Frank Rich Needs To STFU

Frank Rich, or Conrad, or whatever he's called. I just call him an idiot.

That's it. I've had it with this guy; I'm angrier than Michael Savage in 100-degree weather. Frank Rich. Some snotty NYT editorialist, he's the worst kind of media man. I want to take some time to refute his article, "McCain's Suspension Bridge To Nowhere". It's just garbage.

For instance, his introduction:

WHAT we learned last week is that the man who always puts his “country first” will take the country down with him if that’s what it takes to get to the White House.

This is BS. Why? Find out after more BS.

When John McCain gratuitously parachuted into Washington on Thursday, he didn’t care if his grandstanding might precipitate an even deeper economic collapse. All he cared about was whether he might save his campaign. By the time he arrived, there already was a bipartisan agreement in principle. It collapsed hours later at the meeting convened by the president in the Cabinet Room. Rather than help try to resuscitate Wall Street’s bloodied bulls, McCain was determined to be the bull in Washington’s legislative china shop, running around town and playing both sides of his divided party against Congress’s middle. Once others eventually forged a path out of the wreckage, he’d inflate, if not outright fictionalize, his own role in cleaning up the mess his mischief helped make. Or so he hoped, until his ignominious retreat.

Not a bit true. What Frankie is saying here is that McCain went to Washington for his own selfish reasons to try and sabotage any progress being made on a bailout in order to "save his campaign". This is a 100%, absolute, categorical, you-are-pants and it's no. Henry Paulson, commander of the bailout plan, wanted the House Republicans' support on the deal, which they were refusing to give. Lindsey Graham, a moderate like McCain and someone close to Paulson, was contacted by none other than Paulson himself, who said (and I suppose I'm paraphrasing), "You have to get McCain. He's the only one who can do it." Doing it, in this case, means using his political clout in the House to get enought support from the Republicans on the fence. So, McCain reluctantly suspended his campaign to go to Washington. What, do you think he could have convinced them on the phone!? E-mail (which, by the way, McCain doesn't do, thanks Obama)!? Frank is totally misguided, but hey, he's just parroting the typical liberal talking point, that's it's just some conspiracy to save his poll numbers.

Oh yeah, about that. Right when McCain went to Washington, a Gallup poll and Zogby poll were released. The former had him exactly tied, and the latter had him ahead. What bollocks. Also, Frank mentions a "bipartisan agreement", essentially a deal. There never was one, as the Weekly Standard points out.

So, Frankie goes on:

The question is why would a man who forever advertises his own honor toy so selfishly with our national interest at a time of crisis. I’ll leave any physiological explanations to gerontologists — if they can get hold of his complete medical records — and any armchair psychoanalysis to the sundry McCain press acolytes who have sorrowfully tried to rationalize his erratic behavior this year.

Yes, that's right. He actually suggested that McCain's dementia is playing a part in a decision that his campaign allowed him to make. He's not president yet, folks; he's got that little ball-and-chain called a campaign staff. Anyway, I saw a poster the other day, an anti-Reagan poster. Used in the '84 campaign, I think. It just said "Reagan: Too Old." Well, we all know how that turned out. Just the largest economic growth this country's seen.

You must remember that McCain not only knows little about the economy but that he has not previously expressed any urgency about its meltdown. It was on Sept. 15 — the day after his former idol Alan Greenspan pronounced the current crisis a “once-in-a-century” catastrophe — that McCain reaffirmed for the umpteenth time that the “fundamentals of our economy are strong.”

Yeah, he's said he doesn't know much about the economy. Neither does Barry, but Barry's not honest enough to admit it. His policies do that for him. And yes; McCain has expressed concern over this. He did all the way back in 2005/2006, his housing regulatory bill, which (ironically) put him at odds with everyone, and didn't pass. The bill would have enforced regulation of Fannie and Freddie, but he's a Republican, so who cares? I haven't seen anything like that from Obama. Come on, Frankie, where is it? Where's Obama's accomplishments in this realm? Oh, yeah, he doesn't have any. He could be considered an accomplice in this meltdown.

One more point-- when McCain talks about the fundamentals of the economy, he's not talking about banks, government policies, or housing monsters. He's talking about the American people; the ones who keep the country running. That's not the government, liberals. That's the taxpaying, working Americans. And yeah, they're fundamentally strong, as evidenced how we've had nothing but positive growth so far this year. Sorry, no recession for you.

Then, Frank says this:

As recently as Tuesday he had not yet even read the two-and-a-half-page bailout proposal first circulated by Hank Paulson last weekend. “I have not had a chance to see it in writing,” he explained. (Maybe he was waiting for it to arrive by Western Union instead of PDF.)

As American Spectator points out, Obama didn't know either. In fact, when he came to the WH meeting, he trashed the Republican position on it without even knowing what the Republican position was.

That was not the only bad news raining down on McCain. His camp knew what Katie Couric had in the can from her interview with Sarah Palin. The first excerpt was to be broadcast by CBS that night, and it had to be upstaged fast.

But even that wasn’t the top political threat McCain faced last week. Bigger still was the mounting evidence of the seamless synergy between his campaign and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage monsters at the heart of the housing bust that set off our current calamity. Most of all, it was the fast-moving events on that front that precipitated his panic to roll out his diversionary, over-the-top theatrics on Wednesday.

Yeah, the Sarah Palin interview wasn't even bad. In fact, there was bias against Palin in the interview itself; American Spectator pointed out that Couric and Co. denied to call her Governor, and did everything she could to minimize her position. But that's not the point. The "seamless synergy between his campaign and FM&FM" refers to the Times' reporting on how campaign manager Rick Davis' former lobbying firm has been receiving contributions from FM&FM. Forget that Davis hasn't hasn't seen a penny from that firm since 2006, or that Barack Obama has been given, as American Thinker points out, $120,349 in political contributions from FM&FM. This, despite being in the Senate for just 3 years. Sound strange? It sure sounds fishy. The only person receiving more is Sen. Chris Dodd, who has been in Congress for 33 years. But nothing about this from the Times. It's all about McCain's campaign manager's firm!

Aargh. So, then this:

It ran attack ads about Obama’s own links to the mortgage giants. But neither of the former Freddie-Fannie executives vilified in those ads, Franklin Raines and James Johnson, had worked at those companies lately or are currently associated with the Obama campaign. (Raines never worked for the campaign at all.)

Notice how he says "currently". Johnson had incredible associations with FM&FM, and we Republicans attacked him for it. So then Obama threw him under the bus. Big double standard for Davis' firm. In comparison, Raines had been advising Obama's advisors on the economy (reported by the Washington Post) as early as February. He wasn't formally associated with the campaign, though. Lucky break?

By contrast, Davis is the tip of the Freddie-Fannie-McCain iceberg. McCain’s senior adviser, his campaign’s vice chairman, his Congressional liaison and the reported head of his White House transition team all either made fortunes from recent Freddie-Fannie lobbying or were players in firms that did.

So...four people in all? That's not much of an iceberg. Considering that you didn't even list McCain, the candidate for the Presidency. Obama can't say that.

It’s then that Angry Old Ironsides McCain suddenly emerged to bark that our financial distress was “the greatest crisis we’ve faced, clearly, since World War II” — even greater than the Russia-Georgia conflict, which in August he had called the “first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the cold war.” Campaigns, debates and no doubt Bristol Palin’s nuptials had to be suspended immediately so he could ride to the rescue, with Joe Lieberman as his Robin.

Aren't you clever, bringing in Bristol Palin like that? No doubt you have to wag another finger at that suffering girl in order to villify McCain's effort. For shame. As for the "contradiction", look at the context of those quotes. McCain is obviously referring to the economic state we were at, entering WWII. On the other hand, he calls the other one "an international crisis". Not exactly a genius stroke, Frank. And how in the heck would Joe Lieberman help consolidate support among House Republicans? That's either a statement of remarkable ignorance or a terrible joke.

Most of the rest of the article is just a rant about the McCain and Letterman fiasco. Undoubtedly he didn't want to bring the WH meeting up; the meeting where Bush would defer to Democrats to try and get their opinions on the bailout proposal, and then those Dems would defer to Obama in attempts to prove he's a leader and give credibility to his so-called "presidential aura". Rather, Obama didn't pull through, and the meeting fell apart. As Rush put it, "it was essentially a meeting chaired by Obama, and then it fell apart."

Meanwhile, we've got the Governor of Missouri saying that that Barack Obama conspired to misuse his state's law enforcement resources to "threaten and intimidate his critics."

Where's Frank Rich on this? Maybe he's been traveling on "McCain's Suspension Bridge To Nowhere" for far too long.

Some sources:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/obama_dollars.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/15/AR2008071502827.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/608daafj.asp
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122238645982877051.html
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13947
http://www.spectator.org/blogger_jump.asp?BlogID=14879
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWU2ODgzNzg2MmIyN2Y3ZWFjY2ZlODVmMTgzYjMwMjY=
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/mccain_kept_head_down_in_meeti.php
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092608/content/01125107.guest.html

Theater Has Ruined My Life

I'm steaming mad. I've had it up to here with theater and the dimwitted dolts who make the call schedules.

I was going to do a great live-blog of the debate tonight, but then I found out that there was going to be a huge gathering to watch the debate in Davis Auditorium with free pizza and drinks.

So then I was ecstatic, and now the call schedule for today has arrived via e-mail.

I have a full shift tonight, 7-10, uninterrupted. The debate starts at 6:30, and ends before I get out.

WHY, GOD, WHY?

Ron Paul Speaks; Congress Ignores Him, To Their Peril

So, for the past few days with this $700 billion bailout plan up in the air, I've wondered how capitalist, free-market economic genius (100% serious) Ron Paul would take it. Would he implode at the sight of such a monstrous government intervention into the private sector?

Well, here's his words on the bailout:

Mr. Chairman, I believe that our economy faces a bleak future, particularly if the latest $700 billion bailout plan ends up passing. We risk committing the same errors that prolonged the misery of the Great Depression, namely keeping prices from falling. Instead of allowing overvalued financial assets to take a hit and trade on the market at a more realistic value, the government seeks to purchase overvalued or worthless assets and hold them in the unrealistic hope that at some point in the next few decades, someone might be willing to purchase them.

One of the perverse effects of this bailout proposal is that the worst-performing firms, and those who interjected themselves most deeply into mortgage-backed securities, credit default swaps, and special investment vehicles will be those who benefit the most from this bailout. As with the bailout of airlines in the aftermath of 9/11, those businesses who were the least efficient, least productive, and least concerned with serving consumers are those who will be rewarded for their mismanagement with a government handout, rather than the failure of their company that is proper to the market. This creates a dangerous moral hazard, as the precedent of bailing out reckless lending will lead to even more reckless lending and irresponsible behavior on the part of financial firms in the future.

This bailout is a slipshod proposal, slapped together haphazardly and forced on an unwilling Congress with the threat that not passing it will lead to the collapse of the financial system. Some of the proposed alternatives are no better, for instance those which propose a government equity share in bailed-out companies. That we have come to a point where outright purchases of private sector companies is not only proposed but accepted by many who claim to be defenders of free markets bodes ill for the future of American society.

As with many other government proposals, the opportunity cost of this bailout goes unmentioned. $700 billion tied up in illiquid assets is $700 billion that is not put to productive use. That amount of money in the private sector could be used to research new technologies, start small business that create thousands of jobs, or upgrade vital infrastructure. Instead, that money will be siphoned off into unproductive assets which may burden the government for years to come. The great French economist Frederic Bastiat is famous for explaining the difference between what is seen and what is unseen. In this case the bailout’s proponents see the alleged benefits, while they fail to see the jobs, businesses, and technologies not created due to this utter waste of money.

The housing bubble has burst, unemployment is on the rise, and the dollar weakens every day. Unfortunately our leaders have failed to learn from the mistakes of previous generations and continue to lead us down the road toward economic ruin.

Strong words. From someone who knows what they're talking about, no less (see: Barack Obama).

Now, by no means am I impressed with how McCain has handled this crisis. In fact, I'm still looking into what caused it. But for now, let us ponder these wise, wise words from the one, the only Dr. Ron Paul.

Want To Know Why Joe Biden Is Obama's VP?

Because, apparently, he's the only one who knows less about history than the party's nominee. Obama a few months ago:

"What happened in Selma, Alabama and Birmingham also stirred the conscience of the nation...This young man named Barack Obama...came over to this country. He met this woman...(who) had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided...it might...be possible for us to get together and have a child. There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama... So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma, Alabama."

He forgot to mention that this took place in 1965. He was born in 1961.

"Just words, just speeches..."

But now Biden has gone out of his way to upstage that minorly reported-on gaffe.

"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened,'"

That's right. Hoover was President when the stock market crashed, and television was still experimental. Obviously he was trying to tie Obambi to FDR, but no such luck. In fact, terrible luck, with the gaffe streak Biden's had lately:

- He's also said that Hilldog would have made a better VP than he.
- He asked, at a rally, a state legislator to "stand up...let 'em see you." Unfortunately, he didn't actually know who in the heck he was talking about. The legislator was in a wheelchair. This was promptly followed with, "Ohhh, my God."
- When a reporter asked him about that terrible "McCain can't e-mail" ad, Biden said it was terrible. Later, after actually seeing the ad, he called it "OK", and once again called the McCain campaign a bunch of invidious liars.

Oh, Joe Biden. What a crack-up. No wonder the internets are buzzing with rumors that Obama's going to drop him on or around October 5th, due to a manufactured alibi that Biden has "health problems". Then they'll go with Hillary.

Of course, there's so much more that I could write about Joe Biden.

That the President of Iraq said that Biden's "plan for Iraq" drafted a while ago would have been a terrible foreign policy disaster, that it would have been impossible to execute and it could have resulted in ethnic cleansing.

That SC Justice Clarence Thomas brings up Biden in his memoir (read this, very telling):

Senator Biden was the first questioner. Instead of the softball questions he’d promised to ask, he threw a beanball straight at my head, quoting from a speech that I’d given four years earlier at the Pacific Legal Foundation and challenging me to defend what I’d said: “ ‘I find attractive the arguments of scholars such as Stephen Macedo, who defend an activist Supreme Court that would . . . strike down laws restricting property right.’ ” That caught me off guard, and I had no recollection of making so atypical a statement, which shook me up even more. “Now, it would seem to me what you were talking about,” Senator Biden went on to say, “is you find attractive the fact that they are activists and they would like to strike down existing laws that impact on restricting the use of property rights, because you know, that is what they write about.”

Since I didn’t remember making the statement in the first place, I didn’t know how to respond to it. All I could say in reply was that “it has been quite some time since I have read Professor Macedo. . . . But I don’t believe that in my writings I have indicated that we should have an activist Supreme Court or that we should have any form of activism on the Supreme Court.” It was, I knew, a weak answer. Fortunately, though, the young lawyers who had helped prepare me for the hearings had loaded all of my speeches into a computer, and at the first break in the proceedings they looked this one up. The senator, they found, had wrenched my words out of context. I looked at the text of my speech and saw that the passage he’d read out loud had been immediately followed by two other sentences: “But the libertarian argument overlooks the place of the Supreme Court in a scheme of separation of powers. One does not strengthen self-government and the rule of law by having the non-democratic branch of the government make policy.” The point I’d been making was the opposite of the one that Senator Biden claimed I had made.

Throughout my life I’ve often found truth embedded in the lyrics of my favorite records. At Yale, for example, I’d listened often to “Smiling Faces Sometimes,” a song by the Undisputed Truth that warns of the dangers of trusting the hypocrites who “pretend to be your friend” while secretly planning to do you wrong. Now I knew I’d met one of them: Senator Biden’s smooth, insincere promises that he would treat me fairly were nothing but talk. Instead of relaxing, I’d have to keep my guard up.

Ken Duberstein, a Washington lobbyist who had volunteered to help steer me through the confirmation process, called the next morning to say that Joe Biden wanted to talk to me before the vote. I called the Judiciary Committee cloakroom, and after a brief wait, Senator Biden came on the line. I held the receiver sideways so that Virginia could hear him speak as we stood together in the kitchen. The senator said that he was torn over his decision and had actually brought two statements with him to the committee meeting that day, one for me and the other against. He had decided to oppose me. He’d voted to confirm Justice Scalia, he explained, and now regretted it; he thought it was possible that I might turn out like Justice Scalia, so he couldn’t vote for me.

“That’s fine,” I said. “It doesn’t matter to me whether I’m confirmed or not. But I entered this process with a good name, and I want to have it at the end.”

“Judge, I know you don’t believe me,” he replied, “but if any of these last two matters come up, I will be your biggest defender.” (The other matter to which he was referring was the leak of my draft opinion.)

He was right about one thing: I didn’t believe him.

So, besides having hair plugs, what's so special about this big-mouthed, smooth-faced, typical, "old-politics", lying politician?

Well, he's supposed to be "the" aggressive guy for Democrats. But surely he has shot himself in the foot so many times, what with his past racist Indian remarks and his comments about the Presidency not for "on-the-job training," that we'll put this so-called "attack dog" on a leash.