I always find it interesting to see how much politicians give to charity. Senator Joe Biden gave a paltry $995 last year, yet he made $2,450,042! And his $995 to nonprofits was over twice his normal yearly giving for the past 9 out of 10 years. Why do I say paltry? Because many teens I know give more money from their part time job income than he gave in his past average donations.  Biden made almost $2.5 million but gave such a little amount... amazing.

Actually, I am surprised at his Scrooge-ishness, because Biden says he is a Catholic. I would have thought he would have given his church more. (David Wade, a spokesperson, said the Bidens did give to their church, “The charitable contributions claimed by the Bidens on their tax returns are not the sum of their annual contributions to charity.” That could be the case. But why they wouldn't record these donations and put them on their tax return is beyond me, since that is such a standard practice. It raises the question, if you aren't claiming the entire amount, then why list any at all?)

I was thinking about stinginess vs. generosity again today when I looked at our church bulletin. I usually check the offering report for the previous week and often am pleasantly surprised at the dollar amounts listed. Our congregation almost always gives above the amount needed to stay on budget, and they do this without coercion.

The associate pastor does remind us from time to time that all we have is from God and that He allows us to keep around 90%. But there is no heavy handed tithe requirement or even a hint that giving more makes God love you more. The love is supposed to be coming from us to God in the giving, and it is evident in our church. Often people give more than the usual 10%. Many of these families are not wealthy and some are large, having 4 or more children.

Given that Al Gore and his wife gave a pittance, coupled with Biden's ridiculous amount, and the Obamas only recently gave above their 1% average, to me shows a selfishness. God instructs us to give Him the first of our fruits, not the left-overs. We are to trust Him to take care of us. (In fact, that was the subject of our sermon today, from a series on The Sermon on the Mount, Oct. 5, 2008)*

It's no wonder these politicians think people must be compelled by the government to give to social programs through taxes. They know they would not give voluntarily. From National Revue:

It has become a common practice, when a presidential candidate releases his or her tax returns, for reporters and pundits to examine how much the candidate gave to charity. In September 1992, for example, when the Washington Post reported that Al Gore, then the Democratic candidate for vice president, had released his tax returns, the second paragraph in the story noted that out of income of $183,558, Gore “donated $1,727 — less than 1 percent — to charity.

But thankfully, plenty of Americans do give voluntarily, and they give a lot!

When the government taxes me more, it reduces my ability to give to the good works I think are worthy. Taxes also compel me to support programs I don't agree with or think are immoral, such as Planned Parenthood or ACORN. My "donation" in the form of taxes gets less bang for my buck because it must first travel through the maze of wasteful government bureaucracy.

If politicians like Biden, Obama, and Gore would give more to charity, maybe they would be less eager to increase taxes to pay for government social programs. Maybe then they would be more understanding of how higher taxes impacts voluntary giving. Obviously they have not tried it.

In case you were interested, McCain's giving, Palin's income and giving. 

*When my husband was laid off in 1982, we were concerned that we would not be able to meet our charitable donation commitments. Thankfully, we got through it.  

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: 

There is lots of chatter today about how Sen. John McCain squashed the soon-to-pass bail out plan. (So much for the Dems. calling him Bush 3)**

Hmm, the Democrats are in the majority, why don't they just pass it on their own?*

Because they don't have the votes in their own party.

Truth is, the bail out bill the media said was near passing, was NOT anywhere near approval. House Republicans were not consulted on the Paulson bail out bill.

In addition, Senator Lindsey Graham was on Fox last night and explained that part of the bail out money would go to ACORN! From Hot Air:

House Republicans refused to support the Henry Paulson/Chris Dodd compromise bailout plan yesterday afternoon, even after the New York Times reported that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson got down on one knee to beg Nancy Pelosi to compromise.  One of the sticking points, as Senator Lindsey Graham explained later, wasn’t a lack of begging but a poison pill that would push 20% of all profits from the bailout into the Housing Trust Fund — a boondoggle that Democrats in Congress has used to fund political-action groups like ACORN and the National Council of La Raza

Would you want that to pass? 

Most Americans are not in favor of a bail out. Most Republicans do not favor a bail out. Newt Gingrich has not favored a bail out to save our economy. (Emphasis mine) 

Newt Gingrich:  Well, the last time we were promised they were going to save us, it was $300 billion; it was a housing bill.  And what liberal Democrats in Congress did, for example, was add $500 million a year for a left-wing activist group called Acorn.  Now, I can’t imagine why we’d want the taxpayer to give $500 million a year to a left-wing activist group, but it’s in the bill which the Bush administration signed and that was only back in July and that was going to solve everything.  That was $300 billion ago.

Now we have a brand-new, liberal Democrats, many of whom, for example, Chris Dodd, was the largest single recipient of money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and he is the chairman of the Banking Committee.  So the guy who got the most money is now going to write a bill to give taxpayers money to the people who gave him money.  Somehow, I am not reassured.

The House GOP (Republicans) have presented a plan of their own. It is more of a Work Out than Bail Out. Gingrich also favors a Work Out that would include borrowing at 2% not bailing.

I may just be a Home Economist, but I know we need to do something. If the average American was in better financial shape, not carrying around $8,000 debt on their credit card and not one paycheck away from financial disaster, I might be inclined to just tough it out.  

Gingrich recommended that Republican leaders like Boehner, DeMint, Shelby, and McCain meet to put together a proposal Americans will support. Then the people will put the pressure on the Democrats in Congress to pass it, much like public pressured Congress to drill for domestic oil. But since Harry Reid just stuck a ban on domestic oil shale drilling onto an appropriations bill, while this crisis is going on, so much for listening to the will of the people and doing what this country needs.

Heaven help us. I mean that literally.

Read more: Market Rescue Dos and Don'ts  from the Heritage Foundation

*Observation courtesy of Nick Reed interjecting on the Jay Weber show this morning. 

**Observation by a caller on Rush's show today. (The car radio does make running errands more tolerable!) 

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 question of the day is, will Sen. John McCain go to the debate tonight? (UPDATE: Yes)

If he does not go, here are 2 possibilities:

1. Send Governor Palin. She seems to have done well impressing the various leaders at the UN meetings:

The presidents of Iraq and Georgia gushed over Palin as they met with her yesterday. And Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai told an audience Tuesday night after meeting Palin earlier that day that she asked all the right questions.

Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari expressed great joy in meeting her during the short photo session at the start of their meeting that was viewed by reporters and cameras.

"You are even more gorgeous than you are on the [inaudible]," Zardari said.

"You are so nice. Thank you," Palin said.

"Now I know why the whole of America is crazy about you," Zardari said, as his handler told them to shake hands for the cameras.

2. Last night Ann Coulter quipped, Barack Obama could debate Joe Biden!  ;-)

I will be watching tonight to see what develops. Even if John McCain shows up, it will be disappointing to me. For some reason, I thought teleprompters were not allowed at the debates, I now know differently. (No wonder only the Town Hall meeting invitations were declined.) 

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 rumor mill is churning out that Sen. Joe Biden will step aside for medical reasons* and that Sen. Hillary Clinton step in as VP. Never mind that her husband just said yesterday that Hillary never wanted to be Vice President.

Obviously, Sen. Obama wasn't thrilled with the idea either, or he would have picked her. (The thought of a Hillary VP, who only has presidential aspirations, is daunting.) Besides, wouldn't that be the ultimate flip-flop? That Obama couldn't even make up his mind on who to pick for VP?  No, I think Obama is just stuck with Biden and his bloopers. (They have added a unique bit of entertainment to this election.)

Plus, Governor Sarah Palin stole Sen. Clinton's thunder by being the first Republican** woman nominated for VP.

But in politics, you never know what will happen next. Time will tell. 

*Not so serious that they keep him out of the senate though. 

**Correction: I did not mean to forget Geraldine Ferraro. She however did not generate the same excitement and anticipation that Palin has as a possible presidential candidate in the next cycle. 

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: 

Yup, it is true. Former President Bill Clinton appeared on Good Morning America this morning and defended John McCain. (Politics makes strange bedfellows!)

ABC News' Nitya Venkataraman Reports: Former President Bill Clinton defended Sen. John McCain's request to delay the first presidential debate, saying McCain did it in "good faith" and pushed organizers to reserve time for economy talk during the debate if the Friday plans move forward.

... 

"We know he didn't do it because he's afraid because Sen. McCain wanted more debates," Clinton said, adding that he was "encouraged" by the joint statement from McCain and Sen. Barack Obama.

Clinton also commented on the Democrat's accusation that this problem came out of nowhere--we had nothing to do with this. He admitted some responsibility in this mess lies with the Democrats in Congress. (About half way through the clip)

Well... ...the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put in some standards and tighten up a little with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [He also blamed the Up Tick rule.]

I really hope the Congress acts in good faith and not in their typical political way, as in the NO Drill Bill. When Sen. Obama originally stated that he would not come, that "If you need me, call me." if he was needed, I wondered how that would have gone over with the Democrats if Pres. Bush had done that with Hurricane Katrina.

GOPUSA's piece, Bailing out the Bailout, talks about Sen. Reid's flip flop on McCain's presence and what some conservatives hope McCain can do, 

...Until McCain's announcement, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid seemed inclined to support the $700 billion bailout bill -- provided Democrats could lard it with their own goodies -- but only if McCain (and other Republicans) would support the package and provide the Dems with political cover.

"I got some good news in the last hour or so ... it appears that Sen. McCain is going to come out for this," Reid announced Tuesday evening.

...

Reid's office promptly released a statement that said, "We need leadership; not a campaign photo-op." So the bailout is worth spending $700 billion of other people's money -- but not worth McCain flying to Washington to broker a doable deal? Get the feeling Reid is completely out of touch?

Now, what if McCain could reduce the size of the bailout? (That is a tall order, but hope springs eternal with me.)

If, however, McCain can broker a more fiscally responsible plan -- read one with a price tag about half of the original's size or less, and with a cap on executive pay -- he just might be able to broker a deal that can pass muster.

McCain is taking a huge chance here. Even just going to Washington to vote on this measure is a risk. One has to wonder if Obama hoped he could duck the whole thing by not going to the Senate to vote at all--a variation on voting, "Present."

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: 

In the land of double standard politics, here is another story.

AP Whines Palin 'Banned' Them From Chat with Foreign Leaders, No Such Concern When Obama Did:

Palin is in New York City for the open of the United Nations General Assembly. A review of media coverage from Obama's behind-closed-doors chats with European heads of state, however, shows no such complaint by the media about a lack of access.

As you know, Sarah Palin was originally invited to speak on Monday at the anti-Iran rally organized by a Jewish group in New York. But then the Dems Threaten Anti-Iran Rally Organizers With IRS Attack if they Let Palin Speak. She was dis-invited:

News has emerged that the organizers of that anti-Iran rally that famously got snarled up in Senator Hillary Clinton's ire at Governor Sarah Palin last week were threatened by New York Democrats with IRS action against their tax-exempt status if they allowed Palin to speak.

...The world must awake to the threat this man poses to all of us. Ahmadinejad denies that the Holocaust ever took place. He dreams of being an agent in a "Final Solution" — the elimination of the Jewish people. He has called Israel a "stinking corpse" that is "on its way to annihilation." Such talk cannot be dismissed as the ravings of a madman — not when Iran just this summer tested long-range Shahab-3 missiles capable of striking Tel Aviv, not when the Iranian nuclear program is nearing completion, and not when Iran sponsors terrorists that threaten and kill innocent people around the world.

Her speech lists sanctions and measures the US and world must enforce but also of McCain's promise to "Never again will we risk another Holocaust. And this is not a wish, a request, or a plea to Israel's enemies. This is a promise that the United States and Israel will honor, against any enemy who cares to test us."

Governor Palin went to New York anyway and "also asked former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger for insights on Georgia, Russia, China and Iran, and she'll see more leaders Wednesday on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly meetings." Palin meets her first world leaders in New York:

Palin sat down with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. The conversations were private, the pictures public, meant to build her resume for voters concerned about her lack of experience in world affairs.

"I found her quite a capable woman," Karzai said later. "She asked the right questions on Afghanistan."

Today more meetings are planned,

...McCain and Palin are expected to meet jointly with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili and Ukrainian President Viktor Yuschenko. Palin is then to meet separately with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

The AP, as cited above, isn't happy about their denial of access to these meetings, but it was OK that Obama denied access to his meetings with leaders on his European tour?

Yet when Sen. Barack Obama went to Europe this summer and met with past and present foreign leaders, print media were similarly on the outside looking in. Obama met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, former and current British Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown (respectively), and French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

No doubt about it, this is Governor Sarah Palin's chance to meet with these world leaders--she is new on the world leader scene.

Senator Obama is hardly a heavyweight in foreign policy either, "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny, compared to the Soviet Union, they don't pose a serious threat to us...If Iran would ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they would not stand a chance." (Um, Obama, remember Japan and Pearl Harbor and Germany and WW2?)  As for Biden, well, he is Biden.

Is it more important for a VP candidate to have years of experience, chronologically speaking, yet shoot their mouth off misspeaking all over the place: no clean coal in the US, stand up Chuck, Hillary Clinton would be better than me, a divided Jerusalem is the solution, Roosevelt went on TV, and the like, or is the ability to make good decisions more important than years of experience?

PS  In response to Contrarian's comment that Palin avoids the media and voter questions, this is not true. I forgot about this until Rush Limbaugh mentioned it today. She will be interviewed by Katie Couric tonight and does take questions after town hall meetings. I had even seen a clip of a town hall meeting on a news show--sorry, I don't remember which one--and it was laughable. McCain would call on an audience member for a question, but question after question was for Palin. He took his rejection in a good hearted way, but it was clear that they all wanted to speak with her and she answered easily. She may have no use for the mainstream media, but she is talking to the people.

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: 

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: 

I constantly hear the Palin affect if over and done with--mostly from liberals. How then do we explain that Barack Obama drew a crowd of 6,000 in Green Bay and Sarah Palin drew about 60,000 in Florida? Granted, she was in very friendly territory, but people still waited for hours in the hot sun to see her.

A 60,000 person draw is pretty good for a woman who was called "disabled" by Democrat Charles Rangel.

What happened to Obama up in Packer country? The Chicago Sun Times reported, Uncharacteristically low turnout for Barack Obama rally in Green Bay, Wis., McCain/Palin drew 4,000 more supporters at same venue a week ago.

Just a week ago, John McCain and his vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin — who can bring out crowds the way Obama can — appeared in this same stadium, Resch Center, to a crowd of 10,000 fans. There were an uncharacteristic amount of empty orange seats for Obama’s rally.

In their defense, Obama's backers note their rally was held on Monday at noon, compared to a Thursday night rally for McCain and Palin.

Time will tell of course which way Wisconsin goes come Nov. 4th. I think we will need a large margin of Republican votes to counter the voter fraud in this state. But as the Obama campaign shadows the McCain campaign in battleground states and venues, I will be watching to see how the attendance numbers compare.

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 Democrats present the Trojan Drilling Bill, the stock market is in major jitters, investors look for safe places to put their money. Hence oil, gold/silver/precious metals go up. Pretty simple.

With the Democrat's no-drill oil bill, prohibiting drilling in most areas, there will be little change in our domestic oil supply. If we don't get a real Drill Here bill, we will be dependent on foreign oil for years and paying higher prices. It is supply and demand...the price will go up.

Anyone wondering if the Democrats are trying to create such an oil price crisis that the government must come in and take that industry over too? I am hard pressed to explain the Democrat's stance any other way.

The other factor involved in precious metal and oil price increases is the fall of the dollar. It had been improving since about July. But the Freddie and Fannie / financials bail outs cause the United States to expand the money supply. That is inflationary, resulting in the value of the individual dollar to fall. Again, it is supply and demand.

From the Financial Times: The Short View: Oil and the Dollar: 

By late morning in New York on Monday, the price of oil had climbed by 20 per cent in barely five days and scarcely anyone had noticed. Then it went into overdrive, hitting $130 at one point before settling at $120.92. Last Tuesday, it traded at $90.51 – a swing of 44 per cent from bottom to top.

This had little to do with the supply of and demand for oil and everything to do with the fallout from the “Paulson plan” – the proposal to risk $700bn of US public money in a bail-out of toxic securities held by banks.

Oil rose as doubts surfaced about the plan.

When people are nervous, they look for tangible products to invest in. 

A key variable is the dollar. So far, it has fallen in response to the possible huge rise in the US deficit. The markets seem to have gone a step further and assumed that this step will be be inflationary and cause financial assets to lose value.

In that situation, the thing to do was to head for real assets, led by oil, although other commodities, led by silver, also had a strong day. Unfortunately for the Paulson plan, the inverse relationship between oil and the dollar is one of the few financial constants to have survived the past few days.

I heard this morning that oil settled down to about $108/barrel in Asia. People are nervous worldwide. The US money supply is expanded beyond thin.

The last thing we need is another check writing spree by the government in the form of a Democrat 2nd $50billion stimulus package or a $1,000 energy rebate based on a windfall profit tax to oil companies as Obama is touting. (That tax would be passed onto consumers, making oil prices higher.)

Even the Federal Government can only print so much money if it is to be worth more than the paper it is printed on! 

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: 

I would like to formally retract a comment I made on Cindy Kilkenny's Fairly Conservative blog. It was regarding Tina Fey's impersonation of Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live (Sept. 13th.) I said,

I did not see the program but heard about it today and read the script. Unbelievable. There is NOTHING funny about incest and certainly nothing funny about hinting at it going on in the Palin household. NBC's Saturday Night Live might think they can pass this sketch off as a slam on the New York Times, but I think it is just a disgusting attempt to further smear the Republican's VP pick.

Speaking of slamming the New York Times, today, McCain strategist Steve Schmidt called the New York Times a "Pro-Obama Advocacy Organization,"

Let's be clear and be honest with each other. Whatever the New York Times once was, it is today not by any standard a journalistic organization.

"It is a pro-Obama advocacy organization that every day, attacks the McCain campaign, attacks Gov. Palin and excuses Sen. Obama."

"There is no level of public vetting. There is no level of outrage ... let's not be dishonest and call it something other than what it is. Everything that is in the New York Times that attacks this campaign should be evaluated from that perspective."

Don't forget, MS-NBC is "in the tank" for Obama too. 

No other candidate has been treated like Sarah Palin has--ever. To have the lefty media attack her and her family like this is truly vile.

If the liberal media keeps this up, soon they will have no independent minded or conservative viewers left. This election is certainly showing the media's true blue state colors.

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: 

Barack Obama has an ad running about lobbyists advising the McCain campaign. In light of the Freddie and Fannie mess, and that Obama was the #2 recipient ($152,698) of Freddie/Fannie donations, if I were Obama, I don't think I would even bring this up. (McCain "has taken $16,400 from Freddie and Fannie employees since 2005.")

John McCain is fighting back against Obama's accusations with this new ad, "Advice"

"Obama has no background in economics.

Who advises him?

The Post says it's Franklin Raines, for "advice on mortgage and housing policy."

Shocking.

Under Raines, Fannie Mae committed "extensive financial fraud." ....

The McCain ad goes on to cite various news articles and some disturbing facts about Johnson and Raines. If you care to look at the news items the ad was based on, here they are:

"The Obama Campaign Has Solicited Franklin Raines, Who "Stepped Down As Fannie Mae's Chief Executive Under The Shadow Of A $6.3 Billion Accounting Scandal," For "Advice On Mortgage And Housing Policy." "In the four years since he stepped down as Fannie Mae's chief executive under the shadow of a $6.3 billion accounting scandal, Franklin D. Raines has been quietly constructing a new life for himself. He has shaved eight points off his golf handicap, taken a corner office in Steve Case's D.C. conglomeration of finance, entertainment and health-care companies and more recently, taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."

"...In October 2003, even as Raines was invited to the Bush White House to receive a leadership award on behalf of Fannie Mae, investigators were about to look into the company's accounting books. A year later, Congress held a hearing on accounting irregularities at the company. By the end of 2004, Raines was forced out by the board, accused by regulators of overseeing accounting manipulations to bolster his compensation. Both from On the Outside Now, Watching Fannie Falter

 

"The Washington Post: "Two Members Of Mr. Obama's Political Circle, James A. Johnson And Franklin D. Raines, Are Former Chief Executives Of Fannie Mae." From Tough Decision Coming

 

Under Franklin Raines' Leadership, Fannie Mae Committed "Extensive Financial Fraud" And Was Forced To Pay A $400 Million Civil Penalty. "In a May report, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight found that Fannie Mae under Raines perpetrated 'extensive financial fraud' so that executives could collect big bonuses. There have been no criminal charges, but the conduct of Raines and other senior Fannie executives 'was inconsistent with the values of responsibility, accountability, and integrity,' the agencies said. Fannie paid a $400 million civil penalty this year to the SEC and OFHEO." From Raines Claiming Accountability Isn't Enough,

Franklin Raines Received $114,000 Monthly Pension Benefit. "While disclosing the number and current value of stock options Raines was allowed to keep when he retired, as well as his $114,000 monthly pension benefit, Fannie Mae did not disclose any estimates of how much these benefits would ultimately cost shareholders."

Franklin Raines' Retirement Package From Fannie Mae Was Estimated To Be Worth As Much As $25 Million. "Raines was 55 when he retired, and the authors estimated that his retirement package could be worth as much as $25 million to him and his wife." Both from Study of Fannie Mae Cites 'Perverse" Executive-pay Policy

FYI,  "Obama's running mate, Joe Biden, took just one donation, for $500, from one Freddie employee. McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, is Fannie- and Freddie-free, having never run for federal office."

I am sure we will hear more back and forth on this subject. One thing is for sure, the lead time on new ad creation has certainly been reduced!

Brookfield District 7 Info meeting, Wed., Sept. 24, 2-3pm or 6:30-7:30pm

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: 

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

The public and the press are often fickle. One day they praise you, the next they ridicule. That seems to be the case with VP pick Sen. Joe Biden. At first he was praised for adding experience to the Obama ticket, but now he is fast becoming Joe Biden: The incredible shrinking candidate.

Someone should break the bad news to Sen. Joe Biden: As a vice presidential candidate he's doing far worse than Dan Quayle.

In 1988 Quayle became a national laughingstock to the liberal American mainstream media. But he did succeed in helping rally an even-then somewhat dubious Reaganite-conservative GOP base behind Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush, who coasted to an easy victory over Democratic nominee Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis.

It is far better for vice presidential candidates to be lightning rods who are despised by the national media but who are good at rallying the grassroots of the party.

Even Biden expressed his wonderment over Obama picking him for VP when he said, "She's [Hillary] easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America and, quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me, but she is first-rate."

If Obama should win the White House, one has to wonder just what role Biden would play. Would Joe Biden even be trusted to fulfill the standard VP role of attending funerals? Can you imagine "Stand up, Chuck" at a state funeral?

But for now, Sen. Joe Biden, who had his own presidential aspirations, is fulfilling his V.P. candidate role.

He works hard, he churns out the speeches, he castigates Republican nominee McCain of Arizona as the fearless "attack dog" he was supposed to be. Yet after he does everything he was supposed to do, even the media who sang hosannas over his selection just report it all glumly and then shrug it off. And no one else cares.

...So far, Attack Dog Biden hasn't managed to land even a friendly lick on John McCain's face. While Palin flourishes amid the media's most frenzied efforts to smear and destroy her, Biden shrivels under that far crueler death blow to any politician's ego--amiable and polite forgetfulness. He is too ineffectual and peripheral to even warrant contempt.

Ouch. But that is the way of roses. They bud, bloom and look beautiful, then they wilt and are cast into the trash--only the thorns remain.

Speaking of roses and funerals...The bloom is off the Obama rose for some African Americans, he was heckled at a recent speech (protest signs are OK, but I do not approve of their vocal behavior), and Obama could use a little brush up on memorial decorum. See 9/11 Ground Zero etiquette: A tale of two roses 

Brookfield District 7 Info meeting, Wed., Sept. 24, 2-3pm or 6:30-7:30pm

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: 

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

I cannot believe people don't understand this, but here it goes.

The old saying, putting lipstick on a pig, is rather like the saying, making a silk purse out of a sows ear. It just means that you can try to dress up a dirty, bloated pig, but it is still a pig. Pretty simple. 

When Sarah Palin told the joke about the difference between a pit bull dog and a hockey mom being lipstick, she was comparing the ferocity of the pit bull with the fighting spirit of a mother of a hockey player. In other words, she was saying she had the grit and tenacity to fight Washington.

The fierce fighting nature of a pit bull is well known. Fighting for what is right is a noble thing. Sometimes the image of a lioness is used to convey the same fighting spirit--that nothing will stand in your way of protecting your charge.

Pigs on the other hand are not associated with anything noble. Pigs are associated with dirtiness, laziness, disease, excess, and general slovenliness.  

Pigs are considered unclean animals by Jews, Muslims, and some Christians. My apologies to Charlotte's Web and Babe fans, but no one would be flattered by being compared to a pig (and I like pigs.)

And while I am at it, a president must be mindful of his words and their potential to offend. If you read the transcript of Obama's words from the incident, do they sound presidential? His diction and speech pattern is very different from his more formal speeches. Plus, it doesn't even look like they were his own words! From NewsBusters:

The folks at FreeRepublic have found an interesting... uh, shall we say coincidence... concerning Barack Obama's widely panned September 9 comments made at a rally in Virginia where he seemed to be saying that Governor Palin was a "pig" by referencing the "lipstick" quote from her acceptance speech at the GOP convention. It is looking like Obama's comments were not off the cuff, but scripted. And, not only were they scripted, but they were stolen without attribution from a Washington Post political cartoon by Tom Toles from September 5. Will the media notice?

Obama may or may not have intended the slam. Either way, to me, it still shows an error in judgment.

Brookfield District 7 Info meeting, Wed., Sept. 24, 2-3 or 6:30-7:30pm

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: 

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

You probably heard by now how Joe Biden asked handicapped State Senator, Chuck Graham to stand up at a campaign stop. Trouble was, Chuck was in a wheelchair.  

Biden handled his gaffe about as well as anyone could. It was an innocent mistake.

This next "mistake" is not so innocent. (H/T Fairly Conservative)

In a recent Obama ad, John McCain is criticized as being out of touch for not even being able to send an email. Obama mocks McCain for being out-of-touch and computer illiterate in new TV ad:

"John McCain is mocked as an out-of-touch, out-of-date computer illiterate in a television commercial out Friday from Barack Obama as the Democrat begins his sharpest barrage yet on McCain's long Washington career.

...

Obama spokesman Dan Pfeiffer said the campaign was not making an issue of the 72-year-old McCain's age, but the time he's spent in Washington.

 "Our economy wouldn't survive without the Internet, and cyber-security continues to represent one our most serious national security threats," Pfeiffer said. "It's extraordinary that someone who wants to be our president and our commander in chief doesn't know how to send an e-mail."

McCain has said he relies on his wife and staff to work the computer for him and that he doesn't use e-mail.

When I saw the ad, I just thought, What, and any text messaging teenybopper is qualified to be president because they can send an email? What does sending an email have to do with the wisdom and experience necessary to be a president?

Many a high level executive barely knows how to dial the telephone! (Just ask any administrative assistant.) "Bill Clinton sent two emails during his entire presidency and often admitted he didn't know squat about the internet." [Odd that Al Gore didn't clue him in, since Al invented the internet. ;-) ]

But there is a more serious side to this accusation. John McCain cannot type or do other fine motor skill requiring hand movements such as tying a shoe, because of his prisoner of war injuries. From the Boston Globe (March 4, 2000):

"McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball.

Oh-oh. Oops. Get the egg off of the face. You would have thought the in-touch campaign team would have used the internet and Googled that info before crafting their ad.

This latest Obama ad is rather like criticizing Franklin D.Roosevelt as being insensitive to the environment and not conserving gasoline because he doesn't walk, isn't it?

At any rate, I don't think this is one even Joe Biden can joke his way out of.

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: 

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

I know what the Monroe Doctrine is. I could even tell you that Kennedy pledged to help any country struggling to be free--a take off on the Truman Doctrine: to "support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures."

But I confess I was not familiar with the term Bush Doctrine. At least not in the way Charlie Gibson presented it in his 1st interview with Governor Sarah Palin on Thursday, Sept. 11, 2008.

Seems I am not alone in wondering, what in the world is that? Even Barbara Walters on The View said something akin to she did not know that all politicians would know what that term meant. No wonder.

According to Wikipedia on the Bush Doctrine, there are many aspects to it. "Foreign policy experts argue over the meaning of the term "Bush Doctrine," and some scholars have suggested that there is no one unified theory underlying Bush's foreign policy."

Charles Krauthammer exposed Charles Gibson's Gaffe in this Washington Post piece.

"He [Gibson] asked Governor Palin, 'Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?'

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, 'In what respect, Charlie?'

There are many aspects to the Bush Doctrine. It isn't just one concept as Charlie tried to infer, and he seemed unwilling to define it. (I think Sarah was wise in asking him to define his term. It is always good to know what you are agreeing with.)

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense," ["that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?"]

So when Charles Gibson defined it, he did so incorrectly. Sarah then restated that portion of the Bush Doctrine, so there would be little doubt as to her convictions. (The Bush Doctrine being the collection of foreign policy themes over the years.)

Palin: "Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend."

Sarah made sure her position was well defined, that preemptive strikes were not to be based on a feeling or hunch as Gibson suggested but on legitimate intelligence. 

I found Charlie Gibson's attitude annoying throughout the interview. Guess I wasn't alone. Krauthammer sums up:

Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.

Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.

Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.

The question on Pakistan was irritating to me as well as the one on Israel's right to protect itself against Iran. (Wasn't that the one Obama said he would not answer because he did not deal in hypothetical questions?)

I kept thinking to myself, I sure wish these same questions would be presented to all the Presidential and VP candidates...but then that would only be in a perfect world.

Found this: Gibson didn't pound John Edwards in 2004; Asked him only if GOP attacks made him mad

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: 

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

No doubt about it, people are fickle. Everyone loves a winner--especially when it comes to politics.

One day a candidate is the darling of the public, the next, they can be cast out like a stinky "old fish" in yesterday's newspaper. (Couldn't resist.)

Now some Democrats on Capitol Hill fear Obama fallout:

"Democratic jitters about the US presidential race have spread to Capitol Hill, where some members of Congress are worried that Barack Obama’s faltering campaign could hurt their chances of re-election.

... 

"Concern was greatest among first-term representatives who won seats in traditionally Republican districts in the landslide of 2006. “Several of them face a real fight to hold on to those seats,” the fundraiser said.

For years, conservatives like me have been frus