Saving the wealthy with socialism, conservative-style

Bush economic policy...another success story for supply-side, trickle-down economics!



September 23, 2008

by Thomas F. Schaller
baltimoresun.com

Like it or not, we're all socialists now. You can thank those free-market conservatives and their deregulatory idol, George W. Bush, for that.

Conservatives love to wield the word socialism like some all-purpose, liberal-slaying sword. Redistribution to the poor, the right to unionize and affirmative action are decried as anti-market, unfair advantages for filthy socialists who can't compete and fail to appreciate the almighty, equalizing power of self-determination and an unfettered market.

To social conservatives, Darwinism is merely an unproven "theory" about how our species evolved. But "social Darwinism" is an ineluctable fact: The smart and hardworking prosper, while the stupid and lazy fail.

Yet notice how those same chest-thumping capitalists of talk radio and at the corporate-funded think tanks often fall silent in the face of fixed markets, no-bid contracts, bailouts and subsidies for the very corporations that demand less government oversight when things are going well, then turn to Washington when things go horribly wrong.

The hypocrisies abound.

If unionized teachers were given 15 percent annual raises, regardless of performance, that would be socialist. But when easily repaired military equipment in Iraq is discarded so no-bid defense contractors can charge the automatic 15 percent overhead for replacements (watch Iraq for Sale, a documentary exposing Defense Department contracting), that's the cost of doing business during wartime.

If Congress proposes legislation to extend leniency to Americans who, because of unexpected medical expenses or a job recently shipped overseas, go bankrupt, Republicans fret about governmental dependency. But when Chrysler, insurance giant AIG or the airlines after 9/11 take Beltway bailouts, executives such as Lee A. Iacocca are still esteemed as corporate masters of the universe.

If affirmative action provides a minority or female applicant the inside track for a job or college admission, conservatives lecture us about the power of competition. But when the pharmaceutical companies and the Bush administration collude in passing a Medicare Part D prescription drug bill that expressly prohibits the government from using its competitive buying power to negotiate the best price for those taxpayer-funded drugs, Fox News cues the video for the latest Paris Hilton scandal.

Propose a national health care program to cover everyone, or invest a mere $7 billion per year over five years to expand the children's health insurance program? Sounds like "each according to need" Marxism. But spend several times that amount to bail out AIG, the nation's largest insurance company? That's, um, market stabilization.

While we're debunking myths, now is a good time to revisit those free-market, tax-cutting promises that economic conservatives have been feeding us for years.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average recently dropped to the level it was back in summer 2001, when Mr. Bush signed the first of his four income-tax cuts. That means that if you put $5,000 into blue chip stocks seven years ago, and rolled another $5,000 into sweat socks and hid them under your mattress, your socks and your stocks would have about the same value today.

And you may have to break those socks out now, because the government's proposed $700 billion bailout of the mortgage and finance industries will translate into $4,000 from the pocket of every employed American. (Plus interest, since the money is all borrowed, and Mr. Bush will soon retire as the fifth straight Republican president to leave office without submitting a single balanced budget.)

Meanwhile, rising unemployment means those who are working will continue to shoulder a larger share of our mounting national debt.

The U.S. economy must generate about 150,000 net new jobs each month just to employ Americans entering the work force from high school, college or the military; in a seven-year period, that requires 12.6 million new jobs just to keep pace. The Bush administration's job creation record these past seven years: 4.7 million.

Those of us who work hard and pay our taxes are getting screwed. Our Christmas bonus this year? The privilege of covering the tab for greedy executives in the deregulated insurance and mortgage industries who scoff at safety nets for you but demand a safety trapeze for themselves.

As I said, we're all socialists now. Too bad all that filthy, pinko socialist redistribution is moving up, rather than down, the economic food chain.

Thomas F. Schaller teaches political science at UMBC. His column appears regularly in The Sun. His e-mail is schaller67@gmail.com.

Article Link: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.schaller23sep23,0,7915225.column

Copyright © 2008, The Baltimore Sun

Powered by ScribeFire.

Becoming a "True Conservative"

He has said some pretty rough stuff at times, but Pat Buchanan is consistently conservative. Therefore, when he offers criticism of the Republican machine (along with the Democratic machine), it is worth noticing. If Buchanan's definition of a "true conservative" is accurate, then call me a friend of Pat Buchanan. Now, if we could just get the Republican Party or Democratic Party to be truly conservative too?! "A true conservative cherishes prudence and believes in fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets and a self-reliant republic. He believes in saving for retirement and a rainy day, in deferred gratification, in not buying on credit what you cannot afford, in living within your means."

One final thought...there is usually more baggage in being a "true conservative" than Mr. Buchanan's simple definition...which requires a "true conservative" to be able and willing to consistently speak truth to power on behalf of those whom Jesus was interested and focused.



The Party's Over
Fri Sep 19, 3:00 AM ET

The Crash of 2008, which is now wiping out trillions of dollars of our people's wealth, is, like the Crash of 1929, likely to mark the end of one era and the onset of another.

The new era will see a more sober and much diminished America. The "Omnipower" and "Indispensable Nation" we heard about in all the hubris and braggadocio following our Cold War victory is history.

Seizing on the crisis, the left says we are witnessing the failure of market economics, a failure of conservatism.

This is nonsense. What we are witnessing is the collapse of Gordon Gecko ("Greed Is Good!") capitalism. What we are witnessing is what happens to a prodigal nation that ignores history, and forgets and abandons the philosophy and principles that made it great.

A true conservative cherishes prudence and believes in fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets and a self-reliant republic. He believes in saving for retirement and a rainy day, in deferred gratification, in not buying on credit what you cannot afford, in living within your means.

Is that really what got Wall Street and us into this mess — that we followed too religiously the gospel of Robert Taft and Russell Kirk?

"Government must save us!" cries the left, as ever. Yet, who got us into this mess if not the government — the Fed with its easy money, Bush with his profligate spending, and Congress and the SEC by liberating Wall Street and failing to step in and stop the drunken orgy?

For years, we Americans have spent more than we earned. We save nothing. Credit card debt, consumer debt, auto debt, mortgage debt, corporate debt — all are at record levels. And with pensions and savings being wiped out, much of that debt will never be repaid.

Our standard of living is inevitably going to fall. For foreigners will not forever buy our bonds or lend us more money if they rightly fear that they will be paid back, if at all, in cheaper dollars.

We are going to have to learn to live again without our means.

The party's over

Up through World War II, we followed the Hamiltonian idea that America must remain economically independent of the world in order to remain politically independent.

But this generation decided that was yesterday's bromide and we must march bravely forward into a Global Economy, where we all depend on one another. American companies morphed into "global companies" and moved plants and factories to Mexico, Asia, China and India, and we began buying more cheaply from abroad what we used to make at home: shoes, clothes, bikes, cars, radios, TVs, planes, computers.

As the trade deficits began inexorably to rise to 6 percent of GDP, we began vast borrowing from abroad to continue buying from abroad.

At home, propelled by tax cuts, war in Iraq and an explosion in social spending, surpluses vanished and deficits reappeared and began to rise. The dollar began to sink, and gold began to soar.

Yet, still, the promises of the politicians come. Barack Obama will give us national health insurance and tax cuts for all but that 2 percent of the nation that already carries 50 percent of the federal income tax load.

John McCain is going to cut taxes, expand the military, move NATO into Georgia and Ukraine, confront Russia and force Iran to stop enriching uranium or "bomb, bomb, bomb," with Joe Lieberman as wartime consigliere.

Who are we kidding?

What we are witnessing today is how empires end.

The Last Superpower is unable to defend its borders, protect its currency, win its wars or balance its budget. Medicare and Social Security are headed for the cliff with unfunded liabilities in the tens of trillions of dollars.

What we are witnessing today is nothing less than a Katrina-like failure of government, of our political class, and of democracy itself, casting a cloud over the viability and longevity of the system.

Notice who is managing the crisis. Not our elected leaders. Nancy Pelosi says she had nothing to do with it. Congress is paralyzed and heading home. President Bush is nowhere to be seen.

Hank Paulson of Goldman Sachs and Ben Bernanke of the Fed chose to bail out Bear Sterns but let Lehman go under. They decided to nationalize Fannie and Freddie at a cost to taxpayers of hundreds of billions, putting the U.S. government behind $5 trillion in mortgages. They decided to buy AIG with $85 billion rather than see the insurance giant sink beneath the waves.

An unelected financial elite is now entrusted with the assignment of getting us out of a disaster into which an unelected financial elite plunged the nation. We are just spectators.

What the Greatest Generation handed down to us — the richest, most powerful, most self-sufficient republic in history, with the highest standard of living any nation had ever achieved — the baby boomers, oblivious and self-indulgent to the end, have frittered away.

To find out more about Patrick Buchanan, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.

Powered by ScribeFire.

What brought down Wall Street?

I confess that I am no expert in the arena of investments and macro economics; but, it seems to me that this can all be boiled down to character and integrity, or the lack there of.  The subtitle of this Business Week article is, "Financial crisis arose from bad choices, greed, failure to learn from mistakes."  It is not about bears and bulls...it is more about which end that you get!



By Paul Barrett
Business Week
updated 5:06 p.m. CT, Fri., Sept. 19, 2008

In times of high stress, many in the financial world seek solace in watery metaphors. We hear of vast irresistible forces converging in "perfect storms" and unforeseeable events contributing to "100-year floods."

How could we have expected, let alone prevented, this?

Count on Warren E. Buffett to cut to the truth. Years ago, referring to reckless corporate debt, Buffett noted (or so the story goes): "You never know who is swimming naked until the tide goes out."

The tide's moving, and we're starting to get the full, not-so-pretty view. Along with the bare swimmers emerging from the soggy murk, we're being reminded of some of the dumb ideas and reckless choices that helped deliver us to our current debacle. As stunning as the scene seems, we've actually had plenty of experience with this sort of thing. But like some stubborn residents of hurricane zones, we swiftly choose to forget the last tempest and reassure ourselves that things will be different from now on. Why don't we learn the obvious lesson to the contrary? Answers: the timeless power of hubris during periods when profits seem easy, and a set of foolish financial notions that have become prevalent over the past three decades.

One of those beliefs is the indiscriminate anti-regulatory ideology one hears preached on Wall Street with tent-revival fervor. What makes this thinking so perplexing is that many of the free-market true believers also assume the federal government will save them if they flop. Consider the extraordinary taxpayer-backed rescues of insurance titan American International Group, housing financiers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and, before those, the Treasury-guided merger of Bear Stearns into JPMorgan Chase. It brings to mind the homeowner who rants about getting Washington off his back but wants federally guaranteed flood insurance no matter how close to the Gulf Coast he builds his house.

Other by-now-familiar attitudes have helped put us in the drink: In good times, there's no such thing as too much leverage. (Remember Michael Milken?) Derivatives don't require oversight, even though almost no one understands them. (How now, Long-Term Capital Management?) And, don't worry, the quantitative geniuses have devised models to eliminate extreme risk. (Enron, anyone?)

"Now, again, the banks and the Bush administration and [Treasury Secretary Henry] Paulson and [Federal Reserve Chairman Ben] Bernanke would like you to think these crises are like floods or hurricanes," says Michael Greenberger, a senior official at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission during the Clinton administration. An advocate of more aggressive regulation of investment banks, he was shot down in the late 1990s by Democratic colleagues, not just GOP foes.

Most financial calamities aren't like natural forces beyond control, Greenberger says. "These are predictable events." Predictable events, of course, are more likely to be prevented with sound rules and stiff enforcement.

The long view
Alfred E. Kahn offers the long view — a very long view. As the Carter administration's aviation czar, he unshackled airline routes and fares in the late 1970s, reshaping that industry (for better and worse) and helping spur a lengthy era of economic deregulation. Still sharp at 91, the retired Cornell University economist and part-time consultant recalls that almost as soon as the free-market spirits were set loose, a furious stampede ensued.

Lenders, for one, demanded lots more freedom. But they "were a different kind of animal" from airlines and trucking firms, which the Carterites also deregulated, Kahn says. "They were animals that had a direct effect on the macroeconomy. That is very different from the regulation of industries that provided goods and services. ... I never supported any type of deregulation of banking."

During the Reagan years, Kahn's cautious industry-by-industry analysis was replaced by the all-encompassing anti-regulatory ideology of the University of Chicago. One result: the liberation of an armada of savings and loan pirates, abetted by congressional Democrats as well as Republicans, many of them drunk on S&L campaign largesse. (Wall Street lobbyists with open wallets have since perfected the practice of neutralizing Congress on a bipartisan basis.) Hundreds of thrifts ultimately collapsed in the late 1980s and 1990s amid greedy and, in some cases, fraudulent real estate deals.

As early as 2000, William J. Brennan, a prominent consumer attorney who has represented mortgage borrowers since the S&L catastrophe, warned in testimony before the House Financial Services Committee that real estate finance would return in new guises to haunt us. Few listened. Behind every burst of ill-advised lending lurk financial innovators creating new mechanisms to entice ever-more-sketchy borrowers, says Brennan, the director of Atlanta Legal Aid Society's Home Defense Program.

In the 1980s, Michael Milken and his comrades at the now-defunct Drexel Burnham Lambert investment bank exacerbated the S&L fiasco by hawking their thrift clients' high-risk junk bonds. More recently the likes of soon-to-be-defunct Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns engineered the securitization of mortgages, encouraging home lenders to spew wildly unwise loans. "Lending without regard [for] the ability to pay back started with the S&L scandal," says Brennan. In the 1980s the borrowers were reckless shopping-mall developers; in the recent boom, unsophisticated and sometimes cavalier homeowners.

Wall Street transformed dicey subprime mortgages into the toxic securities that have required hundreds of billions in writedowns and that drove once-mighty Merrill Lynch to sell itself to Bank of America. One of the most striking aspects of the current turbulence is the degree to which banks invested in the noxious fare themselves, notes Emanuel Derman, who heads risk management at Prisma Capital Partners, a hedge fund in Jersey City, N.J. "These guys ate their own cooking; they didn't just pass it on to clients."

The outsize appetite on Wall Street for hazardous mortgage-backed securities and even more obscure derivatives has had a lot to do with the people in the kitchen failing to understand fully what was in their recipes. All of this is painfully familiar to anyone who paid attention to past adventures with wizards who claimed their esoteric models had magically eliminated risk and uncertainty. Hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management couldn't imagine Russia defaulting on its debt, much as Lehman apparently couldn't conceive of housing prices across the country deteriorating simultaneously, followed by a paralyzing credit crunch.

For four years in the mid-1990s, LTCM boasted extraordinary profits based on supposedly flawless computer formulas devised by a team that included two Nobel laureates. But in the summer of 1998, Russian credit disintegrated, one of several concurrent global shocks that the LTCM crew had failed to factor into their algorithms. After losing more than $4 billion in a few months — in retrospect, the amount seems almost quaint — the hedge fund received a federally organized rescue, although it later shut down altogether.

Financial "rocket scientists," says Henry T. Hu, a corporate law professor at the University of Texas in Austin, have a knack for neglecting low-probability, catastrophic events. The smartest guys in the room at Enron similarly assumed away risks they didn't want to confront. "These models … work in normal circumstances but not during times of market stress, when it really matters," Hu says. "It is almost like a safety belt that only fails in a serious car crash."

One of the things that dismayed outsiders about LTCM after it came apart was the size and complexity of its derivatives portfolio. Some in the Clinton administration pushed for more oversight of the unregulated, privately traded instruments whose value derives from price shifts in currencies, securities, or other assets. Then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, allied with Robert E. Rubin, Clinton's Treasury secretary (and now a director and senior counselor at Citigroup), opposed tougher policing of derivatives. Banks could watch over each other more effectively than regulators could, Greenspan argued. This turned out to be shortsighted.

In an interview, Greenspan doesn't back down, even after all we've seen lately. "The majority of lawyers, in my experience, seek to regulate — that is, to contain certain activities with little weight given to the lost benefits of such activities," he says. "The question is: What do you lose? In this case, a very valuable instrument [credit default swaps, the derivatives at the core of the current mess] for the diminution of systemic risk. You can stop the system dead and eliminate speculative losses. But you will also get significantly reduced economic activity and ultimately lower standards of living."

Greenspan adds: "I've been extraordinarily distressed by how badly the most sophisticated people in the business handled risk management. But the question is: If, protecting their own resources, they can't do it, who's going to do it better?" (Well, maybe regulators who don't have big bonuses at stake would be less likely to get carried away by the euphoria.)

‘Too big to fail’
Rubin says separately that he didn't oppose the general idea of scrutinizing derivatives, but instead argued against particular proposals in the late '90s to expand CFTC authority. "I have always been concerned about derivatives," he says.

Michael Greenberger served as the CFTC's director of trading and markets at the time. A proponent of tougher oversight, he recalls the Greenspan-Rubin resistance as being fierce and across-the-board. "If we had prevailed, the [subprime-securitization] party would never have gotten started; the wildness wouldn't have happened," he says. "There would have been auditing requirements, capital requirements, transparency. No more operating in the shadows. Bear Stearns, Lehman, Enron, and AIG would be thriving, and spending every waking hour complaining about regulatory restraints imposed upon them."

Now a law professor at the University of Maryland, Greenberger adds: "In a booming economy, people couldn't be convinced that without corrections, LTCM would happen again — bigger and with more ramifications." Today, Bear, Lehman, and AIG have untold amounts of outlandish derivatives on their books. It could be years before anyone untangles what they're worth.

One other legacy of LTCM is "moral hazard": the prospect that other financial actors would take greater risks because at some level they'd assume that they, too, would be considered "too big to fail." Surely one can surmise that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac overstepped in part because of an implied federal safety net that turned out to be a very real one.

Edward S. Lampert, the hedge fund tycoon who controls Sears Holdings, worries about yet another twist. He says the current wave of federal intervention sends the opposite signal from what's intended: that officials are panicking because of broader instability. "As an investor, that was my immediate reaction" to the Fannie and Freddie moves, he says. "They completely destroyed confidence in any financial institution."

Lampert frets that with investment banks failing and merging, the resulting consolidation will concentrate risk and invite more rescues. "You are going to have Citi, JPMorgan, and Bank of America with $2 trillion-plus in assets each," he notes. "That's three times the size of Fannie and Freddie. Now if they end up with problems, what do you think is going to happen? They are too big to fail."

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26793500/

© 2008 MSNBC.com

Powered by ScribeFire.

It's Sarah's Way, or It's the Highway

Woah...I really wonder if we will ever know the "real" Governor Palin?!



By Barbara Koeppel

September 17, 2008


The idea that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is experienced, ethical and
wise would be laughable if it weren't so alarming, and millions have
fallen for the fable. In truth, the pretty woman's story is not so
pretty.

While a majority of Alaskans are thrilled their local beauty queen is center stage, some are horrified.

Her populist persona--the "just plain hockey mom"--is preposterous, her notion of decency defective, her ambition unbridled, her compassion counterfeit, her actions extreme, her intelligence limited and her judgment flawed.

Fearing retribution, only one of the more than twenty elected state and city officials, lawyers, doctors, health administrators, librarians, clergy and just plain residents I interviewed while in Alaska and over the phone agreed to be named.

"It's Sarah's way or the highway," claim many who've worked with her. As one state representative confided to me, "the public doesn't know the real Sarah Palin."

After elected mayor of Wasilla in 1996, one of Palin's first victims was Irl Stambaugh, the longtime police chief who opposed her NRA-backed plan to allow concealed guns. Then, too, he wanted to close the bars at 2 am, instead of 5 am, due to the high number of alcohol-related road accidents. But as the bar owners and NRA were among her base, Palin axed him. She then installed her own chief, who, besides following her line on bars and guns, slapped a charge of $300 to $1,200 on rape victims for medical tests for injuries and sexually transmitted diseases--fees previously covered by the city. Since medical staff at the same time also offered morning-after pills to rape victims, this was anathema to Palin's anti-abortion agenda. Outraged, then-Democratic Governor Tony Knowles pushed through a bill banning her tactics, and the tests were once again free.

Other victims are now well known, like Mary Ellen Baker, the librarian who wouldn't ban the books that offended Palin. Originally fired along with other city department heads who backed Palin's mayoral opponent, Baker (also president of Alaska's Library Association), was reinstated because several hundred residents protested the sacking. But, according to a librarian who knows Baker, Palin met with her several times, pressuring her to remove books from the shelves--among which was Pastor, I Am Gay by Howard Bess, an American Baptist minister in Wasilla. Baker finally resigned in 1999 and moved away. The librarian friend says Baker is keeping silent: "Why wouldn't she? The period was so painful that after she left her job, she had a breakdown."

Then there's Dr. Susan Lamagie, an obstetrician who practices in Wasilla and delivered Palin's first two children. She also performed abortions at what was then called Valley Hospital. While Palin was on Wasilla's City Council, members of her church, the Wasilla Assembly of God, and its minister, picketed Lamagie's office. Because the doctor held her ground, the group ousted the hospital board and installed a new one, whose first act was to ban abortions. Lamagie and Howard Bess organized a group that sued the hospital in a case that went to Alaska's Supreme Court, which ruled the hospital had to allow abortions, as before.

Palin's claims that she's a cost-cutter and corruption cop are equally crazy, since she hiked the state budget by 20 percent in the less than two years since becoming governor.

But it's not all smoke and mirrors: Palin did slash some funds. She vetoed $150,000 for the Fairbanks Catholic Community Counseling and Adoption Services, $3.5 million to build a daycare facility and student housing for unemployed Alaska Natives, $500,000 for the Safe Harbor Muldoon Housing for Homeless Families and People with Disabilities, and eliminated funds for the Fairbanks Community Food Bank.

And in a state with one of the highest drug and alcohol rates in the United States, she killed funds for a substance abuse facility and an education and prevention program for youths in a northwest Alaska village, as well as for addiction rehabilitation services.

Then there's her record on health, another alleged Palin priority. State Senator Bill Wielechowski says, "We sponsored a bill to improve children's health care, since we're forty-seventh in the US in terms of the services we offer. Had Palin supported it, the Republican-controlled House would have approved it. But she refused and the bill died."

Flip-flops are another Palin specialty, though you'll hear zip from GOP fans who dissed candidate John Kerry for similar misdemeanors in 2004. There's the now well-known story of the "bridge to nowhere" (from the city of Ketchikan to the island of Gravina), that she promised Ketchikans she would back when she ran for governor in 2005. In the same year, Congress earmarked hundreds of millions for two Alaskan bridges to nowhere, but reversed itself in 2006, when the deals became a national poster for pork. However, the cash still landed in Alaska, and Palin, now wearing the maverick's mantle, says she abhors earmarks and has shunned the money. In fact, she kept the roughly $230 million and, according to officials, used it for other transport projects. Only about $50 million remains unspent.

What also remains of the affair is a 3.2-mile, $25 million access road to nowhere (which would have connected to the bridge), on which construction continues.

Critics also point to her unfettered drive. Until she was mayor, Wasilla and the nearby town of Palmer successfully shared a regional dispatch center located in Palmer for state troopers and emergency services in the region. Unknown to Palmer officials, she lobbied Washington for funds to build a second center in Wasilla. The Palmer "partners" learned of the move only when she announced it in the press. "It was completely redundant, said one Palmer official, "just a notch in Palin's belt."

Then there's her environmental myopia. A Palmer borough assemblyman told me Palin courted development in any form, with no city planning or zoning, mainly by removing business property taxes. Thus, big box stores flocked to Wasilla and Park Highway, which runs through the town (population 4,600 when Palin became mayor), is one long strip mall; through the sales tax the stores collected, Wasilla pocketed the huge revenues Palin lusted after. Although Wasilla's city council introduced the tax before she was mayor, she raised it--and it applies to most everything except medicine.

The new growth spells problems. The city's sanitation capacity is stretched since the sewage system, faulty even when built, is overwhelmed, says a former Palmer city official. Effluent is piped to the sewage plant from which it is pumped into a large field, and many residents worry the liquid is leaching into the groundwater. Thus candidate Palin's promise of a waste treatment plant evaporated in favor of a sports complex. "Sewage treatment plants aren't sexy, but hockey rinks are," said the Palmer official.

Link to Article: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080929/koeppel

Copyright © 2008 The Nation

Powered by ScribeFire.

Palin comes under fire for using Yahoo e-mail for state biz

This does not really reflect a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  Seriously, why would good Republicans support this type of obfuscation and subterfuge within their ranks?  I really thought they were better than this?!



By Julian Sanchez | Published: September 16, 2008 - 10:35PM CT

John McCain has caught his share of flak for not knowing his way around e-mail. But as his running mate has been discovering over the past week, being a bit too clever with e-mail has its pitfalls as well. As Sarah Palin seeks to beat back charges that she improperly used her position as governor to urge the firing of her estranged brother-in-law, an Alaska state trooper, internal documents suggest that her staff may have hoped to channel sensitive correspondence through unofficial personal e-mail accounts to evade potential subpoenas.

"Troopergate," as the iron laws of American political scandal nomenclature dictated the fracas would be dubbed, began as a dispute worthy of Judge Judy: Palin's sister was embroiled in a nasty divorce and custody dispute with State Trooper Mike Wooten, and the newly elected governor made no secret of her displeasure that the ex-in-law was not yet an ex-lawman. The family tiff blossomed into a full-blown ethics investigation after Palin dismissed public safety commissioner Walt Monegan, who has claimed his refusal to fire Wooten led to his own termination.

Palin has indicated she won't cooperate with the investigation, which she regards as "tainted" by political motivations, but the McCain-Palin campaign yesterday released a batch of e-mails that her lawyers say demonstrate Monegan was fired for insubordination. But over the past week, press attention has focused on other e-mails that Palin appears more reticent about releasing. In response to a request filed by a conservative activist under Alaska's Public Records Act, Palin sought to invoke executive privilege in order to withhold some 1,100 e-mails (PDF), many of whose subject lines suggest little connection to sensitive policy deliberation.

Moreover, Palin's appeal to executive privilege appears to be at odds with a strategy she discussed with aides in correspondence obtained by the Washington Post and New York Times: using unofficial e-mail accounts, like "gov.sarah@yahoo.com" and personal devices like BlackBerries to shield communications from subpoenas as official public records. As bloggers were quick to note, this was the same tactic adopted by White House aides worried that their correspondence could be disclosed to investigators probing the allegedly political firing of US attorneys.

Even before the US attorney scandal, the present administration had exhibited a spectacular gift for losing track of digital correspondence. Thanks to a purported upgrade implemented soon after the Clintons cleared out, the White House e-mail system was left without an effective means of archiving correspondence. Millions of e-mails vanished at least temporarily, and thousands may well be gone for good: A leaked memo suggested, at any rate, that there is little hope of completing the recovery before a new president is sworn in.

Whether the Yahoo-loophole exploited by Palin holds up would depend on how courts interpret the relevant Alaska statues, according to Meredith Fuchs, an attorney with the National Security Archive at George Washington University. "It is a basic tenet of legal ethics that records should not be destroyed if litigation is anticipated," Fuchs told Ars. "If one anticipates litigation, then the destruction of the evidence is called 'spoliation' and in some cases is subject to court sanctions."

That's not to say that alternation between official and unofficial channels is some nefarious Republican invention. One former Democratic congressional staffer with whom Ars spoke noted that colleagues would typically switch to personal mobile phones or e-mail accounts when discussing electoral campaign activities—a form of fuzzy half-compliance with the ban on using congressional office resources for partisan campaign purposes. (Perhaps that's why Palin staffer Ivy Frye waited until a Saturday evening to phone up blogger Sherry Whistine. Whistine, a conservative critic of Palin's, told Ars that Frye angrily demanded she—and perhaps others on what the blogger termed the "Poison Ivy call list"—stop attacking the governor.)

Even if all this proves technically permissible, however, it can't do much good for Palin's straight-shooting reformer image to have traded her official account for Yahoo as a means of avoiding transparency. As with so many political scandals, the cover-up may prove more damaging than the underlying controversy. But if a suit launched Tuesday by five GOP state legislators that aims to end or delay the Troopergate probe until after the election succeeds, Palin stands a good chance of shrugging off the fracas. And it seems even more unlikely that the Bush administration will face any real consequences for its record-keeping failures.

One nagging question, then, is whether these cases don't illustrate the double-edged nature of transparency and "sunshine" rules. Regulation of the intelligence community may make abuse of power less likely, but it makes it downright inconceivable a future generation of spymasters would pen the candid memos, openly admitting criminality, uncovered by the Church Commission in the 1970s. Faced with strong disclosure obligations, public officials may find ways to game the rules and simply avoid leaving trails—paper or pixelated—if there's the slightest doubt about the propriety of their communications. That's surely no reason to abandon the ideal of more open government, but is a reminder that the law of unintended consequences remains in effect. In some cases, at least, eternal sunshine yields the spotless drive.

Link to article:  http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080916-palins-e-mail-habits-come-under-fire.html

Copyright © 1998-2008 Ars Technica, LLC

Powered by ScribeFire.

Dilbert on the economic plans of McCain and Obama

At this point, I figure that the comments of a cartoon (and its cartoonist) are just as valid as the purported "experts."



By Scott Adams
Special to CNN

Editor's Note: Scott Adams is the creator of Dilbert, the comic strip that appears in 2,000 newspapers in 70 countries. He blogs at www.dilbert.com on politics and other subjects. He says he's an independent voter but donated to John McCain's campaign because he had promised a friend he would do so if the surge of troops to Iraq worked. "I figured my money was safe," Adams says.

(CNN) -- This summer I found myself wishing someone would give voters useful and unbiased information about which candidate has the best plans for the economy.

Then I realized that I am someone, which is both inconvenient and expensive. So for once I asked not what my country could do for me.

At considerable personal expense, I commissioned a survey of over 500 economists, drawn from a subset of the members of the American Economic Association, a nonpolitical group, some of whose members had agreed in advance to be surveyed on economic questions.

The results do not represent the economic association's position. The survey was managed by The OSR Group, a respected national public opinion and marketing research company.

I should pause here and confess my personal biases, since the messenger is part of the story. On social issues, I lean Libertarian, minus the crazy stuff.

Moneywise, I can't support a candidate who promises to tax the bejeezus out of my bracket, give the windfall to a bunch of clowns with a 14 percent approval rating (Congress), and hope they spend it wisely.

Unfortunately, the alternative to the guy who promises to pillage my wallet is a lukewarm cadaver. I'm in trouble either way.

I just hope whoever gets elected notices that the economists in my survey don't think that raising my taxes is a priority.

Nationally, most economists are male, and I'm told that most are registered as either Democrats or independents. Our sample reflects that imbalance:

48 percent -- Democrats

17 percent -- Republicans

27 percent -- Independents

3 percent -- Libertarian

5 percent -- Other or not registered

Eighty-six percent of our economists are male, and 65 percent work in the field of academia or education. The rest are spread across various industries or not working.

We asked the economists which candidate for president would be best for the economy in the long run. Not surprisingly, 88 percent of Democratic economists think Democratic Sen. Barack Obama would be best, while 80 percent of Republican economists pick Republican Sen. John McCain.

Independent economists, who in our sample are largely from the academic world, lean toward Obama by 46 percent compared to 39 percent for McCain.

Overall, 59 percent of our economists say Obama would be best for the economy long term, with 31 percent picking McCain, and 8 percent saying there would be no difference.

We can't know the degree of bias in our survey group. But we have some clues. On the issue of international trade, only 42 percent of our Democratic economists support Obama's plans, with 34 percent favoring McCain. Independents favored McCain on this question by 63 percent to 16 percent, while favoring Obama overall.

Another indicator of objectivity is that the income levels of the economists have little impact on their opinions. The economists with lower incomes are no more likely to favor taxing the rich than the rich economists favor taxing themselves.

Likewise, economists in the academic world were largely on the same page as the nonacademic types in predicting which candidate would be best for the long term.

Here are the economic priorities according to the economists. The percentages indicate how many rated each issue eight or higher on a scale of 1-10.

71 percent -- Education

67 percent -- Health care

62 percent -- International trade

60 percent -- Energy

58 percent -- Encouraging technology and innovation

58 percent -- Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and homeland security

52 percent -- Mortgage and housing crisis

49 percent -- Social Security

45 percent -- Environmental policy

39 percent -- Reducing the deficit

37 percent -- Immigration

29 percent -- Increasing the proportion of taxes paid by the wealthy

28 percent -- Reducing waste in government

16 percent -- Tax relief for the middle class

15 percent -- Reducing capital gains tax

14 percent -- Extending unemployment insurance

13 percent -- Extending and strengthening the unemployment insurance system

13 percent -- Raising the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation

11 percent -- Reforming bankruptcy laws

9 percent -- Eliminating the estate tax

Moving along, we asked the economists which candidate they thought would do the best job on the most important issues. For me, the surprise is how many economists say there would be no difference.

The economists in our survey favor Obama on 11 of the top 13 issues. But keep in mind that 48 percent are Democrats and only 17 percent are Republicans.

Among independents, things are less clear, with 54 percent thinking that in the long run there would either be no difference between the candidates or McCain would do better.

Many of you will wonder how reliable economists are. In my view, if an economist uses a complicated model to predict just about anything, you can ignore it.



By analogy, a doctor can't tell you the exact date of your death in 50 years. But if a doctor tells you to eat less and exercise more, that's good advice even if you later get hit by a bus.

Along those same lines, economists can give useful general advice on the economy, even if you know there will be surprises. Still, be skeptical.

To see what the candidates say about each issue, visit their web sites. For full details on the survey, including a discussion of its limitations, go to dilbert.com and click on the blog button.

The opinions contained in this commentary are solely those of the writer.
 
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/16/dilbert.economy/index.html
 
Copyright 2008 Cable News Network

Rove: McCain went 'too far' in ads

I confess that I am a bit slack-jawed by this comment from Rove.  I did not think that Karl Rove was capable of saying anything negative about a Republican; or more importantly, saying anything that could lend even behind the back support of a Democrat.  Look to the east...perhaps the Lord has returned?!  Has something stirred in Rove's heart to make it grow three sizes today?



(CNN) -- Former Bush adviser Karl Rove said Sunday that Sen. John McCain had gone "one step too far" in some of his recent ads attacking Sen. Barack Obama.

Rove has leveled similar criticism against Obama.

"McCain has gone in some of his ads -- similarly gone one step too far," he told Fox News, "and sort of attributing to Obama things that are, you know, beyond the '100 percent truth' test."

The Obama campaign immediately leaped on the quote.

"In case anyone was still wondering whether John McCain is running the sleaziest, most dishonest campaign in history, today Karl Rove -- the man who held the previous record -- said McCain's ads have gone too far," said campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor, in a statement sent to reporters minutes after Rove's on-air comments. Rove masterminded both of President Bush's successful White House bids.

Rove said both candidates need to "be careful" about their attacks on each other.

"They ought to -- there ought to be an adult who says, 'Do we really need to go that far in this ad? Don't we make our point and won't we get broader acceptance and deny the opposition an opportunity to attack us if we don't include that one little last tweak in the ad?' " he said.

Obama on Saturday accused McCain and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin of avoiding the issues to "distort" his record.

"They're going to talk about pigs, and they're going to talk about lipstick; they're going to talk about Paris Hilton, they're going to talk about Britney Spears. They will try to distort my record, and they will try to undermine your trust in what the Democrats intend to do," he said at a stop in Manchester, New Hampshire.

McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds criticized Obama for showing "zero restraint," considering what Gulf Coast residents were facing after Hurricane Ike. Bounds said the "attacks mark a new low from Barack Obama."

The Obama campaign shot back and accused McCain of "cynically running the sleaziest and least honorable campaign in modern presidential campaign history."

McCain said last week that he thinks the tone of the campaign would be different had Obama agreed to appear with him in town hall meetings across the country.

Both McCain and Obama laid low on Sunday. McCain attended a NASCAR race in Loudon, New Hampshire.

Obama had no public events scheduled, but Sen. Hillary Clinton hit the trail for him in Akron, Ohio.

Clinton repeated her campaign one-liner -- "No way, no how, no McCain, no Palin."

The New York senator said "all that McCain and Palin offer is four more years of the same failed policies and wrong direction and disappointment and difficulties that have confronted our country."

"Barack and I may have started out on two separate paths, but we are on one journey now," she said.

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign announced Sunday that it had raised $66 million in August. The new total bests the campaign's previous high of $55 million, which came in February during his tough primary fight with Clinton.

The Obama campaign said more than half a million new donors contributed in August, when the Illinois senator accepted the Democratic presidential nomination and named Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware as his running mate. The campaign had more than $77 million in cash on hand at the end of August, compared with about $66 million in July.

On September 1, McCain's campaign reported raising $47 million in August. That haul also set a monthly record for the Arizona senator, whose campaign says it received a financial shot in the arm after McCain picked Palin to join the ticket.

Obama has rejected public financing, calling the system "broken" -- a decision that frees him to continue raising money for November.

McCain has accepted federal matching funds for his general election campaign, giving him $84 million to spend for November. The money comes with strict spending limits, but the Republican National Committee's victory fund can continue to raise and spend money on his behalf.

With Palin on the campaign trail, McCain has been seeing increased numbers and energy at his campaign events.

The two will hold joint town hall meetings sometime early this week.

A McCain adviser said early plans are to hold the town halls in western Michigan and Wisconsin, although the exact details of where and when they will be held are still being worked out.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/14/campaign.wrap/index.html
 
Copyright 2008 Cable News Network

Powered by ScribeFire.

Bill O'Reilly on "Chatting with Obama"

I have no affinity for the vitriol that often spews forth from Mr. O'Reilly; however, I find this assessment of Senator Obama to be as close to "fair and balanced" as he is going to get.  At least they are engaging in conversation and dialogue...may it occur more often!



By Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Friday, Sep 05, 2008
   
Like him or not, you have to give Barack Obama credit for waging a smart, focused campaign. Destroying the Clinton machine was a major achievement and so was putting together a successful convention in Denver. Obama is now firmly a part of U.S. history, no matter what happens in the presidential election.

The problem some Americans continue to have with the Senator is that he is long on charisma but short on detail. This frightens some voters. Who the heck is this guy, anyway? So when Obama finally agreed to speak to me this week, specifics were on my mind.

First, the man. The Barack Obama I witnessed is self-confident, determined and driven. He was acutely aware of his surroundings from the moment he entered the room. He looks you in the eye and touches your shoulder. He understands how to connect one-on-one.

As far as philosophy goes, Senator Obama is convinced that the federal government should be in control of income distribution and, to some extent, should regulate the free marketplace. That is a classic liberal position, and Obama promotes it well.
The Senator also believes that poor Americans have a basic right to free health care and monetary supplements from the government with no strings attached. The American substance abuser, for example, would derive the same benefit as a hard working, laid off worker would. Again, classic liberalism. No judgments made regarding entitlements.

So, if Barack Obama does become president, there will definitely be change. His left-wing base will demand it, and he will come through. You can decide if that's change we should believe in, but keep in mind that the unintended consequences of government interference in the marketplace are impossible to predict. Free markets have a way of chafing under government imposition.

On the foreign policy front, Obama has convinced me that he is tough but cautious. He rose up quickly because he vehemently opposed the Iraq war. But now I see a man who understands the victory that has taken place in Iraq. I don't believe he wants to screw that up. I could be wrong.

After going mano-a-mano with Obama on television, I am also persuaded that he is a sincere guy-that he wants the best for all Americans. He's an ideologue, but not a blind one. He understands that his story is incredible, and, I have come to believe, he is grateful to the American system for allowing it happen.

It is true that we don't know whether Senator Obama has the ability to solve complex problems, but you can say that about all presidential contenders.

Like most politicians, Obama has used guile and good luck to accumulate his power. He can be ruthless, kind, unfair, and generous. In short, he's a real person trying to achieve an unreal position-that of the most powerful person in the world.

God help him.

Link to article: http://www.billoreilly.com/newslettercolumn?pid=24183

Copyright © 2002-2008 BillOReilly.com. All rights reserved.

Powered by ScribeFire.

The Sarah Palin Selection: Why McCain's Inexperienced Running Mate Falls Short of Meeting the Implicit Constitutional Qualifications For Vice Presidents

John Dean is a speak truth to power kind of thinker.  I hope his wisdom is heard by many!



By JOHN W. DEAN
Friday, Sept. 05, 2008

In truth, the Vice President of the United States is important for only one reason: He or she will become President of the United States upon the death, incapacity or resignation of the President. Nine times in our history, vice presidents have succeeded to the presidency: John Tyler (1841), Millard Fillmore (1850), Andrew Johnson (1865), Chester A. Arthur (1881), Theodore Roosevelt (1901), Calvin Coolidge (1923), Harry Truman (1945), Lyndon Johnson (1963), and Gerald Ford (1974). Of course, the vice president also has a significant secondary role: It is he or she, acting with a majority of the Cabinet, who can declare the president incapable of carrying out the duties of the office, and then take charge - until the action is either ratified or rejected by a majority of the Congress. So far in our history, however, this has never occurred.

Given the fact that the 2008 GOP standard-bearer John McCain is seventy-two years of age, his selection of an inexperienced Vice Presidential running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, has again focused attention on the process and procedures for selecting vice presidents - or, to put it more bluntly, the utter lack of process or procedures in selecting the person who is a heartbeat away from the presidency. McCain, not unlike others before him, selected a less than fully vetted running mate for political reasons. That is surely a concern for voters to think over in the upcoming election - but it raises a systemic concern, too, for the long run.

Consider this parallel: Does anyone believe that if John McCain were president and had selected Governor Sarah Palin under the Twenty-fifty Amendment to fill a vacancy in the vice presidency, Congress would have confirmed her? Not likely. In fact, it is even less likely that McCain would have even attempted to do so, for he would have embarrassed himself.

While the Constitution does not expressly set forth qualifications for the vice-presidency, it strongly implies them --- and Palin falls short.

How Our Constitutional Process for Selecting Vice Presidents Evolved

Our founders gave little thought to the vice presidential selection process. Initially, the candidate who placed second in Electoral College votes became vice president. While this worked for the first three presidential elections, the election of 1800 produced a tie in the Electoral College, between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr (both of the same party), and although Burr was the announced candidate for vice president, when he came up with a tie vote, he refused to step aside, forcing the resolution of the contest in the House of Representatives, which proved to be a messy affair.

This clear flaw in the system was corrected by the Twelfth Amendment, which requires electors to vote separately for president and vice president. It was the Twelfth Amendment (adopted in 1804), along with the growth of political parties, that encouraged the pairing of candidates in the presidential election. Since then, the vice presidential selection process has evolved from party leaders' making the selection to the current system, under which the party's presidential nominee is given the power to select a vice presidential running mate.

The Twenty-fifth Amendment (adopted in 1967) indirectly codified the power of a candidate for president to select his vice president, for the Amendment states that when there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, "the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress." A Vice President, like a President, must be a natural born citizen, at least thirty-five years of age, and a resident of the United States for fourteen years.

Of course, Sarah Palin, McCain's running mate, meets the minimum constitutional requirements. But there also exists a clear subtext within the Constitution, and related statutes, that suggests that there are other, implicit qualifications for the Vice President, as well - qualifications as to which Governor Palin falls short. While this subtext is plainly not formally binding on either a presidential candidate or president, candidates and presidents have traditionally followed the implicit qualifications suggested by the Constitution.

The Twenty-fifth Amendment Suggests the Primary Qualifications for Vice Presidents: Be Equipped to Serve as President Starting, if Necessary, on Day One

I served as minority counsel to the House Judiciary Committee when the Committee was working on the Twenty-fifty Amendment. Accordingly, I recall well the difficult debates and discussions on how vacancies in the vice presidency should be filled. The procedures under discussion ranged from a special national election for the vice president, to a convening of the Electoral College to make the decision, to the selection of a vice president by the Congress.

The process that was actually settled on, as I mentioned earlier, codified the procedure that had evolved over the years, through which the candidate selected his running mate. In line with that procedure, presidents were similarly given the power to fill vacancies in the office of the vice president. But there was a crucial difference: Under the Twenty-fifth Amendment, presidents can only fill that office with the approval of a majority vote of both the House and Senate. Confirmation thus entails not only ratification by the public, but also scrutiny by political pros who assure Americans that the new vice president is up to the task of taking charge.

Twice, the Twenty-fifty Amendment has been employed to fill a vacancy in the vice presidency. Nixon appointed Gerald Ford to fill the office when Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned (under threat of indictment). Then, after Nixon resigned, and Ford succeeded to the presidency, Ford used it to appoint Nelson Rockefeller his Vice President.

Both Nixon and Ford explained their decisions, and the criteria at the top of their lists. Nixon wrote in RN: Memoirs of Richard Nixon that from "the outset of the search for a new Vice President I had established four criteria for the man I would select: qualification to be President; ideological affinity; loyalty and confirmability." (Emphasis added.) Nixon's first choice was his Secretary of Treasury John Connally, who was dropped because he would have confirmation problems. (Connally was, in fact, later indicted but acquitted.) New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller and California Governor Ronald Reagan were taken off Nixon's list because the selection of either one over the other would have split the Republican Party. Finally, also on the list was Jerry Ford, the Minority Leader of the House, on whom Nixon settled.

Ford explained in A Time To Heal: The Autobiography of Gerald R. Ford that he had given considerable thought to filling the vice presidency when he became president, and his staff developed a ranking system. "There was one overriding criterion," he wrote to explain his baseline: "[H]e had to be a man fully qualified to step into my shoes should something happen to me."

Ford's top aides eliminated George H. W. Bush, who had served in the House of Representatives and headed the Republican National Committee, "as not yet ready to handle the rough challenges of the Oval Office." And when Ford settled on one of the wealthiest men in America, Nelson Rockefeller, it resulted in protracted confirmation hearings because of the extent of Rockefeller's holdings (which might have raised conflicts of interest). But in the end, Rockefeller was confirmed.

Congress Has Also Suggested Vice Presidential Qualifications Indirectly In the Succession Statutes It Has Passed

The Twenty-fifth Amendment only covers succession to the presidency or vice presidency when one of these offices is vacant - not both. It is silent if there are vacancies in both of the offices of the President and Vice President. The scenario of concurrent vacancies has, however, been addressed by Congress, most recently in a 1947 law.

The line of succession to the presidency begins with the Speaker of the House of Representatives (currently, Nancy Pelosi of California). Next is the President pro tempore of the Senate (currently, Robert Byrd of West Virginia). Finally, if neither of these officers is willing or able to take the post, the succession law turns to the President's Cabinet members.

The current order of succession is Secretary of State (currently, Condoleezza Rice), Secretary of the Treasury (Henry Paulson), Secretary of Defense (Robert Gates), Attorney General (Michael Mukasey), Secretary of the Interior (Dirk Kempthorne ), Secretary of Agriculture (Edward Schafer), Secretary of Commerce (Carlos Gutierrez, who was born in Cuba, and thus not "natural born"), Secretary of Labor (Elaine Chao, who was born in Taiwan, and thus not "natural born"), Secretary of Health and Human Services (Mike Leavitt), Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (Steven Preston), Secretary of Transportation (Mary Peters), Secretary of Energy (Samuel Bodman), Secretary of Education (Margaret Spellings), Secretary of Veterans Affairs (James Peake) and Secretary of Homeland Security (Michael Chertoff). Under the succession statute, the presidency is filled for the remainder of the president's term.

Although this 1947 succession statute has been appropriately criticized, Congress has been reluctant to change it. The Congressional consensus has been that if there is a dual vacancy in the Executive branch's elected officials, it should be temporarily filled by a seasoned elected official from the Legislative Branch. In practice, while the full line of succession has been stipulated, it is unlikely that we will ever need to go beyond the Speaker of the House to fill the vacancy temporarily.

If neither the Speaker nor the President pro tempore is up to the task of serving, Congress has been comfortable with the caliber of appointees serving as Secretaries of State, Treasury, or Defense to serve as temporary president - for no one believes (absent a dramatic situation such as a massive attack on the seat of government that would call into force continuity-of-government plans) that the succession process would ever proceed beyond the "big three" Cabinet posts.

Governor Sarah Palin Does Not Qualify Under the Implicit Constitutional Standards

When Nixon selected Ford to be his Vice President, and Ford selected Rockefeller, the government was divided, with the Democrats controlling Congress. Yet a Democratic Congress approved both Ford and Rockefeller to be Vice President based on inter-branch comity. Surely no one would argue that Sarah Palin is in a league with Ford and Rockefeller when it comes to experience.

Nor does Palin possess anything close to the experience qualifications of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, or the President pro tempore of the Senate, Robert Byrd. Indeed, I feel confident that Palin could not get confirmed for any of the top presidential succession posts, namely the posts of Secretary of State, Treasury and Defense. Palin's lack of qualifications have been widely noted. Newspapers from her state have raised questions of her qualifications.

Recently, I was in Alaska, just after Palin's name was first floated as a possible McCain running mate. Although I am not a Democrat, I gave a keynote speech at the Democrats' state convention. During my visit, a senior Democratic Party official said to me that he sure hoped McCain would select Palin, because based on his observation of her record Alaska, he opined that, : "She's screwing up Alaska big time, and she could probably assure defeat for McCain." His wish may be coming true.

John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president.

Link to article
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20080905.html

Copyright © 1994-2008 FindLaw

Powered by ScribeFire.

Today...I Remember

Powered by ScribeFire.

Sex, drugs, gifts uncovered in government oil probe

Wow! It was a business doing pleasure with you!



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. government employees received improper gifts from energy industry representatives, and engaged with them in illegal drug use and inappropriate sexual relations, according to a report issued Wednesday.

The report was issued by the Interior Department's inspector general after a $5.3 million investigation "uncovered recreational marijuana and cocaine use" by "a handful" of Interior Department staff, and found two federal employees "engaged in brief sexual relationships with representatives from companies doing business" with the department.

Two Interior Department employees "received combined gifts and gratuities on at least 135 occasions from four major oil and gas companies with whom they were doing business -- a textbook example of improperly receiving gifts from prohibited sources," Inspector General Earl Devaney says in a letter to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne accompanying the report.

Randall Luthi, head of the Minerals Management Service at the Interior Department, said the public had not suffered financial losses as a result of the employees' behavior.

Some of the government employees tried to hide their close association with the industry they were supposed to be regulating, the report says.

The investigation turned up e-mails in which MMS employees "preparing to attend industry events used such language as 'this trip is to be kept quiet,' or were asked to RSVP 'in private' by their supervisor," the report says.

"When we asked we these one of these employees why they needed to avoid discussing their social activities with industry, he responded with a slight chuckle, 'They might have, you know, contacted the [inspector general],' " the report says.

The investigation appears to have been prompted by an internal whistle-blower's report in 2006, and concerns activity from 2002 to 2006 by the department responsible for selling the oil and gas the government collects as rent from companies drilling on federal lands.

The report alleges inappropriate behavior by 19 members of the Royalty in Kind program -- about one-third of the department. Some have since left the department, making it unclear what kind of disciplinary action they could be subject to.

The Department of Justice declined to prosecute two former employees named in the report, the inspector general said, without saying why. Another pleaded guilty to a criminal charge.

MMS head Luthi said only "six or seven" employees named in the report still work for the department. He vowed appropriate action by the time he leaves office in January.

Democrats used the report to accuse President Bush's administration of being too close to the oil industry.

"The Bush administration put an 'America for Sale' sign on the White House lawn from day one and has been courting Big Oil ever since," Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-New York and chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, said in a written statement. "Democrats have been saying it for some time, but this proves it. This administration is literally in bed with Big Oil. Little did we know they were such a cheap date."

Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, said the report should make Congress reconsider plans to expand offshore drilling.

"The rest of the United States government doesn't need to jump in bed with" the oil industry, he said.

"Offshore drilling will not solve our energy crisis nor will it bring down prices at the pump," Nelson said. "Instead, it will enrich the oil companies and reward the culture of corruption that has been fostered, funded and now exposed by the inspector general."

Two oil companies mentioned in the report, Shell and Chevron, declined to comment, saying they still needed to review it.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/10/oiil.scandal/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Copyright 2008 Cable News Network

Powered by ScribeFire.

Another Community Organizer...

Powered by ScribeFire.

Pastor: GOP may be downplaying Palin's religious beliefs

I am not sure if I like to see arbitrary sect-ism developing as a political smoking-gun. Nonetheless, I believe that public comments demonstrating how one's faith instructs their world-view ought to be held under a critical lens. Whether Governor Palin believes in faith healing, glossolalia, or has a strange eschatology is irrelevant; however, I am deeply concerned that she expressed a sentiment that US troops in Iraq should be on a "task that is from God." Mixing armies with God's ordination is a spine-tingling compromise of both church and state. Let us strive to focus that which is objective and cogent to the issue at hand...the election of our nation's executive leadership. I suggest that character traits such as truthfulness, generosity, grace, intelligence, wisdom, and integrity are much more important than transitory sectarian distinctives.



By Randi Kaye
AC360° Contributor

WASILLA, Alaska (CNN) -- For more than two decades, current Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was a practicing Pentecostal.

She belonged to the Wasilla Assembly of God church in her hometown of Wasilla, Alaska. But though she attended the church from her teenage years through to 2002, she hasn't talked much about her religion since joining the Republican ticket.

Palin's former pastor, Tim McGraw, says that like many Pentecostal churches, some members speak in tongues, although he says he's never seen Palin do so. Church member Caroline Spangler told CNN, "When the spirit comes on you, you utter things that nobody else can understand ... only God can understand what is coming out of our mouths."

Some Pentecostals from Assembly of God also believe in "faith healing" and the "end times" -- a violent upheaval that they believe will deliver Jesus Christ's second coming.

"Our basic belief is that God is God and he knows where history is going and he has a purposeful plan and within the middle of that plan we live in an environment in our world where certain events would take place," says McGraw. "Sarah wasn't taught to look for one particular sign -- a cataclysmic sign. She knew as every Christian does ... that God is sovereign and he is in control."

The McCain campaign says the Governor doesn't consider herself Pentecostal.

McGraw says Palin's Pentecostal roots may be being downplayed for a reason: "I think there may be issues of belief that could be misunderstood or played upon by people that don't know."

When asked by CNN about Palin's beliefs, campaign spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton would only say the Republican vice presidential candidate has "deep religious convictions."

But how might her religious beliefs impact policy in Washington if the Republican ticket is successful?

Palin's former pastor says he has no doubt her religious beliefs will influence her decision making when it comes to government policy. Regarding her desire to build an Alaskan pipeline and explore for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, McGraw told CNN, "Sarah knows that in Genesis, God creates the world and it's very good and that we're supposed to be caretakers in terms of not destroying the environment, so there's no way that Sarah is going to exploit or damage the Alaska tundra in the name of getting gas if she doesn't have to."

Six years ago, Palin left Assembly of God to join the non-denominational Wasilla Bible Church. But the Assembly of God says she still returns for special conferences and events, such as the graduation of ministry students in June. Video of a speech she gave at the church just two months before joining the Republican ticket is making the rounds on the Internet.

Speaking of the troops in Iraq, Palin says on the video, ""Pray for our military men and women who are striving do to what is right. Also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for -- that there is a plan, and that plan is God's plan."

Her campaign says she doesn't mix her faith with government business. But Palin did ask her audience to pray for $30 billion natural gas pipeline she is on a mission to build in Alaska. In the video Palin says, "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas pipeline built. So pray for that ... I can do my job there in developing my natural resources. But all of that doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's heart is not good with God."

McGraw, who was her pastor until 1998 and while she was mayor of Wasilla, says Palin attended discipleship classes to strengthen her Pentecostal faith and that he counseled her on how to become a better leader.

"Everyone has a way of viewing the world and Sarah does too and hers would be shaped by the common sense practicality of how she's been shaped by the Bible -- which is basically the world view that says God loves people, people can access him and he's given us wisdom for living," says McGraw.

He says Alaska has already seen Palin's faith play out. As governor she passed ethics reform and took on what she's referred to as a "good-ol'-boys network." However, she has said she would not seek to impose her religious views on others.

"I think one of the most obvious ways it plays out is what you've seen -- is being courageous enough to deal with deception and corruption," says McGraw.

Palin now attends the Wasilla Bible Church. She was there on August 17, just days before entering the national spotlight. David Brickner, the founder of Jews for Jesus, was a speaker. He told congregants that terrorist attacks on Israel were God's "judgment" of Jews who haven't embraced Christianity. Brickner said, "Judgment is very real and we see it played out on the pages of the newspapers and on the television. When a Palestinian from East Jerusalem took a bulldozer and went plowing through a score of cars, killing numbers of people. Judgment -- you can't miss it."

The McCain campaign says his comments do not reflect her religious views. Palin's spokeswoman says she is pro-Israel.

Pastor Ed Kalnin, the senior pastor of Palin's former Pentecostal church, has also come under fire for his comments. In 2004, he told church members if they voted for John Kerry for president, they wouldn't get into heaven. He told them, "I question your salvation."

Assembly of God issued a statement online in response which said Kalnin was "joking" when he suggested "Kerry supporters would go to hell," and statement went on to say, "We do acknowledge in hindsight that it was careless, and we do apologize for that. This statement is not written as a defense, but as a clarification."

Palin has done little while in office to advance a social conservative agenda. She told the Associated Press in an interview in 2006 that she would not allow her personal beliefs to dictate public policy.

"I've honestly answered the questions on what my personal views are on things like abortion and a lot of controversial issues," Palin told the Associated Press. "I won't hesitate to answer those questions about what my personal views are, but I am not one to be out there preaching and forcing my views on anyone else."

But in the last week, her religious background and outlook has certainly spurred debate far beyond Alaska.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/08/palin.pastor/index.html

Copyright 2008 Cable News Network

Powered by ScribeFire.

Remembering Carol Cafferty

I periodically post comments from CNN's Jack Cafferty, so I was deeply saddened to read that he lost his wife this week. I am truly sorry, Jack.



Remembering Carol Cafferty
Posted: 10:05 AM ET on September 5, 2008

Jack Cafferty wasn't here Friday for the Cafferty File because of some tragic news.

His wife of 35 years, Carol, passed away unexpectedly this morning. Carol was everything to Jack. The dedication of his book reads, “for Carol, my wife, my life.”

Jack wrote about how she was the inspiration for him to get sober and straighten up his life: “In all the years that we’ve been married, she has always brought to the table her unshakable grounding in something a lot more real than being on television or being recognized in the corner drugstore. She has been my rock, having done a magnificent job of keeping me from getting full of helium and drifting off the surface of the earth… She was all the incentive I needed to make painful but transforming changes – to get sober and stop smoking. I knew that I’d lose her if I didn’t. She’s an amazing woman who simply wasn’t worth losing.”

One story Jack loves to tell is how he and Carol met – when he was a local news anchor in Kansas City. They started to meet regularly for a quick meal between his shows and became good friends. Whenever Jack had to leave, his exit line was “We’d better wrap this up. Got to get back to the station.” One night Carol finally asked, “What kind of a gas station do you work at? You’re always wearing a tie.”

Jack explained it was a television station. He loved the fact that she had no clue and couldn’t care less that he had been on air there every night for four years. He later described that as one of his life’s “twenty-four-carat moments” that made his heart soar. He said to himself then that he might marry her because “it can’t get any more honest and pure than that.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/06/remembering-carol-cafferty/

© 2008 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by ScribeFire.

25 things you might not know about Senator John McCain

Source: Associated Press
Updated: 2:44 p.m. ET Aug. 26, 2008
Fact File: John McCain

1. He has a stuffed dancing hamster on display in his Senate office.

2. His wife says her obsession with electronic gadgets and technology is one of his pet peeves.

3. He says his pet peeve is politicians who talk too much. (He admits that he's guilty, too, sometimes.)

4. He's not much of a shopper, but he likes to buy rugs when traveling abroad.

5. His favorite book is "For Whom the Bell Tolls," by Ernest Hemingway.

6. He was addicted to the TV show "24."

7. He carries a lucky penny in his pocket.

8. He played Scrooge in the POWs' staging of "A Christmas Carol" at the Hanoi Hilton.

9. His movie favorites include "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World," "Casablanca," and "Viva Zapata!" He and wife Cindy have seen "Mamma Mia!" twice.

10. He talks to fellow prisoners of war, those with whom he shared a cell in Vietnam, almost daily.

11. He has seven children. The first two he adopted from his first wife's previous marriage, the third was born to him and his first wife, the next three were born to him and his second wife, and the seventh they adopted from Mother Teresa's orphanage in Bangladesh. He has four grandchildren.

12. His wife was in Bangladesh on a charity mission and brought home baby Bridget without checking first with McCain.

13. He describes himself as "a person who is mostly normal."

14. His parents "eloped" and got married at Caesar's Bar in Tijuana, Mexico; McCain's grandfather accompanied them.

15. He's serious about the finer points of barbecuing, and he likes to deep-fry turkeys in peanut oil.

16. He wasn't happy when Hudson, the neighbors' black lab, ate the tenderloin he'd been marinating to grill for dinner at their ranch in Sedona, Ariz.

17. He doesn't like to be alone.

18. At Christmastime, he likes to supervise the lighting of about 1,000 luminaria candles on their property in Sedona with family and friends.

19. Going on vacation with him is anything but relaxing. His children call it "Camp McCain."

20. He's an early-bird, not a night-owl.

21. He doesn't e-mail. He doesn't surf the Web. He likes to read the newspaper in print. He's attached to his cell phone.

22. His office window sill is overrun with stacks of books. He hands books off to friends once he's read them.

23. He's into fruit trees. And birds. He keeps binoculars and bird books at the ready in Sedona. His pet collection: two dogs, two turtles, a cat, a ferret, three parakeets and 13 saltwater fish.

24. His wife is super-rich. They have a prenuptial agreement.

25. He programmed digital remotes at the family's homes in Phoenix and Washington so they can call up DVDs in any room.

© 2008 MSNBC.com

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26355356/

Powered by ScribeFire.