Senate package would bail out major foreign investors, including China

“Oh, No! Say It Ain’t So, Joe!” … Biden’s 14 Lies

Murder Capital of the World

Murder Capital of the World

By David Paulin
FrontPageMagazine.com | 10/2/2008

Caracas now ranks as the world’s No. 1 murder capital, according to Foreign Policy magazine. It’s an assessment that will surprise few credible Venezuela watchers. During President Hugo Chávez’s tumultuous ten-year rule, Venezuela’s quality-of-life indices have been in an ongoing tailspin – thanks to epic levels of corruption and mismanagement; not to mention El Presidente‘s increasing concentration of power in his own hands.

When I was a Caracas-based journalist in the 1990s, Colombia’s Bogotá was the world’s No. 1 murder capital. But in the years before Chávez’s election, high-crime Venezuela was catching up, boasting South America’s “fastest-growing” murder rate. Now, it has replaced Bogotá as the No. 1 murder capital — thanks to Chávez’s vision of “21st Century socialism.” The city of 3.2 million is plagued as well by food shortages (unprecedented during an oil boom) and increasing numbers of human rights abuses.

Violent crime has been a No. 1 concern of Venezuelans for years. Under Chávez, however, “Venezuela’s official homicide rate has climbed 67 percent — mostly due to increased drug and gang violence,” noted Foreign Policy. Venezuela’s “official” murder rate is 130 per 100,000 residents, but “some speculate” it’s actually closer to 160 per 100,000, according to Foreign Policy, for as the magazine explained,

…(O)fficial homicide statistics likely fall short of the mark because they omit prison-related murders as well as deaths that the state never gets around to properly “categorizing.” The numbers also don’t count those who died while “resisting arrest,” suggesting that Caracas’s cops—already known for their brutality against student protesters—might be cooking the books.

All in all, Caracas has resembled a war zone in recent years, and that raises an interesting question: How might Venezuela’s murder rate compare to the rate of violent deaths in Iraq? Indeed, as Iraq’s violence soared in 2006, Venezuela was itself a combat zone with 12,557 reported murders. That amounted to 34 murders per day – or the rough equivalent of the lives snuffed out by a typical suicide bombing in Iraq; its population is about the same size as Venezuela’s 27 million.

During 2006, plenty of naysaying journalists and pundits were on the Iraq death watch, pronouncing it a hopelessly “failed state.” Yet none were rushing to make similarly pessimistic pronouncements about Chávez’s worker’s paradise.

According to Foreign Policy‘s reckoning, Venezuela’s murder rate is well ahead of four other top murder capitals that (in order of those boasting the worst rates) are: Cape Town, South Africa; New Orleans; Moscow; and Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea.

In mid-September, Venezuela got another black eye when New-York based Human Rights Watch issued a a 230-page report: “A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela.” Rights abuses under Chávez’s reign had “undercut journalists’ freedom of expression, workers’ freedom of association, and civil society’s ability to promote human rights in Venezuela,” the report explained. The rights group’s director for the Americas, José Miguel Vivanco, observed:

Ten years ago, Chávez promoted a new constitution that could have significantly improved human rights in Venezuela. But rather than advancing rights protections, his government has since moved in the opposite direction, sacrificing basic guarantees in pursuit of its own political agenda.

Vivanco and fellow deputy director Daniel Wilkinson got more than they bargained for when perhaps somewhat foolishly (or as a testament to their intestinal fortitude), they released the report at a Caracas news conference. According to a statement from the rights group,

Vivanco and Wilkinson were intercepted on the night of September 18 at their hotel in Caracas and handed a letter accusing them of anti-state activities. Their cell phones were confiscated and their requests to be allowed to contact their embassies were denied. They were put into cars, taken to the airport and put on a plane to Sao Paulo, Brazil…

Yet despite such thuggish behavior, Chávez remains an admired figure among fashionable liberal elites, with celebrities such as Danny Glover, Cindy Sheehan, Sean Penn, Harry Belafonte and Naomi Campbell beating a path to Caracas, heaping praise upon El Presidente and his socialist paradise.



David Paulin, an Austin, TX-based free-lance journalist, is a former Caracas-based foreign correspondent.

Obama Tax Plan: Back To Welfare?

Obama Tax Plan: Back To Welfare?

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, October 02, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Obamanomics: To those of us who can still tell the difference between a tax cut and a government handout, the Democratic plan for “relief” looks more like a blueprint for dependency.

 

In the first presidential debate, Barack Obama repeated a claim he has made many a time — that his economic plan would cut taxes for “95% of working families.” But is this really so? Yes, more or less, but only if you accept Obama’s definition of a tax cut. And doing that may force you to leave your common-sense zone.

First of all, “working families” does not include all households. Throw in singles, retirees, students and the unemployed, and the share getting some tax-related benefit is a good deal less. The Tax Policy Center, a group affiliated with the center-left Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, says only about 80% of households would get a cut.

Then there’s the difference, not acknowledged by the Obama camp, between a real tax cut and the type of “tax relief” that looks suspiciously like welfare. A true tax “cut” is a reduction in the taxes you’re paying. In contrast, much of the “relief” in Obama’s plan consists of “refundable credit” — payments you get even if you owe no taxes at all.

The plan does have some real tax cuts, such as the extension of President Bush’s cuts for families making under $250,000. This relief is significant — though John McCain would go further and provide it for everyone. However, so are Obama’s new or expanded refundable credits. These include, with five-year costs estimated by the Tax Policy Center:

• The “making work pay” credit of 6.2% up to $8,100 of earnings. Cost: $323.7 billion.

• A “universal mortgage” credit equal to 10% of mortgage interest for income-tax filers who don’t itemize. Cost: $54 billion.

• An expansion of the child and dependent care credit, which would rise from 35% to 50% of expenses and would be refundable for the first time. Cost: $10.6 billion.

• The “American opportunity tax credit” to replace the (non-refundable) hope credit with a refundable credit of $4,000 for college costs. Cost: $58.2 billion.

• Expansion of the earned income tax credit to lower-income workers. Cost: $19.3 billion.

That’s $465.8 billion in all over five years, all transferred from the $250K-plus set and going mostly to lower- and lower-middle-income Americans.

Millions of those in line for these benefits pay no income tax, and Obama’s plan — both through these credits and a pure-pander policy of eliminating taxes for 7 million seniors — would increase the nontaxpaying class by millions more.

The Tax Policy Center estimates that the share of households not owing income tax would rise from 38% under current law to 48% under the Obama plan.

Another think tank, the Tax Foundation, says the number of nonpayers would rise from a third of tax filers to 44%.

So how many will get “tax relief” that is really just welfare? The number is impossible to pin down exactly, but it’s likely to be huge.

Start with the nonpaying class of 48% or 44%, depending on whose calculation you use. That’s well over 60 million tax filers. Many, if not most, of these would probably qualify for at least one of the Obama credits, because it doesn’t take much, other than low income, to qualify.

For one of those credits, dependent and child care, you don’t even have to have a job. You can simply be looking for one. Taking college courses (and agreeing to 100 hours of community service) qualifies you for the “American opportunity credit.”

The most expensive credit, “making work pay,” is aimed at low-wage workers but will have to be phased out at higher income levels. As the Tax Policy Center notes, the resulting jump in marginal tax rates in the phaseout zone “might actually give workers an incentive to work less.”

What happens to our society and politics when so many Americans no longer expect to share the income-tax burden and instead think “tax relief” means getting checks extracted from “the rich”?

The country is on dangerous ground at such a point, because there may be no stopping the zeal of politicians to pad their majorities even more by squeezing the wealth producers and buying the votes of a new welfare class that once was proud of paying its own way.

 

Fannie/Freddie and the Stealth Welfare State

Fannie/Freddie and the Stealth Welfare State

By Christopher Chantrill

Back in the good old days the US used to spend big money on secret defense projects. And no wonder, for in 1960 defense and the military industrial complex ate up 10 percent of GDP.  It was easy to find money for the odd U-2 spy plane or the granddaddy of all “black” projects, the Mach 3 spy plane variously known as the A-12, YF-12, and SR-71 Blackbird.

The trouble with secret programs is that there is no public accountability.  You can spend billions of dollars on some brilliant idea and have nothing to show for it.  The Mach 3 spy plane worked, probably thanks to the brilliance of Kelly Johnson, head of the Lockheed “skunk works.”  But it cost a fortune to develop and a fortune to operate. 

 

Secret defense programs have their place, but surely it is wrong to create secret social programs.  The meltdown of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac demonstrates why.  Everybody thought Fannie and Freddie were boring old government-sponsored enterprises dealing in nice safe mortgages for middle-class Americans.  Only they weren’t.

 

You can understand why President Clinton decided to crank up Fannie and Freddie to deliver sub-prime mortgages in the 1990s.  It seemed like a great idea to amend the Community Reinvestment Act to bully the banks into lending more money into inner-city areas.  And it was certainly a success in political terms.  By the end of his administration, Bill Clinton was wildly popular in the African American community.  Of course he would be, after sluicing billions of dollars in mortgage money to the house-hungry women of America’s red-lined neighborhoods.

 

But who really understood what was going on before the whole thing blew up and tossed the nation into a global credit crisis?  A few people did, and a few people tried to warn us.  A few politicians tried to reform Fannie and Freddie, but they were no match for the lobbyists and the Friends of Angelo. 

 

It is hard enough trying to reform headline programs like public education or Social Security.  At least everything is out in the open. 

 

But with stealth programs burrowed into the Community Reinvestment Act our liberal friends are learning to emulate the methods of the cold war Pentagon.  They have learned how to keep controversial programs under the radar, and they usually succeed.  It’s only when a program blows up that people realize what is going on.

 

We are going to see more of these meltdowns in the future.  Fannie/Freddie isn’t the only government program adapted to serve a hidden agenda.

 

But how did we get from open and accountable government to the new era of stealth social programs operating under the radar?

 

Back in the 1930s with the New Deal and in the 1960s with the Great Society liberals were proud to point to all the wonderful programs they were offering to the American people.    They even set up programs to measure the inevitable success of their programs, as Charles Murray noted in Losing Ground. Everyone knew that with a few more billions we could end poverty forever.

 

Then things started to go wrong.  Liberals knew by the early 1970s that their job-training programs weren’t working.  The work-force participation of minority youths was going down, not up.  What should they do?  They could manfully own up to their failures or they could disguise them and keep them going under the radar.

 

When the much-vaunted public-housing projects cratered liberals replaced their public housing projects with less visible Section 8 rent subsidies.  When Hillary Clinton’s universal health-care system went down to defeat Democrats expanded smaller-scale projects like S-CHIP.  When the American people rejected the idea of a negative income tax in the 1970s liberals responded in the 1990s with the innocuously named Earned Income Tax Credit.

 

Then there’s the federal disability program.  According to the National Bureau of Economic Research Social Security Disability Insurance (DI) has gone from “2.2 percent of adults age 25 to 64 in 1985 to 4.1 percent in 2005.”  Study authors David Autor and Mark Duggan expect disability rolls to increase eventually to “almost 7 percent of the non-elderly adult population.” 

 

Conservatives need to develop a political strategy to de-legitimize these stealth programs.  Let’s leave aside the argument from compassion that excessive income support programs rip the social fabric asunder and create a non-working underclass.  Let’s be practical.

 

Somehow, these meltdowns always seem to happen on the Republicans’ watch.  Then the American people, egged on by the helpful mainstream media, blame the Republicans for the mess.  And that ain’t fair.

 

Christopher Chantrill is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. See his roadtothemiddleclass.com and usgovernmentspending.comHis Road to the Middle Class is forthco

Angry Black Woman Alert! VP Moderator’s Cousin: “Sarah Palin Is Offensive To Black Women”

Top 10 Tax Sweeteners in the Bailout Bill

Top 10 Tax Sweeteners in the Bailout Bill
Category: Federal Budget, Headlines By TCS
Tag: bailout
Pub Date: Oct 02, 2008

The following are some of the top tax sweeteners in the Senate passed Bailout Bill. Not all the provisions are per se outrageous, but collectively are intended to help Congressional leadership get final passage of the 2008 Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. 

  1. Sec. 503. Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children

Current law places an excise tax of 39 cents on the first sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of any shaft of a type used to produce certain types of arrows. This proposal would exempt from the excise tax any shaft consisting of all natural wood with no laminations or artificial means to enhance the spine of the shaft used in the manufacture of an arrow that measures 5/16 of an inch or less and is unsuited for use with a bow with a peak draw weight of 30 pounds or more. The proposal is effective for shafts first sold after the date of enactment. The estimated cost of the proposal is $2 million over ten years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

The Oregon senators were the initial sponsors of the provisions. According to Bloomberg News, the provision would be worth $200,000 to Rose City Archery in Myrtle Point, Oregon.

  1. Sec. 317. Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track facility

Track owners want to be able write-off the cost of their facilities on their taxes over seven years – a depreciation timetable many of them have used for decades. But the IRS has wanted to stretch it to at least 15 years and has raised questions whether the increasingly popular tracks really belong in the same tax category as amusement parks.

Auto track owners are simply trying to get out of paying more taxes – which they’d have to do if they deducted less every year. These owners have gotten plenty of tax breaks over the years from states and localities eager to get speedways. The provision would be extended 2 years till the end of 2009 and would cost $100 million. The provision encompasses all facilities including grandstands, parking lots and concession stands. 
 

  1. Sec. 308. Increase in limit on cover over of rum excise tax to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands
Extends until December 31, 2009 a rebate against excise taxes charged on rum imported from Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. A $13.50 per proof gallon excise tax is applied to distilled spirits imported to the U.S. Under this provision a $13.25 rebate is returned to PR and the VI, and is retroactive back to January 1, 2008.  Permanent law sets the rebate at $10.50 per proof gallon, but the PR and VI provisions have generally been in place since the first Clinton Administration.  The most recent extension of the $13.50 rebate expired January 1, 2008. Cost is $192 million. 
 
  1. Sec. 301. Extension and modification of research credit
The legislation reestablishes and extends the lucrative tax credit for companies doing research and experimentation in the United States. Companies that have benefited from this provision include Microsoft Corp., Boeing Co., United Technologies Corp., Electronic Data Systems Corp. and Harley-Davidson. The two-year extension is estimated to cost $19 billion.
 
 
  1. Sec. 504. Income averaging for amounts received in connection with the Exxon Valdez litigation

The bailout bill would give a tax break to Exxon Valdez plaintiffs, allowing them to average out their punitive damages awards over three years rather than suffer a one-time tax hit from the Internal Revenue Service, as well as other provisions. Rep. Don Young (R-AK) is a big supporter of this provision. Cost is estimated at $49 million. 
 

  1. Sec. 601. Secure rural schools and community self-determination program.

Secure Rural Schools lead sponsors Reps. DeFazio (D-OR), Bill Sali (R-ID); Sens. Wyden (D-OR), Larry Craig (R-ID), are major boosters of this program that expired in 2006. In 1908 the federal government agreed to share logging revenue from Forest Service land with neighboring communities that could not tax the land because it was federal. As logging declined in the 1990s, the “county payments” program was initiated in 2000 to directly provide federal funding, more than half going to Oregon, to deal with the loss of revenue. The original version of this provision was introduced as a bill in early 2007 and was estimated to cost $2.2 billion when the OR and ID delegations came to agreement. To give the package more heft, Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) was added to the package, bringing the total cost to $3.3 billion. PILT provides more general funding to counties for federal lands located within their borders. Sen. Reid (D-NV) talked about the PILT program being one of the important elements of the package when the Senate passed the bailout bill. 
 

  1. Sec. 201. Deduction for state and local sales taxes
Allows residents of states that don’t pay income tax to deduct, from their federal taxes, sales tax paid over the course of the year. States that benefit include Texas, Nevada, Florida, Washington and Wyoming. The bailout bill extends this provision for 2 years at a cost of $3.3 billion. 
 
  1. Sec 502. Provisions related to film and television productions

In an effort to keep film and television productions in the U.S, they would be eligible for a tax incentive program. Under this program, the cost of production of qualifying films would be permitted to be immediately expensed — that is, fully deducted from income for tax purposes — in the year the expenditures occur. This provision also makes permanent other favorable tax treatments for production. Historically Rep. Diane Watson (D-CA) has been a supporter (dating from its creation in the 2004 corporate tax bill). The cost is estimated at $478 million over 10 years. 
 

  1. Sec. 325. Extension and modification of duty suspension on wool products; wool research fund; wool duty refunds

The tariff relief (duty savings) is intended to benefit U.S. worsted wool fabric producers that use imported fibers and yarns as inputs, as well as U.S. tailored clothing manufacturers that use imported fabrics as inputs.  This provision was originally introduced as a bill in December 2007 by Reps. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and Melissa Bean (D-IL).  It extends current law provisions until 12/31/14, and in some cases to12/31/15. The 2010 to 2015 cost is estimated to be $148 million.

  1. Sec. 309. Extension of economic development credit for American Samoa

This extends by two years a previously approved tax credit, the American Samoa economic development credit. In general, this credit allows certain corporations operating in American Samoa a tax credit. The possessions tax credit allows these corporations to offset a portion of their U.S. tax liability on income earned in American Samoa from active business operations, sales of assets used in a business, or certain investments in American Samoa. The cost is $33 million, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.
 

Other Examples:

Here are some other interesting provisions
 

Sec. 201. Inclusion of cellulosic biofuel in bonus depreciation for biomass ethanol plant property

Current law allows taxpayers to write-off 50% of the cost of any facility placed in service before January 1, 2013 that produces cellulosic ethanol.  This provision expands the types of facilities that may be written-off to include production of other cellulosic biofuels in addition to cellulosic ethanol. 

Sec. 211. Transportation fringe benefit to bicycle commuters

Allows employers to provide a benefit to employees for costs associated with bicycle commuting, including purchase and repair of a bicycle, bicycle improvements, and bicycle storage. This provision was proposed in 2007 in the Senate by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and in the House by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR). This provision is estimated to cost $10 million.
Sec. 323. Enhanced charitable deductions for contributions of food inventory

Extends by two years, until December 31, 2009, a provision allowing for deductions related to the charitable donation of “apparently wholesome food”—defined as food intended for human consumption that meets all quality and labeling standards imposed by law and regulations even though the food may not be readily marketable. This provision also changes the application of the law as it relates to donations by farmers and ranchers. The cost is $149 million, according to Joint Committee on Taxation. 


Sec. 324. Extension of enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of bookinventory


Extends by two years, until December 31, 2009, a tax benefit for the contribution of books to public schools. The provision is worth $49 million. 
Sec. 602. Transfer to abandoned mine reclamation fund

Transfers interest earned on money in the abandoned mine reclamation fund to the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund, which helps pay health benefits for retired miners and their dependents who worked under collective bargaining agreements that promised lifetime health-care benefits.  States with the most miners receiving benefits have historically been Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia, and Ohio. This provision extends existing law to include a $9 million transfer for 2010.

ABC’s GMA Skips Own Poll to Promote Favorable Obama Numbers

 

ABC’s GMA Skips Own Poll to Promote Favorable
Obama Numbers

     Good Morning America on Wednesday reported on a new Quinnipiac poll that highlighted leads for Barack Obama in Florida and Ohio, but completely skipped the network’s own national poll that found a tight race. A September 30 ABC News/Washington Post survey concluded that Obama leads Senator McCain by four points — 50 to 46 percent. In contrast, GMA last week trumpeted an ABC News/Washington Post poll that showed Obama with a nine point lead.

     On September 24, former Democratic aide-turned journalist George Stephanopoulos touted the larger lead and asserted, “…You have to go back to 1948 for the last time when a candidate having this kind of a lead, in late September, lost.” He mentioned that on the issue of the economy, the Illinois Senator is “blowing away John McCain.” An onscreen graphic proclaimed: “Obama Surges Ahead.” But, just a week later, GMA not only ignored findings suggesting a closer national race, the morning show highlighted a rival poll’s state numbers.

     (The Washington Post also reflected the skew. Last Wednesday, the top of the front page headline screamed: “Economic Fears Give Obama Clear Lead Over McCain in Poll.” But this Wednesday, while still on the front page, the poll article did not hint at the nine-point gap closing to four, “Most Voters Worry About Economy: Majority Consider Situation a Crisis.”)

     [This item, by the MRC's Scott Whitlock, was posted Wednesday on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]

     In the 8am hour on Wednesday, news anchor Chris Cuomo explained, “Barack Obama is actually widening his lead now in the key battleground states. A new Quinnipiac poll shows Obama leading John McCain by eight points in Florida and leading by eight points in Ohio, as well.” Less than an hour earlier, at 7:11am, co-host Robin Roberts played up the state numbers: “A new poll out this morning has Barack Obama leading John McCain by eight points in Florida, eight in Ohio, and 15 points in Pennsylvania.”

     The MRC’s Rich Noyes reported in a September 29 CyberAlert posting that the earlier ABC poll had come under fire for an oddly weighted sample. Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 16 points in the survey, a larger than usual amount. See: www.mrc.org

     A transcript of the September 24 segment, which aired at 7:02am and featured the larger poll lead:

     7am tease
     DIANE SAWYER: Breaking news this morning, Barack Obama gains ground in a new ABC News poll. A nine point lead over John McCain. And Sarah Palin, who came to New York for meetings with foreign leaders. Your new views on her. They’ve shifted too.

     7:01am
     ROBIN ROBERTS: Also, the new ABC News/Washington Post poll, found that voters believe that Barack Obama has a better handle on their economic concerns and there are also new numbers on the Palin factor, now that the public has gotten to know John McCain’s running mate a little bit better. George Stephanopoulos will break it all down for us in just moments.

     7:02am
     SAWYER: But let’s get right to the news this morning. It is our brand-new, ABC News/Washington Post poll. And here’s a benchmark: Two weeks ago, Senator McCain led by two points. Now, Senator Obama leads by nine points. 52 percent to 43 percent. And, as we said, to break it down for us with the bottom line, ABC’s chief Washington correspondent, host of This Week, George Stephanopoulos. Good morning, George.
     GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Hi, Diane.
     DIANE SAWYER: All right. Take us through it. Is this shift just the economic upheaval? Is it something personal with the candidates?
     STEPHANOPOULOS: Boy, it is all about the economy, Diane. People are angry and shocked and worried about the economy. And that is all helping Barack Obama right now. Go back to our poll a couple of weeks ago. On the trust to handle the economy, Obama had about a five-point lead. Now, it’s up to a 14-point lead for Obama on trust to handle the economy. And then when you ask this question, who understand our economic problems better? Barack Obama is blowing away John McCain on that point. They say he gets it. It’s a 24-point lead. All of this is fueling the first time that Barack Obama is above 50 percent. And, Diane, you have to go back to 1948 for the last time when a candidate having this kind of a lead, in late September, lost.
     SAWYER: Hmm. 1948. Let me zero in, then, on a couple of the most talked about groups of voters. And one of the most changeable groups. White women. Tell us what we’re seeing now. And the Hillary Clinton voters, particularly.
     STEPHANOPOULOS: Boy, we are really seeing something here. I don’t want anybody to get this wrong, but white women are the swingers of 2008. You know, two weeks ago, we saw that John McCain had opened up an 11-point lead over Barack Obama on white women. Now, it’s down to a two-point lead for Obama. They’ve come, again, on concerns of the economy. Now, with Hillary Clinton voters, Barack Obama is still having a bit of a tough time. He’s only getting about 77 percent of the Hillary Clinton voters. But he’s doing far better with Democrats overall, getting 88 percent of Democrats.
     SAWYER: All right. A couple of footnote issues here. Age. What did our polls show about age as a factor?
     STEPHANOPOULOS: More and more people worried about age. 48 percent of voters say they see that age is an issue. And if you think age is an issue, those 48 percent of voters, they break heavily for Barack Obama by 30 points. We also looked at Sarah Palin. You know, we know there was a big Sarah Palin effect coming out of the Republican convention. She has high favorable rates. She’s coming back down to earth a little bit. Her favorable rating has gone from 58 on September 7th, now 52 percent now [sic]. So a little bit of a deflation there.

‘Insanity’ and ‘Obscenity’: McCain Criticizes Pork In Bailout Bill He Voted For

Ifill on Palin

Ifill on Palin

Clarice Feldman
In advance of her performance at tonight’s debate, Gwen Ifill has already tipped her hand respecting her animus toward Sarah Palin. From an actual transcript of her PBS show Washington Week

GOV. SARAH PALIN (R-AK): Here’s a little newsflash for 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 great country.
MS. IFILL: Wow, was she talking about us, or just changing the subject? Sarah Palin under the microscope. Democrats under attack. [....]
MS. IFILL: And Todd, it also felt a little bit like we were moving to culture wars again. Sarah Palin, if we know anything about her, it’s what her beliefs are, what her family is about, not so much about other policy choices. [....]
MS. IFILL: I’ve been struck by how much they’ve been spending time – everyone’s been spending on biography. Lots of talk about, what, gutting caribou or whatever you – I shouldn’t say it this way – gutting caribou in Alaska, which I’m sure is a fine, fine thing to do. (Laughter.) What I’m just saying, we heard a lot more about what Sarah Palin did for sport or what she did as a mother or what she did – than what she did as a governor actually, the actual policy decisions. Is that something – a conscious decision that the campaigns make, Todd, that that’s what you do? [....]
MS. IFILL: Speaking of fired up, ready to go, right? Okay, since we are representatives of the eastern media elite – (laughter) – we have to address the question – speak for myself, yes – we have to address the question that was raised at this convention and was used with great effect by not only Sarah Palin, but many of the other speakers, which is we’re at fault essentially. I was on the floor the other night during Sarah Palin’s speech and people were shaking their fists at me, if you can believe such a thing – (laughter). My feelings were so hurt. But there was a genuine grievance underneath all of that, this idea that she had been a victim and a victim of sexism and a victim of media bias. Just jump in anywhere you like.

Thomas Lifson adds:

Well at least John McCain has finally decided to criticize the choice of Ifill. But still avers she will be fair.  Mike Allen of The Politico quotes him:

“Frankly, I wish they had picked a moderator that isn’t writing a book favorable to Barack Obama – let’s face it,” McCain said on “Fox & Friends.” “But I have to have to have confidence that Gwen Ifill will handle this as the professional journalist that she is. …

“Life isn’t fair, as I mentioned earlier in the program.””

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers