CHEATERS NEVER WIN
Re: The Prowler's Couric Diminishes Gov. Palin:
I have never been so disgusted with the way Katie Couric or Charles Gibson talked down to Sarah Palin during their interviews. For Katie not to address Governor Palin the proper way as "Governor" is disgusting. I am an independent and do not know at this time who I will vote for but these people make it very easy to vote Republican. Their biases are so evident -- they should not be doing world news or conducting these types of interviews.
I was also disgusted with the way the View and Barbara Walters behaved when John McCain was a guest on their show. Barbara had folded arms and did not even look at him but stared down at the floor. If you compare the way they treated Obama to McCain it was the most unprofessional, nasty interview I have ever seen.
I will not watch Katie, Charles or Barbara again and I don't think that I am the only American that feels this way. I believe each network would be best served if Katie was doing the weather and Charles doing sports and Barbara consider retirement. Let's get balanced reporting going and it might make this world a better place and American television a place to view honest reporting instead of biases that are untrue, mean and questions that have no relevance to this election.
-- Saundra Skiesgelas
Thank you for getting the word out about the media bias, no, more than bias against Gov. Sarah Palin.
It is appalling to me that the news media have gone so in the tank for one political party. The Internet is now my source for news, but I worry about the voters who are exposed to this garbage. Why on earth do they think they have the right to influence elections, why not just let the better man win? Their choice is a loser and they have to cheat to help him win.
-- Margaret Kelley
Buckhannon, West Virginia
Interesting article. However, who in the world would have known had you not reported the slight? As for as I know, no one views Couric newscasts anyway, few even watch CBS. It's kind of like 'if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does the falling tree make noise?' If Couric does or says anything, who but her bosses at CBS even know?
-- Jim Ashcraft
In addition to the diss Couric gave Governor Palin with respect to title, look at her video interview with the Governor. The interviewer was the first one to use the word "depression." When Governor Palin used the word in her reply to Couric, Couric then went on in her interview with Senator McCain to say as a question, "Sarah Palin used the word "depression," do you think it's right that that kind of language should be used in these troubled times?"
Be very careful Katie, your Mother is watching!
-- David Bonner
I just read your article and I can't say enough how much you are right . This will turn out in November because all the bulling and piling on by the elite medical will have to recon this hatred of her . I feel the WOW women's movement has done a real disservice to both Ms Palin and Senator Clinton. They loved Barack so much they used every sexist shot at these two they could but I don't think the Republicans will stand for like the Democrats did. I live in Texas and Hillary beat Barack by tens of thousand votes and should have won the delegates but we have thanks to Howard Dean a caucus too that Barack supporters bullied their way and he won on this stupid way the Democrats do their primaries .
-- Alvin Clemons
Now pulling for Governor Palina
What is it with those jerks at CBS and the rest of the media? Sarah Palin is the "Governor" of the state of Alaska and is due more respect from the media. How low you media junkies stoop to be disrespectful. Katie Couric is an overpaid pompous ass.
Re: David Boaz's Equal Opportunity Corrupters:
Any legislator who received contributions from any financial entity should gracefully recuse himself from a bailout vote. Posting a list of offenders and bribes accepted could hasten the process.
-- David Casanova
I have to take exception to the title of David Boaz's piece; "Equal Opportunity Corrupters." This implies that the people running Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac made the members of Congress "an offer they could not refuse" and forced them to accept money and other compensations to allow these companies to bilk the American people. This is patently ridiculous. In this country, we have the best legislators that money can buy and we always have. No one has to twist their arms or threaten their families to get them to except extra compensation, they seem to be more than willing to do so with no encouragement what-so-ever.
We pay the members of Congress $169,000.00+ every year to represent us and safeguard our interests. Yet, year after year they fail to do so. Now, they are asking us to fork over $1 trillion of our money to correct a situation that they caused. And it might not work. The S&L crisis of the 1980s and 1990s was addressed with a government bailout. It put this country into a six-year recession. As a result, credit regulations were tightened. But, thanks to the Clinton Administration and the Congress, those regulations were weakened and were kept weak by the current Congress. Because of this we have now assumed responsibility for all of the subprime paper held by Fannie and Freddie, we have assumed responsibility for $85 billion for the purchase of AIG, and are on track to spend $25 billion on direct loans to the automobile industry, $200 billion in FDIC payouts and, the whopper, $700+ billion for the acquisition of all of the insolvent loans held by the credit industry. It might just be cheaper to nationalize private industry. Unfortunately, should that happen, Congress would lose access to a source of secondary income.
The bailout will go through, whether the people like it or not. We can only hope that any money that Congressmen made from these financial giants went into mutual funds so that they can share our pain. Good job, guys.
-- Michael Tobias
There appears to be a lot of culpability in the subprime banking mess and it's not easy to understand where the ultimate blame lies with all the finger-pointing going on. Tell me if I'm wrong but from here, at a distance, it looks like it started with congressional Democrats who wanted to put low income people into homes. They made taxpayer money available and pressured banks to make loans to these unqualified people. Once government fingers were in it, this fortune of available money was used to profit corrupt and greedy government insiders who had been entrusted with stewarding the people's money. Wall Street is a capitalist institution and capitalism is amoral. Wall Street's job is to make as much money as it can legally, period; the morality of how it is made is the responsibility of the people who write the laws that Wall Street must obey, in this instance the same congressional Democrats who began the low income housing loan program in the first place, then blocked attempts at reform when government insider corruption and greed made it obvious that without it a financial catastrophe was certain.
Now Barack Obama is out there obsessing about the Bush administration's failure to regulate Wall Street when the problem was never with Wall Street, it has always been with the Democrats in Congress who refused to regulate themselves knowing full well what was coming, at a time when they could have saved us all from this mess. This betrayal of the people by the people's government in Washington is shared by many but the greatest and most enraging culprits appear from here to be the congressional Democrats. If that is the case, then John McCain's candidacy could well hinge on his ability to reverse Obama's vigorous attempt to shift blame from the Democrat Party to the Republican Party and stick it where it belongs. The anger about this bailout is white hot and increasing. The political party left holding the bag will lose in November. Obama's economic and political positions on the bailout are a glass house that can be brought down by the truth about our betrayal by corrupt, greedy congressional Democrats and their insider allies if it is said clearly, often and without waver. Telling the truth over the upcoming weeks and particularly in the debate on the economy gives him the chance to pivot this election his way.
On the paranoid side, is it possible that the timing of this crisis was manipulated to occur at this point in the campaign?
-- Allen Hurt
This excellent piece reminds me of the old adage "Hi. We're from the government and we're here to help," which needs one last word to be properly illustrative: "...ourselves."
The piece brings to mind, also, one of my recent ponderings: What will historians make of Jamie Gorelick in 50 years and beyond? She having been a handmaiden to so much catastrophe?
-- Reid Bogie
Re: Edward Sisson's Obama in the Tank for Pritzker:
Republicans in the House and Senate need to put faces on the current crisis in the banking industry. Those faces are Penny Pritzker, Franklin Raines and politicians like Barack Obama, Christopher Dodd, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, etc. who've scuttled a booming economy in 2 years. There should be no compromise until Democrats agree to investigate and if necessary indict their own political hacks like Pritzker, Raines, Dodd, Schumer and Obama for perpetuating this mess.
-- Michael Tomlinson
Edward Sisson's revelations regarding Barack Obama's campaign finance chair won't matter an iota. Most Americans know very little about the kind of economics surrounding the banking crisis or the bailout. They've been told, despite all the evidence of Democratic malfeasance regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it's the Republicans fault. So far, they're buying it.
Here's a thought regarding the bailout: The federal budget in 2004 was 2.3 trillion dollars. In 2008, it is 3 trillion dollars. The difference? Seven hundred billion dollars. Does that number sound familiar?
Do we really need our political class to spend an average of ten thousand dollars apiece for every man, woman and child in America?
-- Arnold Ahlert
Boca Raton, Florida
Excuse me, but the Pritzker family is paying nearly a half billion dollars of their own money to cover the losses from the Superior Bank failure. Who among today's bank owners, directors and managers is paying a dime to cover the losses over which they have presided?
-- David Sciacchitano
POLITICS WINS AGAIN
Re: W. James Antle III's Did Someone Say Amnesty?:
This titanic battle can be distilled into its simplest of elements. Does this nation do what's right economically, or does it do what's necessary politically? If it does what's right economically, it would take the bitter medicine Dr. (yes, he is a physician) Ron Paul prescribes: let the investment banks, insurance companies, their stockholders and CEO's pay by going down the black hole of bankruptcy. If it does what's necessary politically, it robs this nation's future to pay for its foolish, vain past. The die was cast with the passage during Carter's regime of the Community Reinvestment Act mandating sub-prime loans in 1977. No one in his right mind ever believed these loans would be repaid. It was a blatant political act of socialist redistribution. That single pernicious act has brought us to the precipice of calamity at the MOST inopportune time. The chickens have come home to roost right before the election of '08.
The dilemma: Does John McCain advocate what I believe is truly in his heart (Ron Paul's bitter medicine) and hand the election to Obama on a silver platter, or does he maneuver in the minefield between principle and political reality, asking, "What do I need to do to get elected?"
The dilemma of politics vs. principle now personally facing McCain is the same one with which conservative Republicans have been wrestling since McCain won the nomination: whether to stand on principle, stay home on November 4th, effectively handing Obama the presidency, or to swallow hard and vote for the Republican candidate. McCain's inspired veep choice of Sarah Palin has largely solved that dilemma for conservatives.
As regards McCain's personal dilemma as financial Armageddon looms? There's no magic arrow called Sarah Palin left in McCain's quiver. This one, alas, will be resolved in favor of politics. Look for his support for a bailout.
-- Robert Deutsch
While a compromise may be in the offing to secure the banking industry Republicans should tie any compromise to investigations of those who caused the mess. This mess was caused by rich elitist Democrats using fake accounting methods to feather their own nests financially and politically at the expense of the American people. Since Democrats preferred playing politics with this issue Republicans should oblige by demanding investigations of Democrats in banking and Congress who are neck deep in the feces. That includes their party's nominee for President. This would avoid the need to impeach him later when it finally comes out how he's been a integral player or dupe in perpetuating the fraud that's caused this mess.
-- Michael Tomlinson
Re: John Tabin's The Great Debate Escape:
From this conservative's perspective the less John McCain debates the better off we are. He's likely to say something incredibly stupid (fire Chris Cox) that will threaten some of the begrudging votes he has managed to win back from people who were going to sit this one out until he selected Governor Palin. If McCain does participate Jim Lehrer will bring in our economic situation as the foundation of our foreign policy because we must lead thorough a position of economic strength and on and on and it will be all downhill from there. Of course if he had the guts he could ask how Penny Pritzker was going to help with righting our ship over at Team Obama.
-- Roger Ross
IN GOOD COMPANY
Re: Lawrence Henry's My First Big Scoop:
I just finished reading the article: "My First Big Scoop," by Lawrence Henry. I was directed to your site by one of my staff journalist who is serving in Basra Iraq. Thank you for providing me with that inspirational view. I printed it and stuck it on my office wall.
-- MAJ Tim Horton
215th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment
Joint Base Balad, Iraq
Great story. It takes someone to give another an opportunity to work. I still think gratefully about the two attorneys who interviewed me at lunch when I flew into Houston on my own ticket looking for an opportunity 25 years ago, and then several weeks later started me on a career. Back to your article, typical union activity for the Newspaper Guild to kill your opportunity. Vote for individualism, personal responsibility, freedom.
-- Carl Davis
LIFE IN PELOSIVILLE
Re: George H. Wittman's The Word on Main Street:
From growth to recession to (perhaps) depression in only two years. Impressive. When Pelosi said the Democrat Congress would hit the ground running, she evidently meant running from fiscal responsibility.
By the way, what metrics should we Main Street Americans watch to determine when the Pelosi Recession formally becomes the Pelosi Depression?
-- David Govett
ONLY IN PRINCIPLE
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.'s The Taranto Principle
While "The Taranto Principle" may indeed blind Democrats to the many foibles of the Presidential nominees they select, it also manifests itself in a much more pernicious effect: it blinds the general public to real threats that face the nation when those threats emanate from the left. To wit: the Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac debacle, which received virtually no media attention outside of the Wall Street Journal and other conservative free market publications. The same with the looming public employee pension and health benefit deficits, Social Security, Medicare, tort liability abuse, and the like. Anything that runs counter to the MSM narrative of big government isn't covered in any detail to the detriment of the larger public that needs to be better informed but is not.
James Taranto may be looking for the silver lining in the MSM's strident left wing partisanship, but the downside is far greater.
-- John Trexler
AMONG THE APOSTATES
Re: Jeffrey Lord's Dining With Evil:
Your article was excellent and demonstrated once again the theological bankruptcy of the UCC. My question is personal: How can you stay in a denomination that has forsaken the basic truths of Christianity. The ordination of practicing homosexuals is a case in point. Then there are the matters you have discussed. Can an apostate group be turned back to the foundational doctrines of the gospel? Thanks again for the article.
-- Raymond Coffey
Pastor, Fairlawn CRC
Thank you for your explanation of your connection to the UCC and the Congregationalists' organization pattern. It was there, many years ago, in my small home town where I first learned about Jesus Christ. I can still hear Reverend Skarett's explanation of good and evil and I have been blessed to have had that brief association. May you blessed in your continuing association. I am quite sure Reverend Skarett would have no difficulty explaining to this year's Vacation Bible School students who is sitting on whose shoulder's and who is listening to whom! There would be no separation of church from state for him, nor would he hesitate to name those politicians who are listening to the wrong guy!
-- Rose Storey
Re: David Catron's The Audacity of Slander:
A very good article but the part about Social Security is the one that got me. I don't believe that neither party is being really truthful on this issue and that all of the media and pundits are ignoring it.
When President Roosevelt was pushing for Social Security he made the following promises and congress, controlled by the democrats, passed them into law. 1. That Social Security will only be used for retirement and disability benefits, 2. The monies will be kept in a trust fund separate from the general budget, 3. The benefits will NOT be taxable. I don't know if he promised it but when the bill was enacted it was not used for identification purposes. Don't believe me, it is true it is printed on my S.S. card and I saw it posted recently on S.S. offices.
I registered for SS in 1949, needed it to be a caddy. At that time and still my card says so, "NOT TO BE USED FOR"IDENTIFICATION', there was a trust fund entirely separated from the general budget, the fund was NOT used for any other purposes and was not taxable. Since then Social Security has became taxable, ask any person retired filing their taxes. It tells you that portions of S.S. maybe taxable. So who lied and changed it?
During President Eisenhower's administration Congress decided that there was too much money in the trust fund and put the trust fund into the general budget. Eisenhower should have vetoed it but didn't. Even if he did the Democrat Congress would have over ridden his veto. Now the fund wasn't so safe.
President Johnson wanted guns and butter and a balanced budget. How to do it? By executive order the trust fund became fair game and Congress has been spending it like it was going out of style. Since then there was always a crises concerning the future availability for retirement money. Since then our Social Security number has become unofficially our national identification number. Since then Social Security benefits may be taxable. I have seeing fixes like raising the retirement age or raising the Social Security tax.
The result is that Social Security isn't secure, the quick fixes forces the workers to work longer, and Congress has more money to spend on pork but Social Security has not been fixed. Yes, Obama and democrats the poor are suffering more because of the cash in their pocket is less because of taxes, have a shorter retirement time to enjoy their fruits of labor and very possible that some of their retirement benefits are taxed. Nice going.
The Democrats say that privatizing S.S. would hurt the needy. From what I read that would be an option and only part could be privately invested. Either way they would be protected. The IRA program offers higher returns than the return that Social Security has and is offering.
-- Tom MacKay
Re: Mike Dooley's letter (under "Think Before You Write") in Reader Mail's All Power to the Palin:
Being a bright guy, I suspect that Mike Dooley already knows that one could lift the words "lib" "liberal" and "right" from his letter and insert in their place the words "con" "conservative" and "left" without changing a single other word and you would have a fair approximation of how some liberals view their counterparts.
Mr. Dooley writes: "While denouncing the purported hatred, vitriol, and narrow-mindedness of the right, they spit out indignation and outrage in unmistakable colors of hate." Purported? One would think Mr. Dooley has never read a single letter from other conservatives who write in response to articles in TAS. There is plenty of hatred, vitriol and narrow-mindedness on both sides of the cultural divide; most of it, thankfully, from the fringes.
Mr. Dooley also writes: "Conservatives, although significant part of the population, are by definition are unsuitable." Further, he asserts: "Why, when conservative views are presented and defended, do they (liberals) act as if it were a personal insult?" I have long wondered why I find statements like these so curious. While I'm not, I have friends and acquaintances who are conservative. We break bread together, we work in the community together and we discuss important issues in a civil manner. It strikes me as very narcissistic that someone can actually believe there are significant numbers of people devoting their entire lives to a conspiracy against conservatives. I don't think the world works that way, however, I do understand the brilliance of this myth in the political arena.
-- Mike Roush
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article