Earlier this year someone introduced me to the refreshing advice and commentary of Nicole Gelinas. Earlier this month at Roll Call Gelinas presented ‘A Simple GOP Plan for Wall Street.’ It is the subject of this post for two reasons.
First, it IS a simple plan and not just for the GOP although directing it toward them is helpful. Surely Democrats are not interested. And second, this blog has urged a return to a time before gutting Glass-Steagall, the attendant Gramm Leach Bliley and the sin of POLS at that time. The contract with America GOP and Bill Clinton set our course for troubles in the markets more than a decade ago.
According to Gelinas ‘Republicans should present to the public a clear goal — allowing free markets to govern Wall Street and a set of simple rules to get there.’
Follow the link to read the rest. You won’t be disappointed. Especially attractive are statements like this one. History shows that these rules work. That is what people usually mean when they use the words, ‘common sense’. Something sorely lacking these days.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
As the healthcare debate drags on more questions are raised than answered. Perhaps good news for drug companies and bad news for the insurance industry. The partisan bill and vote in the Senate Finance Committee last week may lead to a rewrite this week. The last estimate on the cost of the bill was over $800 billion. And about the only sure thing is that it will cost taxpayers more money. Covering uninsured with tax credits and expanding Medicaid will raise tax bills for the rest of us.
If mandates from Congress force insurers to payout more claims with lower premiums anyone’s math should arrive at the obvious conclusion. Politicians will dictate who wins and who loses yet they have the audacity syndrome to label insurance companies as the villains. Simply because they oppose the idea of losses created by Congress.
One self-proclaimed winner from so-called healthcare reform is from David Snow of Medco Health Solutions, Inc. You may find it interesting to follow the Merck spinoff history of this company. There are those who would say the history of Merck and Medco Health Solutions produced a dark cloud in the trustworthy department. That may raise more issues about the winners and losers in reform.
The ten year eighty billion dollar plan between the White House and Big Pharma is as suspect as the Obama Administration’s claim that the insurance industry opposition to reform is ’smoke and mirrors’. The White House should use those mirrors to check their own claims in the debate.
Read the WSJ piece referenced below to arm yourself with more information for the battle in the weeks ahead. And if you think it is alright for insurers to get beat down by politicians with healthcare reform stop to think who else stands to lose. That might be another job for one of those mirrors mentioned earlier.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
The only thing better than Senator Dodd admitting he is responsible for the AIG bonus fiasco is him blaming the Obama Administration for insisting on it. The added ‘bonus’ (pun intended) is liberals still claiming it is someone else’s fault.
In a post earlier on this blog the public’s outrage and desire for their pound of flesh from AIG was suggested to be reasonable only if bonuses were somehow concocted after AIG knew public funding would be forthcoming and their was some sort of sinister arrangement between the bailout and the bonuses. It was a short wiat for the information and the news reports are coming fast and furious. So go ahead America, enjoy your pound of flesh courtesy of Senator Dodd and the Obama Administration.
It just keeps on getting better. Not only is the news beginning to demonstrate what many have been saying for months, that Dodd, Frank and other liberals were neck deep in the subprime mess, but now more news on Fannie Mae execs are getting bonuses for causing billions more in losses at the tainted GSE. Not to be outdone by the GOP and their fall from grace, the liberals and their D party are already in flames since the 2006 midterms and last year’s Presidential election. Hillary Clinton has to be cackling herself to sleep at night wondering if her deals with Obama and becoming Secretary of Moscow Overcharge (remember her team’s language barrier?) will get her in the White House before 2012?
Here are two more great headlines and excerpts:
Dodd won’t take blame for AIG bonuses
Journal Inquirer -
Christopher J. Dodd is denying that he’s to blame for the $165 million in bonuses handed out to 418 employees of the taxpayer bailed-out American …
Let’s see. Dodd denies creating the ‘loophole’ for exec bonuses in taxpayer funded bailouts. Then…..
Which Dodd lie is the American public supposed to believe? It doesn’t matter. At this rate their will be plenty more of them by tomorrow.
Funny how much of what the loyal opposition was being criticized for when it comes to pointing out liberal ties to the subprime meltdown and other precursors to economic woes and the Democratic party’s socialist agenda is finally being echoed in the MSM. And in record time the libs are making good on their proclivity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. That may be the only natural predator of socialist agendas in America. That the evil intentions of Democratic party politics cannot survive their own sinister plots.
Stay tuned their almost certainly has to be more entertainment provided by the party who brought us The New Deal in the days ahead including tomorrow.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
With the President-elect’s choices to fill vacancies for a new administration heavy on former Clinton cronies and the often heard criticism of this being a third Clinton term the ‘change’ mantra of the Dems or ‘change you can believe in’ slogan from the Obama campaign suggest that all you can do is invoke the other Dems mantra….. hope. Not an impressive beginning for the next Presidential Administration but those who support the next President urge withholding criticism until he has had a chance to lead.
If not from the Clinton clan the choices for vacancies in the coming Obama Administration seem to focus on Illinois or Chicago politics. President-elect Barack Obama announced Arne Duncan, the head of the Chicago school system, as education secretary Tuesday and declared that failing to improve classroom instruction is “morally unacceptable for our children.” Relying on Illinois for filling vacancies may be a little risky. One example would be from the press announcement linked just above. A reporter was ‘cutoff’ when inquiring about Rahm Emanuel being on a federal wiretap discussing the Senate vacancy with the Blagojevich camp. All just mentioned are tied to Illinois and Chicago politics. It has been suggested that Blagojevich is not stepping down in hopes of negotiating deals for himself and his wife without which he might use whatever he has to damage Obama or Mayor Daley.
The only change seen so far appears to be 60 or so members of the freshman class for the 111th Congress. Al Franken is still engaged in the recount fight with Norm Coleman in Minnesota. The process, at the outset anyway, was grindingly slow. In the first two hours, the board had ruled on 46 votes challenged by Franken. Of those, the board awarded 26 votes to Coleman, 7 to Franken and 13 to the pile for ballots where intend couldn’t be determined or were disqualified because of marks that might identify the voter.
And Caroline Kennedy has decided to follow in the family tradition seeking to fill the US Senate vacancy left by Hillary Clinton in NY. And of course there is the vacancy in an Illinois seat for the US Senate that surrounds the soap opera that is Governor Blagojevich. The controversy for Kennedy lies in the fact that she emphatically endorsed Obama early in the campaign and now wants Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat. On top of that there are those who publicly question her credentials for being a senator. One quote addressing her name recognition suggested J Lo has name recognition too. She has taken a different path in her life to this point than many in her famous family and that fact was even complimented on this blog in the past. Now that the family’s political prominence may be fading is that the driving force behind her decision?
Then there is the real Democratic party situation which is ‘no change’. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is still, well, Nancy Pelosi. Quick to make statements and predictions as in her forecast that Congress will pass a $600 billion stimulus package early next year but says hopes of accomplishing anything yet this year is fading. For Nancy, that certainly is not new. Continue to predict what will happen and when it does not blame the opposition party. In other words, we did nothing again this time but just wait until next time. Ya, whatever. And BTW Nancy, where is all the money coming from anyway? What happens when it runs out? Are you just going to start printing more?
More of no change from the Dems finds Dianne Feinstein as head of the Senate Intelligence Committee and John Kerry to head the foreign relations committee. Nothing new there and nothing to get excited about unless you are interested in worrying about what will go wrong next. Feinstein’s questionable conflicts of interest with her husband engaged in the defense business and her post on MILCON, the military construction appropriations subcommittee, never saw the light of day even though she resigned that post when allegations surfaced and claims to be an ethics reformer with earmarks transparency legislation. And John Kerry fancies himself some kind of major player in politics. He has seen his share of controversy but that does not necessarily translate into a stellar resume’. Failed attempts at a White House bid and running errands for the Dems elite does not propel a career. It would appear the committee assignment is a consolation prize for not getting Secretary of State after doing the party’s bidding.
The final note in this post on recent news features more irony from the Dems. It would be humorous if not so pathetic. The very people responsible for promoting policies that ignited the subprime mortgage mess are now complaining that the White House has not done enough to relieve homeowners in or near foreclosure.
The GOP has made some progress in returning to conservative principles including fiscal restraint by opposing more bailout programs but the effort is not entirely convincing. The White House seems content to negotiate a legacy by spending us into oblivion and the Dems are right behind them with a $600 billion stimulus package with no end in sight.
It might be fair to say that leaders in both the public and private sectors have lost their collective minds except for the fact these sort of dealings are not new. It is just the small matter of the numbers being used do not fit any reasonable equation. The math is not working. Politics and business as usual have run into a severe problem with reality. How large a burden is the American taxpayer expected to bear. It is understood that the small percentage of wealthy taxpayers at the top pay the majority of taxes in this country. But that is small consolation to the unemployed or those whose own budgets are strained to the breaking point even while employed. Not that we don’t all share in the problems currently faced. But those in a position to affect the most change toward solutions seem to be slightly out of touch with reality. Unless the only reality is to use their influence for their own gain and the rest be damned.
Merry Christmas
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
After the publishing of the press release recounting the announcement of an economic team and corresponding speech by President-elect Obama on Monday November 24, 2008, a follow-up post is required. As with any speech from a radical new leader the injection of a little fear is a good way to get people’s attention.
‘if we do not act swiftly and boldly, most experts now believe that we could lose millions of jobs next year.’
After a relatively vague fear tactic short on reasons why a severe job loss may happen beyond the understanding that the economy is declining comes the equally vague list of solutions to the vague fear tactic predicting impending doom.
‘move forward in a new direction to create new jobs, reform our financial system’
Even John McCain began using the liberal phrase from the 2006 midterms, ‘new direction’, and it made no more sense when he did it. Hope, change, new direction, they’re all rather useless beyond speech fodder for the feeble-minded.
‘We know this won’t be easy, and it won’t happen overnight’
The little quote above is another speech requirement to give advance notice of a solutions failure. That is so it can be brought up later when the providers of the solution that didn’t work regroup to try again.
Below is the first really scary part of the speech. It is a description of the members of the economic team in Obama’s words. The key is the ‘bold new ideas.’ Yes, the word will be used now. Socialism is a bold new idea in a democratic republic. That is because it does not belong. Taking one step further in the quote below one could interpret, as it may be intended, that if main street or the ordinary citizens, workers, working class or proletariat suffer, the aristocrats or wealthy class or upper class featured here as ‘wall street’ cannot thrive. Sure, you could assume he means wall street should not succeed at the expense of main street. But that is not what he said. And one can just as easily understand his words to mean his earlier talking points where the redistribution of wealth is a good thing.
‘a depth of experience and a wealth of bold new ideas — and most of all, who share my fundamental belief that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers’
Whether Mr Geithner knows it or not he may be getting setup to take the heat. Later in the speech Obama indicates the team will present recommendations on ‘the plan’ to those in Washington, etc. That may indicate the economic plan is already assembled and the ‘team’ is merely who will get the credit for it if it fails and a pat on the back from the President-elect if it succeeds as they just helped him implement ‘his’ plan. Why do you suppose he says they share his vision or their ideas compliment his ‘core’ values or visa versa?
On Geithner….
‘He will start his first day on the job with a unique insight into the failures of today’s markets — and a clear vision of the steps we must take to revive them.’
Below is a little reminder of the sitting down with no preconditions with any leader of any country and caving or appeasing to push the Obama agenda. It is no different than listening to the United Nations press statements and we know how their agendas work out.
‘we will need to reach out to countries around the world to craft a global response’
on Larry Summers…..
‘He also championed a range of measures — from tax credits to enhanced lending programs to consumer financial protections — that greatly benefited middle income families.’
Larry Summers has actually received compliment from others in the public sphere on both sides of partisan politics. But the troubling mention of tax credits and ‘enhanced lending programs’ smells like promoting social policy that got us in the subprime mess in the first place. You know, the Community Reinvestment Act in the Carter years, followed by Fannie and Freddie and Franklin Raines, Chris Dodd, Rahm Emanuel, Barney Frank, community organizing, Valerie Jarrett and a host of other accomplices including Tony Rezko that are featured in the Obama rise to power.
But the primary indicator of Obama’s agenda was glimpsed by the following excerpt from this speech.
Did Larry really urge the President-elect to tinker with the social experiment of income inequality or class struggle or other socialist or Marxist doctrine? This is where Barack Obama can be blunt since he already won the election and may believe one term as a socialist President is adequate to shape this country into his own little kingdom. If he has enough accomplices he may just pull it off. That is what should worry you.
The New Deal is alive and well in the Obama Administration. What twists will be added along those lines based on his statements about Christina Romer?
‘perhaps best known for her work on America’s recovery from the Great Depression and the robust economic expansion that followed.’
Yes, let’s see if we can destroy all the mechanisms in place to restore strength to the economy and return to soup kitchens and the government running everything. Then as they don’t tell you in the speech we can enter another wartime economy like WWII and by much pain and suffering embark on a post war economic boom which by the way featured the baby boom who is now retiring and you know the rest of the story.
‘Finally, we know that rebuilding our economy will require action on a wide array of policy matters — from education and health care to energy and Social Security. Without sound policies in these areas, we can neither enjoy sustained economic growth nor realize our full potential as a people.’
In the quote above, more spending targets are featured along with the rhetorical reference to his socialist agenda and reaching THAT full potential.
‘So I am pleased that Melody Barnes, one of the most respected policy experts in America, will be serving as Director of my Domestic Policy Council’…..
Together with health care lobbyist consultant Tom Daschle, Barnes will tweak the Obama health care issue for all of us. Barack Obama is connecting it with the agenda on economics. And her other social programs will be born from the following description of her work.
‘As Executive Vice President for Policy at the Center for American Progress, Melody directed a network of policy experts dedicated to finding solutions for struggling middle class families. She also served as Chief Counsel to the great Senator Ted Kennedy on the Senate Judiciary Committee, working on issues ranging from crime to immigration to bankruptcy, and fighting tirelessly to protect civil rights, women’s rights and religious freedom. ‘
It may sound good to some but one must translate the rhetoric in terms of how it will be used later. When complaints roll in that the Obama agenda does not reflect campaign pledges besides the tired old excuse that things have changed (part of the change mantra) the Obama Administration will remind us all that this was laid out when the economic team was announced and we weren’t paying attention.
Here’s another scary insight from Barack Obama on Melody Barnes and his domestic (socialist) policy.
‘ Melody’s brilliant legal mind — and her long experience working to secure the liberties on which this nation was founded and secure opportunity for those left behind — make her a perfect fit for DPC Director.’
The quote below is a reminder that socialism is not all upside for those in the worker class supporting such notions. The belt tightening for families and businesses will result from the government interfering in just about everything.
‘the turmoil on Wall Street means a new round of belt-tightening for families and businesses on Main Street’
The quote below is another out for Obama so he can continue on certain items and if they fail use the same argument from the campaign that all the bad was caused by President Bush. If anyone in Congress from the GOP opposes him they will receive blame for failures too. But there is nothing new in that.
‘And my Administration will honor the public commitments made by the current Administration to address this crisis.’
An entire paragraph is cited to indicate what is in store for this country when the ‘new direction’ Obama agenda really gets moving
‘Further, beyond any immediate actions we may take, we need a recovery plan for both Wall Street and Main Street — a plan that stabilizes our financial system and gets credit flowing again, while at the same time addressing our growing foreclosure crisis, helping our struggling auto industry, and creating and saving 2.5 million jobs — jobs rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, modernizing our schools, and creating the clean energy infrastructure of the twenty-first century. Because at this moment, we must both restore confidence in our markets — and restore the confidence of middle-class families, who find themselves working harder, earning less, and falling further and further behind.’
Not in sequential order but the first reaction points to the overuse of the terms middle-class and families ‘finding themselves’….’falling further and further behind’. During the Clinton Administration, Mr Clinton had stated that incomes were decreasing in value for average Americans for a long time. The Obama characterization suggests this is something new as if to blame it on President Bush. While it still remains does not mean it started recently.
It is too lengthy a task for one post to detail all the spending, policy and legislative plans indicated by the Obama speech paragraph quoted above. It should be sufficient to say each issue included in that paragraph represents a combination of proposals or initiatives that based on other parts of the speech need no development but are already available to be viewed as new ideas from the most recent hires to the Obama team. This has been the announcement of socialism to come and the smoke screen to allow the uninformed to sign on to the audacity of hope and mantra of change with yes we can as the collective acceptance witnessed in the election of this mystery man as the next American President.
In the remaining parts of the speech Mr Obama again forgets his expression that we have one president at a time by having this team ‘consult’ with everyone in Washington and saying he will be briefed daily and tell us all what is being done in the next few weeks and months on his agenda before inauguration. Maybe a little premature for his role as President. Adding that Americans cannot wait and hope for solutions contradicts that liberal mainstay slogan of hope and change.
When he says ‘to scour our federal budget, line-by-line, and make meaningful cuts and sacrifices as well — something I’ll be discussing further tomorrow’ you can be confident his spending ideas will replace those already on the books. While cutting spending is a good idea, merely replacing one spending item with an equal sized substitute changes nothing in the equation. But it means where Obama wants to spend will replace where others want to spend. That is no guarantee of an improvement contrary to the belief of some. More money remaining with the taxpayer for them to use as they see fit is a better idea.
Could it be that in closing the speech his opinion of setting aside partisan politics and working together and planning to do so as President really means others have to concede and submit to his wishes? If you think this is being unfair and is not giving Barack Obama a chance to be President consider this. The closer the President-elect gets to inauguration the more hints, clues and parts of his agenda are featured in his words. They are becoming less vague and more specific. And with each new item exposed by the one some refer to as the Messiah another tidbit of socialism is supported.
The overuse of middle-class can easily sound like historic speeches and doctrine of others when they used working class, under-class or even proletariat. Wall Street can be replaced with aristocrat or the wealth-class or upper-class. Don’t so easily dismiss the criticism of others raising the issue of class warfare. A plan for both Wall Street and Main Street can as easily mean two plans as one. With the bailouts by taxpayer money of private sector entities directed by the public sector the notion of government run businesses is a socialist idea not far from the actions of this republic’s democratic leaders’ actions.
The jury may still be out but the evidence is piling up suggesting what may be feared in an Obama Administration will come true. If being fair requires ignoring the scrutiny required and expressing disfavor of the plans a newly elected President puts forward then being unfair is the appropriate action to take. It is often said the people get the government they deserve. For those who did not vote for this President-elect is the responsibility to hold him accountable for doing what is right for the nation in order to get a government we deserve. The manner in which this nation has survived as a republic through good and bad must be preserved. If a president intends to do something that would not preserve, protect and defend the Constitution it would be a violation of the oath of office. To radically change this democracy would violate that oath. Especially if that radical change included socialism or Marxism. Not a stretch for the uber liberal in this country.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
Remember how it all started for John McCain’s VP selection? Christians applauded her piety, gun-lovers her love of guns and pro-lifers the Down’s syndrome baby she calls “perfect”. And nearly everyone warmed to her moose-skinning authenticity. “I give her extreme credit for being a mother of five and a governor. I’m a mother of five. And I can barely keep milk in the house,” said Kelley McDonald of New Jersey. John McCain was both applauded for selecting a woman as his running mate in view of the Democratic party’s refusal to pair up their two largest vote getters, Obama and Clinton (Hillary) and criticized for not selecting either Lieberman, Pawlenty or Ridge.
So some of the sheen surrounding the selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as John McCain’s Vice-Presidential nominee has worn off. Introduced as an ideal compliment to the maverick style of John McCain, accolades from many in the GOP touted her courage for challenging her own party, fighting the good fight against big oil and opposing the bridge to nowhere as well as placing the state jet on Ebay. Since then she has been accused of supporting the bridge to nowhere, conspiring with big oil, losing money on the sale of the jet and fund raising for Ted Stevens. About the only thing her detractors have not attacked is her rating as the most popular governor in the country. Although some have said they’re not so sure about that either.
In keeping with the tradition of late night talk show hosts poking fun at public figures, Tina Fey has made a living off of Sarah Palin lately but one has to wonder if that is simply using what is popular for comedic fodder or using one’s own popularity to promote a political agenda. Some of it is funny and credit is due for that but how much of it is more of the same from Hollywood lefties. Speaking of lefties, how about the kook fringe and their over the top practices?
And the GOP convention had more wonderful attempts from the kook fringe of the DNC. Outside the Republican convention, largely peaceful protests were marred by a few thugs who smashed windows. More violent disruptions were avoided, however, because police informants infiltrated a gang of anarchists who were allegedly planning them. Police seized weapons and buckets of urine, apparently intended for throwing at people. Lawyers for some of those arrested demanded the return of their possessions. “Who should we return the urine to?” asked the judge, according to the Star-Tribune, a local paper.
The less than inspiring tactics of the kook fringe were not lost on their Messiah either as one of his campaign ads criticized John McCain as being out of touch for not using technology like the PC and email. Did they really not know that Mr McCain is not able to do some of those things as a result of injuries sustained while a POW? McCain was also criticized for referencing his service to country by what those critics claimed was overuse of the topic. Perhaps the reason why they did this is that their own candidate has no similar history to report. And the Messiah is all too willing to sidestep questions about his affiliations with domestic terrorist William Ayers as well as Rev Wright and Tony Rezko. Which makes it hard to believe that his campaign reference to ‘lipstick on a pig’ was not a shot directed at Sarah Palin especially when he used it so soon after her campaign quip about hockey mom’s and pitbulls.
The MSM is equally guilty of conspiring against Sarah Palin in support of their left side agenda. Pouring out an abundance of trash such as whether or not her baby she calls ‘perfect’ is her’s or her daughter’s. Focusing on the pregnancy of one of Sarah Palin’s daughter and questioning the Governor’s parenting skills as well as criticism of her career choices and having it all when the same criteria is not applied to men. What the hell does any of that have to do with Sarah Palin running for Vice-President of the United States?
The one and only VP debate for this year may put an end to the attacks on Sarah Palin but that is doubtful even if she is viewed as a decisive winner after the competition. What appears to be the reason for all the Palin bashing is the rift within the DNC for not nominating Hillary Clinton or inviting her to join the ticket after nominating Barack Obama. That the Clintons are expected to fully support Barack Obama for President is a purely political demand from the Democratic party. It is also understandable given the dominance of party politics in this country in addition to there only really being two parties in existance in terms of real power. It would be fair to say that neither Presidential candidate is ideal as viewed by the majority of party voters in the US. Things being what they are, how often has any candidate been popular enough to ignite genuine overwhelming support from thier party followers and independents? The pont is this year as in most years past you make a selection from two choices and you may wish you had a viable third option.
By luck of the draw Obama is seeing some renewed interest as the polls may suggest simply because the current financial troubles favor the opponents of the party occupying the White House. Considering the fierce battle between Bush and McCain in the 2000 primaries it is hard to fathom how anyone really sees the two as similar. Obama’s reference to McCain voting with the White House ninety percent of the time is a lame argument. If you study the voting records of most politicians that will be the likely result. Most politicians vote with their party unless they need political cover. Sort of like the Senate voting for a bailout when the House did not. House members are mostly up for re-election while that is not the case in the Senate.
If you let the curent financial crisis determine your vote this November as you blame John McCain for it you should first consider that he supported an attempt to avoid this crisis in 2005. The Democratic party has a much more vested interest in the subprime mortgage mess, Fannie and Freddie and folks like Chris Dodd who are in the pocket of the aforementioned GSE’s or government sponsored enterprises.
As for the hope and change mantra from the DNC, et al, hope buys you nothing and change will come no matter who is elected since George Bush of course was term limited and Cheney was never interested in a run for President. The truth is the Democratic party is mostly to blame for the current financial problems. Those problems will only increase if Obama is elected and is allowed to continnue the party agenda that is responsible for the subprime mess inspired by the Community Reinvestment Act (Carter), the deregulation of banking (Clinton) and the support of Fannie and Freddie (Dodd and cronies).
Have a nice time watching the VP debate. Think it through before you vote. Let not the idea of change misguide your selection for President this fall.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
This is an updated post from an earlier version on this blog. The video link above is for a new version of the original video that was removed from YouTube explained as copyright violations Here is another version of the video for your viewing pleasure
Thanks to at least two people for this video, which is extremely well done, WATCH IT
Maggie at Maggie’s Notebook and midpointman or mouthpeace found at the video source
Here’s the original post at Maggie’s from which this post was inspired…. Burning Down the House……
As stated elsewhere, including [ Poll ] Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis? , post this video, link to it, email it and be respectful as bad behavior is a turn off. If those in the battleground states view this video and further investigate the story they may well see as even Bill Clinton put it, ‘the Obama Fairy Tale’ and come to understand what is needed on November 4, 2008. Well, it’s needed now but the election is scheduled then. 
Point is folks, if you don’t view the video and do your homework another case of those responsible will go unresolved and more of the same will be perpetrated in the future. Things are not always what they seem and you must take the initiative by doing your part to fix it. So start with the video and the next steps will be clear to you after that.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
In the midst of near financial hysteria worldwide and certainly in the US one of the players, in the crisis that goes by many names, is Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd. He may not be getting all the credit he so richly deserves. When the Democrats won back the majority in Congress in the 2006 midterms and Dodd became Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee as well as his party’s claim that they would achieve a New Direction for America, Dodd offered the following quote.
“At the end of my tenure on this committee,” Dodd said in early 2007, “I want it to be said that the safety and soundness of our financial institutions was not weakened on my watch.” So how’s that working for you so far, Senator Dodd? “I’m proud of my chairmanship,” Dodd said in an interview Friday. He said he considered himself a pro-consumer lawmaker and said campaign cash plays no role in his thinking. Can a person with a minimum of average intelligence believe that campaign cash from banking and other financial interests plays no role in a politician’s thinking?
A year and a half later, Dodd acknowledges that the nation’s finances are in an “economic maelstrom.” Even for a politician, denying the financial meltdown caused by unscrupulous members of both the private and public sector is beyond absurd. Just the three quotes from Dodd presented so far raises the question of how much money did Senator Dodd receive while heading the banking committee and before?
Dodd has received more money from the donors in the financial sector than Presidential candidates! Hillary Clinton and John Kerry may not be an issue in this based on their failed attempts for the White House. John McCain is at least on record in 2005 for supporting S. 190 to provide increased oversight, etc., in the housing market. The bill was sponsored by Chuck Hagel and co-sponsored by Elizabeth Dole and John McCain but apparently died in committee on which Dodd, Hagel and Dole serve. And since then Dodd became Chairman. Obama claims to have supported such legislation but no evidence was found before publishing this post.
Dodd claims to have sounded the alarm on the meltdown but that was in 2007 when it was already underway. Sort of like setting the house on fire and then calling the Fire Dept. So how does one, in good conscience, take massive amounts of campaign contributions from financial interests, claim it does not influence your decisions and in addition claim you warned people about the problem but not until it was too late while the committee you chair did little or nothing to avoid the problem?
While preparing this post something that occurs from time to time happened again. But this time it seemed a little strange and suggested someone had second thoughts about raising the bar on this issue. An interesting hit returned on a Google search found the source announcing the content had been removed from their database and was not available for viewing or purchase. Thanks to the cache at Google it is presented here as found for readers to consider.
Is Sen. Dodd More Hero Or Villian In The Current Financial Crisis?
Published on 9/28/2008
Feel free to comment on the above since it appears it won’t be happening at the original source. It could cause one to wonder why it was removed.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
Thanks to at least two people for this video, which is extremely well done, WATCH IT
Maggie at Maggie’s Notebook and midpointman or mouthpeace found at the video source
Here’s the original post at Maggie’s from which this post was inspired…. Burning Down the House……
As stated elsewhere, including [ Poll ] Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis? , post this video, link to it, email it and be respectful as bad behavior is a turn off. If those in the battleground states view this video and further investigate the story they may well see as even Bill Clinton put it, ‘the Obama Fairy Tale’ and come to understand what is needed on November 4, 2008. Well, it’s needed now but the election is scheduled then. Point is folks, if you don’t view the video and do your homework another case of those responsible will go unresolved and more of the same will be perpetrated in the future. Things are not always what they seem and you must take the initiative by doing your part to fix it. So start with the video and the next steps will be clear to you after that.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
Trackposted to Rosemary’s Thoughts, A Blog For All, Right Truth, DragonLady’s World, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, , third world county, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog
Faultline USA
Conservative Thoughts
The ink is barely dry on Biden and Dodd dropping out of the 2008 race and you know that Senator John Kerry’s endorsement of Barack Obama was planned with the Senate candidate from Illinois. Is this a slick move to woo undecided voters, the 2008 version of the 2004 anointing of the Dems party elite and do Biden, Dodd and Kerry stand to profit politically and otherwise by winning cabinet posts if Obama would be successful?
Below are reports from Kerry’s 2004 cabinet plans and strategy as well as a post from Michelle Malkin on the topic. The only part of this campaign strategy that is compelling points to the possibility that the Democratic party elite is shunning Hillary Rodham Clinton and her former President husband Bill. When Katie Couric interviewed HRC this week to help her continue to market the tears thing and further the network’s desire for another Clinton White House she noted the house they were at as Hillary’s home in NY. With some reports suggesting Bill has tried to sabotage Hillary’s campaign and the living arrangements being what they are, how does anyone consider them married other than technically? Excuse the spontaneous thought please. Can’t help but wonder about these things and worse, why so many choose to ignore all of what is wrong with the Clinton clan.
One last note, that may explain why John Edwards is still in the race. He sold out to the Dems party elite by caving to their anointing of John Kerry in 04. So he may only be in it to get the nod for VP on HRC’s ticket if she would end up with the nomination. Any way you slice it, with the Dems you get the same old c__p. And they want you to believe they are change agents. Maybe quick change artists but not change agents.
It would appear the Dems party elite does not believe Clinton can be the GOP. It is also quite possible that the cold, calculating queen of cringe cannot be trusted to attend to party business. So the party is grooming the ‘naive and irresponsible’ other rookie Senator to do the party bidding.
By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 22, 2004; Page A23
By Peter Grier | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
I fear Kerry might be selected to fill a cabinet post if one of the Dims is elected. Hope I am wrong, but could you imagine him as SecDef or Homeland …
And who could forget Bill Richardson, his withdrawal and resume’ items in the Clinton cabinet. If you read the 911 Commission report that the Dems love to mention, you can relive the 911 mistakes of Bill and Hillary as well as Mr Richardson in failing to eliminate Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Maybe Richardson gets his pick if either Obama or Clinton make it to the White House. Certainly buying off Vilsack earlier in the campaign ensures a post election job for him too. These people are more like job service than public service. So where are the change agents? Don’t kid yourself this is business as usual in Washington. But the Dems take it to a whole new level. And if you add Pelosi and Reid to the equation as well as Boxer and Feinstein and their money connections and Clinton’s criminal campaign contributors, this country could be in a world of hurt come 2009.
According to the Rasmussen report Giuliani and Thompson lead the national polls for the GOP at 23 and 25% respectively near the beginning of October 2007 while McCain and Romney essentially shared second at 10 and 13% and Huckabee was not a factor in mid-single digits. For the Democrats, Clinton held a whopping 44 or 45% with Obama trailing in the 20’s and Edwards in the teens.
What a difference a couple of months can make. Currently, at Rasmussen Reports, Huckabee has nearly the first place numbers held by Giuliani and Thompson earlier at 22%. Giuliani and Romney are in second with mid teens as McCain and Thompson follow in third in the lower teens. While McCain has been mentioned in news reports as gaining some strength of late, for example, the Peter King endorsement, his 13% is representative of the last months. Giuliani and Thompson have slipped while Huckabee and Romney have gained. The Dems, nationally have not changed, but Clinton is faltering in the early state polls while Obama continues to climb and Edwards appears the same and steady. For the GOP, Huckabee and Romney lead Iowa.
With the religious questions still lingering in the campaign a recent poll indicated eight out of ten likely Republican voters said religion was not a factor in their vote. Of those voters the support for each candidate may be reflected in the other polls. For the twenty percent who say religion is a factor most suggest support for Huckabee. A related story suggest Romney has much ’silent’ support in addition to what the other poll numbers show in Iowa. Huckabee is thought to have much support in Iowa but that has not translated to strength in other early states. A first for Huckabee in Iowa may give him competing strength in subsequent early state contests while less than second may see his recent surge fade. For the Dems, less than first in Iowa may signal the beginning of the end for Clinton while a first for Obama could build a breakout leading into the New Hampshire and other states.
At USA Election Polls one could say Iowa is a statistical tie for each party. As most people know, Huckabee and Romney are a tie as well as Clinton and Obama are tied. Several delegate count listings have what one would expect based on national polls through the campaign to date. But when averages or proportional distribution of state delegates are considered the game changes dramatically.
In New Hampshire it is Romney and McCain or Romney, McCain and Giuliani for the GOP. At one time Giuliani was stronger but his strategy of focus on the ‘big’ states has seen the numbers change. Clinton and Obama for the Dems mirrors Iowa. With the NY connections for Giuliani and a NY Senate seat for Clinton, they were much stronger in the Northeast early on but things are changing.
But all this is just a snapshot in time and too much should not be read into it. Just like Huckabee’s recent rise, two months ago, who’d a thunk it? The view from this blog sees Giuliani conceding early states. The Huckabee surge is only a factor in one state thus far. Clinton continues to decline. Obama continues to climb. Edwards in holding steady and leads in at least one poll in Iowa for the Dems. Thompson has slid some while McCain and Romney have maintained or increased strength, the exception has been the tie for Romney and Huckabee in Iowa.
If forced to pick only from the Democratic party offerings this blog would recommend Obama or Edwards. Only because they are not Clinton and are the only other Dems candidates with a chance to win. But then Biden, Dodd or Kucinich would not be selected here, under the conditions mentioned, or under any other circumstance. That would be why this blog would not vote for a Democrat in 2008. Oh, did Richardson get overlooked? Yes.
On the GOP side, this blog has always supported Mitt Romney for President and will continue to do so. Based on some of the positions of Giuliani and Huckabee, this blog could only support them if they were the last ones standing. While some concerns remain about an outstanding American named Senator John McCain, primarily due to his support of amnesty last summer, if he was nominated he would get this blog’s full support. Nearly the same can be said for Fred Thompson. While some of the early criticism appears to have been a lame attempt to discredit him, since entering the campaign, his performance is a bit puzzling and an aura of almost hesitation causes some questions. But again, if he was the nominee for the GOP he would get this blog’s support.
That brings it back to Mitt Romney. Romney possesses the attributes required to be successful. The criticism voiced about Romney may be more a matter of political gamesmanship and the strategy of rivals. Questions about his faith are a distraction. Questions about his positions may reflect a willingness to respond to the will of the electorate or the strength to do what is right on behalf of them. People do change their minds for good reason although it is popular in politics to highlight that fact as a flaw.
On the practical side, Mitt Romney is credited even by some of his critics for successfully correcting a massive budget shortfall in Massachusetts. He successfully repaired a failing Olympic organization. He has successfully rebuilt million or billion dollar companies. He can do the same for a debt ridden nation. He has the knowledge to surround himself with a team to produce results and strengthen this country. With the economy taking over first place as the most important issue for the 2008 election, Mitt Romney is the one superior choice for President. Not only can he deliver leadership to our economic troubles but the remainder of policy matters are well within his grasp. His faith and family values can also restore some of the traditional concepts that have made this country great. These are not campaign tricks. The man has demonstrated throughout his life that intelligence, discipline, hard work and values have driven his success. He can apply those attributes and principles to leading this nation and getting it done.
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, third world county, Faultline USA, Pirate’s Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Big Dog’s Weblog, Cao’s Blog, Wolf Pangloss, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Enough Barack Obama news presented itself today that it is time to look at his campaign a little closer. But before the focus is entirely aimed at Obama, a little reflection on the campaign flavor of the three mousecateers is in order. Compared to the careers on the other side of the campaign trail, rather than referring to Clinton, Obama and Edwards as mousecateers, the three rookies would be appropriate. No matter how badly Hillary Rodham Clinton wants you to believe she is the ‘experience’ candidate and calls Obama ‘naive and irresponsible’, the fact is none of them come complete with credentials qualifying them as Presidential candidates. It may just be all the Democratic party has to offer. While Biden and Dodd have more experience, their campaigns show little support and their has not been a former Senator in the White House in a long time.
Clinton slips against Republicans, Obama attacks
It is fair to say that Obama was on the attack before Monday even if few noticed. Early in the campaign Clinton’s two party rivals followed her lead. When Clinton rolled out an issue piece, Obama and Edwards responded with their own version. Unfortunately, each issue piece needed a name attached for the voters to distinguish one from the others. Obama tried to brand himself the change agent while Clinton opted for fake Southern accents and appearances at events in which she appeared out of place. Edwards took up the classic liberal approach to finding villains and victims with his ineffective poverty tour. The three rookies were trying to campaign. All three touted the party stand of antiwar, anti-troops and other anti-American themes to court their fringe kook far left liberal base complete with surrender monkeys. The Democratic party is perilously invested in that strategy and their candidates mirror the sentiment.
Obama Hits Hillary’s Experience
11/27/07, 12:18 am EST
None of the three have an impressive resume. Hillary Rodham Clinton continues to press her stay at the White House as her qualifying Presidential experience. Obama makes a point about that being ridiculous. Some say Obama’s time as a US Senator and his time served in the Illinois state legislature tops Clinton’s time as a US Senator and stay in the White House. The simple answer is they are both rookies and no amount of exagerration will change the facts.
Obama and Clinton spar over health care
by Mike Dorning
Not surprisingly both Clinton and Obama miss the point with health care. The issue has been reduced to a discussion of how to solve the uninsured problem, naming it universal health care and allowing those who will to assume it will solve the health care issue. Another sign of rookie inexperience is to portray a potential solution as the end game for an issue resolution. The GOP tends to characterize their offerings as simply a way to get everyone covered and nothing more. While the Dems want you to believe something called universal health care will solve everything.
So far Obama’s campaign makes statements about Clinton when the opposing party has raised a point about one of her many flaws. Merely piling on is less risky than taking the initiative to do more than defend yourself against an opponent’s attacks but is also is less effective and yet another indication that Obama is a rookie as well as Clinton and Edwards.
Can Oprah Effect boost Obama’s political dream?
Nov 27, 2007 04:30 AM
Tim Harper
WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON–She can move books.
We’ll soon learn if Oprah Winfrey can move votes.
You could say that fair is fair. Hillary Rodham Clinton has built her campaign’s foundation on being the husband of former President Bill Clinton. Her only claim of experience comes from living with him in the White House. So naturally when Barack Obama decides it is time for the same thing, he enlists Oprah Winfrey. But it would appear as though the ‘daytime diva’ started this chapter in the Obama campaign by offering her help.
If you have ever witnessed the fan worship in Oprah’s events you will likely have noticed the wide appeal she has that obviously crosses racial, ethnic and gender demographics. So great, now we have two rookie candidates relying on star power that ultimately has nothing to do with being President but may have serious implications on who becomes the nominee. So if you are a Democrat who do you want selecting your candidate for nomination?
His strategists believe that he can win support from cautious female voters worried that Mrs Clinton is unelectable. A new poll last night suggested that she trails the top five Republican presidential candidates in head-to-head match-ups. Such vulnerability is particularly true in Iowa, which has never backed a woman for statewide office or Congress.
The thought occurred while adding the excerpt just above that a backlash should emerge from women everywhere that these two Democratic candidate campaigns are playing them. Only time will tell and we may never really know how this particular demographic responds to being used so blatantly.
This is the one topic for which it was a long wait for Barack Obama to employ. Granted, a black candidate is probably damned if he does or doesn’t on the topic of racial issues. Not engaging the discussion may lend support for those who ask if he is black enough for black voters as happened shortly after his campaign announcement. Or those who view a topic suited only to a candidate of color as using the race card to his advantage. Obama being black and racial issues not being invented by him are facts that he cannot influence. Deciding on whether or not to address them is something he can influence. The perspective here is that it may have been more advantageous to address the topic as it is raised by others. Let someone else get it started.
Obama Casts Self As Civil Rights Successor
With the story above it is clear that Barack Obama has chosen to embrace the role of civil rights activist. That lays to rest the earlier question of how he would handle the topic of race. It is viewed as a rookie move here simply because the campaign upside is limited and it exposes him to more possible criticism. That criticism has been around before. The question of whether he is the genuine article and how he is viewed by black voters seems a difficult campaign equation to calculate. Hence the conclusion that there is more risk to this option than upside.
Everything about Barack Obama screams rookie while it would appear the strategy to brand him the agent of change as stated earlier is intended to overcome the lack of experience. Change for the sake of change and championed by a rookie with unclear intentions is not something a risk averse voter would embrace. Whether the first viable black candidate can overcome such hurdles is yet to be determined. One thing seems clear. As the real voting edges nearer, Barack Obama appears to be nibbling away successfully at the Clinton lead.
Nearly in unison the Democratic party Presidential candidates promise older Americans more health and retirement enhancements. The victim search is alive and well in the Democratic party and is not lost on their candidates. Like Hillary Rodham Clinton working on her southern accent to speak in the south or John Edwards touting his poverty tour. Could it be any more obvious?
Edwards criticizes Clinton again for her close ties with lobbyists as hindering health care reform even 
though his money sources have recently exposed a ‘tainted lawyer’ whose donation he relinquished but kept the rest of the bundle. A fine example of do as I say, not as I do.
Clinton again reinforces the idea that her experience in health care reform makes her the best choice on the issue. That may be true if failure is what interests you. The same crew that developed her nineties initiative that failed also assembled her latest proposal. One Wall Street Journal opinion panned the current initiative. Another report indicates all the Dems health reform proposals are modeled on the Clinton plan yet Edwards claims Clinton copied his. Who cares, John, they are all flawed.
Both Biden and Richardson had nothing substantial to contribute to the discussions so they did not disappoint by not offering anything substantial. And Senator Dodd just can’t resist touting his involvement in the Family and Medical Leave Act which is not really on point. And his version of history may not be entirely accurate based on Congressional records available online.
Barack Obama may have been the most honest of all the Democratic candidates for he did not bother to show up. You have to believe a candidate chooses the most beneficial use of their time in a campaign. His strong suit is prepared speeches and not prepared debates. Seems odd since both activities are choreographed and staying on message should not be difficult but apparently Obama has trouble responding to the debate environment.
Since the Dems are repeating campaign performances this post can do the same. On supporting the troops and victory in Iraq and elsewhere plus national defense, security, border and immigration control as well as health care issues the Democratic party candidates fail miserably. The Dems being more afraid of MoveOn than disrespecting the very people who directly protect this nation is yet another current revelation that exposes their true agenda. Motivate the far left fringe Democratic party base regardless of how destructive it is to this country.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
Five Democrats discuss health care in IA
By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press WriterThu Sep 20, 10:57 PM ET
Five Democratic presidential candidates pledged during an AARP forum Thursday night to spend more on health care and bolster retirement programs crucial to politically potent seniors.
All five pledged to protect Social Security, revamp Medicare’s prescription drug program and expand home health care programs. They also promised to provide universal health care but rejected a Canadian-style single payer plan.
US Officials Go to Congress to Discuss Crisis Over Bad Loans
By Barry Wood
Washington
21 August 2007
The fallout from bad loans in the U.S. housing sector Tuesday continued to affect global financial markets. VOA’s Barry Wood reports the U.S. treasury secretary and central bank chief met with a key congressional leader to discuss economic woes caused by problems in the U.S. housing market.
Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson came to Capitol Hill to meet with Christopher Dodd, the head of the Senate Banking Committee. Afterward, Senator Dodd, a Democratic Party presidential hopeful, expressed concern about how the month old credit squeeze is affecting home owners.
“We’re at a 37-year high on foreclosures in this country, a 10-year low on housing starts,” said Senator Dodd. “This is a very serious issue.”
Several financial institutions have gotten into trouble high-risk borrowers have had difficulty meeting their payments on home mortgages.
The weakness in the housing sector has caused tremors on Wall Street, sending the stock prices of some big financial institutions down significantly. Treasury Secretary Paulson says the distress in housing is likely to slow the pace of economic growth.
“What’s going on right now in the capital markets will in all likelihood take a penalty, take a toll on economic growth,” said Secretary Paulson. “Economic growth will be less than otherwise would have been.”
President Bush also commented about the economy Tuesday, but he said American economic fundamentals remain strong.
“Inflation is down, interest rates are low, the employment picture is strong, exports are up,” said President Bush. “We grew at over three percent in the second quarter. The fundamental question is, is there enough liquidity in our system as people re-adjust risk? And the answer is yes there is.”
Last Friday, in an effort to restore confidence and steady the markets, the Federal Reserve lowered one of its interest rates and said it is ready to provide cash to financial institutions that need it.
You are currently browsing the archives for the Dodd category.
Copyright © 2003-2006 Ulysses Ronquillo. All rights reserved.
Powered by WordPress v 2.0.3.
Page in 0.437 seconds.
