media outlets

Harmful Media Practices

by Bill O'Connell on November 23, 2008

Share and Recommend:

In an editorial yesterday in the New York Times they demonstrate once again how deep they are in the tank for the Democratic Party.  The title of the editorial is Harmful Lending Practices and it attempts to describe the current financial crisis.  It begins:

“One of the questions lurking beneath the surface of the national debate over the mortgage crisis, which has placed six million Americans at risk of losing their homes this year and next, is who is to blame.”

They proceed to round up the usual suspects

1. Major Share of Responsibility

  • Reckless bankers
  • Feckless regulators
  • Greedy Traders

2. Some Measure of Personal Responsibility

  • People who bought homes with mortgages they could not afford

The editorial goes on to advocate more government intervention, naturally, as the solution.

There has hardly been a more egregious example of government intervention causing a massive problem and hardly a more egregious example of it being uniquely owned by the Democratic Party, going back to FDR.  Here is the history:

  • Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D) creates Fannie Mae to help people get mortgages to buy homes.  This is a classic example of It seemed like a good idea at the time. At its outset it seemed pretty benign, but like most government programs it lived on far beyond its original intent continuing to solve the problem long after the problem didn’t exist.
  • Lyndon Baines Johnson (D) privatizes Fannie Mae.  With his ambitious Great Society programs getting cued up he didn’t want to have Fannie Mae’s debt on the national balance sheet.  It might make the national debt look bad, which it was
  • James Earl Carter (D) created the Community Reinvestment Act – to encourage lenders to make more home loans to low and moderate income people.  The same people, because of their economic circumstances who were more likely to default on their loans.
  • William Jefferson Clinton (D) through his HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo and Attorney General Janet Reno put more teeth into the Community Reinvestment Act threatening banks with legal action if they didn’t increase lending to low and moderate income borrowers.  Not wanting to be tagged as racists the banks (reckless bankers) comply.
  • Barney Frank (D) and Christopher Dodd (D) block efforts to increase regulation and oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac saying as recently as mid-summer of 2008 that they were both fine and not only that, but good investments.  Christopher Dodd, meanwhile gets a sweetheart mortgage from Countrywide mortgage.

So while the Times is calling for more regulation and oversight they never once mention any of the above.  They mention lawmakers in general bipartisan language:

“Lawmakers, for their part, missed important chances to curtail some of these problems last year as the scale of the crisis was becoming apparent.”

Missed? Gosh darn it, how did that one slip by?  They didn’t MISS anything, they actively BLOCKED IT!  There is quite a difference between missing something and actively stopping it dead.

It is no wonder that the circulation of newspapers like the New York Times is crashing.  There are other media outlets and the Internet that show just how fallacious these editorials are.  With bigger and bigger government our liberties are being whittled away and the Freedom of the Press, enshrined in the First Amendment was put there to protect us from tyrannical government not to aid and abet it in the process.

That being said, this should brighten your day.  Real Estate Downfall on YouTube

Share and Recommend:

Piling on Palin

by Bill O'Connell on November 6, 2008

Share and Recommend:

You have to wonder.  Now that the election is over you would think that the focus would be on the president-elect and his transition.  That is newsworthy and is being covered, but the continuing focus on Sarah Palin is surprising.

Finishing Her Off?

Could it be that the left is so fearful of Sarah Palin and her ability to energize crowds that they feel they must finish her off, so she does not come back stronger and more popular?  Could it be that they can’t imagine facing her with four more years of experience under her belt?

Do the Attacks Pass the Smell Test?

A Fox news story said that the McCain campaign became increasingly disenchanted with Palin toward the end of the campaign.  It said that her lack of knowledge of the most basic facts about civics and geography were alarming.  This raises some interesting points:

  1. In vetting Sarah Palin, no matter how quickly or superficially it was done, how could they possibly miss issues so allegedly glaring?
  2. The opposition, which included the main stream media, descended on Alaska from north to south to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin.  Bill O’Reilly reported that the National Enquirer went up there checkbook in hand, to get any good story they could.  What did they come up with? Nothing. The only thing that came close to a story was Troopergate.  Try as they might to make it a big story and even an October surprise, it flopped.  She was later completely exonerated by the proper investigative authority in Alaska (not the Democrats in the legislature).  Interestingly, the vindication didn’t make much of a news splash even though the findings were released before the election.
  3. Her approval ratings as governor were the highest in the nation.  Could a complete dunderhead be so widely approved of?

Just How Thin Was Her Experience?

Ironically, in an article that was used to sandbag Sarah Palin in a CNN interview, Byron York wrote in National Review (“Sarah Palin, Governor”):

… a look at Palin’s 20 months in power, along with interviews with people who worked with her, shows her to be a serious executive, a governor who picked important things to do and got them done — and who didn’t just stumble into an 80 percent job-approval rating.

She took on her own party when she saw ethics problems.  How many Democrats can say that?  The typical Democratic response to scandal is circle the wagons, stonewall, and counter attack.  Just think Bill Clinton, Gerry Studds, Tim Mahoney, the Keating Five, et al.

She renegotiated a pipeline project with major oil companies that was originally negotiated by her predecessor on terms unfavorable to Alaska.  She overhauled the state ethics laws, working with both Democrats and Republicans in the Alaska legislature.  She also vetoed spending on things that she determined were not a state priority, for such things as “dealing with killer shrubs and Zamboni blades.”

Byron York distilled how she approached governing with three points:

  1. She hires well.  “There was a pretty good team of people assembled right away to come in and start with her big-picture principles and develop a process and legislation to carry that out,” says Joe Balash, the governor’s oil and gas advisor, “I would say that her management style is to give her staff, her cabinet, a pretty long leash, but with very high expectations — and she’s not afraid to tell you that you didn’t get it right.”
  2. She is involved in details in big things but not on everything.  In other words, she doesn’t get lost in the weeds.  She keeps focus on the the important things.
  3. She is dead set on fulfilling campaign promises.  Imagine that! A politician who actually cares about what they say on the campaign trail and says what they mean and means what they say.

Sarah Barracuda

Sarah has shed the muzzle of the second fiddle in a presidential race.  She no longer has to pull her punches so as not to conflict with the top of the ticket.  She is back to being governor and the chief executive of Alaska.  So she can now set the record straight and she should do so enthusiastically.  She should take advantage of media outlets that are fair and balanced, rather than lying in wait for her.  She should come out swinging and really let the left know that if they were frightened of her before, they have awakened a sleeping giant.

Share and Recommend:

Is the Fairness Doctrine Fair?

by Bill O'Connell on October 23, 2008

Share and Recommend:

Republican John Boehner is challenging Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico who is talking about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.  Nancy Pelosi is on board as well as many other Democrats.  Like many laws that come out of Washington, the put a nice label on it (after all who’s against fairness?) to hide the toxic material within.

The Fairness Doctrine is really about the suppression of free speech with the fig leaf of a “Mom and Apple Pie” name.  What really would happen is that a radio station agrees to air, let’s say, Rush Limbaugh for two hours.  Ratings are great, the advertisement revenues are strong, and life is good for the radio station.  The Fairness Doctrine kicks in and the station is required to air two hours of an opposing viewpoint, say Air America.  Listeners bail left and right, ratings plunge, advertising revenue falls off a cliff, because just like the real Air America, no one tuned in.  Nobody really wants to hear two hours of dull, unimaginative, Bush bashing.

The next week the radio station says to Rush, thanks but no thanks.  You were great, but for every minute we put you on the air, we have to put the other guys on the air.  Our competitors switched to music and they are doing fine.  We will also change our format from talk radio to Top 40s.  Sorry, Rush.  Sorry, America.

So it’s not about fairness, it’s not about improving the exchange of ideas, it’s about suppressing one of the few media outlets that liberals don’t control.  Liberals have the main stream media, they have most of the newspapers, they have NPR, they have the broadcast stations, but they haven’t found a way to silence talk radio, which is the loudest voice that calls them to account on positions and challenges them.

It a way to consolidate their power.  Win the Presidency, control both Houses of Congress, with veto proof majorities, nominate liberal justices to the Supreme Court, tip the balance of the electorate so that the majority don’t pay taxes, and to make sure it is almost impossible to speak out, suppress talk radio.

What do you think?

Share and Recommend:
© 2008 Liberty's Lifeline. All Rights Reserved.