Matthew Richardson: Closet Democrat??

So …

What’s with the heading, “… Closet Democrat??”?

Well, before a week or so ago, I had never heard of Matthew Richardson.

Then, I see this ad on FOX NEWS, of all places, for this man running for the office of Attorney General of South Carolina.

Okay …

But …

Something seemed to be missing.

There was no mention of PARTY AFFILIATION. I’ve seen the ad several times now. I was right … no mention of party affiliation. Interesting. Suspicious …

So … I did a little checking.

Mr. Richardson IS the Democratic candidate for the office of Attorney General. Interesting. So, why doesn’t he say so in his ads?

Mr. Richardson is not just the Democratic candidate for the office of Attorney General. He isn’t just a run of the mill Democrat. He is the South Carolina Democratic Party’s elected representative to the Democratic National Committee, that illustrious group that sets the progressive platform for all supposedly good Democrats to run on.

Yet, Mr. Richardson doesn’t even advertise the fact that he’s a Democrat. Mr. Richardson isn’t just distancing himself from the president, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. He’s distancing himself from the entire Democratic Party in his campaign ads. Even his official campaign page doesn’t indicate he’s a Democrat without a little scratching.

I had heard that this was going to be the strategy for Democrats trying to get elected, but this is the first case where I’ve actually noticed it in such a blatantly obvious strategy of omission of party affiliation.

This alone doesn’t necessarily disqualify a person from being the state’s attorney general, in my opinion, yet it does make me wonder how he, as the state’s lead prosecutor and defender, might be inclined to handle “inconvenient truths”.

In an article on his website, Richardson touts experience, qualifications in his bid for state attorney general, Mr. Richardson makes the following statement:

“… the attorney general’s focus must be the law and not politics.

Yet, in an article published in “The State” in answer to the question, “Do you separate your professional work from your political work?“, Mr. Richardson replied,

I try not to avoid politics in my professional career. I want my professional career to be consistent and integrated with the rest of my life.”

So … which is it? Does Mr. Richardson separate his politics from his professional life or not? Can he? In one place he says the attorney general’s role shouldn’t be encumbered and influenced by politics yet, he also states that politics are an integral part of his professional career … inseparable.

So, we have here a man who conveniently doesn’t mention in his campaign ads that he’s the Democratic candidate although I readily admit that one doesn’t have to scratch very deep to discover that fact.

Then he states that the position of attorney general isn’t the place for politics but also states that he doesn’t separate his politics from his professional activities.

Well …

I appreciate his candor when his comments are gathered together and put into context. Has he just disqualified himself for the office of attorney general based on his own standards? And the “no Party” ads for the Democratic candidate …

“Tough and Fair” …

Really??

I agree with Mr. Richardson on one point. The office of attorney general should be about the law and not politics.

Obama, Obama … Wherefore art thou, Obama???

Or subtitle: “Is This Dud(e) Totally Whacked … or still snorting or smoking something?”

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Third planet on the left or totally out of the solar system?

Well, he certainly isn’t functioning like he’s in the United States much less Washington, D.C. … well, maybe Washington, D.C. It seems to be disconnected from the rest of the country also … maybe another galaxy.

Egocentric, narcissistic, referring to himself in the third person …

Are these the characteristics of a person functioning on all cylinders? Is he, was he or has he ever functioned on all cylinders?

Maybe the president is watching too much MSNBC. They seemed to be the only “major” cable news network that didn’t comprehend the ramifications of the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts. After the Democratic candidate, Martha Coakley, conceded the race, CNN and Fox News understood what had happened, but those loons on MSNBC … Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews … totally out in left field … figuratively and literally. I turned to MSNBC after the election was over just to see their response. It was like watching Saturday Night Live, hilarious … except the joke was on them. They were clueless.

It does appear that a majority of Democrats in Congress got the message and understand it. That, at least, is somewhat comforting since they control both houses of Congress although, thankfully, not as much as before the Massachusetts senatorial special election. It’s amazing how the sensation of being dunked in an ice cold lake can clear the mind to near sobriety … even those like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who have acted in the past year like Roman dictators inebriated with the sense of absolute power.

But not Barack Obama …

He goes on national television and has a temper tantrum … a “hissy” fit … like an over-indulged three year old who’s had his pacifier removed … which he was dreamily nursing on in his personal (induced?) alternate universe. Unfortunately, even after rudely and abruptly being denied his comforter and presumably awakened, he still couldn’t separate his dream state from reality.

I used to think that the President, Mr. Obama, was simply an inherent liar.  Now I’m beginning to have some doubts. I’m beginning to think that this poor man may simply be confabulating his own version of reality … much as he did in his two literary works.

Yesterday, in Ohio, he angrily complained about being falsely accused of cutting Medicare. But, aren’t there over $450 billion in Medicare cuts in his baby, the pending healthcare bill? Isn’t Medicare Advantage going to be eliminated in all states except Florida if the Healthcare bill were to pass?

He angrily defended his government transparency policy? Maybe he missed all of those sweetheart deals that were cut behind closed doors out of the public view, only to be the latest in the lack of transparency that has been prevalent since he ascended to the presidency.

Just a few examples …

The list seems to be endless. His angrily proclaimed perception … versus reality.

Could we be witnessing the first president with Munchousen Syndrome,  a person disguising himself as lucid and brilliant … while actually being delusional and disturbingly mediocre … promoted out of absolute obscurity to a position totally out of his capacity by a population hungry beyond rational thinking for simply … something different?

I think it’s entirely possible that Barack Obama may have another first to his credit in addition to being the first black president.

He may be the first president who is completely delusional … totally out of touch with reality.

Quite possibly, out of this country’s inherent kindness and generosity (which he seems to repeatedly fail to recognize), he should be, simply and quietly, sent back to South Chicago, that comforting womb which nurtured his kindred delusions and Marxist rantings in absolute … and impenetrable … obscurity) where he can also find undeniable comfort in again attending the church of Jeremiah Wright, his self proclaimed father figure and consort in delusional Marxist proclamations and rantings; and, not in the least, where he can do no further harm … hopefully. Pax vobiscum.

Now, there’s some food for thought.

Bob Beckel’s Take on Barack Obama’s Silence Regarding Iran

Sometimes I almost feel sorry for Bob Beckel … almost. I do admire his courage for being the lone liberal on Hannity’s “Great American Panel” on Fox News.

Tonight, he’s in the position of defending Obama’s silence regarding the popular uprising in Iran  related to that country’s recent election. Beckel stated that he felt Obama was advised to remain quiet to prevent the current regime from having an excuse to crack down harder on the protesters. He stated that he felt Obama making a statement in favor of the protesters would give the regime an excuse to blame the current uprisings on the United States and it would, as a consequence, deal more harshly with the protesters.

Who else thinks that the current paranoid government of Iran actually needs an excuse to blame the current uprising on the United States or any other western power? It has never appeared to me that the current despotic government of Iran has needed any excuse to blame the United States for any and everything that they couldn’t deal with intelligently.

According to a recent report, as many as 28 million people in Iran may have voted against Ahmadenejad as opposed to the less than 7 million who were reported to have voted for him. Those are fairly impressive numbers … more than 4 to 1 against the current Iranian leader. It’s highly unlikely that 28 million Iranians have all of a sudden become pro American. After more than 30 years of oppression by their despotic government, it’s much more likely that the 28 million are simply voting against their current rulers and simply prefer anything or anyone rather than who’s in power now.

So, the question really is, “Is President Obama protecting the protesters from greater oppression and harm; or, is he simply dropping the ball by not providing them with moral support and encouragement that they may desperately need?” What’s wrong with the leader of America simply stating that America favors free and open elections where evey qualified person’s vote counts … in any country? Has he forgotten that this very premise is the reason the United States of America was founded, the reason for the American Revolution, the desire for the American colonists to have representation and not feel disenfranchised by their government? Apparently, voicing the founding principle of this country sticks in President Obama’s craw. Fear of the reaction of a two bit dictator in Iran quells him into silence.

Apparently, hundreds of Iranians may have already lost their lives in the ongoing protests with thousands more injured and jailed. Does the Iranian government really need an excuse to crack down further on the protesters? Those Iranian protesters have infinitely more courage than our president.

The deafening silence of the current administration does send a message … both to Americans and Iranians. If the election in Iran was so corrupt that millions of Iranians feel the election was stolen from them, the United States government led by the Obama administration will do nothing, not even by simply providing a verbal message of support for free and honest elections in that country.

So, Bob Beckel finds himself in the position of somehow having to defend the Obama administration for remaining silent to “protect” the protesters.

Where would we be today if Ronald Reagan had not said, “Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall.”? Would the Berliners have had the courage to eventually confront their communist oppressors and bring the end to the division of Germany and the eventual destruction of the “Iron Curtain” that imprisoned Eastern Europe for most of my lifetime? It’s entirely possible that they and other eastern Europeans might have reached the same point today without the encouragement of President Reagan. But, it’s also a definite fact that every action that President Reagan took was aimed at that goal … to assist the Eastern Europeans in obtaining their freedom … and his speeches and actions didn’t hinder the process.

Well, as far as foreign policy and diplomacy are concerned, Barack Obama isn’t even in the same ballpark with Ronald Reagan. He doesn’t even hold a candle to the bungling JFK. At least Kennedy had the courage of his convictions even if he bungled repeatedly due to his naivety.

The current situation in Iran and the lack of response from Obama brings into question exactly what Barack Obama’s convictions are; or, if he, in fact, has any.This man makes the timid Jimmy Carter look like Atilla the Hunand that’s pretty amazing.

Watching Rachel Maddow on MSNBC

Last night, I awoke from a nap and decided to do a little channel surfing down ( and to the left) in the news media range of channels to see what the “other channels” were talking about. I was actually headed for CNN but went one number too far and wound up on MSNBC. It’s both ironic and appropriate that both of these channels, at least in my viewing area, are assigned smaller numbers than Fox News. In our English language writing left to right, it puts both of them to the left and naturally lower in value.

The anchor, or show star as she turned out to be, was Rachel Maddow of the Rachel Maddow Show, some sort of purulent personality that MSNBC managed to dredge out of some fermenting cesspool. She was bantering with another airhead, Ana Marie Cox, of , appropriately enough, Air America … a slight misnomer. This woman was, as reported by Air America, hired by them to report on, among other things, happenings on Main Street America. She sounds more like someone they scrapped off of Back Street America when they came upon her soliciting in the red light district.

These women were commenting on the activities of 15 April by the tens of thousands who were protesting the Obama Administration’s dramatic spending spree, Conservatives go teabagging. They seemed to be sharing some inside joke about “tea bagging” in reference to the Tea Parties that were being held all across the nation.They thought it was particularly humorous that people were actually wearing tea bags on their glasses, hats and other accessories.

I got the distinct impression that I was eavesdropping on two crab infested hookers at a clip joint rather than listening to two news commentators discussing the day’s events.

Apparently, one of several definitions of “tea bagging” is a crude slang reference for a person experiencing oral sex from another actually having the scrotum and contents taken into the mouth of the other person.

Frankly, it struck me that the two women appeared to be sharing some mutual experience on that matter … possibly job related … or something.

It WAS interesting … but I was looking for some alternative information on the news and wasn’t particularly seeking information on these two women’s sex lives or obtaining any insight into their sexual preferences.

Needless to say, it simply reaffirmed my impression of MSNBC. Now I know if I’m looking for some Jerry Springer type of entertainment, I can count on MSNBC to giving me my fill. So much for news though …

Yeah. Rachel is the slug and MSNBC is the rock she crawls out from under on a weekly basis.

Why Not Suspend “Mark to Market”?

Someone, please … answer this question.

Last Friday evening on Fox News Steve Forbes brought the Mark-to-market accounting issue up again. And, periodically, I hear financial analysts from around the world ask the same question, “Why hasn’t the U.S. suspended the ‘mark to market’ rule?”

Last Friday, Forbes emphatically stated that, if the rule had been in place during the S&L crisis of the 1980’s or the earlier financial crisis at the end of the 1970’s, the financial system would have collapsed at either of those times. So, what’s different now?

I have also heard at least one of the numerous commentators on CNBC mention that both Tim Geithner and Paul Volcker are opposed to suspending the rule. My question is, “Why?”. Explain it.

If 91% of the mortgages are being properly serviced, then  why do they have to be valued the same as the 9 or 10% that aren’t?

Nearly a year ago, I first became familiar with this rule when two accountants mentioned it either on Fox News or CNBC. At the time, they stated that the chairman of the SEC, then Chris Cox, had the power to suspend the rule. Later, last fall, the Senate affirmed that the chairman of the SEC had that power.

But …

The Senate in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 ordered the issue be studied by the SEC, Federal Reserve and Treasury Department with a report due in 90 days. That study was done and the report was announced on 30 December 2008, Congressionally-Mandated Study Says Improve, Do Not Suspend, Fair Value Accounting Standards.

So, all of the “experts” said, “No, it needs improvement so we’re going to let it stand while we study ways to improve it.”

In essence, while Rome burns, the experts want to study fire prevention.

Are these the same experts that thought all of these mortgage back securities and fragmented loans were such a good way to make money when things started changing about 20 years ago or sat idly by … possibly like Tim Geithner did as Governor of the Federal Reserve in New York … while the mess was being made?

My question is, “Why not try to put out the fire … then study ways to prevent it from recurring?”

Steve, I guess your problem is that you got your business education at Princeton instead of “Hahvahd”. Common sense carries little weight when it comes to “theory” and “greed”.

“Mark to market” makes great sense as long as a person doesn’t think there’s ever going to be the consequence of a market downturn, even a temporary one.

Was John McCain Right About Wanting to Fire SEC Chairman Cox?

A short time ago, John McCain said the chairman of the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission), Chris Cox, should be fired. For making this statement many ridiculed McCain for being reactionary and hot headed.

Supporters of Chairman Cox have pointed out that the chair of the SEC has limited regulatory powers and hasn’t had the authority to regulate many of the activities which have brought on the current financial crisis.

On Fox News this afternoon some accounting experts pointed out some information that would indicate otherwise.

According to them, a simple change in accounting requirements which the chairman of the SEC does have the authority to effect might have averted the current crisis.

Let me see if I can explain this correctly.

Current accounting regulations require that the mortgage packages have to be valued at what they would sell in the current market. This would value the mortgage packages at whatever they would sell for even under the worst conditions which these instututions currently face. This has caused a continuing downward spiral in the value of all the loan packages as if they all had to be sold today … at current market prices … as if they all had to be sold at a fire sale, regardless of whether the mortgages in the packages were being properly serviced by current home owners.

In other words, the mortgages of the 95% of the people who are actually making regular payments on their loans are being treated as having the same value of the loans of the less than 5% who have defaulted on their loans.

How does this affect the credit market? As the values of the loan portfolios have contracted because they all have to be valued as if they had to be sold today or were all literally worth nothing, this has caused a contraction on the perceived value of the bank’s assets which in turn has caused a contraction in the amount of credit a bank can extend.

In other words, a bank can only loan a multiple of its assets. The example given was a bank being able to make loans valued at 10 times its assets. If the assets are forced through accounting rules to be devalued from $100 billion to $10 billion, then the credit a bank can extend decreases correspondingly.

What does all of the have to do with the chairman of the SEC. Apparently, he has the authority to change the accounting rules so that the banking or investment institutions could change how they value their assets … say to fair market value or some other standard. One mentioned was basing the mortgages on current rental or mortgage payment income.

Let’s face it, we aren’t paying our property taxes based on the value of a forced sale of our homes. We all know if we had to sell our homes today we’d take a beating and only receive a fraction of its true worth.

Imagine the effect on cities, counties and state governments if they had to change their property assessments to the worst case value of the properties within their jurisdictions.

Well, that’s exactly what’s being done to the investment banks and commercial banks.

And, apparently, the chairman of the SEC has the authority to change that. It appears that if he had, that action might have been one of the things that could have been done to avert the current crisis.

Maybe, John McCain was right to recommend firing Chris Cox.

Stephanie Cutter on Obama’s Financial Crisis Plans

On Fox News today, an Obama pundit, Stephanie Cutter, staunchly defended Barack Obama’s “steadfast” positions for correcting the housing and financial crisis that worsened this past week.

She stated that Barack Obama proposed a “housing summit” one year ago and proposed regulations for the housing and financial markets six months ago.

She claims that Barack Obama has been on top of the situation and making significant proposals while John McCain has been sitting idly by or changing his positions in reaction to the changing conditions.

Recently John McCain proposed a commission to study the causes of the current housing and financial crises. Barack Obama ridiculed him for that stating that a commission wouldn’t resolve the current crisis. John McCain has grudgingly gone along with the current proposals to bail out the failing financial institutions and Barack Obama has ridiculed him for that.

While both Obama’s “housing summit” and “regulatory proposals” have be reactionary since these crises began last fall, Ms. Cutter failed to note his lack of proactive action in 2006 when reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was proposed and supported for John McCain.

I don’t think that trying to take proactive steps at reform two years ago is either “sitting idly by” or “floundering” for a solution. If anyone has been floundering, it’s been Obama since the crises began about a year ago.

I’m no economist but I sensed a tremendous bubble forming in financials and liquidated all of the financial shares in portfolios I was managing and recommended to others I was discussing the market with to either do the same or exercise extreme caution with this segment of the market. I’ll be the first to admit that I was unsure of my caution as I watched the dramatic rise in these stocks over the next year, but felt complete vindication as I also watched their dramatic two day crash at the end of October in 2007.

Barack Obama can propose a summit but John McCain can’t propose a commission.

And, somehow, proposing regulations six months ago is better than supporting reform two years ago.

Amazing.

And people believe Obama.