From Bruce McQuain at Q&O, comes a quiz:

1.  Who identified and tried to fix what presently ails Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae 5 years ago?

2.  Who opposed the plan, saying they were not in any kind of financial crisis?

McQuain gives a hint as to what the answer to #2 is; the same folks who say Social Security is just fine, and Medicare is doing well, too.  Bruce has a link to a contemporaneous New York Times article that explains the proposal and the smack down. 

Remember this when Dem…er, certain politicians try to place blame for this and try to use it as a campaign gimmick.

Everybody says they want more politicians in office that fight corruption, wasteful spending, and are willing to go after their own party to do it.  Yet Sarah Palin is continually talked down by Democrats, who’s concerns about corruption seem to have taken a holiday.

Now comes word that their concerns about bipartisanship — about both parties working together — is also on vacation.

Sen. John McCain’s record of working with Democrats easily outstrips Sen. Barack Obama’s efforts with Republicans, according to an analysis by The Washington Times of their legislative records.

Whether looking at bills they have led on or bills they have signed onto, Mr. McCain has reached across the aisle far more frequently and with more members than Mr. Obama since the latter came to the Senate in 2005.

In fact, by several measures, Mr. McCain has been more likely to team up with Democrats than with members of his own party. Democrats made up 55 percent of his political partners over the last two Congresses, including on the tough issues of campaign finance and global warming. For Mr. Obama, Republicans were only 13 percent of his co-sponsors during his time in the Senate, and he had his biggest bipartisan successes on noncontroversial measures, such as issuing a postage stamp in honor of civil rights icon Rosa Parks.

Democrats say that they want bipartisanship, and indeed have praised McCain’s overtures to them in the past.  But all of a sudden, that seems to be ancient history.

Now, I will say that I’m not entirely a big fan of some of McCain’s bipartisanship. McCain-Feingold “First Amendment Abridgement Act” (my name for it, not theirs) is a prime example.  But outside the campaign season, politician and voter alike keep complaining about how all this bickering in Washington keeps them from doing “the people’s business”.  But here we are, with the most bipartisan politician for President I think we may have ever seen, and suddenly Democrats have lost all interest in it.

Oh, and Sarah Palin is also quite adept with respect to bipartisanship, getting a 75% job approval rating from Alaska Democrats.  Congress can only dream of such high numbers.
Guess “bipartisanship” just means “doing what I want you to do”.

The media has seemed to take Obama’s side in McCain’s ad accusing the Democrat of signing a bill that would bring "comprehensive sex education" to children as young as kindergarten.  The Obama camp called this a lie, that it was mostly about inappropriate touching at the young ages, and the media have played it that way.

Except that, as Byron York notes, when you actually read the bill and speak to its cosponsors (well, the one he could ever contact about it), that’s not necessarily the case.  Now, Obama may have had his own reasons for voting for the bill, but as York summarizes:

But we do know that the bill itself was much more than that. The fact is, the bill’s intention was to mandate that issues like contraception and the prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases be included in sex-education classes for children before the sixth grade, and as early as kindergarten.  Obama’s defenders may howl, but the bill is what it is.

Read the whole thing(tm).

Barack Obama’s former employer as a community organizer is at it again, trying to elect their favorite son by any means necessary.

Several municipal clerks across the state are reporting fraudulent and duplicate voter registration applications, most of them from a nationwide community activist group working to help low- and moderate-income families.

The majority of the problem applications are coming from the group ACORN, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, which has a large voter registration program among its many social service programs. ACORN’s Michigan branch, based in Detroit, has enrolled 200,000 voters statewide in recent months, mostly with the use of paid, part-time employees.

"There appears to be a sizeable number of duplicate and fraudulent applications," said Kelly Chesney, spokeswoman for the Michigan Secretary of State’s Office. "And it appears to be widespread."

But ACORN is an equal-opportunity defrauder.  Michigan isn’t singled out.

In recent years, ACORN’s voter registration programs have come under investigation in Ohio, Colorado, Missouri and Washington, with some employees convicted of voter fraud.

ACORN officials said they were looking into the problem.

Indeed, with conclusions, no doubt, some time after election day.

I was going to put a blog post together on this issue, but Dan Spencer at Redstate has done so, and with links to keep you busy for quite some time.

Among his list of things Palin has done on the earmark front, and contrasted with Obama:

• She ordered her administration to cut the number of earmarks (including the "Bridge to Nowhere").
• He consistently supported said bridge, even refusing to redirect funds for it to Katrina victims.
• She significantly reduced the number and dollar value of earmarks to the state of Alaska.
• She vetoed nearly $500 million in government spending over 2 years
• He has requested nearly $1 billion in earmarks over 3 years.

With a tip of the Blogger’s Fedora ™ to PowerLine, Charlie Gibson dabbled in some out-of-context quoting to try to slip up Sarah Palin last night.

GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

Yes, the exact words, but in the middle of a 3-sentence thought that put it in context.  From the video:

Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.

To break it down linguistically, the "also" that begins the second sentence continues the "pray for" thought.  So to put the phrase that Gibson was referring to in its context, it would more correctly be "Pray that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God."  That is a very different statement than the one Gibson infers; suggesting Palin was declaring it as such.  Fortunately, she had the presence of mind to catch that and clear it up.

PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.

But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.

That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie.

GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln’s words, but you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”

But apparently, Gibson’s deceit couldn’t help but try to pull more out of context.  And it simply had to be deceit, because if he read or heard enough of the quote to pull out those phrases, he couldn’t possibly have missed the very nearby context.

Gibson did apparently dry off quite well before the interview after being so long in the tank for Obama. 

We’ve hit this topic recently on the group blog I contribut to, "Stones Cry Out", but Danny Carlton pointed me to a Clinton forum where folks are speaking out as to why they’re going to vote McCain.

He especially notes this post, wherein a socially liberal woman lists all her reasons for supporting the McCain/Palin ticket.  Yes, it’s mostly over Palin, but not just because she’s a woman.

I have always voted Democrat, I was a strong Hillary supporter, I am pro-choice, socially liberal, pro GLBT and I am so proud to be supporting the McCain/Palin ticket!

I plan to send in $$ when I can to the McCain campaign. I can’t tell you how thrilled I am the McCain choose Palin as his running mate. I love the fact that she is considered a reformer, has tackled corruption in high places, has Executive experience, a watchdog for our tax dollars, a woman who is comfortable doing stuff with her hands and isn’t afraid to take the lead! We have been given a present from above. It can’t get any better!!

This may not completely clear up how many women may be making the switch to the GOP for this election, but it does help answer some of the "Why?" questions.

For 8 years, liberals have accused George W. Bush of "shredding the Constitution".  But as Rasmussen Reports notes, Obama supporters don’t even seem to take the Constitution seriously.

OK, civics question:  The job of the Supreme Court is to … what?  What is their primary purpose?  Wikipedia tells us that, while the Court’s purpose was a bit hazy during the early years of our country, it finally congealed.

Initially, during the tenures of Chief Justices Jay, Rutledge, and Ellsworth (1789–1801), the Court lacked a home of its own and any real prestige.

That changed during the Marshall Court (1801–1836), which declared the Court to be the supreme arbiter of the Constitution (see Marbury v. Madison) and made a number of important rulings which gave shape and substance to the constitutional balance of power between the federal government (referred to at the time as the "general" government) and the states. In Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, the Court ruled that it had the power to correct interpretations of the federal Constitution made by state supreme courts. Both Marbury and Martin confirmed that the Supreme Court was the body entrusted with maintaining the consistent and orderly development of federal law.

The Supreme Court is to rule on the constitutionality of the cases, and the laws involved with them, which are brought before them.  That’s their job.  But then, if you don’t know that, or consider the Constitution to be two-century-old Silly Putty, that may alter your perception.

Which takes us back to Rasmussen, where, for starters, the overall numbers seem passable, but not what I would have hoped.

Most American voters (60%) agrees and says the Supreme Court should make decisions based on what is written in the constitution, while 30% say rulings should be guided on the judge’s sense of fairness and justice.

But take a closer look, and you’ll note that one’s perception of the Constitution alters your vote.

While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge’s sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.

The better your grade in social studies, or the better you know how the US government was intended to work, the more you’re likely to vote Republican.  If you think that, in order to change the laws, you just need to change the courts, you’re both badly mistaken from a civics point of view (that’s for the legislature) and likely to misuse the system (e.g. gaining same-sex marriage by judicial fiat rather than legislation). 

And you’re most likely a liberal.

Shire Network News #145 has been released. The feature interview is with El Marco, whose photoblog, Looking At The Left is doing sterling work in exposing the reality of leftist protests. Click here for the show notes, links, and ways to listen to the show; directly from the web site, by downloading the mp3 file, or by subscribing with your podcatcher of choice.

Below is the text of my commentary.

Hi, this is Doug Payton for Shire Network News asking you to "Consider This!"

In 1939, Frank Capra directed a classic film entitled "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington", which won an Oscar for Best Writing.  In it, Jimmy Stewart plays Jefferson Smith, leader of the state’s Boy Rangers, and is appointed, mostly as a joke, as an interim to fill out the term of a recently deceased Senator.  While there, Smith doesn’t just sit back and idly do what he’s told.  Instead, when he sees corruption and graft, even in his own political party, he acts against it, culminating in the films filibuster scene on the floor of the Senate.  (That’s when filibusters were filibusters.  None of this "cloture vote" stuff.) 

Jimmy Stewart’s Mr. Smith is the Everyman in Washington, the small town boy who makes good, and what each of us believes we would be like if we only had the chance. 

Moving from the theater screen to the political scene, John McCain chose Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, as his Vice Presidential running mate.  To rousing shouts of "Sarah who?", the American political scene, and the media trying to cover it, were thrown into a tizzy.  Immediately, they fired up their dirt-digging Ditch Witch because they had less than a week to fill up their buckets of mud. 

What they found was a women’s basketball player who led her small town team in prayer before the game, and nicknamed "Sarah Barracuda".  A beauty queen pageant winner who won both the "Miss Congeniality" award and a college scholarship.  A college graduate with a major in journalism and a minor in political science.  A hockey mom, and a PTA member.  A moose hunter, with better aim than Dick Cheney.  A 2-term city councilwoman.  A 2-term mayor who was voted into office on a platform of fighting wasteful spending and higher taxes (which she did).  An ethics supervisor who actually supervised ethics; she quit her position because of ethics violations in her own party, and she continued to pursue those violations resulting in record fines.  (Did I mention the guys were in her own party?)  A governor of the state who ran on a clean government platform against a governor of her own party and won, and who sold the previous governor’s jet for starters.  And someone who, throughout all this, maintained a huge popularity rating.

>whew<  So then, with their mud buckets still clean as a whistle, the press, the Democrats and the liberal bloggers had to come up with something.  So they did.  One anonymous diarist on the Daily Kos (where else?) started the rumor that Sarah’s 5th child was really her daughter’s, and that Sarah faked the pregnancy to cover it up.  When it ultimately came out that Bristol Palin was pregnant now, the shock value had already worn off.  As hard as the NY Times tried, putting Sarah and/or Bristol on 3 front page stories on the same day, they just couldn’t get past the fact that the family, given a bad situation, was acting on their principles. 

The same went for Trig, their Down’s Syndrome baby.  Knowing what was ahead they chose life.  For that, Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards proclaimed that "Women voting for this ticket is just like chickens voting for Colonel Sanders."  Right.  So allowing children to live is like poultry suicide.  And vacuuming them out when they’re inconvenient is…what, exactly?

Anglosphere rock start and former SNN contributor Andrew Ian Dodge pointed me to more sources of left-wing media smears.  One Washington Post story, later picked up by the NY Times, claimed that Palin slashed funding for teen mothers.  What they failed to note in the story, however, was that she actually tripled the spending on it.  The "cut" came when she wouldn’t quadruple it.  That, of course, is the liberal mindset that comes free with an Obama presidency.

The "Troopergate" allegations of firing a public safety commissioner are probably the worst thing to come out.  I mean, the governor firing someone who the courts agreed served at the sole discretion of the governor must be a scandal, right?  Palin denies that the firing was over the fact that Walter Monegan didn’t fire her ex-brother-in-law Mike Wooten, who himself, it has already been established, tasered his son, drank on the job, and threatend Palin’s family; firing offenses all.  So the firing of Monegan was legal, and if you want to make a connection to Wooten you do so at the peril of your own credibilty.  Yeah, there’s a scandal for you.

The Left is just waiting eagerly for something — anything — to come out that will allow them to brand her a hypocrite, and will manufacture it if necessary.  Don Surber said it best:  "You can be an unrepentant terrorist.  You can be a perjurer.  You can be an ex-klansman (Exalted Cyclops at that).  But Lord help you if you are a conservative and you run a stop sign."

And I would add, "or a Republican woman with hair that is out of fashion".  Yes, they’re even going after that.  Sarah, just prepare yourself for the photographs of you at the scene of the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, or in the crowd at the Kennedy assassination.  Y’know, it would be nice if there were a national organization for women to defend her against this treatment.  But I imagine she can handle it herself.

Lisa Schiffren at the National Review Online noted another Veep selection similar to this one.  He’d only been governor of New York for 2 years before getting on the big ticket.  He was an anti-corruption reformer when he was the New York City Police Chief.  He also did a lot of hunting (but no moose, as far as I know).  Maybe Sarah Palin is no Teddy Roosevelt, but he turned out rather well, don’t you think?

Look, Democrats, media, leftist bloggers; please listen to me.  You are watching the movie "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" and you’re booing the Jimmy Stewart character.  Loudly.  Granted, he’s in a brilliant disguise, but it’s still the Everyman (or Everywoman) looking at you from your TV screen.  Politically speaking, Sarah Palin is the anti-corruption, cost-cutting, true-to-her-values type that everybody says they want to see in Washington.  Well, at least they say they want it.  Consider that.

No, I agree with The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder that Obama did not call Sarah Palin a pig.  I don’t believe all references to "lipstick" are, from here on out, oblique references to her.  The "lipstick on a pig" word picture has been with us for a while.  It’s probably not the best word picture to use at this point in time, but I don’t think it was a personal attack.

What I’m hoping comes out of this election season is a realization by the many "professional victim" groups that sexism (or racism or homophobia) isn’t hidden in every disagreement.  So, Democrats, stinks to be on the other end of the hysteria, eh?

Update:  Speaking of hysteria, looks like the term "community organizer" is now forbidden.

At the Crain’s Business Forum this morning, [NY Gov. David] Paterson drew attention to a phrase used numerous times by speakers at the Republican National Convention to describe Barack Obama’s leadership experience: community organizer.

"I think the Republican Party is too smart to call Barack Obama ‘black’ in a sense that it would be a negative. But you can take something about his life, which I noticed they did at the Republican Convention – a ‘community organizer.’ They kept saying it, they kept laughing," he said.

Guess some Democrats aren’t getting the realization.