic job interview, "What's your greatest weakness" moment, and she reacted correctly. By the time she was done talking, no one remembered that the question was about a weakness. (Suddenly, the media that has argued her inability to do this was a handicap will decide her newfound ability to do it is dishonest obfuscation.)

[...]

Tonight could have been a bleed-out for the McCain campaign, and Sarah Palin may have made it a boon. I've been scanning the cable networks, and even Keith Olbermann can only ask desperately, "So, she didn't do anything to help McCain, right?" because she didn't offer him a convenient gaffe to pounce upon.

[...]

David Plouffe of the Obama campaign: "Stylistically, Sarah Palin did have a very good night," he said, arguing only that Biden won the night on points. Last week, even though many conceded McCain won on points, all that mattered to many pundits was that Obama didn't fall on his face, and therefore won. Suddenly, that's not what matters to some pundits (ahem, CNN).

(emphasis added)

11:10pm: After seeing the results of the CBS and CNN focus groups as compared to Frank Luntz's focus group results, well, I just don't think we can trust the first two. I think Axelrod astroturfed 'em and Luntz's are the only ones we can trust. Last week they gave the win to Obama, this week they gave the win to Palin. CBS & CNN gave the win to the Democrats each week by about the same margin. Uh, yeah, right.

11:07pm: Lorie Byrd @ Wizbang:

Sarah is no Dan Quayle. And she is no Tina Fey cartoon. And she is no drooling moron.

Democrats set the debate up better than we ever could have. If you accuse someone of being a drooling boob, you darn well better make sure they are one. Palin showed up and made all those who ridiculed her look like idiots. Case in point -- Keith Olbermann. I was flipping around so I just caught bits and pieces of the post debate here and there. On MSNBC, Chris Matthews and Andrea Mitchell said Palin was rehearsed. Matthews said the danger with these debates is that people say rehearsed lines and they can be mistaken for intelligence. Sounds a bit like good ole Teleprompter Boy to me. But Teleprompter Boy doesn't even rehearse the lines. He has to read them.

[...]

On Fox tonight Frank Luntz' focus group loved Palin. All in the group raised their hand when asked if Palin won. Several in the group said they moved toward McCain as a result of the debate. Luntz said to look for the polling to change because of this debate.

Dick Morris said it was a huge win for Palin and that she exhibited a talent for communication not seen since Ronald Reagan.

Karl Rove read a list of ten things that Biden got completely wrong that were beyond dispute, then said there were about six additional items he could argue Biden got wrong.

Joe Lieberman looked exceptionally happy and had a blast on Hannity & Colmes.

My overall impression is that Palin was incredible and that Joe Biden was quite smitten with her. I don't know how much any VP debate can move polls, but I do believe that if she had not done well it would have had a very negative impact. I would not be surprised to see Frank Luntz be right and see an uptick in the polls as a result of tonight. At this point in the race people who have not yet made up their minds often go with their gut. They want to vote for the person they feel comfortable with and the one they trust, not necessarily the candidate with all the facts memorized. Tonight's debate reminded me of the 2000 Bush-Gore debate in which Al Gore kept referring to the Dingle-Norwood bill. Gore was Mr. Smarty Pants with all the facts, but Bush was the one that displayed the personality. It will be interesting to see whether or not the voters are moved by Sarah Palin tonight.

11:01pm: Mark Levin on Palin:

I have been involved in and observed politics for a long time. Governor Palin is a truly unique national figure. She is down to earth, personable, and smart as hell. That’s right. She has been on the national scene for a little over a month, she has been campaigning everywhere, she has had to bone up on all kinds of national issues, and she has shown class throughout. Too often too many are persuaded by the mainstream media’s opinion and react to that. This should be another lesson in that regard. As for some of her populist views, she cannot openly campaign against the positions of her presidential running mate. She is the bright light in this campaign from my perspective.

10:27pm: And I'm back. Kathryn Lopez, my National Review sponsor at the RNC, and fellow Sarah Palin fan, weighs in:

Sarah Palin won this debate and puts the campaign in a great position to rail against the media. Whatever she did before this debate — prayed? – is what she should always fall back on. And my impression is what she does. And why she’s come so far so fast.

Sarah Palin is the breath of fresh air on the political scene so many hoped she is. And she’ll be honored to beat the guy who’s been in the Senate since she was in the second grade.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Dick Morris Blasts Alan Colmes

I'm no Morris fan (or, for that matter, a Colmes fan (or, for that matter, a Hannity fan)), but this clip is fantastic.

(from Jack M. @ Ace)

(h/t Scott L.)


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

2008 Vice Presidential Debate Live Blog

8:39pm: I'm off to dinner with friends. More thoughts and analysis when I get back.

8:37pm: I'm biased. I like Sarah Palin. But I was nervous about how things were going to go down tonight. I think she did really well--really, really, well. She matched up with Joe Biden. All she needed to do was play to a draw or lose slightly. I think the objective analysis will show that she did at least that and maybe even beat the 35 year senator.

8:34: Check out The Corner, if you can get it to load, for additional debate analysis.

8:31pm: Another reader texts: "I actually really like both of them. Biden is an effective politician, and very likeable."

I agree. I prefer Biden to Obama.

8:29pm: Palin does a better job hammering the core points and staying on message than her top-of-the-ticket runningmate does.

8:25pm: Sarah Palin's consistent effort to look into the camera and address the American people is effective. It's as though the parties flipped positions on this from last week. Obama was the one who looked in the camera and McCain addressed the moderator. Now, Biden addresses the moderator and Palin addresses the people. I think I like the latter style.

8:14pm: Palin: I would lead in energy policy--energy independence--and reform of government.

8:12pm: Same reader texts: "I feel like Biden is trying to sell me a used car."

Are you buying?

8:10pm: There's already a poll up at Drudge on who won the debate and, surprise, Sarah Palin is winning.

8:05pm: When Sarah Palin responds to questions with related examples from her time as Governor, that comes across as substance versus the "campaign promises" of Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

8:02pm: Joe Biden: "...Serbs, Croatians, & Bosniacs."

Are they related to Obamaniacs?

8:01pm: Joe Biden is clearly smart and has a command of the issues, but his responses feel like Washington DC. His qualifications, obfuscations, caveats and nuance are diminishing his responses.

7:55pm: Taking a page from Al Gore's book, Joe Biden lets out a big, long sigh.

7:53pm: "No one in the Senate has been a better friend to Israel than Joe Biden." Says Joe Biden. I love it when athletes and actors speak in the 3rd person.

7:49pm: Sarah Palin is a strong advocate for Western Civilization, America, & conservatism. She's doing better this week than McCain did last week.

7:46pm: I'm glad to hear Biden speak so strongly in advocating support of Afghanistan and fighting terrorists. I think they'll quickly withdraw and not stick to talking points if/once they're elected, but still, I'm glad to hear it.

7:45pm: A reader texts: "She looked nervous at the first and is now getting into a groove." Yup.

7:42pm: This debate is not going how Biden's handlers told him. He underestimated her. His advisers underestimated her. And she's taking it to him. Personally, I blame the media. Democrats' friends in the MSM lulled them into a false sense of security. Again.

7:36pm: "All of the above" is a great energy soundbite.

7:33pm: One of my friends here watching comments: 'Last week we got to see Barack Obama and John McCain. I want to see what Joe Biden and Sarah Palin are about. And I think Sarah Palin is doing a better job of telling us who she is and what she's done.'

7:20pm: Biden isn't smiling anymore. Looks like Sarah Barracuda has got him rattled.

7:16pm: Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor--income redistribution--is, in the words of Joe Biden, "fairness." This harks back to Barack Obama's insistence in the primaries that he would raise taxes on the rich purely because of "social justice."

7:08pm: This is the Sarah Palin I saw at the RNC.

7:04pm: This is the Obiden talking point: Blame the crisis on the last 8 years of economic policy. It's not true, but it's an easy, simple narrative.

7:02pm: No admission from Gwen Ifill about her book.

6:56pm: Carl Cameron: Look for Sarah Barracuda to come out swinging.

6:52pm: Dick Morris: Obama peaked too soon.

6:27pm: I really, really dislike Barney Frank. He has been Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac's biggest single House enabler. Even when Democrats weren't in the majority, he led Democrats in their efforts to stonewall Bush's reform efforts in 2003 and McCain's efforts in 2006. Since he's been chairman, he's done no better.

I don't like Bill O'Reilly's politics and I think he could do a better job of hanging this stuff on Barney Frank, but at least his target is the right one. Barney Frank is a bad, corrupt congressman.

6:24pm: Orrin Hatch thinks the Ifill thing is a joke, too.

6:11pm: Karl Rove on O'Reilly: 'Biden has said a lot of things over the last few weeks that would sink another Vice Presidential candidate.'

6:01pm: Just took a call from a reader who observed that these debates are one of the things that make this country great. It's true. While many complain about the combativeness of American politics, I think it's a great thing. In this country we fight it out in debates and columns and speeches.

Tonight, 60+ million Americans will watch Sarah Palin and Joe Biden--without the media filter--and decide for themselves.

5:52pm MDT: In today's edition of the WSJ Political Diary, John Fund opines on Gwen Ifill:

The McCain campaign says it has no problem with PBS newswoman Gwen Ifill serving as moderator of tonight's vice presidential debate despite the fact that she has written a glowing portrait of Barack Obama that will be published on Inauguration Day. Obviously, her sales will be higher if Mr. Obama wins -- a glaring conflict of interest for a supposedly neutral moderator.

Why the sanguine reaction of Team McCain? "It's probably not the greatest thing on Earth that she is in that role and it's probably going to really force her to be fully even-handed," Thomas Patterson, professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, told the Boston Herald. "If anything, she's got to be really careful with her questioning of Sarah Palin."

Indeed, one GOP campaign veteran recalled a similar concern during tense negotiations in 1980 over who should moderate a debate between then-Vice President George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis. Debate organizers were certain the Bush forces would veto Dan Rather, the famously liberal CBS Evening News anchor. But actually they had no problem with him. "Earlier that year, Bush had had his famous on-air confrontation with Rather during which he had chided him for his lack of objectivity and recalled how he had left the news set during a live broadcast out of pique," the veteran told me. "We knew then that if Rather were the moderator, he would be hemmed in and would be forced to be fair."

In the end, the duties of moderator went to someone else, but the lesson applies to this year's debates. Ms. Ifill will likely be on her best behavior precisely because of the controversy over her book.

UPDATE 5:35pm MDT: Shepard Smith just posed the hypothetical on Fox News: 'Can you imagine if it were a conservative reporter writing a book about John McCain or Sarah Palin?'

Such a scenario would never occur because they would scream bloody murder.

Here's the thing about Gwen Ifill: The fact that everyone now knows she's writing an Obama book (to be released on inauguration day) will probably neutralize her in-the-tankness for Obama. At a minimum, people are now aware of her bias.

McCain on Fox News: 'I Wish They Picked A Different Moderator'

So that problem is resolved.

But how about the basic dishonesty of using her position as a moderator for profit? There is no doubt that if the debate commission knew she were writing a book about Presidential politics--especially Barack Obama--that they would have chosen someone else.

Whatever credibility this woman once had, it's gone. Along with the rest of the pro-Obama media.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Programming Note: Liveblogging The VP Debate

Back by popular demand (and because I enjoy it), I'll be live-blogging tonight's Vice Presidential debate between Governor Sarah Palin and Senator Joe Biden. Tune in for snark-free commentary and analysis of the debate as it happens!

The debate kicks off at 7pm. I'll start by giving a little pre-debate analysis of the TV coverage at 630pm MDT and carry on with typical analysis of the debate itself at 7pm. Be sure to send your emails with observations and commentary to the email listed below and I'll do my best to plug them into the live-blog.

Thanks, and in the tradition of David Axelrod's famous grassroots (read: astroturfing), tell 10 of your friends.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

How To Solve A Crisis? Ask Steve Forbes

The one-time candidate for POTUS, Steve Forbes, writes in the latest issues of Forbes magazine about what should be done to avoid a Modern Great Depression.

The first prescription for a cure is to formally strengthen the dollar and announce it publicly. A year ago August the price of gold was more than $650 per ounce. In late 2003 it had breached $400. The Fed should declare that its goal for gold is around $500 to $550. That would stabilize the buck--and stability is essential if animal spirits and risk taking are to revive.

Also of immediate urgency is for regulators to suspend any mark-to-market rules for long-term assets. Short-term assets should not be given arbitrary values unless there are actual losses. The mark-to-market mania of regulators and accountants is utterly destructive. It is like fighting a fire with gasoline.

Think of the mark-to-market madness this way: You buy a house for $350,000 and take out a $250,000 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. Your income is more than adequate to make the monthly payments. But under mark-to-market rules the bank could call up and say that if your house had to be sold immediately, it would fetch maybe $200,000 in such a distressed sale. The bank would then tell you that you owe $250,000 on a house worth only $200,000 and to please fork over the $50,000 immediately or else lose the house.

Absurd? Obviously. But that's what, in effect, is happening today. Thus institutions with long-term assets are having to drastically reprice them downward. And so the crisis feeds on itself.

The SEC should immediately reverse its foolish decision to get rid of the so-called uptick rule in short-selling. That would provide a small road bump to the short-selling that's helping to destroy financial institutions.

At the same time the SEC should promulgate an emergency rule (which we thought was already the rule): No naked short-selling. That is, you have to own or borrow shares in a company before you can short it. The rules should make clear that short-sellers must have ample documentation proving they truly possess the shares at the time of the short sale. Otherwise, each violation will result in heavy fines. That wouldn't be a road bump but a wall of Everest-like proportions. Regulators should also be told to instruct banks to keep their solvent customers solvent. The last thing the economy needs right now is for the banking system to seize up.

The federal government should also consider setting up a new Resolution Trust Corp., which was devised during the savings and loan crisis nearly 20 years ago as a dumping ground for bad S&L assets. Today's bad assets could then be liquidated in an orderly way. And, finally, the financial industry should be encouraged to create new exchanges for exotic instruments. This would result in the standardization of these things, which would mean more transparency.

(h/t Scott L.)


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Support Your Local (Republican) Candidate For Congress

Courtesy of the Right Wing News:

As many regular readers of RWN already know, in 2006 I organized a group of conservative bloggers to raise money for the GOP. Well, this year we've got another group of bloggers together.

Ace of Spades HQ, Atlas Shrugs, Conservatives With Attitude, Gateway Pundit, Moonbattery, PoliPundit, Power Line, Redstate, Right Wing News, & Wizbang! have all joined up to help raise money for worthy candidates in the last month of the campaign.

Now, let me tell you a little bit about the slate of candidates we picked.

They're all non-incumbents in competitive races who were unanimously approved by every blogger endorsing the list. All of our candidates are in the House because the amount of money we're going to raise can make a bigger difference in those races. I would also add that you'll find this batch of candidates to be very fiscally conservative, pro-life, and tough on illegal immigration. In other words, these are exactly the sort of candidates we're going to desperately need in Congress next year.

[...]

Dean Andal (CA-11): Andal is a rock-ribbed fiscal conservative who's endorsed by the Club for Growth. He's trying to unseat Jerry McNerney, an ultra-liberal who's a poor fit with his moderately Republican district.

Lou Barletta (PA-11): Barletta is a rising star in Pennsylvania politics. He made a name for himself by passing one of the "toughest illegal immigration ordinances" in the country and was voted "Mayor of the Year by his peers in the Pennsylvania State Mayors Association." Now, he's running against liberal congressman Paul Kanjorski in a moderately Democratic district -- and he's winning. This is a guy we really need in Congress.

John Gard (WI-08): Gard, who has pledged to never take an earmark, is taking on one of the most liberal members of Congress, Steve Kagen, who is far to the left of his moderately Republican district.

Rick Goddard (GA-08): Goddard is a retired US Air Force Major General who's going up against Democrat Jim Marshall in a strongly Republican district that John McCain could conceivably win 60-40 over Barack Obama. This is a great opportunity to put this seat back in the Republican column for a long, long time.

Chris Hackett PA-10: Hackett is a staunch fiscal conservative who has been endorsed by the Club for Growth and has promised to "oppose every attempt to grant amnesty and a preferential path to citizenship for those who are here illegally." Hackett is going up against Chris Carney, a liberal who may not be capable of holding off Hackett in a strongly Republican district.

Melissa Hart (PA-04) Hart is in a rematch against Democrat Jason Altmire in this moderately Republican district. Hart, who had a lifetime ACU rating of 92% during her three terms in Congress, is someone we desperately need back in action.

Andy Harris (MD-01) Harris is a conservative Navy vet who defeated RINO Wayne Gilchrist in a primary. Because Gilchrist is supporting Harris' Democratic opponent, this strongly pro-Republican district is much more in play than it would be under normal circumstances.

Tom McClintock (CA-04): McClintock is a rising star in the GOP and is the only candidate who is endorsed both by Tom Tancredo's Team America PAC and the Club for Growth. Normally, McClintock would need little help in this strong GOP district, but he's facing a tough opponent and the sitting Republican Congressman, John Doolittle, became enmeshed in the Jack Abramoff scandal and is retiring from politics. Replacing Doolittle with a man like McClintock would be a huge improvement for conservatives.

Pete Olson (TX-22): Olson, who served in the Navy and describes himself as an anti-amnesty "budget hawk" is going toe-to-toe with Nick Lampson in Tom DeLay's old district. This is probably the GOP's best chance of a pick-up in the 2008 elections.

Tom Rooney (FL-16): Rooney is an Army veteran who taught criminal and constitutional law at West Point. He's matching up with Tim Mahoney in Mark Foley's old district. The district is only marginally Republican, but McCain looks like he will do well there and Mahoney isn't particularly popular.

William Russell (PA-12): Russell is a 28 year Army veteran who was at the Pentagon on 9/11 and served in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He's going up against one of the most corrupt, liberal, loud mouths in the entire House -- John Murtha. It's a moderately Democratic district and Murtha will be loaded down with special interest money, but with Murtha being dogged by a slander suit filed by one of the Haditha Marines he smeared, he may be vulnerable enough to be brought down.

David Schweikert (AZ-05): Schweikert, who has been endorsed by the Club for Growth, is trying to take back JD Hayworth's old seat. His opponent is Harry Mitchell, who ran as a moderate and voted like Ted Kennedy. In a moderately Republican district, Schweikert is definitely capable of knocking Mitchell out, especially if Arizonans turn out in droves to vote for favorite son John McCain.

Steve Stivers (OH-15): Stivers is a Lieutenant Colonel in the Ohio Army National Guard who received a bronze star and has campaigned on balancing the budget. He's trying to retain a Republican seat held by Deborah Pryce, who's retiring.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Weekly One Cosmos

Bob, at One Cosmos, does the intellectual heavy lifting for conservatism, tracing it through history and religion and philosophy and psychology and doing it all in an incredibly approachable fashion. Here's a selection from one of his latest posts.

One’s political philosophy, whether one acknowledges it or not, is going to depend upon one’s conception of human nature. And if your conception of human nature is wrong, then your philosophy is going to be warped and your system of governance is going to be dysfunctional. I believe leftism is rooted in a naive and faulty conception of human nature, which is why it does not work and can never work. It is not just wrong, but a cosmic error. It is literally an insult to existence.

A while back, Dennis Prager noted that socialist countries are in the process of dying precisely because, within a couple of generations, they produce a new kind of man: indolent, dependent upon the government, spiritually empty, essentially nihilistic. Eventually a tipping point will be reached in which there will not be enough productive people to support the unproductive ones, and that will be the end of Europe as we know it. [...]

Now, not only is your political philosophy dependent upon your explicit -- or more likely, implicit -- conception of human nature, but once in place, your philosophy will produce radically different kinds of human beings. We don’t have to look very far to see how this has played out in the United States, for example, with respect to all of the Oh, Great! Society programs that had the cumulative effect of taking a wrecking ball to the black family, leaving it much worse off than before government got involved. One of the last great liberals, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, saw this coming in the 1960s, writing about the “tangle of pathology” that afflicted urban culture. In fact, the liberal meme of “blaming the victim” was first applied to Moynihan.

[...]

It's not just leftists, as most human beings do not actually crave liberty, so leftism is really a kind of default setting on our human nature, which must be transcended. As a matter of fact, history will demonstrate the opposite -- that human beings by and large find liberty to be repellant [sic], and much prefer security. This is the difference between classical liberals and modern liberals, and it is also the difference between Europe and America.

The modern liberal, in his descent into nihilism, values security over liberty, equality over freedom, “truths” over Truth. FDR, that patron saint of modern liberalism, unveiled a host of new “self-evident truths” that had somehow eluded our founders in a famous speech.

Roosevelt argued for a new definition of "security," that is, "economic security, social security, moral security." Classical liberalism, which had always been associated with negative liberties -- i.e., the right to be left alone by the government -- was to be replaced by a new vision of positive liberty that now forms the essence of modern liberalism. It is no longer real liberty, because now it is dispensed by the state and no longer abides in the individual. The government's job was now to even keep us free of fear, and “Freedom from fear is eternally linked with freedom from want." But since “want” is literally infinite, this sets up the need for a government that is infinite in its powers. For as the adage goes, any time the government does something for you, it does something to you. Since it now proposes to do everything for you...

Look at the current economic crisis. Liberals wanted to do something for people who could not qualify for home loans. Now comes part 2, in which they decide this week what to do to the rest of us.

In effectuating this new promise of security to all American citizens, Roosevelt argued for a new tax policy "which will tax all unreasonable profits, both individual and corporate." Unreasonable profits. Obviously we are still having that debate today, only under Obama's guise of "economic justice." What is an unreasonable profit, and why is it unreasonable? Here you see how the anti-libertarian, pseudo-religious language of Marxism has insinuated itself into our discourse, further accelerating the Fall of liberal man: we "cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people -- whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth -- is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.”

As Bob explains, modern liberalism essentially promises utopia as a positive right. This is what Barack Obama is talking about when he says "hope" and "unity" and "change" and "hopeful change" and "changing unification" and "unifying hope."


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Oregon Senate Race: Smith v. Merkley

Gordon Smith disappointed me on the war. Initially, like 80% of Americans and most of the Senate & House, he supported it. And through the course of the war, he pretty much stuck to his support with occasional criticism. But then, when our forces in Iraq were in their darkest hour, he wavered and began to oppose the war.

As a fellow BYU alum, this was frustrating. I understood that he wanted to get re-elected this year and saw what happened in 2006. But I thought he took the wrong lesson from Republican losses in 2006. I thought the message was that the public was dissatisfied with corruption and big government Republicans who had not stayed true to core conservative principles. I wished and wish Gordon Smith had maintained his support of the war and The Surge as John McCain did. In July 2007, I wrote:

[I] may not agree with Senator McCain about campaign finance or immigration or a number of other things, but we admire his stalwart support of the current surge in Iraq. McCain gets it. He understands that retreat and loss in Iraq would result in hundreds of thousands maybe millions of deaths there and a huge setback in the War on Terror. McCain is willing to lose a Presidential election because of his unpopular yet principled stand. That's what leaders do. It's unfortunate some of his fellow Republican Senators aren't willing to take the same risk with their elected position. Senator Gordon Smith, [I'm] talking about you. Just because the Democrats are willing to play politics with the war, doesn't mean you or Senator Domenici or anyone has to. Senator Lieberman's win last fall is proof that elected officials can want to win in Iraq and persuade their constituents to re-elect them. [I'm] embarrassed to share [my] alma mater with Senator Smith.

Either way, he's still better than Jeff Merkley.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

NewsBusters: SNL's Obama-Race Card Send-up

I like Bobby Moynihan. I like Tina Fey (even her Sarah Palin impression). I appreciate that they have actually found a little humor to use at Barack Obama's expense (no doubt Hillary wishes they'd found it sooner).

One of the better jokes last week--Obama's use of the "race card" in a diplomatic meeting with Kim Jong-il, was pretty simliar to a joke I'd seen a week earlier by Jim Treacher.

Did SNL Steal Obama Race Card Joke From Conservative Blogger?

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Bryan Caplan On Doing 'Something' About The Modern Great Depression

My job at the MRC has me reading even more than I used to read in the past. I went from reading a lot of stuff to reading a heck of a lot of stuff. One of the new things I've come across and enjoyed reading is the Reason blog, Hit & Run. There's just something about their slogan--Free Minds and Free Markets--that I find incredibly appealing. I don't know what it is.

Let me think. For which of my biases does Reason serve as confirmation bias? Hmmm. They're certainly no great friend to conservatives--least of all social conservatives. Must be my knee-jerk fiscal libertarianism. Yup. That's got to be it.

At least I'm honest.

Recently, Reason convened an online meeting of the minds (via email) and asked a number of economics-types three questions:

1. How bad is the current market situation?
2. How bad are the current proposed bailout plans?
3. What's the one thing we should be doing that we're not?

Among the respondents was Bryan Caplan, associate professor of economics at George Mason University. Forthwith, his responses:

1. How bad is the current market situation?
To be honest, I'm not too sure. While we're blaming banks and investors for their "herd behavior," we should remember that politicians and the media often run with the herd, too. When the dust settles, I suspect we'll realize that conditions weren't as bad as people assumed—or at least they weren't until we tried to fix them.

2. How bad are the current proposed bailout plans?
Again, to be honest, I'm not too sure. The plans are creating a bad precedent—perhaps the worst precedent since the New Deal. But it's worth remembering that a "$700 billion bailout" doesn't literally mean that the government gives $700 billion to investors. Instead, it means that the government can buy $700 billion worth of assets; the transfer to investors is only the difference between $700 billion and the fair market value of the assets.

I should add, though, that I don't think the people spearheading the bailout have a clear idea about what they're doing either. They remind me of the old saying: "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore this must be done." I'm a former student of Chairman Ben Bernanke and his behavior during this mess has been a big disappointment.

3. What's the one thing we should be doing that we're not?
Waiting a couple of years. Unemployment is only 6.1 percent; by standard measures, we're still not in a recession. Even if you have no libertarian sympathies, shouldn't you at least give familiar, low-impact responses (especially standard monetary policy) before you throw caution to the wind?

(emphasis added)

Let me repeat his last question for the government-intervention inclined: shouldn't you at least give familiar, low-impact responses (especially standard monetary policy) before you throw caution to the wind?

Read the rest of the responses from the rest of the respondents.

It's informative and for all of you who disagree with me vehemently, one man's confirmation bias is another man's whatever the opposite of confirmation bias is.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Paul DePodesta On Confirmation Bias

As I have been telling my brother for a long time, much of what I know about the world, I learned from baseball. Not the game itself, per se, but analysis of the game by some really, really intelligent people.

It started with Moneyball, Michael Lewis's seminal work on why Billy Beane is a frickin' genius. And it doesn't have anything to do with drafting fat cathers like the Moneyball-haters think.

From there, it migrated to USS Mariner and Lookout Landing--two of the smartest blogs and collections of writers, who have the misfortune to love and write about one of the suckiest teams in all of baseball, with far and away the stupidest front office in all of baseball.

(just FYI, this is a good example of irony)

Back to confirmation bias.

One of the key figures of Moneyball was Billy Beane's Ivy League assistant, Paul DePodesta. The erstwhile Dodgers GM and current Padres Assistant GM, maintains an excellent blog called It Might Be Dangerous... You Go First. It's (wait for it) awesome.

Do you want to instantly become among the most informed baseball fans in all of baseballfandom while simultaneously learning lots of cool stuff with cross application in the real world? Read the aforementioned 3 blogs and any others that relate to them in purpose and process.

I keep getting segued away from confirmation bias.

A couple of Fridays ago, DePodesta wrote about confirmation bias and his post is incredibly well-written and informative. Here's a sample and a little taste of why you should read these blogs.

Very simply, confirmation bias describes the act of accepting only those facts that buttress a pre-existing opinion while discarding those facts that run contrary to one's opinion. In short, we're much more comfortable continuing to believe what we already believe.

Here's the bad news: this affects every single one of us.

One example in the baseball world where confirmation bias bites us is during cut meetings in Major League spring training. In this setting the Major League coaching staff, a few front office members, and possibly a scout or two sit in a room to discuss all of the players in camp and decide which ones are going to back to the minor leagues.

First, some background: there are generally 50-60 players in Major League camp and all of these guys have survived an incredibly rigorous screening process over the previous five or ten years (high school, college, rookie ball, A ball, etc) in order to be invited to camp. Let's face it - every one of these players does something well enough to merit both the invitation and some enthusiasm from people in the room. On the flip side, there has never been a perfect player.

So, there we sit discussing the skills of a highly qualified and tested group where the distinction between players is very, very thin. However, what becomes clear is that for the players we want to keep in big league camp, we generally talk about what they can do. For the players we want to send down, we tend to focus on what they can't do, so the decisions seem obvious (which they're not). Understand, I keep using "we" because every one of us in the room is guilty - we can't help ourselves!

So, why do we do this?

I remember a time when Bill Parcells was in the midst of a so-called "quarterback controversy" where every week he was being asked about his quarterback. Week after week he had to answer the same questions in the same way, further committing to a certain QB. Then in one game in which they were losing, Parcells changed his QB in the second half, and they went on to win the game. Afterwards the press was grilling him about the QB change, attempting to get him to comment on the controversy, and saying, "I thought you said player x was your quarterback." Bill leaned into the microphone, probably as only Parcells can, and enunciating slowly, said:

"I changed my mind."

The fact is that it can be really difficult to change your mind, especially when you've taken a public stand on an issue. Nobody wants to be seen as a flip-flopper (I'll stay away from any partisan jabs) or someone without conviction. However, that mindset can often handicap us in making the best decision.

Circumstances change, rules change, new information becomes available. Many things can happen that should alter our position on a topic, but that's simply tough for us to do.

(emphasis added)

Amen.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Iowahawk: Obama/Teleprompter 2008!

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.