Today the DJIA went up nearly 500 points. This is only a day after dropping nearly 800 points when Congress did not pass the Bailout. The purported 1 trillion lost with the drop is not an actual lost of dollars but a lost of perceived values.
The stock market is a marker for confidence in the economy. Basically if you believe that economy will grow, then the companies that drive, participate in, or benefit from the growing economy will gain in value. Buying these companies stocks is putting your wallet where your confidence is. But buying these stocks do not in itself drives economic growth until the stock are sold and then reinvested in other companies that need the capital to grow. Growing companies can also obtain the necessary capital from credit, which is leveraged against the perceived or stock values of these companies.
If confidence is low, then less capital is available and growing companies become more dependent on credit. With a credit crunch, then these companies cannot grow as easily. This does not mean a depression unless a substantial number of companies have leveraged loans against their perceived values. When the perceived values drop to less than the value of the loans, then these companies are at risk for bankruptcy. If enough companies suffer this, then the over all economy become at risk for a depression.
Most small businesses are particularly dependent on availability of credit for growth. However, unlike Wall Street small businesses values are more actual rather than perceived. Actual values are calculated based on brick and mortar and bottom line finances. Most small businesses do not exist as publically traded stocks thus there is less overvalued (inflated) or undervalued. In any period when confidence in the stock market is weakened, then the smart investors are even more attentive to actual values.
I would suspect that credit companies and bank would make similar analysis and make better investment, safer investments, and more money would go to business enterprise with actual values than perceived value. These credit companies and banks will still want to make money via their investments in order to offset the cost on interests being paid to depositors. And with the stock market less certain, more capital might be diverted from stock to savings and paying down debts.
All in all, I believe a significant market correction with the current financial crisis may be jarring in the short term but will be better off in the long term.
I believe we should not Bailout or “Rescue” the financial market and let the dead bill stay dead.
20080930
McCain & the MSM Re: Palin
I don't think McCain really understand that the mainstream media is not his friend. I think he got culled into a false sense of friendliness when he was a maverick against the Republicans. The media liked him then because he was against other Republicans. But now that he is against the anointed One, he is being treated like a red headed stepchild.
It became clear that he did not understand how he was perceived or being played when Palin was rolled out. Had he understood, he would have anticipated the PDS and prepared for it with a series of adds introducing Palin to the public along with a series of friendly interviews. These should have been done so that for independents, the campaign of disinformation would not and could not take hold. Only after the message regarding who Palin is and what she is about has taken hold should she been introduced to the enemy vis a vis the MSM.
Watch CBS Videos Online
It became clear that he did not understand how he was perceived or being played when Palin was rolled out. Had he understood, he would have anticipated the PDS and prepared for it with a series of adds introducing Palin to the public along with a series of friendly interviews. These should have been done so that for independents, the campaign of disinformation would not and could not take hold. Only after the message regarding who Palin is and what she is about has taken hold should she been introduced to the enemy vis a vis the MSM.
Watch CBS Videos Online
20080929
Federal Bailout Fails
At this point I am against this bailout for a variety of reasons.
1. Washington is broken and we should not continue the politics as is. I am sick and tired of elected official pointing fingers without taking any responsibility for their own culpability. I think at the local level, the elected officials have limited interests and thus reasonable accountability. Once they get to DC they appear to gain greater interests in exchange for less accountability.
2. When it comes to ability and capability, I trust Wall Street more than I trust Congress. On Wall Street CEOs make more money for themselves by enriching their stockholders. This is what it is and should continues be. In Congress Senators/Congressman make more power for themselves by empowering their electorate? Ha ha not! The government does not empower its citizens when it seeks to regulate more and more.
3. On Wall Street there can be no success without failure. I understand that government should protect the people, but this should not be the same as the government being a guarantor of wealth. What has failed on Wall Street is a failure of investment firms to cautiously and meticulously evaluates the risks of the loan packages they bought. They should take responsibility and accountability and accept their own failure.
4. Everything the Congress has touched has turned to mush. This is a corollary to #3. Because there is so little to lose when you are a part of the bureaucracy, there is also little to gain (other than perceived status and power). Smart people to seek to succeed and excel do not go into politics, they go into business. When they sought to extend credit to the underserved, the intention was good, the product has turned out to be crap.
5. Thus I conclude is that it is the best for the country to let the Bailout Bill die. We desperately need to clean house. I am fully confident that the fundamentals of our economy based on ingenuity and hard work remain intact and will not only come out all right, will come through stronger.
Here in VA is how the vote went:
Moran, James(D) = Aye
Cantor, Eric(R) = Aye
Davis, Tom(R) = Aye
Drake, Thelma(R) = No
Forbes, Randy(R) = No
Goode, Virgil(R) = No
Goodlatte, Bob(R) = No
Scott, Robert(D) = No
Wittman, Robert(R) = No
Wolf, Frank(R) = ?
1. Washington is broken and we should not continue the politics as is. I am sick and tired of elected official pointing fingers without taking any responsibility for their own culpability. I think at the local level, the elected officials have limited interests and thus reasonable accountability. Once they get to DC they appear to gain greater interests in exchange for less accountability.
2. When it comes to ability and capability, I trust Wall Street more than I trust Congress. On Wall Street CEOs make more money for themselves by enriching their stockholders. This is what it is and should continues be. In Congress Senators/Congressman make more power for themselves by empowering their electorate? Ha ha not! The government does not empower its citizens when it seeks to regulate more and more.
3. On Wall Street there can be no success without failure. I understand that government should protect the people, but this should not be the same as the government being a guarantor of wealth. What has failed on Wall Street is a failure of investment firms to cautiously and meticulously evaluates the risks of the loan packages they bought. They should take responsibility and accountability and accept their own failure.
4. Everything the Congress has touched has turned to mush. This is a corollary to #3. Because there is so little to lose when you are a part of the bureaucracy, there is also little to gain (other than perceived status and power). Smart people to seek to succeed and excel do not go into politics, they go into business. When they sought to extend credit to the underserved, the intention was good, the product has turned out to be crap.
5. Thus I conclude is that it is the best for the country to let the Bailout Bill die. We desperately need to clean house. I am fully confident that the fundamentals of our economy based on ingenuity and hard work remain intact and will not only come out all right, will come through stronger.
Here in VA is how the vote went:
Moran, James(D) = Aye
Cantor, Eric(R) = Aye
Davis, Tom(R) = Aye
Drake, Thelma(R) = No
Forbes, Randy(R) = No
Goode, Virgil(R) = No
Goodlatte, Bob(R) = No
Scott, Robert(D) = No
Wittman, Robert(R) = No
Wolf, Frank(R) = ?
20080928
Free Sarah Palin
I know that she is just the VP candidate, but McCain cannot and should not expect her to be his clone. The reason she was successful at the convention and the Republican base is because she was what McCain was not, thus complementing his appeal. This difference is what McCain needs to stress to Independent voters as well from now to November 4. He has kept her under too tight control, and she has too often been his mouth and this needs to end if McCain wants to win.
See also
"It's time to let Palin be Palin" at the WSJ.
"it's time for [McCain] to unshackle Sarah Palin" at American Thinker.
20080926
08 President Debate #1
McCain surprisingly strong on the economy in the first third.
McCain should have called Obama out more in the middle third.
McCain was a clear winner in the last third.
Win for McCain.
Update Actual debate analysis from Jay Cost
btw, this was my take home as well:
McCain should have called Obama out more in the middle third.
McCain was a clear winner in the last third.
Win for McCain.
Update Actual debate analysis from Jay Cost
btw, this was my take home as well:
20080925
Palin in NYC
Palin fields some questions from reporters.
“I agree with the Bush administration that we take the fight to them,” she said. “We never again let them come onto our soil and try to destroy not only our democracy but communities like the community of New York. Never again. So yes, I do agree with taking the fight to the terrorists and stopping them over there.”
She deflected a follow-up question about whether she felt the continued U.S. military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan has inflamed Islamic extremists.
“I think our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan will lead to further security of our nation, again, because the mission is to take the fight over there. Do not let them come over here and attempt again what they accomplished here, and that was some destruction, terrible destruction on that day. But since Sept. 11, Americans are uniting and rebuilding and committing to never letting that happen again.
In response to a question about the bailout package before Congress, she said, “I don't support that until the provisions that Sen. McCain has offered are implemented in Paulson's proposals.
Palin broke her campaign trail media silence after touring several Sept. 11-related sites and delivering a brief statement on the lessons of Sept. 11 in front of a fire house that lost many of its firefighters in the World Trade Center disaster.
“Every American student needs to come through this area so that, especially this younger generation of Americans, to be in a position of never forgetting what happened here and never repeating, never allowing a repeat of what happened here. I wish every American would come through here. I wish every world leader would come through here, and understand what it is that took place here and, more importantly, how America came together and united to commit to never allowing this to happen again. And just to hear from and see these good New Yorkers who are rebuilding not just this but are helping to rebuild America has been very, very inspiring and encouraging. These are the good Americans who are committed to peace and security, and it's been an absolute honor getting to meet these folks today.””
Btw, i don't think she did terribly well with Couric in what has been released so far. I don't think she should be limited to being McCain's cheerleader. She should instead be speaking about what is wrong that needs to be fixed and let McCain declare himself how he is to fix it. She does much better outside his shadow.
McCain and the Economy
Zogby now has McCain up by 2 as opposed to down by 3 last week.
Gallup now has McCain even with Obama after being down by 6 last week.
Are these response to
McCain's leadership/political maneuver?
Uncertainty with Obama?
Regardless, it suggests that there is room for McCain to maneuver when it comes to the economy.
Jay Cost thinks McCain Plays It Like McCain.
I think the risk McCain is taking is that of becoming the fall guy for both the Democrats and the Republicans in Congress. No one in Congress wants to take responsibility for the bailout. The Democrats are afraid that the bailout might not be the right thing. The Republicans don't want it at all, but are afraid it might actually be necessary, so don't want ownership of it. Thus they may all want McCain to take the ball. This also serves as an example why legislators make poor executives.
But whereas they may all be afraid of failure, McCain may see an opportunity for a win.
Gallup now has McCain even with Obama after being down by 6 last week.
Are these response to
McCain's leadership/political maneuver?
Uncertainty with Obama?
Regardless, it suggests that there is room for McCain to maneuver when it comes to the economy.
Jay Cost thinks McCain Plays It Like McCain.
I think the risk McCain is taking is that of becoming the fall guy for both the Democrats and the Republicans in Congress. No one in Congress wants to take responsibility for the bailout. The Democrats are afraid that the bailout might not be the right thing. The Republicans don't want it at all, but are afraid it might actually be necessary, so don't want ownership of it. Thus they may all want McCain to take the ball. This also serves as an example why legislators make poor executives.
But whereas they may all be afraid of failure, McCain may see an opportunity for a win.
20080924
Bush's Speech on the Financial Crisis
He should have take credit for pushing to reform Fannie Mae and Freddy Mack years ago.
I understand he wants to stay above the partisan bickering in the expectation that Congress would be more likely to follow suit and work together to resolve the bailout debate. Unfortunately Congress is full of incompetent partisan hacks looking out more for their own political advancement than service to Americans. I hope the (Democratic) Congress remain deadlock until a good and clean bailout plan is agreed upon.
I am not against the bailout per se if the bailout is only to buy these depressed home finance packages at a discount.
I am against the bailout if the cost is more government in control and regulation of businesses.
I understand he wants to stay above the partisan bickering in the expectation that Congress would be more likely to follow suit and work together to resolve the bailout debate. Unfortunately Congress is full of incompetent partisan hacks looking out more for their own political advancement than service to Americans. I hope the (Democratic) Congress remain deadlock until a good and clean bailout plan is agreed upon.
I am not against the bailout per se if the bailout is only to buy these depressed home finance packages at a discount.
I am against the bailout if the cost is more government in control and regulation of businesses.
McCain's Campaign and the Financial Crisis
McCain has decided to suspend his campaign inorder to return to Washington DC to help negotiate the terms of the bailout plan. He also suggested that Friday's foreign policy debate be post-phoned. Obama declined not wanting to introduce politics into the bailout discussion. Interesting to note that for Obama, it is all about politics rather than serving the people he was elected to represent.
Bush has since called Obama to DC and Obama has accepted.
What McCain should have done was to
1. Declare he is returning to DC where he is needed. Country first!
2. Declare that in his absence, Palin will continue in his stead to campaign to reform Washington. (This would mock Obama's decision to continue to lead his own campaign).
3. Declare that if the bailout debate succeeds, he will attend the debate on foreign affair. Talk second!
4. Declare that if the bailout debate continues, he could send Palin to debate Obama on foreign affair.
see also the Anchoress.
Bush has since called Obama to DC and Obama has accepted.
What McCain should have done was to
1. Declare he is returning to DC where he is needed. Country first!
2. Declare that in his absence, Palin will continue in his stead to campaign to reform Washington. (This would mock Obama's decision to continue to lead his own campaign).
3. Declare that if the bailout debate succeeds, he will attend the debate on foreign affair. Talk second!
4. Declare that if the bailout debate continues, he could send Palin to debate Obama on foreign affair.
see also the Anchoress.
20080923
Palin & Head of States
Today Palin met two head of states, Karzai of Afghanistan and Uribe of Colombia. While I recognize that this in no way make her a foreign policy expert, what i find interesting are those she is scheduled to meet:
None of these are old alliance leaders. These head of states are all on the forefront of the US global diplomatic engagement efforts.
Karzai from Afghanistan is now the front line confronting Al Qaeda in the War on Terror.
Uribe from Colombia is the US closest ally as we confront Chavez and Venezuela in Latin America. Colombia is also awaiting Congressional approval of a free trade agreement.
Saakashvili from Georgia is on the frontline against a militarily resurgent Russia. Georgia also is a central player in the oil pipeline from Central Asia, something I am sure Palin has a great deal of experience and understanding.
Yushenko from Ukraine is where the next confrontation against Russia would likely occur (most likely political confrontation and influence rather than outright war).
Talabani from Iraq is where the Bush doctrine promoting democracy as a counter to islamofascism is currently playing out successfully.
Zardari from Pakistan is where the islamofascist is currently working to destabilize. It is also where the war in Afghanistan will be won.
and Singh from India, the up and coming economic power that is the world's most populous democracy, a likely counterweight to China's growing influence in Asia, and also a nation under attack from islamofascists.
All of these leaders and their nations are who the US will have to influence and must build stronger relationship with. These things are on the “to do list” for the next administration. Establishing personal rapports with these leaders will serve Palin much better than meeting Harper of Canada, Gordon of UK, Sarkozy of France, Merkel of Germany, or Rudd of Australia. These nations are really already in the "with us" column. Japan and Israel are both currently in political flux but regardless of the outcome, will also remain in the "with us" column. Despite what the press may say, relationship with these nations under Bush has never been stronger.
Whoever chose these head of states for Palin to meet was thinking about her as the Vice President rather than Palin as a Vice President candidate needing to buff up her foreign experience resume. I am impressed with this selection. I am also impressed that these leaders are risking some potential backlash should Obama wins. Perhaps they recognize that even if McCain lose in 08, Palin will likely be an important US player in the years to come.
What is funny is that these are all more essential head of states than Obama has met.
Palin is also seeing six other world leaders — Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, Ukrainian President Viktor Yuschenko, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh — as well as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in New York this week.
None of these are old alliance leaders. These head of states are all on the forefront of the US global diplomatic engagement efforts.
Karzai from Afghanistan is now the front line confronting Al Qaeda in the War on Terror.
Uribe from Colombia is the US closest ally as we confront Chavez and Venezuela in Latin America. Colombia is also awaiting Congressional approval of a free trade agreement.
Saakashvili from Georgia is on the frontline against a militarily resurgent Russia. Georgia also is a central player in the oil pipeline from Central Asia, something I am sure Palin has a great deal of experience and understanding.
Yushenko from Ukraine is where the next confrontation against Russia would likely occur (most likely political confrontation and influence rather than outright war).
Talabani from Iraq is where the Bush doctrine promoting democracy as a counter to islamofascism is currently playing out successfully.
Zardari from Pakistan is where the islamofascist is currently working to destabilize. It is also where the war in Afghanistan will be won.
and Singh from India, the up and coming economic power that is the world's most populous democracy, a likely counterweight to China's growing influence in Asia, and also a nation under attack from islamofascists.
All of these leaders and their nations are who the US will have to influence and must build stronger relationship with. These things are on the “to do list” for the next administration. Establishing personal rapports with these leaders will serve Palin much better than meeting Harper of Canada, Gordon of UK, Sarkozy of France, Merkel of Germany, or Rudd of Australia. These nations are really already in the "with us" column. Japan and Israel are both currently in political flux but regardless of the outcome, will also remain in the "with us" column. Despite what the press may say, relationship with these nations under Bush has never been stronger.
Whoever chose these head of states for Palin to meet was thinking about her as the Vice President rather than Palin as a Vice President candidate needing to buff up her foreign experience resume. I am impressed with this selection. I am also impressed that these leaders are risking some potential backlash should Obama wins. Perhaps they recognize that even if McCain lose in 08, Palin will likely be an important US player in the years to come.
What is funny is that these are all more essential head of states than Obama has met.
20080922
US Government Bailout of the Financial Crisis of 08
I still don't have all the details of the current financial meltdown, or the US government bailout plan. I am not sure anyone does actually. From what i have gathered, there are two main components to this crisis. Firstly a lot of it has to do with bad debt. People were given loans at interests rate that was bound to go up to a point they cannot afford unless the value of their house continues to rise and rise. When the housing market bubble burst, many people were left with loans they cannot pay or can recuperate with sales of the house. Now had the loans been held with the local banks, perhaps arrangement could have been made for refinancing. But a lot of local banks that made the original home loan collected the loans and packaged them for resale (naturally before the housing bubble burst that made these loans worth less). Those that bought the home loan packages themselves repackaged them as investment portfolio for investors. The big investment firms then had a huge loss of value when they held so much of the home loans.
While it might be "a who cares" if large investment banks lost money, the lost money means the write offs are no longer available for other economic endeavors. And continued fear of further credit loss means even good available money are being held onto rather than lent out. Once bitten twice shy. Thus the second element of the meltdown is a loss of financial confidence and credit. Once this reaches a certain scale, continued economic function is threatened.
Why not a fan, partly because i do not know how dire things actually was, i do understand that there comes a certain time when the government does have to step in and halt the meltdown. Currently it appears that at the core of the bailout is the US government will buy these bad loans. The real question then is at what price the US will have to pay for the loan packages and what terms will the US government set in exchange for buying the loans.
What i would like to see is the US government buying these loans at basement-bottom prices. I want these financial companies to take a financial hit to some degree. I do not want the bailout to be bailing out Wall Street; I want the bail out Main Street. Not that I want to punish the financial houses of Wall Street, but investment carry intrinsic risks and they should understand that the role of the government is not to minimize their investment risks. By Main Street i mean the US government should trace back the loans to the original home buyer and refinance the terms of the loans so that those people who bought homes to live in should be able to keep their homes. Once these loans have been rewritten, i am fine with the government holding on to them for the full terms, or sell them to local banks. In this way the government does not own any financial commercial entities and may recuperate some of the cost when, or if, the housing market picks back up. Thus the US would be less likely to become a socialist state.
Regarding the terms of the US intervention, i do not want the US government to significantly increase oversight and regulation of the financial markets. The government may have the money to bailout Wall Street, but the US government does not have the smarts to do better than a de-regulated economy. Sure certain steps and procedures need to be enacted and placed so that this will not happen again. I am just not sure how that would work just yet.
As to limiting the pay of CEOs, on paper it may seem feasible to restrict CEO salary, either to the profit margin of the company or in proportion to its lowest paid employed, I don't think it will be too long before loopholes are discovered and make this attempt useless and potentially harmful. Think of it in terms of professional athletes, as long as the team can afford stars, they should be able to pay them as much as they are deemed valuable and profitable. What might work is to stipulate that all CEO faces "re-election" every so many years by stockholders.
More on the cause of the meltdown from Bloomberg
Here is the video:
While it might be "a who cares" if large investment banks lost money, the lost money means the write offs are no longer available for other economic endeavors. And continued fear of further credit loss means even good available money are being held onto rather than lent out. Once bitten twice shy. Thus the second element of the meltdown is a loss of financial confidence and credit. Once this reaches a certain scale, continued economic function is threatened.
Why not a fan, partly because i do not know how dire things actually was, i do understand that there comes a certain time when the government does have to step in and halt the meltdown. Currently it appears that at the core of the bailout is the US government will buy these bad loans. The real question then is at what price the US will have to pay for the loan packages and what terms will the US government set in exchange for buying the loans.
What i would like to see is the US government buying these loans at basement-bottom prices. I want these financial companies to take a financial hit to some degree. I do not want the bailout to be bailing out Wall Street; I want the bail out Main Street. Not that I want to punish the financial houses of Wall Street, but investment carry intrinsic risks and they should understand that the role of the government is not to minimize their investment risks. By Main Street i mean the US government should trace back the loans to the original home buyer and refinance the terms of the loans so that those people who bought homes to live in should be able to keep their homes. Once these loans have been rewritten, i am fine with the government holding on to them for the full terms, or sell them to local banks. In this way the government does not own any financial commercial entities and may recuperate some of the cost when, or if, the housing market picks back up. Thus the US would be less likely to become a socialist state.
Regarding the terms of the US intervention, i do not want the US government to significantly increase oversight and regulation of the financial markets. The government may have the money to bailout Wall Street, but the US government does not have the smarts to do better than a de-regulated economy. Sure certain steps and procedures need to be enacted and placed so that this will not happen again. I am just not sure how that would work just yet.
As to limiting the pay of CEOs, on paper it may seem feasible to restrict CEO salary, either to the profit margin of the company or in proportion to its lowest paid employed, I don't think it will be too long before loopholes are discovered and make this attempt useless and potentially harmful. Think of it in terms of professional athletes, as long as the team can afford stars, they should be able to pay them as much as they are deemed valuable and profitable. What might work is to stipulate that all CEO faces "re-election" every so many years by stockholders.
More on the cause of the meltdown from Bloomberg
It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.
Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.
Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.
Greenspan's Warning
The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''
What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.
Different World
If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.
But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.
Here is the video:
Palin on Almadinejad
WhatGov Palin would have said had she not been disinvited
See also Jennifer Rubin's report at PJM.
and from the AP
I am honored to be with you and with leaders from across this great country — leaders from different faiths and political parties united in a single voice of outrage.
Tomorrow, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will come to New York — to the heart of what he calls the Great Satan — and speak freely in this, a country whose demise he has called for.
Ahmadinejad may choose his words carefully, but underneath all of the rhetoric is an agenda that threatens all who seek a safer and freer world. We gather here today to highlight the Iranian dictator's intentions and to call for action to thwart him.
He must be stopped.
The world must awake to the threat this man poses to all of us. Ahmadinejad denies that the Holocaust ever took place. He dreams of being an agent in a "Final Solution" — the elimination of the Jewish people. He has called Israel a "stinking corpse" that is "on its way to annihilation." Such talk cannot be dismissed as the ravings of a madman — not when Iran just this summer tested long-range Shahab-3 missiles capable of striking Tel Aviv, not when the Iranian nuclear program is nearing completion, and not when Iran sponsors terrorists that threaten and kill innocent people around the world.
The Iranian government wants nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that Iran is running at least 3,800 centrifuges and that its uranium enrichment capacity is rapidly improving. According to news reports, U.S. intelligence agencies believe the Iranians may have enough nuclear material to produce a bomb within a year.
The world has condemned these activities. The United Nations Security Council has demanded that Iran suspend its illegal nuclear enrichment activities. It has levied three rounds of sanctions. How has Ahmadinejad responded? With the declaration that the "Iranian nation would not retreat one iota" from its nuclear program.
So, what should we do about this growing threat? First, we must succeed in Iraq. If we fail there, it will jeopardize the democracy the Iraqis have worked so hard to build, and empower the extremists in neighboring Iran. Iran has armed and trained terrorists who have killed our soldiers in Iraq, and it is Iran that would benefit from an American defeat in Iraq.
If we retreat without leaving a stable Iraq, Iran's nuclear ambitions will be bolstered. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons — they could share them tomorrow with the terrorists they finance, arm, and train today. Iranian nuclear weapons would set off a dangerous regional nuclear arms race that would make all of us less safe.
But Iran is not only a regional threat; it threatens the entire world. It is the no. 1 state sponsor of terrorism. It sponsors the world's most vicious terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah. Together, Iran and its terrorists are responsible for the deaths of Americans in Lebanon in the 1980s, in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s, and in Iraq today. They have murdered Iraqis, Lebanese, Palestinians, and other Muslims who have resisted Iran's desire to dominate the region. They have persecuted countless people simply because they are Jewish.
Iran is responsible for attacks not only on Israelis, but on Jews living as far away as Argentina. Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial are part of Iran's official ideology and murder is part of its official policy. Not even Iranian citizens are safe from their government's threat to those who want to live, work, and worship in peace. Politically-motivated abductions, torture, death by stoning, flogging, and amputations are just some of its state-sanctioned punishments.
It is said that the measure of a country is the treatment of its most vulnerable citizens. By that standard, the Iranian government is both oppressive and barbaric. Under Ahmadinejad's rule, Iranian women are some of the most vulnerable citizens.
If an Iranian woman shows too much hair in public, she risks being beaten or killed.
If she walks down a public street in clothing that violates the state dress code, she could be arrested.
But in the face of this harsh regime, the Iranian women have shown courage. Despite threats to their lives and their families, Iranian women have sought better treatment through the "One Million Signatures Campaign Demanding Changes to Discriminatory Laws." The authorities have reacted with predictable barbarism. Last year, women's rights activist Delaram Ali was sentenced to 20 lashes and 10 months in prison for committing the crime of "propaganda against the system." After international protests, the judiciary reduced her sentence to "only" 10 lashes and 36 months in prison and then temporarily suspended her sentence. She still faces the threat of imprisonment.
Earlier this year, Senator Clinton said that "Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is in the forefront of that" effort. Senator Clinton argued that part of our response must include stronger sanctions, including the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization. John McCain and I could not agree more.
Senator Clinton understands the nature of this threat and what we must do to confront it. This is an issue that should unite all Americans. Iran should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Period. And in a single voice, we must be loud enough for the whole world to hear: Stop Iran!
Only by working together, across national, religious, and political differences, can we alter this regime's dangerous behavior. Iran has many vulnerabilities, including a regime weakened by sanctions and a population eager to embrace opportunities with the West. We must increase economic pressure to change Iran's behavior.
Tomorrow, Ahmadinejad will come to New York. On our soil, he will exercise the right of freedom of speech — a right he denies his own people. He will share his hateful agenda with the world. Our task is to focus the world on what can be done to stop him.
We must rally the world to press for truly tough sanctions at the U.N. or with our allies if Iran's allies continue to block action in the U.N. We must start with restrictions on Iran's refined petroleum imports.
We must reduce our dependency on foreign oil to weaken Iran's economic influence.
We must target the regime's assets abroad; bank accounts, investments, and trading partners.
President Ahmadinejad should be held accountable for inciting genocide, a crime under international law.
We must sanction Iran's Central Bank and the Revolutionary Guard Corps — which no one should doubt is a terrorist organization.
Together, we can stop Iran's nuclear program.
Senator McCain has made a solemn commitment that I strongly endorse: Never again will we risk another Holocaust. And this is not a wish, a request, or a plea to Israel's enemies. This is a promise that the United States and Israel will honor, against any enemy who cares to test us. It is John McCain's promise and it is my promise.
Thank you.
See also Jennifer Rubin's report at PJM.
Sources say the axes were out for Palin as soon as Sen. Clinton pulled out because she did not want to attend the same event as the Republican vice presidential candidate. “I have never seen such raw emotion — on both sides,” said someone close to the situation. The groups sponsoring the rally against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking at the UN were reportedly told, “it could jeopardize their tax exempt status” if they had Palin and not Clinton or Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden on hand. . . .”It’s an absolute shame that this has happened,” Hikind said. “To threaten organizations … to threaten the Conference of Presidents that if you don’t withdraw the invitation to Gov. Palin we’re going to look into your tax exempt status … that’s McCarthyism.”
and from the AP
Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin told supporters Friday that "Democrat partisans" had pressured organizers of an anti-Iran rally in New York next week to withdraw an invitation for her to appear. "This should be an issue that unites all Americans. Iran should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, period," Palin said at a rally here. "Unfortunately, some Democrat partisans put politics first and now no elected official can appear. This should not be a matter of partisan politics."
20080920
20080918
Palin on Fox 2: Energy, Reform, and Experience.
Another good show by Palin. Some will complain that Hannity was too soft on her. Well let’s think about what is the purpose on a political interview? Most important is to learn more about the interviewee. Did we learn more about Palin? Definitely. We learned what she intends her role to be as vice President: advance energy independence and reform Washington. Energy independence is clearly within her realm of expertise as Governor of Alaska. And this will serve her well even in foreign policy. After all, isn't the thrust of international relation is firstly to enhance trade and secondly alliance for security? The essence of trade is the exchange of resources we need for products we do not. And the most important resource we need currently is energy/oil. And in the process of acquiring the necessary energy resources from the Middle East, Venezuela, or Central Asia, we have put our national security at risk. Maintaining the energy resource perspective in international relation for trade and security is an imperative.
Regarding reform, I am skeptical anyone can reform Washington Beltway culture, at least with Congress as is. The time for reform will likely manifests in 2010, and perhaps take hold in 2012. This is regardless of who wins the 08 election. But the position best able to affect change in DC is the Vice President. The VP can bridge both the executive branch and Congress. Among the four persons running, Obama, Biden, McCain, and Palin, only Palin have demonstrated the ability to do so.
Finally I want to share some thoughts regarding the experience argument against Palin. Lets rephrase the question and look at what makes a good leader a good leader. Well certainly his/her stance on issues matter, but if this is all that is expected then he/she will only function as a manager rather than a leader. A good leader is someone who can face unexpected challenge and overcome them. And the important factor to consider is that there will be unexpected challenge waiting in our future. (Such as was 911, and how W came through have endeared him to my heart. Not only did he react in Afghanistan, he then acted in Iraq! And when things did not go as planned or expected in Iraq, he stood firm against the defeatists in Congress as well as the Pentagon!) Thus it is essential that our leader has good judgment. While it is true that experience can lead to good judgment, good judgment is not a derivative of experience! Good judgment requires smarts, insight, resolve, and moral vision. All these things Palin has. Her record as mayor and governor has clearly demonstrated her good judgment.
see also "One of our own made it" at Powerline regarding Palin.
Regarding reform, I am skeptical anyone can reform Washington Beltway culture, at least with Congress as is. The time for reform will likely manifests in 2010, and perhaps take hold in 2012. This is regardless of who wins the 08 election. But the position best able to affect change in DC is the Vice President. The VP can bridge both the executive branch and Congress. Among the four persons running, Obama, Biden, McCain, and Palin, only Palin have demonstrated the ability to do so.
Finally I want to share some thoughts regarding the experience argument against Palin. Lets rephrase the question and look at what makes a good leader a good leader. Well certainly his/her stance on issues matter, but if this is all that is expected then he/she will only function as a manager rather than a leader. A good leader is someone who can face unexpected challenge and overcome them. And the important factor to consider is that there will be unexpected challenge waiting in our future. (Such as was 911, and how W came through have endeared him to my heart. Not only did he react in Afghanistan, he then acted in Iraq! And when things did not go as planned or expected in Iraq, he stood firm against the defeatists in Congress as well as the Pentagon!) Thus it is essential that our leader has good judgment. While it is true that experience can lead to good judgment, good judgment is not a derivative of experience! Good judgment requires smarts, insight, resolve, and moral vision. All these things Palin has. Her record as mayor and governor has clearly demonstrated her good judgment.
see also "One of our own made it" at Powerline regarding Palin.
20080917
Palin on Fox 1: Personable, Knowledgeable and the Financial Crisis
I think she did very well. She came across as personable, knowledgeable, and enthused and economics, energy, and reform. Her role as VP to push for energy independence and reform will be formidable challenge for anyone to tackle.
For me, she did much better than her Convention Speech because she was so much more substantive!
I want to in particular respond to one of her comment regarding the current financial/Wall Street crisis.
I believe capitalism is the best system to deliver wealth to the people. I recognize though that some will not gain, but all should have the opportunity to prosper. I am for less government regulation and intervention in the economy. If given freedom to act, individuals of ability and vision will produce more than central planning by the central government. Regulation stifles innovation.
A large part of this current financial crisis is due to unreasonably low interest rate by the Feds in order to stimulate the economy of the past several years. (Again, no "good deed" goes unpunished.) But this in itself would have been insufficient to generate the current crisis without active exploitation by certain capitalists. The root of the current financial crisis arise from too much easy money being loaned out to those who could not be reasonably be expected to repay the loan at a standard rate. Were these loans given to help these "underserved" people? I seriously doubt it. Thus these loans were made inorder to make money for the lender. Thus while it may seem trite to blame Wall Street's greed, unchecked greed is an intrinsic part of the problem.
For capitalism to work the capitalists must act with responsibility and respect for their client and customers. But no system is fool proof and I would still much rather suffer the failures of unrestricted greed than the burdensome dictates of faceless bureaucracy.
see also Right Wingsparkle on Biden v. Palin regarding the bail out.
For me, she did much better than her Convention Speech because she was so much more substantive!
I want to in particular respond to one of her comment regarding the current financial/Wall Street crisis.
I believe capitalism is the best system to deliver wealth to the people. I recognize though that some will not gain, but all should have the opportunity to prosper. I am for less government regulation and intervention in the economy. If given freedom to act, individuals of ability and vision will produce more than central planning by the central government. Regulation stifles innovation.
A large part of this current financial crisis is due to unreasonably low interest rate by the Feds in order to stimulate the economy of the past several years. (Again, no "good deed" goes unpunished.) But this in itself would have been insufficient to generate the current crisis without active exploitation by certain capitalists. The root of the current financial crisis arise from too much easy money being loaned out to those who could not be reasonably be expected to repay the loan at a standard rate. Were these loans given to help these "underserved" people? I seriously doubt it. Thus these loans were made inorder to make money for the lender. Thus while it may seem trite to blame Wall Street's greed, unchecked greed is an intrinsic part of the problem.
For capitalism to work the capitalists must act with responsibility and respect for their client and customers. But no system is fool proof and I would still much rather suffer the failures of unrestricted greed than the burdensome dictates of faceless bureaucracy.
see also Right Wingsparkle on Biden v. Palin regarding the bail out.
20080916
Palin & Troopergate
Since Palin was announced, three issues have dogged her. First was her experience. Second was Troopergate. Third was earmarks and the bridge to nowhere. Thus far the earmark as well as the bridge to nowhere issue is fading as an issue as the facts reveal themselves. Next up is Troopergate, and now from Hot Air:
Seems Palin did the absolutely the right thing to fire him! This "scandal" too will pass. Next up is her experience and thus far, with the earmarks and Troopergate, then her good judgment will guide her well regardless of her experience. Not to mention her success as a Governor.
HT Althouse
Update Laura Ingraham vs David Brooks on Palin, Experience & Elitism
Sarah Palin issued a response to the Troopergate investigation yesterday by releasing internal memoranda that show Walt Monegan got fired for insubordination on budget matters and not because of his refusal to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law. Monegan went behind Palin’s back to attempt to revive a project Palin had vetoed, which “stunned” the Office of Management and Budget Director. On another occasion, Monegan held a press conference with Hollis French to dissent from Palin’s budget priorities — the same Hollis French pushing the ethics complaint against Palin:
Walt Monegan lost his job as public safety director because he resisted Gov. Sarah Palin’s budget policies and showed “outright insubordination,” say papers the governor’s lawyer filed Monday with the state Personnel Board.
It was Palin’s strongest effort yet to snuff allegations she sacked Monegan because he refused to fire a state trooper involved in an ugly divorce with the governor’s sister.
Along with the papers filed Monday were a slew of e-mails from the governor’s office purporting to show Monegan’s “rogue mentality” as a member of Palin’s Cabinet.
In one message, the governor’s budget director, Karen Rehfeld, wrote that she was “stunned and amazed” that Monegan appeared to be working with a powerful state legislator, Anchorage Republican Rep. Kevin Meyer, to seek funding for a project Palin previously had vetoed.
According to the papers filed by Palin’s legal team, that was not the only instance of insubordination from Monegan:
* 12/9/07: Monegan holds a press conference with Hollis French to push his own budget plan.
* 1/29/08: Palin’s staffers have to rework their procedures to keep Monegan from bypassing normal channels for budget requests.
* February 2008: Monegan publicly releases a letter he wrote to Palin supporting a project she vetoed.
* June 26, 2008: Monegan bypassed the governor’s office entirely and contacted Alaska’s Congressional delegation to gain funding for a project.
Seems Palin did the absolutely the right thing to fire him! This "scandal" too will pass. Next up is her experience and thus far, with the earmarks and Troopergate, then her good judgment will guide her well regardless of her experience. Not to mention her success as a Governor.
HT Althouse
Update Laura Ingraham vs David Brooks on Palin, Experience & Elitism
20080915
Palin & Earmarks
From the WSJ Palin's Project List Totals $453 Million
It does state that prior to Palin's first year as governor, $350 millions was requested. Her first year it was cut to $257, and for her second year, cut again to $197.
But the rest of the article was rather superficial (surprisingly so for the WSJ).
Perfunction reveals that "an airport on a Bering Sea island that has a year-round population of less than 100" is
Patterico tells us what the other earmarks are for:
The more I look into her beyond what the MSM are reporting, the more I like her candidacy.
btw, Governors cannot request earmarks, only Congress can.
See also Earmarks, Palin & the Bridge to Nowhere
It does state that prior to Palin's first year as governor, $350 millions was requested. Her first year it was cut to $257, and for her second year, cut again to $197.
But the rest of the article was rather superficial (surprisingly so for the WSJ).
These projects include more than $130 million in federal funds that would benefit Alaska's fishing industry and an additional $9 million to help Alaska oil companies. She also has sought $4.5 million to upgrade an airport on a Bering Sea island that has a year-round population of less than 100.
Perfunction reveals that "an airport on a Bering Sea island that has a year-round population of less than 100" is
According to this document (PDF; thanks, Ed), the Aleutian backwater that needs an airport upgrade is Adak Island. (Example of more WSJ sloppiness: the amount is $3.2 million, not $4.5 million).
OUTRAGE! How dare Palin attempt to pork up some ghost town speck of rock in the Pacific? Airport to Nowhere indeed! There's no good reason for this federal spending.
Or is there?
Adak Island is the new home port of the newest sensor in the US ballistic missile defense (BMD) system, the one-of-a-kind Sea-Based X-Band Radar (SBX):
The SBX has been on station off the coast of Adak since early 2007, and played a key role in tracking/targeting the toxic spy satellite shoot-down this past February. Positioned in the North Pacific, the SBX is ready to detect ICBMs launched from Asia towards the US:
[Missile Defense Agency Director] Obering said this radar is so powerful that if it were located in Chesapeake Bay, it could track an object the size of a baseball over San Francisco.
While stationed off Adak, the SBX's crew of 85 will be frequently transiting through the island's airport. With Adak's harsh weather and usually socked-in conditions, it seems that $3.2 million is a small price to pay for the safe transport of this important crew.
Patterico tells us what the other earmarks are for:
“Meets the increased needs under the Magnuson-Stevens Act for developing regional fishery coordinated databases.”
“This is an ongoing effort to collect data on the recreational hailbut fishery that is conducted by federal agencies though relying on the state for data.”
“Provides state funding for management of federal fisheries, including Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands king crab and tanner crab, weathervane scallops and groundfish.”
“To meet federal obligation to enhance Sockeye salmon production, the state operates an enhancement unit at an existing hatercy and conducts fish monitoring. The work is completed cooperatively with the Canadian government.”
“Provides ongoing funding for programs that mitigate that impacts of harvest reductions imposed by the Pacific Salmon Treaty on Alaskan fisheries and coastal communities.”
“Funds Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Northwest Treaty Indian Tribes in meeting federal obligations under Pacific Salmon Treaty.”
“Funds monitoring of ice seal populations in Native Villages, research on species delineation and genetics of harbor seals to understand the declines in population and provide for population restoration, and continues research into Stellar Sea Lion population decline.”
“Allows State of Alaska to monitor Yukon River salmon and provide information necessary to support negotiations between US and Canada under Yukon River Salmon Agreement.”
“To continue necessary airport upgrading after transfer of the Naval Air Station (Adak) to the State.”
“Continued funding to address the challenges of NCLB (No Child Left Behind) as it relates to teacher quality and student achievement. It provides trained, full-release mentors for beginning teachers and principals.”
“Funds State of Alaska for implementation of federal obligations under Yukon River Treaty.”
“To complete a communication facility to support the 168th Air Refueling Wing’s 8 PAA KC 135 aircraft.”
The more I look into her beyond what the MSM are reporting, the more I like her candidacy.
btw, Governors cannot request earmarks, only Congress can.
See also Earmarks, Palin & the Bridge to Nowhere
W: CiC
From Blackfive. Please read it all!
I recently bought a T shirt with a political message on it for the first time in my life. It was to thank W. I am glad i did.
On Dec. 10, 2006, our son, Shawn, was a paratrooper deployed on the outskirts of Baghdad . He was supposed to spend the night in camp, but when a fellow soldier became ill Shawn volunteered to take his place on a nighttime patrol--in the convoy's most exposed position as turret gunner in the lead Humvee. He was killed instantly with two other soldiers when an IED ripped through their vehicle.
I was thinking about that as my family and I sat in the audience listening to the President's speech, looking at the turret on the up-armored Humvee the explosive ordnance disposal flight had put at the edge of the stage as a static display.
When the speech was over and the President was working the crowd line, I felt a tap on my shoulder and turned to see a White House staff member. She asked me and my wife to come with her, because the President wanted to meet us.
Stunned, we grabbed our two sons that were with us and followed her back into a conference room. It was a shock to go from a crowded, noisy hangar, past all of those security people, to find ourselves suddenly alone in a quiet room.
The only thing we could hear was a cell phone vibrating, and noticed that it was coming from the jacket Senator Stevens left on a chair. We didn't answer.
A short time later, the Secret Service opened the door and President Bush walked in. I thought we might get to shake his hand as he went through. But instead, he walked up to my wife with his arms wide, pulled her in for a hug and a kiss, and said, "I wish I could heal the hole in your heart." He then grabbed me for a hug, as well as each of our sons. Then he turned and said, "Everybody out."
A few seconds later, the four of us were completely alone behind closed doors with the President of the United States and not a Secret Service agent in sight.
He said, "Come on, let's sit down and talk." He pulled up a chair at the side of the room, and we sat down next to him. He looked a little tired from his trip, and he noticed that his shoes were scuffed up from leaning over concrete barriers to shake hands and pose for photos. He slumped down the chair, completely relaxed, smiled, and suddenly was no longer the President - he was just a guy with a job, sitting around talking with us like a family member at a barbeque.
For the next 15 or 20 minutes, he talked with us about our son, Iraq , his family, faith, convictions, and shared his feelings about nearing the end of his presidency. He asked each of our teenaged sons what they wanted to do in life and counseled them to set goals, stick to their convictions, and not worry about being the "cool" guy.
He said that he'd taken a lot of heat during his tenure and was under a lot of pressure to do what's politically expedient, but was proud to say that he never sold his soul. Sometimes he laughed, and at others he teared up. He said that what he'll miss most after leaving office will be his role as Commander in Chief.
One of the somber moments was when he thanked us for the opportunity to meet, because he feels a heavy responsibility knowing that our son died because of a decision he made. He was incredibly humble, full of warmth, and completely without pretense. We were seeing the man his family sees.
We couldn't believe how long he was talking to us, but he seemed to be in no hurry whatsoever. In the end, he thanked us again for the visit and for the opportunity to get off his feet for a few minutes. He then said, "Let's get some pictures." The doors flew open, Secret Service and the White House photographer came in, and suddenly he was the President again. We posed for individual pictures as he gave each of us one of his coins, and then he posed for family pictures. A few more thank yous, a few more hugs, and he was gone.
The remarkable thing about the whole event was that he didn't have to see us at all. If he wanted to do more, he could've just given a quick handshake and said, "Thanks for your sacrifice." But he didn't - he put everything and everyone in his life on hold to meet privately with the family of a Private First Class who gave his life in the service of his country.
I recently bought a T shirt with a political message on it for the first time in my life. It was to thank W. I am glad i did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)