Joust The Facts

Another Look At Obamanomics

Check out this letter from 2002 Nobel Laureate Vernon L. Smith of Chapman University:

I think the answer to Alan Reynolds's excellent question and article ("How's Obama Going to Raise $4.3 Trillion?," op-ed, Oct. 24) is that Barack Obama is not going to raise $4.3 trillion, and he is not going to perform on his rhetoric. He excels as a rhetorician -- common to both the great and the least of past presidents -- but performance cannot run on that fuel...

Of course it is entirely likely that Mr. Obama will succeed in going for higher business, capital gains and income taxes, but it is an economic illusion to think for a minute that this will benefit the poor. All our wars on poverty have been lost by failing to help the poor help themselves. Higher business taxes, which ultimately can only be paid by individuals anyway, will simply export more economic activity to the world economy. Higher capital gains and income taxes will primarily reduce savings and investment at the expense of greater future productivity, which is at the heart of cross-generational reductions in poverty. A dozen countries, including the third largest economy, already have zero taxes on capital gains, and eight of them score high on the Economic Freedom Index and high in gross domestic product per capita.

It is indeed an illusion to think that this will provide a significant benefit to the poor.  LBJ's war on poverty and the mountain of transfer payments it spawned didn't 'solve' poverty, and decreasing the competitiveness of American business in the global economy and punishing success at home won't solve it now.  Mr. Obama's plan is more likely to mollify poor Americans with its class warfare undercurrent temporarily.  But as unemployment rises and GDP growth stagnates the reality of this house of cards will set in across America.  Hopefully it won't take the 30 years it took to realize that the Great Society was nothing of the kind for the vast majority of poor Americans.  Only economic growth and equality of opportunity have that possibility.

Yes, But Not This Democrat - The Joust The Facts Endorsement

I know that the economic times are rough.  Unemployment is up and GDP growth is slowing, or possibly reversing.  The housing market burst, with government-encouraged bad loans and even worse mortgage backed securities fouling the waters, creating a horrendous market for other business loans.  I know that debate over the Iraq war has been belligerent, contentious, and that the war itself has been handled poorly at times.  A Republican, George W. Bush, has been in the White House during these seven and a half years, and the buck stops at the top.  The Democrats were handed control of Congress two years ago by a disgruntled populace, and if you think that was a start it hasn't been enough.  Many think it's just time for a Democrat in the White House.  And I understand that sentiment.

But not this Democrat.

Sen. Barack Obama has run a very strong campaign, knocking off first the presumptive nominee when the campaign started, Sen. Hillary Clinton, and now standing on the doorstep of a general election win over war hero and Republican nominee Sen. John McCain.  Mr. Obama delivers an elegant speech, professing a politics of "hope" and "change."  While both are nebulous concepts at best they do resonate.  "Hope" and "change" make him look and sound forward-looking and optimistic.  But campaigns do not make the candidate.  Rather, the candidate is what he is, and all of the pomp and window dressing and platitudes and Greek columns in the world can't change that.

If that is indeed the case, then what is Sen. Obama?  He's only been in the public eye since 2004, when he stepped onto the stage at the Democratic Convention wowing the audience with his speech on his way to the Senate.  The media hasn't helped us to know more, failing to scrutinize adequately his many questionable past associations and pronouncements, glossing over some, excusing some, ignoring some.  A domestic terrorist and he "crossed paths."  A likely inflammatory and damaging videotape remains behind a newspaper's firewall.  Chicago politics remain a cipher.  College years remain unexplored.  The Obama campaign has been allowed to make their spin the final word on each question.  We can't know what hasn't been written, so let's look at what we do know.

We know that Mr. Obama has had quite a few associations with Marxists.  Yes, I used the word.  He has espoused redistributionist economics, in his tax plan where income tax credits can go to those who pay no income taxes, in his discussion of the civil rights movement in 2001 in the now famous tape, and in his off the cuff explanation to Joe The Plumber.  It is hard to argue that his economic philosophy is not more socialist than free-market, and even harder to argue that that philosophy will lead to rising incomes, rising GDP, and more jobs.  Having seen stagflation before, I don't want to see it again.  His energy policy is blind to the need for additional drilling and nuclear power, the latter of which is quite 'green', certainly green enough for France.

We know that he participated as the head of William Ayers' Chicago Annenberg Challenge by distributing large amounts of money to organizations experimenting with leftist indoctrination in the schools.  In fact, both Barack Obama and his wife have a yen for community organizing, of a sort, where fine young radicals can be nurtured and encouraged.  We know that he spent 20 years in the Trinity Church of Jeremiah Wright and it seems the only reason he left was that the association was hurting him politically.  But, talking about Rev. Wright doesn't help Michelle Obama's kids.

We know that, absent a speech in front of 200,000 swooning Germans and some discussions with Iraqi authorities - which may or may not have violated the Logan Act - his foreign policy experience is trace.  He was spectacularly wrong in calling for immediate withdrawals of troops from Iraq, which would have had them out by March '08, and the successful surge would never have occurred.  He has made misstatements on Israel publicly, which he's backed away from, at times amusingly.  He's said he would meet with dictators of rogue nations without preconditions, which he's backed away from.  He equivocated at the time of the Russian move on Georgia, three days later coming to the position Mr. McCain took from the start.  He famously was against NAFTA before he was for it.

We know that his campaign has been anything but straight on fundraising, associations with ACORN and it's infamous voter registrations, and even some of his staff have registered and voted in Ohio illegally.  You see, you have to actively disable the credit card address verification system (AVS) in order for fake names and addresses to be accepted with internet credit card donations.  There were solid accusations of caucus intimidation and other irregularities during the primaries, and Hillary Clinton has a right to be incensed.

Like Mr. McCain or not, agree with him or not, you do know where he stands and what he stands for.  The media has been in a rush to color him and Gov. Sarah Palin in all manner of unflattering attire, particularly the latter.  but McCain and Palin have persisted and are closing gaps in states that matter.  While I don't agree with Mr. McCain on his every position, his experience and earnest center-right conservatism are right for a country in a time of war and economic disarray.  Ronald Reagan cut taxes against the liberal wisdom of the time, and while that and the defense buildup (and baseline budgeting) led to deficits it also led economic growth and prosperity, a sharp fall in unemployment, and a fallen Berlin Wall.  As we saw with Mr. Bush (43), economic growth led, until this recent economic slide, to steadily declining deficits.

Mr. McCain is known, and is solid.  What we know of Mr. Obama, other than his hopeful changiness, is problematic.  All in all this is not a package worthy of the presidency.  Too inexperienced.  Too liberal.  Too willing to cut election corners.  Too soft on foreign policy in a dangerous world.  It may be time for a Democrat to reside in the White House.  But not this Democrat.

We therefore strongly endorse John McCain for President.  Now get out there and vote.

11/2/08 1300: Jay Tea adds Mr. Obama's Curriculum Vitae.

The "Hope For Some Change" Economy

Alan D. Viard, Alex Brill and Arthur C. Brooks on the Obama economic proposals in today's Washington Post.

To be sure, these "tax cuts" contain some sleight of hand. More than $400 billion of the money over the next 10 years would take the form of refundable tax credits paid in cash to people who already pay no federal income tax. It would be more accurate to refer to these cash outlays as cuts in payroll tax or -- even more accurately -- as transfer payments. Regardless of what the credits are called, though, they would put more money in the pockets of some American families. That sounds great in these tough economic times. Who can be against a boost to spending power and consumption?

We can. While a few of Obama's proposals may be sensible, the overall package would be bad for the economy. Unlike rate cuts for high incomes or reductions in investment taxes, most of Obama's proposed tax cuts would do little to reduce the tax penalty on work and saving. For some households, the penalty on work and saving would even increase because the new tax credits would be phased out as income rises. These proposals wouldn't deliver the economic growth that incentive-based tax cuts would.

Furthermore, there is no free lunch. Obama's middle-class tax relief would have to be paid for, either now or later. Middle-class tax cuts might make sense if they were paid for by spending cuts, but that is not Obama's plan.

Do you recall Bill Clinton's Middle Class Tax Cut?  Well, neither do I.  Maybe this is why the goalposts on the income levels keep shifting.

This Is For You, RIch

The Phillies Win!   The Phillies Win!

Brad Lidge strikes out Eric Hinske in the ninth for the final out, and a game that started Monday evening finishes Wednesday night at 10 PM.  What a way to win a World Series.

Despite my membership in Red Sox Nation, as a former Philadelphian I feel a certain affinity for the team.  Generally I root for the AL team if the Red Sox aren't part of the festivities*, but Philadelphia is different.  It's not all about cheesesteaks.  Congratulations, Phils, you got it done, and the home fans got the pleasure of witnessing it.

*except if that AL representative is the Yankees.

Just Like The Kremlin?

Hey, don't blame me, I'm just channeling 'responsible centrist journalists'.

In addition, Obama has benefited from his ability to minimize internal drama and maximize secrecy — and thus to starve feed the press’ bias for palace intrigue.

John Harris and Jim VandeHei write at The Politico on "Why McCain Is Getting Hosed In The Press."  It's a collection of eyebrow-raising assertions and illogical conclusions that seem specifically designed to deflect the hard-earned criticism of the type demonstrated by Orson Scott Card a short time ago.  For example:

And, yes, based on a combined 35 years in the news business we’d take an educated guess — nothing so scientific as a Pew study — that Obama will win the votes of probably 80 percent or more of journalists covering the 2008 election. Most political journalists we know are centrists — instinctually skeptical of ideological zealotry — but with at least a mild liberal tilt to their thinking, particularly on social issues.

Wait, it get's better.

There have been moments in the general election when the one-sidedness of our site — when nearly every story was some variation on how poorly McCain was doing or how well Barack Obama was faring — has made us cringe.

As it happens, McCain’s campaign is going quite poorly and Obama’s is going well. Imposing artificial balance on this reality would be a bias of its own.

That McCain's campaign is "going quite poorly" is for the press a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Many of the stories trumpeted to tear down the McCain-Palin effort were manufactured.  The $150,000 $50,000 wardrobe.  The negative ad tag (which, in this story, the reporters even admit was as true of Obama as McCain).  The "lied in campaign ads" accusation, made a cause celebre only for one party.  The rectal exam the NY Times gave Cindy McCain.  The droves of reporters and lawyers dropped into Alaska to "dig up dirt" on the governor.  Finding racism in nearly every utterance of the McCain campaign, a tactic by which the press tells the campaign to SHUT UP!.  And the list goes on.  It's easy to say - now - that the McCain campaign is "going poorly" when you've pushed it into a grave yourselves and shoveled as much dirt onto it as the Obama campaign and its subsidiaries can give you. 

Responsible editors would be foolish not to ask themselves the bias question, especially in the closing days of an election.

But, having asked it, our sincere answer is that of the factors driving coverage of this election — and making it less enjoyable for McCain to read his daily clip file than for Obama — ideological favoritism ranks virtually nil.

The main reason is that for most journalists, professional obligations trump personal preferences. Most political reporters (investigative journalists tend to have a different psychological makeup) are temperamentally inclined to see multiple sides of a story, and being detached from their own opinions comes relatively easy.

You know, I say the same thing about myself.  Here at Joust The Facts we deal with facts.  We analyze them, and use them to buttress our positions.  Logic and thoughtful consideration are valued.  We don't resort to name calling, or to invective or ad hominem attacks.

But I'll bet Harris & VandeHei wouldn't say it about me.

Let's look at a list of topics glossed over and grossly under- or un-reported by the media.  William Ayers.  Jeremiah Wright.  Tony Rezko. (Note that that link is from January, stating that the association of Rezko and Obama "raises questions."  ABC didn't see fit to look into those questions further.)  Marxist connections.  The missing Columbia years.  Redistribution of wealth.  Unaffordable promises.  Joe Biden's foreign policy fantasy world.  Talks "without preconditions."  ACORN and fraudulent (and illegal) voter registrations.  Illegal voting in Ohio.  Obama's ACORN ties.  Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Fannie Mae and the real source of the financial crisis.  Joe Biden's "tested" comments, which even Dan Rather noted would be trumpeted much more widely had Gov. Palin made them about McCain.  Oh, and blackballing any adversarial press.

There was, of course, some reporting on these items.  Stories that were written by larger media outlets served more to obfuscate and absolve than to illuminate and hold accountable.  And then, poof, they were gone.  For a story to get penetration in the minds of the electorate requires multiple visits, with new information, and additional digging.  An equally adversarial press would have done this.

Instead, when any of these stories that were potentially damaging to Obama were dusted off, they were trotted out once, and then returned to the closet until Nov. 5.  Those that were more probing, more informative, were not written by outfits like the Washington Post and NY Times, which notably wrote of William Ayers that he and Obama briefly "crossed paths."  Even CNN found that they did much more than that - but only as a fact check of two earlier stories.  A current example of squelching the story is the LA Times withholding a

There are headlines, and then there are polls.  The screaming attention-getting headlines have been negative for McCain, sometimes even on a story that isn't all that negative.  A story that is negative for Obama usually carries a much more 'nuanced' headline.  Many don't read the whole story, they get their news from the headline.  The polls are used to influence the 3-5% of the electorate who simply want to say they voted for the winner.  So, write lots of stories about the inevitability of the outcome and it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy with a 6-10 point swing.  Call it the Asch effect.

Finally, there is the bias in the tendency of these political reporters to accept at face value spin from Obama and his campaign team as honest truth while not accepting the same from the McCain campaign.  A case in point can be found here.

Exit question:  Most of the commentators that have accused McCain's ad of lying about this Illinois bill have used Senator Obama's denial itself as the refutation, as the NY Times does here.  I assume that Mr. McCain will be allowed to have his word as the final say in controversies regarding his positions, no?

At this point  I'm willing to second the title of Mr. Card's piece.  Will the last honest journalist please turn on the lights?

*A great source on this topic can be found at Zombietime, where he's a bit more optimistic for McCain than is probably warranted, but you can find out more about that Asch effect.

10/28/08 2310: Objective journalism: loser.  Wherein you find out about "accountability journalism."

Corruption Is As Corruption Does

Sen. Ted Stevens:

A federal jury of eight women and four men from the District of Columbia found that the 84-year-old Mr. Stevens, who has represented Alaska in the Senate for more than 40 years, knowingly failed to list on Senate disclosure forms the receipt of several gifts and tens of thousands of dollars worth of remodeling work on his home in Girdwood, Alaska.

Kind of like sweetheart deals from Countrywide, eh?  But I guess if they disclose the payoff they'll be in the clear.  Taking them isn't the problem?  Is that how it works?

And before anyone starts tying Gov. Palin to Ted Stevens:

Ted Stevens, the grand-daddy of Alaskan politics, has a wary relationship with the new Republican VP pick -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

When Palin was running for governor in 2006, she ousted long time Alaska fixture Frank Murkowski in a hard fought primary. Stevens and Murkowski are long time friends and Palin was able to defeat the sitting governor by running on ethics and clean government reformist platform.

Stevens ultimately came to endorse Palin, but it was late in the game. He endorsed her less than three weeks before the general election, although he did cut a television advertisement for her.

In July of last year, Palin shocked and angered Stevens by publicly criticizing him for his role in the VECO scandal and called for him to speak out about it. 

"I think I join others in wanting to know of the senator's innocence," Palin said. "Right now, we're not hearing anything."

This Had Better Be Satire

Just when you think the campaign is all 'blah' all the time, something like this shows up in a formerly reputable newspaper.

As a lifelong Caucasian, I am beginning to think the time has finally come to take the right to vote away from white people, at least until we come to our senses. Seriously, I just don't think we can be trusted to exercise it responsibly anymore.

Has come to this level of insanity on the left?  Eric at Classical Values thinks the writer is simply trying to troll his way out with a bang.  Or is bored.  Hey, if you're bored there are better things to snap you out then baring the lack of cerebral interconnections in your cranium.

Meanwhile, in another corner of the political universe, someone actually went to the trouble of looking into Barack Obama's past public pronouncements, and found a, dare I say, socialist tint.  This, unfortunately, isn't satire.

You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil-rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society....

And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil-rights movement was because the civil-rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.

Mr. Obama in 2001 thought it one of the  "tragedies" that the Constitution and, you know, laws and stuff prevented redistribution of wealth in America as a solution for "political and economic justice."  Well, it's about a week away from the election.  The media almost made it.  True, he doesn't state that courts were wrong not to enforce redress, but it's also clear from his statement that he believes it should occur through the political process.  And lo and behold, he is pursuing that political process to a position where he may be able to impose it.

Bill Whittle points out rightly that that abdication of their journalistic integrity, intentionally for many, is the height of shame.

I do not blame Barack Obama for believing in wealth distribution. That’s his right as an American. I do blame him for lying about what he believes. But his entire life has been applying for the next job at the expense of the current one. He’s at the end of the line now.

I do, however, blame the press for allowing an individual citizen to do the work that they employ standing armies of so-called professionals for. I know they are capable of this kind of investigative journalism: It only took them a day or two to damage Sarah Palin with wild accusations about her baby’s paternity and less time than that to destroy a man who happened to be playing ball when the Messiah decided to roll up looking for a few more votes on the way to the inevitable coronation.

We no longer have an independent, fair, investigative press. That is abundantly clear to everyone — even the press. It is just another of the facts that they refuse to report, because it does not suit them.

Remember this, America: The press did not break this story. A single citizen, on the Internet did.

There is a special hell for you “journalists” out there, a hell made specifically for you narcissists and elitists who think you have the right to determine which information is passed on to the electorate and which is not.

The Washington Post endorsed Mr. Obama for President.

The first has to do with restoring and promoting prosperity and sharing its fruits more evenly in a globalizing era that has suppressed wages and heightened inequality. Here the choice is not a close call. ... Mr. Obama's economic plan contains its share of unaffordable promises, but it pushes more in the direction of fairness and fiscal health...

Mr. Obama also understands that the most important single counter to inequality, and the best way to maintain American competitiveness, is improved education

Two things are apparent.  First, the Washington Post editors believe in using the power of the government to enforce redistribution, believing not in equality of opportunity but equality of outcome.  Second, it seems that they're wrong in their belief that for Mr. Obama improved education is the path that takes us there.  The Post endorsement is chock full of hopes, beliefs, and trust.

If only they had some, you know, concrete information on what Mr. Obama truly believes.

Today, In The Campaign

Blah, blah
Polls Still ...
Blah, blah, blah
Biden said what?!
Blah
Hopeless?  Nah.
Blah, blah
Blah
Disenfranchised?
Grandmother
Blah, blah
Mother.  Mother?  Really?
Blah, blah
Communists.  Lots of Communists.
Blah, blah, blah, blah
Fake Donations Accepted
Blah,
Recession
Blah, bl ...wait a minute...
...
...
Fake Donations Accepted?
Illegal?
True.

Furtive Glances - "A Sox-less Series" Edition

Well, the Red Sox lost game 7 to red-hot Tampa Bay starter Matt Garza, and as a result tonight's first game of the World Series features the Rays against the Phillies.  Fox execs have to be crying themselves to sleep each night over the loss of the Red Sox Nation following.  Currently they're in the seventh, and the Phillies lead game one by 3-2. 

With the Sox out, there's plenty of time to peruse the other things going on, particularly the political.  There's plenty, including much silliness.

• Particularly silly is this:

The Republican National Committee has spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late August.

According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York for a combined $49,425.74.

The records also document a couple of big-time shopping trips to Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, including one $75,062.63 spree in early September.

The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August.

I eagerly await a thorough accounting of Sen. Obama's wardrobe and his gym workout costs across the country.

Tthis is preposterous.  Campaigning is about content and appearance in roughly equal portions.  Both need to be up to snuff, and given the cost of 30 seconds of ad time on network TV this may be a wise use of money.

There is no tax problem provided she doesn't keep them.  Apparently the plan is to have her purchase what she wants to keep and auction off what she doesn't.  Is $150,000 a lot of money?  Sure is.  This kind of reaction is plain mindless, though.

So the RNC thinks that during a recession, when people's 401Ks are being wiped out, they're losing their jobs and they can't pay their mortgages, the best thing to do is go out and shop...for Sarah Palin.

Next up from the very concerned Ms. Hamsher will be, I believe, a call for Sen. Obama to use some of the $150 million he collected from donors in September to ease the pain of those 401k losses.  Just think how many foreclosures he could prevent.  Maybe he could use just the donations he got from foreign sources or John Galt.  But I'm not holding my breath.

• Every Democratic mouthpiece is busy applying Damone's rule #3 to every bit of polling data, in fact every single news item in the campaign.  Nothing bad ever happens to Barack:

"Isn't this great?"  They'll have a tougher time spinning this poll.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The presidential race tightened after the final debate, with John McCain gaining among whites and people earning less than $50,000, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll that shows McCain and Barack Obama essentially running even among likely voters in the election homestretch.

The poll, which found Obama at 44 percent and McCain at 43 percent, supports what some Republicans and Democrats privately have said in recent days: that the race narrowed after the third debate as GOP-leaning voters drifted home to their party and McCain's "Joe the plumber" analogy struck a chord.

Isolated result?  Perhaps not.  Ah, maybe all the polls are cow patties this year.

• Coverage of John McCain is much more negative than for Barack Obama?  I had no idea.  Actually, I had no idea there was coverage of Barack Obama.  There certainly wasn't any look at his Columbia transcripts and years.

[H]e declined repeated requests to talk about his New York years, release his Columbia transcript or identify even a single fellow student, co-worker, roommate or friend from those years.

Now, a curious reporter might wonder whay he declined any discussion of those years.  Perhaps that lack of curiousity might be the reason for the fall in network news viewership despite a sizzling presidential election.

All 3 evening news shows experienced audience drops year-to-year for the week of Oct. 13-19, 2008.

CBSNEWS w/ Couric shed a half a million viewers, falling from 6.4 million to 5.9 million; ABCNEWS dropped from 8.1 million to 7.6 million; NBCNEWS slumped from 8.2 million to 7.8 million.

Today's 'Must Read' Column

A tease:

"If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was."

Okay, one more:

"If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do.  Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences.  That's what honesty means .  That's how trust is earned."

10/21/08 1515: Sorry, but we need to mention today's other 'must read' column.  It's about as thorough a review of the Case Against Barack Obama as you'll find, featuring his six months as a Senator before running for higher office, Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Planned Parenthood, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Joe Wurzelbacher, Charles Gibson, and a cast of thousands, replete with video documentation.  Enjoy.

This Just In: Lobbying Targets Those Whose Votes Need To Change

Pete Yost of the Associated Press writes an "AP Impact" story this morning (I guess that means it's crucially important) in what amounts to publishing Democratic opposition research.  The gist is that Freddie Mac hired a "GOP lobbying firm" when the GOP had control of congress to lobby GOP Senators to kill a reform bill.

WASHINGTON – Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm $2 million to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed the mortgage finance giant and its sister company, Fannie Mae, three years before the government took control to prevent their collapse.

You have to read the fine print to find out why this is a non-story.

• In the cross hairs of the campaign carried out by DCI of Washington were Republican senators and a regulatory overhaul bill sponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.
• All GOP members of the committee supported it; all Democrats opposed it.
• "If effective regulatory reform legislation ... is not enacted this year, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole," [Hagel and 25 other Republican senators] wrote in a letter that proved prescient.
• In the end, there was not enough Republican support for Hagel's bill to warrant bringing it up for a vote because Democrats also opposed it and the votes of some would be needed for passage.
• The measure died at the end of the 109th Congress.

Go figure.  Freddie Mac actually hired a firm to lobby those who supported regulating it, and didn't bother lobbying those who already didn't?  No Democrats at all supported the bill, so apparently it's the fault of Republicans for not coming up with 60 votes to get cloture - which would have required some Democratic support.  Maybe the fact that cloture was not possible was the reason Sen. Frist didn't see fit to allow a vote.  Come to think of it, this is as good a reason as any to get a 60 vote Republican supermajority in the senate.  Thanks, AP.

And why did the measure die at the end of the 109th Congress?  Because Democrats took over in the 110th, and there was no way such regulation was going to be brought forward when that happened, with Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd now running the respective House and Senate banking committees.

As Paul Newman said in "The Verdict," "If you're going to try this case for me I wish you wouldn't lose it."

10/20/08 0735: Do I wish the Republicans who were for the bill had been able the Democrats go fully on record against it by forcing a cloture vote?  You bet.

10/21/08 1925: Jay Tea got pushed this 'story' in his email, and drew the same conclusions.  Great minds think alike?  Perhaps that's going too far.

Alas, No

It was not to be.

ST. PETERSBURG -- The battle back from the brink fell just short for the Red Sox this time around, as they were overmatched by the nasty offerings of Matt Garza in a 3-1 loss to the Tampa Bay Rays in Sunday night's Game 7 of the American League Championship Series.

Just like that, the Red Sox saw their chances of becoming baseball's first repeat World Series champions since the Yankees -- who won three in a row from 1998-2000 -- come to an end

Jon Lester pitched very well, but he got nicked for a run in the fourth and one in the fifth, then hung a cutter in the seventh to Willy Aybar for the third run.  But the Rays' Matt Garza was outstanding, having a Blyleven-esque curve to go with his 95 mph fastball, and he had command of both.  There just wasn't enough offense from the visiting Red Sox.

The Sox did very well to get to a game 7 after getting down 3-1.  Hats off to the Rays.

Talkin' Joe

The now famous Joe the Plumber is the topic of discussion in a couple of columns listed today at Real Clear Politics.  First up is John Kass, writing at the Chicago Tribune.  He notes three problems with Joe, and the second one is the one to focus on.

But it was mistake No. 2 that really got him. Wurzelbacher got Obama to tell him about his tax policy. The Democratic senator from Illinois confessed that if elected president, he'd institute a tax plan to "spread the wealth around."

[...]

"Spread the wealth around" is regular Joe speak for redistributionist tax policy, in which the government takes from the Joes and keeps a fee for handling Joe's money, then gives it out to other folks who want Joe's money, so the other folks will love the politicians who run the government and vote for them again and again.

This is a system that works remarkably well for politicians, government workers with fat pensions and others who get Joe's money. It doesn't work out for the Joes, but there aren't as many of them as there used to be. Increasingly, Joes are encouraged to get in the government soup line for what is called "their fair share."

[...]

Joe wasn't the one who said he wanted to "spread the wealth around." But it's Joe's head up there, on that pike, as the crows come down.

Why is this Joe's problem?  I'll let Ellis Henican tell you in the next column.

Why McCain's story of Joe the Plumber backfired

See that?  It's "McCain's story," not Mr. Obama's gaffe (not so much a gaffe as an illuminating moment of honesty, actually).  The media, once again, successfully ignored an Obama problem, his statement, and turned it into a "Joe as messenger" problem.  Better still, a problem for the opposition candidate, Mr. McCain.

You see? That's often the problem with telling complex stories through one person's experience.

The person might not be what the story calls for. Even worse, the person might have something else to say.

You see?  As Mr. Henican sees it, the problem with Joe's encounter with Mr. Obama is Joe.  He's not a completely flawless vessel as would be necessary to carry such a message.  The problem with William Ayers is that Sen. McCain mentioning Ayers is not "addressing the issues Americans care about," plus it's racist.  Talking about the Democratic policy roots of the financial meltdown is a distraction from the economic policies of George Bush, plus it's racist.  Talking about the anti-American rantings of Jeremiah Wright is definitely racist.  He's going negative!  He's attacking!  To the media, it's all about Sen. McCain.  The problems are always with him and his campaign.

Because Sen. Obama can, in fact, do no wrong now, despite how little he's actually done before.

Typical Times

"When I say Obama you say Ayers"
"Obama" "Ayers"
"Obama" "Ayers"

The NY Times covers the SNL appearance of Gov. Sarah Palin, but I saw the rap, and had to look at it again to see what rap they viewed.

Ms. Palin popped up again an hour into the show on the “Weekend Update” sketch, where she joined in a rap routine that made fun of Senator John McCain’s smile, and she cheerfully waved her arms in the air when the chant ordered “all the mavericks in the house” to raise their hands.

McCain's smile?  The rap covered a lot of other things, but the Times' writer studiously avoids mentioning its shout out on the Obama-Ayers connection,  Just like the news section, who reported it only to dismiss it.

Game 7 Sunday Night

Could they do it again?

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. -- Jason Varitek snapped an 0-for-14 slide with a tiebreaking, sixth-inning solo homer as the Boston Red Sox took a 4-2 lead over the Tampa Bay Rays after six innings of Game 6 of the AL championship series on Saturday night.

Kevin Youkilis homered off James Shields and hit an RBI grounder for the Red Sox. Struggling ace Josh Beckett allowed two runs and four hits before Hideki Okajima relieved.

Papelbon closed 1-2-3 in the ninth and the Red Sox, who came back from 3-0 down in '04 against the Yankees and from 3-1 down in '07 against the Indians, have a shot at a third stunning comeback.  Jon Lester against Matt Garza.  Set your schedule now, this'll be a good one.

Foreign Policy Expertise?

So, who is it exactly that's in need of a foreign policy refresher course?

The US doesn’t impose tariffs on Colombian goods, and hasn’t for years, thanks to agreements that date back to the Clinton administration for Colombian efforts to fight drug trafficking. The pact would create jobs in America by opening the Colombian market to make trade more fair than it currently is.

That's a tease.  Go see what Ed Morrissey has for the full story.  On the other hand, it's doubtful that Mr. Obama would be looking to noted foreign policy guru Biden for help.

An Explanation Of Voter Fraud

For the Media folk out there who seem to have trouble imagining why hundreds of thousands of questionable registrations could possibly be a problem ... and it seems there are a lot of you ... allow me to explain why there might be concerns from those not in fact interested in suppressing votes but in making sure that all votes are legal, from voters legally entitled to vote where they are voting.

Let's say, for example, that a state has no photo or non-photo ID requirement.  Oh, I hear you ask, how may of those could there be?  Quite a few, actually, and in states that require ID some of the forms of acceptable ID are lame and easily forged.  Example: Florida - "entertainment identification."

Let's stipulate, further, that such a state receives a large number of false registrations, maybe 200,000.  And they can absolutely say for certain that 100,000 of those are false, like Mickey Mouse and Mary Poppins, but given the large number, the difficulty and manpower required to vet all of these registrations and the activists' handwringing the other 100,000 are on the rolls, including one "Dante Bellagio."  Ah, I hear you say if Mr. Bellagio is fake then no one will show up.

Bear with me here.  Let's hypothesize that people do show up to use these fake registrations, perhaps even people who have already voted in other precincts or in other states under their actual name and registration.  One of the guys who shows up in a state that requires no ID identifies himself as Dante Bellagio.  Or perhaps he has one of those easily produced ID's.  He gets to cast a vote as Dante Bellagio.

The name is on the rolls.  Someone shows up and the name is checked off.  The voter casts his or her vote.  But this is not a legal vote, and short of crawling through millions of voter registrations after the election and double-checking names and addresses you'll never identify it or any others as such.  It'll be counted as long as the "voter" gets past the precinct desk.  Further, even if you could identify the voter as fraudulent, you won't be able to tie that voter to how he or she voted and invalidate the vote.

There are rules and laws for a reason.  What Republicans are trying to avoid are actual votes like the hypothetical above.  And if ACORN wasn't flooding the rolls with registrations from the hands of identity thieves this would be much less a concern.  In a close election as few as, say, 538 could be the difference.

The New vs. The Old

The Manchester Union-Leader points out, in an editorial from Thursday, what is really all too obvious after the Joe the Plumber encounter (see video below).

In Obama's world, Washington must not simply ensure an even playing field for all Americans; it must ensure equal outcomes. His way of doing that is to "spread the wealth." Americans have always spread the wealth, though. They do it through the marketplace. They trade goods and services for cash. Those who do it well take the most risk and are most rewarded. Those who don't are cared for by churches, neighbors, families, charities and the state.

But to Obama, the market is too risky. It does not distribute outcomes evenly. And so he proposes to use the power of the state to redistribute outcomes as he prefers to see them. That is a recipe not for success, but for servitude.

There is no question, Barack Obama the man is a new and exciting presence on the national stage. His plan for governing this country is not. It is nothing more than failed redistributionism wrapped in pretty new paper. That isn't change. It is a failure of imagination. And it is a betrayal of trust in the American people and of the ideals on which this great and free nation was founded.

Here's my question.  Let's say you're inclined to believe in Barack Obama's vision of economic fairness.  What in Mr. Obama's experience would lead you to believe that his vision, government-enforced spreading of the wealth, will improve things in the American economy and in America in general?  Is there some particular experience he has that shows that he knows exactly how this should be done?  Has he been successful in the past in doing this?  Indeed, has this approach ever been successful?

Furtive Glances - "Media Blackout" Edition

The mainstream media has made a big deal about a lot of things during this presidential campaign.  For example, let's just think about Joe the Plumber.  For having the temerity to disagree with Mr. Obama's proposed tax policy - and with the candidate's belief that he knows just how to "spread the wealth around" Joe Wurzelbacher has been subjected to what is essentially opposition research by the "objective" media.  They've crawled into his tax records, investigated his licensing, and accused this guy, who was randomly approached by a presidential candidate looking for a photo op with the common man, of being a Republican plant.  Are they kidding?

I thought it might be nice to run down some of the other stories that you likely won't see on the front page of the NY Times - or any other large media outlet for that matter.

• Did you know that in 6 Alabama counties there are more registered voters than voting age adults?  I wonder how something like that could have happened?  This story is actually an AP story in USA Today, but it'll disappear down the memory hole within 24 hours.

• What, you mean you can't be a temporary visitor to Ohio, register, and vote there, even if you're an Obama campaign worker?  Voter suppression!!!

More on the fraudulent votes in Ohio from Palestra.net:

• Ho hum, another member of the vast right wing conspiracy states that a withdrawal timetable from Iraq wouldn't have been wise.

• Former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright said Thursday the Iraq war has created damaging consequences for U.S. diplomacy, but Washington should not agree to a specific deadline for withdrawing troops in the midst of conflict - something proposed last year by the candidate she now supports, Sen. Barack Obama.

  "I never was for a date certain," Mrs. Albright told editors and reporters at The Washington Times. "In Bosnia, we gave a date certain, and then we couldn't get out and that undercut our credibility."
  
  [...]
  

  In early 2007, he proposed a Senate bill that would have removed all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008. "The days of our open-ended commitment must come to a close," he said at the time.

  More recently, he has conditioned the pace of a pullout on realities on the ground.
  
  That's called "moving to the center" for the general election.  It's also called being wrong when it mattered most.

• Some people are so wound up by their fervor for their candidate that they will, for example, take a sign supporting the other candidate and smash it into the holder's face.  Probably some racist, I'm sure it was justified.  Full story at Pajamas Media.

Didn't know about any of these?  I'm shocked, shocked.

Kids Learn Quickly

For instance, they've learned that anyone who dares to oppose the candidacy of Barack Obama is automatically,unquestionably and by definition, racist.

Well, it's not as if their elders haven't made the same mistake.

Live To Fight Another Day

Wow.  Just wow.  From 7-0 down to a walk-off win in the ninth inning for the Red Sox, who staved off elimination and now trail the Tampa Bay Rays 3-2 in the ALCS.

In a comeback that goes up there with any in the history of postseason play, the Red Sox pulled out a season-saving 8-7 triumph over the Rays in a Game 5 instant classic that can go down in the category of near miraculous.

A game that ended when J.D. Drew hit a screaming liner over the head of Tampa Bay right fielder Gabe Gross for a single that scored Kevin Youkilis with two outs in the bottom of the ninth seemed all but over entering the bottom of the seventh, when the Red Sox trailed, 7-0, against the red-hot Rays.

Big contributors included David Ortiz, Dustin Pedroia, J.D. Drew, and Coco Crisp.  Coco Crisp?  I was talking a few nights ago before game 4 with my brother, and we were wondering just how long Terry Francona would be going with a clearly struggling Jacoby Ellsbury.  Answer: not much longer.  Crisp has played the last two games, and produced the game-tying single in the bottom of the eighth inning. Clutch.

It's still going to come down to pitching, however.  The Sox have Jon Lester ready for game 7 after an uncharacteristic bad outing in game 3.  But game 6 features Josh Beckett, who hasn't been himself in two postseason starts.  If both pitch like they're capable a third great ALCS comeback is not out of the question.

Sarah Palin In Salem, NH

Attended the rally last night.  I got some video, which I haven't had time to edit, and a few non-flash photos, not the highest quality.  You can see them below the fold.  It was held at the Salem High football stadium, and after 2 hours through a very orderly security line we got in.  It looked to me that there were about 7500 there, including those in the stands and those on the field, give or take.  The crowd was quite enthusiastic, and the conversation in line indicated determination to push McCain-Palin across the finish line in first.

Good speeches by all, particularly Gov. Palin, but also including particularly NH-2 Congressional candidate Jennifer Horn, a 44 year old mother of five just the headliner.  She needs support to replace Rep. Paul Hodes, who has voted with the Democratic leadership in lockstep 98% of the time.  I found her impressive.

Funny line of the night:  I'm walking out after the event and two young guys, high school age, were walking out with me.  As we approached the main road one says, "I wonder if the moonbats are still out there?"  There were a couple of "protesters" as I came in and they confirmed that those were to whom they were referring.

Ah, youth.

Other funny line of the night: One young woman, walking out, explained to her friend "I met some really nice Republicans tonight."  Yes, ma'am, you did.

In any event, no calls of "kill him" at any time.

Celebrating The Downfall Of The Capitalist Swine

Agence France-Presse, part of the vast far right wing American conspiracy against the Obama Ascendancy, reports the following.

NEW YORK (AFP) — A rare bird in the political world, the US Communist Party is feeling rather smug in these days of capitalist turmoil.

[...].

"We are very excited, we feel that we are at a turning point," Della Piana, an imposing half-Italian, half-African American with a pony tail, told AFP.

"We can afford to be less on the defensive for the first time since Ronald Reagan, and we can say our word in rebuilding America on a new basis, rebuilding a better world, instead of one based on the greed of the few."

[...]

[F]ew people were about during a visit by AFP on Monday and the atmosphere was collegial and slightly sleepy, rather than revolutionary.

"They are all out working to get people to vote," explained Bill Davis, 65, who has been a faithful member for 37 years.

Working to get people to vote?  For whom, we wonder.

There is no communist running for the White House and the Communist Party does not endorse Democrat Barack Obama.

Yet many staff here wore his picture on lapel buttons, while Republican John McCain was relegated to a box of tissues -- the tissues being pulled through his mouth

Now, why would it be necessary to categorically state that the CPUSA was not endorsing Senator Obama?  Just wondering aloud ...

10/15/08 1550: Particularly when it seems (Hat tip: LGF) that they do.

My Question Gets Asked

We're now up to the third presidential debate, and time appears to be running out for Mr. McCain.  The "negative" "attacks" - really just asking questions that the MSM refuses to ask - haven't worked for him.  The economic crisis sat down like an elephant in the middle of the room and won't move, and so important issues of foreign policy, terrorism, long, close, unsavory associations, and leadership experience have been pushed to the perimeter.

On the occasion of the second presidential debate I had a couple of questions for Senator Obama.  The second was this:

Having just heard Mr. Obama explain how he "warned two years ago" about the subprime crisis.  How he wrote to the Sec. of the Treasury advising that "something be done" about it.

So here's my question:

Mr. Obama, you're a senator.  Wouldn't introducing legislation (or supporting Senator McCain's legislation) have been a better option than playing Chicken Little?

Corollary questions: "You keep saying you warned about the subprime mortgage problem 'two years ago'?  When?  Where?  How?  What exactly were your words?  What reforms did you call for?  Do you have supporting evidence?  Because I haven't seen it, read it, heard that you had except from you during this crisis."

Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute in today's Wall Street Journal takes up that question in a more visible forum.

Finally, on the matter of deregulation and the financial crisis, Sen. Obama should consider his own complicity in the failure of Congress to adopt legislation that might have prevented the subprime meltdown.

In the summer of 2005, a bill emerged from the Senate Banking Committee that considerably tightened regulations on Fannie and Freddie, including controls over their capital and their ability to hold portfolios of mortgages or mortgage-backed securities. All the Republicans voted for the bill in committee; all the Democrats voted against it. To get the bill to a vote in the Senate, a few Democratic votes were necessary to limit debate. This was a time for the leadership Sen. Obama says he can offer, but neither he nor any other Democrat stepped forward.

Instead, by his own account, Mr. Obama wrote a letter to the Treasury Secretary, allegedly putting himself on record that subprime loans were dangerous and had to be dealt with. This is revealing; if true, it indicates Sen. Obama knew there was a problem with subprime lending -- but was unwilling to confront his own party by pressing for legislation to control it. As a demonstration of character and leadership capacity, it bears a strong resemblance to something else in Sen. Obama's past: voting present.

By the way, where is that letter?

"Ohio Is Being Abducted"

Reporter Tiffany Wilson's story at Palestra.net is fascinating, and scary.

I urge you to watch the entire thing.  What is the Secretary of State's reason for her unwillingness to answer perfectly legitimate questions about the process?

10/14/08 1930: Also MIA, Pennsylvania?

10/14/08 2140: Yep, Ohio is leading the league in funny voting.  And the head cheerleader is Secretary of State.  Whether you're for Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain this ought to tick you off.

"You Said You Have Gotten Death Threats"

An interesting video over at Hot Air, from a CNN interview with a black conservative Republican.  Yes, that's right, I said a black conservative Republican.  Allahpundit highlights CNN asking the obvious "why aren't you backing Obama, to which Mr. Harris responds appropriately "It's about ideology.  He is a liberal.  He's the most liberal senator in the Senate."

Okay, so there aren't a huge number of such individuals, I admit.  Nonetheless, is that such a reprehensible thing that death threats are warranted?

Not that I want to get any of these others in trouble, but there are others out there.  But seriously, death threats?  Talk about fomenting hate and rage.  Or is that just political discourse from the left?

Because The First One Worked So Flawlessly

Hey, you know what would be great for the economy?  Another huge boost in government spending!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States needs a new economic stimulus plan that pumps billions of dollars into infrastructure projects and budget relief for cash-strapped state and local governments, Democratic lawmakers said on Sunday.

This is on top of the February stimulus package, estimated cost $150 to $275 billion.

And on top of the mortgage relief package, estimated cost (by some) $300 billion.

And on top of the Fannie/Freddie takeover, estimated cost $200 billion

And on top of the $85 billion $122 billion for AIG

And on top of the economic recovery package, estimated cost $700 billion.

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, told ABC television he will put together an economic stimulus bill when Congress returns to Washington after the November 4 elections, while a key Republican said he would support an effort that "makes sense."

Well, Mr. Frank has been so often right before.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be no help here, either.  Let's have a look at the team she's assembling to put together a "stimulus."  Bipartisan?

• Larry Summers, Treasury Secretary under President Clinton
• Alice Rivlin, OMB Director under President Clinton
• Arthur Levitt, SEC chairman under President Clinton

I think not.

The Congress (and White House) seem to think that bailing the foundering boat is all that's required.  Mr. Frank has said of those who want to reform the process that caused the mess in the first place that it's angry racism.  Wait a minute.  You have to fix the holes in the boat, even if it means that favored liberal programs have to be scaled back.  If all you do is bail you'll be doing it until the cows come home and still find yourself hip deep.

Remember, Congress doesn't have any money, only what they take from Americans.  We're already running large deficits, becoming even larger by the minute.  You can't just print more money, that leads to inflation.  But hey, let's throw another few hundred billion at the problem.  It'll only have to fall on responsible taxpayers to pay it off.

And don't forget that candidates often propose large spending increases to buy votes, so we've got that going for us.

In Search Of Brady

The New England Patriots' season may have ended in the first quarter of the first game, when QB Tom Brady went down with what turned out to be a torn ACL and MCL.  Brady was lost for the season, and the Patriots turned to backup Matt Cassel, who has never really played much football, backing up first Carson Palmer than Matt Leinert at USC, then carrying the clipboard for Tom Brady with New England.

I think we can say with relative confidence now that Matt Cassel just isn't getting it done.  The Chargers are slapping the Patriots around 30-10 with about six minutes left in the fourth quarter.  Bleecchhh!!  Cassel is unsure in the pocket, has trouble reading blitzes, and doesn't seem to move quickly enough through his reads to go to the second or third receiver.  He is 16 for 29 for 136 yards.  Of course, a whuppin' like that requires some breakdowns on defense as well.  Sure enough, the anemic pass rush has left Philip Rivers plenty of time to find receivers, who are roaming unencumbered by defensive attention through the secondary.  Total yards: Chargers 3404 (including 306 passing), Patriots 247.

Time to look for a different QB for '08.  Hey, he ain't playing next year anyway

Ashamed Of Her Party?

I just received a political flyer in today's mail from a candidate for the New Hampshire state senate, and after looking at both sides of this 5" X 8" piece of paperboard I'm having a little trouble identifying the party to which this candidate belongs.  See if you can help me out by looking at the policy positions she presents.

On the front her name is in large letters at the top.  The next most noticeable statement is at the bottom, noting that the candidate "opposes an income tax and a sales tax," (#1) neither of which New Hampshire currently has.

On the back we learn that she

• wants to "exercise fiscal discipline to help control taxes and fund education without a sales or income tax" (#2)
• will "find ways to reduce the tax burden placed on New Hampshire's property owners"
• will work to "expand New Hampshire's economy and attract high-paying jobs"
• wants to "lower health care costs for families and small businesses"

Again on the back, she reiterates that she "opposes the creation of a sales or income tax." (#3)

Nowhere is the party identification made plain.  But clearly this candidate strongly is anti-tax for individuals, on businesses, and on property, emphasizing the anti-sales/anti-income tax pledge not once but thrice.

So, what's her party?  (answer below)

Bob Herbert - Stock Column #1

And what he mails in are the full collection of Democratic talking points.  He must have just received a fundraising letter and decided it would make a good column.  He was wrong.

There's the "Bush is dumb" line.

Mr. Bush was never viewed as a policy or intellectual heavyweight. But he seemed like a nicer guy to a lot of voters than Al Gore.

Yeah, that Gore guy is a genius.  There's the "Republican rule caused the financial crisis" line, never mind the CRA/suits against banks/Fannie Mae run by Raines & Johnson/Barney Frank & Chris Dodd protection of this process problem.

Voters in the George W. Bush era gave the Republican Party nearly complete control of the federal government. Now the financial markets are in turmoil, top government and corporate leaders are on the verge of panic and scholars are dusting off treatises that analyzed the causes of the Great Depression.

There's the "dropped the ball in Afghanistan/Iraq was always wrong" line, in a paragraph that demonstrates just how poor a writer he is, as he throws New Orleans into it a the end.  We invaded New Orleans?

It’s not just the economy. While the United States has been fighting a useless and irresponsible war in Iraq, Afghanistan — the home base of the terrorists who struck us on 9/11 — has been allowed to fall into a state of chaos. Osama bin Laden is still at large. New Orleans is still on its knees. And so on.

He lies.

I don’t for a moment think that the Democratic Party has been free of egregious problems.

Perhaps, but you've never actually published any of those thoughts, have you?  Then there's the "all the GOP is far right extremists" line.

But there are two things I find remarkable about the G.O.P., and especially its more conservative wing, which is now about all there is.

There's an attack on Ronald Reagan.

Remember voodoo economics? That was the derisive term George H.W. Bush used for Ronald Reagan’s fantasy that he could simultaneously increase defense spending, cut taxes and balance the budget. After Reagan became president (with Mr. Bush as his vice president) the budget deficit — surprise, surprise — soared.

Actually, the principle was that, with high inflation and high unemployment (remember stagflation?) under Jimmy Carter, and with the Soviet Union a threat (remember the Cold War?) it was necessary to both cut taxes and increase defense spending.  You know what?  It worked!  Yes, there were deficits, but they were more directly attributable to "baseline budgeting," the automatic large rises in government programs built into the system in the Budget Act of 1974 - by a Democratic congress.

He finishes with insinuations of racism in another attack on Mr. Reagan - a staple for Mr. Herbert - ignoring that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed over the objections of large numbers of southern Democrats only because many Republicans voted for it.

The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of southern Senators led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. Said Russell "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."^[5]

Nice sentiment.  Note to Mr. Herbert: Speaking of income inequality, I hope the NY Times is not paying you much more than minimum wage for mailing it in like this.

Unpaid Negative Advertising Works

And the Obama Campaign gets to save its millions for other purposes.  When Tina Fey lampoons Sarah Palin on SNL, Mrs. Palin loses ground.

Unsurprisingly, Palin's favorability rating among her fellow Republicans held steady and strong, dropping just 1 point to 79 percent. Just as unsurprisingly, Palin's already low favorability rating among rival Democrats fell even further, down to 17 percent, a drop of 7 points.

Among all-important swing voters, Palin's appeal to unaligned independents fell 4 percent, to 33 percent.

SNL could have a field day with the walking gaffe machine ...

But they won't.

From A Little ACORN ...

Investor's Business Daily: Is ACORN stealing the election?

Election Fraud: A radical group Barack Obama used to work for is committing voter-registration fraud in several states, ahead of the election. What does Obama know about this scam?

It's a legitimate question to raise now that the FBI has raided the offices of the nonprofit Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now in Nevada and North Carolina, two states where Obama and John McCain are running neck-and-neck. ACORN has registered bogus voters in both states.

The group's voter-registration fraud is rampant, and authorities plan a nationwide sweep of ACORN offices to collect records.

How rampant?  Let us count the ways.

In Cleveland they keep insisting the same people register over, and over, and over.

More "voters" than the entire voting-eligible population of Indianapolis have been registered.

In Missouri they're sorting through piles of sketchy registrations.

The ACORN office in Las Vegas was raided by the FBI and hard drives taken.

In Kansas City where ACORN was actually convicted of this in '06 their at it again.

Alabama and Georgia are having problems as well.

They registered dead guys in Indianapolis.

There is a difference between making sure that every eligible voter that wants to vote can do so, and creating confusion and mayhem in the election process.  This is the latter.  And what is the reaction from ACORN?  Pure unmitigated gall.

Caveat Emptor - Why Ayers Matters

I'm not going to get into it in detail (you can certainly read it elsewhere), but it occurs to me that there are two primary reasons Barack Obama's association with unrepentent Weathermen terrorist and dedicated leftist radical William Ayers is important.

First, it's hard to imagine Mr. Ayers choosing someone to head up a $50-$100 million dollar project with whom he wasn't intimately familiar.  Considering that fact,  Mr. Obama's offhand dismissal of Mr. Ayers as "just some guy in my neighborhood," one has to suspect that we don't have the whole truth.  It would seem that honesty and openness about the relationship are in short supply from Mr. Obama.

Second, it's even harder to imagine that Mr. Ayers would select someone to run this very well-funded project who didn't share his vision and values, someone who wouldn't necessarily  make grant and funding decisions according to Mr. Ayers desires.  This calls into question Mr. Obama's work, beliefs and values during this time.  This wasn't just some failed education enrichment program.  This was a program to begin radical indoctrination of schoolchildren through these funding decisions, as Stanley Kurtz found upon perusing the paperwork.

And is there evidence that Mr. Obama somebody has been trying to hide some of his leftist past?  Why, disappearing web pages!, yes there is.

10/9/08 0950: Edited for accuracy in the last line.  We don't know that the missing web pages were attributable to Mr. Obama or the campaign.

My Next Questions For Barack Obama

Having just heard Mr. Obama explain how he "warned two years ago" about the subprime crisis.  How he wrote to the Sec. of the Treasury advising that "something be done" about it.

So here's my question:

Mr. Obama, you're a senator.  Wouldn't introducing legislation (or supporting Senator McCain's legislation) have been a better option than playing Chicken Little?

Corollary questions: "You keep saying you warned about the subprime mortgage problem 'two years ago'?  When?  Where?  How?  What exactly were your words?  What reforms did you call for?  Do you have supporting evidence?  Because I haven't seen it, read it, heard that you had except from you during this crisis."

10/7/08 2140: With Mr. Obama promising to "cut taxes for 95% of all Americans" I thought it might be helpful to recall what happened when a Democatic presidential candidate promised a middle class tax cut in 1992.  And here's the video.

Hold on to your wallet.

My Question For Barack Obama Tonight

No, I won't be at the townhall-style debate tonight, but I've been thinking.  What if I were?  Given that participants get their one question, and only one, that may or may not be chosen, what would I ask?  How would I use that access?

Well, I've had a look at the official Obama health plan, and I noted the following on the web page:

Under the plan, if you like your current health insurance, nothing changes, except your costs will go down by as much as $2,500 per year.

If you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of new, affordable health insurance options.

Interesting.  So the uninsured would have a "choice of new, affordable" insurance options.  I'm not quite sure how that would translate to insuring the uninsured, so I had a look at the full plan. (pdf)  I was looking for something that, for all the demagoguery centered around the uninsured coming from Democrats whenever they discuss health care in America, would indicate a commitment to providing "insurance for all."  Something that was absolutely certain to reduce the numbers of uninsured.

I found nothing.  Look for yourself.  Scan the entire document.  All that's there is a statement that a) costs will be lowered (along with the requisite demagoguery against evil insurance companies) and b) "affordable" options will be available.  Here's the money 'graph on the former:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must redesign our health system to reduce inefficiency and waste and improve health care quality, which will drive down costs for families and individuals. The Obama-Biden plan will improve efficiency and lower costs in the health care system by: (1) adopting state-of-the-art health information technology systems; (2) ensuring that patients receive and providers deliver the best possible care, including prevention and chronic disease management services; (3) reforming our market structure to increase competition; and offering federal reinsurance to employers to help ensure that unexpected or catastrophic illnesses do not make health insurance unaffordable or out of reach for businesses and their employees.

Here's the money 'graph on the latter:

Under the Obama-Biden plan, Americans will be able to maintain their current coverage, have access to new affordable options, and see the quality of their health care improve and their costs go down. The Obama-Biden plan provides new affordable health insurance options by: (1) guaranteeing eligibility for all health insurance plans; (2) creating a National Health Insurance Exchange to help Americans and businesses purchase private health insurance; (3) providing new tax credits to families who can’t afford health insurance and to small businesses with a new Small Business Health Tax Credit; (4) requiring all large employers to contribute towards health coverage for their employees or towards the cost of the public plan; (5) requiring all children have health care coverage; (5) expanding eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs; and (6) allowing flexibility for state health reform plans.

No individual mandate.  No employer mandate (other than a tax increase to contribute to optional public plans).  So having read through the morass, here's my question:

Mr. Obama, given your stated committment to providing health care (i.e., insurance) for all who are without, other than children for whom you propose federal coverage, and given that your plan has no mandate for coverage, what is your backup plan to correct that when your plan fails to force people to obtain coverage?  Are you hoping that every state follows Massachusetts' lead (which is to Massachusetts detriment) at the current time?

I have a feeling the answer to that would be more illuminating about the ultimate destination than all the free market terminology thrown about in the plan.

Push Poll Pushovers

Via Ace of Spades, it seems someone out there seems to be spreading The Message in a less than forthright fashion.

Then the weirdness started. The pollster said the next set of questions was to determine whether I found a set of arguments convincing on a scale of zero to ten, zero being not at all convincing and ten being totally convincing. The first statement was 'John McCain voted 24 times against voting the minimum wage while Barack Obama voted for the wage and to protect American workers.' I answered zero, and figured an anti-Obama statement would be coming next.

Nope. The next question had to do with health care, and said that John McCain voted to spend money on providing tax cuts for the rich while Barack Obama wanted to use the money to provide health care for orphaned children or something. I answered zero again.

Next issue? McCain is a puppy-murdering fiend whose favorite hobby is feeding the cute little fellas to crocodiles while Obama has his own personal angelic choir to sing his praises. Okay, maybe I made that last one up.

I had my own solution to this the other night.  A company - let's call them Technical Political Analysis, Inc. - called and wanted me for an opinion survey.

"Fine," I said, "glad to help.  As soon as you tell me who hired TPA."

"I don't know what you mean."

"Well, I'm sure it wasn't TPA's idea to call me.  Someone hired you to get the information so that they can use it.  I'll be happy to talk to you, as soon as you tell me who."

The conversation ended abruptly when the pollster hung up the phone.  I guess I won't be represented in their survey.  Judging by the comments at Slublog others have found this effective.

The Sox Move On

The Anaheim Angels are a really good team.  Really good.  Won 100 games.  Very good starting pitching.  Very tough middle of the lineup after adding 1B Mark Teixeira at the trade deadline, with Vladimir Guerrero, Torii Hunter, Garrett Anderson.  A really good team.

And the Sox dispatched them in 4.  Newcomer Jason Bay scores the winning run in the bottom of the ninth on a single by rookie Jed Lowrie, with young lefty Jon Lester dominating the Angel lineup for 7 innings.  He's now on a relatively remarkable run pitching over 22 consecutive scoreless innings of playoff baseball.  They now meet the Tampa Bay Rays, of all teams, in the AL Championship series.  Yowza!

Who's For Government Intervention? Raise Your Hands!

Let's think for a minute.  The government, starting with the Carter-era CRA, then advancing with Clinton-era "persuasion" and congressional enforcement, is really the source of the sub-prime mortgage fiasco, messing with the stable methodology and principles of home ownership that had worked for generations.

To hear today's Democrats, you'd think all this started in the last couple years. But the crisis began much earlier. The Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, mostly in minority areas.

Age-old standards of banking prudence got thrown out the window. In their place came harsh new regulations requiring banks not only to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, but to do so on the basis of race.

These well-intended rules were supercharged in the early 1990s by President Clinton. Despite warnings from GOP members of Congress in 1992, Clinton pushed extensive changes to the rules requiring lenders to make questionable loans.

Lenders who refused would find themselves castigated publicly as racists. As noted this week in an IBD editorial, no fewer than four federal bank regulators scrutinized financial firms' books to make sure they were in compliance.

Failure to comply meant your bank might not be allowed to expand lending, add new branches or merge with other companies. Banks were given a so-called "CRA rating" that graded how diverse their lending portfolio was.

They decided that even people who couldn't afford homes deserved to afford homes, and those who could afford starter homes deserved better.  The feds encouraged directed forced banks to come up with programs to make it happen.  The problem was worsened by the implied guarantees behind Fannie/Freddie backing, with home prices skyrocketing and unsustainable ARM and other subprime vehicles emerging, all in the interest of profit for banks, who thought they couldn't lose.  But, all in all, this mess is attributable to government intervention changing the rules of a stable free market system.  And they messed it up big time.

Now for the questions:  Given that history, does anyone still think it would be a grand idea for the federal government to get more heavily involved in the healthcare market in the interest of the uninsured?  If so, what convinces you that they'll be capable of managing that much more complex market when they couldn't manage to avoid mucking up housing?  Isn't a free-market solution preferable to the exponentially larger disaster likely were they to bungle healthcare like they bungled housing?

Remember: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

I Forgot My Birthday?

On September 28 this little blog o' mine, Joust The Facts, turned four, and I forgot.  This has been a strange year in general.  I had to take a considerable amount of time away from the blog, posting only minimally, in order to clear my head for managing my practice's big move to southern NH from northern MA.  That move is now looking like a great decision for our group six months on, and the business is really taking off.  But it was anything but smooth initially, with the federal government doing it's best to mess with our cash flow, and with so many decisions requiring my attention.  There's still a lot of work to do, but not nearly as much as before.

I know.  Boring.  Well, we'll see if I can make it to five.  Thanks for reading.  Hey, bring your friends.

So, You Think Biden Won The Debate?

Only in an alternate reality.  Or two.  Or three.  Or four.

(The links are at Ace of Spades, so, language warning and all that.)

Instant campaign commercial: cue up Sen. Biden's debate gaffes following each with the facts.  Then again, you might need a full half-hour time slot.

10/4/08 1600: Here are a few more reviews of Bidenisms from Thursday night.  Jack Kelly, at Real Clear Politics, and Jay Tea at Wizbang here and here.

It Just Started ...

... and I'm already disappointed.  Sarah Palin is missing opportunities to skewer some of the nonsense coming from Joe Biden's mouth.  She's too programmed with answers, not light enough on her feet in the early going.  We'll see how it progresses.

10/2/08 2117: A better answer on taxes, bringing up Biden's "patriotic tax" statement.  Biden riffed on the "fairness" of income redistribution - the Robin Hood argument, backed up by IRS agents.  Palin made a good point on job losses if small  businesses have to cut back.

10/2/08 2121: Biden: we're not going to double foreign assistance, just increase it less?  Other than that, all the new spending programs will remain?  Question: with what funds?  And he just called John Edwards and his offshore account unpatriotic.

10/2/08 2127: Stop with Add to the "greed and corruption on Wall Street" and point out that the ball was teed up by the Community Reinvestment Act and the Clinton administration's aggressive and risky moves with banks.

10/2/08 2131: Gwen Ifill sticks in the first "gotcha" question - this one on "climate change" when temperatures have been falling recently.  Biden: "It's clearly man-made."  No, Joe, it's not nearly so cut and dried.

10/2/08 2138: Biden: no support for gay marriage.  Palin: Me also.  I'm betting that'll change for O&B after Nov. 4 win or lose.

10/2/08 2142: She needs to point out on the Iraq timeline that Obama's current 16 month timeline for turnover was 18 months 22 months ago, and before the surge.  Let's see if she'll do it.  2144: good response from Palin.  Very good.  "I don't know how you can support Obama after saying he was not ready to be CinC."

10/2/08 2149: Good work by Palin on the Ahmadinejad meeting with Obama.  Now Biden is dissembling on Obama's statement.  Must have missed Kissinger saying he was misrepresented after the Presidential debate.

10/2/08 2159: Ifill isn't controlling this thing very well - I'm starting to glaze over at the randomness of the statments.

10/2/08 2202: Oooh, Palin schools biden on Afghanistan.  Now he's searching for an answer.  Biden: "Obama has been saying we need more troops in Afghanistan."  Yeah, but he said that at the expense of forfeiting in Iraq.

10/2/08 2203: "Bozniacs?"

10/2/08 2204: Biden's starting to get more strident than he needs to be.  Palin has him a bit on the run.  Hitting him on voting for Iraq war and now supporting a guy who would abandon it.

10/2/08 2205: Biden's repeating himself, and is overdoing the "John McCain was wrong" thing, particularly since he and McCain agreed on quite a few things previously.

10/2/08 2210: "Replace the Bush Doctrine of preemption and regime change and replace it with engagement (not an exact quote - I'll need a transcript."  I don't know, I don't think preemption is a bad thing in terrorism.

10/2/08 2213: Biden continuing to try to tie McCain to Bush.  Palin: "I can say it ain't so, Joe."  Good line for a baseball fan.

10/2/08 2215: Palin wearing an Israel pin over the American flag brooch she has.  (note: I'm informed it might be a Blue Star pin for the parents of servicemen overseas.  Tough to see.)

10/2/08 2221: Palin has hit her stride, She seems much more comfortable.  Biden is comfortable talking about his record.  Both connecting with Americans, emotional.

10/2/08 2224: "We have got to win the wars." (note: plural)  Obama/Biden can't say that.

10/2/08 2226: Interesting.  Biden saying that he came to realize that ideology matters in Supreme Court Justices picks.  I think there's an opening to attack there.  What matters is the following the Constitution.

10/2/08 2232: Good closing statements by both.  I liked Palin's - YMMV.  Biden: May God bless America, and may God protect our troops."  Is it okay to say that?

Impressions:  No knockouts, no major gaffes, Palin stood up to the pressure, Biden was not a loose cannon.  Didn't think Iraq troop levels were below pre-surge levels; they're not.  That's a small point - withdrawals have been made.  Biden was a little too persistent in trying to tie Bush around McCain's neck - overdone?  It was a good debate, and Palin's performance was much better than her one-on-one's with the adversarial press.

Here's Tigerhawk's liveblog.  Also from Classical Values.

10/2/08 1145: I thought Palin won overall.  It seems I wasn't alone, if Frank Luntz' focus group is any indication.

10/3/08 0630: Megan McArdle was liveblogging as well.

Jon Lester, Jason Bay

You guys rock!!!

[Red Sox leftfielder Jason] Bay spent the first day of October sizing up a meaty fastball from John Lackey and hammering it over the fence in left field to give the Red Sox the crucial blow they had been searching for in Wednesday night's 4-1 victory over the Angels in Game 1 of the American League Division Series.

Of course, Bay's two-out, two-run bash in the top of the sixth would not have held such weight if not for a superb pitching performance by Jon Lester, who was thrust into the role of ace in this series when Josh Beckett couldn't take the opening nod because of a strained right oblique.

After working out of bases-loaded jam in the first, Lester was nails for the rest of the night. The left-hander allowed just one unearned run on six hits, with seven strikeouts and one walk over seven innings of work.

The Sox thus steal the home field advantage from the Angels in the first game, and will have Lester available for another start in the series.  Next up is Daisuke Matsuzaka, who finished the season with a not-too-shabby 18-3 record and 2.90 ERA.  He'll face Ervin Santana, who had a solid year as well.

The guy Bay replaced in the Red Sox lineup, Manny Ramirez, homered for his playoff team also as the Dodgers beat the Cubs.  The big hit in that game, though, was a grand slam by 1B James Loney.  Of Manny, Don Mattingly had this to say:

"Everybody acts like his second half was unbelievable," hitting coach Don Mattingly said of Ramirez. "That's what he does all the time. He puts whole years together like that. He's not hot. He's always like this."

A Dodgers-Red Sox World Series would be interesting, to say the least.  I know, I'm getting ahead of myself.