The massive Wall Street bailout – estimated to total $500 billion to $1.5 trillion, depending on whose numbers you use – is being criticized by liberals and conservatives alike. As the financial cancer, which started in the mortgage markets, metastasized at alarming speed, no one seemed quite sure what to do to contain it - and now The New York Times is wondering whether the plan will even work:

[I]f Uncle Sam becomes the repository for the radioactive leftovers of bad real estate bets - will the crisis lift? Will the fear that has kept banks clinging to their dollars, starving the economy of capital, give way to free-flowing credit?

Most broadly, what are the long-term costs of the government’s stepping in to restore order after so many wealthy financiers became so much wealthier through what now seem like reckless bets on housing - bets now covered with public dollars? …

Also, what message does that send to the next investment bank caught up in the next speculative bubble and contemplating the risks of jumping in while wondering who is ultimately on the hook if things go awry?

Many economists say such questions are beside the point. The nation is gripped by the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Before Thursday night, when the Treasury secretary, the Federal Reserve chairman and leaders on Capitol Hill proclaimed their intentions to take over bad debts, the prognosis for the American financial system was sliding from grim toward potentially apocalyptic.

Leaving aside the fact that the bailout privatizes profit while socializing risk – hardly a free market solution - some fear the cure might kill the patient or might have severe side effects.

In a rare moment of unvarnished truthfulness – for him, in particular – Dem Majority Leader Harry Reid’s first reaction was to admit that “no one knows what to do.” Including presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama, who were expected to come up with an instant diagnosis and cure but mostly spent the week casting aspersions on each other for failing to do so.  

Meanwhile, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury secretary Henry M. Paulson moved decisively to pull together a rescue plan that was more sweeping and radical than anything either Barack Obama or John McCain would have dared propose.

The New York Times reports that the two “cast aside the administration’s long-held views about regulation and government involvement in private business, even reversing decisions over the space of 24 hours and justifying them as practical solutions to dire threats.” (Not that President Bush was in a position to protest, seeing as how the pointing fingers were mostly aimed in his direction – yet another hurdle for McCain to overcome between now and Election Day.)

By the way: In recent days, Obama has made hay (video) of McCain’s assertion that the fundamentals of our economy are strong. But many experts say McCain is right: the turmoil is largely confined to the capital markets. On “Meet the Press” Paulson said:

“I wouldn't bet against the long-term fundamentals of this country. But this is a humbling experience to see so much fragility in our capital markets, and ask how did we ever get here. … I won't bet against the American people ... We will work through this.”

Interestingly, five days earlier when Sean Hannity interviewed her (video), vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AZ) used almost the same words to define “the fundamentals” of our economy:

Sean Hannity: [T]he economy is on the minds of many Americans. We've got Lehman, we've got Merrill, we've got AIG. Senator Barack Obama yesterday was attacking Senator McCain for saying that the “fundamentals of the economy are strong.”

Do you believe that the fundamentals of our economy are strong?

Sarah Palin:  Well, it was an unfair attack on the verbiage that Senator McCain chose to use because the fundamentals, as he was having to explain afterwards, he means our workforce, he means the ingenuity of the American. And of course, that is strong and that is the foundation of our economy.

She also explained the why Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be bailed out, but not every corporation that comes to Washington holding a tin cup:

SH: [B]oth you and Senator McCain supported the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. You both opposed the bailout of government intervention as it relates to Lehman or Merrill. But now we read this morning that AIG is going to get some type of government bailout. …

SP: Fannie and Freddie [are] different, because [they are] quasi-government agencies where government had to step in because of the adverse impacts all across our nation, especially with homeowners. It's just too impacting, we had to step in there. I do not like the idea though of taxpayers being used to bailout these corporations. Today it was AIG, important call there, though, because of the construction bonds and the insurance carrier duties of AIG. But first and foremost, taxpayers cannot be looked to as the bailout, as the solution to the problems on Wall Street.

While Palin is reportedly “cramming” for her October 2^nd veep debate with Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) it’s a safe bet that Bernanke and Paulson are too busy to bring her up to speed on economic issues. But she seems to have a good handle on things – you know, “qualified” - and didn’t come off as mentally “disabled” at all.

CA Libs Worried “Too Many”  Blacks Will Vote

As in Tampa last month, Barack Obama’s rally at the University of Miami on Friday was interrupted (video) by a small group of lack protestors waving homemade signs that read, “Blacks against Obama”, “Jesse Jackson hates Obama”, “Obama for abortions”, “Obama for gay marriage” and “Obama endorsed by the KKK,” reports CBS News.

Hostility to the homosexual agenda amongst many blacks is causing opponents of Proposition 8 to lose sleep over the prospect of black voters flocking to the polls to vote for Obama and voting for the CA ballot initiative that seeks to overturn the State Supreme Court’s May ruling legalizing gay marriage, reports The New York Times:

“It’s a Catch-22,” said Andrea Shorter, the campaign director of And Marriage for All, a coalition of gay and civil rights groups that recently started what it calls an education campaign around the state, focusing on blacks and framing the issue of same-sex marriage as one of civil rights. …

“There’s no question African-American and Latino voters are among our strongest supporters,” said Frank Schubert, the co-campaign manager for Yes on 8, the leading group behind the measure. “And to the extent that they are motivated to get to the polls, whether by this issue or by Barack Obama, it helps us.” …

Black voters account for 6 percent of likely voters in most statewide elections, according to the Public Policy Institute of California, while Hispanic voters make up about 15 percent. But taken together, those two groups could easily decide the election, people on both sides of the issue said.

[T]he tendency of black voters to oppose gay marriage extends beyond religion. Patrick J. Egan, an assistant professor of politics at New York University who has studied black voting patterns on same-sex marriage, said black voters consistently polled much lower than white voters on approval for same-sex marriage, about 16 percentage points, even when religion was not a factor.

But The Wall Street Journal’s Political Diary reports that polls underestimate resistance to gay marriage – that is to say, support for traditional marriage - amongst all voters:

“I can't say for sure why polls almost always understate support for traditional marriage,” says Frank Schubert, a strategist for anti-gay marriage forces. “I believe it is because the media portrays same-sex marriage as being politically correct. Supporters of traditional marriage don't want pollsters to consider them intolerant, so they mask their true feelings on the issue.”

In states that have voted on gay marriage, the study found that polls underestimated support for traditional marriage by an average of seven points. In only two states (Texas and South Carolina) did pre-election polls accurately predict the outcome of the vote. In only one state (Arizona), polls overstated the final percentage of voters who backed traditional marriage.

If the MSM would stick to reporting the facts on the ground and quit telling people what to think or how to vote they wouldn’t find themselves continually blindsided by “unexpected” voting results. Just a thought …

In Memoriam

Joan Winston, c. 1931- September 11, 2008

Yankee Stadium, April 18, 1923 – September 20, 2008