It appears Al Franken has truly turned Minnesota election law into a Franken-stein of a monster recount--something the election laws were never intended to do: enable stealing an election.

If you have been following this race since election day 2 months ago, you know that incumbent Senator Coleman was 215 votes ahead of opponent Al Franken when the votes were originally counted. But after Minneapolis' director of elections remembered she forgot 32 absentee ballots in her car the following Friday, and 2 liberal precincts claimed they initially miscommunicated the vote totals, Franken picked up another 346 votes, for a total of 378 Franken votes. The oddity being that "none of the other contests recorded any changes in their vote totals" due to this supposed miscommunication.

For a while, it looked like Coleman would still keep his Senate seat, but more and more there is Funny Business in Minnesota, In which every dubious ruling seems to help Al Franken: 

Strange things keep happening in Minnesota, where the disputed recount in the Senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken may be nearing a dubious outcome. Thanks to the machinations of Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and a meek state Canvassing Board, Mr. Franken may emerge as an illegitimate victor.

Mr. Franken started the recount 215 votes behind Senator Coleman, but he now claims a 225-vote lead and suddenly the man who was insisting on "counting every vote" wants to shut the process down. He's getting help from Mr. Ritchie and his four fellow Canvassing Board members, who have delivered inconsistent rulings and are ignoring glaring problems with the tallies.

The latest travesty in the Franken recount is abusing the duplicate ballot provision. (Emphasis mine)

Under Minnesota law, election officials are required to make a duplicate ballot if the original is damaged during Election Night counting. Officials are supposed to mark these as "duplicate" and segregate the original ballots. But it appears some officials may have failed to mark ballots as duplicates, which are now being counted in addition to the originals. This helps explain why more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote. By some estimates this double counting has yielded Mr. Franken an additional 80 to 100 votes.

Another county "'lost' 133 votes" due to possible double running of ballots through the machines. (In other words, the machine stated 133 votes more than actual ballots.) The Canvassing Board decided to go with the original higher tally--helping Franken by 42 votes. An additional 37 Franken votes from another county were gathered by going with a higher ballot total than the Election Night machine total, even though the higher ballot tally was greater than voters in the precinct!

Anything goes, IF it helps Al Franken win! Do read the entire Wall Street Journal piece. Truth is stranger than fiction!

Senator Coleman is to challenge the Canvassing Board's results. His attorney "said the challenge will be filed within 24 hours. The challenge will keep Franken from getting the election certificate he needs to take the seat in Washington."

A few days ago, Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas promised to block the Franken seating in the Senate with a filibuster. Good for Cornyn.

So far, Senate Democrats put off plans to seat Franken, "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid yielded to Republican threats and agreed on Monday not to immediately seat fellow Democrat Al Franken, whose razor-close victory in Minnesota faces legal challenges."

Republicans have dropped the ball, in my opinion, on allowing voter fraud after voter fraud to continue, until at last people just throw up their hands and accept it as business as usual.

I hope the Republicans stand firm on this one for once and grow some backbone!

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Phew! If you have been watching these state's Senate races, you know that the Senate's filibuster proof Democratic majority  hung in the balance. But Senator Saxby Chamblis easily won reelection yesterday in that Georgia runoff, 57% to 43%. So the Democrats won't get their 60 seat majority.

The Minnesota Senate race between Republican Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken "now remains the only unresolved Senate contest in the country."

Unfortunately, the Franken race has turned into a Frankenstein monster of voter fraud on steroids:*

“The Franken campaign has made it clear that the recounted votes and will of Minnesotans matter little to them, and that they intend to take their campaign to change the outcome of this election on to the United States Senate,” said Coleman campaign spokesman Mark Drake. “Al Franken should personally reject this strategy outright, and honor the right of Minnesotans to choose who their senator should be — and not allow lawsuits and the strong-arm tactics of the majority leader of the United States Senate to intervene in this process." 

Who knows how the Franken race will ultimately resolve. If Franken pulls off a victory, it will be a victory for voter fraud in my opinion.

What caught my attention in the Georgia race was WHO campaigned with the Georgian candidates. The democrats brought in Al Gore and former President Bill Clinton to promote their candidate Martin.

On Chambliss' behalf, the Republicans brought in John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and closed with SARAH PALIN! "She headlined four rallies for Chambliss across the state Monday that drew thousands of party faithful."

There are many in the media and mushy middle of the Republican party that want to declare her dead in the water. However, the Conservative base in Georgia isn't buying it. The proof was that Palin Rallies Georgia's Base: (My emphasis) 

“We all have Georgia on our mind,” declared governor and 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin as she kicked off an early morning Dec. 1 rally...

It was the first of four rallies yesterday, each featuring thousands of cheering crowds brandishing “Palin 2012” shirts and buttons -- along with, of course, Chambliss signs. (My favorite anti-Barack Obama sign read: “Keep the change.”)

The Alaska governor was firing up the faithful to hold a critical GOP seat... Palin was also countering earlier appearances on behalf of Democratic candidate Jim Martin by several liberal “big guns” led by former President Bill Clinton and Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga.

...Democrats are worrying, too, that the Palin appearances are attracting more blue collar votes to their opponents. The final Pain rally at the Gwinnett County Arena drew some 3,000 people -- well over half of them blue collar workers and young people under the age of 30. A large truck parked outside the arena sported a “Mechanic for Chambliss and Palin” sign, and dozens of construction workers – some of them wearing their hard hats-- had obviously come straight from their worksites.

...Palin concluded every appearance by calling for a “rebuilding of the Republican Party starting in Georgia” with the re-election of Chambliss. She reminded Republican candidates that they must appeal to “the working class” -- which elicited another big round of applause from those hard hats and mechanics.

Sarah Palin isn't gone with the wind in Georgia:

 At a time when Republican Governors across the nation are trying to smear Palin in anticipation of 2012, she is proving that, contrary to media reports, she is the current bright star of the GOP.

Looking ahead 4 years to 2012, I will be asking the same question the Chambliss campaign just heard, " 'Is Sarah Palin coming?' No one has cared about Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, or McCain. Palin is all anyone wanted." 

*Franken race reminds us voter fraud still going strong  

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

On election eve, I quickly made this campaign button to illustrate my hopes for the 2012 ticket. I wore it to the Waukesha Republican Victory Party.

Barely there 2 minutes, a few women from the Waukesha Republican Party and I started talking. Are you part of the Republican Women's group, they asked? No, I said, although I did work a little on the last 2 campaigns. Why not? I explained it was because Republicans didn't support conservative candidates. Citing Republican State Senator Tom Reynold's 2006 race and the lack of support from the party, I said I now put my efforts into individual races instead of the GOP as a whole. They did not disagree. 

Then they spotted my button, and their eyes lit up. Where did you get that? I said I made it. They definitely liked the idea. These ladies were not alone. In the course of the evening, my humble button received enthusiastic support.

I know many blame Governor Sarah Palin for McCain's loss on Tuesday. But that sentiment shows how little those naysayers understand conservatives. It was very clear to me that fellow volunteers at the phone bank were there only because of Sarah, not McCain. Same with rally attendees.

As Senator John McCain gave his concession speech that night, he took the full blame for his failure to win. Amongst the Waukesha Republican faithful watching on the big screen, there was no murmur in the audience to the contrary.

When McCain thanked Governor Palin, the audience cheered. You would think BBC reporter Ali Reed was there in the room with us. In his What next for Sarah Palin? he reported the same reaction:

The sombre air at Senator John McCain's concession speech was momentarily pierced by cheer as Mr McCain spoke about Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

The Wall Street Journal would like to see Congressman Paul Ryan become the House Minority Leader. (Ryan is not interested.) But they see Paul Ryan as many of us do, a rising star on the Republican horizon. Ryan for the Republicans, The party needs an economic spokesman:

... the Republican Party faces a choice. It can put the loss down to the country's fatigue with the Bush Administration and the bad luck of running amid a financial panic and shrug it off. Or it can choose a new direction, with new leadership, and retake the high ground it once occupied, especially on the economy.

...Mr. Ryan's economic knowledge and youthful energy make him the best choice [for Minority Leader] to pull his party in a more promising direction.

Sad to say, persona matters in politics. Obama's youth and charisma made him more attractive than McCain's old, tired warhorse manner. It has been said that if radio were around in 1800, Thomas Jefferson would never have won the presidency. Jefferson was brilliant on paper but not a great orator.

Conservatives, imagine a Palin/Ryan or Ryan/Palin ticket in 2012? With Ryan's grasp of economics and practical solutions and Palin being governor of the only state not in or headed toward recession, it could be a winning combination: A ticket with real conservative solutions AND articulate, attractive candidates. 

Sign me up! TeamSarah.org

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

It has become a family tradition to attended the Waukesha Republican's "Victory" party at the Country Springs Hotel.  Various local candidates stop in and give a pep talk along with Waukesha Republican leaders. This year most of us hoped for good news but were braced for the bad.

Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner addressed the crowd first. He quipped something to the effect that after 8 years of Democrats blaming President Bush for everything, with them in charge of the legislature and the White House, we'll be able to pin the tail on the donkey. (Donkey being the symbol for democratic party.)

I am not so sure anything will stick, but I enjoyed the imagery.

Next up was Congressman Paul Ryan. I think most Republicans in the room see Ryan as the future of the Conservative movement. Ryan outlined a path for the next few years that went something like this: Stand up for what you believe in. Work with Democrats when they are going in the right direction and when they're wrong, propose alternative solutions. (My emphasis) 

Congressman Ryan, if you recall, came up with a plan to reform the entitlement problem of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, called "A Roadmap for America's Future". The Democrats just ignore the impending insolvency of that costly trio.

Last to speak was Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker. He too urged that Republicans present clear, conservative alternatives to liberal tax and spend policy. He is living proof that conservatism, when properly communicated, will sell even in very Democratic territory!  The key was presenting that conservative message in a clear and concise way--something almost everyone in the room knew the McCain campaign never did. 

As John McCain gave his concession speech the room was quiet. Not much disagreement when McCain said "the failure is mine." There was cheering when he thanked Sarah Palin.

The road ahead is steep, very steep, for true conservatives. But Scott Walker is living proof that people will support the conservative message if it is presented clearly enough.

I fear most Republican politicians and party officials still don't get it.

These might be of interest: It was a great victory - but not for the Left and

It made me feel better: PALIN 2012 RYAN
 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Senator John McCain managed to get 56,494,802 votes, which translates to 46.4% of the total. That was 1.9% less than John Kerry received in 2004. Hardly the trouncing Bob Dole took in 1996 with his 40.71% of the vote or Carter's 41.0% in 1980 or Mondale's 40.6% in 1984.

Just for comparison purposes, President Bill Clinton never broke the 50% mark--receiving 43.0% in 1992 (Ross Perot was the spoiler) and only 49.24% in 1996.

I would still call McCain's 46.4% showing respectable, especially since Republicans didn't really choose their candidate.

If you remember the early primary season, Sen. John McCain was the favorite of the media. Talk radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin warned that once the nomination was sewn up, that favorite son status would be gone. They were right.

There was much speculation that Democrats crossed over to vote for McCain in the primaries because they felt he was the weakest candidate. They were correct. McCain may have been a Republican, but he was not a conservative in the Ronald Reagan tradition.

It is very difficult to muster enthusiasm for a candidate when he doesn't really represent your party's ideals, and the media knew that. I talked about this back in February:

Another problem I have with the prospect of a McCain nomination is that he very seldom gets the majority of votes in the states he wins. Certainly Mike Huckabee's strong showing in the south was a surprise too. McCain did not even receive over 50% of the votes in his own state of Arizona.

Today GOPUSA Eagle email sent this out: 

The Strange GOP Nominating Victory

Assuming John McCain gets the GOP nomination, it will show how whimsical history can be. It would be the first time in living memory that a Republican presidential nomination went to a candidate who was not merely opposed by a majority of the party but was actively despised by about half its rank-and-file voters across the country--and by many, if not most, of its congressional officeholders. 

Slit a Vein or Vote for McCain?
by Chuck Muth

While the conservative knock against Mitt Romney is that he started out as a moderate and has since moved to the right, John McCain started out on the right but has since moved to the left. Which is worse?

John McCain did a terrible job of articulating his message. Obama was still running ads that McCain would tax your health care the day of the election. McCain never explained that was not true. He never talked about Obama's 7% health care plan payroll deduction. McCain never explained that when the Bush tax cuts expired, most people's taxes would go up.

It took a civilian like Joe the Plumber to finally bring Obama's real stance on spreading the wealth to the forefront. By that time it was really too late. Despite the Drill Here, Drill Now movement, little was said about what an Obama cap and trade/no oil or coal stance would look like.

Republicans and conservatives were angry that McCain didn't talk about the issues. J.T. Harris pleaded with McCain to bring up the real issues. Did McCain ever really nail Carter and Clinton for the mortgage crisis? No.

John McCain was obsessed with his "reach across the isle" fantasy. Every time he talked about that or his campaign finance reform as a selling feature, I wanted to scream. Ironically, it was his own McCain/Feingold that helped do him in.  

When John McCain gave his concession speech on Tuesday night, my husband said, he is a class act--McCain was very gracious. Moments later I think Fox News' Brit Hume said the same.

Many, including myself, saw John McCain as incapable of really fighting for his positions. I've often wondered if his POW imprisonment was the reason. When someone experiences a severe illness or tragedy, their priorities in life change. They no longer can bear a grudge or sweat the small stuff.

Whatever the reason, it was a long shot that McCain would win. The voters that I spoke with who voted 3rd party or sat it out summed it up: the lesser of 2 evils is still evil.

A McCain victory would not have been a conservative victory. (Even during the financial crisis he was still reaching across the isle talking about appointing Obama supporter Warren Buffet as Treasury Secretary--what would be wrong with Mitt Romney?)  

Without a Jimmy Carter we probably wouldn't have had a Ronald Reagan. But Carter inflicted a lot of damage in his 4 years, and Obama makes Carter look appealing.

President elect Obama already hinted he wouldn't be able to do it all in his first term. I hope he is right. In the meantime, Republicans, you better get your act together.  

PS Speaking of Class Acts, Brit Hume is stepping down "for a quieter life, spending time with his grandchildren and following his Christian faith."

Wisconsin Department of Transportation OPEN HOUSE: Proposed changes to Bluemound Road (east of Moorland Road, west of Sunnyslope Road), Thursday, Nov. 6th, 7-9pm
 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

I've been wondering about this for some time. Are some independents reluctant to voice support for John McCain because they don't want to take flack for supporting the Republicans? Democrats have incessantly talked against George Bush during this election cycle, as if they are running against him, even though George isn't running.

Amongst African Americans, I think there is a Bradley effect. Remember J.T. Harris telling McCain that he was taking a ...whipping for supporting McCain? J.T. continues to feel the heat.

The Investor's Business Daily poll isn't as hopeful for McCain today as it looked yesterday, but Obama still isn't 5% points ahead of McCain or above 50%. There are still 9.5% not sure. Are they really not sure or are they just not saying?

One interesting sidebar, there is another segment obsessed with George Bush. al Qaeda wants Republicans, Bush "humiliated": (Hmm, I wonder who they want to win?)

DUBAI (Reuters) - An al Qaeda leader has called for President George W. Bush and the Republicans to be "humiliated," without endorsing a party in the upcoming U.S. presidential election, according to an Internet video posting...

Terrorism monitor SITE Intelligence Group said in a report on Wednesday that militants on al Qaeda-linked websites have for months been debating the significance of Democratic presidential candidate Barak Obama or Republican John McCain.

...Others say his [Obama's] planned phased withdrawal from Iraq would be a boon to al Qaeda's affiliate and give it a base for Middle East expansion.

The only real poll that matters is the vote tally on election day. Go out and vote.

PS From Drudge: Interesting question: Can Obama win popular vote but lose election? And do remember that the early exit polls favored Kerry in 2004.

Sure, chances of Republicans retaining the White House are remote.

But some last-minute state polls show the GOP nominee closing the gap in key states — Republican turf of Virginia, Florida and Ohio among them, and Democratic-leaning Pennsylvania, too.

If the tightening polls are correct and undecided voters in those states break McCain's way — both big ifs — that could make for a repeat of the 2000 heartbreaker for Democrats that gave Republicans the White House.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Yet, there are those supposed Republican elitists who look down their noses at her with disdain. Some go as far as throwing their support to Barack Obama. Can someone who says they are a conservative or Republican really be for Barack Obama? Does that ring true?

Well, to put it in local context, it rings about as true as former Republican Mayor Kate Bloomberg and husband Frank Urban* endorsing Democrat Jim Sullivan for State Senate over incumbent Republican Tom Reynolds in 2006. From my Bloomberg's endorsement shows her true "blue state" colors:  

... in Bloomberg and Urban’s opinion, the Democrat they are endorsing is running to serve and represent the people of the 5th district effectively, “whether they are conservative, liberal, or somewhere in between”. Think about that. How is that even possible? On every major issue, I disagree STRONGLY with that candidate’s position.

How is it I would be satisfied with him [Sullivan] representing me? How could a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, believer in lower taxes, pro voter photo ID, anti-benefits to illegal aliens, fiscal conservative like me ever be represented by someone whose platform is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, opposed to voter photo ID, opposed to requiring welfare recipients to prove their legal US status, and pro-taxation?

Any Republican espousing those liberal values would be an "embarrassment" to the Republican Party. But then, I asked myself, how well did Mayor Kate reflect my values? Not very well. So, why would I give any credence to her endorsement now?

And so, I give the same credence to these elitists' criticisms of Gov. Sarah Palin and endorsements for Barack Obama. Come to think of it, Obama's platform is much the same as Sullivan's--so just substitute the elitists names for Bloomberg and Urban and Obama for Sullivan. The issues are the same.  

There was a great editorial in Investor's Business Daily Friday, Palin and the Elitists. It contrasts those "Republicans" who don't approve of Palin with others who do and the reasons why.

They [the elitists] all seem to no longer connect to either the heartland or a new kind of leader who didn't make her way up through elite colleges or through a husband's or father's connections. Maybe that's too hard to absorb for those who inhabit the stratified, elitist political ecosystems of New York and Washington.

Those who say she isn't ready haven't bothered to "gather evidence of her 'unreadiness' ." "Their dismissiveness sharply contrasts to others [such as Bill Kristol, Victor Davis Hanson, and Mark Steyn] who've tried to find out who Sarah Palin is.  They find it impossible to dismiss her."

The editorial concludes with, "Maybe Palin's straightforwardness and promises of reform threaten some among the conservative commentariat. Bad news: If John McCain and Palin win this vote, they're in for a long four years".

The Republican elite didn't like Ronald Reagan either. When he ran, they dismissed him as nothing more than a B movie actor. History proved them wrong.

*I was unaware that Frank Urban passed away on Saturday when I posted this piece. My sympathies to his wife Kate and family. 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Our race for the White House seems like it has gone on forever. Canada just got the job done in less than 2 months. (Lucky them!)

Who did Canadians elect? The Conservative or the Liberal?

The Conservative.

Canada's new Prime Minister is Stephen Harper and according to the Wall Street Journal, Conservative Canada, John McCain take note: (My emphasis)

...Harper and his Conservative Party coasted to an easy victory in national elections on Tuesday, winning 38% of the vote and 143 seats in parliament. Mr. Harper's closest competitor, Liberal Party leader Stéphane Dion, managed only 26% of the popular vote for 76 seats.

Though he did not win the 155 seats he needed to secure a majority, Mr. Harper did pick up 16 new members of parliament, while the Liberals lost 19 seats. In other words, in a time of great economic uncertainty, Canadians by a large margin went with the tax cutter over the tax raiser.

The WSJ suggested that Harper hoped to secure a parliament seat majority but his response to "the global financial panic" that critics said was "too casual" might have kept him from it. 

So what prompted his victory? His pro NATO role, funding military, and troops in Afghanistan to fight terrorism platform.

Mr. Harper restored Canada's important role in NATO and revived Canadian pride in playing a role on the world stage. He reversed a pattern of parliamentary neglect of Canada's armed forces and made proper funding for the troops a priority. Rather than flee Afghanistan as Mr. Dion wanted to do, Mr. Harper's Canada is playing a crucial role in the international effort to defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Domestically, Harper "promised to cut corporate taxes to further attract capital and grow the economy."

What was Harper's closest challenger, Liberal Mr. Dion's platform? "To levy a new carbon tax on business" and "flee Afghanistan."

What Americans will do on Nov. 4th remains the mystery. Will they be like their Canadian neighbors to the north and vote for the true tax cutter--especially on corporations--and pro military presence man John McCain? Or choose the wealth/income redistributor (remember Obama wants Bush Tax Cuts to expire) and abandon Iraq candidate Barack Obama?

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

On the news yesterday, I heard that John McCain and Sarah Palin will go to La Crosse Friday after their stop in Waukesha on Thursday. I think that is a good move. McCain will also be in Mosinee, WI, and Palin in Wilmington, OH later on Thursday.

Yesterday, Gov. Sarah Palin said she wanted to go back to Michigan--she wasn't giving up on that state. That is good news for Michigan since The GOP in Michigan is still trying to "boost efforts" in the state.

I just heard about this PAC group, Our Country Deserves Better. They aren't willing to give up Michigan either. In fact, they are holding a 2 day web-a-thon to raise $500,000 by Thursday morning. In their first day, they raised a little over half of it according to their CONTRIBUTE NOW page.

Their logic is that if McCain just gives Michigan up, Obama won't need to spend any time or money there.

The 17 electoral votes will be lost to Obama/Biden.  Down-ballot races of candidates sympathetic to McCain will lose.  And Obama will be able to take money he had intended for Michigan and put it into other swing states such as Nevada, Virginia, Florida, Ohio and Missouri.

We might be focusing on the presidential race, but the president isn't the only candidate on the ballot. The entire House is on the Nov. 4th ballot, and 36 Senators are up for election too.

The thought of an unbridled Democrat majority House and Democrat majority Senate with a Democrat President is enough motivation for citizens to shell out $254,000 (so far) to help Michigan. 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

I heard both Congressmen Paul Ryan and Jim Sensenbrenner interviewed on Jay Weber's radio show this morning. (Hour 4 Part 2). Since I trust the opinion of both of these men, I was curious as to why Ryan voted YES and Sensenbrenner NO on the latest bailout bill. 

First Congressman Ryan, who does have a degree in economics. The following are some notes I took from the interview--they are not direct quotes. Listen to the podcast if you can.

Ryan said the bill yesterday was the Paulson plan with quite a bit of tweaks.

The original Paulson bill was 3 pages: Give me a blank checkbook with $700billion.

We wrote a [Republican] alternative. Ours said, Let's make the firms buy insurance.

We rewrote the bill, added stock options--warrants to taxpayers, so the taxpayer is first in line to get money back (if there are profits--that means ACORN would not be getting funding as the orig. Paulson bill stated.) Executives won't get a Golden Parachute.

This bill was $350 billion: $250b immediately and $100b later. An additional $350b would need to be voted on in the future.  

Over the weekend, credit markets went crazy. The problem is not just on Wall Street. Credit markets are shutting down. [That means cash flow for payrolls is unavailable.] There is a fear of recession.

"I'm now sincerely worried this could lead to recession."

Jay Weber: Can we move slowly or do we need to move quickly?

Ryan: Tax money goes out the door either way, this way (bailout) or from FDIC (if banks fail.) Paulson mishandled this so badly.  We added 107 pages to his bill. 

I have never seen things like this [credit freezing up]--ever. Businesses won't be able to cash flow payrolls.

Weber: There is a deep distrust of Congress.

Ryan: 2,300 calls [to my office] almost all against the bailout. [That is changing a little now.] We have to corral Wall Street so it doesn't spill to Main Street.

Weber: Why aren't Republicans hammering this?

Ryan: I am. Since 2002 I have voted against Freddie and Fannie every time.

I think Paul Ryan voted for this measure because he is genuinely worried about our economy shutting down. He knows that if businesses cannot get credit to meet their payrolls, that means workers do not get paid. With many Americans just a paycheck away from being broke, we cannot afford to let that happen. Businesses also use credit to purchase supplies and equipment for future production.

Then it was Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner's turn:

Paulson [Barney Frank] plan fatally flawed from the beginning. That money all came from taxpayers.

The word was, $700billion would not be enough.

America can't afford this. We are wealthy, but there is a limit. 

All of this is inflationary. Interest rates will shoot up. [Remember] 20% prime rates during Carter? 

We should go back to the regular order [of crafting legislation] with committee meetings, rather than Paulson saying we have to do this.

Weber: We're racing against the clock.

Sensenbrenner: When markets opened [today] they were up 200, so hopefully the markets have calmed down.

Paulson is pushing for now. It bailed out the people who caused the problem.

I'm prepared to go back when Pelosi calls us back.

This is a case of Congress serving the people. 

Weber: What angers people is Frank and Dodd in charge of the fix. Is there any mechanism to say when you failed the people, get off the committee!

Sensenbrenner: The Community Reinvestment Act was a significant factor [to what is going on.] 

The process worked yesterday. The speeches like from Pelosi need to stop. She also knew there were not the votes to pass. Why did she bring the bill to the floor? [To fix blame on the Republicans]

Weber: Would you change the Community Reinvestment Act?

Sensenbrenner: Repeal of that law should be in the new package now.

The Security and Exchange Commission dropped the ball--enforcement was not vigorous. 

The Justice Department should investigate if any fraud was committed. [Imprisonment would serve as a deterrent.]

So there you have the Yea and the Nay. Where is Solomon when you need him? 

Conservatives would hope the next version of the bailout bill would be better for taxpayers, that it keeps money from ACORN and repeals the Community Reinvestment Act. With this crew I don't have much hope.

My fear is that the next version will included ACORN funding again or worse. The Democrats will vote for it, and President Bush, who is really over a barrel here, will have to sign it.

Calls from Americans running 500 against, to 1 in favor, of the bailout might be the only thing that saving us from an UGLY pig of a bill.

Post Script: Along the lines of Sensenbrenner's request that they craft this bill carefully, 165 Economists rip bailout plan:

The economists say they are well aware of the current financial situation and agree there's a need for bold action but ask Congress "not to rush."

They urge lawmakers to hold appropriate hearings and "to carefully consider the right course of action." 

Right now the market is up 307 points from yesterday's close. You can check anytime on USAToday. (If you leave it open, it automatically refreshes.) 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

What if I had a cure for Parkinson's, leukemia, diabetes, or paralysis caused by spinal cord injury? All you would have to do is take an infant, remove all of its stem cells (sorry, the infant dies), tweak the cells, and transfer them to the ill patient.

Would you do it?

Most people wouldn't and would consider that murderous act barbaric. Yet those who favor embryonic stem cell research are in effect doing just that in the eyes of those who are pro-life.

If you believe that life begins at conception, then even using an embryo for research purposes is an act of murder.

President Bush has been adamantly opposed to federal funding for embryonic stem cell research for that very reason. (The Bush stance only opposes federal funding--not outlawing private research.)

McCain has voted for existing embryonic stem cell research in the past, but those measures failed. John McCain is opposed to embryonic stem cell research that would encourage growing embryos for the purpose. The Republican platform is against any federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, but THEY ALL, BUSH, McCAIN, and PALIN FAVOR FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ADULT STEM CELL RESEARCH! 

The outrageous Obama radio ad that distorts McCain's position includes a woman talking about her diabetic daughter. She says that John McCain is opposed to stem cell research. It goes on to say that medical research, benefiting millions, shouldn't be held hostage by a few.

So why do the Democrats constantly tell people that McCain and Bush are against stem cell research?

Two reasons: One, they want to portray the Republicans as heartless cretins, too stuck on religious principal to care about the ill. Two, if the Democrats can get people to buy into the necessity for embryonic stem cell research, it will dilute the anti-abortion/sanctity of life position of conservatives.

The issue should become moot in time, according to CNS, which is consistent with what I have seen reported*,

Stem cells obtained from adult humans have been widely acclaimed for their ability to promote human health and stave off dreaded illnesses. Stem cells obtained from human embryos, however, have not been successful in yielding results in scientific research thus far.

It will be wonderful to cure some of these diseases in the near future. McCain and Palin are in favor of curing these diseases too, just not at the expense of another individual! Remember that next time you hear an Obama ad saying they aren't.

PS Nick Reed (substitute for Vicki McKenna) called the mother, Jody Montgomery, from the ad to ask if she knew she was telling a complete lie. Turns out, this is the same woman who used the same type ad against Mark Green 2 years ago. Listen to the podcast from the 10am hour on Sept. 24th to hear more.

*Nick Reed just name some of the 73 benefits to human patients obtained from ADULT stem cell research on the same radio program. He continued the stem cell discussion into the 11am hour. He mentioned the 73 benefits at about 11:20am if you were listening to the podcast. See Stemcellresearch.org 

Brookfield District 7 Info meeting, Wed., Sept. 24, 2-3pm or 6:30-7:30pm City Clerk Kris Schmidt will be in attendance to answer questions or concerns regarding recent news about the Van Hollen lawsuit against the state elections authority.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

The phrase so close, yet so far away was never more true for me than yesterday. A friend asked on Thursday night if I was interested in going to Cedarburg Friday, That was just the nudge I needed. I said, yes!

Neither of us had ever gone to one of these campaign stops before, so we were greenhorns. We did manage to get there by 8am, but we could see by the crowd, that was not nearly early enough.

After waiting for a long time to get through security, something I should have anticipated, we finally were allowed through. Unfortunately, we were on the north side of the podium--the wrong side of town. We did have an excellent view of the backside of the press bleachers though! (Photo courtesy of another attendee.)

From JSOnline: Police said there were at least 12,500 who were admitted to the secure area and another 5,000 who did not fit.

The rumor was that when this Cedarburg stop was originally set up, they were expecting a crowd of 2,000. I think there is little doubt about what Palin and the convention has done for the ticket. (I think many people saw a new side to John McCain through his convention speech.)

Whitney Clapper sang the National Anthem and did an outstanding job. Dr. Ferry from Concorida University provided the invocation--not just some wimpy little generic prayer, this was a meaty prayer. (I should have taken notes but my eyes were closed.)

We could hear the speakers fine; we just could not see a thing. While Congressman Sensenbrenner was speaking, the guards permitted a crowd of attendees to flood the street, allowing them to get much closer to the bleachers, while we were kept back on the sidewalks. Many started booing near me. Poor Sensenbrenner! The boos quickly died down when the sidewalk crowd realized the street group could see no better.

We decided that we might as well leave our spot to see if we could get a better glimpse on the south side of the crowd. The guard informed us we would have to go through security on the other end of main street if we left, but we really did not care. It was pretty worthless where we were.

It was an interesting walk down the alley to the east of the main street.We could see the news vans,.sign distribution area (picked up a few), campaign "stuff" vendors, and of course...protesters.

 
I purchased a fabulous pin, featuring Lincoln (birth of the Republican party), Reagan, and now McCain.

We then headed to Tomasos Pizza where we could watch the coverage on the TV screen. There we met William, who told us he was right up front! He showed us some of his pictures on his camera and promised to email. (Many on the slideshow are courtesy of Bill and another friend.)
                                                                                                       Other people on the street had various signs, McCain face cut-outs, and some had elephant shaped auction paddle style signs. The paddles we learned were courtesy of John Murphy (left) of Mequon's BetterBidders auction paddle company. We met up with him later and he told us a similar pair, from the 2004 election, now resides in the Smithsonian! 

The crowd was very up-beat, despite 1,000s being turned away. People were friendly and ready to share or trade their McCain/Palin goodies. Even though we were not able to see the candidates for ourself, it still was a fun experience. The weather was great and the mood even better.

No doubt about it, the Republicans are energized!

Bits and pieces

A funny tid-bit:

"After speaking, McCain and Palin ducked into The Chocolate Factory to greet people. "I've got to get the moose tracks, please," said Palin at the counter. "Moose tracks, you know, near and dear to my heart. I can't go wrong with it." She was given a waffle cone with a giant scoop. McCain ordered sorbet; Cindy McCain ordered a brownie.

Interesting note: When an important person is in town, such as the president of the United States or presidential candidate, don't count on going to Froedert hospital's emergency room without calling first. Friday they diverted patients to other hospitals while the VIP were in town. (Learned this by experience.)

What to, and not to bring: My advice is that it is best to think of these events in terms of airport security. While waiting in line to pass through security, we heard you needed ID (didn't.) Also heard umbrellas were a no-no, so were American flags if the stick was too long. I think beverages were out too. Weapons of course are verboten and I think a scissors, letter opener, pocket knife, or anything else the guard might think could be used to hurt someone. The guard next to us was ripping the flags off the sticks and keeping the sticks, but my guard let me take mine in. My very short collapsible umbrella was OK (they did feel it though.)

Favorite homemade sign: This lady told us she came all the way from Tennessee!

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post.

Links: Lots more pictures on my McCain Slideshow 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

Evidently Sarah Palin was warned about the potential for vicious attacks from McCain's opponents. She is no shrinking violet though. William Kristol posted this:

"A nervous young McCain staffer took it upon himself to explain to Palin the facts of life in a national campaign, the intense scrutiny she'd be under from the media, the viciousness of the assault that she'd be facing, etc." Here is what she had to say,

You have got to say she has chutzpah!

I am eagerly anticipating her speech tonight. Will we see the same confidence we saw in her on Friday?

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

Last night, Bill O'Reilly was hot under the collar about MSNBC's coverage of McCain's Sarah Palin VP pick. Here is the YouTube clip.

MSNBC really crossed the line by adding the caption, "How many houses does Palin add to the Republican ticket?" under their breaking news bulletin of the event. I also agree with O'Reilly that Tom Brokaw and Brian Williams bear some responsibility here too. By appearing on MSNBC, they lend credence to this type of snide reporting.

Any wonder MSNBC isn't watched by conservatives?

I used to get all my news from NBC; I've watched ever since the Dave Garaway years! The Today Show used to be the first thing I turned on in the morning and I prepared dinner with Tom Brokaw. But over the years, NBC became so biased (and fluffy), I couldn't take it anymore.

In Googling this topic, I came across a new acronym for NBC: New Barack Channel 

By the way, I think it's odd that MSNBC would even raise the house question since Sarah Palin seems so very mainstream American and working class. There doesn't appear to be an elite bone in her body--she loves moose stew and probably doesn't even know what arugula lettuce is! 

UPDATE: Sept. 8, 2008 MSNBC just demoted their anchors Olbermann and Matthews to commentators. "The change reflects tensions between the freewheeling, opinionated MSNBC and the impartial newsgatherers at NBC News."

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,   Vicki Mckenna

"She's a female Teddy Roosevelt" a caller told Jay Weber today, as I was listening for the latest VP news. That sums it up well.

Sarah Palin seems a perfect complement to McCain: Young, energetic, a governor, pro-marriage, passionately pro-life. She is a life long member of the NRA, hunts and ice fishes.

McCain and Palin have the potential to get our budget under control and end waste. Palin's nickname was the barracuda in high school.

I heard she cleaned house in Alaska, leaving a trail of bodies in her wake. (Many of them good ole boy republicans!)  It sounds like she won't tolerate corruption or waste regardless of whose party it comes from. That is what we need.

I think Ronald Reagan would be pleased. I know I am breathing a sigh of relief. I will feel even better when I hear John McCain say it himself. (I am a bit of a Doubting Thomas at times.)

Links: