While I’m unwilling to concede just yet that Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States, it would be foolish to deny that possibility. Even if John McCain wins, the status of Conservatism in the GOP and politics generally is troubling at best.

Politicians and The People, with few exceptions, seem determined to abandon sound, proven truths for the warm, fuzzy rhetoric of the Economic and Social policies of “Hope!” and “Change!” It’s difficult to blame The People. They gave the GOP a shot at letting Conservative ideology work it’s magic on the country for years.  Turns out the Pols weren’t as Conservative as advertised.

The years after the Reagan era are defined by a GOP wanting more to breed and less to lead. GOP strategy was “What must we do to increase our power and get re-elected?” instead of “What must we do to serve the people and earn our re-election?”

The nominations of Bob Dole,  W and now John McCain coupled with the strategy of many GOP House and Senate candidates has reinforced that approach. A notable exception, AZ Representative John Shadegg, says even at the height of 1994’s Republican Revolution the GOP’s advice was his most important job wasn’t to represent his district or promote his constituents’ values; it was to get re-elected.

This approach has tainted Conservatism in the minds of the people. It has become identical to, or at least wed to the GOP.  Thus the sins of the Party become the sins of the Principled.  Even if Conservatives object, pointing out they never countenanced bad behavior by the GOP (The Bailout, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Reform) The People still see them as part of the problem and not the solution. How else to understand what happened to Rick Santorum, George Allen and others?

Such losses make the Democrats’ job easier. Each defeated Conservative frees up time, energy and money to defeat those remaining. Squishy GOP members voted with Democrats enough to permit them to establish portions of their agenda and to regain solid Congressional majorities. Two things will follow: those who believe the Left can be reasoned with and appeased will be rudely awakened and the country will suffer. To date, only the second is happening.

GOP snubbing of Conservatives has produced much soul searching. The choices are stay in the GOP and work internally for change or leave to found or join a third party. I’m not advocating either choice. But enabling the status quo is not an option. We each must decide what the best use is of our time and talents. To decide, regardless of who wins the White House, a few things should be influential.

Christopher Arledge at Red County has written ‘The End of American Conservatism?’ and at The Minority Report, Civil Truth has penned ‘A Time for Choosing: Even Truer 44 Years Later’. They are as good a starting place as any for Conservatives asking where they go from here. I commend them to you. If you find, or if you have written, posts with similar themes, let me know and I’ll aggregate them here as a resource.

It is impossible to predict the consequences of next week’s election. It is, however, quite possible to predict what will happen if Conservatives do nothing. Surrender and chains being unacceptable options, regrouping and fighting on will have to do for now …

Blue Collar Muse

Sitting in airports most of yesterday, I got an earful of CNN's coverage of Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama.

It effectively undercut two of the most damning truths about Obama. Particularly galling was the interview with Claire McCaskill. Grinning like the Cheshire cat, she gushed Obama must be the best choice since Powell, a military man, would never support someone unqualified to serve as CinC or who trafficked with terrorists. This despite the fact Powell's endorsement included nothing addressing the validity of those two points. Even afterward, General Powell did not address with specificity his rationale for endorsing Obama.

By far, however, the most disappointing aspect of Powell's endorsement was his contention that, despite his decision, he still considers himself a Republican. I do not know the General nor have I ever spoken to him. I believe he is a good man and his skilled service to our country as a military man is beyond exemplary. But I cannot accept his contention that he is a Republican. It is not because he endorsed the nominee from the other side. It is his stated reasons for doing so.

Over the last 8 years, three prominent Democrats endorsed the GOP nominee; Zell Miller, Democratic Senator from Georgia; Ed Koch, former Democratic Mayor of NYC and Joe Lieberman, former Democratic Senator from CT and 2000 Democratic VP nominee. When these Democrats endorsed the GOP nominee, they did so deliberately and with specificity. They did so while remaining Democrats. With the exception of Zell Miller, they did so while disagreeing with Republicans on almost every other point except the War on Terror. Concluding aggression against the US was the greatest threat to the nation and that Democrats could not or would not see that, these men broke with their party to support a GOP nominee. Miller's endorsement followed in the well established DixieCrat tradition of Conservative southern Democrats. There was nothing that demanded these men be excluded from the Democratic Party.

There was a fair amount of criticism from the Left directed at these men for their decision. Like Powell, however, they maintained they were still Democrats while breaking with the party on the war. That break cost them. While Miller retired shortly after his endorsement, he was villified by Leftists. Lieberman was actively opposed by the Democratic Party in his bid for reelection to the Senate. These men remain Democrats in all things except for their endorsements. Ed Koch is supporting Obama and thinks Palin is scary. Joe Lieberman still caucuses with Democrats and votes with them on virtually all matters not related to the war. It is clear, whether or not you agree with their assessment of the war, that was the reason they supported the nominee from the GOP.

Colin Powell's rationale isn't even close to as specific. It's filled with nebulous and meaningless platitudes. Obama brings a fresh set of eyes to the problem. Well, so does Sarah Palin. Obama is inclusive. This is simply laughable as there is literally zero evidence for that. If inclusiveness is the criteria by which we are to judge, McCain is the hands down winner. Powell is uncomfortable with the rhetoric coming out of the McCain camp regarding Obama's association with terrorists, both foreign and domestic. Evidently he is OK with the rhetoric coming from the camps of terrorists, both foreign and domestic, that support the Illinois Senator.

In short, Powell's objections to McCain aren't policy based. They aren't ideologically based. They seem to be based in personality. That is not to say personality has nothing to do with how to evaluate a candidate. But it ought to be last on the list and certainly not a basis for abandoning party policy and ideology. Unless, of course, your policy and ideology is more akin to the other guy's than to the one you are generally associated with.

Colin Powell, when asked if he was still a Republican, responded that he was. With all respect to the General, I must disagree. There is little evidence from his speech that he is. His endorsement of Obama ignores that Obama is for bigger Government, higher Taxes, decreased personal Liberty, weaker national Defense and a host of other anti-GOP notions. Powell does not list a single issue or policy with which Obama is at odds with the GOP and which he considers paramount beyond all considerations for the safety and security of our nation. Instead, he gives a general and sweeping endorsement of the man and his policies which are unquestionably Left of center.

If you can explain to me how this is a Republican view, I'm willing to listen. But from here it sounds like a Democrat in GOP clothing standing up for what he believes in. I have no issue with the good General if he wants to hold Democratic views. I would appreciate, however, the intellectual honesty to admit the same and make the announcement that he cannot, in good conscience, remain in the GOP any longer and that he was endorsing the Democratic agenda.

That's an endorsement I could respect.

Blue Collar Muse

Tuesday, my post ‘ACORN’s 15 State Strategy for Voter Fraud’ provoked a great deal of response across the Interwebz. I don’t believe it alone was responsible for the Left’s development of talking points but said points were clearly in evidence. Discussion at The Next Right was most brisk with Leftist memes posted in abundance.

The short version? ACORN is the victim, not the criminal, so it can’t be involved in vote fraud! ACORN has never been convicted of vote fraud so it can’t be involved! ACORN reported its own fraudulent registrations so it can’t be involved! ACORN cooperated with the investigations so it can’t be involved! Real vote fraud only happens while casting a vote at the polls so ACORN can’t be involved. Statements to the contrary are based on isolated incidents so ACORN can’t be involved! ACORN isn’t responsible for the actions of a few bad eggs who make them look bad so it can’t be involved. It’s the start of a multi-state victim strategy.

Of course this only works if the protests are legitimate. Let’s take a look.

“Vote fraud can only happen at the polls!” would seem the most exonerating objection. But this is a straw man. After all, ACORN is an organization, not a person, so it cannot vote at all, fraudulently or otherwise. Yet ACORN is being investigated for vote fraud. How can that be? Because the law does not confine vote fraud to merely voting behavior.

While I’ve not spoken with all of them, I called election officials for the 13 states from Tuesday’s post asking about vote fraud definitions. Those I spoke with agreed “vote fraud” was best seen as a single, general term covering several, specific crimes. Actually voting fraudulently is vote fraud as are any number of actions, including fraudulently registering voters, fraudulently registering to vote and more. Investigations of such behavior by ACORN, its employees or agents are vote fraud investigations.

Ditto for convictions. One ACORN apologist, Timothy, has continually asked me to produce a single conviction of ACORN for vote fraud. The Wall Street Journal says it happened in Wisconsin and Colorado. Timothy says he followed my links. Perhaps he missed the one for Washington state. Rotten Acorn notes in this case, “Three ACORN employees pleaded guilty, and four more were charged, in the worst case of voter registration fraud in Washington state history.” ACORN settled the case. The settlement agreement is here. It’s all about what ACORN agrees to in order to avoid getting hammered.

ACORN’s agreement addresses the next objection: ACORN isn’t the bad guy; their self-policing makes them a good guy!. As with any such claim, the devil’s in the details. King County gave ACORN a pass if they self-reported problem registrations within 14 days. Self-reporting from 15-30 days earned them a $250 fine per incident. Over 30 days brought a $1,000 per incident fine. The question isn’t so much does ACORN self police as when. The WSJ’s John Fund has some insight into the answer out of Kansas City.

Finally, in the King County settlement ACORN agreed (as did all the election officials I asked about this) they can be held liable for the actions of their employees. No longer can they hide, as they have before, behind the excuse a few bad eggs ruined their reputation. Prosecutors may, for reasons of their own, choose not to prosecute the organization, but it’s a real option.

Washington state found ACORN’s personnel oversight to be “virtually nonexistant.” Their training seemed little better. King County demanded the same solution to the problem I suggested; change your business practices! Train and supervise your employees well. Tell them what breaking election law can mean. The King County case was last year, 2007. Why, then, is ACORN still having problems if all they are really committed to is, as Timothy says, conducting “… a very successful effort to register voters.”

There are major elections every two years and scores of lesser ones every year. With all that’s at stake, there will always be charges of fraud. But when one group routinely attracts accusations of wrongdoing, perhaps it’s time to look at them. Regarding ACORN, I say, “Democrats, perhaps it’s time to wash your hands of them.” No voter registration organization has a track record even remotely close to ACORN’s. And a rotten acorn can’t produce a healthy tree.

It really is as serious as I make it out to be. Including the 13 states with ACORN problems this year, since 1998, the following states have had problems with ACORN. Beyond their 15 state vote fraud strategy, ACORN now has a 19 state victim strategy. And ACORN only operates in 38 states. This is big and getting bigger. If mighty oaks truly grow from little acorns, there’s no surer proof than this. I think a call to the arborist is in order!

Arkansas / Colorado / Connecticut / Florida / Indiana / Louisiana / Michigan / Minnesota / Missouri / Nevada / New Mexico / North Carolina / Ohio / Pennsylvania / Texas / Virginia / Washington / Wisconsin.

Blue Collar Muse

Much has been made of the Democrats 50 state strategy to win the election.  Who knew there was a fall back 15 state strategy to steal it if they couldn’t win it?

Americans who haven’t heard about ACORN and voter fraud haven’t been paying attention. Some have been hearing about it for years. Others are just now hearing after waking up to find elections upon us once again. Seems like every couple of years there’s an election and whenever there is, there’s talk about people trying to steal it.

This year is no different. But for the first time, the fraud seems massive and everywhere.  And most all the fingers are pointing at ACORN.  They are political activists, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. According to Wikipedia, ACORN ” … is a community-based organization that advocates for low- and moderate-income families by working on neighborhood safety, health care and other social issues.” Wikipedia has frozen further edits to ACORN’s page because people can’t agree; according to others, ACORN is a Liberal group committed to electing Democrats by any means possible, legal and illegal.

Prior to 2008, while ACORN was a player in terms of voter fraud, there wasn’t much to report.  My first memory is South Dakota from 2002. This year ACORN is under scrutiny in over a fourth of America’s 50 states.

According to the New York Post and numerous other sources, 15 states are looking into ACORN for possible voter fraud. There’s just one problem, I can’t find 15 from this election cycle.  I can only find 13!  I looked but no one reporting the 15 state figure backed it up.  A bit of light was shed when I found a comment making the tally 15 “since 2004″.  Not quite the felonious total first reported, but why quibble over a couple of states.  A count of 13 still means in 2/3 of the states in which ACORN ran registration drives this cycle, there were problems.  If anyone knows the other two states, let me know and I’ll issue an update.  If problems turn up in any of other states, let me know as well.

The 13 instances noted below are all from this election cycle.  All but the Washington case are from 2008.

Connecticut - falsifying/forging voter registration cards;

Florida - falsifying voter registration;

Indiana - falsifying/forging voter registration cards;

Michigan - dozens of fraudulent forms;

Missouri - falsifying voter registration applications;

Nevada - fraudulent registrations including two for Tony Romo and Terrell Owens of the Dallas Cowboys;

New Mexico - hiring felons to work on registration drives;

North Carolina - fraudulent registrations submitted;

Ohio -  one man ACORN registered to vote over 70 times;

Pennsylvania - $2k reward offered for ACORN temp charged with perjury, identity theft and vote fraud;

Texas - 40% of 27K registrations from Houston rejected;

Washington - worst case of registration fraud in state history;

Wisconsin - hiring felons as “special registration deputies” and falsifying registration forms.

The links above are just one link to the state’s story.  In several instances there are multiple reports on the same case and in a few instances, there are multiple cases of fraud in a single state.  The point is, this isn’t made up.  ACORN’s standard response seems to be the “We can’t be made to pay for what others do!” defense.  But they don’t seem to mind if we pay in their place.

With the news out the Obama campaign hired ACORN, paying them $800k for voter registration it seems likely the heat is not going to do anything but increase.  Stay tuned and stay informed.  Alert and knowledgeable citizens outflank 15 state strategies every time!

Blue Collar Muse

I don't remember first hearing the term "9/11 Conservatives" to describe those with post 9/11 epiphanies. Realizing Liberal degradation of the US was destroying it in people's minds, 9/11 Conservatives abandoned the Left in droves. I do remember I didn't need the term explained to me. Its meaning was instantly grasped. The concept has been applied to different specifics over the years but it's still clear. A big enough event can break through indifference, and even opposition, forcing us to deal with it and its consequences. Given that, perhaps it's possible to learn something from attacks on other American institutions.

Free Market Capitalism is clearly under attack in the wake of recent financial woes. Listening to Democrats, and more than a few Republicans, Capitalism and Free Markets produced those problems. They were so bad, Government had to put Socialist bandages on Capitalist wounds. The Truth is otherwise. An objective evaluation show Government Market meddling and Watergate style Government cover-ups behind the current financial ravaging. The same is true of the subsequent bailout.

People are not as stupid as the Left needs them to be. Citizens will see Big Government, not Free Markets, caused the problem. They'll understand the Government's solution, as in 1929, made the situation far worse than it would have been had it let the Market work. They'll recognize a prime Government weakness is needing to be seen doing something, even something bad! And they'll realize one can't eliminate Bear Markets if one also wants Bull Markets. Uninterrupted growth is unrealistic. There will be Market corrections and they are healthy. Public understanding of Governmental responsibility for the problem as evidenced by the bailout, the Community Reinvestment Act and more will ultimately push more people towards fiscal conservatism than towards centrally planned Socialism. Call them CRA FisCons.

Equally large is the assault on the sanctity of the voting process. We have peaceful transitions of power due to public confidence in the electoral process. While there have been many charges of vote fraud over the years, in the last decade, Democrats have stepped up efforts to destroy confidence in the system in order to acquire legislative power. In 2000 Al Gore retracted his concession, forcing the Florida recount nightmare on the country. Eight years later I still see "Bush was selected, not elected!" bumper stickers. The Left refused to accept a certified vote because it showed them losing. This obsession fueled efforts to ensure it never happens again, even if they need to cheat.

Ask Democrats if the GOP engages in vote fraud and twenty minutes later you might get a word in to ask for evidence. There is, no doubt, evidence of GOP vote fraud available if one looks hard enough. But the truth is the GOP behaves better than Dems in respecting the sanctity of the process. John Ashcroft didn't demand the special election to which he was entitled following his loss to a dead man in 2000. In 2002, John Thune refused a recount to which he was entitled by South Dakota's Constitution despite significant evidence of vote fraud by Democrats.

Ask Democrats about New Jersey illegally putting Frank Lautenberg on the ballot in 2002. Ask them about ACORN being investigated and charged with vote fraud across the country. Ask them about ACORN execs fired, resigned in disgraced or fined for vote fraud. And if you ask why Democrats continue to support such a tainted and disgraced organization, you'll get non-answers delivered with a straight face.

Reliance on and allegiance to ACORN will ultimately cost them. The Democratic Party and individual Democrats should denounce ACORN. They should demand investigations to produce confidence in the process. They should vote to end public funding accounting for 40% of ACORN's budget and advise private donors putting up the other 60% to cut ACORN off. Democrats should call for trials and harsh sentences for those convicted of manipulating the voting process to disenfranchise others. But they don't and they won't. ACORN is doing exactly what Democrats want them to do. They want distrust of the process in the public mind.

Once again, Americans are not that stupid. The Left cannot spin ACORN as part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy or even the Right in general. ACORN is clearly both intentionally engaged in vote fraud and an obvious Democratic tool. As Americans grasp this truth, look for ACORN Republicans to make themselves known.

Finally, it never ceases to amaze how Democrats spin relationships. GWB was in the oil business so he must be a shill for Big Oil. Dick Cheney served on Haliburton's board so the GOP must be funneling no-bid contracts their way. Yes, some Government decisions benefit Big Oil. Yes, Haliburton gets some Government contracts. But are these events in the natural course of business or is the GOP linked to them in nefarious ways? No evidence exists that it is anything other than the simple natural course of things.

Democratic relationships and connections are, however, demonstrably contaminated. Bill Clinton had more than a little baggage heading into the White House. There were bimbo eruptions; Whitewater and his wife's part time day-trading job; questions about misuse and abuse of state troopers under his authority and more. This was all known before Clinton was elected. It either didn't matter to Democrats or it didn't get enough press to make a difference before election day. After the election, even more misdeeds came to light and it got worse. 16 years later, it's happening again.

Well before election day, Barack Obama's association with terrorists, foreign and domestic, is being revealed more clearly. Obama's connection to ACORN and its crimes is being reported more widely. His support for Socialist regulation is becoming more widely known. The questions about Obama have been answered.  He's a known quantity.  If demonstrable past performance is an indicator, Barack Obama will damage this country in ways my worst nightmares can't foresee. Fraternizing with our enemies, championing destructive economic plans and ignoring illegal acts for personal benefit combine to make Barack Obama more than dagerous to our country. He could destroy it altogether.

Obama dismisses these truths. He even paints them as positive. I'm not in bed with terrorists! But what's wrong with talking to people? I didn't push ACORN's radical agenda, I was a community organizer trying to involve more people in the political process! I'm not a Socialist! But shouldn't everyone be able to own in a house? Can't a nation as great as America make that happen?

For Bill Clinton to be right, scores of people had to be branded as liars. Democrats took up that challenge. For Barack Obama to be the President Democrats claim he'll be, thousands must deny they saw what they saw and heard what they heard during the campaign. Thousands more must suffer from Obama policies as disastrous tomorrow as they were in a thousand yesterdays. No matter, Democrats still rally behind him.

However, sooner or later, just as 9/11 moved folks from Liberal to Conservative, the CRA will move folks from Socialism to Free Markets, ACORN will move folks from Democrats to Republicans. Like Jimmy Carter gave the country Ronald Reagan, an Obama presidency will illustrate the lie and curse that is Liberalism and reveal the Truth and the blessing, howevermuch discomfort it produces at times, that is Conservatism. The Left may argue things like Individual Liberty, Free Markets, Conservatism and the like aren't perfect. I agree. But they are also far superior to any other option available.

Remember this when you step into that booth over the next few weeks.  There's no need to wait until 2012 to show you've made the move from Left to Right.

Blue Collar Muse

New technology overcomes old challenges. It also raises new ones. Nuclear plants generate the most electricity but have cleanup questions. The Internet has overcome and created challenges, too. Howard Dean used the internet to raise money at unheard of levels. Ken Timmerman reports Barack Obama’s campaign raised $427 million dollars, much of it coming via the internet.

Almost half of the $427 million came from donations of less than $200. Campaigns don’t have to identify donors until their aggregate giving exceeds $200. When giving was by check or cash, it was harder to cheat; cash deposits had to be accounted for and checks left paper trails. Credit card internet giving is the new way around the law.

Timmerman writes about an Obama donor, “Good Will”, who gave $17,375 in over 1,000 donations under $200, far exceeding the limit for individuals. The FEC has ordered the campaign to return the excess money, and they’ve started to. They’ve got thousands to go! Warner Todd Huston writes of testing the foreign donation firewalls of both Obama and McCain. Only one campaign had any checks on the process in place.

Complicating matters, current monitoring and regulating mechanisms are outpaced by technology. The FEC didn’t find “Good Will”. Activists did. Giving is at T1 speeds. Enforcement is stuck on dialup.

“While FEC practice is to do a post-election review of all presidential campaigns, given their sluggish metabolism, results can take three or four years,” said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center.

If Presidential campaigns have these issues, what of lesser publicized and scrutinized down-ticket races?

Tennessee has a potential problem. According to the Democrats themselves, Jim Hawkins, a state Senate challenger raised $87,000 in the second quarter of 2008. , $22,725 of it came from ActBlue, a PAC exclusively supporting Democrats.

While a great example of new tech making new opportunities, it raises new problems, too. Per Drew Rawlins, Executive Director of the Tennessee Registry of Election Finance, in Tennessee a PAC  cannot give a Senate candidate over $15,000; half in the primary and half in the general. ActBlue is clearly over that limit.

But are they violating a law? The answer may come down to applying offline laws to online issues. As with applying 1st Amendment’s rights to traditional media and New Media, how do we apply campaign Finance law crafted for yesterday’s offline campaigns to today’s online efforts?

While agreeing ActBlue was a PAC, Rawlins said ActBlue wasn’t Hawkins’ donor; the 74 people giving to ActBlue to give to Hawkins were. ActBlue served as an “intermediary” under Tennessee law. Rawlins compared them to other “intermediaries” like PayPal or traditional bundlers and doesn’t believe ActBlue violated the law. Had ActBlue given Hawkins that much in undesignated funds, they’d have broken the law. Contributions designated to Hawkins are OK.

I’m not sure. I don’t suggest ActBlue willfully broke a law. I’m suggesting old laws may be insufficient to address ActBlue’s actions. I’m suggesting we address this now and suspend this sort of campaign donation until we decide.

I’m unsure about classifying ActBlue as an intermediary. Drew Rawlins observed anyone could be an intermediary because the money didn’t come from them, but the individual donors. Given that, I asked if churches and corporations could be intermediaries. Rawlins said “No;” churches and corporations were legally forbidden to make campaign donations. But PACs have legal restrictions, too. If churches or corporations can’t go beyond their legal restrictions, why can PACs?

I’m uncomfortable with ActBlue’s processes. Bundlers don’t hold donations, they pass them on right away. Checks are payable to specific entities. Cash isn’t deposited by a bundler who then cuts a check to the campaign. Even online money transfers via PayPal are immediate. The money goes from my account to the recipient’s. But donations made via ActBlue are often held by ActBlue before being disbursed. Where is that money in the meantime? If it stops in an ActBlue account, how is the final payment not from ActBlue? What would happen if an offline bundler were to operate like this?

It comes down to murky law. Campaigns are operating under the premise “It’s easier to get forgiveness than permission!” While perhaps valid for dealing with a child’s mistakes, it makes for dangerous election finance law. With what’s at stake, it seems just a matter of time before someone sues to resolve this. So why not look at it now and speak to it definitively and without the pressure of lawsuits?

I’m going to keep looking into this. I want to speak to Drew Rawlins again and a few more folks as well. In the meantime, what do you think? Is this real or no big deal? What arguments, for or against, am I missing? To help keep the election process clean, let’s deal with this now. It’ll bring us into the 21st century and keep us up to date, at least until the next idea comes along …

Blue Collar Muse

You'd think after Chuck Schumer's ignorance was plastered all over the news for leaking his letter to the Office of Thrift Supervision and personally creating the run on IndyMac Bank that destroyed IndyMac in just 3 business days that Democrats would learn to keep their mouths shut.

You would think after reports on tight credit, volatile markets and rest of the panic and doom-and-gloom scenarios for which Democrats bill themselves as the saviors of the Country and the Economy, they might realize people pay attention to what they say, however ignorant it is.

You would think one of the biggest providers of stupid Senatorial sound bites, Harry "The War is Lost" Reid (D-NV), would have learned to keep his pie-hole closed when asked about things he has no knowledge of. You'd think so, but you'd be wrong.

Reid stated in a recent news conference that he had heard a major insurance company with a household name was on the verge of insolvency. Today, news is out that three different insurance companies fitting this description, "... a major insurance company -- one with a name that everyone knows ..." had major stock selloffs following comments by Harry Reid that can only be described as "Look at me, I'm important and have insider information!!!!"

The LA Times reports the following on Harry Reid's foolish pronouncement,

But with investors already on high alert after the Federal Reserve's rescue of insurance titan American International Group Inc. on Sept. 16, and with the credit crunch still making funding difficult for even the largest U.S. financial companies, Reid's comments were the equivalent of pouring gasoline on a grease fire.

MetLife plunged $7.19, or 15%, to $40.96; Hartford dived $12.20, or 32%, to $25.91; and Prudential slid $7.15, or 11%, to $57.65.

And no one can blame short sellers, because all three of the stocks are covered by the Securities and Exchange Commission's temporary ban on short sales of financial issues.

Investors are so skittish that even a reference to an industry, let alone a specific company is enough to trigger volatile trading. Harry Reid doesn't understand that. That he later backtracked with these words,

A statement from his office said that Reid was "not personally aware of any particular company being on the verge of bankruptcy" and that "he has no special knowledge about nor has he talked to any insurance company officials."

reveals his ignorance even further.

In the midst of a financial crisis, the Senate Majority leader repeats a rumor he heard and for which he admits he has absolutely no basis for believing. This fantasy, created and employed to make himself and his position more authoritative, results in a sell-off which majorly impacts 3 of the largest companies in the country, threatens the jobs and investments of perhaps millions of ordinary Americans. But we're supposed to have faith and confidence in Senator Reid and the rest of his Democratic (and more than a few ignorant Republicans) associates in the Senate.

Harry Reid doesn't understand even "throw-away" comments in this financial atmosphere can ignite firestorms. Yet he expects a $700 billion bailout, quickly cobbled together, haphazardly grafted onto unrelated legislation and then passed through a Democrat controlled Senate so Senators could look authoritative and responsive - this is safe? Reid and Company don't understand how today's minor words impact tomorrow's Market. But their major overhauls of Constitutional strictures and Economic reality are going to be just fine? See for yourself how small a spark can set off such a huge fire in this 18 second video.

Democrats caused our current financial mess with ill-advised but well-intentioned legislation like "The Community Reinvestment Act". Their bailout solution is just as well-intentioned and just as ill-advised. There is a reason the Founders put incredible limits on the scope and power of the Federal Government's authority. Not the least of which is that the Government should not have the power to destroy a company or an Economy with a throw away comment in a press conference. Only the people intimately involved with that company should have that authority; those working there and who invest in it.

Someone please inform Democrats, in DC and all across the US, of this. It's too bad Nancy Pelosi couldn't turn off Harry Reid's microphone and shut off the power to the media's gear for this press conference like she did to her House colleagues a while back. Somebody needs to get control of out of control Democratic, self serving blathering before it does more than savage a company or three and wreak havoc on the citizen's finances. Next time around, Democrats might find the right words to destroy the entire Economy.

Blue Collar Muse