Sub Prime Sludge and Solutions (Revisited)

CT

Following up on the last post, An Obama Fact Check, Sub Prime Finger Pointing, there is even more interesting information out. In an attempt to modernize the financial sector, Phil Gramm brought us the Financial Services Modernization Act . In a nut shell, it gave commercial banks the ability to get back into financial investments. So, we are possibly revisiting the cause of the Bank Collapse of 1933. But, things are much more complex nowadays, there are more people, much larger sums of money, and the economy is much more globally intertwined.

In the article The Blame Game from the Current, on Atlantic.com, Megan Mcardle had some interesting thoughts.

But both candidates are right about one thing: America's financial regulatory structure is badly outdated, and in need of a massive overhaul.

America's entire approach to regulation is a relic of the New Deal, when optimistic Keynesians still believed that they might tame the economy by getting bright technocrats to run it. [1]

For better or worse, advised or ill-advised, an update to our economic system is what Gramm seemed to be trying to accomplish. Problem seems to be that the regulatory agencies either were not allowed to keep up with the changes or could not. Either way, there was no warning from the SEC, Securities Exchange Commission, the Department of Commerce, or the Treasury Department. I am not saying they did not see it coming, I do not think they knew what to do. The book they were operating by did not have the answers. So, we are left with them shrugging their shoulders and the American taxpayer floating almost $900 billion in government bail outs.

A better approach would be to focus less on eliminating risk, and more on managing it. This means not only greater transparency, but encouraging alternate ratings systems to help make investors aware of risk. [1]

The Heritage Institute seems to agree with Ms. Mcardle.

Improved Credit Ratings

The report calls for credit rating agencies to improve the way in which they "grade" securities. Currently, both traditional securities and structured credit products are graded the same way. Structured credit products are sophisticated and often highly complex packages that include such ingredients as tranches (pieces) of mortgages representing a specific level of repayment risk. They are designed to meet specific investor needs. [2]

There are many other solutions that need to be enacted as well, requirements for capital standards, more stringent credit standards, as well as better risk management by financial institutions. My main fear is that these regulations and oversights will not be enacted with temperance, but out of anger. I think we are going to see a regulatory body overseeing the financial industries like we have never seen before. I would even venture to predict a new Department of (fill in the blank) strictly for financial regulation. Larger government and harsh regulation are not the answer, common sense and temperance are.

CT

[1] The Blame Game
[2] Sub Prime Sludge and Solutions

Continue reading ...

An Obama Fact Check, Sub Prime Finger Pointing

CT

This post has developed very interestingly, while researching the sub prime mortgage crisis some months back I came upon some dates that tied the Housing Bubble to legislation as far back as 1994. Now, with Obama, blaming a Republican Congress and George Bush, those dates started popping back in my head. So, I started looking and found some interesting information. Well, the news is not all great for me though, it is making me rethink the conclusion I drew on my post Market Correcting Itself.

Now there is no denying the Republican Congress and George Bush are complicit in the Sub Prime Crisis, through the American Dream Downpayment Act and the Zero Down Payment Act. But the waters here run much deeper than that; enter Phil Gramm, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, and Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.

If you notice, sub prime mortgages running flat until 1997. Then from 1997-98 there was a very noticeable spike that continued until 2000. Then it runs flat from 2001-02, possibly because of the economic implications of 9-11. After 2004, with the passing of the above mentioned Acts, there is a huge increase in the number of sub prime mortgages being acquired.

Let's backtrack to the Community Reinvestment Act and its amendment n 1995, under then President, Bill Clinton. As passed by the Carter administration, the CRA was supposed to provide credit, including home ownership opportunities to undeserved populations and commercial loans to small businesses. Under Bubba, there was an increase in the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. CRA Moving forward a bit to 1996-97, with Glass-Steagall, a law which prohibited a bank from offering investment, commercial banking, and insurance services. Glass-Steagall was passed by the FDR administration, after a Congressional study revealed that the banking collapse of 1933 was directly attributed to the mixing of commercial and investment banking as well as the stock market crash of 1929. Glass-Steagall Act

In December 1996, with the support of Chairman Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve Board issues a precedent-shattering decision permitting bank holding companies to own investment bank affiliates with up to 25 percent of their business in securities underwriting (up from 10 percent). This expansion of the loophole created by the Fed's 1987 reinterpretation of Section 20 of Glass-Steagall effectively renders Glass-Steagall obsolete. [1]

If you noticed on the graph above there was a spike in sub prime mortgage loans from 1997-99. This is rather fascinating to me, because this truly highlights the very beginning of the Sub Prime Bubble.

By 1997, good loans were bundled with poor ones and sold as prime packages to institutions here and abroad. That shifted risk from the loan originators, freeing banks to begin pyramiding and make more of these profitable subprime products. [2]

This next little piece taken from a 1997 Wachovia press release provides some very interesting hindsight also, notice some of the names of these institutions involved.

The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact - they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977."The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson, managing director of First Union's Community Reinvestment and Fair Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation. [3]

Now, jump to Oct-Nov. 1999, Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX) successfully passes legislation that eliminates Glass-Steagall through passing of the Financial Services Modernization Act. Thus giving simple lending banks the ability to underwrite huge securities, as noted above (This is exactly what Bank of America has done with Merill-Lynch, hence my apprehension). This gave way to the evolution of Citicorp and Travelers merging into the mega-colossus, Citigroup. Unfortunately the elimination of Glass-Steagall did not come with out a price, enter Bill Clinton, once again, and the Community Reinvestment Act.

At first Gramm could not get the legislation to eliminate Glass-Steagull pushed through. He had to make a compromise with the Democrats concerning the Community Reinvestment Act.

Crucial to the passing of this Act was an amendment made to the GLBA, stating that no merger may go ahead if any of the financial holding institutions, or affiliates there of, received a "less than satisfactory [sic] rating at its most recent CRA exam", essentially meaning that any merger may only go ahead with the strict approval of the regulatory bodies responsible for the CRA. [4]

There were a few other equally important provisions added, one of note was Gramm's insistence on transparency concerning coercion of banks by community groups such as ACORN. But this, although, related is an entirely different article.

Gramm had maintained that he did not want anything in the bill that would expand the application of the Community Reinvestment Act because it was, he said, unnecessarily burdensome to banks.He had sought a provision that would exempt thousands of smaller banks from the law. He also wanted a provision that would expose what he has described as the "extortion" committed by community groups against banks by requiring the groups to disclose any special financial deals the groups extract from the banks. [5]

Summarizing this information, Clinton seeks to strengthen opportunity for home ownership in the States and amends the CRA, a few years later Phil Gramm seeks to overturn a Depression era piece of legislation, he cannot because of the Clinton administration concerns about lending practices concerning poorer people in the community. Gramm makes the compromise to get the Financial Services Modernization Act passed. You have coupled the farthest reaching free market thinking with a massive liberal community giveaway program. The regulations forced on these institutions, along with their greed, gave rise to the Sub Prime Bubble. Then a few years later, you have a Republican Congress and President who forgot they were Conservatives, passing liberalized legislation under the guise of free market thinking and I give you the Sub Prime Mortgage Crisis. Obambi might want to go back and check his facts, because it looks like most of the players in this were wrong, not just the Republicans. The last thought I have is what a wonderful idea it is to regulate an attempt at deregulation.

CT

[1] The Long Demise of Glass-Steagall
[2] Age And Experience: Carter's Catastrophes
[3] Wachovia Press Release
[4] Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
[5] Agreement Reached on Overhaul of U.S. Financial System

Continue reading ...

Another Case of the Pandemic, PDS

CT

More Holly-weird coming out of the woodwork. The latest to be diagnosed with PDS is washed up comedian, Chevy Chase. Of course spewing vile rhetoric and stupidity, yawn, it is getting tiresome.

Flecth, betcha he doesn't wanted to be reminded of those movies, was at a charity fund raiser for environmental awareness in schools. Assisting in funding Al Bore's indoctrination process into the Church of the GoreBull Warming. It was here he took an opportunity to fire one at Sarah Palin.

WILLIE GEIST: You were there, Saturday night, your old stomping ground. What did you make of Tina Fey?

CHEVY CHASE: Well, I thought, I mean, it's extraordinary how well she played her and how much she looked like her. I'd just like her to be—personally I felt we didn't need the Hillary stuff. I'd like her to go even harder. I want her to decimate this woman. This is a, this woman is, I mean I can't believe isn't more about her. All the media have and the press have been going "oh, she's a wonderful, oh God, her speech was great." Just unbelievable to me that this woman is running for vice-president. [1]

Wow, I love how we didn't need any of the Hillary stuff. Oh no that is offensive, but, Sarah? Aaaah, go ahead she is just trailer park trash. Chase, longtime idiot and moron, may have forgotten that it is now a little bit of a snarky but playful tradition on SNL to make fun of the candidates and politicians.

Now let's keep this mental midget's resume in mind while he criticizes Governor Palin. Left SNL after a year and a half citing that he was "hated on the set," who would have figured that, turned down the role of Otter in Animal House, thank God because Time Matheson pulled that one off, starred in the Fletch movies, said Three Amigos was his best film ever, turned down the lead role in the Academy award winning American Beauty, not to mention the several flops he has appeared in over the years. Chase has been trying to gain the notoriety and the celebrity he once attained for about five years in the early eighties. To date he has never been able to shake the has been status and now is known for brief moments of stupidity such as this. Great contribution to humanity, Chevy!

CT

[1] 'I Want Her to Decimate This Woman'

Continue reading ...

Market Correcting Itself

CT

In the world of economics and finance these days saying a hurricane has hit is a lackluster description of what is going on. In the past 6 months we have had the Bear Stearn's bailout by JP Morgan-Chase brokered by the Fed, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae being nationalized (Just saying that makes my skin crawl.), and now Merrill-Lynch and Lehman Brothers disappearing.

But in the case of Merril-Lynch you have Bank of America stepping up to buy them out, creating a huge financial colossus. This is an expansion of commercial banking into the world of financial investment, a rather bold move by Bank of America and JPMorgan-Chase. Although, intuitive, this move was done out of neccessity, but, it is a great example of a potential market correction.

As much as I hate to, I have to give a certain credit to the Fed for brokering the deal between Bear-Stearns and JP Morgan-Chase. If they had not their failure could have caused an economic tailspin that would have caused major problems for the world economy. This also opened the door, I feel, for BOA to expand its horizons into the world of finance banking. Now, the outcome of these bold moves still remain to be seen. But the financial and investment communities may have come up with an interesting way to survive the recent pitfalls of their greed. Although, we are far from being out of the woods, hopefully these institutions have learned their lessons.

CT

Continue reading ...

Governor Sarah Palin is No Reformer...What is She Then?

CT

What we have been hearing from the MSM and the Left is that John McCain and Sarah Palin are liars, especially when it comes to Sarah Palin's record on fiscal reform. Most notably the infamous, "Bridge to Nowhere" and earmarks. Do they have a point or is this a partisan attack? The problem is neither side is offering anything more than surface evidence to back up their claims, that is just annoying. Well here is some sound evidence you decide. First, "The Bridge to Nowhere."

Palin had this to say while running for governor in September 2006, Palin assured the Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce she was all for the bridge. “The money that’s been appropriated for the project, it should remain available for a link, an access process as we continue to evaluate the scope and just how best to just get this done,” Palin said then, according to a story in the Ketchikan Daily News. “This link is a commitment to help Ketchikan expand its access, to help this community prosper.” PoliFacts.com

October of 2006, Palin was asked directly, “Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?” Her answer: “Yes. I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now — while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.” PoliFacts.com

Palin took over as governor in December 2006. "In February 2007 her proposed state budget didn't include state funding for the Ketchikan bridge. A spokesman noted that Palin's proposed capital budget focused on projects that could draw federal money, too. At that point, according to the Ketchikan Daily News, the cost of the bridge had risen $67-million and former Gov. Frank Murkowski had recommended putting $195-million in the state budget for Ketchikan's bridge." PoliFacts.com

This was from a September 2007 article which appeared in the Anchorage Daily News "Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer," Gov. Sarah Palin said in a prepared statement. "

This was taken from Anchorage Daily News concerning confusion about her stance, "One year later, Ketchikan's Republican leaders said they were blindsided by Palin's decision to pull the plug. "

Here is something that is very interesting. "Congress eventually removed the earmark language but the money still went to Alaska, leaving it up to the administration of then-Gov. Frank Murkowski to decide whether to go ahead with the bridges or spend the money on something else." Anchorage Daily News

This brings up two points of contention for me. Congress still gave the money to Alaska even after the upheaval the bridge caused, essentially they left it up to the state of Alaska to decide what to so with the money. Congress fulfills the role of Pontius Pilate in this one. They give the money to Alaska but the earmark language is removed, Alaska still gets the money for the bridge, and if they build it Congress can claim no responsibility in the matter.

Secondly, if this statement is true it would explain why Palin blindsided them by not going through with the bridge project. The money was allocated, Alaska had the choice, and Congress was protected. But, inevitably she did not. Reason, the bridge was getting over bloated to about $400,000,000. Now, here is something else that I came across.

This is also from the Anchorage Daily News, "Local leaders shouldn't have been surprised when Palin announced she was turning to less-costly alternatives, Leighow said. Indeed, Leighow produced a report quoting Palin, late in the governor's race, indicating she would also consider alternatives to a bridge." Funny, you aren't hearing about this.

Now onto her record on earmarks and fiscal responsibility. It is common knowledge that Alaska is first in the Federal dollars spent in the state versus federal dollars it returns in the form of taxes. per captia. Although, Alaska is only 44th in the nation for the amount of federal expenditures it receives as of FY 2005. AAAS Palin has claimed to be against earmarks and wasteful government spending.

Earmarks: "For the 2007 federal budget year, the administration of former Gov. Frank Murkowski submitted 63 earmark requests totaling $350 million, Palin's staff said. That slid to 52 earmarks valued at $256 million in Palin's first year. This year, the governor's office asked the delegation to help them land 31 earmarks valued at $197 million." Anchorage Daily News

But the Citizens Against Government Waste tells a little bit different tale. (2005) Alaska again led the nation with $985 per capita ($646 million), or 30 times the national pork average of $33. 2005 Pig Book Summary (2008) Alaska led the nation with $556 per capita ($380 million). 2008 Pig Book Summary

Now, this is not just earmarks, this is total federal expenditures including grants etc. The total savings to Alaska, since Plain entered office, is a difference of $266,000,000 totally, with a $197,000,000 savings just in earmarks alone. Still a ways to go, but some remarkable improvement.

Budget: This was taken from the Anchorage Daily News concerning the FY 2008 Capital budget. "Gov. Sarah Palin cut $268 million from the capital budget on Friday. That's a lot of money, but still less than 10 percent of the entire $3 billion capital budget."

In my opinion Palin is no reformer. She is, as Fred Barnes put in his Weekly Standard article, a pragmatist. Again, this is my take on her. She did quite a bit of good in her 20 months a Governor of Alaska and has displayed a willingness to go against the system and try to improve it, despite the controversy. From her time as mayor of Wasilla to Governor of Alaska there has been an interesting development of pragmatism and growth, both politically and personally.

CT

Continue reading ...

Fred Kaplan; News Comedian and Splitter of Hairs (Analysis of Palin Interview)

CT

Fred Kaplan's painful attempt at splitting hairs and mindless ramblings about the Palin interview only proves its success. The shear weakness of his arguments is astounding and the fact that Slate let him run this piece is puzzling if not comical. I hate writing so much about PDS, Palin Derangement Syndrome, but it seems to be all consuming, especially when facts and truth get so distorted.

Fred's first ass-umption.

Gov. Palin was obviously briefed by Sen. John McCain's advisers, and briefed fairly well. [1]

I see Fred is now a psychic, can read tea leaves, and has a crystal ball. How does he know what she has knowledge of. I think what Kaplan is getting at is she hasn't gotten her information from Left news rags therefore she doesn't qualify as "knowledgeable." I saw evidence of discipline in her answers and poise. Was it the best response to a line of questioning I have ever seen? No, but it was far, far, far, from the worst. It was a really good first start and I commend her on it.

Fortunately, the whole issue is a nonstarter because, under NATO's charter, a nation must have firm and recognized borders in order for membership to be so much as considered. Georgia does not have such borders. (The status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia has long been in dispute.) [1]

Oh really? Understand, Georgia's borders are recognized by the US, the UN, the EU and NATO. These two regions, although under dispute, have nothing to do with the still remaining Russian forces in Poti, as well as other locations inside of Georgia proper. So, Kaplan is not only incorrect about Georgia having "fluid borders," that is not the issue regarding Georgia's admission into NATO.

This was an eyebrow-raiser. Almost everyone, even Russia's harshest critics, acknowledges that Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili did, in fact, provoke Putin—even if Putin might have been hoping for a provocation—by attacking South Ossetia first. [1]

This is news to me. He did not provoke Putin, that is insinuating that Saakashvili was thumbing his nose at the Russians and just went in with no reason. Actually, there have been attacks into Georgia proper for days, if not weeks, before the actual Georgian invasion of South Ossetia. Also, these attacks were mainly from areas that were under Russian "peacekeeping" control. Kaplan like most Leftist writers either have no grasp of the events which led up to this or they are omitting them because it is convenient. Palin was absolutely correct in her response, coached or otherwise.

Kaplan was somewhat fair to Governor Palin in this portion, although his analysis of why he is fair to her is wrong.

Then there was the moment that has caused many jaws to gape—when Gibson asked what she thought of "the Bush Doctrine" and she clearly didn't know what he was talking about. I must confess, this didn't bother me much. Her initial response—"In what respect, Charlie?"—was a fair point. So many Bush doctrines have been promulgated, proved wrong, and abandoned without comment. [1]

Kaplan is substantially wrong on why her response to Charlie Gibson was the correct one. The Bush Doctrine has 4 premises to it: 1) Preemption 2) Military Primacy 3) A New Multilateralism 4) The Spread of Democracy. This is according to the Bush NSS, or National Security Strategy published on September 22, 2002. This is what Palin was referring to, not the convoluted mutation the Press has "morphed" it into. Pailin actually demonstrated her ability to grasp this concept and gave a fair assessment of it. But, here is where ole Fred gets the axe out and starts splitting hairs.

What did bother me was that, after Gibson outlined the doctrine's meaning (the right to attack a nation in anticipation of a threat), she didn't answer the question. She said, "If there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend the country." This is true to the point of banality; no one would dispute it. The question is whether it's proper to take armed action not if a strike seems imminent but if preparations seem to be in the works for a possible strike sometime in the future. [1]

This was the most comical portion of his whole analysis. In the original article Kaplan has the words "anticipate" and "imminent" italicized. Now, Palin just showed she is not a devotee of the Bush Doctrine in Leftist terminology. The Left assumes it means, in anticipation of. Palin said there has to be an imminent threat. I can anticipate Canada is going to invade all day long and then attack them or I can wait until Canada gives a clear cut indication, like putting massive amounts of troops on our border, that they are going to attack. That is the difference between anticipate and imminent. Jesus, Fred, get a dictionary why don't you? This means she is not going to jump at every shadow that is perceived as a threat. If we have the the intelligence, motive, and there are clear indicators, let's go.

I am not going to get into the other two points that Kaplan raises about her religion, faith, and instinct because they are written by a guy chained to desk. He would never have any clue about leadership or following your gut in chaotic situations. Most of his audience wants to hear that garbage anyways, so there is no point.

CT

[1] The Sorrow and the Pity

Continue reading ...

Obamania, Palinmania, it's all still mania.

CT

One of the worries I have about the election, as of late, is the flip flopping going on. I don't mean on positions, either. It is the flip flopping on perception by the American public concerning Palin. This is not an admonishment of her or me saying I have found something in her past that I just cannot get over, it is a critique of all of us, the voters.

First most people were so wrapped up in the Obamania, frothing at the mouth for the center piece of "Change," most acted like 2nd rate wrestling fans. Then everyone started getting glib, save his most ardent supporters, about Obama when the "winds of change" started to subside and the truth started coming out.

Now, enter Sarah Palin. People have put her on a pedestal so far they are dooming her for failure if she doesn't come through on these lofty expectations. They are making her out to be a Conservative icon,which she may become one day, before she has had the chance to serve as VP. Let's look at Ronald Reagan for a moment, history and his actions painted him as the modern day cornerstone of the Conservative movement. Although he was loved and respected by many Americans, while President, I do not think the average person figured he would rise to the levels that he has ascended to. He was given a chance to succeed or fail and he succeeded. This is how we should approach Governor Palin, if we are realistic about her, she just may surprise everyone, even those on the Left.

With this in mind, I simply do not understand why it is so hard for the American public, news junkies included, to get off of the American Idol trip with our candidates. They are not gods, they are not celebrities, they are not movie stars, they are politicians and hopefully leaders. They are not to be revered and have faults, that is okay, I like knowing that they are still human. It keeps me grounded in my perceptions of them and their actions.


CT

Continue reading ...

McCain's Shadow Weapon and It Isn't Sarahcuda.

CT

All to often we give credit, bad or good, to what we see on the surface and never investigate into the backroom dealings and power brokers who live in the shadows. Yup, this sounds ominous and foreboding, but, it is the truth. Who are the real players behind the scenes that never get credit for their contributions. Obama has David Axelrod, who takes every opportunity to run his suck on national tele. Who does McCain have?

This is a CNN article from July 11, 2007 after the McCain campaign shakeup.

Campaign manager Terry Nelson and chief strategist John Weaver announced their departures in joint statements released by the campaign.

Several sources tell CNN that McCain met with Nelson and Weaver on Monday to discuss the campaign's direction. [1]

It was on July 2, 2008 that Steve Schmidt was appointed Chief Strategist and controlling interest of the McCain campaign. Here is a little background on the "evil genius in training." Look for a particular name in his mini-bio and you will understand the evil genius reference.

Steve Schmidt is an American campaign strategist and public relations expert for the U.S. Republican Party. He specializes in political "message development and strategy".[1] A protege of Republican strategist Karl Rove, Schmidt is currently the senior campaign strategist and advisor to the 2008 Presidential campaign of Senator John McCain. [2]

Schmidt, IMHO, is the reason there has been so much of a change in the campaigning tactics and the slow erosion of the Democratic anointment to the Presidency. Schmidt, brings some big guns to the table as well as a decent resume.

On July 2, 2008, Schmidt was appointed to head up day to day operations of the McCain campaign in response to concerns that the McCain campaign was losing ground to Barack Obama. Schmidt's career highlights to date include a stint in 1998 as Communications Director for the Senate campaign of Matt Fong, chief White House strategist in charge of the U.S. Supreme Court nominations of Samuel A. Alito[3] and Chief Justice John Roberts, and Counselor and spokesman for Vice President Dick Cheney. He worked on the re-election campaign for California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.[3] Schmidt was a member of the exclusive "breakfast club" led by top White House adviser Karl Rove that ran President Bush's re-election campaign in 2004. [2]

This man knows how to campaign and take calculated risks. That is painfully evident by the chancy pick of Sarah Palin, which is proving to be wildly successful. Schmidt may have come in the game very late, but, he is making up for lost ground with the speed of an gold medal winning sprinter. He has changed McCain's campaign message 180 degrees, has revitalized McCain's maverick image, and most of all brought Sarah Palin on board. He is truly a genius of Rovian proportions. Axelrod, who?


CT

PS Just a little something for Karl. If the Republicans win and after the dust settles, the Left might figure it out that Karl Rove, via Steve Schmidt, got the better of them one more time. I am sure they will cry foul.

[1] McCain's Top Political Strategists Forced Out
[2] Steve Schmidt

Edit: Not sure why I missed putting July 11, 2008 instead of 2007 for the article date from CNN, but I overlooked it in the edit. I apologize and would like to thank Barbara Schmidt, do not know if she is related to Steve, for pointing out my error. But it has been corrected.

Continue reading ...

Palin/Jindal in 12'?

CT

As we have learned with this election cycle, college football last season, and NFL football, nothing is set in stone. You can pontificate and predict about the outcome of a situation all you want, but there is always that "wildcard" effect. Palin was that wildcard this election cycle. Without her intervention, or so it would seem, McCain probably would have put a respectable fight against Obama but inevitably lost the election. In the last stretch he introduces Palin and all of sudden not only is he a viable contender, but winning to some degree.

Bit, let's take a look past this and into one possible future. Let's just say McCain/Palin win and John McCain decides not to run for a second term. Where does that leave Sarah? Obviously running for the Prez, but who would she run with? More than likely Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana.

Even if Hillary ran with a decent VP pick, I do not think she could stand up to the onslaught of these two. It would be the dynamic duo. I am not sure in history if you have ever had two governors running for the offices of President and Vice President on the same ticket. Forget about the fact that Palin would have had been Veep for 4 years.

Now this assumption is based on a lot of "ifs." First, McCain wold have to decide that he was to old to run for the office again, which McCain has a reputation for being a very vigorous man, even for his age. Secondly, they have to win this election. Thirdly, Bobby Jindal has to feel his work for Louisiana is done. Fourthly, McCain/Palin would have to have a successful Presidency, which I feel they will.

If any of this happens and that is the ticket in 12' it would cement the Conservative movement in this country for the 20-30 years. Wow could you imagine almost a half century of lower taxes, individual rights, free market, environmental conservation, a decent military, and just some decent values. Not a bad possibility.

CT

Continue reading ...

Whooooppppiiii Goldberg, Palin Wants to "Succeed" From US

C.T.

I don't even know why I am writing about this. I guess it was to damn funny to pass up. This latest attempt at Liberal brain drain is brought to you by that intellectual giant of a woman, Whoopi Golberg, via News Busters.

Whoopi sez:

"Sarah Palin Is a Very Dangerous Woman," she lobs a wild pitch about the Alaskan Independence Party kerfuffle: "I also thought that this idea of America first coming from her was kind of strange because she was one of the people who wanted to succeed from the United States. She was part of a campaign to succeed Alaska from the United States of America." [1]

Do I really need to say anything? Oh, don't worry though, it gets better.

Whoopi goes on to say:

"This girl is dangerous to me. This is a very dangerous woman, because I believe for her intents and purposes, she’s OK if everybody lives a certain way, that is to say, the way God ordained men and women to be. Well, already she’s breaking that because she’s the daddy. She’s going to run the country and the husband is going to take care of the kids. I just found the whole thing sad and very musty and very much like a Bund rally, but maybe that was just me." [1]

Huh? Does this Football Bat have any clue what she is blithering about? I think this intellectual train wreck wrote this in-between bong hits. Although, there is more, it is actually getting sad that this woman is that stupid. I'm out.

C.T.

[1] Whoopi Goldberg: Palin Sounds Pro-Nazi, Wants to 'Succeed' From U.S.

Continue reading ...

Oprah and Sarah: Is Oprah Snubbing Her?

C.T.

Is Oprah snubbing Sarah Palin? First off, let me state this; As Conservatives we have to remember that our philosophies are not just inclusive to people who are Conservatives or vote GOP. Echoing Senator McCain's, "Country First." At the end of the day we are all Americans and our Conservative views about liberty and individual freedoms apply to everyone, not just a select few.

Now, my opinion will probably be a lightening rod but you have to be objective about this. First off, Oprah is a hard core capitalist, I like that about her. I despise her political views and opinions, but that is a non-issue. Secondly, it is her right as a business owner to have whomever she wants to have on her show. Thirdly, trying to force her to have Sarah Palin on is a violation of my beliefs. Remember, the show is hers and is fueled by her viewers, if they want Sarah Palin on then I would suggest to Oprah, have her on. If she doesn't it would be an idiotic business move driven by political ideology, but, that is Oprah's financial choice and right as the controlling interest of Harpo Productions, not ours. If she wants the perception of fairness, one week have Senator Obama on then the next week have Governor Palin on. In the end, it is her right not to have her on, but, it is your right not to watch.

C.T.

Continue reading ...

Palin, Polls, & Popularity

C.T.

Polls, polls, and more polls. Everyone has poll from who you are going to vote for President to how many times a day do your children pick their noses. It gets utterly ridiculous sometimes. Then you have the umpteen thousand of pollsters and their companies. It never seems to end.

But, polling does serve a purpose, at least for gauging the political pulse of the country. If it is done properly and honestly it can give a clearer picture of what the outcomes might be. Presently, Senator McCain and Governor Palin are trailing Senators Obama and Biden, but the gap seems to be closing. With the RNC just closing out, the jump or lack of will not be seen till this Monday or Tuesday.

This is not the point though, are we payng attention to the correct polls? Rasmussen just posted the results of a poll that I actually found very fascinating.

A week ago, most Americans had never heard of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Now, following a Vice Presidential acceptance speech viewed live by more than 40 million people, Palin is viewed favorably by 58% of American voters. The latest
Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 37% hold an unfavorable
view of the self-described hockey mom. [1]

This is what is even more interesting about this situation.

Perhaps most stunning is the fact that Palin’s favorable ratings are now a point higher than either man at the top of the Presidential tickets this year. As of Friday morning, Obama and McCain are each viewed favorably by 57% of voters. Biden is viewed favorably by 48%. [1]

Now, keep in mind this is a perception poll, meaning do you like this person, not who are you going to vote for. How this plays into the election remains to be seen. But, there is another interesting fact among persons that are not affiliated with either party. Since McCain's pick, non-affiliated voters perception of the Senator has risen dramatically.

Among unaffiliated voters, favorable opinions of McCain have increased by eleven percentage points in a week—from 54% before the Palin announcement to 65% today. [1]

If this translates into votes, which I am not saying it will, it is this block that could actually throw the election to the Republicans. I think the Hillary supporters will be a factor, but not as much as the Independent vote.

The country is still getting to know Sarah Palin but she has definitely taken everyone by storm. My prediction is this, the Obama camp has failed to generate any type of successful response by using personal attacks on Palin. I think they will now switch to unearthing anything that they can find about her political past and exacerbating or twisting it. That is if they find anything at all. How McCain and Palin face this new onslaught coming will be another test for Sarah.

C.T.

[1] Palin Power: Fresh Face Now More Popular Than Obama, McCain

Continue reading ...