The Thrill Is Gone: Obama Hurting For Money

The man who made campaigning a full time job even in the months after winning an election has either tapped his supporters dry or just isn't that liked anymore.

Here we have Governor O'Malley:

He continued: “I think we all need to put our oars in the water and we all need to row forward and I think especially Democrats of means have to stop being so precious about the magic wand that the president hasn’t waved on this issue, that issue or the other issue. I mean, my goodness, I thought we were working and electing a president, not a magician here. This is the real world.”

Welcome to the world the rest of us Americans are living in: Liberals want more and more and give nothing back but that nice feeling of being called a cheapskate. O'Malley didn't just come up with this on his own, I've heard him, he's not that smart. no, there's deep concern in the Democratic party that the money they've counted on is starting to head the other direction or just plain sit this out.

I guess businessmen who gave to Obama last time around got little sick of being told they are selfish assholes and should give up some of what they've worked for in the name progressivism. Getting beaten by the man you supported to the tune of four, five or six figures gets really old after awhile I guess.

But hey, if by chance you are getting married, you can always have your friends and anticipated wedding guests pony up some funds for Barry and Michelle to continue living off the public teat.

Via Weasel Zippers. 

Liberals Shocked to Learn Liberals are Stingy

The reason is right in front of their faces. Look at the amount conservatives give to charity and the amount liberals do. Look at Tim Geithner and the myriad others Obama has brought in who failed to pay their taxes. The evidence is empirical that liberals hate parting with their own money--but love to spend everyone elses.

So why would they be so surprised and upset that liberal groups flush with money aren't spreading the wealth?

Some of the leading liberal bloggers are privately furious (not any more--ed) with the major progressive groups — and in some cases, the Democratic Party committees — for failing to spend money advertising on their sites, even as these groups constantly ask the bloggers for free assistance in driving their message.

I've an idea, how about you print your own opinions and stop regurgitating what the Dems tell you to. It's called have morals and being intellectually honest. I've never received a single peso from any group asking me to write about them. As for the other big bloggers, I'm reasonably sure that they have conference calls but typically make that known and then write a straight piece about what was discussed.

It’s a development that’s creating tensions on the left and raises questions about the future role of the blogosphere at a time when a Dem is in the White House and liberalism could be headed for a period of sustained ascendancy.

I'm not quite sure about that "ascendancy" thing of which you speak, Mr. Sargent. The various tea parties and the abbreviated honeymoon period seem to debunk that but I digress. The liberal blogosphere has had an impact but not as much as the socialist's at FiredogLake and Daily Kos think it has. Obama would have won with or without them and he knows it. He used you, just like he used anyone who would help him achieve his means. Hopefully he left a c-note on the nightstand for you.

“They come to us, expecting us to give them free publicity, and we do, but it’s not a two way street,” Jane Hamsher, the founder of FiredogLake, said in an interview. “They won’t do anything in return. They’re not advertising with us. They’re not offering fellowships. They’re not doing anything to help financially, and people are growing increasingly resentful.”

Hamsher is actually surprised by this? The Democrats are treating bloggers just like they've always treated blacks and other minorities; they wink at you and make you feel special and once they win the election they forget about you until the next one. Mark my words, they will come around in early 2010 and make you feel all warm and fuzzy until we get to December 2010 and they'll blow you off again.

Hamsher singled out Americans United for Change, which raises and spends big money on TV ad campaigns driving Obama’s agenda, as well as the constellation of groups associated with it, and the American Association of Retired Persons, also a big TV advertiser.

“Most want the easy way — having a big blogger promote their agenda,” adds Markos Moulitsas, the founder of DailyKos. “Then they turn around and spend $50K for a one-page ad in the New York Times or whatever.” Moulitsas adds that officials at such groups often do nothing to engage the sites’s audiences by, say, writing posts, instead wanting the bloggers to do everything for them.

The people who support AARP would take one look at the anti-Semitism and vile anti-Americanism of Hamsher's and Kos' sites and run away screaming. Why would they want to advertise there? Or Kos' site with his raging horde of commies who are vulgar and crude? The groups mentioned want to be legitimate and advertising on sites where f-bombs and a barely-concealed (and sometimes overt) hatred for American values are a daily occurrence would not be helpful.

Still, it's entertaining to listen to them complain like the whiny liberals they are. It's tough realizing you've been used like the woman who pays her boyfriend's way through med school and once he graduates he takes off with another hottie.

Update: The best response to this I've read comes from the Gun-Toting Liberal. Take a minute to read it.

Yankess Insanity Continues: Teixeira Gets $180 Mil

You've got to be kidding me:

NEW YORK (AP) - The New York Yankees reeled in another prime free agent, reaching a preliminary agreement Tuesday with first baseman Mark Teixeira for $180 million over eight years.

A person familiar with the negotiations disclosed the agreement, which is subject to a physical. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the deal was not yet final.

Teixeira's deal raises the Yankees' offseason spending spree to $423.5 million. Just last Thursday, the Yankees completed agreements with two pitchers, giving CC Sabathia a $161 million, seven-year contract and A.J. Burnett an $82.5 million, five-year deal.

You read that correctly: $423.5 million in one off-season. It seems like Steinbrenner, Jr. hates losing even more than the old man.

Nice signings all but Sabathia or Burnett could easily blow out a shoulder or elbow and the Yanks would be on the hook for their entire salaries. Plus, Sabathia is not a proven post-season stud as was made abundantly clear by the Phillies on their march to the title this year with his ugly beautiful sequence against Myers and Victorino's epic grand slam:



Teixeira is a nice player with a great glove and a sweet swing and if it had been one pitcher and him, I'd have said it was a good off-season but all of them? I've never advocated for a salary cap in baseball but I will now. Add to that the massive increase the Yanks will have to tack on to tickets and the team will be priced right out of the reach of their true fans.

Here's hoping the Phillies meet them in the Series next year and shut them down.

Wall Street Rollercoaster Continues (updated)

Jeez.

As we speak, the Dow is off 240 after dropping 600 at the open. President Bush will address the issue at 10:00 eastern.

Amazingly, in the two minutes I've spent writing this, the Dow has gained back 80 points and then lost thirty again.

Update: Now off 310.

Update: One week ago today the House passed the ridiculous bailout bill throwing good sense and economic principles out the window. Has any legislation ever been shown to be so misguided in so short a time as that inane bill? I think not.

It's getting close to the time that big investors start bargain hunting. Some people are going to get really fat and the strongest will be invincible once this settles out.

Update: The Dow nearly reached positive territory before falling back, the NASDAQ is up 10. Amazing.

Update: An interesting thought just occurred to me. If, as Allah notes. people are pulling their 401K's out in droves, the federal tax revenues collected will be enormous. Say 5-million people bail on the market--probably a very conservative estimate--they will all be paying the penalty for withdrawal, which means billions in taxes that would have been deferred for decades. It should be interesting to see what tax collections show for this quarter.

Update: President Bush just announced a new plan to shore up the credit markets that will cost an additional $700-billion. I need to digest that for a few minutes.

Update: Cavuto says get the hell out of the way and let the market do what it will. I can't argue with that. Markets dropped after Bush's speech.

Pelosi Paying Hubby From PAC

San Fran Nan is in a bit of trouble:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has directed nearly $100,000 from her political action committee to her husband's real estate and investment firm over the past decade, a practice of paying a spouse with political donations that she supported banning last year.

...Lawmakers' frequent use of campaign donations to pay relatives emerged as an issue in the 2006 election campaigns, when the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal gave Democrats fodder to criticize Republicans such as former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas and Rep. John T. Doolittle of California for putting their wives on their campaign and PAC payrolls for fundraising work.

Last year, Mrs. Pelosi supported a bill that would have banned members of Congress from putting spouses on their campaign staffs. The bill - which passed the House in a voice vote but did not get out of a Senate committee - banned not only direct payments by congressional campaign committees and PACs to spouses for services including consulting and fundraising, but also "indirect compensation," such as payments to companies that employ spouses.

This is from the Washington Times and will never make the pages of the Washington Post or New York Times until it becomes a full-blown scandal (and the MSM will do everything possible to keep that from happening). Yet, Pelosi is caught with her hand in the cookie jar and the GOP will be ready to pounce, especially after the speech she gave slamming them just moments before the biggest vote in decades.

It's time for the RNC to strike and strike hard. Run ad after ad on this, it's an issue that Americans can grasp easily: A politician hired her spouse and pays him an exorbitant fee thus enriching herself. It's not illegal but is most-definitely shady. It's time to make the Speaker of the House sweat.

A Reasoned Approach to Abandoning the Bailout

As written by a "Libertarian economist":

The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company.

Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.

In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This "moral hazard" generates enormous distortions in an economy's allocation of its financial resources.

In other words, rewarding those who made poor decisions with the ability to make more poor decisions. This is what got us into this mess; banks--with pressure from the government--gave mortgages to those who had no business getting them. Someone making minimum wage has no business buying a $300,000 house yet the Democrats, through Fannie and Freddie, changed the idea of owning a house from a privilege that is earned through hard work and education to a right. Owning a house is not a right.

I'm steadfastly against the bailout at this point after being on the bubble until yesterday. It goes against Conservative principles completely to essentially nationalize private businesses. If Republicans vote to allow a bailout, we will have lost any high ground we may have had on fixing social security, extending the Bush tax cuts and fighting against socialized medicine. You can not be for socialistic policies on one hand and against them on the other. Selective capitalism is a recipe for disaster.

Update: More along these lines in this essay by John Montgomery in The Australian.

Buyers Converge on Decimated Market

The Dow is up 230 (2.22%) in the first few minutes as bargain shoppers look for big scores. It'll be interesting to see how much the markets gain back today and gauge the general feeling on The Street.

Be Careful For What You Ask...

Barack Obama lost some of his mojo when he eschewed public financing for the private type. Drudge is teasing a story about Obama now having trouble raising money.

Wouldn't it be ironic if he had less money to work with than McCain in the last 54-days?

Although McCain can no longer accept private funding, he sure had a good closing few days.

Yes, once again I'll say: Governor Sarah Palin is paying nice dividends indeed.

Barack's Oil Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds

McCain is on the ballot and in bed with Exxon and Obama is clean of any oily residue, right? Uh, no:

Through June, Exxon employees have given Obama $42,100 to McCain's $35,166. Chevron favors Obama $35,157 to $28,500, and Obama edges out McCain with BP $16,046 vs. $11,500. McCain leads the money race with nearly every other top giver in the oil and gas industry, though -- Koch Industries, Valero, Marathon Oil, Occidental Petroleum, ConocoPhillips, the list goes on. (You can see detail on all these companies in the spreadsheet linked below.) McCain also has a big edge with Hess Corp. -- $91,000 to Obama's $8,000 -- which has gotten some attention. And, overall, McCain's campaign has gotten three times more money from the industry than Obama's has -- $1.3 million compared to about $394,000.

Of course McCain has received more from the corporations but Obama is receiving quite a bit from individuals employed by them. I guess those people don't yet realize that The Messiah aims to put them out of work, pronto, if elected because he has to lower the seas and make the world cooler and American Big Oil companies are the reason for all the worlds ills.

So Obama has a campaign plane without a single US flag but he should really apply this logo if he wanted to be honest: