Democrats created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mess then stopped reforms

A brief history of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mess is in order. Back in the days when a Bank or Savings and Loan approved a home loan, they did so with lending standards that had historically led to only safe loans. They had to because they kept the loan and were responsible if it failed. These standards included 3 major parts.

First, the mortgage payments could be no greater that a set percentage of your income, usually about 40 percent.

Second, a down payment was required of about 10 percent or above so the new owner would immediately have some equity in the home.

Third, A good credit rating was required to prove you had a history of paying your bills.

Some adjustments could be made, for example people that had poor credit could get a loan with a larger down payment so if the loan failed, the bank could still resell the house and cover the loan.

With the well intentioned goal of increasing the level of home ownership in lower income and minority groups, Lenders were encouraged to make home loans that did not meet normal standards with the promise that Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac would buy these loans and the lenders were not responsible if they failed.

The Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac crisis has its roots in the Community Redevelopment Act signed into law during the Carter Administration. President Clinton, influenced by multiculturalism, encouraged it further by dictating where mortgage lenders could lend. Tough new regulations required that lenders increase their lending in high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make loans that sound business practices had previously rejected. And again, Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac bought these loans, which means taxpayers were ultimately responsible if these loans failed.

As long as home values rise, failed loans could be covered by selling the house. If however, home values fell as they did during and after the 1973 Arab oil embargo when energy prices doubled, just as they have today, these failed loans caused a huge financial impact on Lenders and Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac. The huge increases in energy costs are an indisputable part of this financial crisis.

In 2003 the huge level of risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had come to represent for both taxpayers and financial institutions was becoming apparent. The Bush Administration attempted to reign in the problem by raising standards for loans that Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac guaranteed. Congressional Democrats blocked this reform so that minorities and low-income groups could continue to buy homes that by most standards they could not really afford.

From the New York Times September 11, 2003

The Bush Administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, and the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed. ''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

John McCain saw the huge Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac train wreck coming in 2005 and lead a reform effort to again raise lending standards and protect taxpayers from what could become catastrophic costs from failed loans.

From the Congressional Record:
FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATOR REFORM
ACT OF 2005The United States Senate, May 25, 2006

Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]: Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

For Years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs— and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the
report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

These efforts were blocked by Congressional Democrats. Obama never lifted a finger to help any Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac reform effort. Perhaps that’s why Obama received $105,849, Nancy Pelosi $47,000 and Harry Reid $60,500 from Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac lobbyists and John McCain got none.

In a truly amazing insult to our intelligence, Obama campaigns daily on the premise that Bush and McCain are responsible for this mess! If Obama wanted to truly be a bipartisan leader he would distance himself from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who closed down Congress to go on vacation rather than allow any votes on the energy crises, and Barney Frank who fought Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac reform.

Also see:

Obama vs McCain, who is really more of the same?

Democrats blocked Bush’s Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Reforms.

Economic and Energy crisis, the real 3 a.m. call for Obama and McCain.

Democrats blocked Bush’s Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Reforms

After the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and now AIG, everyone is wondering whose next and what really caused this mess. A look back in history provides some answers as to how we got here and what do we do now. The government leaned hard on banks back in the 70's thru the 90's to help those deemed less fortunate attain the American dream of homeownership. Problem is the folks who were being left out also tended to have bad credit histories. Under the banner of fairness, the banks capitulated and created what has become today's sub prime loan market. The rate of homeownership did in fact increase significantly in the last 10-15 years with much of that increase coming in disadvantaged groups.

When Bush took office he attempted to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to raise credit and down payment requirements because of the huge and growing risks the government would face in an economic downturn.

From the NEW YORK TIMES September 11, 2003:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

Democrats such as Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina blocked reform.

From the NEW YORK TIMES September 11, 2003:

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, and the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of
North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

What actually caused the bank failures is the simple fact that home values are falling not rising. In a normal market where values are rising, banks don’t lose money on a failed loan because they get the house, which, with a rising value, is worth more than the loan.

The same thing happened in 1973, when energy costs doubled from the Arab oil embargo, banks failed, stocks fell, jobs where lost, home values fell.

Also see:
Democrats created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mess then stopped reforms.
Obama vs McCain, who is really more of the same?
Economic and Energy crisis, the real 3 a.m. call for Obama and McCain.

Economic and Energy crisis, the real 3 a.m. call for Obama and McCain.

Lehman Brothers fails today. Falling values for homes continues to affect financial institutions all across the country. The real truth is that the crisis in the economy and the energy crisis are really one and the same. As the price of energy, and everything else has soared, this has a ripple effect throughout the entire economy. Gas cost more, so you have less to spend on other things and all the people that work in the stores that sold you those things now have a lower income. They therefore cannot afford to buy things, like houses, and on and on down the line. Plus the cost of everything that you have to buy goes up. Everything in every store you ever visited got there by truck. Any energy prices are causing the cost of driving a truck to go up. There is an underlying energy cost in virtually every single product that you buy, be it houses, electronics or food. Farmers had to buy gas to plow their fields, plant their seeds, harvest the crops, and transport the crops to market and on and on.

The underlying economic problem in this country for quite some time is the very simple fact that we import more than we export. You can relate how this works to a household budget. Your imports are the amount that you spend your exports are the amount of income you earn and if you continuously spend more than you earn, you're not going to end up doing very well economically. For years, the biggest factor in our trade deficit has been the importation of oil. Decades ago when oil was cheaper, we decided to make a trade-off. That trade off was a willingness to spend money to import oil and produce less domestically, because it was dirty. The oil spills off the Gulf coasts and off the coast of California were an annoying problem for anyone who went to the beach. I am old enough to remember visiting the beach as a youngster, and at the steps of every hotel along the beach there was basically some rags in a bucket of kerosene or some similar solvent to clean your off the bottom of your feet so you wouldn't track oil back into the hotel. The technology has greatly advanced. Offshore wells now have shut off valves below the seafloor. They close automatically in an emergency to prevent large quantities of oil from leaking into the sea. As a side note, 80% of all the oil on the earth that’s ever been formed has already leaked to the surface. The amount of oil spilled into the ocean today by man is only a tiny fraction of natural leakage of oil. Oil is lighter than water or rock, and after enough rock builds up over the top of it, it gets squeezed and the pressure goes up. If there are any fissures or cracks in the rock, it rises to the surface. Bacteria consume it and it becomes part of the food chain. After all, crude oil is pure organic material; it only causes problems in high concentrations, like a major oil spill. There have been no major oil spills off the coasts as a result of offshore drilling in many years.

And most importantly, the economics of our decision to import oil instead of producing it domestically has changed. At current world prices, and especially their peak price reached a few months ago, we are spending hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars to import oil. The cost of the Iraq war is also an economic drain but the economic drain of the Iraq war is only about 20 or 30% of the economic drain of importing oil. In 1973, the Arab oil embargo caused a similar economic crisis in our country. Of course the obvious effects were the gas lines and the increased price of filling up your car at the pump. But our entire economy suffered greatly. Inflation soared and jobs were lost. Pretty much the same thing that we're experiencing right now. It was because of the ripple effects of energy prices, which is an underlying cost to produce virtually everything we eat or use in our daily lives. This is somewhat mitigated however, if the energy that we are paying increased prices for comes from inside the US. Because the net wealth stays inside our country, increased income from producers of oil is used to purchase goods, products and services that everyone else depends on for their income. If the money flows outside of the United States it is a net loss of wealth.

Earlier this year, when the price of energy soared, that was the 3 a.m. wake-up call. It should have been easily foreseen by Obama and McCain and everyone else that the ripple effects of virtually doubling of energy prices would have throughout the economy. The fallout was going to be brutal and widespread. McCain reversed his earlier position, and the position of pretty much everyone else, and said it was time to open up the outer continental shelf, but not ANWR, for drilling. He made it part of the way but didn't really propose an all-out plan to increase production. Obama came out against offshore drilling. It's McCain that got a grade of “incomplete” and Obama, a grade of complete failure.

The real solution to both the energy and related economic crisis is to become energy independent. Either Obama or McCain could have said the following statement and passed their 3 a.m. test:

“We are in a national emergency. We must become energy independent. This emergency requires the concerted efforts of our most creative and hard-working people all across the country. We need to greatly increase our investments in alternative energy sources, especially carbon free sources, like nuclear, wind and solar. But we also must realize that the time has come to explore every resource we have available to us. We need to produce every additional alternative energy source we can produce, and we need to extract every last barrel of oil and cubic foot of natural gas on American soil that we can find in an environmentally sound way. And we need to do it very quickly. We are out of time.”

The question of course is which candidate will figure this out, and will they figure it out before it's too late.

Also see:
Obama vs McCain, who is really more of the same?
Democrats blocked Bush’s Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Reforms.
Democrats created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mess then stopped reforms.

Did Obama attempt to sabotage US efforts in Iraq?

The most disturbing news of the day is an article in the New York Post that talks about Obama's efforts to stall a US troop withdrawal agreement with Iraq.

The article states that during Obama's recent trip to Iraq, when he met with the most senior Iraqi leadership, he tried to sabotage US efforts to negotiate a troop withdrawal agreement. It quotes senior Iraqi officials as saying that Obama actually tried to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington.

It quotes Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari as saying "He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington.”

The article then goes on to report another serious charge that while meeting with top US commanders including General David Petraeus, he tried to get them to actually change their military viewpoints on a realistic withdrawal date for US troops.

Obama's motivation for such an attempt would appear clear. He spent the last year and a half of his campaign talking about what an incredible mistake the surge was. And he is of course facing an opponent in John McCain that fought for the surge when it was extremely unpopular. It would seem that it would be convenient for Obama for our efforts to appear not to be going nearly as well as they are. But for a presidential candidate to actually interfere in United States war efforts for campaign gain or advantage is a very, very shocking accusation.

This also brings up the question of campaign promises. His campaign has been saying that he is for a withdrawal by 2010. However if this was delayed because of his efforts to stop a troop withdrawal agreement from being negotiated until after his election, followed by the Iraqi election shortly thereafter, followed by the time needed to put together a Iraqi coalition government after the election, the withdrawal by 2010 is simply not possible.

According to the article, the overall impression that Obama left on the leadership of Iraq is that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success because that takes away his main attack against the Bush administration. When asked about his foreign-policy experience, he always says its not about experience, it's a matter of judgment. And he goes on to say that the true test of his judgment was his decision that Iraq was the wrong war and would never be a success and his decision to fight tooth and nail against the surge.

These are very, very serious charges that need to be either proved or disproved as quickly as possible. I personally hope that this story goes the way of “Sarah Palin’s daughter is actually her granddaughter” story. This accusation is to incendiary to leave hanging out there. It needs to be proved or disproved by the mainstream media. I hope they devote a good amount of resources to doing this so we either know this is true or not, as soon as possible.

In the words of Abraham Lincoln in 1863, "Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged".

I strongly urge you to read this article and draw your own conclusions.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm

Obama vs McCain, who is really more of the same?

It was always going to be a stretch, comparing John McCain to George Bush, which of course is the centerpiece of Obama’s campaign attack. McBush, more of the same, 4 more years, etc. McCain and Bush together like twins. Anyone who saw the news for any length of time knows there are probably no two men in the Republican Party more different than George Bush and John McCain. Their battles have been epic and legendary.

There main attack is of course McCain voted with Bush, 90% of the time. I realize what they're trying to say, although technically of course, Bush doesn't vote on anything, he either signs a bill, which he may or may not agree completely with, or he vetoes a bill which he may agree with in some parts, but he vetoes it because of a specific part of the legislation. Let's go ahead and accept that George Bush and John McCain voted together 90% of the time, which of course brings up the question is McCain really bipartisan, or more of the same.

So I decided to do some research to find out how often Obama voted with his party led by Nancy Pelosi and of course in the Senate, Harry Reid. Astoundingly Obama voted with his party 96% of the time! There's only one group in politics today that has managed to achieve the dubious distinction of having a lower approval rating than President Bush. And of course, the winner of this dubious honor is the democratically controlled House and Senate. This was achieved when, to the astonishment of I think 70 to 80% of people in the country, at a time when gas prices and oil prices and energy prices in general had reached an all-time high, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi decided they would close Congress and go home and take a vacation instead of simply passing a bill to do something about it.

Obama says that he is going to be the great uniter, to see past red states and blue states, and just see American states. This phrase rings a little hollow, however, since he voted exclusively with the blue states and Democrats 96% of the time. So if by more the same, you mean more partisan deadlock that has stopped Washington from accomplishing anything for years, Obama is more of the same. It's a little difficult for Obama to argue voting with his party 96% of the time makes him more of a uniter than John McCain, which voted with his party 90% of the time. Or, as Obama asks, is a 10 percent chance of change enough? How about 4 percent?

Also see:
Democrats blocked Bush’s Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Reforms.
Economic and Energy crisis, the real 3 a.m. call for Obama and McCain.
Democrats created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mess then stopped reforms.

John McCain to support drilling in ANWR, biggest news from Palin/Gipson interview

John McCain to support drilling in ANWR, the biggest news from the Sarah Palin interview with Charlie Gipson.

The world watched with bated breath awaiting Sarah Palin’s first big interview with the mainstream media. There were no huge surprises in this interview; she performed well by most accounts, not brilliantly but very well for someone in her position in their first big interview. Some of the questions that Charles Gibson asked seemed to be to set up traps for her, as any good reporter would. The nearest she came to a gaff was when he asked her about the Bush doctrine. But, the Bush doctrine means different things to different people. It can mean a preemptive war, it can mean democratization of dictatorships to lessen the chance of war in the future, or it can mean that people who give comfort and support to terrorists should be judged and dealt with the same as the terrorists would be. Sarah Palin then asked Charlie Gibson, what exactly he meant by the Bush doctrine, asking him to be more specific. And again he tried to trap her by instead of answering; he said “well, what does the Bush doctrine mean to you?” She then went on to explained her view of what Bush's policies had been and also her view of some of the mistakes he had made. Sort of a gaff, but maybe not.

Charlie Gibson then pushed her on points of disagreements with John McCain. But keep in mind, and this is very important, during the Democratic primary debates, Joe Biden and Obama disagreed a lot.. So it may turn out that Sarah Phelan was in fact ready to be interviewed all along on what she thought. However, it is the vice president's job to support the presidential candidate's positions. Joe Biden will support the positions of Obama, even know some of those positions he argued about during the debates. That's just the way the system works, the vice president supports the president. So, what she may have been going through for the last few days was not someone coaching her on how to answer questions or how to speak, but simply a detailed analysis of what John McCain's policies are, because those are the policies that she is supposed to go out and support. She seems to be her own woman, but will generally support McCain’s polices just as Joe Biden will support Obamas, no surprise there. However, I believe that she would push her own in some ways, to get her policies at least hearing with John McCain.

And so the biggest news out of this debate came when Charlie Gibson and Sarah Palin were walking down a lane and he was asking her about areas that she disagreed with John McCain on, and specifically asked her about ANWR. She smiled and said well, that's one of the areas that we disagree on. But the smiling face certainly didn't seem like someone who is being educated on an issue and was about to change her mind. The smile was as someone who is very, very sure of her position and knew it would prevail in the end. Charlie then asked her if ANWR was something they had agreed to disagree on. Sarah Palin laughed and smiled and said yes. She then added this caveat. Smiling even more broadly and more sure of herself, she said, I think we'll all be coming together on this in a week or so. The look on her face was not the look of someone who is about to lose an argument.

Sarah Palin letter to Harry Reid on Energy Policy. "Energy Expert"?

Sarah Palin letter to Harry Reid on Energy Policy.
Is she a "Energy Expert"?
Any comments??

June 23, 2008
The Honorable Harry Reid
Senate Majority Leader
United States Senate
528 Hart Senate Office Building .
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senate Majority Leader Reid:

In previous correspondence to members of Congress, I have urged the enactment of legislation to authorize development of oil and natural gas in a small portion of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). I will not repeat the arguments in favor of this legislation but will briefly focus on a few key points that have become even more evident since my last correspondence.

That letter began, “With the price of oil hovering around $100 per barrel”. Now, just a few months later, the price is close to $140 per barrel, and there is no end in sight. What will it take for Congress to enact comprehensive energy policy that includes increased domestic production of oil and gas, renewable and alternative energy, and conservation? It seems to us outside of the Capitol Beltway that Virtually every effort to accomplish this is met with criticism and failure. In my opinion, the debate about energy policy is no longer theoretical and abstract. Our failure to enact an energy policy is having real consequences for every American in their daily lives and has begun to affect America’s place in the world.

In the last few days, proposals have been tabled to permit oil exploration and development in the 80 percent of the federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) which is off limits to such activity. I strongly support oes development in Alaska and elsewhere as a necessary component of a sound energy strategy. However, it makes no sense to consider the oes and to ignore the possibility of exploration and development in highly perspective upland areas, including the coastal plain of ANWR-the most promising unexplored petroleum province in North America.

With appropriate stipulations, oil exploration and development in the OCS can be conducted in a safe manner. Uplands development can be accomplished even more safely. Advanced technologies, such as directional drilling and the re-injection of oil wastes, ensure that the footprint of development would be less than 2,000 acres (approximately one-quarter of the size of Dulles Airport).

In advocating for oil development in ANWR, I have never guaranteed that this new domestic production would immediately reduce the price of oil. However, incremental production from the coastal plain should help reduce price volatility in the U.S. Additionally, ANWR development would send a strong message to oil speculators and producing countries that the United States is serious about addressing its energy problem.

Yet, there is an even more important point. The location and quantity of oil production are changing world geopolitics. Countries that produce significant quantities of oil and natural gas are gaining in power and prestige. Several of these countries have objectives and value systems that are antithetical to U.S. interests. We are becoming increasingly dependent on these insecure sources to our long-term detriment. Further, it has become clear that U.S. petrodollars are financing activities that are harmful to America and to our economic and military interests around the world.

Much attention has been focused on the importance of crude oil and gasoline in fueling our nation’s transportation system. This need for petroleum will not end anytime soon despite efforts to develop new technologies and to diversify our transportation system into mass transit and more fuel efficient automobiles.

Meanwhile, the true significance to the nation’s economy of products refined from petroleum is becoming increasingly apparent. These products undergird our entire society and economy and provide precious jobs and revenue. The soaring prices of chemicals, plastics, fertilizer, and other products - and the loss of jobs - graphically illustrate this point. We must recognize that it will be many years, if ever, before we discover alternatives to the petroleum-based products that every American uses in our daily lives.

If we don’t move now to enact an energy policy that includes more oil and gas production from domestic sources, including ANWR and the federal OCS, we may look back someday and realize that we failed to perceive a critical crossroad in the history of this nation. I don’t think it’s overly dramatic to say that this nation’s future and the quality of life for every American are dependent on the decisions you make or don’t make in the next few months.

Thank you for considering my views.

Sincerely,
Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin pushes McCain over Obama in latest polls

Newsflash.
McCaine/Palin now lead Obama/Biden by 2 points!
Sarah Palin's favorabilty ratings now exceed McCains AND OBAMAS by 1 point!

Some sobering thoughts for both sides in the Sarah Palin frenzy.

I never heard of Sarah Palin before Friday's announcement. I immediately googled her and found some fascinating material. Keep in mind this was before all the new pages appeared so all the articles were on what see had actually done. OMG!

Everyone seems assured Biden will destroy Sarah Palin in the VP debate.
Newsflash, 2 years ago she debated the sitting GOP Governor, who also happened to have spent over 20 years in the US Senate, and killed him and won the election in a landslide.

Every seems assured she wont hold up without a teleprompter.
Watch this video interview with Newsweek on female governors last march.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/156190?tid=relatedcl

There seems to have been a 2 year old grassroots effort to get her to VP, first for Rudy, and only later for Jonnie. Look for the older stuff on this site; front page is RA RA for her and McCaine now.
http://www.palinforvp.com/

Newsflash for the GOP bigwigs that think they can use her to stay in power and forget about her, that's what all the Alaskan GOP bigwigs thought to, they don't have jobs now. She is so hated by the old time GOP powers that her name is not mentioned on the GOP's state website.

"In the roughly three years since she quit as the state's chief regulator of the oil industry, Palin has crushed the Republican hierarchy (virtually all male) and nearly every other foe or critic. Political analysts in Alaska refer to the "body count" of Palin's rivals. "The landscape is littered with the bodies of those who crossed Sarah," says pollster Dave Dittman, who worked for her gubernatorial campaign. It includes Ruedrich, Renkes, Murkowski, gubernatorial contenders John Binkley and Andrew Halcro, the three big oil companies in Alaska, and a section of the Daily News called "Voice of the Times," which was highly critical of Palin and is now defunct."
From http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/851orcjq.asp

Funniest video take on Sarah Palin, done by 2 guys who think there slamming her, just like Archie Bunker was supposed to be making fun of people like him but became their hero.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W5IAPK0hbU&feature=related