O'Reilly Vs. Palin II

The second part of the O'Reilly/Palin interview just finished.

Palin sounded confident in all her answers. The first part of part two was spent with critical analysis of President Obama. These are questions right in Palin's wheel house. She never called Obama a "socialist" but did say that he was moving away from free market principles. She criticized his policies on closing GITMO and trying KSM in New York specifically.

I was looking forward to the policy portion which really didn't start until after the break. Much like every politician, Palin had nothing but platitudes towards Iran. She wants to work with our allies and apply stiffer sanctions. She referenced Reagan's tough diplomacy as a model.

All of this sounds nice but there's really no specific policy in there. In fact, the best idea I've heard from anyone is from O'Reilly himself and his idea of a military blockade, itself an act of war. Palin was far less specific.

On Afghanistan, Palin said she'd give General McChrystal the troops he's asked for. She made the analogy between the situation in Iraq and the current situation in Afghanistan. O'Reilly pointed out that the Karzai government is terribly corrupt and thus, it may not be worth sending troops. Palin never pointed it out but Maliki was extremely corrupt, and isn't a model of purity still, when Bush sent in the additional troops. Getting a handle on the security situation reduces the corruption.

On China owning a trillion dollars worth of our debt, Palin said that our policies of endless spending is causing us to be vulnerable to this position.

Palin handled the questions fairly well. She appeared confident and not intimidated. She was no more or less wishy washy on Iran but generally gave clear answers to O'Reilly's questions.

ACORN, Brown, and the Cali Tapes

In the summer and fall of 2008, Michigan ACORN board member Adrianna Jones attempted to remove the head organizer for Michigan ACORN, David Lagstein. She wanted him removed based on three failings: 1) lack of financial oversight of Michigan ACORN 2)abuse of canvassers during the 2006 election cycle and 3) "disrespect of the membership". Jones eventually brought up a motion for removal at the September 2008 board meeting of the Michigan ACORN board meeting. Jones was eventually opposed by a faction of the boad lead by Karen Flagg and her motion failed. She later joined with the effort of Marcel Reid and Karen Inman to demand a forensic audit of ACORN that lead to the formation of ACORN 8.

When Jerry Brown ran for Mayor of Oakland and subsequently Attorney General of California, Fannie Brown represented ACORN as they endorsed him both times. ACORN hasn't yet endorsed Brown for Governor but that likely has much to do with their own toxicity currently.

Meanwhile, following the stand off in Michigan, Lagstein was moved from Michigan to California. California is also home to one of the biggest and most important funders (those that shower ACORN with money) Herb and Marion Sandler. The Sandlers have been associated with the sub prime crisis through their ownership of Golden West Financial. They were also forever satirized by this Saturday Night Live skit. To ACORN however, they are a near endless supply of money.

Meanwhile, following the release a couple weeks back of the latest installment of the James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles undercover videos, Jerry Brown announced an investigation. At first, most thought that was an investigation of ACORN. Then, a couple days back, word leaked that in fact Brown was targeting not ACORN, but Giles and O'Keefe. Then, it was revealed by Langstein that Brown confided in him that ACORN needn't worry because they weren't the target of the investigation, instead O'Keefe and Giles were.

Let's break it down. First, Brown has no business getting himself involved here. He has a plethora of conflicts and this case is the poster child for what happens when there are conflicts. It was highly inappropriate to communicate with ACORN while investigating them. He should have stepped aside to begin with and now he should be sanctioned. Second, if California is a two way consent state, then O'Keefe certainly, Giles maybe, and Breitbart and even You Tube, might all technically be breaking the law. By this, I mean that California would be a state where both parties must consent before a recording occurs. Even my blogging nemesis, Michael Gaynor, has made this point. Of course, there's something called prosecutorial discretion. So, even if they technically broke the law, the prosecutor must decide if this case is worth prosecuting. Finally, Lagstein is no stranger to controversy.

The Global Warming Corruption

Hackers hacked into the emails of a British climate research center and what they found was, well, revealing.

Hackers broke into the servers at a prominent British climate research center and leaked years worth of e-mail messages onto the Web, including one with a mysterious reference to a plan to "hide the decline" in data about temperatures.

The Internet is abuzz about the leaked data from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (commonly called Hadley CRU), which has acknowledged the leak of 61MB of confidential data.

Climate change skeptics describe the leaked data as a "smoking gun," evidence of collusion among climatologists and manipulation of data to support the widely held view that climate change is caused by the actions of mankind. The files were reportedly released on a Russian file-serve by an anonymous poster calling himself "FOIA."

I'm no expert on climate change. I am more of an expert in corruption and this is corrupt. Generally, if you're on the right side of a debate, you need not be corrupt.

On the other hand, it's nearly December and 53 degrees Fahrenheit here in Chicago. Just remember that the next time somebody claims it's really cold somewhere and claims that this must mean global warming doesn't exist.

Censure for Burris

The Senate Ethics Committee handed down punishment for Roland Burris today.

Sen. Roland Burris was rebuked today by the Senate Ethics Committee, which issued him a "public letter of qualified admonition" for his actions in connection with his
appointment by disgraced former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.The letter informed Burris that the Senate committee had concluded that "your actions reflected unfavorably on the Senate."

"The committee found that you should have known that you were providing incorrect, inconsistent, misleading or incomplete information to the public, the Senate and those conducting legitimate inquiries into your appointment to the Senate," the letter said.

Burris, who was appointed to the seat vacated by President Barack Obama, sought to cast the committee's action as a vindication, noting that the panel had cited a state's attorney's conclusion that there were no "actionable violations of law."

Now, some, like me, would consider this a slap on the wrist. There's been an unwritten agreement between Burris and Senate leadership. He won't be thrown out of the Senate as long as he doesn't run in 2010.

Burris, as most remember, was chosen by then Governor Blagjojevich to replace Barack Obama in the Senate. Blago did it following all the revelations. Most other pols shied away from being chosen after it was revealed that Blago had allegedly tried to sell that seat. Not so for Burris and he gladly accepted the appointment.

Initially, most of the media claimed that Burris was of a reputation beyond reproach. We needn't worry as Burris wouldn't have involved himself in such under handed dealings. I was skeptical. After all, Burris was an Illinois pol. Soon enough, the initial analysis turned far too rosey.

Now, it appears as though Burris was less than truthful in answering questions about the nature of the contacts between himself and Blago. It's still unclear if anything untoward occurred in securing his seat. It's even less clear if there will be any further investigation. What is clear is that Burris' time is running low in the U.S. Senate. Come January of 2010, someone else will fill his seat.

The Putback Amendment

Everyone knows that things in Springfield, Illinois are broken. Everyone knows that the government of the State of Illinois is inefficient and corrupt. That's all true, however, to truly understand the problems in Springfield, we must look at the structure of the legislature.

By its design, the legislature in Springfield consolidates all power in the hands of four people: Tom Cross, Christine Radogno, Mike Madigan and John Cullerton. Those are the Republican and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate. Power is consolidated through the process by which bills see the light of day. In the Illinois legislature, there's only one way for a bill to be heard and debated: the rules committee. Not surprisingly, each of those four folks are head of the rules committee for their side in the House and Senate. As such, the head of the two rules committees have carte blanche over what bills will and won't see the light of day. So, if any legislator wants their bill to get a hearing in the House, Michael Madigan must approve. You can see how such a process could corrupt, and does.

Second, there's absolutely no transparency. At the beginning of each legislative session, the legislature is allowed to pass any number of "shell bills." These are bills that literally are blank, or shells. Then, when leadership, Madigan et al, feel it's time for that bill to become law, they go into a backroom somewhere, negotiate, and come out with a full bill. They wait no more than 24 hours and force a vote. Even if a legislator wanted to read the bill, they wouldn't have time. So, bills become law and then media scrutinizes them and leaks all sorts of embarrassing details, only by then it's still law. We're seeing a similar process playing out in the current national health care legislative process.

This process played out to a t in the campaign finance reform legislation. After Blago's indictment, public pressure was so extreme that Madigan et al's hands were forced. They brought a campaign finance reform bill to the floor. Then, at the last minute, they went into a back room, cut a weak compromise, and put a watered down version to the floor. This should have come to no one's surprise. The four people in charge are the main beneficiaries of the current campaign finance structure and they are the ones in charge of "reforming it".

This process also played out in Emil Jones' last term. (he was head of the Senate until this latest term) He was allied with Blago. Meanwhile, Madigan opposed Blago. As such, legislation literally came to a halt. All Blago proposed bills were killed in the House and all Blago opposed bills were killed in the Senate. So, nothing got done.

The problem of course was that the power struggles of three pols played out for the entire legislature. That's because the power of the legislature is centered in only four people.

So, what's the solution? Illinois activis, John Bambenek, has proposed the Putback Amendment. Here's what the amendment would do. First, it would create a unicamarel legislature. Each district would be represented by three Representatives. There would still be primaries but a minimum of two candidates would come out for each party. Second, it would impose a term limit of four terms. Each term would last two years. It also eliminates the "shell bill" process and forces only texted bills to the floor. Beyond this, it would create a discharge petition process. If leadership refuses to give a bill a proper viewing, the sponsor can get 25 of 177 legislators to sign a discharge petition and this would force said bill to the floor. Finally, it would create a mandatory seven day period between when a final bill is finalized and voted upon. That way the public would have time to digest it and embarrassing details would come out before it passed not after.

Currently, Bambenek is collecting signatures. He needs 500,000 by May to get the amendment on the ballot in November. If it's on the ballot, it would either need 50.1% of all the voters or 60% of those that vote on the amendment. Typically, far fewer people vote on amendments than vote in total. Here's the full text of the bill.

Tim Geithner on the Brink

One thing is for sure, Tim Geithner would win the award for most embattled Presidential aide or cabinet member after ten months. Even before he was confirmed, Geithner faced controversy when it was revealed that he didn't pay his taxes. Since then, a series of embarrassing public appearances and vague explanations have caused Geithner to lose the confidence of many.

Tim Geithner rolled out the PPIP plan. That's if you want to call it a rollout. Instead, it was more of a sketch. The rollout was so embarrassing that the markets were spooked and dropped about 300 points that day. Geithner also once suggested that the dollar didn't need to remain the world's currency and that caused the dollar to tank following that announcement. (the Treasury Secretary is on our currency and so it's important, to say the least, for that same individual to contribute to its strength not weakness) He later rolled out the same PPIP in much greater detail and that lead to a rise in the market on that day. (of course the same PPIP program was later scaled back significantly)

The heat was taken off Geithner for a while, though he's become the butt of ridicule for conservatives since the revelation that he didn't pay his taxes. Meanwhile, many liberals are non too happy with Geithner either. He's seen as far too close with Wall Street by liberals and they were hoping for much more populist policies.

This week a lot of these tensions bubbled back to the surface. The bubbled up following revelations of Treasury IG Neal Barofsky that Geithner failed to negotiate a good deal for the tax payers in the AIG deal while President of the New York Federal Reserve.

Of course, while this was revealed this past week, all of this occurred in 2008. The time to discuss it was during his confirmation. Had this come to light then, along with tax revelations, it's unlikely that he would have made it through. Still, during te course of this week, Democrat Peter Defazio of Oregon and Republicans lead by Kevin Brady of Texas called on Geithner to resign.

Now, it's important that Geithner hasn't done anything recently to cause anyone to ask for his resignation. That can be viewed two ways. On the one hand, you could call it nitpicking. On the other hand, you could call it a lack of confidence that has been brought to the surface. One thing is for certain. Geithner's public presentation doesn't create a sense of security. That doesn't create a sense of comfort in his stewardship of the economy.

He's fumbled a series of Treasury tasks. More than that, there's a growing sense that the Obama administration doesn't know what it's doing on the economy. Our deficit will be about $1.5 trillion this year. Unemployment may reach 11% and beyond. There doesn't seem to be any end in sight, nor is there a sense that they can fix this.

On top of all this, Geithner, and Obama for that matter, continue to blame Bush. That's what happened in Geithner's exchange with Brady.

There's no worse leadership than blaming others. That's been the M.O. of the Obama administration. Whenever they were challenged on any of their misdeeds: massive deficits, massive unemployment, etc., they blame Bush. The half life on that ended months ago and they would be wise to put an end to it. Geithner wins no points by blaming his problems on the previous administration. The massive deficit is entirely his administration's not Bush's. It was his administration that promised that unemployment wouldn't reach above 8% with the stimulus, not Bush. These are the things that are making people jittery, and Geithner is doing nothing to relieve the jitters by blaming Bush.

Council Winners

The Council winners are up.

Council Submissions
First place with 2 2/3 points! – Bookworm Room - The Perils Of An Affirmative Action President
Second place with 2 points – The Razor - The Ignorance of the Obama Administration
Third place with 1 1/3 point – (Tie*) – Joshuapundit - The Afghan Shuffle
Third place with 1 1/3 point – (Tie*) – Soccer Dad - I Am Not A Schnook
Fourth place with 2/3 points – Right Truth - When Muslims Attack
Fifth place with 1/3 point – (Tie*) – Rhymes with Right - On Judicial Confirmation
Fifth place with 1/3 point – The Colossus of Rhodey - The Messiah still in “blame the US” mode in Japan
Non-Council Submissions
First place with 3 points! – The Rosistance - The lawyer in the White House and the spy in federal prison giving away national security secrets
Second place with 2 points – Flopping Aces - America’s War of Aggression Against Muslims Confirmed by Abuse Photos
Third place with 1 2/3 points – Middle East Strategy at Harvard - How the Saudis radicalized US Troops
Fourth place with 2/3 points – (Tie*) – Melanie Phillips - Everything’s clear to me Now
Fourth place with 2/3 points(Tie*) – Big Government - # Obama Ally Code Pink targets children of military families for abuse
Fifth place with 1/3 point(Tie*) – The American - Economic Prosperity: A Step of Faith
Fifth place with 1/3 point(Tie*) – Hot Air Pundit - President Obama vs. The Rest of the World Greeting The Emperor of Japan
Fifth place with 1/3 point(Tie*) – Common Cents - A Tale Of two Bows