Constitutional Thoughts

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall
be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery,
or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

This is Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, the Impeachment Clause, and I have been thinking about this lately. The "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" phrase is more of a "catch-all" to include any offense the House and Senate deem worthy of impeachment. However, the Founding Fathers were clear that two deeds not to be tolerated by officers of the United States were treason and bribery. One of the things I find interesting about how bribery is included is that it does not specify the direction, or in other words, it may apply to both the person offering a bribe or the person accepting a bribe.

Obviously, we are still at the beginning of the scandal involving Mr. Blagojevich, but it does raise some interesting issues. Did someone representing "The Office of the President-Elect" offer Mr. Blagojevich any sort of bribe? Since there really is no such office for the President-Elect and the Impeachment Clause is generally considered not to apply to members of Congress, did Senator Obama get lucky in that all this happened before he actually took the office of President of the United States? Does it matter that Article IV, Section 14 of the Illinois Constitution does not specifically condemn bribery?

Mostly, I am just curious about the fact that the U.S. Constitution is so clear that bribery is not to be tolerated. This is not about a President lying under oath or having sexual relations outside of marriage, which would be actions that would have to fit under the "high Crimes or Misdemeanors" category (thereby allowing Senators do debate whether such actions were really high crimes or misdemeanors). This about the President-Elect allegedly being connected to or condoning bribery, an action clearly not to be tolerated by officers of the United States under the Constitution.

Constitutional Thoughts

The people will be represented; they ought therefore to choose the
representatives. The requisites in actual representation are that the
representatives should sympathize with their constituents; should think as they
think; and feel as they feel; and that for these purposes should even be
residents among them.
-George Mason

This comment from George Mason, Constitutional Convention delegate from Virginia, was supposed to describe the right of the people based on Article 1, Paragraph 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. The people had the right to be represented by someone like them, who lived in the similar circumstances with them. I cannot help but feel that this right is all but gone. I will say that I think there are numerous representatives that can claim to follow this idea, but the majority do not seem to understand it in the least. The idea of politics as a profession would probably have struck the Founders as odd. Yet that is all we seem to have at this point. Professional politicians do not seem capable of understanding the circumstances and intentions of the people they represent because they appear too focused on their own goals and ambitions.

The Beginning of Real Peace

Charles Krauthammer at the Washington Post pens a great article about the new security agreement between Iraq and the US. (HT: Hugh Hewitt) I think the largest point to take from this is that Iraq is turning into one of our biggest allies in the Middle East, and they are a democracy. This may very well be the biggest front in the war on terror because the Iraqis will be defending their freedom every day and providing an example to the rest of the Middle East that terrorism can be repelled and defeated, and freedom is available.

On a separate but related note, I think Pres. Bush's legacy will look fantastic in about 20 years, if not sooner.

Time Will Tell

This article by Paul Weyrich is very interesting. Apparently, there was proof that Saddam Huessin was planning to produce weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons, but Pres. Bush and the people who knew about it kept quiet until the material could be safely removed from within the terrorists' striking distance. How will history judge Pres. George W. Bush? I dare say time will be much kinder than his current critics. Of course, that would not take much.

Calling for Restraint

Bret Stephens pens a great article supporting the idea that the media should exercise restraint, because someone may actually believe what is written or broadcast. I agree with Mr. Stephens that the media should do a better job of reporting the facts, instead of making everything a crisis of epic proportions. I also agree that it is amazing how the medial will basically accept anything claimed by dubious sources as long as it can be used to criticize the US, but will evaluate and scrutinize, and even twist, every statement from the government. The bottom line is I am tired. I am tired of always having the sky falling down on me.

Constitutional Thoughts

But neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the
liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.
He therefore is the truest friend of the liberty of his country who tries most
to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will
not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a
wise and virtuous man."
-Samuel Adams

I find this statement interesting for many reasons. To begin with, it is not the Constitution or our laws that do the most to secure our liberty; it is our virtue. Accordingly, the truest friend of liberty, or the most patriotic, promotes and practices the best virtues of the country and himself. It stands to reason that the truest leader of the country, or best leader of the country, would be that person that best promotes virtue and wisdom. And we should all do our best to make sure that our leaders meet that standard.

Course Correction

I have decided that I am going to make a little bit of a change of course for this blog. My goal will be simple, I want to try and take the opportunities presented by current events to try and teach a little bit about the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers. This will not be a big change, but I have been reading quite a bit about the Constitution lately and it fascinates me when compared to current events and how we view government, especially federal government. I will still do some of the other things I have done in the past, like comment about interesting articles I find, but I definitely want to add something that is more my own creation. I will use the broad subject of Constitutional Thoughts to highlight my attempts. I hope you will enjoy it as much as I do. Thanks.

Positives About The Economy

Mr. Lawrence Kudlow has an interesting article about Pres.-Elect Obama and the economy. I find this very encouraging and very interesting. Encouraging because I do think some smart people chosen by Pres.-Elect Obama will make good decisions that will make the financial problems be as short as possible. Interesting because it is amazing how Pres.-Elect Obama can run a campaign and get elected based on so much talk about liberal ideas, but as soon as he really starts making decisions, they are center-right, conservative decisions.

Missed Opportunity

Not surprisingly, Mitt Romney has the best prescription for what ails Detroit auto manufacturers, and similar businesses. It would obviously be hard, bitter medicine, but that is exactly what is needed. Unfortunately, you do not win elections telling voters they will have to sacrifice certain comforts in order for things to run correctly, honestly, and well. Now would certainly be a great time to have someone with Romney's business acumen heading to the White House. Oh well, I can still dream.

Perhaps Ignorance Is Bliss

This link confirms some of my worst fears (H/T Matt Lewis). The lesser of my fears has to do with the way the media protected Sen. Obama during the campaign, down-playing every story that had Sen. Obama in a negative light or may have hurt his campaign. My greater fear is the willful ignorance of so many people. I do not think these people are unintelligent, just uninformed and perhaps uninterested in finding both sides of the story. Sure the media plays a role in that, but if people demanded more facts and wanted to learn more information, they would find a way to do it and the media would respond. I think the proof of that is the incredible popularity of conservative talk radio, and correspondingly conservative television. Fox News is vilified by liberal outlets, but it is also the ratings leader.

Gov. Palin's Actual Record

This article from Matt Lewis reminds me of why I am so frustrated with everyone. I am frustrated with the media because they distorted things so badly in order to portray Gov. Palin as a social conservative, borderline fanatic. I am frustrated with Republicans because they did not combat that enough with the truth. I am frustrated with "experts" in the Republican and Democratic party that refuse to see the truth about why people supported Gov. Palin. She is a true fiscal conservative in a time when that seems non-existent.

Details on Bailout

Charles Krauthammer has an interesting article about some details of the bailout. I must admit that the more and more I hear about it, the less I like the bailout. Still, I am torn. Mr. Krauthammer's analogy that the finance sector is like a utility service makes some sense and I would still hesitantly support the bailout for the financial sector, however, I would definitely not be happy about a bailout for the auto industry or the airlines. I do think there has to be a point where you let businesses fail, even big businesses.

Pres. Bush Shows Class

I really enjoyed this article on many levels. The Associated Press has an article actually complimenting Pres. Bush on the transfer of power to Pres.-Elect Obama. I enjoyed this article because it does do a good job of pointing out the great lengths to which Pres. Bush is going in order to make the transition of power as smooth as possible. It even has some praise for Pres. Bush for making sure the transition is polite and effectual. Another part I love about the article is how the AP cannot just leave it at that. The AP makes a point of proclaiming that Pres. Bush's class and professionalism as an outgoing President will not help his "legacy." Pres. Bush is leaving office, never to return, and leaving with style and grace, but that is not good enough for the AP. They have to make sure his memory, his "legacy," is appropriately tarnished. Pres. Bush is setting the example, doing everything he can to be gracious and professional, and the AP has to make sure they get in a jab, a Parthian Shot of sorts.

The President-Elect's Stock Market

First of all, I have to admit that I am no economics expert and the stock market is a mystery to me. Having said that, I have been trying to watch for indications of how the market would react to the election. I would have to say the articles I have seen are mixed. This article from the Los Angeles Times says something very interesting.

Obama's decisive victory didn't play a part in the market's slide, because it
had long been expected, analysts said. However, the sell-off underscored the
scramble taking place across Wall Street as investors attempt to figure out how
his presidency would affect business and the economy.

So Sen. Obama's victory has nothing to do with the drop in the market, and investors do not know how his presidency will affect business. Could it be that investors are uncertain, or at least not optimistic, about Sen. Obama's presidency and are therefore staying out of the market? The Los Angeles Times would never admit to that.

Some Good News

This is why I love to read Victor Davis Hanson. Just reading his article lets you know that this is someone who knows what he is talking about. He is pragmatic and direct. And yes, we still live in the best country on the planet. I am even confident we will survive Pres. Obama.

Analysis

There will certainly be plenty of people ready to give their analysis of what actually happened this election. Did Gov. Palin help or hurt Sen. McCain's chances? What could Sen. McCain have done better? Where does the GOP go from here? As is often the case, the best explanation I heard came from an analyst on Fox's morning news show. I think Sen. Obama's supporters really wanted to vote for Sen. Obama, while Sen. McCain's supporters were split on voting to elect Sen. McCain and trying to prevent the election of Sen. Obama. The bottom line is that it is easier to get people to vote for someone they want to vote for as opposed to convincing people to vote for one candidate so the other candidate does not get elected.

Historic Election

One thing that cannot be denied is the historic nature of this election. The first African-American President of the United States will be a huge note in history for the duration of this country, and rightly so. I certainly hope and pray that Pres. Obama will be a tremendous President that does a lot of good.

On a separate note, the shock of the election for me was in Minnesota. Al Franken almost upset Sen. Norm Coleman. It was shown that Mr. Franken cheated on his taxes and has written pornography, yet the voters in Minnesota almost elected him a Senator to represent them. The margin is so close that I am confident a recount will ensue, and so this result may not be final yet. If Mr. Franken ends up being a Senator, I will be even more surprised, but I am stunned enough as it is.

I Am So Happy

I am so happy because so many wonderful things are about to happen. Finally, the rest of the world will respect us, and probably even like us. Finally, this country will no longer be considered racist, and racial problems will cease. Finally, the poor and the middle-class will be better off, and health care will be available to everyone. Finally, the seas will rise again and the earth will begin to heal.

On second thought, I am not going to hold my breath. I will say congratulations to the Democrats. Sen. Obama is President-elect Obama. This is obviously a big victory for them. I do hope and pray they use it well.

Good News

I am also seeing a lot of reports talking about record turnouts for voters today. I think this is great news. I am still (relatively) confident that if enough people actually get out and vote, we will get the best possible result. At the very least, I think we will get the government we deserve.

Voting and Results

I already voted today and I have to admit that it felt just a little good to vote knowing that I was at least trying to do my part in a very small way. I highly recommend it.

Many of the stories I have read this morning talk about ignoring the "news reports" (HT: Bill Dyer) that talk about how the election is basically already over. Also, ignore all the exit poll results you hear. I think this is going to be a lot closer than the media wants people to believe. At the very least, it will be interesting. Enjoy your day.

Importance of Information

This is another example of why I am so disappointed in the media. I am convinced that if everyone knew about this, there is no way Sen. Obama would be elected. (HT: Bill Dyer a/k/a Beldar). Who would elect a man that has made it clear he would "bankrupt" any portion of the economy, let alone the coal industry? Who would elect a man that admits his plan would cause electricity costs to "skyrocket"? I am afraid that if we do elect Sen. Obama, we will get what we deserve.

My Prediction

My prediction for the election is simple, and comes from a movie line. Mr. T in Rocky III has my prediction summed up nicely. PAIN. Election night will be painful. No matter who wins it will be painful. If Sen. Obama wins, my pain will be rooted in the uncertainty and dread of the direction his presidency would take this country. If Sen. McCain wins, my pain will be watching the complaining and griping, the calls of racism and other forms of hatred that will inevitably come from the left. Not to mention the pain of not feeling like either candidate is someone I would truly want to lead this country. I will need to have a treat or something while I watch the returns tomorrow.

Protect and Preserve v. Use and Abuse

A couple of ideas have finally come together for me. I can be explain what it is about Sen. Obama that really worries me. Before I go further, I should also admit that this same idea worries me with respect to many others, both liberal and conservative. The idea is simply the attitude one has about the Constitution. Do you really want to protect and preserve the Constitution, or do you want to use it and abuse it to reach your self-determined goals. The Constitution is the single greatest charter developed by man for establishing freedom and liberty for men ever developed. The Constitution provides a system whereby men can live as free as justly possible, while still providing enough governmental power and involvement to do those things that only a strong government can do that individuals cannot. That is the balance we are continually striving to preserve. Tipping the balance too far in one direction leads toward anarchy, while tipping the balance in the other direction leads toward tyranny.

Laura Hollis makes a great point with which I tend to agree. Sen. Obama is not worried about Constitutional restraints, and in fact sees them as obstacles to be overcome. However, I think he knows that he cannot simply bull through them; that would be too obvious. Bill Dyer provides another important piece to this puzzle by pointing out that after Sen. Obama realized the Supreme Court did not, and could not, go beyond the Constitution to achieve the goal Sen. Obama deemed important, "redistributive change," something else was needed to achieve this goal. That something else is a "coalition of power." This "coalition of power" is described as the Executive and Legislative branches working together to achieve this purpose, this extra-Constitutional purpose.

Now we see that Sen. Obama, with the help of Sen. Pelosi and Sen. Reid, may be only a week away from essentially achieving that "coalition of power" and being within sight of genuine "redistributive change." I am not so much worried about Sen. Obama shredding the Constitution as much as I am worried about him using it, because the Constitution is not really what prevents abuses of power. The voice of the people demanding and electing those people that will actually defend and protect the Constitution and govern accordingly, as opposed to those that would govern with an eye toward abusing the system in place, that is what really prevents an abuse of power by government.

Story Seeking Audience

I have really enjoy Beldar a/k/a Bill Dyer guest posting at Hugh Hewitt's website. He has an interesting post about Sen. Obama's campaign finance practices. From the sound of it, this is a huge story that should be on the front page of every major newspaper. However, it is more difficult to find than stories about Gov. Palin's wardrobe. Sen. Obama needs to be held accountable for his campaign finance practices, but no one is going to question the messiah. The extent to which the mainstream media covers for Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden is truly amazing.

Chicago Politics

I find this article by Eric Zorn in the Chicago Tribune very interesting. He gives 8 reasons why Sen. Obama will lose the election. There are a couple reasons there that I do not think will have much to do with the election, for example, "too much defense," "more dismissive than responsive," and not focusing on McCain's relationship with Renzi. I think these are marginal at best. Mr. Zorn mentions "Bittergate," but I think this misses the point, at least the current point. I do think Sen. Obama's comment about people in Pennsylvania being bitter does and will hurt him, but who does not know about Joe the Plumber and Sen. Obama's "share the wealth" comment? This is much more damaging, but somehow absent from Mr. Zorn's list. I will say that Mr. Zorn gets it right that Sen. Biden's comment(s) have not helped Sen. Obama. I am not sure there is a VP candidate that has done more damage to their own ticket than Sen. Biden. However, in my final comment, I have to take issue with Mr. Zorn's eighth reason why Sen. Obama will not win. Mr. Zorn claims race is a big factor, so big in fact that if Sen. Obama had all these same issues, but were white, the presidential race would not even be close because Sen. Obama would win easily. I am sorry, but I find this very hard to believe, and a bit offensive. For one thing, I think Sen. McCain and most people I know have focused on the issues and not on race at all. Second, I resent the implication that simply because someone does not vote for Sen. Obama they must be racist. To paraphrase my favorite comedian, Dennis Miller, with regard to race, "Why dislike someone based on the color of their skin when you can take some time, talk to them, get to know them better, and probably come up with a really good reason to dislike them?" I certainly have reasons why I would not like Sen. Obama (or for that matter Sen. McCain) to be the next President of the United States, and none of them have to do with the color of his skin.

The French View

The French President, THE FRENCH, thinks Sen. Obama is "utterly immature" when it comes to his view of Iran. Moreover, Sen. Obama's formulations are "empty of all content." First of all, that is a very correct observation. Second, I think the French can certainly recognize surrender when they see it. Even the French think Sen. Obama has a bad foreign policy. The UN Security Council may have to rely on the French to be part of a reasoned approach. I certainly hope we do not get to a point where I have to write that the French have a stronger foreign policy than the US.

George Soros

This article by Mr. Rahn explains why George Soros should be considered an enemy of the U.S. This man should be no where near any U.S. economic interest, let alone discussing such matters with politicians.

messiah

I refuse to use a capital letter when referring to Sen. Obama as the messiah, however, I have to admit that the reference is very prevalent. It concerns me a great deal. Oliver North has a very interesting article about this phenomenon associated with Sen. Obama. I have seen a picture of a group of people gathered around Sen. Obama in an attitude of prayer with Sen. Obama in the middle of the group and each individual reaching out as if hoping just to be able to touch Sen. Obama. The kids in the matching blue shirts singing about the change Sen. Obama is going to bring and how he will save us concerns me. Why are people so anxious to believe that Sen. Obama will herald a new, different type of government and save all of us from ourselves? As Mr. North mentions in the article, unmet expectations are the greatest source of anger on this planet, and Sen. Obama can never live up to the expectations he has encouraged.

Also, I am reading The Making of America by W. Cleon Skousen. The title of the book is quite literal. When the book is discussing the things Gen. George Washington and the Continental Army had to endure while fighting for their "country" because Congress, under the Articles of Confederation, was so powerless and the States so disinterested, the resultant idea had by "Americans" surprised me. The Continental Army wanted to establish a king, specifically George I. Of course, George Washington turned them down and turned the tide of this idea. In the same position, which Presidential candidate do you think would do the same? Reading about the beginning of this country, both the political and financial absolute turmoil, is very interesting and very applicable today. It is clear how far we as a nation have fallen when we really look at the founding principles upon which this nation was built, and for which a precious few gave their "Lives," "Fortunes," and "sacred Honor."

Voting Reports

This is good advice from Beldar a/k/a Bill Dyer. Reports regarding early voting in key state are based only on speculation and cannot be trusted. Take heart and treat your vote as if it is important because it is. I am actually planning to vote early this year, just to avoid the lines. However, I know of at least one person who is not going to vote early because "that is what Obama wants." I can see how Sen. Obama would want that based on his own mis-statements and those from Sen. Biden that seem to occur regularly. Voting early will help make sure those people inclined to support Sen. Obama have already made their choice before Sen. Biden says something else that will convince more people not to vote for their ticket. I hope Sen. Biden has three speaking engagements a day scheduled from now until Nov. 3.

Harassing Mormons

The Article VI Blog with Lowell Brown and John Schroeder has a fantastic post with detailed accounts of the way those people opposing Prop. 8 in California are harassing Mormons. As you may know, Prop. 8 in California is the attempt to amend that state's Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Earlier this year, the California State Supreme Court decided by a 4-3 vote that a previous mandate from the people of California violated the state's Constitution by defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The only recourse left to the people of California is to amend their Constitution, which it looks like they will be able to do by voting Yes on Prop. 8. Those voting No on Prop. 8 have now sunk to new lows to intimidate people into not supporting Prop. 8. The part that really disappoints me the most is that Mormons opposing Prop. 8 are helping to make sure Mormons supporting Prop. 8 can be intimidated and ridiculed more easily. So much for "being one."

Why I Love the Internet

Again, this is one of the reasons I love the internet. Guy Benson and Mary Katherine Ham, along with Ed Morrissey, team up and provide all the information about Sen. Obama you could possibly want to know. All the information is provided right there for you to review and evaluate, complete with links to source materials, which makes arguing the facts pointless. This is a great service provided in the article. Bottom line: do not vote for Sen. Obama.

Double Standard

As usual Charles Krauthammer writes a great piece about the double standard applied to Sen. McCain. My favorite point is how Sen. Obama's campaign has even managed to suggest that Pres. Clinton is a closet racist, and if they can succeed at that, they can do it to anyone. Sen. McCain has actually been quite kind during this campaign and all he gets for it is attacks from Sen. Obama and complaints from his own party that he is not taking the campaign serious enough. Hopefully, this will be one instance where a nice guy can finish first.

The Backlash

I usually do not like much of what Patrick J. Buchanan writes, but I have to admit that he has a point. Sen. Obama has certainly had to distance himself from a lot of people and policies that actaully got him where he is right now. If Sen. Obama becomes Pres. Obama, either voters will feel betrayed, or the people in his background will feel betrayed. The price of betrayal will be very expensive for all of us.

Taking Your Eye Off the Joe

I have seen numerous articles today about "Joe the Plumber." For examples, see here and here and here. By my count, there are approximately 2,500 stories out there about "Joe the Plumber." But I think all these stories miss the most relevant and important point in the exchange between Sen. Obama and "Joe." Sen. Obama stated, "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." That is the point. That is the difference between Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain. If you want Sen. Obama to spread the "wealth" around, then vote for him. If not, then vote for Sen. McCain. See how easy this election stuff is? All you need are the real facts. David Strom does a great job of explaining why "spreading the wealth around" DOES NOT WORK.

Obama At Your Fingertips

This is one of the things I love about the internet, someone else does all this great work gathering a bunch of relevant information in one easy-to-find location, and we can all benefit from it. (HT: Beldar) Dan McLaughlin has gathered a lot of great information about Sen. Obama and made it available to anyone really interested. Enjoy a little or a lot, it is up to you.

Alarmist But Interesting

Laura Hollis has a very interesting article about classifying Sen. Obama correctly, not as a liberal or even a socialist, but a communist. It does have an alarmist tone, but as John Adams said, "Facts are stubborn things." The facts in this article are certainly hard to argue.

Obama and Economics

I have heard this idea repeated numberous times, but this article by Mona Charen is the latest. The idea is very simple to follow. After the Wall Street panic of 1929, there were two things that the Hoover administration did after the panic that are believed to have caused the Great Depression. One was that taxes were raised, and the other was the imposition of protectionist trade policies. Sen. Obama has said he wants to raise taxes and implement protectionist trade policies. I do hate to sound alarmist, but yes, I am very afraid that if Sen. Obama becomes Pres. Obama, this country will experience some of the most difficult financial times in history.

Chilling, Follow Up

Amanda Carpenter always does a great job of presenting the facts. She has certainly done it again in this article detailing Sen. Obama's position on abortion, and specifically, how infants that manage to survive an abortion are to be treated. On October 8, 2008, I posted a "Chilling" article about what practices Sen. Obama was defending and protecting. The proof that Sen. Obama did not tell the entire truth about his position is beyond dispute.

Panic or Trust

The decision is really that easy. Terry Paulson has an interesting article about the "confidence" behind economics.

Wall Street and the Election

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann have an interesting article about the effect of Wall Street on elections, a previous election and the upcoming election. I think the main idea is correct. It is difficult to determine where voters will place the most blame. Will it be on the Republicans having been in power for a good portion of the problem period and known stereotypically for being rich and selfish? Will it be on the Democrats having the current political power and known stereotypically for being tax and spend minded? It will certainly be an interesting election. May the least worst candidate win.

Cockeyed Optomist

Maybe I am not very bright, and I would certainly admit that I do not understand the financial systems that make up our economy, but I am an optomist. It will take time, but I do believe the market will recover, and hopefully, we will learn something from all of this. This article by Lawrence Kudlow is just one of the reasons I am optomistic that things will change. Also, we all know life is full of "cycles." Things progress in cycles and that is what we have here. It will be a tough few months, and maybe even a tough year, but we will come out of this mess and hopefully be stronger for it. Of course, I still think we need to make sure we clean house and get rid of the corruption and selfish greed that plagues our politics and our businesses. But that is just opinion.

Source of Inspiration

Brett Joshpe has really hit on something in this article. Why would Sen. Obama think we all need him to provide hope and change? Have we deteriorated so far that we look to government and politics as our main source of hope and inspiration, or worse yet, one individual? Politics is certainly the new religion, and it cannot fulfill those needs or measure up to those expectations. These are indeed scary times.

Context of Anger

Rich Galen does a great job of giving context to the anger felt by many Americans, including myself. I am angry that my government is buying and/or bailing out all kinds of financial institutions. I am angry at the incomprehensible amount of greed and corruption present in politics and business. I am simply stunned. Is getting Congress and the government involved in this type of business a bad idea? Yes. But this problem runs so much deeper that it amazes me. Until something is done to address the corruption and greed, nothing, no bail-out bill or not bailing out businesses and mortgages, is going to fix the root problem.

I think too many people are looking at this from the wrong perspective. The financial system is not broken. The political system, or Constitution, is not broken. The problem is that we have way too many corrupt, selfish, short-sighted individuals managing and running programs in both systems. Until that changes, other changes will only be bandages on a wound that will not heal.

Rebellion, The Original Sin

This article by Sandy Rios started off fine, and the subject is of some interest to me, but the ending was fantastic. The ending really made me think about a lot of issues from a very different perspective.

The Obama-Ayers Connection

I think too many people are missing the point with the Sen. Obama - Ayers connection. It is more than just Sen. Obama's judgment about with whom he associates. It is about Sen. Obama helping Ayers achieve his objectives. Now obviously, Sen. Obama never helped Ayers when Ayers was with the Weather Underground planning domestic terrorism. However, Sen. Obama clearly helped Ayers promote socialist, liberal policies in the education of children in Illinois. See, articles by Stanley Kurtz here and here. The point is that Sen. Obama knew exactly what he was doing with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

Live Blogging Hugh Hewitt

It will be no surprise to people (or the person) who read this blog, but I am a big fan of Hugh Hewitt. It is worth it to hear the beginning of his show on Thursdays if for no other reason than to hear Mark Stein be interviewed. What a great interview about politics and the economy. One point Mr. Stein made that I thought was very interesting was that the current drop in the market could be based on a number of things: maybe this is the market's reaction to Congress attempting to bail out the market; or maybe this is the reaction to Sen. Obama leading in the polls and the predictions that he will win the Presidency.

Prof. Hewitt is also talking a lot about how the focus is turning to Congress and Democrats about the source of the current financial mess, and the negative effect this is having on Sen. Obama's campaign. It is always worth the time to listen to Hugh Hewitt. He is always very informative and relevant.

We Can Only Hope

I know I have mentioned before that Congress is the governmental body everyone should be looking at right now, wondering what happened. An email from one of Hugh Hewitt's fans does a great job of detailing who should be held accountable and who should resign or be fired. I also love the part about how quickly members of Congress call for someone else's resignation without turning that analysis on themselves at all. I also hope Hugh Hewitt is correct about the focus and attitude of the country shifting with regard to Congress. I actually would not mind if Sen. Obama became President, as long as both Houses of Congress were over half full of responsible, intelligent individuals. Nothing scares me like Sen. Obama as President and the Democrats (Rep. Pelosi and Sen. Reid) leading both houses of Congress. No matter what the perception, Congress is still the strongest branch of government, as it should be. Unfortunately, I think its 9% approval rating is richly deserved, and I am talking about both Democrats and Republicans.

Chilling

This article from Terence Jeffrey is chilling. I am sorry, but anyone gone that far in arguing for abortion rights has lost all sense of decency, justice and humanity. The facts with this article would be very hard to argue since it would all be publicly available with the Illinois legislature.

Prosperity Theology

This article by R. Albert Mohler, Jr. provides a much-needed perspective. I have been meaning to post on something like this idea for quite a while, so this article gives me a great reason to do so. Also, I am going to make my comments from an "LDS perspective." The idea of "prosperity" is very common in the LDS church, based on certain references in the Book of Mormon linking prosperity to obedience. The problem with this idea has many facets. First, the Lord does not consider "prosperity" to be having a lot of worldly possessions and status. Second, LDS people "know" they are members of the only true and living church, which only feeds into this idea that obedience to the Lord's commandments will bring material prosperity. There are way too many stories and suggestions that paying your tithing will mean you are blessed with material prosperity. It is simply not completely true. Sometimes it may be true depending on the individual and what the Lord determines is best for that individual, but generally speaking, material prosperity is not promised by Scripture and any indication otherwise should be considered the exception and not the rule. Also, I think most people tend to associate being "blessed" in any way with attaining some material benefit. I think this only shows our tendency toward material matters as opposed to spiritual. Clearly, our focus should be on spiritual matters.

Patience and Confidence

As anyone who is paying attention will tell you, the financial markets are still in a free-fall. From what I have read so far today, including this article, this should not be a surprise. Congress did not exactly act quickly to try and dispell fears with the market, and even after passing the bill, everyone, including the market, knows it will take some time to implement the programs. The market will not bounce back immediately upon passage of the bill. Another thing that bothers me about the market, and economics in general, is that it seems to be a confidence game as much as anything. The article I have linked has another link directed toward today's drop in the market stating "Stock Drop 'Strictly a Matter of Confidence.'" Apparently, all the "market" needs is a little confidence and it will rebound. Of course, I have read another opinion that one more factor the market may be considering is the real possibility that Sen. Obama, and Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, is elected and we end up with the most liberal government in history. The market may be reacting to that possibility by getting out of the market. Would the damage to the market, and the savings and 401(k) losses, have been better or worse without the passage of the bill. We may never know. I for one am glad Congress did pass the bill. Again, is it a good bill? NO IT IS NOT. It is a terrible bill, but it is the bill for having a Congress (Democrat and Republican) determined to enforce political correctness in the financial markets, and moreover the bill we pay for having a representative government (puns intended). Also, I would have to say that I am a bit worried about what would happen if the Democrats have a firm control of the White House and both houses of Congress. Generally, I believe the country and the Constitution to be pretty strong, but that much liberal ideology may be very tough to survive. Sort of like getting chemo for cancer when you really need diet and exercise. If you do not like the way the government is being run, get new people in there. I know that is easier said than done, but it is what needs to happen. We need people that are going to reward honesty and hard work, and punish fraud and deceit. Not to mention politicians that might actually put the good of the people they represent ahead of their own careers. Frankly, I am not going to hold my breath.

Ethics Makes a Comeback

At least I hope that would be the headline in a few months. Ken Connor provides a great article that gets to the root of the problem, and it is not surprising to find dishonesty and greed at the root. We can all talk a lot about the problem a market may have, or the problems with the "system" or "politics," but the real problem comes from dishonesty and greed, individually and collectively. It does make perfect sense. Until the root problem is fixed, no action (or inaction) will fix the problem. We can bailout the market, or not bailout the market, but until we demand honesty and transparency in the financial market, and actively prosecute fraud, we will end up right back where we are right now. And again, we need to address is collectively and individually.

Worth the Read

The article by A. Scott Loveless should be read by everyone (HT: Prof. Hugh Hewitt, so it probably has been read by just about everyone). I will warn you that it is a long article, but well worth the time and effort to read. I say "effort" because there are some relatively deep principles discussed in the article, but the understanding received by reading it is worth the effort. The explanation of the principles described in the Declaration of Independence is very important for anyone who really wants to understand the problem with same-sex marriage. The article is a great example of the importance of fighting and winning the "culture war." The bottom line is that we have lost our perspective on the true source of our individual rights and liberties, our responsibilities to each other, and ultimately our ability to experience and enjoy true freedom.

Weak Government and Small Men

That is a good summary of this article by Michael Gerson. One of the things I like about this article is that it does a good job of explaining the real problem. Politicians putting their political career and self-interests ahead of the reality of the problem. Yes indeed, Republicans and Democrats are to blame for the incredible lack of any progress, or much of anything, from an aptly titled "do nothing" Congress. I know the market was up yesterday, and only slightly down to begin with today, but I dare say it is going to crater again if a bill does not get passed by the end of this week.

One More Thought

I have recently learned that I do have at least one reader. Thank you. I must re-double my efforts and try to make this endeavor better each day. I think it will be fun.

Politician Formula

Another interesting thought I have had yesterday and today is that politicians certainly have an interesting formula for dealing with this. If you are a politician, you know the American people are tired of the constant, reactionary bickering that prevails between Democrats and Republicans. You know we are tired of the blame game and the constant partisan fighting. You also know that this is a real financial crisis we are facing and if there was a time to set aside partisan fighting and petty selfishness, this would be that time. But you simply cannot resist. So being a politician, this is what you do. "The Republicans caused all these financial problems, and especially Pres. Bush, but we are going to pass this bill together and prevent a crisis and then make sure another one does not happen." "I cannot believe Sen. Pelosi made that speech that cost all those votes, but we need to work together and solve this problem." "Sen. Obama did not do anything to help bring more Democratic votes to the bill, but we need to move beyond politics and pass a bill that will help America." "Sen. McCain could not get a single representative from Arizona to approve the bill, but we need to come together as a Congress and pass this bill."

You see the formula? Blame (insert Democrat/Republican), but we need to stop fighting and work together. I am tired of the blaming and the fighting and I say a pox on both your houses.

I should say that most, but not all, of the politicians I have heard react in this way. There are a very limited few, Democrats and Republicans, that are more mature and serious, but it is a very limited few.

It is times like this that I am reminded of the words of John Adams.

... [W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with
human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition,
revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a
whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and
religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any
other.

Results

Did you think the bailout was a bad idea? Then yesterday you got your wish. What was the result? The biggest loss in the market. . .ever . . . ever in history. That is big. The financial estimates I heard said about 1.1 trillion dollars in capital were lost yesterday. This is the amount lost because the bailout did not happen. I must say that 700 billion is a big number, but I think 1.1 trillion is bigger. And where did that 1.1 trillion come from? It came from ordinary people like you and me that have money in a 401(k) and other, similar investments. Can that 1.1 trillion come back? Sure, but it will probably take years to actually get it back, and that is if the bailout still happens.

Another financial analyst I heard said something I thought funny. Everyone is so upset that there are so many executives out there whose companies will go under, but their "golden parachutes" will basically protect them from the fallout. The funny part is that the bailout legislation had a provision against "golden parachutes," so by not passing the bill, Congress (and the public that told Congress not to pass the bill) saved those golden parachutes for the executives.

I also found it interesting that world markets reacted badly to the news that Congress did not bail out the financial market. I was a bit surprised to see the Australian Prime Minister on American TV asking Congress to pass the bill. Apparently, we are still the world economic leader, which is a thought that gives me pause.

The other good news for those that did not like the bailout bill is that any similar bill will certainly not be passed for a few more days. It will be interesting to see what the markets do in the meantime. This piece from the New York Times says stocks were mixed today, and even rebounded slightly. The interesting thing to me is the reason that was given: "The action of the markets reflected optimism that Congress will act this week to approve an economic rescue plan." I guess we will have to wait and see. I am not holding my breath.

To Bailout Or Not To Bailout

As most Americans today, I have been trying to follow the information about the actions, or in-actions, of Congress with regard to the bailout. One of the best articles I have read about it is from Dean Barnett. Another great source in my opinion is Hugh Hewitt's blog (see blog list on this site) and all the links Prof. Hewitt provides. My bottom line is this. The "bailout" may not be an accurate description of the legislation because the bad loans the government would buy are "low" right now, but could very well rebound and even make taxpayers money when/if the real estate markets rebounds. The reason the government would buy these bad loans is to get them off the books of the various financial institutions and because the government is the only organization that can absorb and ride-out this type of bad investment. I also happen to think the government probably should do this since it was government action, specifically laws passed by Congress, that got us into this mess. The bottom line is that a lot of the real financial experts I have heard or read say we need to pass the legislation that would prevent this crisis, or lessen this crisis. As for the politicians, I think the Democrats and the Republicans are currently acting like children. This is the time to fix the problem, not try to fix the blame. I have seen too many Democrats and Republicans engaging in partisan fighting while a real problem grows and grows. Shame on them all.

McCain's Plan?

If this plan works as described by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, it would be quite the victory for Sen. McCain. It would also clearly demonstrate the difference between Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama. The election could become very interesting very quickly.

No Spin on Financial Crisis

This article from Steven Pearlstein at the Washington Post is about as clear and concise as it gets with respect to the financial crisis. Congress needs to act, and act now.

Case Against Bailout

Here is a great article about why we should not bailout the financial market. I wish I knew enough about economics to really know whether the bailout was a good idea or not. At times like this I tend to fall back on the idea that this is why we have a representative government and I will just have to deal with whatever decision the government officials make. Also, it looks like Congress may actually be agreeing to the bailout anyway, so I will just accept that. In some ways, I am not sure it makes much difference. I have no doubt that bailing out the financial markets will have negative consequences, and I also have no doubt that not bailing out the financial markets will have negative consequences. It is definitely a pick your poison choice. I do tend to doubt that the economy would simply collapse the way so many seem to predict. I do not want to believe the economy is that fragile.

The Other Side

The tone of this article by Dan Balz at the Washington Post is amazing. The article does a relatively good job of presenting the opinions and views of both Democrats and Republicans, but there are a number of things that bother me. Does anyone really believe that the next President of the United States, be it Sen. McCain or Sen. Obama, is not needed in Washington right now to work out a response to the financial problems facing this country, especially since both candidates happen to be Senators with direct input regarding any bill proposed and because both are supposed to be the "leaders" of their respective parties? And why is Sen. McCain's decision an indication of being selfless or reckless, while Sen. Obama's reaction is clearly intended to "show calm" in a crisis? Perhaps most importantly, is there anyone who thinks a presidential candidate debate is more important than the looming financial crisis? I can only speak for myself, but it is hard to imagine someone being more worried about a possible debate as compared to a financial crisis, which is going to affect every American in one way or another even if it is averted today. On a lesser note, Republicans (anonymously) critical of Sen. McCain's decision are mentioned, but there are not any Democrats critical of Sen. Obama's reaction? Perhaps Mr. Balz missed Pres. Clinton defending Sen. McCain's request to postpone the debate. I do not get the opportunity to say this very often, so I will now. I like the fact that Pres. Clinton is not trying to find any reason possible to criticize Sen. McCain. Good job Pres. Clinton, at least in this respect.

McCain Is A Leader

I think recent events show more than anything else why Sen. McCain should be the next president and Sen. Obama should remain Senator. I also think Bill Dyer, guest-posting at Hugh Hewitt's blog, may have the best explanation of those recent events. I have really enjoyed reading Mr. Dyer and having him with Prof. Hewitt makes Prof. Hewitt's blog a must-read even more than before.

The Choice

I have been posting a bit on the bailout and how I think Congress does need to do it, but this is simple and persuasive. Again, Prof. Hewitt certainly knows what he is talking about.

Biden in Ohio

I would love to read Prof. Hewitt's reaction to this article about Sen. Biden in Ohio discussing foreign policy. I think I have a good idea of what it would say, but I love reading Prof. Hewitt and I am sure he would have some great comments about Sen. Biden in Prof. Hewitt's home state. Perhaps Biden is a Browns fan?

Obama - Ayers

If you want to know about the real relationship between Sen. Obama and unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, you should read this post from Powerline. It is one of the reasons I read Powerline quite often.

Financial Crisis - Bailout

After some thought about this I have decided I am not against the bailout of the financial market and I think I have a good reason. It was Congress' fault anyway. Congress passed all the regulatory laws requiring banks and lending institutions to make loans to people that really could not afford them, all so more people could actually own a home. I think that is a great goal, but it still has to be accomplished in a fiscally sound manner. Now that all those questionable loans are causing huge problems for the financial market, Congress should bail them out. Congress mandated the loans. Congress should help pay the penalty. That is why I am just as upset about the Senate balking at the bailout as I am at Congress for getting us into this mess. Congress should be willing to clean up its mess. And where was all this caution and concern, this need for details and accountability with regard to the laws that caused this mess?

What about the American taxpayer? Good question. This is the price of a representative government. If you do not like the results you get from the government, you need to make changes. You need to change the people being sent as your representative. I cannot say I follow national politics nearly close enough to comment on each representative from each state, but this is why we are supposed to be paying attention to what they are doing. Also, it seems to me that I keep hearing the same names over and over again, especially when it comes to Senators. Yes, I think term limits for Congressmen and Senators would be a good idea, but we the people need to make sure we hold our representatives accountable for their actions.

As a side note, I was watching the second half of the big English Premiership match (soccer) between Chelsea and Manchester United. Manchester United's major sponsor happens to be AIG, and the commentator for the match, an Englishman, made the comment that Manchester United was more consistent and/or technically sound than its sponsor. I cannot get away from financial commentary even during a good football match. The match ended in a 1-1 draw. I wonder if there is a good financial comparison I could draw?

UPDATE: Here is a similar article from David Limbaugh at Townhall providing some good information and background.

Financial Crisis

I would be the first to admit that I am no expert on the economy, or financial matters. The whole banking crisis does not make sense to me, until a great article comes along that seems to really ring true and provide the background to understand the cause. It does not come as any surprise that Congress is at the bottom of all this. People ascribe a lot of government activity to the President, but Congress is really the branch of government with the power, the power to tax, the power to spend, the power to regulate. I don't think they know what to do with that power.

Attacks on Palin

The attacks on Gov. Palin seem incredible to me. I do not remember when a political figure has been savaged the way Gov. Palin has. As an example, ABC News has a story by Justin Rood about Gov. Palin's personal email account. The focus of the story is an allegation that Gov. Palin should not be using a private email account to conduct any type of government business. While I can certainly understand this concern, I have two problems with the story. First, I have yet to find any issue where both sides of the aisle do not have the same problems, i.e., I am just as sure that there are plenty of Democrats doing the same thing. Second, and most importantly in this story, the story completely ignores the fact that hacking into Gov. Palin's personal email account is a violation of federal law. The article mentions that the McCain-Palin campaign has responded to questions by stating that the hacking is a "violation of law," but the article does not address that issue in the least. I am reminded of the idea of straining at a gnat.

Also, Heather Mallick has an article in Canada that simply attacks Gov. Palin and her family in a very personal way, and includes personal attacks against Republicans in general. I will not be linking to the article because of the crude, vulgar references. The one question I would have for Ms. Mallick is, "Why do you care?" Ms. Mallick lives in Canada. Why would she care that much what happens in American politics? I suspect it is because Gov. Palin does not fit the liberal idea of "feminist" and so hyper-liberal women resent Gov. Palin for her success. Ms. Mallick writes, "I'm a feminist who understands that women can nurse terrible and delicate woman hatred." Perhaps Ms. Mallick does understand that her column is hateful and directed at Gov. Palin simply because she is a woman.

Constitution Day

Since today is Constitution Day, it would be a good time to read not only the Constitution itself, but this great speech about the Constitution given by Pres. Ezra Taft Benson. The Constitution is indeed an important document and we need to understand it better so we can defend and preserve it better. I would also recommend Dr. W. Cleon Skousen's book The Making of America as a great source for learning about the Constitution. I should also take a moment and thank Prof. Hugh Hewitt. Despite my mediocre grades in his Constitutional Law class, Prof. Hewitt and Prof. John Eastman (now Dean Eastman, and I got better grades in his First Amendment class) instilled a wonderful curiosity and interest for the Constitution. I consider myself very lucky to have studied the Constitution under both of them. Thank you both.

Financial Explanation

At townhall.com Walter E. Williams has a great article about taxes, jobs and the economy. Even an economy-challenged individual like me can understand this. If you want a free market, you have to take the risks and troubles that go with it.

Better Response

Harvey Mansfield has a great article that provides a better response to comments like that from Shauna Moench (posted below). Shouldn't feminists be glad their ideals have reached the GOP, even if just a little?

Subjective Humor

This SL Tribune editorial by Jim Shea attempts to be funny. I think the only thing it really shows is the liberal-elite's visceral contempt for rural, small town, working-class people.

Call Truce and . . . Fire!

The Salt Lake Tribune has another interesting editorial by Shauna Moench asking for a truce in the "mommy wars." I think the article is very interesting. Ms. Moench claims that the GOP has betrayed its own principles by nominating Gov. Palin for VP, specifically, the important principle that mothers should stay home with young children. Ms. Moench wants us all to agree that motherhood is an important role and that men and women will work side-by-side in all types of careers, and then Ms. Moench wants us to set up a "village" to help make sure all kids are raised successfully. The part I do not understand is if the GOP has "betrayed" its idea that motherhood is important, what is the GOP's new position? Also, how does Ms. Moench know the GOP does not support pre-school, after school programs, higher pay for teachers, quality and affordable day care, etc.? Especially, since these are appatently the ideas upon which she is basing her vote. Perhaps what disappoints me most is the lure that we should end the "mommy wars," followed by the hook that I need to vote for Obama/Biden or I do not really support children. I would agree that the constant fighting between political parties over seemingly every issue needs to stop, but this editorial does nothing to advance that idea.

Interesting Point

I love this article by Michelle Malkin. Al-Qaida has been trying to make sure they get the "credit" for 9/11, but no one wants to believe them. Too many want to blame American first, and then the Jews. When you really look at it, that just does not make any sense.

Credit Where Due

This editorial about Mitt Romney's political career in the SL Tribune is really good. I think it would be impossible to say that religious bias did not play any role in this campaign, and the emergence of Gov. Palin effects many things.

Another Great Article

Prof. Hewitt has another great article, as usual. Spoiler Alert: if you like Gov. Palin, you will love this article.

Minnesota Temple Fire

Someone attempted to set fire to the Minnesota Temple. The Utah newspapers, Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune, both have the AP report that says the authorities "suspect arson" and "don't believe the case is a hate crime." I have to admit that "no signs of forced entry" makes me pause. This would certainly be a fact that tends to negate a finding of arson, so what facts were present (besides the fire) that make arson suspected? Did someone just light a fire at the door, without making it inside the entryway? Is there some indication as to how the fire started? The facts are a bit sparse, so I think I will wait for more information before deciding it is a hate crime. However, it seems to me that if it is arson, the person(s) who set the fire did not like Mormons, or their temple.

Learning About Palin

The best article I have read with details about Gov. Palin and her political background comes from a British paper. Gov. Palin is becoming a better choice every time I learn more about her. She obviously knows how to set a goal and achieve it.

Facts on Judgment

This is a great article about Sen. Obama's "judgment." Facts are hard to deny.

UPDATE: Another claim that someone other than Sen. Obama is responsible.

Hard Habit to Break

The Salt Lake Tribune editorial is becoming a hard habit for me to break, and yes, I am humming the Chicago song. A recent editorial claims the Republicans are using a "resentment strategy" for this election. It is based on the idea that Gov. Romney, Mayor Giuliani, and Gov. Palin should not be able to claim they are against elitism because of their own elitist characteristics, and that the right is angry. And why is the right so angry? Some of it is because of Roe v. Wade and evolution being taught in schools, but most of the anger is based on the perception that Democrats are elitist, for which "no evidence" exists.

Personally, whether some Democrats are elitist makes no difference to me because I am sure there are plenty of Republicans that are elitist, and I do not care what most Democrats or Republicans think of me. I do care about Roe v. Wade, abortion, national security and Supreme Court judge appointments. So I would be inclined to be much more exercised about those things than any claims of elitism. I think it is quite a stretch to say that most, or even a part, of conservative "anger" comes from the elitist claims.

I also love it when people say there is "no evidence" for an assertion. Usually, there is some evidence. It just depends on how much influence or weight you give that evidence. For example, some people look at the order of the universe and the complexity of the human body and see the hand of God. Others see the Big Bang and evolution. I can see "evidence" of both, so the question becomes how do you interpret that evidence. Now on to the editorial's claim that "no evidence" exists to suggest that Sen. Obama and the Democrats do not think much of Wasilla, Alaska or small-town mayors. I can see how statements made by the Obama campaign can be interpreted that way, i.e., Gov. Palin does not have enough experience to be the VP. Claiming such lack of experience does imply her previous experience is not sufficient. That is the point of the statement from the Obama campaign. Accordingly, the Obama campaign statement does imply that Sen. Obama and/or some Democrats do not consider small-town mayor a very notable experience.

All in all, the SLTrib editorials have provided me a good laugh because of the strained and unfounded arguments, and that good laugh does make it a hard habit to break.

Palin's Religion

KSL is reporting about a statement made by the Utah Democratic Party that Gov. Palin is/was a "devout member of an anti-Mormon denomination." The denomination in question is the Assembly of God. Gov. Palin has not identified herself as a member of this church since 2002 and the church says it does not have a stance on Mormons specifically.

For starters, since when did the Utah Democratic Party care about anti-Mormon bias? Also, I have heard in the Mormon rumor-mill that the story included a claim that Gov. Palin tried to stop the LDS temple in Anchorage. I have not found any real evidence for that as of yet, but being a member of the LDS church, I know how fast and pervasive such rumors can be. My guess is that the Assembly of God made some statement, or even attempted some action, to prevent the LDS temple in Anchorage, and this was somehow attributed to Gov. Palin.

It seems to me that religion is used way too often, by both sides of the aisle, to try and score political points in one way or another. It should be a non-factor. As my uncle used to say, "Why wish for a loaf of bread when you can wish for the whole grocery store."

UPDATE: See this related article. Mr. Medved has a great explanation about the fact that all religions seem unusual to those not familiar with them, and I can certainly empathize being a member of a religion many deem unusual. (Although some consider my interest in soccer unusual, I was referring to my being LDS.)

Great Articles

Here are a couple great articles definitely worth reading. David Limbaugh does a great job of exposing the double standard. Hugh Hewitt has a fantastic explanation of Gov. Palin's impact on the electoral college. Enjoy.

Lawyer Joke in Reality

Even being a lawyer, I have to admit Dr. Hanson makes a great point.

Straining at a Gnat

It is now apparent to me that what really bothers me about the way mainstream media is questioning and discussing the nomination of Gov. Palin for VP is that they are straining to make a "story" or a "concern" out of very little. It does not strike me as odd that any politician in any office for just about any amount of time is going to have critics, and going to have instances that seem questionable, or even hypocritical, to others. So the question becomes which issues are more important? Are you more concerned about Gov. Palin's pregnant daughter or Sen. Obama's view on abortion? Do you want more detail on Gov. Palin's attempt to get her ex-brother-in-law fired or Sen. Obama's relationship with William Ayers? Do you think it reflects more poorly on Sen. McCain's judgment if his choice for VP did not get properly vetted, or Sen. Obama's judgment for his choice to employ Mazen Asbahi? I have no problem with the mainstream media asking questions about a candidate, but it seems clear that the mainstream media has no ability to prioritize or discern an important story from a mediocre one.

Missing the Point

The Salt Lake Tribune has posted an editorial by Helen Thomas today. Ms. Thomas has certainly missed the point to McCain's choice for VP. Ms. Thomas is quick to claim that Gov. Palin does not have much experience and comes with "unexpected baggage," such as a 17-year old daughter that is pregnant, unduly influencing a public servant to fire an ex-brother-in-law, and working to get earmarks for her town. First of all, I would not agree with a family member being characterized as "baggage." Second, Ms. Thomas has missed the point that despite any perceived negatives pointed out by political opponents, Gov. Palin brings positives that far outweigh any negatives. And since any choice for VP (i.e., Sen. Biden?) comes with some negatives, the point seems to be picking someone that can help your presidential candidate, and Gov. Palin has clearly done that for Sen. McCain. The political narrative is almost exclusively directed toward Gov. Palin and Sen. McCain, and Gov. Palin has brought an energy that is impossible to deny.

Ms. Thomas also seems to be very disappointed that Sen. Obama did not choose Sen. Clinton as his running mate. In reference to Sen. Obama's VP choice, Ms. Thomas rightly asks, "Where is the audacity?" Apparently, Sen. McCain is the one with audacity, and now momentum.

Ms. Thomas makes the point that Gov. Palin will be one heartbeat away from the presidency. I would clarify that right now Gov. Palin is one election and one heartbeat away from the presidency. Sen. Obama is one election away from the presidency, but Ms. Thomas does not appear concerned at all about Sen. Obama's qualifications. Maybe that is because a direct comparison of Sen. Obama's executive experience and Gov. Palin's executive experience demonstrates that Gov. Palin is far and away better prepared.

I do have to give Ms. Thomas credit for her candor. Given the success of last night's speech by Gov. Palin, I was expecting more editorials and comments like this one from the SL Tribune. The direct attacks on Gov. Palin have backfired, so it is much safer to question her "temperment and knowledge" to be VP, imply that she has stange ideas about what constitutes "God's work," and merely suggest that we need to know more about Gov. Palin.

My conclusion: I thought Gov. Palin was a good choice when the choice was made; I think Gov. Palin is a fantastic choice now. I think she definitely has the "temperment and knowledge" to be the VP, or even the President. I like the fact that she really does understand, and communicate her understanding, of small town people and regular families. This election just became very interesting. The war hero and the pitbull with lipstick against the elitist and life-long politician.

Senator Hatch on Hugh Hewitt Show

Senator Hatch just concluded an interview on the Hugh Hewitt show. Sen. Hatch is commenting very favorably on the executive experience of Gov. Palin, especially as compared to Sen. Obama. Sen. Hatch makes a strong comparison between the media's treatment of Gov. Palin and Judge Bork during his confirmation hearings. Sen. Hatch also comments about how attacks on Gov. Palin by the media will only backfire and strengthen the support of Gov. Palin, and not just among women.

Good interview with Sen. Hatch. As always, the Hugh Hewitt show is worth the time to listen.

Nothing Up My Sleeve

Another SL Tribune editorial today that I simply cannot let pass. The editorial is titled: "Palin's daughter: The politics of teenage pregnancy." The combined news that a relative unknown like Gov. Palin is chosen as McCain's VP candidate and Gov. Palin's 17-year old daughter is pregnant, planning to keep the child and marry the father is described as "dizzying." It sounds more like "life" to me (except that most of us are not chosen as VP candidates). It is hard to imagine someone that is not affected directly, let alone indirectly, by a teenage, unwed pregnancy. Yet this concept is treated as "dizzying."

I am glad to see a leader like Gov. Palin leading strongly, competently and by positive example. I think a lot of voters are going to be impressed as well.

Same Story, Different Day

A SL Tribune editorial demonstrates again the strange lengths to which some people will reach to make a strange point. The Tribune claims that hurricane Gustav helped the GOP, despite shortening the GOP convention, by allowing McCain to look presidential and by providing the means to abbreviate the time Pres. Bush would spend at the convention and address the convention.

The Tribune contrasts McCain's visit to the emergency operations center and McCain's presidential appearance, with Pres. Bush's supposed bungling during hurricane Katrina. The Tribune then criticizes Pres. Bush for appearing to tend to the emergency of hurricane Gustav.

Maybe the point to be made about the preparation for Gustav and the conduct of emergency relief agencies is not that the GOP was able to benefit from the "spin" it generated from Gustav, but that everyone learned some valuable lessons from Katrina and those lessons were applied in a positive way. Republicans and Democrats, government agencies and citizens all worked together to avoid a more serious disaster.

Ironic Editorial

Apparently, irony is alive and well at the NYT. Frank Rick writes about the Obama campaign and convention:

Indeed, the disconnect between the reality of this campaign and how it is
perceived and presented by the mainstream media is now a major part of the
year's story.

I think inadvertently correct still counts. The MSM appears to be missing the point on some really good stories about the reality of Sen. Obama's campaign, i.e., Sen. Obama's attempts to chill free speech. Mr. Rich gets one more thing correct at the end of his column.

We will only begin to confront the magnitude of our choice when and if we
stop being distracted by small, let alone utterly fictitious, things.

Utah Beats Michigan

Hope you enjoyed it, Prof. Hewitt.

McCain's Choice for VP

I have to admit the Gov. Palin was not who I was thinking, or hoping, Sen. McCain would choose. I had read some of the articles/blogs talking about her as a possibility, but I was leaning a little more toward Gov. Tim Pawlenty or Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. Having said that, I think Gov. Palin is a great choice. She brings a very interesting dynamic to the race. Her knowledge and experience on the energy issue will be a huge benefit, as will her solid conservative credentials. I also have to say that I do not understand the "down side" arguments. She has not been governor of Alaska for very long, but she has accomplished more in that time than Sen. Obama has with twice as much time in the Senate. Her success governing Alaska is hard to deny, and in such a short time. And I would feel more secure with a woman who knows how to handle a gun as Commander in Chief than I would with a man who seems scared of guns. Perhaps more important to me personally, I will feel more confident voting for Sen. McCain with Gov. Palin as the VP than without.

Welcome

Earlier today my mom asked me about my thoughts on John McCain's choice for Vice President. This prompted two things: (1) a short discussion about Gov. Palin; and (2) the thought once again that I should start my own blog and see what happens. Maybe someone other than my mom might actually read this. So, welcome to anyone who actually reads this. I am flattered and stunned. Feel free to share any thoughts and please forgive my crude blog attempts. I am trying to learn fast. Thanks.