Alcee Hastings on Sarah Palin: “don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks”
Hereis what Alcee Hastings, a Democrat congressman from Florida, had to say about Sarah Palin:
“Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through.”
Uh, yeah. Where am I supposed to go with this? I don’t even understand the point he was trying to make. When a spokesman for Hastings was asked to clarify what the hell this man was talking about it triggered this response:
(Palin is an) “extremely conservative woman who is out of touch with mainstream America.”
Oh, that clarifies it. Not so much. I still don’t understand his point. If you believe in the second amendment and/or you are a hunter that means that you are extremely conservative and out of touch with America? And it also means that you don’t care about Jews or black people?
Hastings owes Sarah Palin, and conservatives in general, an apology.
Barney Frank is in Denial About the Mortgage Meltdown
Barney Frank
One of the reasons (not the only one) that we are in the middle of this mortgage meltdown and Wall Street crisis that is about to cost the taxpayers $700+ billion is the fact that mortgage companies were forced to hand out loans to people who couldn’t afford them under President Clinton’s administration.
Barney Frank, who kept assuring the people that there was no problem when reforms were presented by the Bush administration, (probably because Freddie Mac and Fannie May were filtering money into the coffers of Democrat campaigns), is still in denial:
“No, no, no.” Frank told CNSNews.com. “I don’t think he (Raines) was in any way responsible. It was a sub-prime lending crisis. If only Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae had problems, we could say it was Franklin Raines. But he was not responsible for Indy Mac or New Century.
“I think it was just a sub-prime crisis,”
He is partly correct, but the reason that the banks could give out these loans that could never be re-payed is because the government started these “private” companies, (Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae), to buy up all of these bad loans. But Barney Frank doesn’t think that there is any blame to lay at the feet of the person who ran Fannie Mae. Barack Obama doesn’t either as Frank Raines is now Barack Obama’s economic adviser. That’s a scary thought, isn’t it?
Here is liberalism at it’s best (worst):
“I don’t think that helping some poor folks get mortgages or helping minorities get mortgages is a problem,” Serrano told CNSNews.com. “In fact we have to be careful that we don’t allow some folks to say ‘that’s the problem – in trying to do the right thing for the poor, we got into the mess.’”
While it sounds good to help poor people get mortgages the truth is that yes, that is part of the reason that we got into this mess. Rules were relaxed in order to make sure that people that couldn’t ordinarily get loans were able to get loans. The fact is that if you can’t afford a loan you should not be given it, as harsh as this sounds it is true. Not everybody can afford the same lifestyles and you must live within your means. But this is counter to the liberal belief, which is essentially socialistic, that everybody should be the same.
I am sorry if I appear to be coming down to hard on the people who got these loans, that is not my intent, they were only taking advantage of the opportunity that was presented to them. The point that I am trying to make is that the policies implemented by liberal politicians is a major factor in the crisis we now face. And even in the face of this crisis Barney Frank is in denial about the effect that hisliberal policies had on the problem we are in today.
Why do We Need to Bail Out Wall Street?
Today the negotiations on a Wall Street bail out seem to have fallen apart. Neither side was able to come up with a compromise that would end the stalemate. The biggest “problem” in getting a deal done appears to be house Republicans. There is no surprise there, this is where the last of the conservatives reside. House Republicans are the ones that killed the illegal immigration bill and they are now holding firm on this issue.
I suppose from that first paragraph you can tell that I am against this Wall Street bail out bill. The president keeps telling us that we need to come to an agreement immediately, as do many other politicians, including McCain and Obama, but why? Please explain to me why taxpayers who play by the rules should be responsible for bailing out those who gamble on the stock market knowing that they could lose. Tell me why taxpayers should foot the bill for people who took out mortgages that they knew they couldn’t pay. And please tell me why the hell taxpayers should pay to bail out the companies who gave mortgages to people that they also knew couldn’t pay them back. Finally, tell me why the taxpayers should bail out the government that told the banks that they had to give mortgages to people that couldn’t afford them. If you can do that than I will jump on board. Actually, no I won’t, there is no reason that people who work hard and play by the rules should have to help those that don’t.
In their haste to do something have they thought about what they are proposing? And if they have, do they think that this is what the American people want? Just because they do something doesn’t mean they are doing the right thing.
First the government took over the mortgage companies thus becoming the nations biggest mortgage lender, and now they are proposing taking over the United States economic system. These are big government nationalization programs. What’s next, a bail out (government takeover) of the airlines and auto industries? Both are in trouble, it is not inconceivable. We know nationalized health-care is on the docket also.
This is a threat to our founding as a free market, capitalistic, constitutional republic and a move toward a socialistic form of government. And it is only going to get worse under the next administration no matter who it is.
Remember, it was Ronald Reagan who said, “The government is not the solution to our problems; the government is the problem.” Isn’t that the truth?
Please somebody tell me I am over-reacting, I hope I am. But I fear I am not. Somebody talk me down off the bridge.
President Bush, John Sununu, Barney Frank, and the Mortgage Meltdown
Here is an editorial that appeared in the New Hampshire Union Leader today, in it’s entirety:
Jeanne Shaheen is going around the state saying that the crisis on Wall Street is a “function of the Bush-Sununu policy.”
Oh, really?
The primary cause of the crisis was bad home loans. The primary forces behind the home mortgage collapse were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored behemoths that took on far too much debt in bad loans and, by dramatically increasing their purchases of securities backed by high-risk loans, encouraged the lowering of lending standards at other institutions.
In 2003, President Bush proposed a new regulatory agency within the Treasury Department to oversee Fannie and Freddie. Here is how The New York Times described the proposal:
“The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago ….
“The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.”
Note the phrase, “the authority, which now rests with Congress.” President Bush had to propose a new regulatory agency because Congress was not doing its job in overseeing Fannie and Freddie. For his part, Sen. John Sununu not only supported that reform, but twice introduced his own legislation proposing similar increases in federal oversight of Fannie and Freddie.
But here is what Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, said of Bush’s proposal back then: “These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
Even Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac supported the Bush proposal! But Frank led the Democrats in opposing every effort at serious reform because they wanted to use Fannie and Freddie to push “affordable housing.” What did they mean by that? They meant giving loans to high-risk people who would not normally qualify for regular bank loans. We can now see what a good idea that was.
Barney Frank is the keynote speaker at the New Hampshire Democratic Party’s Jefferson-Jackson Dinner next month. Jeanne Shaheen will be there warmly embracing one of the people most responsible for the current economic crisis while he, she and everyone else covers their tracks by attacking those who saw disaster looming and tried to stop it.
Banks were forced to take on high risk loans due to liberal political correctness, (and de-regulation that President Clinton signed into law), President Bush tried in 2003 to overhaul the housing finance committee, and Barney Frank said that there was no problem with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. And yet this is supposed to be the failed policies of the Bush administration that led to this crisis.
Democrats never let facts get in the way of a good argument.
John McCain Suspends his Campaign, Challenges Obama to do the Same
Today John McCain announced that he was suspending his campaign, stopping all advertising and fund-raising, and flying back to Washington to try to work on the bailout bill. He challenged Barack Obama to do the same. He also announced that he wanted to postpone the debate scheduled for Friday.
Let me start off by saying that I understand that this is purely a political move designed to help McCain because when it comes to the economy the polls show that Obama has the edge on this issue. This is an attempt by McCain to boost his image on this issue with the American people. But will it work? That is the question that I am going to write about here.
Let me also say that I haven’t quite figured out whether it will work or not, I am still running scenarios through me head, so hopefully I don’t wander too much here.
And one more thing, I am putting aside the issue of whether the bailout is a good idea or not. I don’t necessarily think that it is, to me it seems a form of economic socialism is about to be implemented. I am looking at this as purely a political issue .
Here we go.
My initial reaction today to John McCain’s announcement was that he had just hit a home run. He was showing the American people that he has leadership qualities and also a willingness to work in a bi-partisan manner. He is showing that he believes that the economic problems facing the country are more important to him than winning an election. He is willing to put the future of the country ahead of his own future. And that may be how this whole scenario plays out.
If John McCain goes to Washington and is able to pull off some kind of deal, or at least be involved in any negotiation that leads to a deal he will look like the leader that he wants to be and this would probably help him with the undecided voters who are sick of all talk and no action. He could be seen as rising above politics as usual and doing what is best for America and putting his own ambitions on the back burner.
As of right now Barack Obama has not met John McCain’s challenge and in all honesty there is no way
that he could. If Barack Obama capitulated to John McCain’s challenge it would have been the political equivalent of a father grabbing his child by the ear and dragging him home. That would have been disastrous for Obama. John McCain would have looked like the leader while Obama would have looked as though he was just tagging along for the ride.
This could be a home run for McCain still, if it pans out that while Barack Obama is talking about the economy that John McCain brokers a deal to fix the economy it will be perceived that Obama was still talking while McCain did the walking.
Now on to the lingering question that I have that prevents me from truly believing that John McCain won this battle with his challenge today.
During Barack Obama’s response today he alluded to the fact that he could do two things at once where apparently John McCain can’t. How will this play to the voters? I am not sure. If Barack Obama is perceived as not being up to John McCain’s challenge it could hurt him. After all hasn’t congress suspended all other votes because they want to focus on this ONE issue? That is how important congress believes this issue is. But that is not what has me second guessing how effective McCain’s challenge will be.
I have this vision of turning on the television on Friday night when the debate was scheduled to begin and seeing Barack Obama on the stage alone. I can see him calling out John McCain as being afraid to debate him on the issues and then inviting questions from the moderators and maybe even the audience. What kind of effect would this have on the voters? Barack Obama would have a national forum to discuss the issues all to himself. Now that could have a downside, he wouldn’t have a teleprompter and we have all seen how inept he is without it. Maybe that would end up hurting him.
I have a feeling before all is said and done that John McCain will end up on that stage on Friday night to debate Barack Obama, but we will see.
This was a huge political gamble taken by McCain. To suspend all ads and fund-raising may end up hurting McCain beyond the point of recovery, but if he is able to win over enough undecided voters who see this as leadership and unselfishness he may pull this off.
I think that this will be a win for McCain, but not a home run. Maybe just an RBI double. He has put Obama on the defensive, but I don’t think that we will see the final results until after this plays out on Friday. One thing is for sure though, this has been one hell of an interesting day in this presidential race.
Hopefully I haven’t rambled on too much.
To be continued……
Latest New Hampshire Senate Poll (09/24/08)
Blue Hampshire
The latest New Hampshire senate poll has been released and it shows a tight race between Senator Sununu and Jeanne Shaheen with Shaheen leading 48%-44%. This poll is run by WMUR-TV and is more in line with the poll that came out over the summer which also showed Sununu cutting into a huge lead by Jeanne Shaheen, unlike the poll that came out last week showed that Shaheen still holds a twelve point lead.
John Sununu is the Republican senator who Democrats believe is the most vulnerable this year and yet if this poll is correct Jeanne Shaheen is losing ground. John McCain and Barack OBama are also statistically tied in the polls and John McCain is very popular here. This could help John Sununu.
17% of those polled said that they could still change there mind before the election and 6% are still undecided so anything can still happen but everything is trending in John Sununu’s favor. We still have some (audacity of) hope.
I believe that the house polls are due out later today and I think we are looking at two more close races there. And Thursday I believe the poll is due out in the governor’s race. That one is going to be ugly, there is a rumor that we have a Republican candidate running for governor but nobody has seen him. Where are you Joe?
Obama Ad to Target an Abortion Survivor
I have written in the past about Barack Obama refusing to vote to allow doctors to administer care to babies who accidentally survived an abortion attempt. Most recently I wrote this article about Barack Obama’s lie about why he refused to vote for the bill that would save living babies.
Barack Obama claims that he voted “present” (which is the same as a “no” vote) because of the wording of the bill, but when a bill came up for a vote that had the wording that Barack Obama insisted on he still refused to vote for it. This last bill had protections for Roe vs Wade included and was identical to the federal bill that Barack Obama claimed that he would have voted for. Yet he refused.
He didn’t want to go on record either for or against this bill so he tried to hide his position with a “present” vote. He knew how controversial this vote would have been so instead of going on record he thought this was a way to hide. But the truth is out there now and we know that he was okay with telling doctors that is is illegal for them to administer care to living babies just because they survived an abortion. And he did it strictly for political gain without regards to what the bill actually allowed. He can try to spin this any way that he wants, but THAT IS WHAT THE BILL ALLOWED!
A new ad appeared last week that featured an abortion survivor speaking on the issue. The ad is brutal in it’s honesty. Here is part of the transcript; “Can you imagine not giving babies their basic human rights, no matter how they entered our world? My name is Gianna Jessen, born 31 years ago after a failed abortion. I’m a survivor, as are many others . . . but if Barack Obama had his way, I wouldn’t be here,”.
I know how harsh that sounds and so does Barack Obama who is naturally coming out against this ad and is even releasing his own commercial denouncing the ad and calling Gianna Jessen a liar. The left will now try to smear this woman for daring to speak out against Obama.
Barack Obama is claiming that his vote was taken out of context. That is a new one on me, a vote taken out of context? His vote, or lack thereof, is indefensible.
Barack Obama and the far left can call this woman any name they want, but you know what I call her? Alive.
Joe Biden Gaffe; Says That FDR Went on Television
Cross posted on Grizzly Groundswell
My initial reaction to Barack Obama picking Joe Biden as his running mate was that he was the Best pick Obama could have made. Well, other than Hillary Clinton, but she was never a real option. I thought that Barack Obama made a great choice because he shored up his greatest weaknesses-experience and foreign policy.
What I failed to realize was how gaffe prone Biden was. I mentioned in my original assessment that the biggest downside to Biden was his mouth getting him in trouble but I guess I failed to realize just how much this could come back to haunt Obama.
The latest example of this comes from Joe Biden’s recent interview with Katie Couric. While talking about the mortgage crisis and Wall Street bailout, Joe Biden tried to take a shot at President Bush by telling us the difference between him and FDR by saying, “when the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the princes of greed he said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.'”
He was trying to show how FDR was a leader while President Bush is not, and that was the example that he used. There are just a couple of problems with that statement. The first problem is the little fact that there were no televisions in 1929, the year the stock market crashed. The second problem? FDR was not president in 1929 when the stock market crashed, Hoover was.
This is not just a gaffe in my opinion. This was either an outright lie or a total ignorance of history. Or both. Joe Biden was spreading lies about history in order to make President Bush look bad. Did he really believe that the American people were to stupid to see through this and realize his statement was factually incorrect? Or did he really believe that what he was saying was true? I am not sure what is worse.
The third possibility is that he just threw that statement out there without thinking and didn’t even realize what he was saying and it didn’t even cross his mind that it might not be correct. This also is no better than the other options.
While the media ponders whether Sarah Palin is qualified to be president if something happens to John McCain, Joe Biden is getting a free ride and from what I have heard from Joe Biden I have to wonder how he can possibly be qualified. A man that is so willing to lie about something that is so easily disproved (and I think it was a lie and not just an ignorance of history) just to gain the office can’t be trusted with the office.
Video: Joe Biden Admits a Barack Obama Campaign Commercial was “Terrible”
Below is a video that shows Joe Biden admit that a commercial that the Obama campaign ran was “terrible.” The commercial in question is the one where Obama tries to paint McCain as out of touch because he can’t use a computer or send an email.
Of course if an article from the Boston Globe from the year 2000 hadn’t resurfaced on the blogs that wrote about John McCain’s war injuries making it impossible for him to either use a keyboard, raise his arms over his head, or even comb his own hair Barack Obama may have gotten away with this. The Obama campaign just assumed that America wouldn’t find out why John McCain couldn’t send an email, they were wrong.
Joe Biden, knowing how insensitive this commercial was is now in spin control.
Will Racist Democrats Cost Barack Obama the Election?
Cross posted on Grizzly Groundswell
Several times since announcing his candidacy for president Barack Obama has decided to play the race card. From his statements that he doesn’t look like the other presidents on the dollar bills to “did I mention he’s black” to the most recent example in Obama’s Spanish language commercial in which he basically says that John McCain doesn’t like Mexicans and wants them to “shut up and go home.” John McCain of all people, the man who wanted to give them a free ride and grant them amnesty. Now it may be coming back to haunt him.
Many pundits have been saying that race will be a factor in this election, I have always laughed off that as a silly and antiquated notion. I found it hard to believe that in today’s day and age that there would still be that type of mindset in the United States.
But this new survey may prove me wrong. According to a study 1/3 of white Democrats harbor negative feeling towards black people.
The AP-Yahoo study found that one-third of white Democrats cited a negative adjective when describing blacks and, of those, just 58 percent said they planned to back Obama. For example, AP reported that more than a quarter of white Democrats agreed that “if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites.” Four in 10 white independents agreed, while a quarter described blacks as “violent.”
So race may play a factor in this election after all and it may be racism in Barack Obama’s party that will be his undoing. Who knew that this kind of ill feelings for minorities still existed in the Democrat party? But then when you think about Bill Clinton bringing race into the primary with his downplaying of Obama winning the South Carolina primary with his condescending remark, “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina too” which had clear racial overtones and you begin to wonder. Democrats do have a history of looking at people in groups instead of just looking at them as people. So maybe they are now reaping what they have sown.
I still have a hard time believing that Barack Obama’s race will play any significant part in the election. This race will be decided on the issues pure and simple. Although I am enjoying seeing the tables turned on the Democrats.
The article then goes on to say that the survey could be flawed.
The study also did not test whether another black candidate, with perhaps different views or biography, would have fared better among whites
That has been my feeling all along. It isn’t the fact that Barack Obama is black that is the reason that some people won’t vote for him, it his his positions. At least with Republicans, that is. Imagine deciding on a candidate based on issues? What a radical idea. Yet some in the media have to try to look past the issues as a reason for casting a vote for someone other than Barack Obama and that is because the media so desperately wants him to win. The media wants Obama to win so badly that they can’t understand why everyone doesn’t agree with Obama (and themselves) so there must be another reason. So they look toward race.
If, as this survey states 1/3 of Democrats hold racist feelings, and as is widely believed by the left, the Republicans are mostly racists, than why is McCain not winning by 15% or more? Surely if most Republicans were racists and 1/3rd of Democrats were racist John McCain would have a huge lead.
In the media’s desperate attempt to explain the reason Barack Obama can not pull ahead of McCain in the polls during an election cycle in which he should be leading by 20% the media have turned on their own people, Democrats. Could it just be that most Americans just aren’t as far left as Barack Obama? Obama is the most liberal candidate to ever get this close to the presidency and that is what has voters leery of him. Not his color. Most Americans do not agree with the far left, or far right, most Americans are closer towards the middle and a candidate that is perceived as far left as Obama is faces repercussions. For the media to imply otherwise just shows us their contempt for the voters of both parties who would dare to vote against the man that they decided should be the next president.
After all is said and done and after all the votes are counted the presidential race will be decided on the issues, not on race. If you agree with Obama’s radical leftist, socialist views you will vote for him, if you don’t, you won’t. It is as simple as that.
But as long as the media insists that Barack Obama’s race will be an issue, and as long as Democrats are now going to be accused of racism if they decide not to vote for Obama i just have one thing to say. Welcome to the club. Let me slide over on the couch so there is room for you to sit also. There is plenty of room, make yourself comfortable.
Now you know how it feels. I would feel sorry for you, but you are now getting your just reward. This is the culture you have created, just sit back and relax, don’t fight it. It is useless. It is political correctness run amuck.
