Chicago Republicans

Jan 27, 2012

Larry Kudlow, a former official in the Reagan administration, a friend and former colleague of Newt Gingrich, was on Chicago’s conservative talk radio show, “Don Wade & Roma” WLS-890AM, explaining the reasons he is disappointed with Newt Gingrich. Not only did he criticize Gingrich’s attacks on Romney with regard to Bain Capital, he also found the language he used about Romney’s investments and wealth as “the language of the left.” (Begins around 5:00).

“I’ve been very critical of Newt’s comments trashing Bain capital. I think it’s antithetical to free market capitalism. I think he made a huge mistake… I go back a long ways with Newt, and I do think Newt has a good record as a supply-sider,

But my disappoinment over his Bain Capital stuff is huge and a gigantic mistake.

Apparently yesterday in Florida, according to the WSJ he took a snarky wack at Mitt Romney, he said Mitt lives in a world of Swiss Bank Accounts and Cayman Island Accounts and automatic  $20-million income with no work. I just think that is below the belt. I’m so disappointed to read that. That was printed by Jason Reilly in the WSJ Political Diary. This is the language of the left. And it’s really engaging in ignorance. And I think it’s just all wrong. It’s unbecoming to a guy like Gingrich.  Why he does this, I do not know…

I think all of this class warfare is the language of the left, It’s not the language of conservatism. And that’s why it’s been so disappointing now. I thought Newt was putting that stuff away. But I guess it’s reappearing again…

I’m not waging war against Newt, I am, however, disagreeing with some of these key points. And I think they are unbecoming and unnecessary, and very very disappointing."

Later that night, before the CNN-Wolf Blitzer debate in Florida, Kudlow interviewed Gingrich on his show, CNBC’s The Kudlow Report, and outlined his displeasure at the way Gingrich has been attacking capitalism and Romney’s investments.

“Ronald Reagan never singled out investments and funds and attacked them. That’s my disappointment with you—calling Bain Capital and other private equity funds, that they are looters, raiders, greedy corporations. You yourself worked for Ted Forstmann, “at the great private equity fund Forstmann Little.”

He then cited another private equity firm that hired Gingrich: “JLL Partners, a private equity firm, they gave you $40,000, you gave a speech, the guy said you were euphoric about private equity.”

Asked Kudlow: “Is it just political expediency and opportunism, where you are giving up your principles that I thought you and I shared?”

Kudlow and Gingrich acknowledged their history, going back 30 years together off and on, back to the Reagan revival of free market capitalism and supply side economics.

But Kudlow was compelled to tell his friend and former colleague, “You sound like President Obama or the left wing of the Democratic party. That’s what has disappointed many of your conserative supporters.”

You can find the entire interview, including Gingrich's responses, here.

You can also find the interview, and Kudlow’s commentary, here.

Tomorrow, Sarah Palin will speak at a major Tea Party event in Indianola, Iowa. The organizers chose to move the venue to a bigger location to accommodate not only the crowds, but also the national media.

The Chicago Tea Party has arranged a bus to take any Chicagoland conservatives to Indianola for the highly anticipated event—for free.

To compliment the weekend further, today “The Undefeated”, a powerful documentary about how Palin fought Big Oil and corruption in Alaska, expands to pay-per-view and video-on-demand in 75 million homes through national and regional cable and satellite operators. Filmmaker Stepehn Bannon originally showcased his documentary to a diverse and enthusiastic crowd (they broke into applause several times throughout the movie) at the Gene Siskel Theater in July.

But the message of “The Undefeated” is bigger than Palin. As one who has voted Democratic, Republican and Independent, I was riveted by the story that was never told during the 2008 campaign: the battle of ordinary, hard-working people like single mom Marty Rutherford, and no-nonsense Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Commissioner Tom Irwin, who, like Sarah Palin, stood up to the corrupt ways of politics in Alaska. When then-Gov. Murkowski fired Irwin because he questioned the unethical behavior of Murkowski's administration with Big Oil, six others resigned in protest of Irwin's firing, single mom Rutherford included.

These courageous people--known throughout Alaska as "The Magnificent Seven", a reference to the famous Western film where 7 men protect a village from bandits—are impressive. In fact, it seems Bannon tells their story because they, too, are “The Undefeated”. Sarah Palin was merely smart enough to hire them back once she became Governor.  With these “ordinary” folks, Palin’s administration was able to achieve “extraordinary” results. Working 15-hour days, 7 days a week, Palin led this bi-partisan team in passing two major pieces of legislation, which to this day benefit the residents of Alaska: ACES & AGIA.  Alaska’s Clear & Equitable Share gives the citizens of Alaska a fairer share in the profits reeled in by Big Oil.; Alaska Gasline Inducement Act begins the largest private sector energy project in North American history, a pipeline to get energy to Alaska and the Lower 48.

When the film originally premiered in July, the historical footage on the screen ironically mirrored what was occurring the same day in Washington, DC. When the audience saw a decisive Governor Palin using the power of a line item veto to cut $1-billion from Alaska’s $14-billion budget, President Obama and Congressional leaders were simultaneously meeting—yet again--in DC, ineptly trying to cut a $14-trillion debt to avoid default. President Obama was blaming “corporate jet owners” and “billionaires” for the budget debt and deficits. The contrast was striking: the President playing politics and demagoguery; the Governor on the screen taking action.

Bannon uses Palin’s leadership with the everyday citizens of Alaska –first as City Councilwoman, Mayor, then as Commissioner of the Alaska Oil & Conservation Commission (AOGCC) and Governor-- as a natural prelude to the next chapter: the rise of The Tea Party.

After a brief account of the 2008 Presidential campaign, Bannon shows how numerous bogus ethics charges plagued her Governorship, causing her to nearly go bankrupt, and paralyzing her administration with wasteful paperwork and exorbitant costs.  (All charges were effectively dismissed and no wrongdoing was found.) It was an effort to shut her up and shut her down—a recurring theme in the film. So it’s no wonder that the audience erupted in applause when footage of CNBC Correspondent Rick Santelli’s famous rant on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile against big government bail-outs appeared on-screen. His challenge to all Americans for a Chicago-style Tea Party protest was the spark that ignited people all across the country to stand up and speak out—hence the birth of The Tea Party. Palin’s resignation allowed her the opportunity to fight for Alaskans and the country from a different plane—with The Tea Party at her back.  Bannon ties it all together with footage of Ronald Reagan during a 1976 Presidential Debate in New Hampshire. In an attempt to shut him up, the moderator orders Reagan’s mic turned off.  Reagan stands up, grabs the microphone and declares “I paid for this microphone!” They would not take down Reagan; they would not take down Palin; they won’t take down The Tea Party.

Bannon brings in unlikely Palin supporters: Sonnie Johnson, a single mom and Tea Partier who happens to be black, and whose young daughter asked, after seeing Palin, if a woman could be President. “Yeah, honey,” says Johnson, “ a woman can be President.” 

He also interviews author Tammy Bruce, a former Democrat, former President of the National Organization for Women (NOW--Los Angeles),  and a feminist activist who also happens to be a lesbian. Bruce recognizes in Palin a person of courage and conviction, similar to a Marine—one who is willing to take the dangerous assignment for the good of the whole.

As for the director, Bannon, his use of news and archival film from Palin's childhood and various administrations, interspersed with dramatizations, are reminiscent of directors like the BBC's Adrian Malone and PBS's Sandra Bradley. His style is more dramatic at points, but they drive home the viciousness of the corrupt politicians, bloggers, commentators and pseudo-journalist types.

Some have wrongly assumed "The Undefeated" refers only to Sarah Palin. What they miss--or ignore--is that "the undefeated" is not simply singular. It is plural. The undefeated are "We the People"--those who don't quit, those who refuse to stop fighting the corrupt, entrenched cronyism of business and politics. Yes, the undefeated is Sarah Palin. But the undefeated are also the Marty Rutherords and the Tom Irwins of the world. The Undefeated are the people of all races, generations and political parties who desire and fight for decency and honor in their government and in their lives. Ultimately, the undefeated are teh people of the Tea Party.

(Note: you may have to call your cable or satellite operator to request The Undefeated if it's not on your local lineup.)

I logged into facebook just now and saw a "status line" that I had been eagerly awaiting.  Skokie native, and Harvard undergrad and Harvard Law graduate, Joel Pollak announced he is running for the GOP nomination against Jan Schakowsky.

I first met Joel Pollak a few weeks ago at a small gathering in the Optima building in Skokie. I had no idea what to expect. I was just excited that a young, man who happens to be Jewish was going to run for the Republican nomination in the 9th District.  The audience at Optima was small, and it enabled us to ask him a wide range of questions, from healthcare reform to policy toward Israel, from abortion to cap and trade.

I remember reading his flyer hanging on the bulletin board at the Starbucks in Wilmette's Plaza del Lago, where he invited people to meet him at the local library and check out his new book, Don't Tell Me Words Don't Matter: How Rhetoric Won the 2008 Presidential Election.   Several tidbits of information on the flyer struck me:  Joel had taken on Rep. Barney Frank regarding his role was in the subprime lending mess. (After the Optima talk, I searched YouTube for the Joel/Barney exchange and was impressed with Joel's demeanor.) While Joel was calm and intelligent, Frank was flustered and belligerent.  Frank lost it. (what else is new?) Joel maintained composure and again asked his question.

The second bit of information that intrigued me: Joel worked for Harvard Law's Alan Dershowitz, a liberal. Later, in the Optima talk, I learned that Joel had at one time been a Democrat, lived in South Africa, saw their healthcare, returned to the States and became a Conservative.

 I left the meeting thinking: a former Democrat who is now a Republican who is going after the Congressional seat long held by Democrats.   Now that is real "hope and change"!

"I want to hear from you" and "Dear Friend: I hope that you will join me..." stated the mailing from Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D). So, last night, I picked up my children from school, made an early dinner, finished homework and set out for the Town Hall meeting about health care reform. My children, a 4^th and a 5^th grader, brought a sign they had made for a previous town hall meeting that 560-am WIND talk radio host Cisco Cotto sponsored because Sen. Dick Durbin (D) refused to sponsor one himself. The sign read: "STOP bankrupting our future." We had talked about what the sign should say, and my kids asked me to write the words because "you know how to draw good bubble letters, mommy." I drew; they colored & decorated.

We intended to get to the meeting at Niles West High School at 5pm to make sure we could get inside to ask our questions and voice our concerns about the 1000+ page, unintelligible legislation known as HR 3200.  But since we had to finish homework we arrived at 6:15pm. Traffic was backed up, so we parked on a side street and walked almost ½ mile. Police were out & traffic was snarled because protestors, nearly every one of them with professionally made signs, were chanting and yelling as cars tried to drive by. We walked up to the intersection with our homemade sign and stood, smiling & holding up our sign in front of the yelling throng. But then, the protesters started verbally attacking me: "You're a bad mother! Whose paying you to be here? How would you like it if I stood in front of you?"

Thank God I was able to hold it all together, smile, and say "By all means, go ahead and stand in front of me." (truth be told, if they did stand in front of me, they would have had to stand in the street among the mess of vehicles that couldn't move).  I didn't notice at first, but as they kept yelling at me, one of my children began to cry. I took her hand and moved closer to the school building, comforting her along the way. "Why are you crying?" I asked. "Because, they're yelling at you." I hugged her, told her I was all right and that we should not be intimidated.

As we continued walking, several people were shouting at each other.  It was obvious that the big "pro-federal government, single-payer" "anti-Republican" crowd, with their professionally printed signs, was in the majority. We quietly held our sign, smiling as the mass shouted at us. At one point, I actually thought several of the people would start foaming at the mouth if I didn't walk away. The meeting inside the school was closed, no one else allowed in, so the remaining crowd was left outside. Slowly, people who are against the Federal government taking over health care began to find each other and self-organize. They spontaneously looked at each other for a cheer or rallying cry. "Kill the bill!", "Move to Canada!" and "ACORN go home!" were a few.

A friend, another stay-at-home mom, arrived with her homemade sign, and we all joined the smaller group. But when the cheers from both camps got too vitriolic, we began to engage people in conversation. One was woman from Glenview whose husband has leukemia and cannot find an insurance company to cover him once their COBRA runs out.  I got her email with the hopes of connecting her with our health insurance agent who is excellent at securing coverage for me and my family, with pre-existing conditions. Another woman in her 20s asked me questions. I answered them. I am informed and reasoned with her. After 10 minutes, she thanked me and said that our conversation helped her more than the yelling back and forth that was occurring over our heads.

We told her that while we are for health care reform, we are not for the way Congress is handling it. Rather we are for targeting reform: 1) changing the laws (aka "tort reform") to curb malpractice suits, which drives up costs exponentially; 2) covering only the truly uninsured, since the 47-million number bandied about is inflated with illegal immigrants and people who have been temporarily without insurance; and 3) preventing insurance companies from denying or dropping coverage because of pre-existing or burdensome conditions. Ultimately, we explained, managing health care is not the job of the Federal government. If reform occurred primarily at the local and state level, officials would be more accessible and held more accountable to the public than in DC.

Crazed protestors continued to approach me and my children, yelling at my kids "You're mother is a horrible mother! Do you even know what your sign says?!" My children said yes, and in fact, told a few what it meant to them. My husband and I have been educating our children about what is going on in DC. In June, we took a family vacation to Washington, DC, where we toured the Capitol, for a 2^nd time in 7 months, and are teaching our children how government operates.

Later, my husband arrived. Together we talked with Jimmie, a black man from Evanston who owns his own company. I told him I also did not want our tax money going to fund abortions, and as a 1^st generation Hispanic whose parents came to this country legally, I didn't want to reward illegal immigrants. He was glad to hear consistency in my reasoning and gave me his card. We asked if he and his wife would join us for dinner in our home.

So what is to be gleaned from last night? Well, for one, listen to people who are genuinely interested in dialogue. Then, speak intelligently, calmly and when necessary, passionately. When the Lyndon LaRouche crowd arrived with their Obama-as-Hitler signs, the opposing crowd went wild, glad to focus on a "radical" group. We politely told them why we did not like their sign and distanced ourselves from them. But when they spoke, we listened and even took their literature.

Above all, stand for what you know to be true. Even if they scream at you, saying you're a horrible mother.

When it comes to Sarah Palin, the national media are laughable. While I rather relish seeing them fumble & scramble to nail down Sarah Palin, I also find it maddening, frustrating and invigorating (it lights a fire in me to fight for her) as they go through their twisted logic. They did it when John McCain surprised them by announcing her as his running mate; they did it again this past 4^th of  July weekend when she announced she was resigning from the Governorship of Alaska. Only one person seemed to get it right, John Ziegler, the documentarian (http://www.howobamagotelected.com/).

This morning on ABC's "Good Morning America", Kate Snow walked along the shores of Kanakanak Beach in Dillingham, Alaska with the Governor to ask her the question every pundit is doing their prideful best to blabber about: why did she resign as Governor of Alaska?  Last night, on FOX News, Bill O'Reilly asked on his program "Do you think Gov. Sarah Palin was smart to resign?"  Later, on Sean Hannity's program, I could almost see the foam around the liberal prosecutor's mouth as she rabidly and desperately tried to portray Palin as a "quitter". On July 3rd, immediately after Palin's press conference, my longtime favorite go-to pundit, the erudite Charles Krauthammer, called her "erratic."  Supposed Republican apologist Ed Rollins followed suit on CNN.  Listen up, ladies & gentlemen, Sarah Palin's decision is a smart one. And then some!

Far from the supposedly conventional wisdom, Sarah Palin is not a quitter, nor is she erratic. The aforementioned liberal prosecutor snubbed her nose at Palin saying she doesn't relate to "suburban moms." As a suburban mother myself (a fiscal conservative one at that), I totally get her decision. Had I been called a "slutty" stewardess on national television (which was later recycled ad nauseum on the internet's You Tube), and had my daughter also been ridiculed on national television (ditto on the WorldWideWeb), and had my Down Syndrome baby been mocked, I, too, would resign from any job that hurt my family. I have a daughter one year older than Palin's 8-year old Piper. My daughter becomes a puddle when someone says her new puppy pug is "ugly." I can only imagine what Piper has gone through (as well as her other children). I choose to take Palin at her word: other than the Alaska, faith and family come first. She's protecting both in a smart and faithful way. She's forging ahead, being sure of what she hopes for, certain of what she does not see. She's being the unconventional visionary I admire and respect. The frightened liberals and the national media are reeling.

The only one who came close to understanding and discerning the strategy, wisdom and downright "smartness" of Palin's decision was Ziegler. As with everything, to get to the truth, one must understand the context. As Ziegler told O'Reilly:

"Because the media has not provided the proper context to just how difficult her job has become, how impossible it has been for her to do simple tasks, how much money it has cost the state of Alaska, how much money it has cost her, how much it has put her family through unprecedented attacks, I would ask each of your viewers to think to themselves ‘what would you do if you were under those circumstances?' and if you cared about your state and you cared about your family, wouldn't you step aside?"

O'Reilly then tried to compare himself to Palin because he says he's been smeared everyday for 13 years and has not "walked away." Ziegler made a point O'Reilly should have seen obvious:

"You are still capable of doing your job...You have control over the content of your own show...It was costing the state a lot of money. YOU are making money for FOX News Channel. It was costing the state of Alaska a lot of money. It was costing her a lot of money. And I would venture to guess that your family has not been under the attacks that Governor Palin's family has been under. That have been unprecendented and have been well documented, including in my film. The reality is the situations are apples and oranges. And this is not a cowardly decision, this is a courageous decision, that was made-get this!-this is going to be shocking to a lot of people, Bill, it was made for the very reasons she said they were made for!  Because she cares more about the state and her family than she does her short term political self interest. This is an act of courage."

O'Reilly then tried to twist her motivation for the "millions & millions of dollars" that she could make on the speaker's circuit. O'Reilly postulated she did it for the money (probably because that is what HE would do). Ziegler set him straight:

"That was not her motivation...This is not the first time that she's done this, Bill! Most of the media doesn't understand and has not reported that she set up her run for governor by resigning from the Oil & Gas Commission in Alaska because she could not do her job! This is her M.O.! She puts the public good above her own short term political interests."

In the opening shot of "sex, lies & videotape," actress Andie McDowell is in a session with her therapist. "Garbage," she says. "What?" asks the shrink. "Garbage. Where is it all going?" The question kept her up at nights.

I remember thinking, "She's right! What are we doing with all the trash and the landfills?!" Well, I might have an answer for her: we are turning it into energy. At least, that is what I was enlisted to tell a group of 3^rd graders on the North Shore. Yesterday, in celebration of Earth Week, I was asked to read a script called "Global Warming! What's A Kid To Do?" and introduce a video clip called "Cow Kilowatts and Poop Power", where gases from cow's poop is turned into energy.

The video showed a pretty anchor-type woman explaining that methane, an "earthy greenhouse gas" can be captured not only from landfills, but also from the poop and burps of cows to produce energy. Yes, burps and poop. The video then goes to a dairy farm where a doctor tells the kids that methane is a gas that is 20 times more effective than carbon dioxide at warming the earth's atmosphere. (He does say at the beginning that it "may" be responsible for heating the earth.) The tricky part of this "sustainable", "renewable" resource is how to capture it. Now, thanks to methane digesting plants, they are able to process the poop, and the methane that is released produces up to100 kilowatts of energy. Creative solution, but it seems the video and my presentation about sustainable energy and conservation weren't enough.

I was supposed to present this because no one else was available, but when I got to the school two other moms (one whom I think wrote the "script") showed up, stayed, watched, and then offered additional questions and statements about "global warming." Yes, the hype and at times the hysteria over "global warming" is still going strong, despite controversy among scientists about whether or not "global warming" is indeed as dire or real as some would believe. As I type, Michael Medved is addressing the issue on his radio program, questioning the "global apocalypse" schools are teaching and TV outlets like Nickelodeon are pushing, warning kids to get their parents to get with the program!

Today, CNN reported that President Obama was in Iowa urging people to support his plans for green technology, green energy and a green budget, lest the Earth & the US crumble. (On the way to school this morning, one of my kids asked "Mommy, why do they want us to wear green? Why not wear blue?" I thought she had something there; afterall, don't we refer to Earth as the Big Blue Marble?). His speech had some valid ideas. One small but interesting challenge the President gave to the Iowa audience (and by extension, to us) was to exchange one incandescent light bulb with one "curly" CFL (compact fluorescent) light bulb, which would then help "power 3 million homes with the energy saved." What the President neglected to say is that the CFL light bulb contains mercury and is hazardous to dispose. CNN then advertised a one hour program with Anderson Cooper and Sanjay Gupta called "Planet in Peril." More doom!

Being responsible stewards of our planet Earth seems to be the better message and lesson. Not the gloom, doom and alarmist attitudes fostered by the media and political left wing. In the meantime, I will continue to "reduce, reuse, recycle", be responsible in my energy consumption, encourage my children to do the same and, unlike Andie McDowell's character, get a good night's sleep.

Among the crowd at Chicago's first "Tea Party" on February 27, 2009 (inspired by Chicagoan and CNBC Reporter, Rick Santelli) a man held up a sign: "R.I.P. CAPITALISM, JULY 4, 1776 - JANUARY 20, 2009". He was mourning the loss of America, really. Because what was taking over was a European style of socialism.

President Obama had already barreled through his $787 billion "stimulus" package (I would call it a "spendulus" package), would later sign a $409 billion omnibus bill for the Federal government to operate until the end of this year, and submitted his own 2010 budget that seems poised to choke capitalism at a mind boggling tune of $3.6 TRILLION!

So, now we see that Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin were indeed right about Obama-he is a socialist at heart. There is a saying that "from the overflow of the mouth, the heart speaks." And when Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher asked then candidate Barack Obama whether he would favor a flat tax, Obama gave a telling, and now famous response about the need to "spread the wealth around."

The media then berated McCain/Palin for insinuating that Obama was a "socialist," as though it is a dirty word. Obama himself didn't deny it. In fact, reading the transcript from his encounter with Joe the Plumber, Obama's response to his question about a flat tax clearly shows that he is not a fan of capitalism: "Because my attitude is if the economy is good for the folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you are going to be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers, who can afford to hire you. (sic) And right now, everybody is so pinched, that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

I remember asking myself, "why are the liberal media and the Obama camp so offended that McCain/Palin suggest he is a socialist? What is the definition of socialism anyway?" So, I took out my trusty World Book Encylcopedia and looked it up. "Socialism refers to economic and political arrangements that emphasize public or community ownership of productive property." And that during the 1960s and 1970s, when Obama was growing up, "many newly independent nations viewed socialist policies as a means to speed their economic and political development. Nations that experimented with socialst policies included Kenya and Tanzania in Africa." And late in the 1900s, "the economies of many rapidly industrializing nations, including Indonesia...blended aspects of socialism and capitalism." Two key countries that helped shape Barack Obama the man: Kenya and Indonesia. Both devotees of socialism. Unfortunately, the man at the Tea Party with the sign seems to have got it right.

After watching and reading Pres. Obama's 2nd primetime conference tonight, I had a couple of questions of my own.

 Q: Mr. President, you keep saying that the contracts for the AIG executives, wherein they recieved questionable bonuses, were written "well before" you got here. Yet in November 2008, The New York Times (see below) reported Mr. Geithner, then head of the NY Federal Reserve, helped write the AIG bailout and contracts; yet last week Sen. Dodd (D-CT)  stated that he was pressured by "the administration" in February 2009 to reverse the language in an amendment he submitted to prohibit the bonuses;  and yet just yesterday Secretary Geithner said it was his fault.  It seems to me you keep blaming the Bush administration ("I inherited" this and that) for blunders on your watch. Could you clarify for me who is lying?

[ NYT, 11/08: "Behind the scenes, Mr. Geithner was the point person for weeks of sleep-deprived Bailout Weekends. It was Mr. Geithner, not Mr. Paulson, for example, who put together the original rescue plan for the American International Group."]

 Q: Mr. President, you keep saying that you are changing the way business is done in DC--no more "spend & borrow" and that you will "save & invest."  How can you say that with a straight face when your latest budget is  estimated at $3,600,000,000,000 ($3.6 trillion)? Even the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that you will have racked up a $9,300,000,000 ($9.3 trillion) debt by the year 2019 if the Federal government  keeps spending the way your budgets mandate. Even your own former pick for Commerce Secretary, Sen. Judd Gregg, says your budget will bankrupt us. Could you clarify for me who is lying?

 Q: Mr. President, last week i went into 5th Third Bank to pay my mortgage. The nice gentleman behind the counter who took my payment asked if i would like to refinance--it would be done quickly, he wouldn't need to verify employment, credit or income because it was all a part of HASP--the Homeowners Affordability & Stabilization Plan you announced on 2/18/09. I told him I'm not in foreclosure. He assured me that I didn't need to be--that your administration is pressuring banks all across the country to take advantage, so no need for verification of income.  I was stunned: "Isn't that how we got into this mess in the first place? By giving loans to people who couldn't afford it? And now the Fed is to finance a different loan for them and not ask how they intend to pay it back?" Yet, tonight you say that your budget is "a strategy ...to help responsible homeowners, to restart lending.."  How is this responsible?

 I am not a native Chicagoan. In fact, I'm from Northern Virginia, though my husband says I should just surrender to the fact that it's Washington, DC since we lived so close to the DC line and the political winds blew straight down Route 66.  So when i moved here, one quality i found rather charming is the no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is candor of the people who live and work here.  It is because of that quality that I was drawn to Rick Santelli, CNBC's Business Correspondent, though I had no idea who he was or what his background was. His passionate plea (some call it a "rant") against the $789 billion "stimulus" (read: "spending") bill pushed by the Obama administration made me think of the 1985 "Stop the Madness!" anti-drug campaign.

 "Stop the Madness!" was a movement promulgated by President Reagan, and culminated in a music video featuring celebrities from show business who, ironically and sadly,  later became known for their addictions or meltdowns: Whitney Houston, David Hasselhoff, LaToya Jackson.  I began thinking that the slogan was not enough for those people. They needed a plan of action to stave off their addictions. Where they became addicted to a drug, some in today's society have a different sort of addiction. Today's drugs of choice: spend,  borrow and deficit.  To which I say, "Stop the Madness!"  But slogans alone aren't enough.  A plan of action is needed, and this is where  Republicans of today step in.  Hopefully,  in tonight's Republican response to President Obama's "State of the Union," Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal will offer such a plan.

We have to be careful though.  Not all Republican Governors seem to be fiscally responsible.  I found it curious, if not telling, that one of the celebrities in the "Stop the Madness!" videos is the current Repbulican Governor from California, Arnold Schwarzeggar.  Though he has no chemical addiction I know of, he does seem to exhibit an addiction to the current drugs of "spend, borrow, deficit" that is prevalent in our society.  People who spend beyond their means, who spend money they don't have, who borrow money they can't pay back, and who then wait in line, sweating from withdrawal if they don't get their fix.  Listen to the lyrics of "Stop the Madness!" and they seem eerily to be speaking to the ills produced by "spend, borrow & deficit":  "it feels good," "I can't stop", "I can't resist the temptation." At one point, someone says "You know there's gotta be a better way." 

There is a better way. Republican leaders must put all their great minds and courage together to come up with a plan to "Stop the Madness!" and avoid the economic meltdown and addiction that threaten to make us crash and burn.

I was reading the Chicago Tribune yesterday (December 5, 2008), and buried on page 6 was an article with the headline: "Campaign nets nearly $1-billion."

Yes. Our President-Elect and his team raised nearly $1-billion. ONE BILLION DOLLARS! For a presidential campaign? I began to feel sick in my stomach and head. Literally.

Says the Tribune: "As he hosted a gala celebration for some of his earliest and most loyal financial supporters Thursday evening, President-elect Barack Obama's aides released new information showing the magnitude of their feat: They raised nearly $1-billion for his campaign and other election-related efforts.

"The stunning total includes already recorded and estimated fundraising for his campaign, national convention, transition and upcoming inauguration. That sets a new and dramatically higher bar for future presidential candidates, radically changing the financial definition of a serious bid for the White House."

Well, i thought, he did say he wanted to "change" things. Boy, did he ever.

Now, i don't know what implications this will have on the future of elections on every level of government, but i have a sick feeling it will not bode well. This is one of the reasons i became a supporter to Sen. John McCain's camp--his fight for campaign finance reform was courageous, unpopular and difficult. But he did the unpopular. He did what was difficult. He fought for what was noble.

As i told this to my husband last night, i suddenly realized something. We have roughtly 310-million people in the USA. If Barack Obama is really serious about spreading the wealth for our great country that he seeks to serve, why not have him give $1-million to every US citizen? Seriously. Then he would still have over $690-million for himself!

Ah, there's the rub. It's not his money to take and spread around. Others donated it to HIM. So, here's another idea. If Barack Obama is really serious about wanting to "spread the wealth", and "serve our great country", why not forfeit the Presidency and become a professional fundraiser (since he and his team are pretty good at it), and then give every US citizen a check?

It wouldn't take him long to do, apparently. Says the Trib: "A disclosure report filed late Thursday showed Obama raised $111 million from October 16 through November 24." If he starts fundraising for US citizens now, we could all have a check in the mail by next Christmas (or St. Patrick's Day)!

Now, it's no secret that Obama is a confident man. (He writes in one of his memoirs that he learned this from his Kenyan father.) He's so confident that, as i read in the New York Times yesterday, he called Gen. James Jones in October, a full 2 weeks before the election, to serve in his administration.

Let the confident spreading of wealth, as outlined above, begin!

An effigy of Sarah Palin hanging in Los Angeles. Creepy.

A flag of the USSR held by jubliliant young Obama supporters in front of the White House after the victory of the President-Elect. Creepy.

Chris Matthews, anchor of MSNBC, effuses that after speaking w/Sen. Obama a "tingle ran up his leg."  Creepy.

David Brooks, columnist for the supposedly venerable New York Times and contributor to the supposedly unbiased NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, exclaims that after speaking to Obama he was "dazzled" and "felt the tingle up my knee as Chris Matthews would say."  Some might say Brooks was being funny.  Brooks doesn't know how to be funny.  Let's call it what it is: creepy.

What a travesty that certain journalistic outlets at one time in this country were the beacon of light and the champion of impartiality, in pursuit of the truth on behalf of the people.  Now, they are mere sychophants...or worse.

During campaign '08, David Brooks, had the audacity to declare Sarah Palin a "cancer to the Republican Party."  A group of people who call themselves "Republicans for Obama" praise talk like this. Again, creepy.

The people of United States of America have lost the privilege of the leadership--at least at the Presidential level--of  a man of solid character. 

As I watched and listened to Sen. McCain console all of us who believe in his character, leadership and experience,  I found strength and wisdom in his words and demeanor as he delivered his concession speech last night.  This is a man who indeed loves our great country that God has blessed us with.  Despite the sadness at the outcome of the election, I found myself incredibly grateful for the peaceful transition that was taking place.  No doubt--i still believe Barack Obama is not the man to lead our country. But I understood Sen. McCain's call for us to:

" join me in not just congratulating him, but offering our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together, to find the necessary compromises, to bridge our differences, and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited. "

 Grace.

 And when he talked of the "mistakes" in the campaign itself,  I thought he was too hard on himself.  Was he referring to September, when he stopped campaigning, canceled an appearance on David Letterman's show, and went to Washington, DC to try and work a solution to the financial crisis that rocked our country (and eventually, the globe.)? I saw that not as a mistake, but as a man who actually kept his word, tried to put the country first, instead of his campaign, vanity and run for the Presidency.  It sickened me that pompous pundits and the media attacked him for this honorable act. Whereas they tried to portray Obama's refusal to stop campaigning as  "cool, above the fray",  I saw a coward, a vain man who as unwilling to get soiled.  He was willing to roll up his sleeves on every stump speech, but not when the country was in a fiscal mess.  Said McCain:

"I don't know what more we could have done to try to win this election. I'll leave that to others to determine. Every candidate makes mistakes, and I'm sure I made my share of them. But I won't spend a moment of the future regretting what might have been. "

Humility.

Sen. John S. McCain is a man I would ask my children to look to for inspiration and emulation. As he cited one of his heroes, President Teddy Roosevelt, I thought this is a man worthy of praise:

"A century ago, President Theodore Roosevelt's invitation of Booker T. Washington to visit -- to dine at the White House was taken as an outrage in many quarters. America today is a world away from the cruel and prideful bigotry of that time. There is no better evidence of this than the election of an African American to the presidency of the United States. Let there be no reason now -- (cheers, applause) -- let there be no reason now for any American to fail to cherish their citizenship in this, the greatest nation on Earth. (Cheers, applause.) "

 Elegance.

Grace, humility and elegance in defeat. What a man. What a hero.

A dear friend, who happens to be a scientist and Professor at a major university, emailed me about Gov. Palin's speech where she disparagingly spoke about earmarks to study fruit flies. He sent me a link to a clip from MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, who though her producers have dressed her up to look like an unbiased journalist, is a far cry from actually being one.  She may be a Rhodes Scholar, but her strident leftist leanings are hardly a secret.

My scientist friend is under the impression that Gov. Palin (or her advisors) is not up to speed on all the benefits of fruit fly research. (I know that before i received his email, I wasn't.)  He informed me that research of fruit flies (aka Drosophila) has yielded important insights to understanding a long list of human diseases, including cancer.

So, I looked at the clip he sent me, then I tried to get up to speed on my own.  I did my google best to do so before my children came home from school. (Although I am not a huge fan of doing "research by google"--too many garbage sites pop up.)  I found this one site that explained the following:

"What she was specifically speaking about was a research program studying a species of fruit fly, the olive fruit fly Bactrocera oleae that is a major pest to the olive industry. The fly is native to Europe and is a recent invader to California where it threatens the California olive industry with significant damages. The fly oviposits its eggs in young olives where the larvae proceed to eat the fruit, pupate inside the olives and then eat their way out.

"Representing his constituents in California, including the olive growers, Rep. Mike Thompson sought $748,000 in an earmark to research this invasive pest:  "The Olive Fruit Fly has infested thousands of California olive groves and is the single largest threat to the US olive and olive oil industries," he said. "I secured $748,000 for olive fruit fly research and irradiation in the  (fiscal year 2008) appropritions bill for the US Dept of Agriculture. The USDA will use some of that funding for their research facility in France...."

 It seems to me that Gov. Palin was not critiquing the science of fruit fly research as it pertains to autism (as Rachel Maddow sarcastically stated) and cell biology, but rather how some members of Congress will send money overseas to France to study fruit flies as they pertain to olives. My questions would be: if France has been dealing with the fruit fly/olive infestation for decades, do they have any research they have already conducted to combat the problem? Could the Congressman from CA go that route first, before sending over half a million dollars overseas?

 Lastly, although I appreciated  my scientist friend's concern over funding fruit fly research, I did not appreciate the clip he sent and its source: MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. Though she is a Rhodes Scholar, she is egregiously biased. She does not give context and seems to prefer mocking. Sound bites without context are misleading.

I have been reading several books I checked out from the library:  a few by John McCain, a few about John McCain, and two by Barack Obama himself.

One of the books, Citizen McCain, written by former The New Yorker writer Elizabeth Drew, depicts a rather glowing portrait of Sen. McCain. (She has since revised her depiction, but that's for another commentary).  In it, Drew tells of how in 2002 two Democratic Senators, Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Tom Daschle of South Dakota, tried to persuade Sen. McCain to switch parties. They wanted the maverick on their team and  I gleaned from her writings that they did so because of their respect for him.

 So this past Sunday, as I cut away from the Bears game for a moment, I came across a "Frontline" program on PBS about the two presidential candidates. There was former Sen. Daschle telling how he helped Obama decide to run for president. I found it troubling and odd what Daschle now saw important for a future President of the US. 

"We went to my favorite restaurant, took the kitchen table in the back where nobody could see us. I tell him he should to it. And he shouldn't assume if he passes up this window that there will be another, because the longer he's in Washington, the more history he has. And the more history he has, the more he's going to be explaining his votes and his actions and his statements and his positions that undermine his message."

Is that really what is good for our country? A President who doesn't have to answer to the people what he's really all about?

I have been an avid fan of David Letterman for over 20 years. I used to live in NYC and work down the street when he was at NBC, and later across the street when he moved to CBS.  He has won my heart over the years with his wit, humor and obvious love for his elderly mom from Indiana and his devotion to his now 4-year old son.  When his guests include public figures, he is able to mix humor with serious and intelligent questions.

So imagine my utter dismay when i tuned in last night to see him rabidly fixated on Gov. Sarah Palin as the Vice Presidential choice of Sen. John McCain. (Since this seems to be the year of the dog i'll even go so far as to say that Dave's grip on the topic was worse than a pit bull's.) I videotaped it and he spent almost 10 minutes--lavish in TV time--on the topic of whether she was prepared for the job. 

I was stunned by Dave's utter blindness to the fact that Gov. Palin has more Executive level experience running the entire state of Alaska than does the Democratic candidate running for the highest office of our country, Sen. Obama.  If Dave is really concerned about whether or not a candidate would be able to handle a crisis like 9/11 , why not ask with the same pugnacity the same question of  Sen. Obama who is the one actually running for President?

Sen. McCain gave Dave solid reasons for his brilliant choice of Gov. Palin: she is a reformer, she is the most popular Governor in the country, she challenged the excesses and corruption within her party, she negotiated a $40 billion oil deal, she was a Mayor, she was on City Council and the PTA. If that is not enough experience for Dave, here's one for his viewer mail:

Dear Dave--if you are really worried about experience, please examine the lack of experience at the top of the Democrats' ticket: the junior Senator from my state of Illinois has never had to make an Executive level decision. As recent as 2004, Obama was merely a State Senator. After he was inaugurated as my Senator in January 2005, he spent the next 1 year and 9 months doing what most Senators do: yak. In fact, that's what he told Judy Woodruff at the public service forum in September at Columbia University when she asked him about Gov. Palin's experience as a Mayor. Even he acknowledged that Mayors have more experience than Senators. Quote: "The Mayors have some of the toughest jobs in the country. Because that's where the rubber hits the road. We yak in the Senate."

So Dave, if you're looking at readiness, look at what Obama offers: 1 year and 9 months in the US Senate "yakking", until he began to "explore" his run for the presidency. When he declared his run for the Presidency in February 2007, his experience as my Senator was anemic.  That's not the person i want to wake up in the middle of the night with a crisis.