Sarah Rocks The Debate

/2 Comments/in , /by

My favorite line from the debate goes to Sarah Palin – “Nice to meet you. Hey, can I call you Joe?” After ‘Barak’ talked to ‘John’ in the first debate I thought it was a lovely, but subtle, jab.

Second favorite line also goes to Sarah – “It is so obvious that I am a Washington outsider,” Palin says, “someone just not used to the way you guys operate” as she points out Joe Biden’s attempt to double-talk his way to Obama’s position.

The media consensus seems to be that Palin did much better than expected. Liberals think she did poorly and Conservatives think she did great. The Liberals were hoping she would flop and were disappointed.  They seemed especially upset that Sarah did not always answer the exact question that was asked. I wonder why they haven’t raised that issue before with liberal candidates? The report from middle America seems more supportive of Palin.

There seems to be some real heat that Biden simply lied about a number of issues. Biden does make a huge gaffe on Article One of the Constitution. He should know better but it was a mistake not a lie. Most blogs that are posting a “Fact Check” blatantly reveal their bias to support their own candidate.  CBS News, for example, notes only one correction for Biden and ten for Palin.

Evangelical Outpost did a live blog as does Michelle Malkin. I enjoyed reading both. Hugh Hewitt has a scorecard that is absolutely excellent.

Double Standard of the Day

/5 Comments/in , /by

Sarah Palin is a dolt says Chris Matthews of MSNBC’s Hardball.  She looked into the camera during the debate and it made her look like a dolt.

Just a few days earlier though, when Barak Obama looked into the camera to answer debate questions Matthews judged the moved as forceful and direct.

A clear case of Chris Matthews allowing his bias and personal preferences to overshadow his reporting.

While everyone has their personal preferences, public news media is supposed to have a bare minimum of even handedness. This grows out of the fact that the public airwaves are, well, public. They exist to serve the public good.  Extreme partisanship has no place in standard news reporting. That is why Newspapers have OpEd pages.

Mainstream Media has blurred the line between news and opinion these days.

Today’s Double Standard Award.

Here are the Matthews quotes:

You know what I think of people when they come on “Hardball,” and they look at the camera, I think they’re dolts.

The differences were in no small part stylistic and visible with a glance to the stage: a 47-year-old black man who has been in the Senate for nearly four years standing at one lectern, facing a 72-year-old white-haired fixture of the Senate standing across from him. In many ways, Mr. Obama was a very different candidate than he was during the primary battles. He answered questions directly and affirmatively, typically looking right into the camera as he spoke.

Newsbusters and Michelle Malkin have addtional material you may like.

Gwen Ifill Seemed Fair

/4 Comments/in , , , /by

I posted a lengthy article about the appropriateness of Gwen Ifill serving as moderator for the VP debate. She has a real, not just apparent, conflict of interest with her new book lauding the “Age of Obama.” Liberals would never accept this conflict if the situation was reversed. Say if Rush Limbaugh were hosting a debate.

I have come to accept the Liberal bias of the MSM and recognize that we must live with it. The ongoing double standard still did not set well with me.

That said, Gwen seemed to be fair and balanced in her demeanor and questions.

So, maybe we should give Sean Hannity a shot at moderator. Bill O’Reilly? Dick Morris maybe? Anybody agree? Not even Brit Hume?

The Blame Game

/1 Comment/in , , /by

The Democrats have been denying that they are the primary cause of the Fannie and Freddie fiascos. Even Bill Clinton admits that there needed to be greater regulatory controls and key Dems consistently fought against them. Listen to Cal Thomas:

When Speaker Nancy Pelosi took to the floor of the House on Monday to blame Republicans for the financial turmoil and charge them with a laissez-fare attitude toward regulation, it seemed like a calculated effort to shift attention and accountability from what Democrats have done to create the current conditions. Fortunately, we have YouTube.

At a 2004 hearing of the Government Sponsored Enterprises Subcommittee, then-Chairman Rep. Richard Baker (R-La.) predicted the collapse of Fannie Mae if nothing was done. Baker called for more regulation, something Democrats claim Republicans never wanted. In an editorial Tuesday, The New York Times got it wrong when it accused Republicans of engaging in “free markets-above-all ideology.” That just isn’t true. President Bush was calling for more oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in his first year as president, though he also praised efforts to expand minority home ownership at a time when bad credit risks were straining the system.

Read the rest of the article – WORLD Magazine

I am ready to Kill the Bailout

Right Voices is on target again with a collection of quotes from Dems – In Their Own Words

Let Limbaugh Moderate The Next Presidential Debate

/15 Comments/in , , /by

I suggest we ask Rush Limbaugh to ‘moderate’ the next Presidential Debate. He does not have a book coming out on McCain. He has been a harsh critic of McCain at times. While he is a vocal conservative, he would add a good balance to the the line-up of Moderators we have this season. Compare him to Gwen Ifill.

Gwen Ifill is a partisan supporter of Barack Obama. As one writer described her, Ifill is so far in the Obama tank, she needs an oxygen line. She has book coming out that is nothing short of glowing in her admiration for the Senator. she has followed him on the campaign trail and written a piece for Essence that defines the term “Puff.”

What has been the reaction when people have questioned her ability to be impartial? RACISM she cries. She thinks I object to her because she is Black. How frighteningly silly.

I object because she is so obviously biased.

Let Rush Limbaugh moderate the next Presidential Debate. It will set the scales to fair and balanced.

Michelle Malkin’s article » A debate “moderator” in the tank for Obama comments:

Ifill and her publisher are banking on an Obama/Biden win to buoy her book sales. The moderator expected to treat both sides fairly has grandiosely declared this the “Age of Obama.” Can you imagine a right-leaning journalist writing a book about the “stunning” McCain campaign and its “bold” path to reform timed for release on Inauguration Day – and then expecting a slot as a moderator for the nation’s sole vice presidential debate?

Yeah, I just registered 6.4 on the Snicker Richter Scale, too.

Instapundit says The Fix Is In

.

Pelosi Allows Dems To Vote No

/1 Comment/in , , /by

Why did 94 #Democrats vote against the bailout? Take a look at Bill Dyer’s analysis:

I thought it was bad enough that House Speaker Nancy #Pelosi had made a deliberate decision not to make today’s vote on the Democrat’s economic stabilization bill a “party loyalty” vote in which the House Democratic leadership made absolutely clear that it expected loyal Democrats to vote in favor of the bill. Ignoring all of the immense power to persuade that inheres in the position of Speaker of the House, Speaker Pelosi wouldn’t even offer (or threaten to withhold) so much as a choice Capitol parking spot to make up the 12-vote margin between victory and defeat of H.R. 3997, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.

Speaking on John Gibson’s radio show later in the day, however, Karl Rove ran through, by name and often by committee or subcommittee chairmanship, the many, many Democratic members of the House whom Speaker Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership expressly authorized to vote against the economic stabilization bill. Glenn Reynolds boils this down to a succinct sentence which is almost exactly right: Pelosi gave key Democrats a pass on the bailout vote. The only quibble I have is that she didn’t just give key Democrats a pass. She gave them all a blanket pass, and then some members particular and specific encouragement to take it. It is inconceivable that she didn’t know exactly what the result would be.

The Dems Play Games with Votes.

Right Voices has a great video of Karl Rove

Mark My Words is a new blog I have just discovered. Read this for sure.

The Pork Goes On

/in /by

If Congress is trying to find ways to fund a bailout, perhaps they should start with the Omnibus Spending Bill.

Senate leaders wringing their hands over where to find $700 billion for the Wall Street bailout might start with the fine print of the omnibus bill: The measure includes more than $6.6 billion in pork-barrel spending.

The 2,000-plus earmarks fill 752 pages attached to the 357-page spending bill. Sen. Ted Stevens, notorious for his huge earmark requests, scored the largest haul—some $238.5 million in earmarks.

In the U.S. House, Rep. John Murtha (D-Penn.) brought in the most earmarks—more than $111 million, including $24.5 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center, an organization critics say is rife with mismanagement.

Democrats rushed the spending bill to the floor on Wednesday, giving Republicans and outside watchdog groups only a few hours to review the measure before a House vote. Critics complained that the process lacked the transparency for earmarks that Democrats promised when winning the majority in the House. But with the nation riveted by the Wall Street crisis, the spending bill and its earmarks made few ripples before passing with bipartisan support.

Cut and Save.

Democrats Kill Bailout

/2 Comments/in , , /by

The bailout was killed by House Democrats. Yes, Democrats. Losing by a margin of 228-205, the measure only needed 12 members to change their minds.

95 Democrats voted against the bill.

Quit blaming John McCain for failure to keep your majority, in the majority.

Take a look at these articles –

Bill Dyer at Townhall – Elections have Consequences

Hugh Hewitt – Duplicity and Cynicism

Michelle – The Crap Sandwich

Hot Air – Bailout Bill Fails After Pelosi Speech

How did they decide on $700B?

/in , /by

How did the Treasury Department arrive at a figure of $700 billion for the bailout? Surely it was based on careful analysis and a detailed methodology.

Nope. They guessed. They just pulled a number out of thin air. They made it up.

In fact, some of the most basic details, including the $700 billion figure Treasury would use to buy up bad debt, are fuzzy.

“It’s not based on any particular data point,” a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. “We just wanted to choose a really large number.”

This just gives me a fuzzy feeling about politicians in Washington. Perhaps somebody should peel them like a kiwi.

Read the Forbes article – Bad News For The Bailout and take a look at the LA Times also.

Michele Malkin has a series on the subprime lending crisis you should look at.