Here is the plan being offered by the House Republicans.   From Politico.com:

* Rather than providing taxpayer funded purchases of frozen mortgage assets, we should adopt a mortgage insurance approach to solve the problem.

* Currently the federal government insures approximately half of all mortgage backed securities. (MBS) We can insure the rest of current outstanding MBS; however, rather than taxpayers funding insurance, the holders of these assets should pay for it. Treasury Department can design a system to charge premiums to the holders of MBS to fully finance this insurance.

* Have Private Capital Injection to the Financial Markets, Not Tax Dollars. Instead of injecting taxpayer capital into the market to produce liquidity, private capital can be drawn into the market by removing regulatory and tax barriers that are currently blocking private capital formation. Too much private capital is sitting on the sidelines during this crisis.

* Temporary tax relief provisions can help companies free up capital to maintain operations, create jobs, and lend to one another. In addition, we should allow for a temporary suspension of dividend payments by financial institutions and other regulatory measures to address the problems surrounding private capital liquidity.  

*Immediate Transparency, Oversight, and Market Reform. Require participating firms to disclose to Treasury the value of their mortgage assets on their books, the value of any private bids within the last year for such assets, and their last audit report.

* Wall Street Executives should not benefit from taxpayer funding. Call on the SEC to review the performance of the Credit Rating Agencies and their ability to accurately reflect the risks of these failed investment securities.  

*Create a blue ribbon panel with representatives of Treasury, SEC, and the Fed to make recommendations to Congress for reforms of the financial sector by January 1, 2009.

My gut reaction:

Insurance – OK but what are the rates and do the companies have the cash to pay for the insurance? Liquidity has been a huge issue so how does making them pay more $ help that problem?

Private Capital – Yeah, motherhood, apple pie, “God bless America!” Capital isn’t coming into these markets until they see opportunity. You can’t just say “do it” and expect seriously spooked investors to hop back in.

Tax relief – I don’t get this one at all. These companies are writing off these loans and creating significant tax losses. I can’t imagine that many of them will have much net income that this even matters.

Transparency – Amen

Executives not benefiting – Amen

Blue Ribbon Panel – haven’t seen one yet that really helped but OK

My gut is that while this probably protects the taxpayer more, I don’t know that it would provide the enema that these markets seem to need.

Your thoughts?

Revisions/extensions (4:15 pm 9/26/2008, steveegg) – There’s a couple of bullet points not mentioned by Politico in the release from Paul Ryan, my Congresscritter and main sponsor of the House Republican plan:

– Limit Federal Exposure for High Risk Loans: Mandate that the GSEs no longer
securitize any unsound mortgages

– Call on the SEC to audit reports of failed companies to ensure that the financial
standing of these troubled companies was accurately portrayed.

I haven’t seen the specifics of the tax and regulatory relief, but I strongly suspect that relief will extend beyond the financial sector. Additional cash would allow companies to rely less on the non-existent credit market to function.

Revisions/extensions (4:15 pm 9/26/2008, shoebox)   – One thing I haven’t seen in any of the information being debated is an elimination or a set aside of the requirement to “mark to market.”   As I understand the issue, the “liquidity crunch” is being largely caused by two issues 1. banks are afraid that lending to another institution could leave them exposed as the perception is that any institution could file bankruptcy at any time, therefore, no inter institution loans.   2.   the bankruptcy scenario is being created because the institutions have insufficient capital as they continue to write down loans each time someone else has a fire sale.   The point being that much of this problem is not a liquidity issue in the sense of their not being enough money floating around but liquidity in the sense that they cannot lend anymore because the the capital they have remaining is already “pledged” for their existing loans

As more and more information becomes available about the meeting yesterday at the White House and the Republican revolt against the bailout plan, it is more and more obvious that political gamesmanship is what has occurred during his week and not any kind of “successful negotiations!”

It first appeared that John McCain’s announcement to come to Washington had caused the Democrats and Republicans to find a compromise.   I thought that’s what had happened when Chris Dodd announced about noon yesterday that an agreement in principle had been reached.

It appeared then, that the White House meeting would be nothing more than a bunch of handshaking and self congratulations amongst the Washington political leadership from both sides.

Instead, according to various articles, Republicans announced that they were not supportive of the amended proposal and argued for a different plan.

How do I know that the entire negotiation was just a political manuevering?   This quote from an article by the “News Agency Who Shall Not be Named:”

The Massachusetts Democrat said leading Democrats on Capitol Hill were shocked by the level of divisiveness that surfaced at Thursday’s extraordinary White House meeting, leaving six days of intensive efforts to agree on a bailout plan in tatters only hours after key congressional players of both parties had declared they were in accord on the outlines of a $700 billion bill.

(emphasis mine)
How do you negotiate one of the largest, market impacting deals ever, announce you have a “deal in principle” and then get “shocked by the level of divisiveness?”

Simple, the “negotiated” plan was never negotiated. As the Dems have done time after time, they decided what they wanted to do, found a couple of invertebrate Republicans to pick off to perform ventriloquist acts with and announced “an agreement in principle” that never, ever was agreed to.

The Dems are now grousing that without Republican support, they won’t pass the bailout bill! Why not? If they’re so sure that what they’re doing is the right thing, do it! They have the votes in both chambers and the support of the President. Nothing prevents them from passing their bill immediately!
Nothing that is except for a complete lack of leadership and spine. The Democrats are great at sniping and Monday morning quarterbacking but don’t have the courage of their own convictions when real leadership is required!

We haven’t dragged this out for a while but it seems appropriate. This is a video that describes what the Dems believe leadership to be:

It’s time for some leadership. The public has not been convinced that a bailout needs to occur. Someone needs to chart a course of action and convince both Congress and the American People that it is the right thing to do. If John McCain and Barack Obama want to be the next President, now is the time for them to show their ability to lead. I’m still convinced that this is the gunfight at the OK campaign.

Americans are hungry for leadership on this issue.  Will we find  any leaders, anywhere, in Washington?

All parents of multiple children have to deal with sibling relationships from time to time.   When I was growing up, because I was the oldest, sibling relationship management for my Dad usually amounted to,

“You’re older and should know better so leave your sister alone!”

While you could technically use that solution with twins (Thing 1 is 10 minutes older than Thing 2) it really only works when you have a sibling who is/should be more physically, mentally or emotionally developed.  

When working with our twins, Mrs. Shoe and I use a different sibling management technique.   When Thing 1 and Thing 2 get into one of their bickering contests and we get to a point where an end doesn’t seem imminent, Mrs. Shoe or I will intercede with,

“Listen, you have a choice.   You can solve this issue yourselves or I can step in.   If I step in, I will guarantee you that neither of you will be happy with the solution.”

That is the threat that John McCain brought to Washington today!

As I surmised yesterday, McCain was in fact, asked to come and help with the bail out bill. According to an interview with Bob Schieffer, McCain was invited by Paulson to help wrangle a solution because Republicans were balking at the Democrat’s proposal.

As an aside, but to make sure  the nattering nabobs didn’t miss this; McCain went to Washington NOT as a POLTICAL STUNT but because he believed it was important for him to be there and that he could make a difference!

What’s this got to do with sibling relational management?   Well first, after McCain essentially said,

“Don’t make me come in there!”

The first thing that happened was that Harry Reid denied that  McCain needed to be involved! Then, about noon today, Chris Dodd dashed out and announced that they had an agreement in principle! Wow! that’s amazing when just yesterday morning only 4 Senate Republicans were willing to vote for the bill!

So what happened? It seems there’s only two choices. Either the Republicans caved or Democrats backed off of some of their more egregious demands. We’ll know which, more likely how much of both, happened later. My guess is that neither would have happened had John McCain not announced that he was suspending his campaign to work on the issue.

With McCain’s reputation for find bipartisan solutions coupled with the intense scrutiny that the negotiations were going to get because McCain had suspended his campaign to join, there was a message sent to both the Democrats and the Republicans. The message was:

“Listen, you have a choice. You can solve this issue yourselves or I can step in. If I step in, I will guarantee you that neither of you will be happy with the solution.”

Sometimes you need an adult to manage childlike petulance.

John McCain just announced that he will be suspending his campaign to return to Washington and participate in the bailout negotiations.   He has requested that Obama to the same and join him.

In his statement McCain said:

"America this week faces an historic crisis in our financial system. We must pass legislation to address this crisis. If we do not, credit will dry up, with devastating consequences for our economy. People will no longer be able to buy homes and their life savings will be at stake. Businesses will not have enough money to pay their employees. If we do not act, ever corner of our country will be impacted. We cannot allow this to happen."

McCain has also requested that the debate, scheduled for Friday evening, be delayed until the negotiations are complete.

As of this writing, 2:55 PM, Obama has yet to officially respond.

If Obama chooses not follow McCain, this will be fodder for McCain ads during the remainder of the elections. Can you imagine the ads showing on Obama was more concerned about his campaign, election and himself than he was about the American people?

Whether Obama follows McCain or not this is a “High Noon” move. In the old Western movie genre, you almost didn’t need to watch the 2 hours of movie prior to the “High Noon” event as long as you just saw that part of the Western. After the “High Noon” event of the old Westerns, you knew who the winners, the losers, the living and the dying or dead were. I believe the same will be so of this “High Noon” event.

McCain’s suspension will be viewed either as a political stunt or an “America First” move. McCain will be viewed as either more partisan or a uniter. McCain will either further invigorate the Republican base or again, poke them in the eye. McCain’s choice to personally participate in the debate may well be the factor on which he either is or isn’t the winner of the November election.

We all know that Obama will pander his way through this event regardless of how he chooses to respond.

The problem for McCain is that I don’t know how, now that he has personally inserted himself in the debate, he can appear to be both a uniter and a holder of conservative values.

It’s High Noon at the campaign corral. We’ll have to wait until the smoke clears to see who wins and who looses.

Update 3:50 PM.   Barck Obama has declined to suspend his campaign and says “the debate is on.”   In one of the weirdest quotes of the campaign Obama says he told Reid and Pelosi “If you need me, call me.”   Perhaps the fact that Reid and Pelosi haven’t picked up the bat phone says more about what help they think Obama could provide than it does about the seriousness of the situation?

I hope McCain has been practicing his quick draw.   The bullets will be coming fast and furious until this thing is decided!

Joe Biden has finally regained some national media attention.   Yeah, but not for good reasons.

In the past week Biden has gained national media attention because he:

• Crossed Obama saying he didn’t support the AIG bailout when Obama did.
• Said the ad accusing McCain of not using a computer because he was “too old” when it fact it is because of his torture injuries should “never have been run.”
• Claimed FDR went on television to provide leadership to the American people after the Great Stock Market Crash of 1929.
• Said that Hillary Clinton probably was a better pick to be Obama’s VP than he was.

Poor Joe has become the comic relief in a campaign that has become more bitter and more personal each day.   I guess being the court jester is OK as long as your boss laughs along!

Not so much!

Tuesday, on the “Today” show regarding Biden’s AIG comment  Obama said:  

“I think that, in that situation, I think Joe should have waited as well.”

Ouch!   That’s going to leave a mark!

Remember waaaaay back in March in the middle of the primaries how Barack stood by Jeremiah Wright.   How he tried to explain his relationship by saying he didn’t need to agree with Wright on all issues.   That Wright had a unique perspective that validated his comments?

For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years," Obama said. "That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table.

Yeah, well that lasted about six weeks until Obama threw Wright under the bus saying:

If Reverend Wright thinks that’s political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn’t know me very well and based on his remarks yesterday, I may not know him as well as I thought either.

It took Obama six weeks to move his relationship with Wright from ardent supporter to speed bump. Six weeks during a time when events were moving much less slowly than they are now with slightly more than 40 days to the election and key debates just around the corner. How long before we hear Obama say:

If Joe Biden thinks that’s political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn’t know me very well and based on his remarks yesterday, I may not know him as well as I thought either.

Remember the cartoon made into a movie “George of the Jungle?” Every time George grabbed a vine to swing through the jungle, you knew we was going to slam smack into a tree. Biden’s become so regular at providing gaffes or taking a position opposite Obama’s that every time he makes a public appearance we now expect him to slam into a tree!

Joe, Joe
Joe of the campaign,
Smooth as he can be.
(Ahhhhhhhh)
Watch out for that tree.

While this is a Wisconsin based blog, I know we have a number of regular readers who don’t believe the Green Bay Packers are the greatest football team only; yup, we’ve got Minnesotans!

I want to send out my finest Minnesota Nice welcome to our newest residents.

“How’s it goin’!”

I’d also like to give you a few pointers so that you’re able to fit in a bit easier.

• Unless you’re talking to someone from “The Range” (no, that’s not a cook top), it’s not pronounced “Minn a sooo ta.”   It’s pronounced “Min ah sew ta.”
• The “Twin Cities” are not:   Fargo/Morehead, Duluth/Superior or Whapeton/Breckenridge.   They are Minneapolis and St. Paul.
• St. Paul, not Minneapolis, is the State Capital.   It is also where the RNC national convention was hosted.
• While our baseball team is called the “Twins” they do not play in both Minneapolis and St. Paul.   Their stadium is in Minneapolis.
• Speaking of which, the  stadium where the Twins and the Vikings play is not the “Hubert Humphrey Metrodome,” it’s “The Dome” or, if  you’ve been here long enough, “The Hump.”
• Yes, we do have over 10,000 lakes.    Yes, they do freeze over in the winter and we do drive on them.
• Our state bird is the Loon which will allow you at least one kindred spirit in Minnesota.
• Hot dishes and Jello are two of the major food groups.   The other three are beer, anything grilled and anything deep fried and served on a stick.
• We do have four seasons; Winter, still Winter, just past Winter and almost Winter.   None of them are defined by the direction that you can smell the odors from the river.

Who am I providing this help to?   Just some of the Obama folks who got to leave North Dakota before they got struck by the  first blizzard of the year!

Welcome to Minnesota!

P.S.   I forgot to tell you that we’re mostly Scandinavians and Germans.   So what?   Well, you’ll find that it means that we avoid confrontation and we have a high percentage of passive/aggressives.   Again, so what?   Well, we’ll tell you anything we think you want to hear….to your face, and grouse about you and your cause to no end when you leave.   If you think you can count on someone to vote for Obama just because they tell you on the phone or face to face that they will vote for Obama?   Well, all I can say is Uff Da!

It’s a common misunderstanding to believe that the terms “Manager” and “Leader” are interchangeable.   This is especially true in business settings where it is common to refer to the “Manager” of a group as the “Leader” of that group.

Of course to understand “Manager” one must understand “manage.”   A  dictionary definition of “Manage” is:

to handle, direct, govern, or control in action or use.

Which supports this common definition of “Manager”

a person who controls and manipulates resources and expenditures

And while that looks similar to the dictionary definition of “Leader”:

a guiding or directing head, as of an army, movement, or political group.

There are significant differences. To say it another way, Managers can be Leaders but not all Managers are Leaders. To take it one step further, some Leaders are not Managers at all. Peter Drucker, one of the foremost experts on organizational management and leadership describes them best as:

leadership is doing the right things; management is doing things right.

After the personalities, the policies and ideologies, this Presidential election comes down to a simple choice: Do we want a Manager or a Leader?

Let’s look at how the candidates have handled just 4 quick examples.
(more…)

I’ve spent a significant portion of my career in the wireless industry. Like many technology based, fast growing industries, we thought ours was very unique and difficult to understand for people from the “outside.” Because of that, the industry was very incestuous, not in the ‘Desperate Housewives” kind of way but in the “you hire and rehire the people you know kind of way.” Nearly every job that opened that was a “move up” role was filled by people who were already employed by the company.

“Hiring from within” became part of our company culture. The good part about that is that we were able to keep some very talented people motivated and challenged as they got progressively more challenging roles. The downside of the “hire from within” culture is that a few people took that as an “assumed.” They assumed that because they applied for the job they would get versus an outside applicant, just because they were an “insider.” Another downside was that we had some people who would hire into the company at an entry level and immediately begin positioning themselves for a promotion and not paying attention to the job they had been hired for. I had more than one conversation with people who either worked for me or were interviewing for a role with me where I told them that while they may be really capable people, they weren’t going to get the promotion because they hadn’t paid attention at their current role and were doing a poor job at it. While “hiring up” was part of our culture, you only got “hired up” if you were doing a great job in your current role.

Barack Obama was sworn into the US Senate on January 4, 2005. He announced his candidacy for President on January 17, 2007. Between the date he was sworn into the Senate and the date he announced an exploratory committee he spent 143 days working in the Senate (that’s less than 7 months of actual work for the mathematically challenged.)

Barack Obama has been attempting to hang the current economic challenges around McCain’s neck. His attacks have gotten louder and more personal throughout the past 7 days. Obama has been talking broadly about what he would do to fix the economic issues but has not provided any specifics to his plan. In some articles, the Obama campaign was quoted as saying they were “working on a plan” that Obama would unveil soon.

This morning as even more unprecedented “fixes” are being implemented into the financial system Barack Obama said

Given the gravity of this situation, and based on conversations I have had with both Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke, I have asked my economic team to refrain from presenting a more detailed blue-print of how an immediate plan might be structured until the Treasury and the Federal Reserve have had an opportunity to present their proposal.”

Really? You’re going to wait until other plans are out and then second guess them? Wow! That’s leadership! Wouldn’t a real leader be sitting down at this critical juncture saying “I’ll show you mine, you show me yours and we’ll see what the best answer, or combination of answers might be?”

Barack Obama is just like the wireless people who were busier looking for promotions than doing there current jobs. Just as in wireless, where we told people that the weren’t going to get the new job because they were doing a cruddy job in their current role, we need to tell Obama,

“NO. Maybe you’ll get a shot when you show us you can do your current job well. If that doesn’t suit you, your other choice is to find another company that will hire you.”

In wireless, most of our situations where that exact conversation occurred the people were smart enough to go back, focus on their job, show that they were capable and focused and usually got hired for the next promotion. Once in a while, the person thought the work for which they were hired was beneath them. They didn’t change their ways. They groused and became poison to the point where they became poison to the team. Ultimately, they were fired.

Which of those two experiences do you think Barack Obama will have?

Like the classic comedy team of Abbott and Costello in their famous “Who’s on First” routine, Barack Obama and Joe Biden now are talking past one another when discussing economic and tax policy.

Joe Biden was on the “Today Show” this morning. at 1:31 of the following clip comes this exchange:

Meredith: Meanwhile Senator, you and Senator Obama are calling for increased taxes on the wealthy and there are many economists who say that would hurt the economy even more….
Biden: I don’t know any economists who are saying that!

Yesterday, Barack Obama said the McCain was living in denial over the economic challenges. If that’s true, than Biden is living in ignorance! Joe, can I give you just one, of the many I could find with about 1 minute of Google search, of the economists who say tax increases are bad…especially in a down economy; J.D. Foster, Ph.D. The summary paragraph from this paper:

The evidence is persuasive that the tax increase probably slowed the economy compared to the growth it would have achieved and that the subsequent tax cuts of 1997, not the tax increases, were the source of the acceleration in real growth in the latter half of the decade. As taxes are now above their historical average as a share of the economy, and are rising, Congress should look to enact additional tax relief to keep the economy strong.

Geez Joe, no economists? Not even you can be that naive, can you? Worse yet Joe, the man you’re running with understands the very concept that you say “No economists” agree on. As I showed you here, even Barack Obama is backing off of his tax increase plans due to the weak economy:
When Barack Obama was asked:

What about increasing taxes on the wealthy?

Obama replied:

“I think we’ve got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now,” Obama said on “This Week” on ABC. “The news with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, I think, along with the unemployment numbers, indicates that we’re fragile.”

With Obama and Biden we don’t know “Who’s on first” or “What’s on second.” It’s obvious though that “I don’t know” is running for VP!

From Barack Obama’s speech, yesterday in Grand Junction, CO

It’s not that I think John McCain doesn’t care what’s going on in the lives of most Americans. I just think doesn’t know. He doesn’t get what’s happening between the mountain in Sedona where he lives and the corridors of Washington where he works. Why else would he say that we’ve made great progress economically under George Bush? Why else would he say that the economy isn’t something he understands as well as he should? Why else would he say, today, of all days – just a few hours ago – that the fundamentals of the economy are still strong?

After chiding McCain for his lack of sympathy and pathos for the “Average American,” Barack Obama stepped off the stage now equipped with his traveling telepromter, and headed to Beverly Hills! In Beverly Hills, Barack Obama will hold a fundraiser where the entry fee is $28,500 PER PLATE!

Nothing says “Average America” like Beverly Hills!

Two weeks ago, the Republican convention was in a tizzy about appearing too happy and enthusiastic while hurricane Gustav went through New Orleans. There was concern that if the Republicans appeared giddy while folks were hurting in New Orleans it would be seen as uncaring and out of touch with the realities of the Nation. There was a lot of discussion, especially amongst pundits, about whether the Republicans really needed to “tone it down.” In fact, was at least one very opinionated local pundit and occasional radio personality who called another respected pundit “stupid” when the latter suggested that giving up a whole day of the convention was unnecessary.

Republicans were worried about how they looked if they kept their convention going in the face of possible harm to American families. They were so worried that they used part of their convention activities to raise funds for those impacted by Gustav. Apparently, that same thought has not occurred to Barack Obama.

In the modified words of Telly Savalas, “Who REALLY loves you baby?”

Over at the HuffandPuff Post, Nancy Pelosi has this headline up on her blog:

Denial is Not An Economic Recovery Plan

(by the way, before we go any further, isn’t Nancy one of those who was attempting to shut down House members posting on blog sites? Anyone up for leading by example?)
I won’t bore you with much of her blog other than to tell you that her topic was the continual unwinding of excess credit in the financial markets which was most recently manifested by the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and the purchase of Merrill Lynch.

Nancy tries to use a series of quotes by President Bush and John McCain.   Quotes where if she used them in context, she would find them expressing concern about current situations and them expressing their ongoing optimism that the US economy remains on fundamental underpinnings.   She wraps these around the line that has become her mantra since becoming Speaker:

President Bush, Senator McCain, and their Republican Party are out of touch…

(then she ties it to her lament of the day)

and apparently ill-equipped to get our economy back on track.

As has become her practice, Pelosi avoids any responsibility Congress has in this issue and continues to blame all of society’s ills on President Bush, and now by association, John McCain:

Eight years of weakened regulation of our nation’s financial system — including a failure to regulate risky, and often predatory, lending practices — by the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress have led us to this point, and could further erode our nation’s economic health.

As she moved to head the “Do Nothing Congress,” Nancy told the world that she was now in charge when she said “it takes a woman to clean the House.” That was nearly two years ago.  I guess what Nancy is really saying is that while Buuuuuuuuuush has worked to tear down the nation for eight years, she has been completely incapable of catching up with the person Nancy would describe as the linguistically challenged frat boy. How smart does that make you Nancy?

For the past two years Nancy has become the greatest Monday morning quaterback since the guy who said “knew it all along,” the day after SuperBowl III. Nancy knows that Buuuuuuuuuush created the energy shortage to make incredible profits for the oil companies. Nancy knows that Buuuuuuuuuush created the housing mortgage problem. Nancy knows that Buuuuuuuuush allowed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to issue millions and millions of risky loans. Nancy knows that Buuuuuuuuuush has now allowed several large, venerable Wall Street firms to either implode or be bought on the verge of implosion. And, Nancy knows that Buuuuuuuuush should have been stepping up regulation in all of these areas.

Now, before you jump up and down about all the things the government coulda, shoulda, woulda done to avoid our current issues, I’ll say 1. I agree with that, 2. Remember, the FED is not controlled by the administration, 3. Remember your Constitution, Congress has oversight responsibility.

If Nancy knew all the things that Buuuuuuuuush was doing on the day events ocurred, if she’s really that smart, why didn’t she see it coming? If Nancy is so smart, why hasn’t her House passed one bill in two years, dealing with any of these issues until AFTER they occurred?

The only denial I see, if you believe Nancy Pelosi’s view of the world, is that the President she called “a total failure” has managed to out smart her every step of the way and setting her up to head the Congress with the lowest approval level ever!   Who’s a “total Failure” now Nancy?

If you put politics aside, which is what Nancy should have done but is completely incapable of doing under any circumstance, we would say that we have seen once again why a “little” government is nearly as bad as a “lot of” government. Government, outside of the military, has never been good at anything but reacting. Unfortunately, the “good” that government could do in the current situation is to do nothing and let the markets settle themselves out. Also unfortunately, I doubt that is what they will end up doing.

I’ll bet you were expecting a critique of Barack Obama’s latest debate response with that headline.   No, actually, I’ve got a few thoughts that didn’t warrant a full post of their own but warranted comment.

I saw that headline and thought “Poor Charlie Gibson, the clerics are on to him!” Turns out the article was about Islamists who watch shows about horoscopes on TV.

When I first saw the Palin interview by Charlie Gibson I was, honestly, a bit underwhelmed.   But, as I told Mrs. Shoe, I couldn’t tell whether it was because of Gibson obvious condescension, the obviously hacked editing job or Palin’s performance.   Now I know I was right on 2 of the 3.

If you haven’t, take a look over at Mark Levin’s site  and see what the unedited version of the interview was.   It was a completely different interview!   ABC chose editorially, to put Palin in the worst possible light.   I knew these guys were in the tank for Obama but this is beyond the pale.   After reading the entire interview, Palin won, Charlie lost.
What began as a fairy tale, completewith the killing of a witch and an anticipated “happily ever after,” it now appears that the story of Obama’s campaign has been taken over by the Brothers Grimm. The difference between a regular fairy tale and one that the Grimm’s write is that in the Grimm’s version, the “hero” often doesn’t survive the story line.

Not only is Obama no longer able to (using the football vernacular) stretch the field by putting tradition red states in play, he’s now got traditional blue states in the “undecided” category.

My home state of Minnesota had a poll published today that shows the race tied. The poll was a “Star and Tribune Minnesota Poll.” The STMP has a nasty habit of giving the Dems a 5 or so point handicap in their polls (this was most recently exhibited in 2006 when they were calling Pawlenty down by 5 just a couple of days before he beat Hatch by nearly 2). If the poll is true to form, McCain may well have a few points lead in Minnesota. Along with Minnesota, Michigan, another traditional blue states is now in the undecided column…Hey Wisconsin, get a hop on!

Finally, Mr. Obama, meet Mr. Rock and Mr. Hardplace!
As Obama’s polls slide and he shows an inability to refocus the discussion with his own loquacious abilities, there is a small but constant and slightly growing murmur about Obama changing VPs.

It ain’t going to happen!

Obama has shown a great penchant for throwing under the bus anyone or anything that he believes doesn’t support his messiah persona. With his ability to even throw his grandmother under the bus, there’s no reason to believe Joe Biden couldn’t be seen wearing tread marks before the election. The problem is, who would Obama replace him with? The problem isn’t with Joe so replacing him with almost anyone else won’t change the game. Note I said “almost anyone else.”

The only person who could have changed the game for Obama would have been Hillary. Obama could have chosen Hillary initially. Had he done that he would have had the “change” game all wrapped up. By picking Biden, he allowed McCain to steal the “change” mantra by picking Palin. If Obama were to toss Biden under the bus and take Hillary it would be viewed as either a pure self serving (I want to be President so badly I’m willing to do anything) move or a “Me too but it should have been Me first” move. While I’m still leery of the PUMAs and their loyalty, I believe they would see any move by Obama to put Hillary on the ticket as just that, a political move. I don’t think even Obama is politically callous enough to attempt what is know politically as the “Triple Back and Double Down” maneuver.

While the old adage tells us that “Charity begins at home,” it apparently doesn’t start at Joe Biden’s home!

Joe Biden released 10 years of tax returns  today.   Joe would be considered amongst the wealthy, according to Barack Obama, as he’s averaged about $270,000 of income over the past five years.   And, while Joe managed to pay nearly $185,000 in mortgage interest during that five years, he was only able to find $2,655 to give to charities!   No, that’s not $260,000, it’s not even $26,000.   Joe Biden gave $2,655 to charities over the past five years.

While Barack Obama has increased his charitable contributions since he has received a significant income bump from his book royalties, the maximum he and Michelle were unable to give prior to that bump was $3,400.   In fact, prior to his bump, even though he and Michelle averaged over $240,000 per year, they could only find an average of $2,154 of contributions in the same years.

In Barack Obama’s mind the “wealthy” including himself and Joe Biden who make around $250,000 contribute less than 1% of their income to charity.   In fact, in Joe Biden’s case the contribution is only .3% of his gross income.

Like so many other things in life, our opinions about charity are often  derived by our own actions and influenced by the actions of those close to us.

I’m beginning to understand Barack Obama’s desire to raise the taxes on the rich.   I’m beginning to understand why Barack Obama doesn’t believe that individuals are better set to support charities that support the unfortunate rather than bloating the government ranks with more and ever less efficient, welfare programs.   Barack Obama believes the government needs to do that task because his own experience, and that of his friends shows that they don’t support charities.

In the world of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, charity does not begin at home it begins and ends with government!

Someone alert the Center for Disease Control!   There’s been a massive outbreak of Hoof in Mouth disease that has rapidly spread throughout the Democrat party!

The first reported case was of course, this doosey:

Wednesday morning, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) made this statement on the House floor:

Later Wednesday morning was the most recent documented case, when South Carolina’s Democrat Party chairwoman, Carol Fowler, was quoted in an article on Politico.com as saying:

John McCain had chosen a running mate “whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion."

By the way, Carol Fowler is the wife of the star of this gem from a couple of weeks back:

Of the three, it appears that Carol Fowler may yet recover from her illness as later in the day she was quoted as saying:

“I personally admire and respect the difficult choices that women make everyday, and I apologize to anyone who finds my comment offensive. I clumsily was making a point about people in South Carolina who may vote based on a single issue. Whether it’s the environment, the economy, the war or a woman’s right to choose, there are people who will cast their vote based on a single issue. That was the only point I was attempting to make.”

The average incubation period for Hoof and Mouth disease is 3-8 days. That would suggest that we will likely see additional cases over the next week as Obama and the Democrats try to figure out how the hell this happened!

I know it’s not polite to discuss the health or physical stamina of the Presidential candidates, but it appears that Barack Obama’s disease could be serious. In fact, it looks like the case is severe enough that he may not survive, politically speaking. Unfortunately for Joe Biden, Obama’s demise is likely to come before he’s been elected to office.

A key issue in this campaign has been whether Barack Obama has the experience to make  significant decisions.   We’ve seen partial answers to that question and they’ve not instilled confidence.  

In his response(s) to the Russian invasion of Georgia, we saw Barack’s ability to adapt to new situations.   Unfortunately his adapting came after his initial response to the invasion was horribly botched.

We’ve also seen Barack’s capability to be open and flexible in decisions making.   In Obama’s position on:

1. The immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
2. Accepting public financing
3. Handgun Bans
4. Immunity for Telecom Companies
5. Meeting with the leaders of terrorist nations with no preconditions

and most importantly, his desire to debate John McCain “anytime, anywhere,” we’ve seen Barack change his mind once he found that his earlier position was not politically  expedient.

Finally, we’ve seen Barack recognize the limits of his own  knowledge when at the Saddleback debate, in response to one of the most important questions politically and theologically, Barack Obama said  it was “above my paygrade” to determine when life began.

Today, in an interview with ABC’s “Thisweek,” Barack Obama gave his  “final answer”  on whether he is ready to make key decisions.   In a discussion about his tax policy and how/if he may alter it if the economy is weak, Barack said:

“Even if we’re still in a recession, I’m going to go through with my tax cuts,” Obama said. “That’s my priority.”

Whe further asked:

What about increasing taxes on the wealthy?

Obama replied:

“I think we’ve got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now,” Obama said on “This Week” on ABC. “The news with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, I think, along with the unemployment numbers, indicates that we’re fragile.”

With his first statement, Obama shows that he recognizes the importance of lower taxes.   He tacitly admits that leaving money in family’s pocket books, rather than the government’s, is the right answer.   Yeah for Barack!   In his second statement, Barack confirms his inability to lead.  

In his second statement, Barack confirms for us that the economy benefits from lower taxes even on those he considers “rich.”   Why else would he hold imposing his taxes increase?   They’re rich after all.   Whether the economy is doing well or poorly doesn’t affect their “richness.”   If they are by definition “rich” imposing additional taxes on them will do no more harm to them in a poor economy than in a good one.   In fact, those who are “rich” tend to do better in poor economies because arguably, they are in a better position than others, to invest in assets that have depressed pricing.   No, what Barack isn’t telling you, but what is inherent in his answer is that increasing taxes on the rich, has a negative impact on the economy.   Barack doesn’t want to stomp out additional economic embers in a lackluster economy.   He only wants to do it when the economy is good.

In this last answer we find the absolute worst kind of decision making by a leader; knowingly making the wrong and harmful decision because it is politically popular. That kind of decision is summed up musically in the following video:

Perhaps Barack Obama has a future doing the remake: “If taxing you is wrong, I don’t wanna be right!”

Now that Sarah Palin has given her acceptance speech, it’s clear why the Left had reason to attack her….She’s Really Good!   But that’s really hindsight.   As I watched the attacks become more and more personal and vicious over the past 3 days, I kept wondering why?

It’s obvious that the Left doesn’t like Republican or Conservative women.   However, I’ve never seen the level of attacks that Sarah Palin has experienced in just 72 hours. While women like Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Elizabeth Dole  and even Condoleezza Rice have been degraded, none of them have seen the full fledged, scorched earth approach that Sarah Palin has experienced.

As I’ve previously discussed, the Left is all about emotional responses, even to situations that require significant thought.   So, I know the response is emotional.   But, what was the stimulus for the level of emotion that is being vented?

I suppose part of it could be that the MSM, the Left and frankly just about everyone else, was surprised by Palin.   While Obama’s campaign had talking points on all of the other folks that were alleged to be on the short list, they completely overlooked Palin.   I could imagine that some of the ferocity was an attempt to catch up after having been caught flat footed.

I suppose part of it also could be that the  announcement of Palin took Obama out of the news flow.   With an ego as big as  Obama’s, I don’t imagine it was easy being upstaged…especially by a woman!

I also suppose it could be that  the pick of Palin made Obama’s first public choice, his choice of Biden for VP, look silly.   Obama had first pick in VP.   Rather than picking the person who could shore up his party, extend his meme of “hope and change” and solidify his party, he, with his first pick, picked the equivalent of the kid who has been playing right field and batting ninth his entire career.   As an aside, I agree with Rudy Gulliani that Biden may want to ensure that he has the VP offer in writing.   As the days go on Obama is going to second, third, fourth and many more times reguess that choice.

All of those issues could be the reason why the Left has come unhinged but it doesn’t feel as if any one, or the combination of the three really explain what’s happening.

Yesterday, it finally hit me.

Who on the left, defines what a woman should be and how she should act?   Yup, the National Organization for Women (NOW).  

Who did NOW support for President?   Yup, Hillary Clinton

There’s a woman running in this election, what is her name?   Nope, not Hillary Clinton, it’s Sarah Palin!

And there’s the problem.   The left is all about identity politics; identity politics and making sure that the various groups maintain the identity of victimization that the Left has scripted for them.   African Americans are supposed to suffer from the ills of slavery and racism and unable to advance in the economic strata.   Teenage girls who become pregnant are supposed to be reliant on Planned Parenthood for their “pregnancy options” to ensure that they aren’t “punished by a baby.”   Women are scripted to be continually “rising” but never “attaining.”  

Sarah Palin represents not just a cracking of the glass ceiling ala Hillary Clinton, but a complete shattering of it if she and John McCain win.   A shattering brought to you not by the party of victimization but the party that believes an individual’s value is not defined by their identity, but by their abilities and their hard work.   This leaves the Left and especially NOW, nearly apoplectic.   Sarah Palin is exposing the false claims  of victimization that NOW and the Left have spewed about women for over 40 years.  

NOW was organized in 1966.   It’s core mentality comes from women who came of age during the 60’s and early 70’s.   Those women are now in their 50’s and 60’s.  

The reason the Left has become so vicious towards Palin is a combination of the items I previously listed.   Those  and Sarah Palin  exposing and negating the victimization of women that has been perpetuated by groups like NOW.   NOW’s reason to exist, the thing that gets them up in the morning and gives them a reason to breath is about to be cut out from underneath them and that makes them mad.   But what really gets the cranky old women, the NAGs going,  is that they are about to lose the love of their life not to a peer, another cranky old woman but to a smart YOUNGER WOMAN with a positive outlook on life.   Losing your love to a younger woman, no matter that it’s your own fault, really pisses them off!

This party’s starting at 7 (or thereabouts). Because I don’t trust the alphabet soup to carry the speeches, I’ll point you to Ustream’s live stream.

About ten days ago we were having a national discussion about Barack Obama’s abortion positions.   Along with his Saddleback performance, the issue was regenerated when tapes of his Illinois Senate floor debate, along with the transcript, surfaced.

One of the issues that Obama raised as onerous in the “born alive” bill, was having a second doctor involved to determine the viability of the child.  

From the transcript, Senator Obama discussing the need for a second doctor:

So — and again, I’m — not going to prolong this, but I just want to be clear because I think this was the source of the objections of the Medical Society. As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child – however way you want to describe it – is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limb and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.

Further on, Obama adds:

…an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.

(Emphasis mine in both quotes)

A couple of things to note:

First note in the first quote that Obama is so far left on the abortion topic that he is unable to refer to a live baby as a “baby.”   Abortion extremists are loathe to refer to anything other than the birthling of a fully desired pregnancy a “baby.”   Giving anything other than this the term “baby” undermines their intent to keep anything unborn as nothing more than an inanimate object.   Calling it a “baby” undermines their desire to keep all abortion options open at all times.

Second, if you want some insight as to how Obama will handle Ahmadinejad, take another look at that first quote.   Obama didn’t even have the cojones to take a stand on whether they were discussing a fetus or a baby. He completely sidestepped the issue. Can you imagine him taking to Ahmadinejad? “I’d like to discuss your nuclear weapons or freedom tools, however way you want to describe them.” On the plus side, this may be the first core issue I’ve seen Obama hold to; he claimed it was above his paygrade to determine when life began, at the Saddleback debate and he had the same opinion back in 2002!

Third, this second doctor issue is a complete canard. When a premature birth occurs, it is very typical to have not only a second doctor, but a second medical team involved in the event. The obstetrician stays with the mother while the second doctor and team attend to the premature infant. In the event of a failed abortion what do we have? A premature infant! So if that is already typical procedure in most hospitals, why would that be onerous in this case? The answer to that is yet another quote from Barack Obama:

…that’s fine, but I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.

That last quote says all anyone needs to know about Obama’s position on abortion…it’s always about abortion, never about life.