Clipmarks | merrie's 'bush' clips

Thomas Sowell Opines --- Do Facts Matter?

Sun, 05 Oct 2008 04:41:25 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, five years ago.

Yet, today, what are we hearing? That it was the Bush administration "right-wing ideology" of "de-regulation" that set the stage for the financial crisis. Do facts matter?

We also hear that it is the free market that is to blame. But the facts show that it was the government that pressured financial institutions in general to lend to subprime borrowers, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and, later, threats of legal action by then Attorney General Janet Reno if the feds did not like the statistics on who was getting loans and who wasn't.

Is that the free market? Or do facts not matter?

Then there is the question of being against the "greed" of CEOs and for "the people." Franklin Raines made $90 million while he was head of Fannie Mae and mismanaging that institution into crisis.

Who in Congress defended Franklin Raines?

Clip Source: www.realclearpolitics.com

The current financial bailout crisis has propelled Barack Obama back into a substantial lead over John McCain--

It raises the question: Do facts matter? Or is Obama's rhetoric and the media's spin enough to make facts irrelevant?

Fact Number One: It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years-- including the present year-- denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that could lead to a financial crisis.

It was Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank and other liberal Democrats who for years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today's financial crisis.

Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President.

Tags: sub-prime mortgage, market collapse, barney frank, chris dodd, barack obama, head of fannie mae, deposed franklin raines, freddie mac

Democrat Fingerprints Are All Over The Financial Crisis

Sat, 04 Oct 2008 10:50:26 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: ........under stricter regulatory control. In 2006, it was revealed that Fannie Mae had overstated its earnings – to which its senior executives' bonuses were linked – by a stunning $9.3billion.
Between 1998 and 2003, Fannie Mae's executive chairman, Franklin Raines, picked up over $90m in bonuses and stock options.

Yet Barney Frank and his chums blocked all Bush's attempts to put a rein on Raines. During the House Financial Services Committee hearing following Bush's initiative, Frank declared: "The more people exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness [at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae], the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury which I do not see.
"There were nearly a dozen hearings where we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke. Mr Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and particularly at Fannie Mae under the outstanding leadership of Mr Franklin Raines."

Clip Source: www.independent.co.uk

Neither of these two institutions is blameless – far from it. Yet when I see such senior Democrats as Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Christopher Dodd, Chairman of the Senate's Banking Committee, play the part of avenging angels – well, I can only stand in silent awe at the sheer tight-bottomed nerve of it. These are men with sphincters of steel.

Which organisations were on their own responsible for guaranteeing half of this $12 trillion market? Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the so-called Government Sponsored Enterprises which last month were formally nationalised to prevent their immediate and catastrophic collapse. Now, who do you think were among the leading figures blocking all the earlier attempts by President Bush – and other Republicans – to bring these lending behemoths under greater regulatory control? Step forward, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

In September 2003 the Bush administration launched a measure to bring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Tags: bailout, franks, dodd, waters, freddie mac, fannie mae, franklin raines, bill clinton, barack obama

Obama Needs To Lead, Not Join Bi-Partisan Bailout Musketeers

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 02:22:11 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: There are rumblings that McCain may attempt to torpedo the nascent bailout agreement in an attempt to play the populist rebel. As Marc Ambinder puts it: "nothing says 'maverick,' like voting against Bush and standing with the American public, who remain very wary of the proposal." Rank and file House Republicans are also shaking their heads and muttering "no deal." So will it be Obama, as the standard bearer of the Democratic Party, making a deal that, in the end, adopts the overriding trickle down essence of the original Paulson plan: give Wall Street what it wants, cross our fingers, and hope that the crisis is averted?

Instead of siding with Bush and Paulson on far too many deal points, Obama should draw a line in the sand and refuse to cross it.

Voters are not looking for smiling post-partisan photo ops. They are looking for a leader willing to fight for a bailout plan that more directly protects the interests of the American people.

Clip Source: www.huffingtonpost.com

"This is our moment," Obama keeps saying in his speeches. And this is his moment to lead, rather than to appear as one of the Bailout Bipartisan Musketeers ("One for all, and all for Goldman Sachs").

Could it be that he's surrounded himself with so many advisors who are looking at the bailout from a Wall Street perspective, he now sees it that way too?

Last night, he announced that he'd urged Democratic leaders in Congress not to pursue efforts to include an economic stimulus package in the bailout, or to push for a provision giving bankruptcy judges the power to rework mortgage rates because it might derail a deal.

But, as David Sirota, asks: "When did a crisis suddenly mean that giving away taxpayer cash is laudably apolitical, but spending taxpayer money on taxpayers is inappropriately 'political?'"

There has been a flood of irate calls and emails pouring into Congressional offices from people who are not buying George Bush's efforts last night to paint the bailout not as a helping han

Tags: government bailout, henry paulson, obama, bi-partisan bailout, "no-deal"house gop

Draft Proposal of the Financial Rescue Bill

Sun, 28 Sep 2008 12:15:46 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: CRITICAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RESCUE PLAN.
Democrats have insisted from day one on substantial changes to make the Bush-Paulson plan acceptable — protecting American taxpayers and Main Street — and these elements will be included in the legislation

Protection for taxpayers, ensuring THEY share IN ANY profits

• Cuts the payment of $700 billion in half and conditions future payments on Congressional review

• Gives taxpayers an ownership stake and profit-making opportunities with participating companies

• Puts taxpayers first in line to recover assets if participating company fails

• Guarantees taxpayers are repaid in full — if other protections have not actually produced a profit

• Allows the government to purchase troubled assets from pension plans, local governments, and small banks that serve low- and middle-income families

Clip Source: www.foxnews.com

REINVEST, REIMBURSE, REFORM

IMPROVING THE FINANCIAL RESCUE LEGISLATION

Significant bipartisan work has built consensus around dramatic improvements to the original Bush-Paulson plan to stabilize American financial markets — including cutting in half the Administration’s initial request for $700 billion and requiring Congressional review for any future commitment of taxpayers’ funds. If the government loses money, the financial industry will pay back the taxpayers.

3 Phases of a Financial Rescue with Strong Taxpayer Protections.

• Reinvest in the troubled financial markets … to stabilize our economy and insulate Main Street from Wall Street

• Reimburse the taxpayer … through ownership of shares and appreciation in the value of purchased assets

• Reform business-as-usual on Wall Street … strong Congressional oversight and no golden parachutes

Tags: dramatic improvements, bush-paulson, financial rescue bill, reinvest, reimburse, reform

Senator McCain Shoves Bush-Paulson "Bailout" Under The Bus

Sat, 27 Sep 2008 01:50:34 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: All they needed was John McCain to put the deal through. This deal, by the way, had 20% of the 700 billion going to ACORN. ACORN is a "community organization that Barack Obama used to work with and continues to support. They are under investigation concerning voter fraud. Why would any bill for bailing out Wall Street have a provision for funding this far-left organization?

I don't know why President Bush is putting his name on this horrible policy, but I am thankful that Senator McCain had the guts to stand against this bailout and give Boehnor and the house a chance to fix the mess on Wall Street (although I personally think that we should let the markets fall or rise where they may).

Clip Source: scarlettnews.blogspot.com

I think there has been a misunderstanding on what John McCain's job and/or position was on this bailout of the financial institutions. When Senator Harry Reid called McCain back to Washington saying that he was the only person who could get the bill passed, he should have been more careful of what he wished.

Harry Reid wanted John McCain to come to Washington to give his blessing to the Paulson/Bush/democrat approved pork filled bill that would have cost the tax payers somewhere in the area of one trillion dollars. Well, John McCain had a plan of his own. After much arguing under a Senator Obama led meeting (showing he was way over his head), John McCain backed the house republican plan led by John Boehnor for a free market plan - not a bailout - of the financial markets.

Basically, the dems of the house and senate kept the republicans out of any negotiations regarding the bailout. They thought they had the upper hand with the President and Paulson.

Tags: mccain, dingy harry, pork filled bail out bill, minority leader john boehner, free market plan

Financial Crisis Timeline

Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:26:39 GMT

clipped by: n2sooners

Clip Source: gatewaypundit.blogspot.com

Democrats Were Warned & Consistently Blocked Reform--

Way back in 2001 The Bush Administration raised red flags.

In 2008, Bush warned the Democratic majority 17 times that there was a looming crisis and that mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac needed reform.

In 2003, former Treasury Secretary John Snow testified before the House Financial Services Committee and said this:

SNOW: We need a strong world-class regulatory agency to oversee the prudential operations of the GSEs and the safety and the soundness of their financial activities.

In 2005- Senator John McCain partnered with three other Senate Republicans to reform the government’s involvement in lending.

Sadly, in every instance since 2001, Democrats either ignored or blocked any attempts at reform.

Even Bill Clinton admits it.

Yesterday, FOX News put together a timeline on the crisis and attempts at reform.

[Video]

Terry Jones at Investor's Business Daily reported "How A Clinton-Era Rule Rewrite Made Subprime Crisis Inevitable."

Tags: finance, housing, crisis, timeline, democrats, politics

Private Sector Caused This Mess, The Government Has To Get Us Out

Tue, 23 Sep 2008 04:57:58 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: from government bondage. Right. There's also a bridge to the Kremlin they'd like to sell you.

Which brings us back to the current subprime mortgage crisis. When we strip away all the complexity, we discover that social planning largely led to this debacle. Government politicians and bureaucrats forced lending institutions to make un-creditworthy loans and helped create unnatural demand in the housing market by priming the pump on bad loans.

I don't pretend to have enough information or expertise to know whether the Bush-Paulson bailout proposal, or some iteration of it, is necessary to avert a horrifying financial meltdown, but apparently, many experts, including conservative ones, do.

Now the stability of our entire financial system is said to be at risk. It's so bad that even conservatives are considering supporting an unprecedented plan [...]
None of this would be half as troubling to me if I believed both political parties would address it in good faith.

Clip Source: www.davidlimbaugh.com

History has shown that liberal prescriptions don't work, but when they fail, liberals invariably not only deny responsibility for their do-gooder manipulation but also insist on even more government intrusion.

For example, many of our health care problems can be traced to increased government control and the reduction of market forces. Yet the liberal solution is full-blown nationalized health care.

Instead of creating a trust fund segregated from general revenues, congressional liberals with an insatiable appetite for spending raided Social Security revenues from day one.

President Bush proposed that people be allowed to set a portion of their Social Security funds aside in private accounts

They called it a risky scheme to benefit Wall Street. Barack Obama is the latest in a long line of liberal demagogues to make this claim

Clip Source: townhall.com

Clip Source: www.davidlimbaugh.com

but his ad on this subject was so distorted as to earn a reprimand from FactCheck.org

Just give us totalitarian control and we'll eventually unshackle the proletariat

Tags: bush-paulson proposal, fannie mae, subprime mortgage crisis

Ethically Bankrupt

Fri, 19 Sep 2008 02:49:56 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: Virtually all the mistakes have been caused by errors in regulation — not by "corporate greed," as liberal Democrats would have it. Corporations follow the signals and guidelines set by Washington. When those are faulty, bad things happen and taxpayers pay.

Remember this, too, when Congress cranks up hearings and vilifies one CEO after another for "looting" their companies. It was Congress that created the subprime crisis. Any promises that it makes to solve it should be viewed with serious skepticism.

Dirksen would have been impressed. By our count, that's about $2 trillion, or 14%, of a $14 trillion economy. How did it happen?

One case after another has been made for intervention in the private economy, based on the principle that some private-sector financial institutions, such as Bear Stearns and AIG, are "too big to fail."

If they did fail, it would lead to a financial market catastrophe — or what the Fed on Wednesday referred to as "disorderly failure."

Clip Source: www.investors.com

We've already documented how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were used as a jobs program for out-of-work Clinton administration officials and other Democrats, ranging from Franklin Raines to Jamie Gorelick to Jim Johnson.

And how tens of millions of dollars in political donations from those two government-sponsored enterprises distorted decision-making in Congress. This has been the problem all along.

Remember this when a Democrat-led Congress holds hearings — as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi now promises — and lambastes "the private sector" and "Bush economic policies" for these market meltdowns. Neither deserves the blame.

President Bush tried to reform Fannie and Freddie in 2004 but was rebuffed. A Democrat-led Congress, with some help from weak GOP members, has made repeated mistakes in turning our world-class financial system into an over-regulated, politicized piggy bank for Democratic causes and candidates

Tags: fannie mae, freddie mac, clinton adm. piggy bank, franklin raines, jamie gorelick, jim johnson, pres bush 2004 reform

Three Senators Opened The Door For Iraq Oil Contracts For Red China

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:48:00 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: but the resulting media hooraw in Iraq led to the cancellation of the contracts, and helps to explain why Iraq is doing oil deals instead with China.

Senators Schumer, McCaskill, and Kerry claimed: “It is our fear that this action by the Iraqi government could further deepen political tensions in Iraq and put our service members in even great danger.” For that reason, presumably, Schumer went so far as to ask the senior vice president of Exxon “if his company would agree to wait until the GOI produced a fair, equitable, and transparent hydrocarbon revenue sharing law before it signed any long-term agreement with the GOI.” Exxon naturally refused, but Schumer managed to get the deal killed anyway.

Clip Source: www.brutallyhonest.org

Fred Kagan details how three US Senators killed an Iraqi deal with US oil firms to develop part of their industry. And in so doing, the door was opened for China to seize the contracts instead. It’s maddening, and on par with the logic of watching Chinese oil companies drill for oil and gas resources just off the Florida coast and not us.

One would have thought that leading Democratic senators who claim to be interested in finding other sources of funding to replace American dollars in Iraq, in helping Iraq spend its own money on its own people, and in lowering the price of gasoline for American citizens, would have been all for it. Instead, Senators Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, and Claire McCaskill wrote a letter to Secretary of State Rice asking her “to persuade the GOI [Government of Iraq] to refrain from signing contracts with multinational oil companies until a hydrocarbon law is in effect in Iraq.”

The Bush administration wisely refused to do so,

Tags: gov of iraq, us oil firms, no-bid contracts, exxon, sec of state rice, president bush, schumer, kerry, mccaskill, chinese contracts

Obama Tried To Stall GI's Iraq Withdrawal

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:30:54 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Bush administration have a more flexible timetable in mind.

According to Zebari, the envisaged time span is two or three years - departure in 2011 or 2012. That would let Iraq hold its next general election, the third since liberation, and resolve a number of domestic political issues.

Even then, the dates mentioned are only "notional," making the timing and the cadence of withdrawal conditional on realities on the ground as appreciated by both sides.

Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as "a man of the Left" - who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq's liberation.

Clip Source: www.nypost.com

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq.

Tags: us troops in iraq, obama stall military presence, hoshyar zebari, gen. david petraeus, un mandate extension

Obama’s Shifting Positions on Iraq: A Rezko Connection?

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 07:27:45 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: Obama was at a party on April 3 — two days before the video– with Nadhmi Auchi, a London-based Iraqi billionaire who attended a Tony Rezko party in Chicago. The Chicago Tribune blog covered Obama’s recollection of the party in depth.

Late last week, Sen. Barack Obama said he didn’t recall meeting a controversial Iraqi-born billionaire at a party held at the home of his former friend and fundraiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko, on April 3, 2004, because it was in the midst of his campaign for the U.S. Senate seat from Illinois.

But a check on the senator’s calendar showed he had no campaign activities on the day of the Auchi party. The Chicago Sun-Times reported that despite Obama’s inability to recall meeting Mr. Auchi, two sources said the senator was present.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/obamas_rezkoauchi_recollection.html

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/894559,CST-NWS-rezko15.article

Clip Source: pajamasmedia.com

On October 2, 2002, Obama gave a speech categorically opposing an invasion of Iraq. He said:

But on April 5, 2004, Barack Obama appeared to significantly alter his position on Iraq. A YouTube video of Obama shows the incredulity on the interviewer’s face as Obama unexpectedly sounded almost like President Bush on the subject of retaining troops in Iraq.

Interviewer: But you said that troops should be withdrawn.

Obama: No, no. I’ve never said that troops should be withdrawn.

Obama’s change of tone in 2004 was so noticeable that Howard Kurtz couldn’t help but notice how striking the Illinois senator’s position was in mid-2004. Obama was quoted as saying:

There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.

But Rezko Watch, a blog following the trial of the Chicago political operative and Obama’s close friend and contributor Tony Rezko, remembered that something else took place in April

Tags: obama, rezko, auchi, kirdish power plant, chamchamal power plant

Charles Gibson's Gaffe Charles Krauthammer

Sat, 13 Sep 2008 00:05:07 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: I [Charles Krauthammer] was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush Doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine. It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years.

Clip Source: www.washingtonpost.com

Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "

-- New York Times, Sept. 12

Informed her? Rubbish.

The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush Doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush Doctrine notes,

Tags: sarah palin interview, charles gibson, bush doctrine, nytimes

Bush 7, Terrorists 0

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:29:56 GMT

clipped by: sparlingphoto
clipper's remarks: Flame on...just like GW, I can take it... and Annie definitely can!

Clip Source: www.humanevents.com

Morose that there hasn't been another terrorist attack on American soil for seven long years, liberals were ecstatic when Hurricane Gustav was headed toward New Orleans during the Republican National Convention last week. The networks gave the hurricane plenty of breaking-news coverage -- but unfortunately it was Hurricane Katrina from 2005 they were covering.

There wasn't a major al-Qaida attack in 2003. Nor in 2004, 2005, 2006 or 2007. Manifestly, liberals thought there would be: They announced a standard of success that they expected Bush to fail.

If Bush's only concern were about his approval ratings, like a certain impeached president I could name, he would not have fought for the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq. He would not have resisted the howling ninnies demanding that we withdraw from Iraq, year after year.

By liberals' own standard, Bush's war on terrorism has been a smashing, unimaginable success.

The Mysterious Missing “Dear Leader” of North Korea, Kim Jong Il

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 04:29:07 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: Verify North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Programs?– Hey, They Can’t Even Find Kim Jong Il

That hasn’t stopped the Bush administration, with the Condi Rice State Department blazing the way, from sending Kim — or whoever it might be in Pyongyang — $25 million in hard cash, re-starting the Clinton era shipments of free fuel, shoveling in aid (which North Korea can all too easily divert from hungry people to its massive military machine) and ladling out a series of diplomatic concessions in hope of pleasing Kim enough so that he will at least provide a full accounting of his nuclear programs — which North Korea has yet to deliver.

Give us a break. Step one ought to be a “verification protocol” for who’s actually in charge, and where he/they are. Step two should be the end of that regime. Not payoffs and dignification of the mystery tyrant.

Clip Source: pajamasmedia.com

Whatever’s become of the elusive Kim, his current vanishing act highlights the willful idiocy of U.S. policy that has sought, first under President Clinton, and again during the second term of President Bush, to strike nuclear disarmament deals with North Korea that depend on Kim’s promises of future cooperation. The problem is not solely determining whether Kim himself is alive or dead, but that nothing issuing from him (assuming it IS him), or his regime can be trusted, and as we are now observing, it cannot even be verified.

More than a year-and-a-half has passed since the State Department trumpeted a breakthrough nuclear disarmament deal with North Korea — which has turned into a debacle. Just last weekend, U.S. special envoy to the Six-Party Talks, Chris Hill, was back in Beijing nattering on about the need for North Korea to provide a “verification protocol” for its nuclear ventures.

Tags: north korea, kim jong il, nuclear disarmament deals, u.s. envoy chris hill, "verification protocol"

Team Obama's Response to the Political Speech of the 21st Century

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 09:38:49 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: UPDATE (Wed Sep 3 @ 11:00pm): Here is the real Obama response. Lemme tell ya, if they can't tell the difference between George W. Bush and Sarah Barracuda, they have bigger problems than I ever suspected.

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/03/yeah-it-was-a-good-speech-but/

Clip Source: www.beldar.org

I just heard Brit Hume read aloud the Obama-Biden campaign's response to Gov. Palin's acceptance speech. It went:

George Bush. George Bush. George Bush.

That's not an exact quote, but it's awfully close. I promise you there was no other substance to it at all.

Meantime, I'm very sure I can hear a thin, persistant whine. (It's all the air going out of the Obama balloon.)

Prediction: The smear attempts will return with renewed force and extra desperation before dawn tomorrow. But it's too late.

America has a new sweetheart.

Tags: gov. palin's acceptance speech, team obama response