This video will put into perspective how much influence the Democrats, especially Barack Obama and the Congressional Black Caucus, had on Fannie Mae. In this video, you'll see Fannie's CEO tell the CBC that they are Fannie's "family" and "conscious." Watch. Learn.
Hat tip to Kim Priestap
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Fannie Mae
Who Am I
Who Am I ?
I am under 45 years old,
I love the outdoors,
I hunt,
I am a Republican reformer,
I have taken on the Republican Party establishment,
I have many children,
I have a spot on the national ticket as vice president with less than two years in the governor's office.
Have you ever heard of me before now?
(before you click for the answer, who do you think it is)
I am Teddy Roosevelt.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Obama and Fannie Mae
McCain came up with this ad about Barack Obama's connections to Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines
Hat tip to Ed Morrissey
And the loony left accused him of playing the Race Card because there were sinister images of two black men, followed by one of a vulnerable-looking elderly white woman. Well they were not just any two black men, they were Obama and Raines, and what Fannie Mae did hurt a lot of people, including vulnerable-looking elderly white women. But if you want an ad with a white man (Jim Johnson) also in charge of Fannie Mae, who not only served as an economic adviser to Obama but also originally ran his running-mate search committee:
Hat tip to Ed Morrissey
Women upset by Palin Pick
New York Sun reported "All of my women friends, a week ago Monday, were on the verge of throwing themselves out windows,"
A psychiatrist and conservative blogger, Patricia Santy, said the strong emotional reactions are driven by Mrs. Palin's differing with the left-leaning political agenda of many feminists. "Their entire image of themselves is based on the fact that they are paving the way for women. What do they see? Women getting ahead, women being empowered who don't agree with them," Dr. Santy said.
Unless you liv on the first floor, that procedure is not advised.an author and political activist, Nancy Kricorian of Manhattan, said yesterday. "People were flipping out. ... Every woman I know was in high hysteria over this. Everyone was just beside themselves with terror that this woman could be our president — our potential next president."
Calm down. The next President will be John McCain. Palin is only his VP. It will be 2012 (or 2016) when she runs for President, against Hillary.Ms. Kricorian allowed that she was among those driven to distraction, upon occasion, by Mrs. Palin's nomination. "My Facebook status last Monday was, 'Nancy is freaking out about Sarah Palin yet again,'" the writer said.
See your doctor. They have drugs that can help.A posting on a New York-based Web site for women, Jezebel.com, spoke of unbridled anger. "What I feel for her privately could be described as violent, nay, murderous, rage," an associate editor at Jezebel,
Has the Secret Service been informed?Jessica Grose, wrote just after the Republican convention wrapped up. "When Palin spoke on Wednesday night, my head almost exploded from the incandescent anger boiling in my skull."
Definitely see your doctor. And take your meds..... Ms. Kricorian said some of the agitation was because women felt Mr. McCain was pulling off a political trick, using the novelty of selecting a woman to hide her conservative social and religious views.
I don't think either was hidden."The women thing is a ruse. ... She was chosen because of the evangelical thing," the writer said. "It's weirdly stealthy that she's not talking about it."
What has she not talked about?Ms. Grose posited that some of the anger was because Mrs. Palin, a former beauty pageant winner, resembled a high school homecoming queen. "She has always embodied that perfectly pleasing female archetype, playing by the boys' game with her big guns and moose murdering,
moose murdering?????and that she keeps being rewarded for it," Ms. Grose wrote.
A psychiatrist and conservative blogger, Patricia Santy, said the strong emotional reactions are driven by Mrs. Palin's differing with the left-leaning political agenda of many feminists. "Their entire image of themselves is based on the fact that they are paving the way for women. What do they see? Women getting ahead, women being empowered who don't agree with them," Dr. Santy said.
Ah, ha. The wrong "kind" of women.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Hillary cancels after she learns Palin will be there
Washington Times reported Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has canceled an appearance at a New York rally next week after organizers blindsided her by inviting Republican vice presidential candidate and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, aides to the senator said Tuesday.... Clinton aides were furious. They first learned of the plan to have both Clinton and Palin appear when informed by reporters. "Her attendance was news to us, and this was never billed to us as a partisan political event," said Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines. "Sen. Clinton will therefore not be attending."
It was supposed to be non-partisan, and that is why both women were invited. Apparently Clinton intended to turn it into a partisan event, with just her being there, and withdrew when she learned that was not going to be possible.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Health care
A professor of economics at Harvard and an adviser to Barack Obama's presidential campaign plus two other professors think Obama's Health Plan is better. They wrote in WSJ.com The big threat to growth in the next decade is not oil or food prices, but the rising cost of health care.
Actually the biggest threat is the credit crisis which the Democrats would not let Bush fix. And food prices were driven up by foolish efforts the Dems made to buy votes in corn producing states by pushing for corn to be used to make ethanol, and if they had not blocked drilling the last 30 years we would have much more domestic producion and gas prices would be much lower.The doubling of health insurance premiums since 2000 makes employers choose between cutting benefits and hiring fewer workers.
A lot of the increase was because Dems blocked tort reform, and the doctors order many unnecessary test to avoid being sued.Rising health costs push total employment costs up and wages and benefits down. The result is lost profits and lost wages, in addition to pointless risk, insecurity and a flood of personal bankruptcies. Sustained growth thus requires successful health-care reform. Barack Obama and John McCain propose to lead us in opposite directions -- and the Obama direction is far superior.
I don't really like either one.Sen. Obama's proposal will modernize our current system of employer- and government-provided health care, keeping what works well, and making the investments now that will lead to a more efficient medical system. He does this in five ways:
- Learning. One-third of medical costs go for services at best ineffective and at worst harmful. Fifty billion dollars will jump-start the long-overdue information revolution in health care to identify the best providers, treatments and patient management strategies.
The money will be wasted.- Rewarding. Doctors and hospitals today are paid for performing procedures, not for helping patients. Insurers make money by dumping sick patients, not by keeping people healthy. Mr. Obama proposes to base Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to hospitals and doctors on patient outcomes (lower cholesterol readings, made and kept follow-up appointments) in a coordinated effort to focus the entire payment system around better health, not just more care.
So rather than the insurance companies dumping skck patients, the doctors and hospitals will have an incentive to dump sick patients, to improve their "patient outcome" numbers.- Pooling. The Obama plan would give individuals and small firms the option of joining large insurance pools. With large patient pools, a few people incurring high medical costs will not topple the entire system, so insurers would no longer need to waste time, money and resources weeding out the healthy from the sick, and businesses and individuals would no longer have to subject themselves to that costly and stressful process.
A better plan would be to abandon employer provided insurance and let people be responsible for buying their own insurance, and then when they change jobs they can keep their insurance. Provide large pools for patients who elect not to carry insurance until after they get sick.- Preventing. In today's health-care market, less than one dollar in 25 goes for prevention, even though preventive services -- regular screenings and healthy lifestyle information -- are among the most cost-effective medical services around.
How many doctors tell their patients to stop smoking and lose weight. And how many fat smokers are there?Guaranteeing access to preventive services will improve health and in many cases save money.
- Covering. Controlling long-run health-care costs requires removing the hidden expenses of the uninsured. The reforms described above will lower premiums by $2,500 for the typical family, allowing millions previously priced out of the market to afford insurance.
Tort reform would save more because doctors would not have to waste money with unneeded tests.In addition, tax credits for those still unable to afford private coverage, and the option to buy in to the federal government's benefits system, will ensure that all individuals have access to an affordable, portable alternative at a price they can afford.
And help destroy an already burdened medicare system. If you feel the government must help people with no insurance, build clinics for them, and revoke the law that says emergency rooms have to take people that can't pay. Let them wait in line in the clinics.Given the current inefficiencies in our system, the impact of the Obama plan will be profound. Besides the $2,500 savings in medical costs for the typical family, according to our research annual business-sector costs will fall by about $140 billion. Our figures suggest that decreasing employer costs by this amount will result in the expansion of employer-provided health insurance to 10 million previously uninsured people.
Unlikely.We know these savings are attainable: other countries have them today. We spend 40% more than other countries such as Canada and Switzeraland on health care -- nearly $1 trillion -- but our health outcomes are no better.
Then why do Canadians come to the US for health care they can't get in their own country.The lower cost of benefits will allow employers to hire some 90,000 low-wage workers currently without jobs because they are currently priced out of the market.
Just think how many workers they could hire if they did not have to worry about paying for their health care.It also would pull one and a half million more workers out of low-wage low-benefit and into high-wage high-benefit jobs. Workers currently locked into jobs because they fear losing their health benefits would be able to move to entrepreneurial jobs, or simply work part time.
And if people did not depend on their employer for health care, they could do that even easier.In contrast, Sen. McCain, who constantly repeats his no-new-taxes promise on the campaign trail, proposes a big tax hike as the solution to our health-care crisis. His plan would raise taxes on workers who receive health benefits, with the idea of encouraging their employers to drop coverage. A study conducted by University of Michigan economist Tom Buchmueller and colleagues published in the journal Health Affairs suggests that the McCain tax hike will lead employers to drop coverage for over 20 million Americans.
Good. People should buy their own health care policies.What would happen to these people? Mr. McCain will give them a small tax credit, $5,000 for a family and $2,500 for an individual, and tell them to navigate the individual insurance market on their own.
Which is what they should do.For middle- and lower-income people, the credits are way too small. They are less than half the cost of policies today ($12,000 on average for a family), and are far below the 75% that most employers offering coverage contribute.
Let them buy insurance from any state, and avoid the requirements some states impose that insurance must cover certain things people may not want to pay for coverage for.Further, their value would erode over time, as the credit increases less rapidly than average premiums.
Those already sick are completely out of luck, as individual insurers are free to deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions. Mr. McCain has proposed a high-risk pool for the very sick, but has not put forward the money to make it work.
It is not the government's job to put that money forward. If everyone was responsible for his own insurance, and could buy any policy he wanted in the country, smart people would have their insurance covered even if they changed jobs, and foolish people could join the high risk pools if they waited until they got sick, or go to the charity clinics.Even for those healthy enough to gain coverage in the individual insurance market, the screening, marketing and individual underwriting that insurers do to separate healthy from sick boosts premiums by 17% relative to employer-provided insurance, well beyond the help offered by the McCain tax credit.
The immediate consequences of the McCain plan are even worse. The McCain plan is a big tax increase on employers and workers. With the economy in recession, that's the last thing America's businesses need.
Obama wants to raise business taxes more.Finally, Mr. McCain does nothing to bend the curve of rising health-care costs downward. He does not fund investments in learning, rewarding and preventing. Eliminating state coverage requirements will slash preventive service availability.
Why?The high cost-sharing plans he envisions will similarly discourage preventive care. And as he does nothing about the hidden costs of the uncovered -- expensive ER visits, recurring conditions resulting from inadequate follow-up care.
That is why I said add clinics for the uninsured, and keep them out of ER rooms.
Historic, bigoted choice
ELECTION 2008: Your chance to make a historic, bigoted choice -- no matter who you vote for!
Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds
Monday, September 15, 2008
Palin Hired Friends
NYTimes attempts a hatchet job on Palin When Ms. Palin had to cut her first state budget, she avoided the legion of frustrated legislators and mayors. Instead, she huddled with her budget director and her husband, Todd, an oil field worker who is not a state employee, and vetoed millions of dollars of legislative projects.
Would it be ok for her to consult with her husband if he was a state employee, but is it wrong for her to do it because she has not put him on the payroll?.... Ms. Palin has many supporters. As a two-term mayor she paved roads and built an ice rink, and as governor she has pushed through higher taxes on the oil companies that dominate one-third of the state’s economy. She stirs deep emotions. In Wasilla, many residents display unflagging affection, cheering "our Sarah" and hissing at her critics. "She is bright and has unfailing political instincts," said Steve Haycox, a history professor at the University of Alaska. "She taps very directly into anxieties about the economic future." "But," he added, "her governing style raises a lot of hard questions."
Sounds like the sort of person we want for Vice President.Ms. Palin declined to grant an interview for this article.
Would it have been a puff piece rather than a hatchet job if she had granted you the interview?The McCain-Palin campaign responded to some questions on her behalf and that of her husband, while referring others to the governor’s spokespeople, who did not respond. Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell said Ms. Palin had conducted an accessible and effective administration in the public’s interest. "Everything she does is for the ordinary working people of Alaska," he said.
A conservative populist..... And, her supporters say, she cleaned out the municipal closet, firing veteran officials to make way for her own team. "She had an agenda for change and for doing things differently," said Judy Patrick, a City Council member at the time.
That sounds like a good reason to clean house. And it probably upset the entrenched people that wanted to continue doing what she wanted changed.But careers were turned upside down. The mayor quickly fired the town’s museum director, John Cooper. Later, she sent an aide to the museum to talk to the three remaining employees. "He told us they only wanted two,"
It is called "Smaller Government"recalled Esther West, one of the three, "and we had to pick who was going to be laid off." The three quit as one.
Smaller than intended, but she could always hire new people.Ms. Palin cited budget difficulties for the museum cuts. Mr. Cooper thought differently, saying the museum had become a microcosm of class and cultural conflicts in town. "It represented that the town was becoming more progressive, and they didn’t want that," he said.
Maybe it was becoming too progressive for the majority..... As she assembled her cabinet and made other state appointments, those with insider credentials were now on the outs. But a new pattern became clear. She surrounded herself with people she has known since grade school and members of her church.
And is she the firt politician to do that? In the unlikely event Obama is elected President, do you think he is going to keep Bush's cabinet ecretaries? Do you even think McCain will?Mr. Parnell, the lieutenant governor, praised Ms. Palin’s appointments. "The people she hires are competent, qualified, top-notch people," he said.
That is what is important..... Ms. Palin and aides use their private e-mail addresses for state business. A campaign spokesman said the governor copied e-mail messages to her state account "when there was significant state business." On Feb. 7, Frank Bailey, a high-level aide, wrote to Ms. Palin’s state e-mail address to discuss appointments. Another aide fired back: "Frank, this is not the governor’s personal account." Mr. Bailey responded: "Whoops~!"
Most politician use state assents for their personal business. The NYT is castigating Palin for using her personal e-mail address for state business.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Liberal talk show invites wrong guest
Former Democratic Senator from Alaska and 2008 Presidential candidate Mike Gravel, interviewed by Mitch Jeserich, Sonali Kolhatkar, and Larry Bensky on Sarah Palin, John McCain's VP pick. (Sep 1st, 2008)
Absolutely hilarious. You can hear in their voices that the hosts want to shut the guest up since he obviously doesn't agree with their political opinions.
Hat tip to Danny Carlton
Bush Doctrine
Josh Marshall thinks The awkward moment when Charlie Gibson tries his best not to press the point that Sarah Palin doesn't know what he's referring to when he asks her about the "Bush Doctrine"
She does not say she does not know what he's referring to, she asks "In what respect Charlie?"
Wikipedia says it is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush
Sarah was very correct to ask Charlie specifically what aspect of the Bush Doctrine he was referring to.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Could reduce abortions
Los Angeles Times reported Sarah and Todd Palin's decision to complete her recent pregnancy, despite advance notice that their baby Trig had Down syndrome, is hailed by many in the pro-life movement as walking the walk as well as talking the talk.
Precisely.But a senior Canadian doctor is now expressing concerns that such a prominent public role model as the governor of Alaska and potential vice president of the United States completing a Down syndrome pregnancy
i.e. having a baby with Down Syndrome rather than killing it.may prompt other women to make the same decision
Don't they have that CHOICE what to do with their own bodies?against abortion because of that genetic abnormality. And thereby reduce the number of abortions.
And what would be so terrible about that (other than the fact it might hurt the business of abortion providers).
Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman.
Wendy Doniger wrote in Washington Post Belief in god, like getting pregnant, is a private matter between consenting adults
Are children not allowed to believe in God in Wendy's world?(or one consenting adult and one or more deities) and is no one else's business.
Practically every religion I am familiar with encourages its members to spread the faith. In Christianity it is spread by preaching. In Islam it is spread by force.I am on record in this blog (and have not budged an inch) as not objecting to any candidate's religious views.
But you will belittle their views, as you have in this article.But I object strongly when anyone (and especially anyone with political power) tries to take their theology out in public, to inflict those private religious (or sexual) views on other people.
What constitutes "inflict". If someone threatens to cut your head off if you do not embrace his religion, I will agree with you. But if someone prays for something to happen or not happen, that is fine with me. And if God chooses to answer that prayer, even if it is not something I would have wanted to happen, I am prepared to live with it.In both sex and religion (which combine in the debates about abortion), Sarah Palin's views make me fear that the Republican party has finally lost its mind.
Really?????As for sex, the hypocrisy of her outing her pregnant daughter in front of millions of people, hard on the heels of her concealing her own pregnancy
She concealed her own pregnacy because she knew her baby had Down Syndrome, and did not want to have to put up with people telling her to abort it.(her faith in abstinence applying, apparently, only to non-Palins),
I am sure that she wishes her daughter had not gotten pregnant, but since she did, I am happy she will marry the father and have the child.is nicely balanced by her hypocrisy in gushing with loving support of her teenage daughter after using a line-item veto to cut funding for a transitional home for teenage mothers in Alaska.
Maybe she has other plans for where her daughter and the new husband will live.Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman.
Precisely what is your definition of a woman? I think she meets any definition I know of. She clearly has a womb, and it has been used five times. And she wears lipstick (we'v been hearing a lot about that recently).The Republican party's cynical calculation that because she has a womb and makes lots and lots of babies (and drives them to school! wow!)
Is driving your children to school something mothers are not supposed to do?she speaks for the women of America,
Did she ever claim to speak for all women in America?and will capture their hearts and their votes,
This is what has the left so frightened about.has driven thousands of real women to take to their computers in outrage. She does not speak for women; she has no sympathy for the problems of other women, particularly working class women.
How do you know she has no sympathy for them. Just because she does not want to subject them to the same solutions she does, does not mean she does not have sympathy for them, and want to help them.And as for religion, I'd love to know precisely how the Good Lord conveyed to her so clearly his intention to destroy the environment (global warming, she thinks, is not the work of human hands, so it must be the work of You Know Who),
Maybe she is right. God destroyed the world once, with water (remember Noah and the Flood), and the next time is supposed to be with fire.the lives of untold thousands of soldiers and innocent bystanders (He is apparently rooting for this, too, she says),
Maybe she means He would prefer a civilization in which people did not fly planes into buildings, killing thousands, or blowing themselves up to kill tens or hundreds.and, incidentally, a lot of polar bears and wolves, not to mention all the people who will be shot with the guns that she thinks other people ought to have. An even wider and more sinister will to impose her religious views on other people surfaced in her determination to legislate
She is running for VP, not th legislature.against abortion even in cases of rape
Even if Roe v Wade was reversed, it would just turn things over to the states, and most abortions take place in Blue States, where it would still be legal.and in her attempts to ban books,
All she did was ask a libraria what her thoughts were.including books on evolution, and to fire the librarian who stood against her.
The librarian never lost her job, even though she was a political appointee and could have legally been fired.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Russian Separatists
NYTimes reported Tatarstan is a long way from South Ossetia. While South Ossetia is a poor border region of Georgia battered by war, Tatarstan is an economic powerhouse in the heart of Russia, boasting both oil reserves and the political stability that is catnip to investors. But the two places have one thing in common: Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, both have given rise to separatist movements. And when President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia formally recognized the breakaway areas of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent nations two weeks ago, activists in Kazan, the Tatar capital, took notice.
Don't get your hopes up. See if Russia is willing to give North Ossetia its freedom, and allow it to combine with South Ossetia to form an independent country that can affiliate with Russia or the West, or both, as it chooses. You will probably see pigs fly first.An association of nationalist groups, the All-Tatar Civic Center, swiftly published an appeal that “for the first time in recent history, Russia has recognized the state independence of its own citizens” and expressed the devout wish that Tatarstan would be next.
Be sure to tell Santa Claus what you are wishing for. Maybe it will help. NOT.
Rehashed from Hannity
Taylor Marsh whined It's the story of Chloe, a Down Syndrome child, whose parents had an encounter with McCain and Palin on a campaign stop. But that's just the wind up. The pitch is personal, meant to move, as well as use an event to capitalize on a special need's child and the sympathy it engenders to bring in votes for McCain-Palin. Republicans are nothing if not cynical, opportunistic and always willing to play an angle, no matter how repugnant.
What is repugnant about a meeting between two families, both of whom decided to bring Down Syndrome children into the world rather than aborting them.Once "Kurt in Pennsylvania" started telling his story on Rush, I knew it sounded familiar. He went through the same patter as he did the day before.... It just so happened to be the exact same story the caller had shared on Hannity's show the day before.
Have you never seen one MSM media outlet pick up a story another featured the previous day?What a coincidence.
What a scandle. Rush (or someone on his staff) watches Hannity. So now people on the radio can benefit from a story from Cable TV.... Having been around radio for well over fifteen years, doing interviews across the country, having my own show (and then losing it),
Now we know why she is bitter.while I try to get back on the air, I know this stuff. When Hannity has a caller on, then that same caller suddenly and miraculously appears on Rush's show, which evolves into a big pr event, it's not by accident.
Will the MSM promise never to cover a story that first aired on a different media outlet?Manufacturing these events is what the right-wing does best.
What is manufactured? A family with a Down Syndrome child came to see a VP candidate with a Down Syndrome child. Neither is ashamed of ot killing the child before it could be born.Using a Down Syndrome child to help their candidate get votes is just their latest low.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Stem Cells
Ben Smith blogged Joe Biden today waded into the now-sensitive discussion of developmentally disabled kids, my colleague Victoria McGrane reports, and differed with Palin on the issue, though he didn't mention her by name:I hear all this talk about how the Republicans are going to work in dealing with parents who have both the joy, because there's joy to it as well, the joy and the difficulty of raising a child who has a developmental disability, who were born with a birth defect.
Will you discourage parents from aborting these babies, so they can have the joy too?Well guess what folks? If you care about it, why don't you support stem cell research?
I guess he figures since you didn't kill your baby, and find joy in raising it, why not let us kill a bunch of unborn embryos, even though all of the promising stem cell work has been with adult stem cells, which could mean cells could be grown from the patient's own cells, and not have rejection problems.Palin reportedly opposes much stem cell research; McCain supports it.
Not a Big Tent
Roll Call reported Lieberman Unwelcome at Party Lunches .... “Sen. Lieberman has voluntarily decided not to attend luncheons when he believes it’s likely there would be discussions of presidential politics,”
McCain will have to depend on one of his other moles for information.spokesman Marshall Whitman said, adding that Lieberman has never been told to stay away from the luncheons.
They just told him he wasn't welcome.The decision comes in the wake of Lieberman’s attacks on Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) at the GOP convention last week, and essentially formalizes a deal Reid and Lieberman had cut earlier this year under which Lieberman would not attend meetings that included discussions of sensitive campaign or political issues. Lieberman for weeks has voluntarily forgone the weekly caucus lunches and weekly policy lunches on Thursdays. A Reid spokesman angrily denied that the Majority Leader had booted Lieberman from lunches.
Reid angrily denies a lot of things; that does not mean they are not true. Just that he did not want you to knowAlthough Lieberman caucuses with Democrats — thus giving Reid control of the Senate — his role in the McCain campaign has increasingly marginalized his standing with his Democratic colleagues.
And when McCain is elected in November he will probably put Lieberman on his cabinet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
