It’s all about where you draw the line

(missed the first couple minutes….)

8:10 PM: Notable that Palin is looking at the camera while Biden is looking off camera — reverse of the McCain/Obama match.

8:12 PM: Hey Biden — it wasn’t deregulation

8:13 PM: Excellent response from Palin RE taxes & who raises them.

8:15 PM: Palin never did directly address the deregulation charge — a mistake. Hopefully she’ll get it in later.

8:17 PM: Biden says 95% will get a tax cut — presumably that includes the 40% who already don’t pay any….

8:19 PM: Biden: “We don’t call that ‘redistribution’, we call that ‘fairness’”.

8:21 PM: Hey Biden - the question wasn’t which of your opponent’s promises you weren’t going to implement — it was which of YOUR promises you wouldn’t implement

8:22 PM: Biden finally found the camera. Oops, nevermind.

8:23 PM: Palin has a bad tendency to answer questions that weren’t asked. Respond to the question posed.

8:24 PM: Palin just pointed out that she hasn’t said promised much in five weeks…??? Then named some specifics.

8:25 PM: Biden — No, Palin did NOT impose a “windfall profits” tax in Alaska. The people have oil rights that were being withheld through corruption in government. She fixed the corruption and put the taxes back up to a normal rate.

8:28 PM: Biden — When Obama and I voted opposite sides of a bill, it was glass half empty/glass half full.

8:31 PM: Palin — climate change is real, not necessarily man-made. Encourages “clean[ing] up this planet”. First gov to form an environmental cabinet. Need an “all of the above approach”.

8:32 PM: Biden — global warming man made or not is “THE fundamental difference” between Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin. Global warming is “absolutely” caused by man. If we drill, it’ll take ten years before we see one drop of that. [Yes, but you've been saying that since the 80s....]

8:35 PM: Palin: “…Barack Obama and Senator O’Biden…” Heh.

8:35 PM: Palin supports capping carbon emissions

8:36 PM: Biden: The Constitution says that gay partners should have visitation rights in hospitals…. Huh?

8:38 PM: Palin: “Straight up, I do not support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman.”
Biden: Neither he nor Obama support gay marriage.
Does Palin agree with them? Yes.

[Update: Biden was playing semantic games here -- I'll try to find the exact quote again, but in essence, he does support it, but would use a word other than "marriage".]

8:40 PM: Palin cites Biden calling out Obama on the war — good.
Palin nailed it on the war. “It would be a travesty if we were to quit now in Iraq.”

8:41 PM: Biden: On Iraq, Obama will do exactly what Bush is doing. Heh.

8:42 PM: Biden: “A fundamental difference… with John McCain there is no end to this war.”

8:43 PM: Palin: “We’ll know when we’re finished in Iraq when the Iraqi govt. can govern its people and when the Iraqi security forces can [protect their people].”

8:44 PM: Biden: McCain voted against funding the troops because it included a timeline. [Well... yeah.]

8:47 PM: Biden knows where Bin Laden is.

8:47 PM: Palin: Ahmadinejad “is not sane or stable”

8:49 PM: Palin: Sitting down with Ahmadinejad “beyond bad judgement”

8:50 PM: Biden: Obama did not say he would sit down with Ahmadinejad.

8:51 PM: Biden, Dude, diplomats meeting is waaaay different than presidents meeting. If the president meets with you, he gives you legitimacy.

8:53 PM: Biden: “Noone in the United States Senate has been a better friend to Israel than Joe Biden” (referring to himself in the third person)

8:53 PM: Apparently Obama and Biden predicted pretty much every single power shift in the entire Middle East.

8:54 PM: Palin is happy that she and Biden both love Israel

8:55 PM: Palin: “There have been huge blunders in this administration… as there are in every administration.”

8:56 PM: Biden is trying to paint McCain with a Bush-colored brush. “We will make a significant change…” (but no specifics)

8:57 PM: Palin can pronounce Ahmadinejad, but is having trouble with “Kim Jong Il”???

8:58 PM: Hey, Biden found the camera again.

8:59 PM: As Biden talks about all we did wrong in Afghanistan, this blogger’s wife points out we _did_ in Afghanistan what Democrats say we _should_ have done in Iraq. We pulled a lot of troops out of Afghanistan, while surging in Iraq. Now Biden presses that our commanding general says we should have had more troops in Afghanistan. Heh.

9:01 PM: Biden: “The American people have a stomach for success.” Yeah but Democrats don’t….

9:03 PM: Biden: “I don’t have a stomach for Genocide when it comes to Darfur.” …but apparently it’s okay in other places?

9:03 PM: Palin invokes John Kerry, saying Biden was “for [the war] before [he] was against it”

9:07 PM: Palin: McCain “will know how to win a war”

9:08 PM: Question regarding the VP being “a heartbeat away” from the Presidency. Hmmm… at whom was that targeted?

9:09 PM: Palin responds — mentioning ANWR: “[McCain] has never asked me to check my opinions at the door.” (She and McCain disagree on drilling in ANWR.)

9:10 PM: Biden plugs Home Depot. Also, Biden likes to run down lists of talking points. He’s done it on several questions.

9:11 PM: Palin: “Joe, there you go again…” She saw it too. Heh.

9:12 PM: Palin has winked twice recently — once at the camera and once at her dad in the audience.

9:14 PM: Palin is BIG on pushing energy independence.

9:14 PM: Biden: “On education I don’t know any program that John [McCain] is supporting.” Cool. I like the idea of fewer federal programs….

9:17 PM: Biden: “Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president … in America’s history”

9:18 PM: In hindsight, you could’ve made a good drinking game out of all the times Palin mentions “energy independence”

9:20 PM: Now it’s Biden answering questions that haven’t been asked. Here’s yet another talking point list, and a schpiel about his wife & family… responding to a question regarding charges that he’s undisciplined…?

9:22 PM: Palin is knocking her own party in (eventually) getting to McCain as “Maverick”

9:23 PM: Hey, Biden — Yes, McCain was a “maverick” on the war — he called for the surge before anyone else supported it. He was dead on.

9:25 PM: Biden crows of leading the charge against nominating Bork for the Supreme Court

9:27 PM: Biden says he never questions the motives of those he disagrees with — he questions their judgment.

9:28 PM: Palin has several times said (in various ways) that she respects Biden.

9:29 PM: Palin: I like to be able to answer questions without the filter of the mainstream media. Nice! / Palin has invoked Reagan more than once. / Palin has invoked the “middle class” several times.

9:30 PM: Palin and Biden either like each other, or are trying to out-polite each other. Smiles all around.

9:32 PM: Despite preemptive charges of bias, I believe the moderator did a good job. (She has written a book praising Obama — to be released on inauguration day)

9:34 PM: Here comes Palin’s entire family

Summary: Overall I think they both did pretty well. Palin had a bit of a slow start — she was visibly nervous, but reined it in fairly well. Biden was consistent overall, which bested Palin at the beginning, but fell behind as she found her stride. Overall I would have to say she won — especially as she was stronger at the end, which is more of what people will take away with them.

This is the type of thing that could decide an election — but only if the media actually reported on it…. (more…)

I’ve been (rightly) chastised by my mother for not citing sources in my recent post, Now and Then.

So I went back and did an update, with proper attribution and sources. In the process, I found a choice excerpt from the New York Times:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

Bush saw it coming. The Republicans introduced this as legislation, and the Democrats blocked it, because it would slow the growth of home ownership and hurt the housing market. The great market the Democrats were protecting was, as we know now, and Bush knew then, a bubble that could not possibly be sustained.

I found a few interesting quotes regarding the financial crisis. Let’s take a look at what people (that is, Democrats) are saying Now, versus what they were saying Then.

Now:

The fundamental issue is we have got to put an end to this situation in which there is no sensible regulation, and irresponsible individuals in the private market, or unwise individuals in the private market can incur the kind of risks that put us in a threatening situation.

Barney Frank (D-MA), September, 2008

Then:

These two entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems…the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.

Barney Frank, (D-MA) Sept 11, 2003
source: New York Times

What was Frank responding to? From the same NYT article:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

That is, Bush was pushing for oversight in the increasingly risky portfolio (i.e. mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them). The legislation, introduced by Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) was blocked by the Democrats in Congress. Barney Frank at the time was the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.

Harry Reid, on the same legislation:

The legislation from the Senate Banking Committee passed today on a party-line vote by the Republican majority, includes measures that could cripple the ability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to carry out their mission of expanding home ownership. While I favor approving oversight by our federal housing regulators, to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process.

Harry Reid (D-NV), Senate Minority Leader
Press Release, July 28, 2005
(also quoted here and here)

The Republicans saw it coming, and Democrats blocked their efforts to avert disaster. (Of course, by “expanding home ownership”, he means giving out mortgages to as many people as you possibly can — give out zero down, interest-only mortgages so people can “own” a house.)

That same bill reappeared as S-190, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, sponsored by Sen. Charles Hagel [R-NE], and co-sponsored by Senators Elizabeth Dole [R-NC], John Sununu [R-NH], and (wait for it…) John McCain [R-AZ].

Now:

8 years of de-regulatory zeal by the Bush Administration, an attitude of “The market can do no wrong” have led us down the short path to economic recession. From the unregulated mortgage brokers, to the opaque credit default swaps market, to aggressive Short Sellers who were driving down the price of even healthy financial institutions based on innuendo, this Administration has failed to take the steps necessary to protect both Main Street and Wall Street.

Chuck Schumer (D-NY), September 2008

Then:

With the benefit of hindsight, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which imposed a new regulatory framework on all public companies doing business in the U.S., also needs to be re-examined. Since its passage, auditing expenses for companies doing business in the U.S. have grown far beyond anything Congress had anticipated. Of course, we must not in any way diminish our ability to detect corporate fraud and protect investors. But there appears to be a worrisome trend of corporate leaders focusing inordinate time on compliance minutiae rather than innovative strategies for growth, for fear of facing personal financial penalties from overzealous regulators.

Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Michael Bloomberg (Mayor of New York)
“To Save New York, Learn From London“, Wall Street Journal, November 1, 2006

In their infinite wisdom, they were arguing to reduce the regulations passed after the fall of Enron.

They’re liars. All of them.

But remember: it’s all Bush’s fault.

[cribbed from Smallest Minority]

[Significant Update Sept 27: Added source links in quotes; added additional excerpt from NYT, and rewrote some text.]

In a comment to a post on this blog, I’ve received the following joke:

“What’s the difference between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama?”

“One is a well turned-out, good-looking, and let’s be honest, pretty sexy piece of eye-candy.

“The other kills her own food.”

You say that as though it’s a bad thing?

Tell you what… Let’s give Palin and Obama each a rifle, some ammo, and a hunting knife, and see who makes it off the island.

On this blog, over four years ago, I said:

To be blunt: The Democrat Party as we know it will no longer exist in 20 years. Possibly 10 years.

Modern liberalism is in its death throes. I predict that Bush will win this fall’s election by a handy margin, and that Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential run will be the last stand for modern leftists in this country. If they win 2008 they have a few more decades; if not, they’re toast.

Someone will of course take their place — perhaps Ross Perot’s party. Sorry Libertarians, I don’t think it’s gonna be you….

If I recall correctly, Hillary at the time was publicly saying that she was not considering running for president. I’ll admit I didn’t see Obama coming in to snatch the ticket from Hillary. Heh.

Anyways — The leftist implosion over Sarah Palin is quite a thing to see. The media keeps flinging shit, and are surprised when nothing sticks. Guys — here’s a hint — Your stories will get more traction if they’re…. oh, what’s that word… “true”.

“She tried to ban books” — No she didn’t. Funny how the list of books she wanted to ban includes books that didn’t exist at the time. Funny how it is in fact a well-known list of “books that have been banned somewhere, at some time, in the United States”.

“She supported the Bridge to Nowhere” — She shot down the Bridge at a point when both Obama and Biden still supported it.

“Can she been Vice Pres and still raise kids?” — Would anyone ever ask this if she were male? You’re showing your true colors there, Democrats. By the by, her husband is a full-time dad.

“She was a member of an Alaskan Separatist group” — Has anyone backed this up with anything? Anywhere? Buehler? I suspect the only “source” for this is anonymous — nobody seems to know where it came from.

“Other Republicans have denounced her, so she must be bad” — Yeah, the Republicans she opposed in winning the governorship. Oh no, her political opponent said something bad about her — it must be true!!?????

“She’s a religious zealot and has said that invading Iraq is ‘God’s Will’” — She said, in a church, that they all should pray that it is God’s will. There’s a big difference between saying “This is true” and “I hope this is true.” Charlie Gibson’s “exact words” quotation, and a few YouTube videos I’ve seen, all cut in in the middle of a sentence.

These are not a mistakes — they’re lies. In her case they are such bizarrely blatant lies that the public is catching on. Finally. It’s going to be an interesting two months.

[Update: This post was inspired by an article at American Digest]

[Update: Oh, you wanted a source? Here ya go.]

Conservative columnist Peggy Noonan (Wall Street Journal) was caught making an “off the air” comment on a live mic last night at the Republican convention. A recording of what she said has very quickly made the rounds on the Internet. In it, she appears to say, quite firmly, that McCain’s campaign is “over”. Of course there has been a lot of chortling that if even the conservatives think McCain’s done, then he really must be.

As usual, it’s amazing what you can make someone say when you only have a snippet out of context. Straight from Peggy Noonan:

In our off-air conversation, I got on the subject of the leaders of the Republican party assuming, now, that whatever the base of the Republican party thinks is what America thinks. I made the case that this is no longer true, that party leaders seem to me stuck in the assumptions of 1988 and 1994, the assumptions that reigned when they were young and coming up. "The first lesson they learned is the one they remember," I said to Todd — and I'm pretty certain that is a direct quote. But, I argued, that's over, those assumptions are yesterday, the party can no longer assume that its base is utterly in line with the thinking of the American people. And when I said, "It's over!" — and I said it more than once — that is what I was referring to…. In the truncated version of the conversation, on the Web, it appears I am saying the McCain campaign is over. I did not say it, and do not think it.

An interesting passage from Clayton Cramer’s blog on what happens when the government tries to “stick it to the rich”:

There is one problem driving not just HP, but a lot of other U.S. companies to constantly slashing workers. In 1993, Democrats in Congress showed how much they hated "rich people" by passing a law that prohibited corporations from deducting as business expenses any annual salary exceeding one million dollars–and the salaries of the next four highest paid officers. So large corporations started to compensate officers with stock options instead. This created a strong incentive for officers of the corporation to keep the stock price rising for the next few quarters–even if it destroyed the long-term viability of the company. Note that this didn't actually prevent corporations from compensating their officers quite generously. And in truth, Democrats weren't really trying to prevent that–they were just pretending to be on the side of the little guys, while continuing to cozy up to corporate fat cats. It just created perverse incentives for how to run a large corporation.

A company that is developing complex products will need several years from the start of the process to the point where the product starts to bring in revenue. Think of this as a tunnel: you put money in one end of the tunnel in 2004; it turns into a return on investment in 2008. The products that you start developing in 2005, won't give a return until 2009. Ditto for 2006 to 2010, 2007 to 2011, and 2008 to 2012. If your focus, because of your stock options, is driving up the stock price over the next several quarters, the temptation to go for short-term improvements is very, very strong.

Cutting spending this year may impair profitability in 2012–or maybe it won't. It's hard to tell. But you can almost guarantee that cutting spending on long-term projects this year will drive up the stock price for the next quarter or two. This is why layoffs often lead to higher stock prices. Corporate officers whose primary income is derived from stock options have a strong incentive to cut costs right now. I don't think that stock options are necessarily a bad thing. But it does encourage a short-term view of how to run a company.

On a different note (but from the same blog): Holy Crap. How is this guy a major party nominee?

Note: This article appears backdated because it was delayed by technical difficulties.

A week or so ago I received a phone call from a polling organization. I donate money from time to time to political organizations, including various conservative organizations and candidates, and the NRA, so I get lots of political mail soliciting more donations, and for the past few years, the occasional phone call.

This one was asking me for my opinion. It sounded like your average poll — “Do you support X Very Much, Somewhat, Somewhat Against, or Very Much Against?” and so forth.

This one was unusual, though, for a couple reasons. First, it was unusually long. They asked several general questions about what causes and ideas I support, and then they moved into a section regarding two local candidates for Congress.

This last part was the interesting part, because it’s where the poll suddenly veered into the realm of dirty politics. The guy said “Okay, I’m going to give you arguments why you might vote against [the Democrat]. These are reasons given by his opponents. Tell me if this reason would influence you a lot to support the candidate, somewhat to support him, somewhat against him, or a lot against him.” There were a whole bunch of these , probably fifteen or twenty. Then he moved on to reasons to vote for the Democrat — these of course being the arguments made by his supporters. Again with the range of for/against for each argument. Then he moved on to the reasons to vote against the Republican, and finally…

“Okay, that’s the end of the questions. Thanks and you have a good night.”

Did you notice the problem there? I think the idea is that they ask you so many damned questions that by the time he says he’s done, you’re happy to hang up. What he’s hoping you didn’t notice what that he never got around to naming any of the reasons people give to vote for the Republican. First, against the Dem, then FOR the Dem, then AGAINST the Republican. This completes our impartial poll. ‘Night folks!

It’s called a “push poll“. It’s illegal in some areas, though not mine, and incredibly unethical. Admittedly, this one was a bit more subtle than most. It’s a new tactic I haven’t heard of before — the poll would have been legit if they’d only balanced the equation.

Illinois politics is such a goddamned embarrassment. Still these hypocrites get elected. Vote early and vote often, as they say.

(in case you didn’t get the title….)

Not much to add beyond the headline, except: why do so many people fear those who obey the law?

With leftist politicians, the answer is plain: They don’t like the “little people” having too much power, and they certainly don’t want them to be too self-reliant. Liberals’ er… socialists’ entire power base is built on people depending on government for what they need. The “public safety” claims are a sham, repudiated time and time again by real-world crime statistics anywhere gun control laws have been instituted or loosened. Ban guns, violent crime goes up. Allow concealed carry, violent crime goes down. Why? Criminals prefer disarmed victims, because they don’t like getting shot.

And to the Mayor of Washington, DC: Thank you for being a damned fool and pushing Keller all the way to the top.