Obama takes the Low Road

The word is out, Obama is going to try to throw the book at Cheney and Bush. You know, it seems to me that Bush is doing everything he can to ensure that Obama takes over in an unfettered way. I am also pretty sure that he won't be taking off with the silverware.

...is gaining currency in Washington as Obama advisors begin to coordinate with Democrats in Congress on the proposal. The plan would not rule out future prosecutions, but would delay a decision on that matter until all essential facts can be unearthed. Between the time necessary for the investigative process and the daunting array of policy problems Obama will face upon taking office, any decision on prosecutions probably would not come until a second Obama presidential term, should there be one.
The proposed commission ... would examine a broad scope of activities, including detention, torture and extraordinary rendition, the practice of snatching suspected terrorists off the street and whisking them off to a third country for abusive interrogations. The commission might also pry into the claims by the White House -- widely rejected by experienced interrogators -- that abusive interrogations are an effective and necessary intelligence tool. ...
In Obama's camp, there is a sense among some that such a commission would essentially mean letting Bush get away with crimes. "People have called for criminal investigations," one person familiar with the talks told me this summer as plans got under way. On Wednesday, a person participating in the talks confirmed that some people involved in the planning felt strongly that the commission would amount to "bulls**t" and that Bush officials should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

So let me get this straight, going after Bush and Cheney for trying to protect the American People is going to help the economy? Oh wait, no, it won't. It's just about revenge and partisonship.

I guess the lefties just don't care about this:

In Reponse To: Obama May OK Torture Investigation

We Love Sarah

Look, I will not get ahead of myself. We will see what happens in 2012, but it looks like 76% of Republicans want Sarah to stay on the national stage.

So, the question is, if Sarah Palin ensures a democrat victory in 2012, why wouldn't 100% of Dems want her to stick around? The Republican Party needs a star, if it is Palin, fine, if it somebody else, that's ok too.

In Response To: Thanks, But No Thanks

In Defense of Decency

Rachel Maddow continues to mock Sarah Palin every chance she gets. This time it was over the comment that Palin made about bloggers. Maddow even states that she considers herself a "T.V. blogger". Well maybe Maddow should revisit the "Palin thinks Africa is a Country" and "Joe the Plumber's Uncle was in the Keeting Five" hoaxes. Both of those "news items" were leaked and passed around by bloggers. Let's watch Maddow in action on another irrelevant "gotcha" moment of Sarah Palin:

The problem for Maddow is that the fruit fies in question are not the species normally used in medical research (Drosophila melanogaster). These fruit flies are olive fruit flies (Bactrocera oleae) and the only research associated with them is in the area of eradication. In fact, the organization doing the research is the USDA, as in agriculture. Sorry Rachel, you're a moron.

In response to: In Defense of Pajamas

www.employeefreedom.org

Even George McGovern gets it right on the Employee "Free" Choice Act.

In response to: Late Afternoon/Early Evening Open Thread

Daily AntiKos' Abbreviated Pundit Round-Up

New York Times' Richard Perez-Pena on the Palin "Africa a country" hoax:

"And the claim of credit for the Africa anecdote is just the latest ruse by Eisenstadt, who turns out to be a very elaborate hoax that has been going on for months. MSNBC, which quickly corrected the mistake, has plenty of company in being taken in by an Eisenstadt hoax, including The New Republic and The Los Angeles Times.

"An MSNBC spokesman, Jeremy Gaines, explained the network’s misstep by saying someone in the newsroom received the Palin item in an e-mail message from a colleague and assumed it had been checked out. “It had not been vetted,” he aid. “It should not have made air.”

"Last month Eisenstadt blogged that Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, Joe the Plumber, was closely related to Charles Keating, the disgraced former savings and loan chief. It wasn’t true, but other bloggers ran with it."

Real Clear Politic's Victor Hansen on the Left's hypocrisy:

"Public financing of campaigns was a liberal given for over a quarter-century. Democrats argued that conservative big money and national big politics always made a toxic brew. Then the suddenly cash-rich Obama renounced that old liberal gospel, rightly betting that his Democrats could out-raise even fat-cat Republicans."

"Abroad, we were told that it is time to change the policies of George Bush that were unilateral and offensive. For example, pushing missile defense on Eastern Europe was said to be needlessly provocative to Russia. But will that still be true if President Obama decides to support it?"

Greg Sheridan of the Australian on Bush:

"Now, the successes. Barack Obama in some measure owes his success to the inclusiveness of Bush. Bush appointed Powell secretary of state. He appointed
Condoleezza Rice national security adviser, then Secretary of State. Over eight years, this accustomed the electorate to African-Americans handling critical national security positions. No other president, certainly no Democrat, had done anything like it."

"More important, especially for Australia, Bush was an immensely successful president in Asia. When Bush was first elected there was great fear of a conflict between the US and China. Instead, Bush from the start pursued a steady, productive and stable relationship with China. He didn't sell out Taiwan but he shrewdly and effectively manipulated downwards the vote of its pro-independence candidates by withholding US favour from them. He resisted any protectionist moves against Beijing. He had a much better China relationship than Bill Clinton did."

In response to: Abbreviated Pundit Round-Up

Obama the Torturer?

Let me respond to the last sentence of the following quote which was taken from mcjoan's most recent post at the Daily Kos.

"Given the loose sourcing, it's hard to suss out who is pushing what out of this story. But let's deal with the effort behind it. Someone has shopped a story to the leading, "credible" conservative rag saying that Obama "may decide" to go completely against his campaign promises to end torture as state policy, and then pushing John Brennan as the reasonable intelligence expert, who may fill one of the administration's key intelligence posts. None of this is to say that this is what Obama is going to do as president, but it's not an encouraging trend."

Can you say, Green Party?

In response to: "Counterintelligence"

No Confidence In The New Guy

The Mainstream Media and The Daily KOS is attempting to paint some sort of picture where the whole entire country has drank the kook-aid and is looking forward to four years of an Obama regime. Nothing could be further from the truth. Obama hasn't even set up his White House voicemail yet and already he is already turning the stomach of a wide variety of individuals and groups. Here are just a handful, with related articles.

Catholic Church

Wall Street

Small Businesses

Gun Owners

Anti-War Activists

In response to: Confidence In The New Guy

An Underreported Obama Demographic: Atheists

With all the Democrat interest in voter demographics derived from exit polls, it was more than interesting that Red County reported today that atheists, or "non-religious Americans" (to be politically correct), "came out in large numbers for Barack Obama on Election Day."

Red County's source for this data was Dr. Paul Kengor, Professor of Political Science and Executive Director of the Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College, Pennsylvania. Kengor estimated that "up to 11 million" atheists voted for Obama:

CNN exit polls found that 76 percent of those who answered “none” when asked about religious affiliation cast ballots for Obama. They comprised 12 percent of voters. That equates to an Obama grab of at least 11 million (generally) non-religious voters—a number notably larger than Obama’s overall popular-vote victory of roughly eight million. That’s a huge advantage for the Democratic nominee, one that gets more powerful every four years.

Let's be clear: one of the great strengths of the United States is freedom of religion. This includes the freedom to reject religion. When Americans respect each other's right to choose a faith or to be thoroughly secular, this fundamental right lives on. Also, like Kengor, "I'm not saying that if you voted for Barack Obama, you're an atheist." Obama captured a majority of the Catholic vote, more than three-fourths of the Jewish vote and even 45% of the Protestant vote.

What bakes my noodle is the continual brouhaha about evangelicals who vote Republican, on which topic Red County quoted Kengor:

It is quite telling that liberal journalists are constantly wringing their hands over the evangelical vote, but could care less about the rise of an atheist vote. Whereas evangelicals scare them to death -- and are highlighted as a dangerous force -- atheists are of no concern whatsoever.

We continue to hear about the Bush "theocracy" even as President Bush graciously fast-tracks a seamless transition to the Obama Administration. This is a demonstration of another great American strength -- stable transitions of power that prevent potential enemies from trying to take advantage of the situation. Compare, for example, Zimbabwe.

Kengor also pointed out that the level of commitment to a faith (which he could measure quantitatively only by frequency of church attendance, a metric which measures only physical, not mental or spiritual, presence at services) correlated with choice of Presidential candidate:

The contrast is clear when broken down among church attendance. Those who attend church services 'once a week' voted for McCain by 55 to 43 percent, while those who attend 'a few times a year' went for Obama 59 to 39 percent, and those who 'never' go to church voted Obama 67 to 30 percent.

The numbers are consistent among denominations: John McCain actually won Catholics who attend Mass weekly (50 to 49 percent), but was trounced by Catholics who don't attend weekly (58 to 40 percent). McCain's largest margin was white evangelical/born-again Christians, which he swept 74 to 24 percent. Yet, even then, that margin was not as wide as those with no religious affiliation who went for Obama.

What's most significant is that this is nothing new. It is a recent trend gravitating to an increasingly secular Democratic Party.

Equally significant, however, was Kengor's point that the margin of "no religious affiliation" voters for Obama was much larger than that of any group of voters of a particular religion. Non-and weakly-religious voters wielded a larger influence than voters who strongly identified with a particular faith.

"Change" and "Hope", therefore, resonated more with secular Americans. Here's how I make sense of it. The non-religious, who deny the spiritual, therefore look to the human race as the be-all and end-all. Some, like Ayn Rand, went further by elevating the human to the divine. This leads to the belief than humans can solve all the problems of the secular world. Entire systems have been built on this materialistic Weltanschauung. Indeed, some of the founders of the United States, such as Jefferson and Franklin, tended towards such a viewpoint, although they were Deists rather than atheists. Communism and Fascism were built on atheism; the former clearly replaces the spiritual with the materialistic.

So now the United States has elected Barack Obama, whom many view as a secular savior, as President. What kind of influence will the secular materialist wing of his constituency have? Will the mainstream media start keening about an Obama "atheocracy" if he heeds their calls for a more secular American society? I doubt it, somehow.

In Response To: More On Exit Polls and Realignment

Republicans - Where do we go from here?

Needless to say, we got whipped, beaten and embarrassed in this election. Although, I still believe the argument can be made that no one we put up for president would have made a difference, in light of the historical nature of the election and the desire on the part of America to see that come true. But now we need to consider who we are or what we are, how we are different from the democrats and what are we going to stand for that will convince the populous of our noble intent.

Even so, we have an impediment to our future that will not easily be moved or circumvented. And that is the established amalgamation of the media and the democrat party. Through their combined force of influence - possible changed forever with the introduction of the Fairness Doctrine - on the people, it is difficult to express a plan that will get the attention deserve. However, the 1994 Contract with America was an exception and it worked. It worked because the policies delineated were of sound judgment and the commitment demonstrated by its signing was an authority the people could believe in. The American constituency looked at the assembled cast of the republicans and said “They are really going to do this”.

Its that time again. Time to stand on principle, dedication to our beliefs and allegiance to the Constitution. A new Contract for American must be drawn up and it must be implanted in the very psyche of all conservatives for the duration of our future. The question remains, who from the Republicans will define the strategy. I personally believe it is time for the conservative libertarian arm of the party to speak up and establish a bold choice for America. The neocons have had their say and we more or less suffer the consequences of their actions today. It is time to form up, sit down together, speak up and defend liberty, freedom and the constitution.

Health Care - NO UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE! Ask a Canadian ( I happen to live next to a nurse from Canada) or British Subject. Canadians comes to American for complex operations because they have to wait and die there. Britain sends patients to India with fully paid airfare because it is easier than processing them through the existing health organization. Not to mention you cannot find a dentist on the plan anywhere. American needs 6 things 1) Preventive based medical plans that spend the money up front for prevention than after someone has developed cancer. Incentivize HMOs to pay for yearly exams including MRIs and other full body scans. 2) Allow anyone to join combined plans that save money on the numbers of members, like small businesses teaming together. Administaff figured this out, why can’t the government. 3) Tort and medical malpractice reform. 4) Digital medical records alone would save billions and prevent mistakes while eliminating paperwork from the process. 5) Graduated premiums so people are incentivized to live healthier lives, and finally 6) get the government out of the way.

Defense - Number One, the constitution specifically says that Congress is the only power to declare war. How about we actually try that. No going to war anywhere unless the Congress signs a declaration. Certainly would cut down on the rhetoric.   2) The military has become a Joint Tactical Fighting Force, meaning all the services work together. Great! Then why do we need each service having copies of the same functions. Consolidate business activities like logistic, human resources and medical care under a single umbrella. Put the Air force back in with the Army ( sorry about that flyboys, nothing personal), and 3) continue the Stryker force realignment and Special Forces structure improvement. You can save at least a quarter of the defense budget just on efficiency alone without effects to the force capacity.

Taxes - A 10,000 page tax law was not envisioned by the founders. In fact, they suggested that taxes be reauthorized each year. Fair across the board burden to all is the best approach, but as long as the power to tax stays in the hand of the politicians it will continue to be manipulated. Just look at the upcoming chaos of the Obama plan.  So its time for the Fair Tax plan or Nationwide Sales Tax to be the income generator of choice for the future of our government. Pick one and stick to it. No matter what its better than what we have now.

Job Growth - See TAXES above. Freedom from oppressive taxation and the efficiency inherent in the design will be the largest influence on job growth the likes America has not seem.

Economy - See TAXES above. Plus we need to ditch once and for all the Keyensian economic model and adopt Von Mises free market policies. A true and free capitalist market will be unencumbered to expand, compete, invent, effect change and provide the basis for all improvements in the life of Americans through increased income, opportunity, education and way of life. If you don’t know who Ludwig Von Mises is, look it up. A free market also is self correcting, preventing the disastrous outcome of our current situation from the overzealous activities of a manipulative government.

Education - Eliminate the Department of Education and send the money back to the states. Let them spend the money on students, instead of philosophers and doctoral elitists you espouse psychobabble from the communist doctrine. What a novel idea.

Fidelity to the Constitution - Oh how the democrats are wrong. We need to be Constitutionalist! We need a stricter adherence to the intent of our founders. Prime example; when the American government was considering a $15,000 payment, John Adams said show me where in the articles of the constitution it says we can pay for that. The constitution lives because it can be changed and once changed, we live with that agreement. So in that sense it is a living document, but ONLY when it has been changed. So to say that the understanding of the constitution is old and out of date is an affront to the brilliant minds of out founders. They gave us the power to adapt to our new world, we just chose to not follow the rule.

We as conservatives have ideas founded in common sense and historical experience. We need to move like the force of an axe head and sunder the socialist ideals of the progressives. We need to wedge our way into the mindset of American and effect change through commitment, determination, and adherence to our new mandate. If we advocate and execute our objectives, not consort or conspire with the opposition just so the press with give us a “fair shake”, then we have the opportunity to reignite the fire that drove the Contract with American to success. 

Its time, lets roll....

In response to:  To our Republican Friends - Where do you go now

Daily AntiKos' Abbreviated Pundit Round-Up

Christopher Hitchens
There is an element of the "wannabe" about all this—something that suggests that, if the clock were to be rolled back, every living white person would now automatically stand with John Brown at Harper's Ferry and with John Lewis at the Edmund Pettus Bridge. All the evidence we have is to the contrary: Abraham Lincoln ringingly denounced John Brown, and John F. Kennedy (he of the last young and pretty family to occupy the Executive Mansion) was embarrassed and annoyed by the March on Washington. In other words, there is something pain-free and self-congratulatory about the Obama surge. This has happened before, of course, with the high-sounding talk about the "New Frontier," the "Great Society," and "Morning in America." It's just that this time it's more than usually not affordable. There are many causes of the subprime and derivative horror show that has destroyed our trust in the idea of credit, but one way of defining it would be to say that everybody was promised everything, and almost everybody fell for the populist bait.

Thomas Sowell
In the 1930s, it was the intellectuals who pooh-poohed the dangers from the rise of Hitler and urged Western disarmament.

It would be no feat to fill a big book with all the things on which intellectuals were grossly mistaken, just in the 20th century-- far more so than ordinary people.

History fully vindicates the late William F. Buckley's view that he would rather be ruled by people represented by the first 100 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard.

How have intellectuals managed to be so wrong, so often? By thinking that because they are knowledgeable-- or even expert-- within some narrow band out of the vast spectrum of human concerns, that makes them wise guides to the masses and to the rulers of the nation.

But the ignorance of Ph.D.s is still ignorance and high-IQ groupthink is still groupthink, which is the antithesis of real thinking.

Rich Lowry
Well, Obama hadn’t been president-elect for more than 72 hours before he suggested that auto-industry executives descending on Washington to plead for a bailout might get it. Can we save corporate dinosaurs that have been mismanaged for decades? Yes, we can!

In response to: Abbreviated Pundit Round-Up

The Tree Hugging Future of NASA

Since NASA's new mission will be to prove the Global Warming myth in order to pass Cap and Trade legislation so that Al Gore can get more rich, this is what their new staff will look like.

Let's see, in a handful of decades we have gone from:

"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
to:

"Carbon contributes to climate change, uh uh uh, cap and trade, uh uh... Oceans, Katrina's, impact, weather patterns. Al Gore's rich. Uh uh uh..."

Here's the Nasa Climate Change Hero Nut-job of the Left.

The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

Funny, since 2007 was almost a record low for Hurricanes and 2008 has historic levels of inactivity. Oh yeah, and its not that hot.

In Response To: The Future of NASA

The Bailout Just Keeps Getting Worse and Barney Loves It!

So. Quite the day for bailout revelations.

First, we learn that nestled into the Pelosi/Reed bailout was a secret $140 billion in tax breaks for the banks. Amazing that Barack Obama voted to cut taxes on those evil greedy predatory lending banks.

The financial world was fixated on Capitol Hill as Congress battled over the Bush administration's request for a $700 billion bailout of the banking industry. In the midst of this late-September drama, the Treasury Department issued a five-sentence notice that attracted almost no public attention.

But corporate tax lawyers quickly realized the enormous implications of the document: Administration officials had just given American banks a windfall of as much as $140 billion.

Then we learn that the tax break isn't the only secret the feds are keeping. Apparently, it's now none of our business which banks actually laid their hands on the stash:

Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.

And Barney Frank is just fine with that:

In an interview Nov. 6, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said the Fed's disclosure is sufficient and that the risk the central bank is taking on is appropriate in the current economic climate. Frank said he has discussed the program with Timothy F. Geithner, president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and a possible candidate to succeed Paulson as Treasury secretary.

``I talk to Geithner and he was pretty sure that they're OK,'' said Frank, a Massachusetts democrat. ``If the risk is that the Fed takes a little bit of a haircut, well that's regrettable.'' Such losses would be acceptable, he said, if the program helps revive the economy.

As to if the conversation occured in the bedroom or the boardroom still remains to be determined. Of course, there was other more open news ... like that AIG got its umpteenth cash infusion, bringing its total thus far to $150 billion.

So, this is what we get from the Democrats being in control. Make no mistake, they will paint it as the Bush bailout, the McCain bailout. Remember, Joe Biden and Obama voted yes. 172 house democrats voted yes (73% of them.) 39 Democratic Senators voted yes (81% of them.) Make no mistake, this was the Democrats running to try to hide their enormous Social Financial Engineering failures. Keep in mind, Income Distribution and Fairness are code words for more social financial engineering.

Real Conservatives would NEVER approve of ANY of these bailouts.

In Response To: Too big to fail. Or to pay taxes. Or to be identified.

Daily Mourning: Closing Gitmo

“That One” has not even been sworn in yet and already the terrifying mistakes are starting to pile up. The Obama team is chomping at the bit and frothing at the mouth to overturn and remove any number of Bush strategies whose obvious goal has been to keep America safe. It seems that first and foremost at the top of the idiot-elects list of “let’s change everything Bush” is to close down the Guantanamo Bay detention center. The brilliant conclusion reached by the Obama group is to: release a portion of the detainees straight out; to move a second group into the US courts for trial; and the third group to go before a brand new court yet to be created. Just how unbelievably naïve and ignorant can the Obama plan and the Obama team be?

These detainees have been imprisoned at Gitmo for a reason. These aren’t nice people. These aren’t individuals who were caught jay walking across the streets of Baghdad. These are vicious and hate filled individuals who are bent on killing Americans. And Obama-idiot is planning on just releasing a large portion of them back out into the world. Care to make a wager about how many of those “innocents” that the O-Administration releases that make their way back into the war and end up killing some of our brave soldiers. If this happens just once after Gitmo is closed I see this as tantamount to treason on the part of Obama himself.

I am sure I am like so many others who just cannot wait (insert dripping sarcasm) to see our domestic court systems flooded with former Gitmo detainees; each one with an ACLU scumbag lawyer at their side; and each one spending my tax dollars and wasting countless hours in front of domestic judges and jurors. Can’t you just wait to see the detainees standing in front of judges happily giving diatribe after diatribe about how evil America is and how mistreated and tortured and offended each one of them was while they were in Gitmo. I can guarantee that each time one of these detainees has his moment in court the LMSM media will be there en force with cameras rolling and the lib reporters gleefully reporting about how terrible America must be just look at what the detainee is saying. It will be a nightmare. This I can guarantee.

Oh and on the issue of the libs wanting to create a special court to deal with the detainees that they actually believe pose a serious threat. As far as I am concerned that court already exists. It’s called a military tribunal. But oh wait – they have been fighting the use of that court for how long now? But I guess since the big O took over creating special courts is now OK? The hypocrisy of this upcoming administration is already unbelievable.

In Response to “Daily Reaction: Closing Guantanamo”

Rahm Emanuel: Bought and Paid For

Seems that the folks over at the KOS are already becoming disillusioned with the bailout plan. Somehow they'll blame Bush instead of the plan's biggest advocates, Pelosi and Reid. Don't look for much change from the Obama administration when it comes to corporate welfare. I've pasted an article straight from The Examiner which reveals that Obama's new Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, is in about as deep as you can get with those evil and greedy wall-street big-shots. Again, this is not the "Hope" and "Change" Obama's radical friends were looking for. Can you say, "Green Party"?

Sixteen years ago, when Bill Clinton was moving into the White House, good-government liberals were disheartened that the President-elect named his campaign’s top fundraiser, Rahm Emanuel, as White House political director. They
read this as a sign that cash would be king in the Clinton Administration. They
were right.

Four elections later, after getting rich in a brief stint in finance, Emanuel is the favorite congressman of Wall Street, measuring by campaign contributions. In the midst of a financial crisis that President-elect Barack Obama blames on Wall Street’s greed and excessive influence in Washington, Emanuel is once again headed to a perch of power in a Democratic White House, this time as chief of staff.

Obama hasn’t been in Washington for very long, and much of his tenure in the U.S. Senate has been spent barnstorming in Iowa, Colorado, and Indiana. In response to concerns that Obama lacks experience and doesn’t know his way around Washington, the Democrat’s supporters argued that he would surround himself with smart, knowledgeable people who know how the town works.

Emanuel certainly has been around the block.

Aside from his time in the trenches of Democratic machine politics in Cook County,
Illinois, where he was Mayor Richard Daley’s money man, Emanuel also served as a
fundraiser and operative in the Clinton administration. Neither of these items
on his résumé quite smells like clean government.

Considering Obama’s promises to stand up for Main Street and take on Wall Street, Emanuel’s deep ties with Wall Street are noteworthy. Emanuel was a chief advocate of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout this fall, toiling to pass it through the House
after it was first rejected.

Just as Emanuel has helped Wall Street, Wall Street has helped Emanuel. This past election cycle, more than a third of Emanuel’s campaign contributions from political action committees came from financial sector PACs.

His top source of campaign funds this year was the subprime-rattled UBS (the Swiss bank’s PAC and employees gave, corporations cannot give campaign contributions), who benefited from the housing bailout which Emanuel supported and has already shown an interest in expanding.

Hedge funds and private equity firms are also close with Emanuel. Over his career,
Emanuel’s best source of funds has been the private equity firm Madison Dearborn
Partners. Hedge funds, facing a new slew of regulations, handouts, and rules,
dramatically increased their contributions this year, and Emanuel was also their
favorite House member.

The $96,900 Emanuel pulled in from hedge funds places him above any Senator besides presidential candidates. In fact, Emanuel garnered from hedge funds more than the top 11 Republican lawmakers, combined.

Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan are also in Emanuel’s top-five career sources of campaign cash. As reported by the Center for Responsive Politics, Emanuel received more money from the securities and investment industry—$600,500 as of September 30—than did any other member of the U.S. House, and more than two presidential candidates (including Joe Biden) and the chairman of the Senate Finance
Committee.

Commercial banks lined Emanuel’s pockets, too, with $121,100, placing him fourth among House members.

Remember, too, that all of these industries that have favored Obama’s next chief of staff so well also gave more to Obama than to McCain. And while Obama studiously rejected lobbyist contributions to his campaign, Emanuel had no such scruples.

In money from lobbyists, Emanuel was in the top 10% of House members, which is made more interesting by the fact he didn’t face a competitive reelection at all in his
solidly Democratic House district.

What does it portend for an Obama administration that his closest advisor would be someone so steeped in fundraising and so close to Wall Street?

Back in 1993, Fred Wertheimer lamented fundraiser Emanuel’s top spot in the Clinton White House, calling it “a very dangerous appointment for the Clinton administration because it places in the White House an individual whose principal responsibility has been to raise huge sums of money from special interests seeking influence over government decisions.”

Indeed, Emanuel had been crucial in steering Wall Street money into Clinton’s campaign. His record suggests he will the financial industry’s man inside the Obama White House. At a time when the Washington-Wall Street relationship is changing rapidly, will Emanuel be the man to guarantee it’s change the Wall Street firms need?

In response to: Too big to fail. Or to pay taxes. Or to be identified.

Liberal Wishful Thinking

I am not going to argue that we are a Center-Right country. I will not argue that McCain was not Conservative enough. I will argue that Republicans have lost their way. The current thinking coming from the Left is that Conservatism is dead, the Electoral college landslide gives a huge mandate, majorities in the Senate and the House, and some idea that a permenant Democrat majority is on the way. Make no mistake, we got whooped. We can all argue and disagree about why, but we got it handed to us.

Having said that, it is a crazy notion that Republicans are simply going to go away, dwindle in numbers and disappear. (By the way, the Kos article said that the Kos was in the center, ha!) This idea that the Republican party is now only a regional party is also insane. The dems learned how to run a campaign. We sent in a California Raisin instead of a leader. We made the mistake to think we could appeal to lefties. No worries, America is a still a Republic, we still get to vote. (We will see what happens when they try to silence dissent.) Obama cannot even get through his first press conference without insulting a National Icon and beloved first lady, who by the way is like 900 years old. Way to go. Obama should have just went out and pulled a walker out from underneath a 97 year old woman crossing the street, and then went ahead and tripped her, with a little push just to make sure she breaks her hip on the way down. Make no mistake, it is all Obama all the time, and there will be ways to make fun of him (even if comics want to claim that he is "too perfect," 57 states anyone?)

Back to the main point, there is one thing that the left wants to ignore.

57,434,084

That's how many Patriots are left. That is how many people rejected Hype and Spare Change. They said keep the change, I like my guns. Keep the change, I enjoy my Liberty. Keep the change, I want a strong Military. Keep the change, I want to take care of myself. Keep the change, Capitalism works. Keep the change, I don't want the nation to look like Chicago.

In Response To: Conservative Wishful Thinking