Meanwhile, back in the Minnesota Senate recount, the three-judge panel reviewing the race has declared Democrat Al Franken the winner. Republican Norm Coleman intends to appeal to the state's Supreme Court, while Democrats and the press corps pressure him to surrender. We hope Mr. Coleman keeps fighting, because the outcome so far hangs on the fact that some votes have been counted differently from others.Bush v. Gore to the rescue?Even after the recount and panel-findings, the 312-vote margin separating the two men equals about .01% of the 2.9 million votes cast. Even without any irregularities, this is as close to a "tie" as it gets. And there have been plenty of irregularities. By the end of the recount, the state was awash with evidence of duplicate ballot counting, newly discovered ballots, missing ballots, illegal voting, and wildly diverse standards as to which votes were counted. Any one of these issues was enough to throw the outcome into doubt. Combined, they created a taint more worthy of New Jersey than Minnesota.
The Coleman camp pushed for resolution of these problems during the recount, but it was stymied by a state canvassing board that cared more about preserving its "Minnesota nice" reputation than about making tough calls. The state Supreme Court also punted difficult questions. The mess then landed with the three-judge panel overseeing Mr. Coleman's contest trial, a panel that seemed out of its depth.
Case in point: the panel's dismal handling of absentee ballots. Early in the recount, the Franken team howled that some absentee votes had been erroneously rejected by local officials. We warned at the time that this was dangerous territory, designed to pressure election officials into accepting rejected ballots after the fact.
Yet instead of shutting this Franken request down, or early on issuing a clear set of rules as to which absentees were valid, the state Supreme Court and the canvassing board oversaw a haphazard process by which some counties submitted new batches to be included in the tally, while other counties did not. The resulting additional 933 ballots were largely responsible for Mr. Franken's narrow lead.
During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6,500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933. The three judges then finally defined what constituted a "legal" absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials.
But the panel only applied these standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional absentees that the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed only about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now "illegal" according to the panel's own ex-post definition.
If all this sounds familiar, think Florida 2000. In that Presidential recount, officials couldn't decide what counted as a legal vote, and so different counties used different standards. The Florida Supreme Court made things worse by changing the rules after the fact. In Bush v. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this violated Constitutional principles of equal protection and due process, which require that every vote be accorded equal weight.
This will be a basis for Mr. Coleman's appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Should that body be reluctant to publicly rebuke their judicial colleagues who sat on the contest panel, Mr. Coleman could also take his appeal to federal court. This could take months.
Another solution is to hold a special Senate election. Minnesota law does not specifically provide for such a runoff. However, the U.S. Constitution's 17th amendment does provide states with a roadmap for filling "vacancies," which might be a legal starting point for a do-over. Even before the shifting standards of the contest trial, the St. Paul Pioneer Press looked at the ballot-counting evidence and called for a revote. It could be that this is where the court case is leading in any event.
Democrats want to portray Mr. Coleman as a sore loser and make the Republican worry that he will ruin his chances for other political office. But Mr. Coleman has a legitimate grievance that not all votes have been treated equally. If the Franken standard of disparate absentee-voter treatment is allowed to stand, every close election will be settled by a legal scramble to change the vote-counting rules after Election Day. Minnesota should take the time to get this one right.
If you take government bailout money, the Feds own you, and if they choose they will run you, too (probably into the ground):
From Fox News:
And its not going to get any better folks. Not while these people have free reign over the economy and the constitution. And not while the American Sheeple - well, at least those 65 or so million dolts who have been happily lapping up Obama's political poison - remain in their comas.Geithner to Banks: Get Federal Help, Government Decides Your Executive Line-Up
Treasury Secretary Geithner says if banks need "exceptional assistance" from the government, it will come with conditions, including possibly a change of management.WASHINGTON -- The government may require new faces in executive suites at banks requiring "exceptional assistance" in the future, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Sunday.
Critics of the Obama administration's move last weekend to force out the chairman of General Motors Corp., Rick Wagoner, as a condition for possible additional federal loans say that strong government intervention contrasts with measures placed on the financial industry in return for billions in infusions.
Geithner denied there was a double standard and put banks on notice that they may need to change leadership teams in exchange for accepting more money in the future.
"If, in the future, banks need exceptional assistance in order to get through this, then we'll make sure that assistance comes with conditions, not just to protect the taxpayer but to make sure this is the kind of restructuring necessary for them to emerge stronger," he told "Face the Nation" on CBS. "And where that requires a change of management of the board, we'll do that."
The treasury chief said that is what has happened at some big institutions that are getting large amounts of government aid. They include the mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were placed into conservatorship by the government last September, and insurer American International Group Inc., the recipient of more than $170 billion in help since last fall.
"We've already seen a substantial number of the largest banks in our country fail or be absorbed by other institutions, no longer existing as independent institutions. And where the government has acted, like in Fannie and Freddie or like in AIG, where we've had to do exceptional things to stabilize them, we have replaced the management and the board," Geithner said.
"And we've done that because we want to make sure that taxpayers' assistance is going to make these companies stronger, make sure there's accountability, make sure it comes with strong conditions. And we'll do that in the future if that is necessary," he added.
"It's a single standard, a single principle. And our obligation to the American people is to do what's necessary to try to bring recovery back on track as quickly as possible."
Asked if chief executives of big banks such as Citibank and Bank of America should worry about their jobs if their companies don't improve their performance, Geithner said the government would not shy from such a restructuring.
"Where that's necessary, where it meets the test, where it's necessary to do what we ... exist to do, which is to make sure that this financial system supports recovery and the banks emerge stronger," Geithner said.
As part of the new administration's overhaul of the $700 billion bailout effort, banking regulators are requiring stress tests for the 19 largest banks to see whether they will need additional support to withstand a more severe downturn than the country is experiencing now.
Those tests are scheduled to be completed by the end of April. After that, the banks in need of additional capital will be given time to raise it on their own.
If they are not able to do so, they will be provided with extra support from the bailout fund. But the administration has said the additional support will come with tougher requirements to make sure the banks' are using the money to increase lending to consumers and businesses.
The One gave the following explanation:
HTML clipboard I, I, would say that, er . . . if you look at . . . the, the sources of this crisis . . . the United States certainly has some accounting to do with respect to . . . a regulatory system that was inadequate to the massive changes that have taken place in the global financial system . . . I think what is also true is that . . . here in Great Britain . . . here in continental Europe . . . around the world. We were seeing the same mismatch between the regulatory regimes that were in place and er . . . the highly integrated, er, global capital markets that have emerged . . . So at this point, I'm less interested in . . . identifying blame than fixing the problem. I think we've taken some very aggressive steps in the United States to do so, not just responding to the immediate crisis, ensuring banks are adequately capitalised, er, dealing with the enormous, er . . . drop-off in demand and contraction that has taken place. More importantly, for the long term, making sure that we've got a set of, er, er, regulations that are up to the task, er, and that includes, er, a number that will be discussed at this summit. I think there's a lot of convergence between all the parties involved about the need, for example, to focus not on the legal form that a particular financial product takes or the institution it emerges from, but rather what's the risk involved, what's the function of this product and how do we regulate that adequately, much more effective coordination, er, between countries so we can, er, anticipate the risks that are involved there. Dealing with the, er, problem of derivatives markets, making sure we have set up systems, er, that can reduce some of the risks there. So, I actually think . . . there's enormous consensus that has emerged in terms of what we need to do now and, er . . . I'm a great believer in looking forwards than looking backwards.
I'm so glad he asked that question.
In the wake of the launch late Saturday by North Korea, of a new long-range missile, believed to be a step toward one which could reach U.S. soil, President Barack Obama announced a stunning turnabout in policy by his administration, with respect to that nation's continued pursuit of nuclear weaponry.U.S. Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, described the administration's policy in an interview on Fox News Sunday, on March 29, 2009. While noting that the then-pending launch represented the goal of North Korea to develop an intercontinental missile which could reach the United States, Gates clearly asserted that: "I would say we're not prepared to do anything about it."
In a stark turnabout of that policy following the launch, President Obama said that "this provocation underscores the need for action not just this afternoon in the U.N. Security Council, but in our determination to prevent the spread of these weapons." In a show of brute determination, the President called on the Security Council to take "immediate action."
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, stated however, that she expected objections from Russia and China to "water down any strong response" by the Council. Accordingly, Rice announced that she would "go back and work. . .to both toughen existing regimes, [and] add to that resolution."
Thus, in the wake of further indisputable evidence as to the intentions of the third corner of the Axis of Evil, the Obama administration has once again re-stated its foreign policy as a commitment to seeking immediate, though watered-down action by a U.N. Security Council, two-fifths of which will veto any strong pronouncement against North Korea.
As for action? Forget about it.
UPDATE: What a shock - after batting North Korea's violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1718 for a few hours, the Sec.Con. adjourned and took no action. Well, they did agree to "continue consultations." Guess that's better than nothing. Oh, yeah. . .it is nothing.
Technorati Profile
Obama's clearly-stated position of nuclear disarmament (possibly a unilateral policy?) places the entire world in grave danger:
Gingrich: I would've disabled missile
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told "Fox News Sunday" that he would have disabled the long-range missile before North Korea launched it, saying too many people "do not appreciate the scale of the threat that is evolving on the planet."A "bumpy ride" indeed for all of us.
"One morning, just like 9/11, there's going to be a disaster," Gingrich said. "I have yet to see the United Nations do anything effective with either Iran or North Korea."
Reacting to President Barack Obama's speech in Prague, Gingrich called the plan for a Global Summit on Nuclear Security a "wonderful fantasy idea," saying Russia and other nations can't be trusted.
"What are they going to promise, and why would we believe them?" Gingrich said. "It's very dangerous to have a fantasy foreign policy, and it can get you in enormous trouble."
Host Chris Wallace asked Gingrich: "So you're saying that President Gingrich would have taken out that" missile?Gingrich replied: "There are three or four techniques that could have been used, from unconventional forces to standoff capabilities, to say: 'We're not going to tolerate a North Korean missile launch, period.' I mean, the world's either got to decide that North Korea is utterly dangerous ... I'd recommend, look at electromagnetic pulse, which changes every ... equation about how risky these weapons are."
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, appearing with Gingrich, said: "In the countryside of South Carolina, at some point, you've got to back up words with action. ... There have been a long series of ... intentional steps on North Korea's part, and little in the way of actions from the standpoint of either America or the international community.
Obama Wants to Control the Banks
There's a reason he refuses to accept repayment of TARP money.
By Stuart Varney
I must be naive. I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn't much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street's black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?
My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.
It is not for nothing that rage has been turned on those wicked financiers. The banks are at the core of the administration's thrust: By managing the money, government can steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.
If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash -- which was often forced on them in the first place -- the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That's what's happening right now.
Here's a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.
Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.
Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can't a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can't special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit -- until now.
Which brings me to the Pay for Performance Act, just passed by the House. This is an outstanding example of class warfare. I'm an Englishman. We invented class warfare, and I know it when I see it. This legislation allows the administration to dictate pay for anyone working in any company that takes a dime of TARP money. This is a whip with which to thrash the unpopular bankers, a tool to advance the Obama administration's goal of controlling the financial system.
After 35 years in America, I never thought I would see this. I still can't quite believe we will sit by as this crisis is used to hand control of our economy over to government. But here we are, on the brink. Clearly, I have been naive.
Like any good vampire, or organized gangster, once Obama and his anti-Constitutionalist ghouls get their fangs into you, they never let go. And as they continue to drive their own stake into the economy and into the very fabric of our society, we can only wonder when people will start to realize what's going on.
Not very, apparently.
From the spectabularly terdarific New York Times:
New York Times Company Posts Loss The New York Times Company, the parent of The New York Times, posted a $335,000 loss in the first quarter — one of the worst periods the company and the newspaper industry have seen — falling far short of both analysts’ expectations and its $23.9 million profit in the quarter a year earlier.
The company did break even on a per-share basis, compared with the average analyst forecast of earnings of 14 cents, down from 17 cents in the first quarter of 2007.
The company’s main source of revenue, newspaper advertising in print and online, fell 10.6 percent, the sharpest drop in memory, as the industry suffers the twin blows of an economic downturn and the continuing long-term shift of readers and advertisers to the Internet.
Oh, gosh, its the fault of an economic downturn.
Gee whiz, its the fault of a bunch of probably illiterate readers who don't know what they're doing and so they turn to the Internet.
How about: Your former readers have simply had enough, and cannot stomach supporting such a left-wing, Commie-inspired, anti-American rag like the New York Times?
I didn't hink they'd agree.
Oh, how the might falls, when the mighty falls.
New York Governor Eliot Spitzer has just completed perhaps political history's most wesely press conference on the subject of this afternoon's disclosure by the New York Times that he was involved in a high-priced, high-profile prostitution ring.
Oh, and by the way, he was snared in a federal wiretap that apparently intercepted a call which included Spitzer's arranging an "appointment" with one of the "employees" of The Emperor's Club, which supplies prostitutes for up to several thousand dollars an hour.
Spitzer, who has got to have more high-profile, powerful enemies because of his years as a stuck-his-nose-into-everyone's-business state Attorney General, gave a one minute press conference, wife by his side (see photo), in which he gave the standard Democrat explanations about sex-related misconduct, a la B.J. Clinton:
Over the past nine years — eight years as attorney general and one as governor — I have tried to uphold a vision of progressive politics that would rebuild New York and create opportunity for all. We sought to bring real change to New York and that will continue.
No idea what El's talking about here. All I heard was blah, blah . . . blah, blah, blah. Oh! And something crossed my mind about his attempt to give drivers' licenses to the perhaps several million illegal aliens infesting the greater New York City area. But mostly blah, blah, blah.
On to more:
Today, I want to briefly address a private matter. I have acted in a way that violates my obligation to my family, and that violates my — or any sense of right and wrong. I apologize first, and most importantly, to my family. I apologize to the public, who I promised better.
Now, this is standard Leftist doctrine when caught up in something like this that we on the right have come to know and love. Would it were that Republicans could get snared in some sex scandal like this, and basically, tell the rest of the world to go push off! Ah, those Dems.
I do not believe that politics in the long run is about individuals, it is about ideas for the public good and doing what is best for the state of New York. But I am disappointed and failed to live up to the standard I expected of myself. I must now dedicate some time to regain the trust of my family. I will not be taking questions. Thank you very much. I will report back to you in short order. Thank you very much.
This last is a bit of a new twist on the excuse. Way to go, Spitz! He's telling us: Don't worry about him and what he's done. No, that's secondary importance. In fact, we should just shut up and forget about it: It's about something bigger than all of us. It's not about whatever crimes Spitzer may have committed along the way -- it's about the job that he's doing, and the greater good that will result.
Phhhhhewwwwww! Something really stinks in here!
At least two things are causing the stink. First: Spitzer did not deign to resign in his quickie presser. According to Neil Cavuto of FOX News, and other sources, Spitzer is likely to resign later today.
Second: Just look at his wife in the photo up there. (uh, up there ^^^^^^) I can't imagine how in the world he managed to drag her into that press conference. . .without a massive dose of some antipsychotic drug. She does not look happy. And what a creep to force his wife to serve as some sick dutiful-wife-prop for his benefit.
Hopefully, Spitzer won't drag things out once he's announced his resignation, like New Jersey's Gov. Jim McGreevey did. (For months and months. . .)
Read the Federal Complaint
The GOP crackup is fully underway.
Now, Bob Dole has crawled out from wherever he's been hiding, and apparently thinks that Republicans should all just "get along."
Oh, and he's told Rush Limbaugh to Shut Up about John McCain.
Dole scolds Limbaugh
The Politico
Bob Dole, the former Senate Republican leader, wrote an insistent letter to Rush Limbaugh on Monday and suggested that for the good of the party, the conservative talk-show host should stop his strafing of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
On Monday's show, Limbaugh asserted that McCain has "lied about his reason for opposing the Bush tax cuts," and added: "I think McCain has an animus toward the Republican Party. I think ever since South Carolina 2000 he's had it in for the Republican Party, and one of his objectives is to destroy it and change it."
McCain, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, has always had a shaky relationship with the party’s conservative base.
In a letter released Monday evening by McCain's campaign, Dole strongly defended the senator’s conservative credentials, noting that his voting record is opposed to abortion and supportive of gun-owner rights.As McCain’s campaign gained steam, Limbaugh has used the airwaves to remind listeners daily that he does not consider the senator to be a conservative.
Limbaugh has even suggested he might not vote Republican if McCain were the nominee.
A day ahead of the potentially decisive Super Tuesday primaries, Limbaugh launched new attacks on the senator during Monday’s broadcast, declaring: “John McCain has stabbed his own party in the back, I can’t tell you how many times.”
Look. There just isn't any excuse for people like Bob Dole, who were there during the Takeover of '94, to be fawning all over John McCain buttocks, seeking some kind of validation in his waning political years. Bob, please go home and "wane" somewhere else. You've got it all wrong, and you're just gonna hate yourself in the morning.
Dole wrote that as the former Senate Republican leader, he could vouch for the fact that McCain supported the party on all “critical votes.”
This is just amazing.
Does Bob Dole actually think that on his best day, any real conservative (that conservative, not necessarily Republican) would look to Dole's political analysis over Rush Limbaugh's? Does anyone think that Rush Limbaugh is going to look to Dole's "sage" political analysis?
Not freaking likely!
Go home, Bob. You're an embarassment.
P.S. - I can't wait until Rush's show tomorrow to hear his response to Dole.
Alright. Call me a conspiracy theorist on this one.
The Hill's Bob Cusack wrote a good piece last March on intensive efforts made by Democrats following John McCain's 2000 loss to George Bush for the Republican presidential nomination, efforts which appeared to have made some progress toward bringing the Maverick into the the Left's fold.
Even though McCain didn't make the jump . . . officially, at least . . . recent events make one wonder whether McCain really did make the switch, as a stealth Democrat:
|
|
| |
| |
Read the rest on The Hill . . . |
