Remember when John McCain suspended his campaign and went to Washington to work on the economic crisis?

Obama just said, if you need me, call me. 

Turns out, Obama was making a few calls during that time--at least according to former president Bill Clinton.

In a Fox News piece yesterday, Bill Clinton: Obama Got Lots of Help on Economic Crisis Response, Bill Clinton says at a rally that Barack Obama called a round of advisers during the height of the economic crisis and said, "tell me what...to do." In it, Clinton tells a few tales out of school on Barack Obama: (My emphasis)

"I haven't cleared this with him and he may even be mad at me for saying this so close to the election, but I know what else he said to his economic advisers (during the crisis)," Clinton told the crowd at a Wednesday night rally with Obama in Florida. "He said, 'Tell me what the right thing to do is. What's the right thing for America? Don't tell me what's popular. You tell me what's right -- I'll figure out how to sell it.'" 

Clinton said when the crisis broke, Obama called his own advisers as well as those of the former two-term president, Hillary Clinton, Warren Buffet and others.

Clinton's comments might give some insight into why Obama didn't want to go to Washington--he didn't know what to do. Who does? We still don't know what the right thing to do was.

The disturbing part of Clinton's insights is the idea that Obama doesn't know what the right thing to do is, but if he is told, he believes he can "sell it."

And I think selling it is what Obama has been doing this entire campaign. He is packaging up his socialist ideas of spreading the wealth around and selling them as something that will help the middle class.

Obama is a master salesman. Some people are buying the idea that 95% of workers can get a tax break. They are buying the idea that Obama can take his scalpel and cut from our existing budget enough extra money to fund his billions of dollars worth of promises. Never mind there isn't enough surplus to fund even part of his wish list. 

Like most sales pitches, once the contract is signed, there is no opportunity for buyer's remorse. You get the chance to buy in or pass on November 4th. Let's hope most aren't buying.

H/T  Fairly Conservative

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Both parties' candidates just had a foreign policy briefing--a standard practice used to bring the next president up to speed. What isn't standard is a candidate shooting his mouth off after the briefing. Biden's warning: (My emphasis throughout.)

"Mark my words," Biden said in San Francisco last Saturday. "With the next, first six months of this administration, if we win, they're going to — we're going to face a major international challenge. Because they're going to want to test him, just like they did young John Kennedy. They're going to want to test him."

Was that just Biden being Biden? But then, he said it again! This time Biden piped up at a Seattle fundraiser: 

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy." 

This part of his chat was really strange:

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right." 

And this was the guy who was supposed to lend gravitas to the Obama ticket? He went on to give more cautions and warnings--both about the economy and international problems:

"Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my ... why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?' We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years..."

Biden emphasized that the mountainous Afghanistan-Pakistan border is of particular concern, with Osama bin Laden "alive and well" and Pakistan "bristling with nuclear weapons."

"You literally can see what these kids are up against, our kids in that region," Biden said in recalling when his helicopter was forced down due to a snowstorm there. "The place is crawling with al Qaeda. And it's real."

"We do not have the military capacity, nor have we ever, quite frankly, in the last 20 years, to dictate outcomes," he cautioned. "It's so much more important than that. It's so much more complicated than that. And Barack gets it."

When I first heard about Biden's remarks, I immediately thought about Iran blasting Israel off the face of the earth--after all, Iran has talked about it and Obama was vague about his response. 

If you were Iran, would you be more apt to attack Israel with McCain as president or Obama?

But after looking at the last section of quotes, I'm wondering was Biden hinting about needing a military draft? Bombing Pakistan? Who knows.

Speak softly and carry a big stick is usually thought to be a deterrent to foreign aggression. The big stick being military might and cutting edge military technology. It has served us well in the past.

Biden began his warnings by comparing Obama to JFK, but Joe forgot one very important thing about his running mate: Unlike JFK, Obama has stated he wants to put a end to that military technology.

The complete IBD Editorial is worth the read or listen--the link is on this page. It is very sobering.

I'm digging out some photos you might find interesting for a future blog: Obama, JFK, technology, and the Cuban Missile Crisis...chilling

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Joe the plumber sure put a face on the problem with taxing small businessmen and giving it to workers paying little or no Federal income tax at all.

Now we learn that Joe isn't Joe, he isn't a licensed plumber*, and in actuality, is not in such a high tax bracket**.

This Joe's real name is Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher. But whether he goes by Sam or Joe, there are plenty of small businessmen in the same very real tax situation that Joe asked Obama about.

Joe may not exactly be the "Joe the Plumber" we thought he was, but Barack Obama's tax give away answer is very real and sincerely believes in the ideology of spreading the wealth around.

If it were not for "Joe" would Americans have heard from Obama's own lips that, (My emphasis)

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success, too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

There isn't anything really new about Obama's "spread the wealth around" message. It just never got much national coverage. Real Clear Markets spelled it out well back in February:

The Obama spend-o-meter is now up around $800 billion. And tax hikes on the rich won't pay for it. It's the middle class that will ultimately shoulder this fiscal burden in terms of higher taxes and lower growth....

Obama would like voters to believe that he's the second coming of JFK. But with his unbelievable spending and new-government-agency proposals, he's looking more like Jimmy Carter. His is a "Grow the Government Bureaucracy Plan," and it's totally at odds with investment and business.

Obama says he wants U.S. corporations to stop "shipping jobs overseas" and bring their cash back home. But if he really wanted U.S. companies to keep more of their profits in the states, he'd be calling for a reduction in the corporate tax rate. Why isn't he demanding an end to the double-taxation of corporate earnings? It's simple: He wants higher taxes, too.

The Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore has done the math on Obama's tax plan. He says it will add up to a 39.6% personal income tax, a 52.2% combined income and payroll tax, a 28% capital-gains tax, a 39.6% dividends tax and a 55% estate tax.

Not only is Obama the big-spending candidate, he's also the very-high-tax candidate. And what he wants to tax is capital.

...

Obama believes he can use government, and not free markets, to drive the economy. But on taxes, trade and regulation, Obama's program is anti-growth. A President Obama would steer us in the social-market direction of Western Europe, which has produced only stagnant economies down through the years.

Joe certainly got his minutes of fame. He was on the Mike Huckabee show and greeted like a hero.  It took Joe the Plumber to put a face on the problem and bring it to the forefront. Why haven't we been talking more about this before?

Thank you, Joe. Sorry your life has become an open book.

*Many people in the trades do not have an actual license themselves but work under the license of an owner or boss.

** " Wurzelbacher never claimed to be making $250,000 a year. He told Obama that he might be 'getting ready to buy a company that makes about $250,000, $270,000' a year. His simple point was that Obama's punitive tax proposals would make it more difficult to realize his dream."

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

I heard both Congressmen Paul Ryan and Jim Sensenbrenner interviewed on Jay Weber's radio show this morning. (Hour 4 Part 2). Since I trust the opinion of both of these men, I was curious as to why Ryan voted YES and Sensenbrenner NO on the latest bailout bill. 

First Congressman Ryan, who does have a degree in economics. The following are some notes I took from the interview--they are not direct quotes. Listen to the podcast if you can.

Ryan said the bill yesterday was the Paulson plan with quite a bit of tweaks.

The original Paulson bill was 3 pages: Give me a blank checkbook with $700billion.

We wrote a [Republican] alternative. Ours said, Let's make the firms buy insurance.

We rewrote the bill, added stock options--warrants to taxpayers, so the taxpayer is first in line to get money back (if there are profits--that means ACORN would not be getting funding as the orig. Paulson bill stated.) Executives won't get a Golden Parachute.

This bill was $350 billion: $250b immediately and $100b later. An additional $350b would need to be voted on in the future.  

Over the weekend, credit markets went crazy. The problem is not just on Wall Street. Credit markets are shutting down. [That means cash flow for payrolls is unavailable.] There is a fear of recession.

"I'm now sincerely worried this could lead to recession."

Jay Weber: Can we move slowly or do we need to move quickly?

Ryan: Tax money goes out the door either way, this way (bailout) or from FDIC (if banks fail.) Paulson mishandled this so badly.  We added 107 pages to his bill. 

I have never seen things like this [credit freezing up]--ever. Businesses won't be able to cash flow payrolls.

Weber: There is a deep distrust of Congress.

Ryan: 2,300 calls [to my office] almost all against the bailout. [That is changing a little now.] We have to corral Wall Street so it doesn't spill to Main Street.

Weber: Why aren't Republicans hammering this?

Ryan: I am. Since 2002 I have voted against Freddie and Fannie every time.

I think Paul Ryan voted for this measure because he is genuinely worried about our economy shutting down. He knows that if businesses cannot get credit to meet their payrolls, that means workers do not get paid. With many Americans just a paycheck away from being broke, we cannot afford to let that happen. Businesses also use credit to purchase supplies and equipment for future production.

Then it was Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner's turn:

Paulson [Barney Frank] plan fatally flawed from the beginning. That money all came from taxpayers.

The word was, $700billion would not be enough.

America can't afford this. We are wealthy, but there is a limit. 

All of this is inflationary. Interest rates will shoot up. [Remember] 20% prime rates during Carter? 

We should go back to the regular order [of crafting legislation] with committee meetings, rather than Paulson saying we have to do this.

Weber: We're racing against the clock.

Sensenbrenner: When markets opened [today] they were up 200, so hopefully the markets have calmed down.

Paulson is pushing for now. It bailed out the people who caused the problem.

I'm prepared to go back when Pelosi calls us back.

This is a case of Congress serving the people. 

Weber: What angers people is Frank and Dodd in charge of the fix. Is there any mechanism to say when you failed the people, get off the committee!

Sensenbrenner: The Community Reinvestment Act was a significant factor [to what is going on.] 

The process worked yesterday. The speeches like from Pelosi need to stop. She also knew there were not the votes to pass. Why did she bring the bill to the floor? [To fix blame on the Republicans]

Weber: Would you change the Community Reinvestment Act?

Sensenbrenner: Repeal of that law should be in the new package now.

The Security and Exchange Commission dropped the ball--enforcement was not vigorous. 

The Justice Department should investigate if any fraud was committed. [Imprisonment would serve as a deterrent.]

So there you have the Yea and the Nay. Where is Solomon when you need him? 

Conservatives would hope the next version of the bailout bill would be better for taxpayers, that it keeps money from ACORN and repeals the Community Reinvestment Act. With this crew I don't have much hope.

My fear is that the next version will included ACORN funding again or worse. The Democrats will vote for it, and President Bush, who is really over a barrel here, will have to sign it.

Calls from Americans running 500 against, to 1 in favor, of the bailout might be the only thing that saving us from an UGLY pig of a bill.

Post Script: Along the lines of Sensenbrenner's request that they craft this bill carefully, 165 Economists rip bailout plan:

The economists say they are well aware of the current financial situation and agree there's a need for bold action but ask Congress "not to rush."

They urge lawmakers to hold appropriate hearings and "to carefully consider the right course of action." 

Right now the market is up 307 points from yesterday's close. You can check anytime on USAToday. (If you leave it open, it automatically refreshes.) 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Remember Rep. Nancy Pelosi's Remarks Upon Becoming Speaker of the House two years ago? (Emphasis mine) 

I accept this gavel in the spirit of partnership, not partisanship, and I look forward to working...

I look forward to working with you, Mr. Boehner, and the Republicans in the Congress, for the good of the American people.

... and the American people told us they expected us to work together for fiscal responsibility, with the highest ethical standard and with civility and bipartisanship.

... After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go; no new deficit spending.

... Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.

... My colleagues elected me to be speaker of the House. The entire House. Respectful of division of our founders, the expectations of our people and the great challenges that we face, we have an obligation to reach beyond partisanship to work for all America.

... Let us stand together to move our country forward, seeking common ground for the common good.

Did her performance yesterday live up to her promise? Blaming Bush for all of this? (There is plenty of blame to go around. If our economy is in such danger, and I think it could be, is this the time for finger pointing or "seeking common ground for the common good.")

Pelosi let 16 Democrat Congressmen in tight races off the hook--they could vote NO. Obama campaign co-chair Jessie Jackson Jr., Democrat from Illinois, voted NO.

If Speaker Nancy Pelosi was so sure this bill needed to pass, why did she poison the deal with her rant and not insist her own party support it? Was she hoping it would fail so they could get the ACORN funding back in? Who knows.

I think it all comes down to a matter of trust. Do you trust this Congress to come up with an acceptable solution?  

About this time 2 years ago, before the majority shifted to the Democrats, the Congress' approval rating was 25%. Last year it was 11%. In July it was 9%: "The overall national approval rating is at 9 percent. The first time in history that the rating has fallen to a single digit. ...So you see, history can be made. All it took was some hard work and bipartisanship."

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner said, "Now is not the time to fix the blame, it is time to fix the problem."  I pray they will be able to do just that before credit totally freezes up and businesses can't make payroll.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Our present market woes and the Freddie/Fannie mess did not come out of nowhere. They are not George Bush's fault. They started a  l-o-n-g  time before either Bush.  Watching the house burn down: What caused our economic crisis? gives a good run down of the chain of events leading up to this crisis.

First thing this morning, I checked to see if Rep. Paul Ryan and Jim Sensenbrenner were on board with the bailout bill. If so, then I felt it might shore up the market with the least harm. Thankfully, ACORN funding has been removed from the present version.

Rep. Paul Ryan doesn't like the bail out but agrees we are painted into a corner and must do something. Jim Sensenbrenner it seems will not support it at all. GOPUSA says it is still a Train Wreck.

The House Bailout failed to pass 228-205. Seems Pelosi gave a pre-vote speech that did not warm the hearts of Republicans by blaming Bush for all of this. Democrats were not enthusiastic either. Democrats against: 95, Republican NOs: 133. Wisconsin Representatives voting NO: Jim Sensenbrenner - R, Tom Petri - R, and Steve Kagen - D.

Roughly 4/5ths of Americans do not favor a bailout, which is why democrats were hesitant to sign on. Some want the free market work as in Citibank buying Wachovia today.

The market closed at 777 points down today. The price of oil went down to $96/barrel, gold closed up about $8 at $898/oz. One thing saving our bacon is that world wide markets are jittery too. If you are a foreign investor, who do you trust with your money? Don't know how long foreign investors will stay with us though.

I have no idea what is the right thing to do regarding the bailout bill. I think Ryan voted for because he knows this could go way south.

At the very least, it is time to put an end to no money down and little money down mortgages!

Vicki McKenna talked today on her radio show about how she* is in the process of buying a home. When she first started looking months ago, she was told she needed 20% down. This is consistent with what a Realtor friend told me--that people were getting mortgages if they had 21% to put down. But now Vicki was told she could get a mortgage for 3% down, if she did it before the end of the year!

I believe the little or no money down policy of the Community Reinvestment Act started us down this fiscally irresponsible path. Without the cushion of 20% down, for those times when home values falter, these no/little money down loans became upside down.

So the American taxpayer is asked to bailout out the lenders, and Congress is drilling more holes in the boat by not reforming down payment requirements? Pretty typical.

PS Did you see that the House passed a $25 billion bailout for automakers?

*CORRECTION: It was not Vicki herself, but someone in her building. The point remains the same regardless who got the loan. 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Yup, it is true. Former President Bill Clinton appeared on Good Morning America this morning and defended John McCain. (Politics makes strange bedfellows!)

ABC News' Nitya Venkataraman Reports: Former President Bill Clinton defended Sen. John McCain's request to delay the first presidential debate, saying McCain did it in "good faith" and pushed organizers to reserve time for economy talk during the debate if the Friday plans move forward.

... 

"We know he didn't do it because he's afraid because Sen. McCain wanted more debates," Clinton said, adding that he was "encouraged" by the joint statement from McCain and Sen. Barack Obama.

Clinton also commented on the Democrat's accusation that this problem came out of nowhere--we had nothing to do with this. He admitted some responsibility in this mess lies with the Democrats in Congress. (About half way through the clip)

Well... ...the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put in some standards and tighten up a little with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [He also blamed the Up Tick rule.]

I really hope the Congress acts in good faith and not in their typical political way, as in the NO Drill Bill. When Sen. Obama originally stated that he would not come, that "If you need me, call me." if he was needed, I wondered how that would have gone over with the Democrats if Pres. Bush had done that with Hurricane Katrina.

GOPUSA's piece, Bailing out the Bailout, talks about Sen. Reid's flip flop on McCain's presence and what some conservatives hope McCain can do, 

...Until McCain's announcement, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid seemed inclined to support the $700 billion bailout bill -- provided Democrats could lard it with their own goodies -- but only if McCain (and other Republicans) would support the package and provide the Dems with political cover.

"I got some good news in the last hour or so ... it appears that Sen. McCain is going to come out for this," Reid announced Tuesday evening.

...

Reid's office promptly released a statement that said, "We need leadership; not a campaign photo-op." So the bailout is worth spending $700 billion of other people's money -- but not worth McCain flying to Washington to broker a doable deal? Get the feeling Reid is completely out of touch?

Now, what if McCain could reduce the size of the bailout? (That is a tall order, but hope springs eternal with me.)

If, however, McCain can broker a more fiscally responsible plan -- read one with a price tag about half of the original's size or less, and with a cap on executive pay -- he just might be able to broker a deal that can pass muster.

McCain is taking a huge chance here. Even just going to Washington to vote on this measure is a risk. One has to wonder if Obama hoped he could duck the whole thing by not going to the Senate to vote at all--a variation on voting, "Present."

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

The Democrats present the Trojan Drilling Bill, the stock market is in major jitters, investors look for safe places to put their money. Hence oil, gold/silver/precious metals go up. Pretty simple.

With the Democrat's no-drill oil bill, prohibiting drilling in most areas, there will be little change in our domestic oil supply. If we don't get a real Drill Here bill, we will be dependent on foreign oil for years and paying higher prices. It is supply and demand...the price will go up.

Anyone wondering if the Democrats are trying to create such an oil price crisis that the government must come in and take that industry over too? I am hard pressed to explain the Democrat's stance any other way.

The other factor involved in precious metal and oil price increases is the fall of the dollar. It had been improving since about July. But the Freddie and Fannie / financials bail outs cause the United States to expand the money supply. That is inflationary, resulting in the value of the individual dollar to fall. Again, it is supply and demand.

From the Financial Times: The Short View: Oil and the Dollar: 

By late morning in New York on Monday, the price of oil had climbed by 20 per cent in barely five days and scarcely anyone had noticed. Then it went into overdrive, hitting $130 at one point before settling at $120.92. Last Tuesday, it traded at $90.51 – a swing of 44 per cent from bottom to top.

This had little to do with the supply of and demand for oil and everything to do with the fallout from the “Paulson plan” – the proposal to risk $700bn of US public money in a bail-out of toxic securities held by banks.

Oil rose as doubts surfaced about the plan.

When people are nervous, they look for tangible products to invest in. 

A key variable is the dollar. So far, it has fallen in response to the possible huge rise in the US deficit. The markets seem to have gone a step further and assumed that this step will be be inflationary and cause financial assets to lose value.

In that situation, the thing to do was to head for real assets, led by oil, although other commodities, led by silver, also had a strong day. Unfortunately for the Paulson plan, the inverse relationship between oil and the dollar is one of the few financial constants to have survived the past few days.

I heard this morning that oil settled down to about $108/barrel in Asia. People are nervous worldwide. The US money supply is expanded beyond thin.

The last thing we need is another check writing spree by the government in the form of a Democrat 2nd $50billion stimulus package or a $1,000 energy rebate based on a windfall profit tax to oil companies as Obama is touting. (That tax would be passed onto consumers, making oil prices higher.)

Even the Federal Government can only print so much money if it is to be worth more than the paper it is printed on! 

Brookfield District 7 Info meeting, Wed., Sept. 24, 2-3pm or 6:30-7:30pm City Clerk Kris Schmidt will be in attendance to answer questions or concerns regarding recent news about the Van Hollen lawsuit against the state elections authority.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Have you noticed that the mood of the country has changed regarding energy?

Last year, THE solution was all about growing our own energy by using ethanol. The emphasis was on reducing our carbon footprint and dependence on foreign oil, regardless of the cost.

But rising food prices and the fact that ethanol was a boondoggle (using as much energy as it supplied) caused ethanol's reign to slip from political popularity.

Then came Newt with his Drill Here.Drill Now.Pay Less. campaign. While I am surprised that he never did get those 3 million petition signers, he certainly started the conversation that we must start producing more oil domestically.

It was a conversation the President and House Republicans were willing to listen to. Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats, however, were not. In fact, she shut down the House for 5 weeks!

During that 5 weeks off, around 130 House Republicans kept the heat on the discussion in the House. See YouTube

Also during the summer, the polls started showing that 67% of Americans favored domestic drilling.

John McCain responded to that fact by embracing offshore drilling. Certainly his picking Palin indicates he is looking at domestic oil and increasing natural gas. The Republican ticket has an "All of the above" approach. (Oil, clean coal, natural gas, tidal, hydro, hydrogen, geo-thermal, nuclear, wind, solar, etc.)

Barack Obama wouldn't go that far, but did promote getting off foreign oil dependence by increasing clean coal, natural gas, and safe nuclear as additions to the usual wind, solar, etc.

But while all this new domestic energy posturing was going on, Pelosi and the House Democrats were not available until this week. On Monday:

"House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Monday morning that the newest Democratic energy bill will be brought to the floor under normal rules and will be subject to a vote on a Republican alternative that is likely to call for even more drilling than Democrats are prepared to swallow.

So finally, she and the House Democrats are willing to allow a vote on drilling!

"Pelosi miscalculated in her heavy-handed tactics before the recess.  She attempted to push through her own plan under suspension of the rules, a tactic she decried in 2006, which kept Republicans from offering an alternative.  When it failed, she adjourned Congress, hoping to put off the debate until after the conventions … and her book tour.

"Instead of regrouping, the Democrats found themselves routed by an angry electorate and motivated Republicans.  The House Oil Party kept the issue in the media eye, at least to an extent, but high gas prices kept it on the minds of voters while Democrats took their summer vacation.  It was as poor a political calculation seen in recent years, and the sudden shift in generic Congressional ballots and in party identification has been the result.

"Pelosi and Harry Reid may have finally figured out that they could lose this election on energy policy.  Will this be enough to stanch the bleeding? (My emphasis)

This vote would have never happened without public pressure. We tend to forget that fact. But don't jump for joy just yet.

The next hurdle will be, what kind of energy bill gets passed? Will it be a real energy bill that truly increases drilling opportunities and new energy sources? Or will it be just all show and no go? as a token attempt by Democrat Congressmen and Senators up for reelection to appear sympathetic to energy prices?

But House Republicans called the Democrats' proposals "gimmicks," and instead have insisted on a stand-alone vote on oil drilling.

"Speaker Pelosi's so-called 'energy' bill will do nothing to help our energy crisis," said Rep. Michele Bachmann, Minnesota Republican. "It will multiply red tape and make it almost impossible to lower already skyrocketing oil costs." (My emphasis)

Stay tuned! 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post.

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

Last week Michelle Obama did it again. She said something that revealed who she is and how out of touch she is with the average American's economic circumstances.

The Washington Times reported that each campaign needed to rein in their surrogates:

The same day a John McCain surrogate dismissed economic woes from a nation of "whiners," Barack Obama's wife quipped that the $600 tax stimulus check could be used for a pair of earrings.

I would not classify Michelle Obama in the same "surrogate" category as McCain's economic adviser Phil Gramm, however. McCain can dump Gramm, but Michelle Obama is part of the package. She will be First Lady if Obama is elected. Whenever she says something controversial, an image of her serving tea to an important dignitary while making "small talk" pops into my mind.

Mrs. Obama does not come across as a happy camper. I think the first time I heard her interviewed was last February when the Obamas were in town before our primary. She talked about how women struggled just to get through each day, and she included herself in that group. I was surprised by her remarks because they sounded like those of an unhappy wife.

Michelle mentioned the usual complaints: husbands go off to work and leave all the responsibility of home and children to the wife. She spoke about how she is the one who must take the kids to the doctor or stay home if they are ill, etc. At the time I thought she was not painting her husband in a very good light. To hear her talk, you would think they were impoverished and had no options to hire a baby sitter, helper, or housekeeper.

As the campaign continued, I found out the Obamas lived quite comfortably. Comfortable enough to think nothing of $600.  

"You're getting $600 - what can you do with that? Not to be ungrateful or anything, but maybe it pays down a bill, but it doesn't pay down every bill every month," she [Michelle] said. "The short-term quick fix kinda stuff sounds good, and it may even feel good that first month when you get that check, and then you go out and you buy a pair of earrings."

A reader's response to the Washington Times article summed it up well,

Someone who suggests spending the $600 rebate on earrings is not living the same way the rest of America lives.

We put our stimulus check in the bank, saving it to pay for our property taxes due in December. It required belt tightening now, but I am grateful we were able to do that. (Still wish we did not go down the stimulus road though.) 

Click here to sign the DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS domestic drilling petition and see the latest links to related oil news (updated every day).

Drill Here is now over the 1.3 million mark. The goal is 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican Conventions. 

Links: