TASK FOR INDEPENDENTS — DO NOT TRUST IVY LEAGUERS:
Ivy league Republicans (George Will , David Brooks , Peggy Noonan, Christopher Buckley, and Kathleen Parker and war cheering Democrats (led by Christopher Hitchens ) are acting out against Sarah Palin. Why?
Might war-cheering Democrats, in light of the financial meltdown brought on by excessive Big Government, now long for less international activity by the U.S.? Might ivy league Republicans, ruing Big Government, now prefer that Democrats be elected to suffer blame for mismanaging any recovery? Might ivy league Republicans also fear hints of common sense in Sarah Palin, as if she may dare to question blue blood Republican rationalizations of outrageously disproportionate allocations of wealth, nearing levels of Mexico? On social issues, might blue-blood, self-ingratiating Republicans be more aligned with far left Democrats?
If so, consider:
1) Is the threat of Islamofascist pursuit of nuclear dissemination substantial? If so, compare the costs of retreat.
2) Are ivy leaguers conditioned to “justify” their hiring out to help in the farming of all other Americans, as if we should be reduced to be satisfied with chicken feed? If so, why?
Bottom Line: Look behind the words of “elites;” consider who and what they work for and stand for; do not just assume their “educations” are grounded in fellow-empathy or in good judgment derivative of actual experience. Do not just assume their words are grounded in wisdom as opposed to shallow opportunism --- no matter what their political stripes!
MCCAIN — Work-Out, Bail-Out, or Loan-To-Insure-Out:
Snippets from http://www.newsmax.com/morris/mccain_against_bailout/2008/09/29/135431.html:
McCain Should Not Support Bailout
Monday, September 29, 2008 10:05 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
The game is the same: Loans or grants fund the deficient debt service on the defaulted mortgages until homes can recover their value in the cyclical real estate market.
But it makes all the difference in the world politically if this task is accomplished by buying bad debt or by lending the bankers the money to cover their current losses while they keep their bad debts on their books and by insuring them against future losses.
Loans are politically viable. Purchase of bad debt with tax money is not.
The Democrats and our politically-challenged president have failed to appreciate the difference between spending and lending. Treasury Secretary Paulson can be excused for not realizing it. Politics is not his thing.
But John McCain must realize the crucial distinction and must use his leverage to stop a taxpayer-funded bailout, insisting instead on loans and insurance.
If McCain stands firm, the Democrats will either have to pass the bailout package on their own, without Republican votes, and rely on Bush's signature on the bill to provide a fig leaf of bipartisanship, or they will have to cave in and pass the Republican package.
Either way, McCain comes out ahead.
If he gets his way, he gets credit for the bailout. If he doesn't, he can spend the campaign attacking Obama and the Democrats for spending $700 billion of taxpayer money.
If the Democrats don't adopt either course and play a game of chicken with the Republicans, their congressional status as the majority party dooms them to taking the blame for any ensuing collapse.
How Leftists Restore Respect: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/obamas_foreign_policy_appeasem.html.
DIRECT CURES FOR ECONOMY:
Another direct fix for frozen credit markets would be an FDIC program to restore bank capital that has disappeared in the downward market spiral. Former FDIC Chairman William Isaac suggested last Saturday in a Washington Post op-ed that this could take the form of "net worth certificates" issued by the FDIC to troubled banks that need time to work out of their problems. This approach worked well in the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s.
There are a number of measures that can be taken to address the liquidity crisis; some already have been. Revision of the SEC's mark-to-market rule should help considerably to free up banks' lending capacities. Likewise, extension of the FDIC limit from $100,000 per account to $250,000 will help prevent runs on banks. Other relatively modest regulatory measures are no doubt available that will also make incremental contributions toward freeing up national and international credit markets.
Liberal tolerance of dissent --- see: http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2008/11/11/liberal_censorship_and_its_roots.