Thursday, October 23, 2008
Friday, October 3, 2008
After much arm twisting and second guessing, the House of Representatives passed the Senate version of the $700 BILLION dollar bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It should be noted that, once signed, this legislation will cost $50 Billion MORE than the total amount paid to all Social Security recipients this year. This bill will cost over $100 Billion dollars MORE than has been spent on the 5 years of the Iraq War. If fact, it will cost $150 Billion dollars MORE than ALL non-military discretionary spending in the 2008 federal budget.
When something this colossal is passed this quickly and with such limited debate it is often difficult to get accurate information. In this case, a number of myths have been promoted by the supporters of this bailout and echoed by the Mainstream Media.
MYTH #1: Democratic Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, claims the economic policies of President George W. Bush's caused the current financial crisis.
NO, it was the Clinton Administration's aggressive expansion of the powers of the Community Reinvestment Act which forced banks to make loans to high risk borrowers in low income neighborhoods. President Bush tried multiple times to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but all new attempts at regulation for these fiscal black holes were foiled by the democrats.
MYTH #2: Barack Obama claims John McCain's support for deregulation caused this problem.
No. Senator John McCain was one of four co-sponsors of bill S. 190 Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 which sought to tighten the regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while there was still time to save the financial collapse were experiencing today. Then, Freshman Senator Barack Obama -- along with nearly every other democrat on Capitol Hill -- opposed adding more oversight to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Washington Post noted “he (Senator McCain) pushed for stronger regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- While Mr. Obama was notably silent.”
MYTH #3: The Republicans in the House stopped the original bailout bill from passing.
No. Unlike the Senate where a bill can be filibustered, in the House all you need is a majority. The Democrats have enough seats in the US House of Representative that they can pass whatever bill they want without a single Republican vote. Ninety-five democrats -- including 5 Committee Chairmen -- voted against the bill. This means over 40% of the DEMOCRATS didn’t support their own bill. If only 12 of the 95 nay votes on the Democratic side had gone with Pelosi, the bill would have passed.
When the Senate version of the bill – which passed 74-25 – came to the House, this time it passed 263 – 171. In this vote an additional 32 Democrats and 26 Republicans voted for the bailout.
First Vote Second Vote
Democrats 140-95 172-62
Republicans 65-133 91-108
MYTH #4: This meltdown was caused by greedy Republicans looking for Special Interest campaign contributions.
No. Exactly the opposite is true. According to “OpenSecrets.org”, a non-profit that tracks political donations, the Democrats who have shielded Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from additional regulation have been the largest recipients of cash from the PACs created by the two now bankrupt companies. In all fairness, a number of Republicans had their snouts deep in the trough as well but generally they also supported tighter oversight. One of the most troubling items in the article titled: “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Democrats” concerned Senator Obama. Despite being in office less than 4 years, the Illinois Senator was #3 on the list of top cumulative recipients for the past 20 years. Which raises the question of why did a freshman senator with no seniority, who is not even on the Banking Committee, receive so much money?
MYTH #5: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are dominated by Republican Fat Cats.
No. It is dominated by Fat Cat Democrats. James A. Johnson, who was the head of Fannie Mae from 1991 -1998, ran Walter Mondale’s 1984 presidential campaign. Johnson served on the Barack Obama VP search committee until it became public he had gotten a sweetheart mortgage from Countrywide Financial Corp. Johnson was replaced by Franklin Raines who was CEO from 1999 through the end of 2005. Raines served as President Clinton’s Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Raines was involved in accounting scandals that pocketed him millions of dollars he later had to repay.
MUST SEE VIDEOS
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, a psychiatrist by training, was the first to give the recent phenomena in American politics a name; he called it the “Bush Derangement Syndrome.” Krauthammer describes this affliction as “the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush.”
This disorder is not limited to President Bush, an earlier equally virulent strain affected many Republicans during the Clinton administration. The virus appears to be spreading beyond the White House and now you can see outbreaks in the media as well as politics. If you are at a cocktail party where the attendees have mixed political views, the mere mention of Dan Rather or Rush Limbaugh can send the host scrambling to pack away the breakables.
Move over boys; there is a new player in town. Meet Sarah Palin.
The Mainstream Media (MSM) has trouble hiding their personal preference for democrats in normal times and the unexpected selection of Governor Palin to be John McCain’s running mate has caused them to drop any pretense of impartiality. Need proof? Do a Google search for “hate Palin” and you get 8.6 MILLION sites.
In a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, Why Feminists Hate Sarah Palin, Cathy Young observed:
Left-wing feminists have a hard time dealing with strong, successful conservative women in politics such as Margaret Thatcher. Sarah Palin seems to have truly unhinged more than a few, eliciting a stream of vicious, often misogynist invective.
On Salon.com last week, Cintra Wilson branded her a "Christian Stepford Wife" and a "Republican blow-up doll." Wendy Doniger, religion professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School, added on the Washington Post blog, "Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman."
The same folks who would have branded as a Neanderthal anyone who suggested that Nancy Pelosi was a bad mother for trying to be a congresswoman while raising her 5 kids; firmly believes Palin should be headed back to Wasilla instead of to Washington.
Those who would have needed smelling salts if Barack Obama’s personal email had been hacked by the son of an elected Republican, instead demanded to know why she – like millions of other Americans -- had a private Yahoo account? What was she hiding?
While the MSM has ignored the sweetheart deal the Obamas got on their home from a convicted embezzler; they demand to know more about a tanning bed which was installed in the Governor’s mansion which Palin bought with her own money.
These same people think Michelle Obama – despite actively campaigning for her husband – is off limits, while attacking Sarah Palin’s 17 year old daughter and new born son is fair game. Apparently “Palin Derangement,” in addition to causing a total loss of reason and logic, also causes the moral compass to malfunction as well.
The saddest thing for the MSM, all of these wild eyed, frothing at the mouth attacks on what appears to be a perfectly nice lady you would love to have as next door neighbor are only making them look angry and, well, demented. Palin’s popularity has been going up while the MSM approval rating has slid below used car salesmen and trial lawyers. With the internet and cable news, the MSM has lost its monopoly on the news outlets and they don’t like it one bit and its desperation is starting to show.
This Sunday the Associated Press, after weeks of digging, found, at least in their minds, the smoking gun. While Palin didn’t have her political career launched in the living room of an admitted terrorist or be #2 in political cash received from Fanny Mae whose corruption is a major cause of the current financial mess or even have her spouse's salary tripled as soon as it was clear a senate seat was at hand, she did get....wait for it... a free facial! But it gets worse. The AP has irrefutable proof that Sarah Palin, while Mayor of Wasilla, also received a bouquet of flowers and some fresh salmon.
The AP’s paper trail consists of copies of “Thank You” notes Sarah sent to the people who had given her the personal gifts. What an awful woman.
If you want to have some fun, here are links to videos of some of the more outrageous attacks on Sarah Palin and some of her most eloquent defenses.
From the Mainstream Media
(Note we didn’t include a link to infamous Sandra Bernhard’s video where she wished Sarah Palin would be sexually assaulted by a gang of Blacks in Manhattan. After deleting out the vulgarities there was less than a handful of words left from her diatribe.)
There are still those that will point out the Mainstream Media’s hypocrisy
The Media Lies about Palin Fox News
The Extreme Liberal Bias of Journalism Today Dennis Prager
This week is the Vice Presidential Debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. Any bets the MSM hasn’t already been searching their thesaurus for new ways to say “unqualified” and “stupid” without sounding too biased or sexist?
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Can we trust Obama to do a better job with the economy than the last two Democratic presidents?
This lack of trust may be well deserved. The “sub-prime” melt down can be traced to three major events – all caused by the Democrats playing politics. While Barack Obama was not around for the first two, he was elbows deep in the most recent turning point and, despite his limited time in the Senate, he was second largest recipient of campaign cash from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
But first a bit of history on how we got into this mess.
Carter and the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977
In 1977 Democratic president Jimmy Carter pushed through the “Community Reinvestment Act” (CRA) to make it easier for low income families and those living in sections of cities that were in transition to buy a home. This law was passed to stop banks from “red lining” – refusing to make loans in certain parts of a city – and not providing loans to credit worthy minorities and other low income families. While the concept was noble and well intended, like so many Washington mandates, the devil was in the details.
Here is how the National Review described the problem in a recent editorial:
...The Community Reinvestment Act, a bit of legislative arm-twisting much beloved by Sen. Obama and his fellow Democrats. One of the reasons so many bad mortgage loans were made in the first place is that Barack Obama’s celebrated community organizers make their careers out of forcing banks to do so. ACORN, for which Obama worked, is one of many left-wing organizations that spent decades pressuring banks and bank regulators to do more to make mortgages available to people without much in the way of income, assets, or credit. These campaigns often were couched in racially inflammatory terms. The result was the Community Reinvestment Act. The CRA empowers the FDIC and other banking regulators to punish those banks which do not lend to the poor and minorities at the level that Obama’s fellow community organizers would like. Among other things, mergers and acquisitions can be blocked if CRA inquisitors are not satisfied that their demands — which are political demands — have been met. There is a name for loans made to people who do not have the credit, assets, income, or down payment to qualify for a normal mortgage: subprime.Bill Clinton and the “Reform” of 1995
The bankers cannot blame CRA entirely; they made a lot of bad bets on rising home prices. But CRA did influence lending standards across the banking industry, even in those institutions that are not strictly liable to its jurisdiction. The subprime debacle is in no trivial part the result of lending decisions in which political extortion trumped businesses’ normal bottom-line concerns. (Read the article HERE)
In 1995 Democrat Bill Clinton pushed through a major reform of the CRA. In 2000, Howard Husock, the former Director of Case Studies at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and current Director of the Manhattan Institute's Social Entrepreneurship Initiative wrote “The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities.”
The Clinton administration has turned the Community Reinvestment Act, a once-obscure and lightly enforced banking regulation law, into one of the most powerful mandates shaping American cities—and, as Senate Banking Committee chairman Phil Gramm memorably put it, a vast extortion scheme against the nation's banks. Under its provisions, U.S. banks have committed nearly $1 trillion for inner-city and low-income mortgages and real estate development projects, most of it funneled through a nationwide network of left-wing community groups, intent, in some cases, on teaching their low-income clients that the financial system is their enemy and, implicitly, that government, rather than their own striving, is the key to their well-being.” (Read the article HERE)Howard Husock's City Journal article didn’t get much notice when it was published but, like the ancient Greek prophet Cassandra, time proved him correct.
The masterminds from the Clinton administration of this massive expansion of CRA did quite well for themselves. John Gibson of Fox News recently wrote an editorial on this subject titled: “Barack Obama's Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Connection”
Fannie and Freddie have also been places for big Washington Democrats to go to work in the semi-private sector and pocket millions. The Clinton administration's White House Budget Director Franklin Raines ran Fannie and collected $50 million. Jamie Gorelick — Clinton Justice Department official — worked for Fannie and took home $26 million. Big Democrat Jim Johnson, recently on Obama's VP search committee, has hauled in millions from his Fannie Mae CEO job. (Read the article HERE)The Proposed Reform of 2005
After a series of accounting scandals at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in 2005 the Bush administration proposed tightening the regulation on these financial giants. Along near straight party lines, the Democrats and a handful of entrenched Republicans blocked the reform. Why were the Democrats, who never saw a government regulation they didn’t like, so bent on protecting the shady practices of Fannie and Freddie? Why would the Republicans, who controlled Congress and the White House, be so quick to run up the white flag? The Associated Press may have the answer; lots and lots of money. Fannie and Freddie have been stuffing the pockets of powerful members of congress for years.
The contributions are part of a lobbying arsenal that has invested $80 million over the past five years to win hearts and minds in the capital. Fannie and Freddie have spent big on hiring former White House officials and lawmakers. Some members of Congress have received tens of thousands of dollars from the PACS, especially those on committees with jurisdiction over the companies, including Frank.Neither party was exactly a profile in courage during the 2005 reform attempt. With a $700 BILLION dollar bailout looming, the stench from this scandal has finally prodded some action with the FBI launching an investigation. Don’t expect big headlines here. When both political parties have dirt on their hands, things like this tend to get settled behind closed doors.
They had huge armies of lobbyists that were tripping over each other, so they developed friends on both sides of the aisle over the years," said Peter Fitzgerald, a Virginia banker and former Republican senator from Illinois. "Republicans got very tight with them over the years and they got very powerful."
Stephen Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based watchdog group, said the PACs' campaign cash to Congress has helped insulate Fannie and Freddie from oversight. (Read the article HERE)
To gain America’s trust, Barack Obama needs to answer these questions
- What exactly is his relationship to the former CEO of the bankrupt Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines?
- Since 1989 Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have used PACs and individual contributions to support candidates. Why is Barack Obama – who has only been in the Senate for 4 years – second in total campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the past 20 years?
- Why did he stand silent in 2005 and vote with the other Democrats to block financial reform which could have prevented the current crisis in the financial markets?
- Why should a person with no experience in finance who has never studied economics be trusted to find a solution to this incredibly complex problem?
Like Ricky used to say to Lucy. “You got some 'splaining to do!”
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
There are no heroes in this sad tale, only villains. The victims of the meltdown are the American people who are being called upon to open their wallets, now and in the future, to pay for this mess.
Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich has written a profound and important message in the National Review Online on this subject which we want to share with you:
Before D.C. Gets Our Money, It Owes Us Some Answers
Watching Washington rush to throw taxpayer money at Wall Street has been sobering and a little frightening.
We are being told Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has a plan which will shift $700 billion in obligations from private companies to the taxpayer.
We are being warned that this $700 billion bailout is the only answer to a crisis.
We are being reassured that we can trust Secretary Paulson "because he knows what he is doing".
Congress had better ask a lot of questions before it shifts this much burden to the taxpayer and shifts this much power to a Washington bureaucracy.
Imagine that the political balance of power in Washington were different.
If this were a Democratic administration the Republicans in the House and Senate would be demanding answers and would be organizing for a “no” vote.
If a Democratic administration were proposing this plan, Republicans would realize that having Connecticut Democratic senator Chris Dodd (the largest recipient of political funds from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) as chairman of the Banking Committee guarantees that the Obama-Reid-Pelosi-Paulson plan that will emerge will be much worse as legislation than it started out as the Paulson proposal.
If this were a Democratic proposal, Republicans would remember that the Democrats wrote a grotesque housing bailout bill this summer that paid off their left-wing allies with taxpayer money, which despite its price tag of $300 billion has apparently failed as of last week, and could expect even more damage in this bill.
But because this gigantic power shift to Washington and this avalanche of taxpayer money is being proposed by a Republican administration, the normal conservative voices have been silent or confused.
It’s time to end the silence and clear up the confusion.
Congress has an obligation to protect the taxpayer.
Congress has an obligation to limit the executive branch to the rule of law.
Congress has an obligation to perform oversight.
Congress was designed by the Founding Fathers to move slowly, precisely to avoid the sudden panic of a one-week solution that becomes a 20-year mess.
There are four major questions that have to be answered before Congress adopts a new $700 billion burden for the American taxpayer. On each of these questions, I believe Congress’s answer will be “no” if it slows down long enough to examine the facts.
Question One: Is the current financial crisis the only crisis affecting the economy?
Answer: There are actually multiple crises hurting the economy.
There is an immediate crisis of liquidity on Wall Street.
There is a longer time crisis of a bad energy policy transferring $700 billion a year to foreign countries (so foreign sovereign capital funds are now using our energy payments to buy our companies).
There is a longer term crisis of Sarbanes-Oxley (the last "crisis"-inspired congressional disaster) crippling entrepreneurial start ups, driving public companies private, driving smart business people off public boards, and driving offerings from New York to London.
There is a long term crisis of a high corporate tax rate driving business out of the United States.
No solution to the immediate liquidity crisis should further cripple the American economy for the long run. Instead, the liquidity solution should be designed to strengthen the economy for competition in the world market.
Question Two: Is a big bureaucracy solution the only answer?
Answer: There is a non-bureaucratic solution that would stop the liquidity crisis almost overnight and do it using private capital rather than taxpayer money.
Four reform steps will have capital flowing with no government bureaucracy and no taxpayer burden.
First, suspend the mark-to-market rule which is insanely driving companies to unnecessary bankruptcy. If short selling can be suspended on 799 stocks (an arbitrary number and a warning of the rule by bureaucrats which is coming under the Paulson plan), the mark-to-market rule can be suspended for six months and then replaced with a more accurate three year rolling average mark-to-market.
Second, repeal Sarbanes-Oxley. It failed with Freddy Mac. It failed with Fannie Mae. It failed with Bear Stearns. It failed with Lehman Brothers. It failed with AIG. It is crippling our entrepreneurial economy. I spent three days this week in Silicon Valley. Everyone agreed Sarbanes-Oxley was crippling the economy. One firm told me they would bring more than 20 companies public in the next year if the law was repealed. Its Sarbanes-Oxley’s $3 million per startup annual accounting fee that is keeping these companies private.
Third, match our competitors in China and Singapore by going to a zero capital gains tax. Private capital will flood into Wall Street with zero capital gains and it will come at no cost to the taxpayer. Even if you believe in a static analytical model in which lower capital gains taxes mean lower revenues for the Treasury, a zero capital gains tax costs much less than the Paulson plan. And if you believe in a historic model (as I do), a zero capital gains tax would lead to a dramatic increase in federal revenue through a larger, more competitive and more prosperous economy.
Fourth, immediately pass an “all of the above” energy plan designed to bring home $500 billion of the $700 billion a year we are sending overseas. With that much energy income the American economy would boom and government revenues would grow.
Question Three: Will the Paulson plan be implemented with transparency and oversight?
Answer: Implementation of the Paulson plan is going to be a mess. It is going to be a great opportunity for lobbyists and lawyers to make a lot of money. Who are the financial magicians Paulson is going to hire? Are they from Wall Street? If they’re from Wall Street, aren't they the very people we are saving? And doesn’t that mean that we’re using the taxpayers’ money to hire people to save their friends with even more taxpayer money? Won't this inevitably lead to crony capitalism? Who is going to do oversight? How much transparency is there going to be? We still haven't seen the report which led to bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It is "secret". Is our $700 billion going to be spent in "secret" too? In practical terms, will a bill be written in public so people can analyze it? Or will it be written in a closed room by the very people who have been collecting money from the institutions they are now going to use our money to bail out?
Question Four: In two months we will have an election and then there will be a new administration. Is this plan something we want to trust to a post-Paulson Treasury?
Answer: We don’t know who will inherit this plan.
The balance of power on election day will shift to either McCain or Obama. Who will they pick for Treasury Secretary? What will their allies want done? We are about to give the next administration a level of detailed control over big companies on a scale even FDR did not exercise during the Great Depression. Is this really wise?
For these reasons I hope Congress will slow down and have an open debate.
And in the course of that debate, I hope someone will introduce an economic recovery act that makes America a better place to grow jobs. I hope the details will be made public before the vote.
For more details on my action plan for getting the American economy back on track and building long-term economic prosperity, you can read this message recorded yesterday to American Solutions members.
This is a very important week for the integrity of the Congress.
This is a very important week for the future of America.
If Washington wants our money, then it owes us some answers.
--- Newt Gingrich
To put the world right in order, we must first put the nation in order; to put the nation in order, we must first put the family in order; to put the family in order, we must first cultivate our personal life; we must first set our hearts right. --- Confucius
For all the talk of “change” this political season, let’s remember where it all begins… not with a political candidate, but you and me.
Friday, September 12, 2008
The Unfought War on Islamism - To stay civilized and free, we can’t be ignorant.
By M. Zuhdi Jasser, National Review Online. September 11, 2008
In 1816, Thomas Jefferson proclaimed in a letter to a friend an adage that we should be heeding today: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”
Never was this advice more desperately needed — or more consciously avoided — than it is today. American’s educational system has seemed unwilling to enlighten our children to the nature, history, and implications of the war that has been declared on us and on free people in general by Islamist theocratic totalitarians. At best, the subject is entirely avoided in America’s classrooms; at worst, it is ascribed to causes that facts prove are untrue — such as poverty or American foreign policy…” Click for Full Article
Jasser shares more thoughtful insight in this six minute video.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
I ask you to join us in a prayer for those who perished on that dark day seven years ago; for those who lost family and friends; for the children who will never see their fathers or mothers again; for all of our military men and women who are working tirelessly to see that this never happens again. To pray that those that espouse evil and kill the innocent without remorse or humanity will never victimize our country again.
With a nation struck numb with fear and anger, President George W. Bush's words to the Nation are just as powerful today as they were that dark night:
Tonight, I ask for your prayers for all those who grieve, for the children whose worlds have been shattered, for all whose sense of safety and security has been threatened. And I pray they will be comforted by a power greater than any of us, spoken through the ages in Psalm 23: "Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me."
This is a day when all Americans from every walk of life unite in our resolve for justice and peace. America has stood down enemies before, and we will do so this time. None of us will ever forget this day. Yet, we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world. Thank you. Good night, and God bless America. ----- President George W. Bush, September 11, 2001
God Bless, Foster *****
Watch this 9/11 clip from a Canadian news source not frequently seen.
Monday, September 1, 2008
From his mountain hideout somewhere deep in the Tetons, Foster Friess was still smarting from his incorrect prediction that Senator John McCain would select Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota as his running mate. "He only picked Sarah Palin because she was a girl," he complained bitterly.
Foster’s son, Stephen, has been trying to talk some sense into his father. “Dad, Dad, hold on...she's the perfect choice,” he was overheard saying. “You couldn't have ordered a better pick from Central Casting. I mean our country’s president is like our CEO. As a mayor and a governor she's had more executive experience than Senators Obama, McCain & Biden combined!”
“Maybe,” Foster grumped as he tossed the “McCain/Pawlenty” needlepoint he had been working on in the fireplace.
“She's married her high school sweetheart who just happens to be a union member and works in the oil fields,” Stephen pleaded. “That will appeal to blue collar workers. Their oldest son is headed for Iraq so the military types will like her and she gave birth to her fifth child knowing he had Down’s Syndrome. This is a true Christian who values all life.”
“Yeah, yeah,” Foster said. “But is she tough enough for the job?”
“Tough!” Stephen laughed. “Her senior year of high school she lead her team to the state basketball championship. Her nickname was Barracuda!”
“That doesn't tell me anything.”
“How about this,” Stephen said with a knowing grin. “She made the winning free throw and played the game with a stress fracture in her ankle! Is that tough enough for you?”
“Really?” Foster said as he sat up a bit straighter in his chair
“Yes, really,” Stephen answered. “Plus, she runs marathons, loves to hunt and fish and, as governor, she took on the corruption in the “old boy’s” network in Alaska and cleaned house. She has gone toe to toe with big oil and won. All of this while cutting taxes. Her current approval rating is at 80% in the state.
“No kidding?” Foster said as he rubbed his chin.
“She even told the federal government she wasn't going to put up $300 million dollars of her state's money for that “bridge to nowhere” that made everyone so mad. She is a wonderful pick. Since the announcement, Dr. James Dobson at Focus on the Family has gone from saying he would never vote for McCain to saying “I could pull that lever” for a McCain/Palin ticket.”
“But I had dinner with Governor Pawlenty and his wife,” Foster said with a sigh. “I really liked them.”
“I know, I know,” Stephen said as he patted his father on the back. “Maybe she’ll invite you to dinner sometime. She might even make you some venison she shot herself.”
“That would be nice,” The senior Friess responded. "I don't like being wrong but I see what you're saying and I'm ecstatic.”
“Finally,” Stephen said as he turned his eyes to heaven and mumbled a silent “Thank you.”
Looking at Palin’s picture on his computer screen, Foster said, “You have to admit she's really good looking.”
Stephen’s shoulders slumped and he rolled his eyes. "Dad, you can't talk about a woman's beauty these days because it might offend someone.”
“I give up,” Foster Friess said as he stood up and headed toward the door.
“Where are you going?” Stephen asked.
“I’m going to go play a round of golf. That seems to be the only thing I can do right lately.”
I think Governor Sarah Palin is an incredible pick and will make an outstanding Vice President. With all of the talk about Hillary, who would have thought the Republicans might be the ones to nominate and elect America’s first female Vice President?
If you want to help this Dream Team get elected, be sure to visit, McCain/Palin 2008.