Republican

President-elect Obama is expected to appoint democratic lawyer Henry Rivera, to lead his FCC transition team. Rivera served on the FCC from 1981 to 1985, and is a proponent of the “Fairness Doctrine” that was repealed in 1987. The Fairness Doctrine was the law of the land for 40 years and was the federal government’s attempt to regulate fairness into the broadcasting industry and

“… imposes affirmative responsibilities on a broadcaster to provide coverage of issues of public importance that is adequate and fairly reflects differing viewpoints. In fulfilling its fairness doctrine obligations, a broadcaster must provide free time for the presentation of opposing views if a paid sponsor is unavailable and must initiate programming on public issues if no one else seeks to do so.”

Throughout the years, the Fairness Doctrine has been used by various administrations to harass political opponents on the radio. Bill Ruder, Assistant Secretary of Commerce in the Kennedy administration, acknowledged that

“Our massive strategy [in the early 1960s] was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.”

And that’s why the Democrats want to bring the Fairness Doctrine back now. With 100 million listeners in 50 million households, news and talk radio plays an important role in the American society. Conservative talk radio dominates the commercial radio airwaves with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannnity and Bill O’Reilly, while Liberal radio, like the failed Air America can’t generate enough capital to stay in business. The Left-wingers in Congress can’t stand this and would like nothing more than to hide behind their regulation cloak to force conservative talk radio out-of-business. Why are they afraid? Look at the amount of money Obama was throwing into his election campaign, compared to the public financing cap held by McCain. Yet McCain ran a neck-and-neck race practically throughout the race, and had it not been for the Wall Street meltdown, he may have actually won! This is due in large part to conservative talk radio because the majority of television media overwhelmingly favored Obama.

It is believed that Rivera will lead the push to revive the Fairness Doctrine to prevent Obama critics from having a voice during his tenure as President. The President limiting free speech? It certainly fits a pattern of behavior he displayed during his election campaign. ATI-News President Brad O’Leary, who examined Obama’s legal and organizational attempts to silence media detractors during the presidential race concluded,

“Barack Obama has shown a stunning lack of tolerance for free speech throughout the course of this campaign. His presidency, combined with supermajorities for Democrats in Congress, would almost certainly bring back the so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine’ and allow the Democrats to snuff out any broadcasters with whom they disagree.”

Make no mistake, the Fairness Doctrine is a tool used by politicians to silence opposing views, particularly conservative views. It was repealed by the FCC because it “had the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing the discussion of controversial issues of public importance.” In 2007, Senator John McCain introduced legislation to protect talk radio and warned,

“The Fairness Doctrine had a chilling effect on free speech, and it is hard to imagine that the American people would support reinstating a policy where the federal government would be required to police the airwaves to ensure differing viewpoints are offered.”

Remember, there is nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine! Don’t be fooled by this sham no matter what form it takes. The Democrats in Congress, and our new President, will likely veil the doctrine’s new iteration in fresh language, using a different terminology and justification, like tying it to pornography, but don’t be fooled. Our country was founded on political dissent, so don’t sacrifice the First Amendment to political expediency!

Well, Congress passed and President Bush signed the new and improved $700 billion Wall Street bailout rescue package. The package also contains $152 billion in “unrelated tax breaks and broader tools for federal regulators to deal with the growing economic crisis” according to the WSJ. How did the market respond to the passing of the biggest government intervention since the Great Depression? The DJIA, Nasdaq and the S&P 500 are all down. Of course, the President warns that “that it will take some time for this legislation to have its full impact on our economy.” So, what should we expect of these programs and policies designed to promote economic recovery?

Look back to the 1930s and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” that included included legislation on banking and finance reform, various relief programs for the unemployed, agriculture recovery legislation, the National Industrial Recovery Act, the National Labor Relations Act, the Social Security Act, and much, much more. The Great Depression was caused by the government’s easy-money policies leading to an inordinate expansion of credit and installment buying and fantastic speculation in the stock market (sound familiar?). The depression was then exacerbated by the New Deal, a massive government interference that prolonged the crisis for years.

Are we traveling along the same path? The parallels are incredible.

MORE: Michelle Malkin; Hot Air; Webloggin

Although the bailout plan in its current state does not eliminate taxpayer risk, it certainly provides more protection than the Paulson plan the Democrats were originally trying to force down the throats of the American taxpayer. I asked in a previous post, “What did McCain do?” As it turns out, he did a helluvalot! In fact, his presence in Washington last week was vital to the judicial oversight and other taxpayer protections incorporated into the current bill, not to mention the elimination of an awful lot of pork.

In a press conference last night, Republicans John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Roy Blunt, and Adam Putnam, explain that in the beginning, the Dems weren’t too interested in working with the Republicans on the bailout package. So, what changed? Boehner makes it very clear that “if it were not for John McCain supporting me at the White House when I said whoa, whoa, time-out, they would have run over me like a freight train.”

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reports,

Before McCain arrived in Washington, the Senate and the House Democrats figured they could force the Paulson plan down the throats of House Republicans. Afterwards, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid had no choice but to deal with Boehner and the conservatives, and making changes to the package to get their support. Also, Boehner announced that McCain has begun making calls to get Republican votes for this bill, which shouldn’t surprise too many who had listened to McCain over the weekend.

Note to Obama: That’s leadership!

In the wee-hours of Sunday morning, Congress came together on a plan to bailout Wall Street. We’re still giving them the money they’re asking for, but there seem to be a lot of strings attached:

• The money would be parceled out in segments, with Paulson receiving $250 billion upon ratification of the plan, $100 billion upon White House certification of its necessity and the final $350 billion only after Congress has been given 15 days to object.
• Firms participating in the bailout would be required to grant the government warrants to obtain nonvoting shares of stock, so taxpayers can benefit if the companies return to profitability.
• Firms taking advantage of the bailout would be required to limit compensation for senior executives, with especially severe limits on “golden parachutes” at failing firms. The compensation limits will be enacted primarily, but not solely, through the tax code by reducing tax deductions for firms that pay executives more than $400,000 a year.
• Provisions for Congressional oversight of the on the Treasury program, including a bipartisan oversight board appointed by members of both parties in Congress, an inspector general to monitor Treasury decisions, and regular audits from the Government Accountability Office.
• Treasury will be subject to judicial review and required to make transactions made through the troubled asset program available publicly online.
• The president will be required to propose a fee on the industry if the government has not recovered its money through sales of the assets within five years. This is due to the belief that the financial services industry should help pay for the bailout.
• The Treasury Department will be required to create a federal insurance program that would guarantee banks and other firms against loss from any troubled asset.

I still disagree with any bailout, but am glad to see the plan is going to be more difficult for Wall Street than originally conceived. I’m also glad to see the process is going to be a great deal more transparent, with what appears to be greater accountability for the Treasury Department and the CEOs on Wall Street. I’m looking forward to seeing the language of the final plan.

So what did the Presidential candidates have to say? During interviews on Sunday morning talk shows, presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama gave their tentative support for the deal. McCain said “This is something that all of us will swallow hard and go forward with” and although he is distressed about the amount of pork it contains, added that the principles he had laid out for such a deal had been met, including taxpayer protection, an oversight body, and provisions that prevented excessive compensation for corporate chief executives. Obama said he was inclined to support the package because it contains things that were not “in the president’s provisions” like increased oversight, foreclosure relief for homeowners, and limits on executive compensation for chief executives of firms that receive government help, and “They are identical to the things [he] called for the day that Paulson released his package”.

No surprises there. However, I’m now wondering what was the point of John McCain’s campaign suspension last week? He rushed back to Washington, but I don’t see his fingerprints on any of this…yet. What did he and Obama do after the debate?

MORE: Hot Air highlights pork that was removed from final deal.

Despite the President’s “Doomsday Message”, Democratic finger-pointing and a ridiculous “on my knees” gesture by Secretary Paulson, John McCain and Senate Republicans have thwarted, at least temporarily, the government bailout of Wall Street. Wanting to give the American taxpayer a better deal, the Republicans are pushing

“an alternative plan that, instead of relying heavily on taxpayer money, could let banks buy insurance for the troubled assets weighing down their books.”

Fortunately, there are still some in Washington who are interested in protecting the interests of Americans instead of the “Fat Cats” on Wall Street.

MORE: Hot Air

The Dow has dropped 800 points in the last three days and what are McCain and Obama doing? Blaming the other party, of course. Listen to McCain and he’ll tell you the current crisis is all the Democrats fault, and listen to Obama and the blame lies with the Republicans. I say, quit playing the blame game and gives us a plan! Although the current crisis began 13 months ago, its been brewing for a decade with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, allowing commercial banks to participate in investment banking activities. This deregulation has resulted in the collapse of the housing market and the government bailouts of Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac and now, AIG. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was introduced by a Republican Congress and signed by a Democratic President (Clinton), so both parties are to blame. So, Senator McCain and Senator Obama, what are your plans? After all, we’re talking about the potential collapse of the American financial industry here!

It’s going to take the U.S. banking industry through loans and credit to rebuild the parts of Texas devastated by hurricane Ike, to move troops into and out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and to build and maintain our nation’s highways. The finger-pointing going on in Washington and on the election trail is getting us nowhere! Unless you plan on continuing to fund our government with foreign loans, put your heads together and work this out!

Okay, by now everyone has heard the Senator Obama “Lipstick on a pig” gaffe, and although I don’t think he was intentionally trying to insult Governor Palin, everyone in the audience behind him did!

What should we make of that?

Speaking with Bob Schieffer on CBS News Face the Nation, Republican presidential nominee John McCain, questioned Senator Barack Obama’s ability to reform because he has never challenged Democrats. McCain said,

“From the time he came up in the Chicago political arena to the time, the short time he was in the Senate, he never took on his party on a single major issue.”

Senator McCain, on the other hand, has

“reached across the aisle to Democrats. [Although he] was very unpopular in some parts of [his] own party, whether it be on the issue of climate change or against [former Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld’s strategy and the president’s strategy in Iraq, or whether it be on campaign finance reform or a number of other issues that [he] fought against the, quote, ’special interests’”,

So, John McCain has an actual record of change.

Of his running mate and the criticism she’s endured, McCain said,

“[Sarah Palin] not only talked about it, but she’s done it, and she took on the people in her own party,” … “She took on a sitting governor of her own party, and she reformed. And they passed ethics and lobbying reform. And she gave money back to the taxpayers and they cut spending. So in all due respect to any of the critics, what we want is the change in Washington. Who better in the political landscape could do that than Governor Sarah Palin, whose whole life has been engaged in that, taking them on and winning? I’ve taken them on and won less than she has.”

And what does Barack Obama have to say about John McCain as a change agent?

“John McCain has different ideas.”

Which begins the same stump speech he’s given, practically unchanged, for 19 months now:

“John McCain wants to do the exact same thing that George Bush did” on taxes, health care and college affordability.” … “Republicans call it the ‘ownership society,’ but it really means ‘you’re on your own.’ Your job gets shipped overseas? Tough luck, you’re on your own. … Going into poverty? You’re on your own, pick yourself up by your boot straps, even if you don’t have boots. [etc., so on...]“

Barack Obama can’t even change the words to his speech, how is he going to change a government?

Philosophers tell us that change is measured in time and includes the relationship of both time and change to those affected by it. This would mean that Sarah Palin’s description of change is a much more accurate assessment. She said,

“in politics, there are candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there is John McCain who uses his career to promote change.”

John McCain’s career of change is measured in time, while Obama’s is only measured in rhetoric.

photo credit: WSJ

Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, coming off a pounding by the MSM over her lack of qualifications and the out-of-wedlock pregnancy of her 17-year old daughter, scored a home run at the Republican National Convention. Palin’s task this evening was to show that she was above the fray, to demonstrate that she had the executive experience necessary to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency and the confidence to take on the Democrats and the MSM. I believe she did so with flying colors!

Slamming Obama’s recent dismissal of her job as the mayor of a small Alaska town of 9,000, Palin said,

“Since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves. I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer’, except that you have actual responsibilities.”

Of John McCain, she siad,

“Our nominee for president is a true profile in courage, and people like that are hard to come by. He’s a man who wore the uniform of this country for 22 years, and refused to break faith with those troops in Iraq who have now brought victory within sight.”

To which she added,

“…as the mother of one of those troops, that is exactly the kind of man I want as commander in chief. I’m just one of many moms who’ll say an extra prayer each night for our sons and daughters going into harm’s way.”

Palin also introduced her family and didn’t mention her daughter’s pregnancy. Instead she pointed out that her family

“…has the same ups and downs as any other … the same challenges and the same joys. Sometimes even the greatest joys bring challenge.”

Good for her! To bring it up, to defend it, would open her up to scrutiny. It was a smart move.

And speaking directly to Washington insiders and the MSM, Palin gave notice:

“And I’ve learned quickly, these past few days, that if you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone. But here’s a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I’m not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I’m going to Washington to serve the people of this country.”

She also spoke of her accomplishments as Alaska’s governor, how she shook reformed the corrupt republican establishment, eliminated extravagances such as the governor’s private jet (she sold it on eBay!), and told Congress “thanks, but no thanks” for the Bridge to Nowhere. She also spoke of taking on the oil companies lobbyists and broke their monopoly on energy by forcing competition and basic fairness rules to return the power to to the people of Alaska. Afterward, she with it established the “largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history and began a 40 billion dollar natural gas pipeline to “help lead America to energy independence.”

Palin closed her speech by contrasting John McCain and Barak Obama. She observed that Obama “…is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform, not even in the state senate.” Meaning that he is a man of words, not of action and

“For a season, a gifted speaker can inspire with his words. For a lifetime, John McCain has inspired with his deeds.”

Poised, confident and determined. Well done, Mrs. Vice President!

MORE: Michelle Malkin; Hot Air: here, here, and a little extra, here; RedState; Webloggin; Political Pistachio

Just announced: John McCain has selected Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his VP running-mate! Palin, a little-known, but popular, reform-minded woman has taken Alaska by storm, cleaning up a government plagued by corruption.

I think she’s a breath of fresh air in the stale, stagnant world of politics. Of course, her relative youth and lack of executive experience may be a liability for McCain, who cited those reasons for Obama’s naivete. However, Palin possesses a leadership quality that seperates her from the Democratic presidential nominee, integrity!

I have a good feeling about this…

MORE: Ed Morrissey at Hot Air points out that

“McCain can remind voters who has the real record of reform. Obama talks a lot about it but has no actual record of reform, and for a running mate, he chose a 35-year Washington insider with all sorts of connections to lobbyists and pork. McCain has fought pork, taken real political risks to fight undue influence of lobbyists, and he picked an outsider who took on her own party — and won.

This is change you can believe in, and not change that amounts to all talk.”

I have a very good feeling about this!

Failed Democratic presidential candidate and retired General Wesley Clark, a former Hillary Clinton and now Barack Obama supporter, chided John McCain on his lack of command experience:

“In the matters of national security policy making, it’s a matter of understanding risk” … “It’s a matter of gauging your opponents and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions.” … “He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn’t held executive responsibility.” … “That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn’t a wartime squadron.”

So Clark, I suppose Obama possesses the requisite command experience? You’re a fool and I believe it wouldn’t matter who was running on the Republican ticket, you’d hold the same opinion. Your comments on the The Huffington Post give away your left-leaning bias:

“Barack had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq before it began, and he is ready to bring our troops home and end the occupation of Iraq in a responsible way. John McCain has said that American troops should be willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years.”

This is the same spin thats been circulating for months. Certainly Obama may have opposed the war before it began, but in what capacity did he offer his opposition? He certainly wasn’t a member of the Senate at that time. After all, he wasn’t elected until November 2004, a year after the Iraq war began. It’s easy to say you oppose something, when you’re not held to account for your position. (incidently, Hillary Clinton supported the war in an official capacity and you supported her candidacy before she dropped out, leaving you with Obama. Doesn’t that make you a hypocrite?) And sure, McCain said we could be in Iraq for 100 years, in the same context that we’ve peacefully ensured regional stability in countries like Korea and Germany for more than half a decade.

Your comments are half-truths and only serve to mislead. I believe you know this and that gives me significant insight into your character. Sadly, you have no integrity.

So the Iowa results are in and Republican Mike Huckabee and Democrat Barack Obama are the big winners. This will surely shake things up a bit considering the enormous amount of money Mitt Romney dolled-out on his campaign (the ratio of money spent by Romney compared to Huckabee is roughly 17:1) and Hillary Clinton’s once commanding lead in the polls.

What happened?

Simple, the Republican caucus-goers voted for Huckabee’s “values.” Christians accounted for more than half of the Republican voters, citing Huckabee as someone who shares their values. Meanwhile, bringing about change was at the forefront of the Obama campaign, and was touted by Democratic voters as the most important attribute in a presidential
candidate.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens in the upcoming primaries. Clinton and Obama are virtually neck-and-neck in New Hampshire and another poor showing will likely put a pretty big dent in her campaign. I expect she’ll change gears a little and peddle more “change” to the voters. For the Republicans, Romney and McCain are about even, and Huckabee will face a greater challenge. Social and religious issues will probably take a backseat to national security and taxes.

What about the other candidates?

Republicans: Rudy Giuliani devoted little time to Iowa, choosing instead to focus on the larger electoral states like Florida. I believe his popularity will increase significantly in the weeks to come. Fred Thompson, who surged at the last minute in Iowa, will more than likely concede the nomination within the next month or so and endorse McCain.

Democrat John Edwards although taking second place in Iowa, essentially tied Clinton. He’ll continue to take votes from Hillary with his own change message. I believe he’ll ultimately concede and back Clinton.

The coming weeks will be very interesting indeed!