Watch this video to see the Fannie/Freddie mess being exposed in 2004, and then the cover up.
Tennessee Conservative Watch is dedicated to exposing the soft underbelly of Tennessee Liberal Politics at city, county, federal, and state levels especially when those who claim to be conservatives are not so!
It was a great day for America. Enough members of Congress had the courage to respond to the people of America instead of their donors and sugar daddies.
Tennessee Democrats -- Cohen, Cooper, Gordon, and Tanner supported Nancy Pelosi and big business by voting Yes for the bailout.
Tennessee Republicans -- Blackburn, Davis, David, Duncan, Wamp, and Davis were joined by Democrat Lincoln Davis voting AGAINST the bailout as the vast majority of the public wanted.
Nothing could more painfully demonstrate what is wrong with Congress than the current financial crisis.
Among the Congressional "leaders" invited to the White House to devise a bailout "solution" are the very people who have for years created the risks that have now come home to roost.
Five years ago, Barney Frank vouched for the "soundness" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and said "I do not see" any "possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury."
Moreover, he said that the federal government has "probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing."
Earlier this year, Senator Christopher Dodd praised Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for "riding to the rescue" when other financial institutions were cutting back on mortgage loans. He too said that they "need to do more" to help sub prime borrowers get better loans.
In other words, Congressman Frank and Senator Dodd wanted the government to push financial institutions to lend to people they would not lend to otherwise, because of the risk of default.
The idea that politicians can assess risks better than people who have spent their whole careers assessing risks should have been so obviously absurd that no one would take it seriously.
But the magic words "affordable housing" and the ugly word "redlining" led to politicians directing where loans and investments should go, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and various other coercions and threats.
Does anyone else think this is akin to "vote buying?"
Be sure to read the "where they are now" at the end of the page!!
Johnson's Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million.
"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982."
So according to Fight the Smears itself, Obama's Kenyan citizenship expired on Aug. 4, 1982 meaning he held Kenyan citizenship until that point. This is astounding and so far no mainstream media outlet has reported on it. Will some reporter out there be so bold as to ask Obama if he was a Kenyan citizen until his 21st birthday as his own website concedes?
Until reading of this Kenyan citizenship admission, I thought the lawsuit claimng that Obama was born in Kenya filed by Clinton supporter, Phil Berg, in Philadelphia was of minor import. However, by responding to it in the way it did, the Fight the Smears website has just opened up a big can of worms for Obama in its admission that he was a citizen of Kenya until 1982.
Meanwhile, instead of simply producing the original birth certificate in court and put the matter to rest, the Obama campaign seeks to evade that action by attempting to dismiss the lawsuit entirely. Here is the latest report  on this lawsuit from the Phoenixville News:
PHILADELPHIA — Presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee filed a joint motion in federal court Wednesday to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the Illinois senator to prove he's a citizen of the United States.
On Aug. 21, four days before the Democratic National Convention, Lafayette Hill attorney Philip Berg filed suit in Philadelphia seeking to remove the Democratic candidate from the November ballot claiming he was born in Kenya and not in America.
Berg asked the court for a temporary restraining order "prohibiting Obama from being formally confirmed as the Democratic Party nominee for president," according to court papers.
The Federal Election Commission was also named as a defendant in the legal action.
A day after the suit was filed, a federal judge denied the motion for a temporary restraining order.
When rumors emerged last summer questioning whether Obama was born Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii, his campaign posted a certificate of live birth on its Web site.
In a press statement circulated Wednesday by Berg's law office, the attorney insisted the Democratic candidate was born in Africa and thus ineligible to run for president.
"It is obvious that Obama was born in Kenya and does not meet the 'qualifications' to be president of the United States pursuant to our United States Constitution. Obama cannot produce a certified copy of his 'Vault' (version) Birth Certificate from Hawaii because it does not exist," the press release reads.
The suit seeks to compel the senator to produce the long version of his original birth certificate.
The motion to dismiss filed Wednesday called the suit's allegations "ridiculous and patently false," and argues the court lacks legal standing to challenge a presidential candidate's qualifications.
While Berg argued the case against Obama on constitutional grounds, Obama's attorney claims Berg must show a "specific and individualized injury" to prove standing in the case rather than a hypothetical one.
Earlier this year, a similar suit brought against Republican presidential candidate John McCain's and the Republican National Committee claimed that McCain wasn't "a natural born" citizen, having been born in the Panama Canal Zone while his father was serving in the military.
That suit was dismissed in July on grounds the plaintiff lacked standing in the case.
A minor lawsuit that seemed to be just a small irritant has now caused the Obama website to respond by admitting that he was once a Kenyan citizen. Where is the MSM on this? Which brave reporter will quote Obama's own website to him? Until now, there has been absolutely no mention in the mainstream media that we have a presidential candidate that once held citizenship with another country.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982."
This is probably an article that the New York Times wishes it didn't have in its archives because it reveals the true culprits behind the current Fannie Mae meltdown.
You will find "uncomfortable" truths in this September 30, 1999 article by Steven A. Holmes starting with the title, "Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending," that you won't find in current editions of the New York Times.
September 30, 1999
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer.( and current Obama advisor) ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''
Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''
Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.
Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.
Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.
In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.
Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.
In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.
The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.
From left: Christopher Cox, Henry Paulson, Harry Reid, Richard Shelby, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd and Ben Bernanke.
Our point here isn't to absolve Wall Street or pretend there weren't private excesses. But the investment mistakes would surely have been less extreme, and ultimately their damage more containable, if not for the enormous political support and subsidy for mortgage credit. Beware politicians who peddle fables that cast themselves as the heroes.
Axelrod is considered by many to be a master of planting campaign messages on the internet to look like they did not originate from an organized campaign, a practice know as "astroturfing" (because of the fake grass-roots nature of the message). The smear videos have been connected to a professional PR firm, the kind of firm Axelrod would turn to in order to disseminate his message. No direct evidence of such a link has been established but to do so would be very difficult for any outside investigation.
Company employees and family members of Winner & Associates have been connected to the placement of these videos on Youtube. In addition, they have been shown to have sent notice of these videos to the fringe left-wing websites, the Democratic Underground and Daily Kos. Those smear machine websites then urged their readers - hundreds of thousands of them - to spread word about the smear videos.
Bloggers at the website "The Jawa Report" have used their collective investigative talent to expose the smear campaign. Normally, the blog specializes in tracking down and stopping sources of internet-based Islamic extremism, also known as jihadist propaganda. The bloggers recently turned their abilities to finding the source of the Palin smear videos. They present strong evidence linking Winner & Associates to the videos including an email from one of the postings that is assigned to the domain name for the company's website.
The "Jawans" also compared the smear videos to videos known to have been produced by David Axelrod's media company in support of the Obama campaign. The Jawa Report presents strong evidence that the female voice-over used in the smear videos is the same voice used in all of the Obama campaign videos from Axelrod's company. In addition, the investigators who routinely review jihadist videos for clues have determined that the video and production quality of the smear videos was high and likely done by a professional production company, not a "grassroots" effort.
The connections provide a clear, although yet to be fully proven, scenario. Based upon the evidence it appears that Axelrod likely orchestrated the smear campaign providing his media company resources to create the smear videos for the PR firm which launched the viral campaign. It was all meant to look like it came from somewhere other than the Obama campaign, a prime example of "astroturfing".
Tennessee's ole blue dog Democrats Lincoln Davis and John Tanner and Bart Gordon just do what Nancy says to do. Don't you love their independence?
In Tennessee, the vote for Pelosi's no-energy energy bill was split down party lines. Dems for. Republicans against. And now it will go to the esteemed Senate. Lil' Bobbie C. Benjamins will no doubt do his Gang thang. And Alexander says he doesn't know what he'll do. Pork? More energy? Pork? More energy? What's a Senator to do?
Pelosi, who earlier had thundered that there would be no vote on drilling, felt the pressure and offered up sham legislation—290 pages that she dropped at 10 pm and then began moving on the next morning. No committee hearings. No amendments.
It was all just marching orders from the Speaker and then like good little soldiers, all the Tennessee Democrats fell in line.
My favorite response was one relayed to us by a caller who had called Congressman John Tanner's office. Tanner's office said that this bill was "better than doing nothing."
I'd beg to differ there. This bill installs new PERMANENT bans. If we did nothing, as Tanner's office mentions, life actually gets better. The off shore drilling moratorium expires at the end of September and we've got access to American resources that will produce American oil with dollars flowing to America for American jobs. And American taxes will be paid!
For five weeks Pelosi was on recess. And for weeks prior she refused to even address or deal with the issue. Then she drops a nearly 300 page piece of legislation and that's it, it's voted on, it's over.
NO WONDER Congress has approval ratings lower than the President!!
I'm hoping my guys in the Senate like Senator DeMint can work some magic (and you know, I really don't like beating up on my own Tennessee Senators. I really, really wish I could be so proud of them.)
If not, our President could really be the hero of the day with the American people and veto all this mess.
We're going to be talking about this more. Tomorrow on the radio we'll talk with Brian Kennedy at the Institute for Energy Research and Aaron Tippin about his awesome new song and energy issues. And here's some good quotes from the Hill:
Natural Resources Committee ranking member Don Young (R-Alaska) said, "You can get more energy out of this bill if you took all of the copies of the bill and put it in a bonfire." House Republicans protested that the drilling expansion into the OCS was too limited and did not provide states with any financial incentives to allow the drilling to occur off their shore. Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) criticized Democrats for crafting the bill in secret and withholding copies until nearly 10 p.m. Monday night. "A bill gets filed at 9:45 the night before and then it's announced it's going to come to the floor the next morning as the first bill up, a bill that no one has read, written in the dark of night that won't do a damn thing about American energy," Boehner said. "Enough is enough!" He added, "It's rigged. And the bill that's coming to the floor is nothing more than hoax on the American people and they will not buy it."
"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the U.S. elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari told Teheri, on the record.
Funny, that's not what Obama told voters. He has made an immediate pullout the cornerstone of his campaign. Taheri's report signals the Democratic standard-bearer would manipulate the war's end for political advantage and is willing to deceive voters to do it.
This in itself is reprehensible. But his secret calls also leave U.S. troops unnecessarily in harm's way. It's the kind of foreign policy meddling that serves Obama's interests over the national interest.
"Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America," Taheri reported. "To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years."
Can Obama be trusted? We ask because he's shown a pattern of secretive double-dealing with voters, not just in his talking about small town voters one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco, as Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin pointed out, but particularly in foreign affairs.
It dates back to at least February, when Obama's economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, secretly told the Canadian embassy that Obama's demagoguery against NAFTA in the primaries was just a Styrofoam-pillar bid to win the Ohio vote.
Obama's pattern of deception continued. In March, Colombian troops raided a FARC terrorist camp in Ecuador and recovered a terrorist computer belonging to a top FARC warlord, Raul Reyes.
Computer e-mails revealed that someone who knew Obama's positions had secretly met with the terrorists and assured them Obama would cut U.S. military aid under Plan Colombia and veto its free trade pact. Both are major goals of the Marxist terrorists aligned with America's enemies.
Subsequent events confirmed this. Obama did come out in favor of shutting Colombia out of free trade. More disturbingly, Obama adviser Daniel Restrepo last week told Colombia's Radio Caracol that Obama planned to convert the military aid Colombia needs to crush terrorists into social aid programs that don't.
That's not the end of it. Now Obama is double-dealing with Iraqi officials to leave American troops in harm's way and prolong the appearance of war long enough to call it a failure and win votes.
The astonishing thing about Obama's deals is they're the very thing Democrats accused Republicans of without a shred of proof.
They accused Richard Nixon of making a secret deal with the North Vietnamese to prolong the Vietnam war enough to presumably win election in 1968.
Years later, in 1980, they accused Ronald Reagan of making a secret deal with Iranian terrorists holding U.S. diplomats hostage to win election over incumbent Jimmy Carter.
Neither of these claims, often repeated by leftist historians, has ever been proven. But the statement of Iraq's foreign minister, speaking to a leading writer on foreign policy, is considerably stronger as evidence. It signals that Obama places politics over the national interest to the extent that he would work against his own public positions to gull voters into electing him.
It's the absolute opposite of John McCain's courageous position supporting the surge in Iraq, even as politicos were warning him he'd lose the election for it. "I'd rather lose an election than lose a war," McCain said.
With Obama's promises to sit down with dictators in Venezuela, Cuba, Syria and Iran, voters have a right to ask if he's made any deals at odds with his public condemnations of them, too. Before he starts acting like president, he needs to come clean to voters and reveal his true positions. Whatever they are, voters have a right to know.
U.S. Code Title 18
§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments [Logan Act?]
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
The most provocative line in the Democratic national platform adopted in Denver is: "We oppose laws that require identification in order to vote or register to vote." Since it's routine to show an ID in order to board a plane and do dozens of other very ordinary things, what's the big deal about showing an ID to exercise the most important privilege of citizenship?
That question is answered in the new book by John Fund called "Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy." Honest elections absolutely depend on preventing the stuffing of the ballot box by people who are not eligible to vote.
Among those who are not eligible to vote are those who are dead, who are not residents of the precincts where they vote, who are registered to vote in another state, who are underage and especially those who are not citizens. Votes cast by any of those can cancel out your vote and, in close elections, decide the winner.
Fund describes how easy it is for unscrupulous politicians to buy voter impersonators with a little cash and get them to cast illegal votes. The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals explained "the extreme difficulty of apprehending a voter impersonator. He enters the polling place, gives a name that is not his own, votes and leaves. If later it is discovered that the name he gave is that of a dead person, no one at the polling place will remember the face of the person who gave that name."
The Democrats have hysterically fought against voter ID laws in Congress, in state legislatures and in the courts, taking what they thought was their best case, the Indiana law, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. They lost there because they ran into liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, who, hailing from Chicago, was acquainted with many "flagrant examples" of election fraud going back to Mayor Richard Daley's shenanigans that swung Illinois to John F. Kennedy in 1960.
The National Voter Registration Act (known as the Motor Voter Law), the very first law signed by President Bill Clinton, imposed fraud-friendly rules on the states by requiring them to offer registration to anyone who applies for a driver's license, to offer mail-in registration with no identification needed, and to make it very difficult to purge dead and moved-away voters from registration rolls. The voter rolls in many U.S. cities now contain more names than the U.S. Census lists as residents over age 18.
The Motor Voter Law, according to Fund, "has fueled an explosion of phantom voters." In the four years since passage, nearly 26 million names were added to the voter rolls nationwide. One investigation in Indiana showed that hundreds of thousands of names were people who had died, moved away or gone to prison.
Missouri Secretary of State Matt Blunt's report on the 2000 election showed how the Motor Voter Law facilitated fraud in one district. He reported that votes were illegally cast by 14 who were dead, 68 who voted twice, 79 who were registered from vacant lots, 62 who were federal felons, 52 who were state felons and an undetermined number who were registered from drop-sites where multiple fake names were registered to one person.
Fund's book makes fascinating reading because of his descriptions of many specific examples of vote fraud that actually determined the outcome of elections. Fund describes in detail some of the more outrageous examples of recent vote fraud in Chicago, Indiana, St. Louis, Seattle, Milwaukee, Mississippi and Georgia.
Fund believes that the biggest opportunity for vote fraud this year is the registration tactics of ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). ACORN is a classic Saul Alinsky-style community-organizing group, and it has received hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars as well as corporate donations.
It's no surprise that ACORN is closely associated with Barack Obama. Right after graduating from the Harvard Law school, Obama was recruited by ACORN to run a successful voter registration drive for an ACORN affiliate, Project Vote.
ACORN claims that, along with Project Vote, it registered 1.15 million new voters in 2004 and deployed 4,000 get-out-the-vote workers on Election Day.
The job of handling legitimate voters is tremendously complicated by phony registrations and by the tactic of filing new registrations on the last possible day when there is not adequate time to verify them.
In 2008, Obama was a major supporter of a Democratic housing bill that provided $200 million to community groups (such as ACORN) that are counseling homeowners facing foreclosure. ACORN is pledging to spend $35 million this year registering persons who will vote.
With the 2008 elections as close as they are predicted to be, Obama's best chance to win is to flood new names on the registration rolls who may or may not be eligible voters. It is more important than ever that voter ID be used in order to make sure that ballot boxes are not stuffed by voter impersonators.
TCWatch has been thinking about Obama's new ad this morning; something dawned on us:
McCain can't use his arms effectively Obama!!!!
He has war injuries you moron!!!
The commies broke his arms and dislocated his shoulders several times during torture!!!
Of course he can't sit in front of a computer and raise up his arms and type.
We don't make this stuff up, here are three planks from the 2008 Official Democratic Platform.
"We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act." A law passed in 1996 to prevent judges from forcing other states to validate Massachusetts' same-sex marriages.
"We need stronger international institutions." So, the platform promises to "create a $2 billion Global Education Fund . . . with the goal of supporting a free, quality, basic education for every child in the world."
The plank that takes the cake is: "We oppose laws that require identification in order to vote or register to vote."
Wonder why dems want people to vote without showing identification????
Would someone from the Barker campaign please respond. We'll give you equal time.
* Graduate Princeton University, thesis "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community. * Graduate Harvard Law School * Corporate Lawyer at Chicago law firm Sidley Austin * Staff of the Mayor of Chicago Richard M. Daley * Associate dean at the University of Chicago * Vice President, Community and External Affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals
* Graduate USC, Masters in Special Education * Special education teacher working with children with Down syndrome and other disabilities * Founded the American Voluntary Medical Team - a non-profit organization that organized trips for doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel to provide MASH-like emergency medical care to disaster-struck or war-torn third-world areas such as Micronesia, Vietnam (before relations were normalized between them and the U.S), Kuwait (arriving five days after the conclusion of the Gulf War), Iraq, Nicaragua, India, Bangladesh and El Salvador. Led 55 of these missions * Founded the Hensley Family Foundation, which donates monies towards children's programs in Arizona and nationally * Became actively involved with Operation Smile in taking parts in trips with it to Morocco, Vietnam, and India. * Chairwoman of the HALO Trust to remove landmines in Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Mozambique, and Angola
Where does the candidate of Hope and Change -- the candidate of Reform and New Politics -- stand on the issue? Barack Obama, ACORN's senator, is for more of the same old, same old subsidizing of far-left politics in the name of fighting for the poor while enriching ideological cronies. It's the Chicago way.
The in-the-tank-for-Obama liberal national media had their head handed to them tonight by a smiling hockey mom from small-town Alaska.
Watch Sara Barracuda http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKgNrb3baNM
MSNBC's Ron Allen (interviewing Newt Gingrich) said:
"But to be fair, her resume is not something we're familiar seeing with presidential candidates."
Mr. Newt responded with,
It's stronger than Barack Obama's. I don't know why you guys walk around saying this baloney. She has a stronger resume than Obama. She's been a real mayor, he hasn't. She has been a real governor, he hasn't. She's been in charge of the Alaskan National Guard, he hasn't. She was a whistleblower who defeated an incumbent mayor. He has never once shown that kind of courage. She's a whistleblower who turned in the chairman of her own party and got him fined $12,000. I've never seen Obama do one thing like that. She took on the incumbent governor of her own party and beat him, and then she beat a former Democratic governor in the general election. I don't know of a single thing Obama's done except talk and write.
Newt then challenged Allen:
I'd like you to tell me one thing Sen. Obama's done.
Allen then bailed out saying:
Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to leave it there. I'm not going to argue the case. Thanks very much.
Watch the entire exchange and more http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjGhy8LVwAo
George Bush has been a politician for a while, and he's given his fair share of speeches - although, not admittedly, the kind of taped speeches his predecessor had to give. So I cringed for him when he paused on his video at all the right moments for applause, and smiled, and waited, and heard… nothing. Just those painful moments dragging on in silence. Him smiling.
It went on and on, painfully. An applause line, a pause - nothing. Nothing but an expectant smile that dragged on for moment after silent moment. Almost unbelievably: There was red meat stuff out there for the true believers. The devil would have gotten a cheer or two. Even Bill Clinton could have gotten a rise out of that crowd.
But no, nothing.
I know that folks on the left are eager to tie McCain to the failed policies of a failed Bush's failed failures, while the right would be just as happy to leave it all behind and not deal with the emotional baggage of the infantilized. But, still: This was, and is, our president. Their 2004 nominee. It was, to me, inexplicable.
A sudden seed of suspicion grew in my mind. I grabbed the remote and changed the channel away from those painful, awkward silences on MSNBC to CBS. And heard - in the very same moment, at the very same words in the president's speech - the ringing cheers and adulation of the crowd.
MSNBC had jiggered the speech in a way calculated to maximally humiliate a sitting president of the United States of America. This is what passes for "news" at Keith Olbermann's house.
Can you dig it?
Update: I had to shift again from CBS to ABC in order to hear what Fred Thompson was saying. Apparently CBS thought that the former presidential candidate's speech was not as newsworthy as Katie Couric's "analysis".
This is at least partly why I don't watch TV.