We are Blogging.

I just don't agree with you or her.

But three things come to mind:
List removed.

1) You will note that neither Russia/USSR or China were in my list of 'Liberty restored' countries, because, IMAO, they never had it to be restored. Great idea, putting up straw men that are not in my list, then knocking them down.

2) Hyperinflation in the Wiemar Republic. Might want to check the time line on that really carefully, and let's add that Hitler wasn't elected. Even at it's best in open elections the Nazi only got about 30% of the vote. I'll also add that neither welfare state socialism or higher base tax rates were the cause of it. France wanting her ton of flesh might have had something to do with it.

3) None of the counties I listed were freed mainly due to the actions of US armed forces. I was very careful to not to include those. All of them were freed due to the actions of their own people. One of them (Greece), in fact, had a fairly nasty dictatorship come to power AFTER the US spent blood and treasure post WWII to keep it in the 1st world.

A contributing reason to the fall of Rome was too many mouths and not enough workers

So, your saying that the Roman Empire in 410 AD was any thing like what we would call a democracy and that it voted it's self into debt? A much larger factor is that serving in the Roman Military stopped being though of as civic duty, and the legions became more and more manned by the people they were supposed to be guarding against. I'm not raising the chicken hawk straw man, but which one of us has served?


Finally, since there is no historical evidence of the existence of a nuclear Islamic Jihad, should we not concern ourselves with the possibility it might occur?

No, that is not what I said, and I will point out that Pakistan (one of the two countries that recognized that Taliban, and where OBL is most likely hiding today), has the bomb, and has saber rattled with India post having the bomb, with a terrorist attack on the Indian parliament. If you don't think that makes it a historical fact, you need to rethink your thoughts on it. For the record, Obama has said he would attack a target in Pakistan, which is more than GW Bush would do. GW Bush seriously backed down on the "for us or against us" rhetoric post 9/11 with regards to Pakistan.

You see, without the strength of the American economy, we are France: Impotent and raging about where our world status went, unable to care for our own and at the mercy of terrorist threats.

A member of the G7, on the Security council of the UN, a nuclear power with it's own deference force, one the roughly 6 countries in the world that can project world wide power on it's own, with a right of center government? This isn't the US how?

Compare and contrast the French heat wave with Katrina, the French 'Islamic youth' revolt/ burning cars 2 years ago with any of the LA or Detroit riots. I'm not even going to touch the murder rate in the national capitals.

The US survived 1963-1980. We will survive, regardless of who wins today, 2008-2012.

Edited because blogger ate parts of my post and removed a tick mark

So Don’t Be Harsh –

Are we blogging or preparing a doctoral dissertation complete with footnotes? I don’t see how Marie’s statements were “about history.” When I read the blog they appeared to be more of the political philosophy bent than direct statement intended to be supported by historical fact.

But let’s go from a historical perspective;

Now for the line “her first (statement) is provably false”, you are absolutely correct. It is provably false. But three things come to mind:

• First, I really wouldn’t have wanted to be a shop keeper in Moscow in 1916 and had a friend say “communism is a passing fad and not supported historically.” Yes, geologically speaking, the USSR was over in the blink of an eye, yet if you were 18 when the revolution began you were 90 when a form of liberty was restored (only to be threatened soon thereafter). At 90, with 72 years of your life spent without Liberty, are you really going to take the wide historical perspective angle?
• Second: tell the followers of Chiang Kai-Shek who didn’t make it to the island that “liberty would soon be restored” Those who by some miracle managed to survive are still waiting for liberty to be restored. Further, how many were murdered after the Tiananmen Square protest in 1989 trying to restore Liberty?
• Finally, how many were millions killed resorting Liberty to Europe after the quickly passing fad of Nazism just to have an equally (for all but the Jews) devastating Iron Curtain fall on the Eastern half? How many millions were murdered behind that curtain?

While in some cases you are correct, Liberty was restored, was it worth the cost? Do the more than 100 million who lost their liberty and their lives really deserve to be reduced to a game of gotcha? Marie is correct, for those, Liberty lost was never restored.

As for the eventual collapse of democracy due to a heavy fiscal load I have three separate thoughts:

• First, as the first great democracy in the modern world, what historical example would you prefer? A contributing reason to the fall of Rome was too many mouths and not enough workers. The hyper inflation caused by the Weimar Republic attempting to take care of everyone helped lead to Nazism and Hitler. I think we can call Hitler a dictator
• Second: would you please inform me of five government programs designed to “help the needy” that were ever stopped? I mean done away with completely and not renamed and given even more money from the treasury? While I know you ‘don’t know and really don’t care” it is, and always will be, “about the economy stupid.” You see, without the strength of the American economy, we are France: Impotent and raging about where our world status went, unable to care for our own and at the mercy of terrorist threats.
• Finally, since there is no historical evidence of the existence of a nuclear Islamic Jihad, should we not concern ourselves with the possibility it might occur?

A failing economy caused by over regulation, too much outflow for social programs, a shrinking defense budget to compensate for the social outflow, and a nuclear Islamic Jihad may just lead to Sharia Law in the West.

I Voted

So I just got back from voting. Not a terribly long line, kinda odd though. They divide the voters into two lines, last names A-L on one side and M-Z on the other. My side had a line, the other didn't. When I left there was still a line on my side but not the other. More SUVs in the parking lot than hybrids. I was voter 714. Poll worker said the precinct has 3111 registered voters. Polls had been open about 4 hours.

Gratuitous LotR reference

Go, Vote.

Don't like to be harsh

To Marie, but I don't deal well with unsupportable statements about history and she made a pair of big ones in her last post.

Neither
But a constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.

or

Democracy exists until voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate who promises the most benefits, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to fiscal policy, which is followed by dictatorship.
are supportable by the facts of history.

The first is provably false, and there is no example of the 2nd in history.

Prediction

But a constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

I predict McCain will pull out a victory come election day.

Should Obama prevail; I fear we are on an irreversible downward spiral which will lead to the fall of democracy. Democracy exists until voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate who promises the most benefits, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to fiscal policy, which is followed by dictatorship.

I also predict that the same people who voted for Obama – will deny ever doing so in 2 years once we hit double digit numbers of unemployment, higher taxes and our 401K’s having been absorbed by the Government for ‘wealth redistribution” and our right to bear arms has been rewritten out of the Constitution.

This is Obama’s definition of change.

Irony

I will always find it ironic that the first time I watched Billy Wilder’s “Ace In the Hole” was the day before the Presidential election involving Barak Obama.

Early Voting

Much has been made of the huge numbers turning out to vote early, and of the relative party composition of the early voters, as if that would give some indication as to the final outcome. My state offers early voting. The courthouse where I would have needed to go to vote is about 4 blocks farther from my house than the my regular polling place. Tomorrow, because of other obligations, voting will be somewhat inconvenient. When I mentioned early voting to wife, she indignantly rejected the idea because she strongly feels that voting should be done on election day. I agree with her. I wonder, is that attitude more common for conservatives or liberals?

Condolences

Barak Obama's grandmother died late Sunday night. Although I hope with my all my heart that Obama looses tomorrow, this is fairly poignant. If , as well may happen, he wins tomorrow, she will have died without seeing his greatest triumph. As it is, she died in the firm belief that the grandson she raised would become president. Rest in Peace.

That said, I do wish she had lived another 24 hours.

Don't know, really don't care

Actually, I do care, but really, when you get down to it, I don't. While I think the most important issue of my generation and the next (i.e. The Other Writers kids) is the Islamic Jihad against the West. I don't think we will loose it due to who the president is for 4-8 years. We won the Long War (1918-1989) despite some fairly bad choices in the White House. Which ones were bad choices and why I leave as an exercise for the reader. I'm sure any one that reads this blog can find a bad one in that time frame.

I have faith in the people of the West, and I don't think we are going to go quietly into that good night. If not, well, I'm perfectly willing to be a 21st century "Flandry Of Terra". I may not stop the Fall of Night, but it will not happen while I still live.

American civilization will survive a higher tax rate on capital gains. It will survive a higher base income tax rate. Hell, it will even survive single payer medical system. We might not like it as much, but none of these would kill what we call America. Sharia law, on the other, would. Noting remotely resembling America would survive under that.

Long, long ago, I posted this. It's still the most important thing. Never Surrender. Never give in.

It's not "it's the economy stupid". It never will be again. Please don't fall into that pit, for that way lies madness.

Prediction Time

As much as it pains me: Obama in a landslide with over 330

Dewey beats Truman

For the last two election cycles, I have predicted a state by state breakdown of the electoral college. Although I predicted both Bush wins, my state by state predictions were not that great. So here I go again.

Obama wins. 296 to 242 electoral college votes.

My "methodology" is this. I looked at state by state polls, using Rasmussen. I assume that there is reporting error in favor of Obama that amounts a few percent points. I also assume that the undecided are going to break for McCain. There is evidence for both of these assumptions. All polls seem to skew democratic, there is the Bradley effect and I think the new voters won't show in the greater numbers expected. There is some of evidence that most of the "undecideds" seem to be white males a group which is breaking for McCain. Taking all of that into account, plus looking into the general trend of the polls over the last month, I've called each state. Obama 296 McCain 242.

Heres the breakdown with electoral college votes for each state. Note that more asterisks a state has the less confident I am in my pick. Note also that if the only state I am wrong is Florida, the election goes the other way.

Obama 296

California 55, Connecticut 7, Delaware 3, DC 3, Florida 27***, Hawaii 4, Illinois 21, Iowa 7*, Maine 4, Maryland 10, Massachusetts12, Michigan 17*, Minnesota 10, Nevada 5*, New Hampshire 4**, New Jersey 15*, New York 31, New Mexico 5, Oregon 7, Pennsylvania 21*, Rhode Island 4, Vermont 3, Washington 11, Wisconsin 10*

McCain 242

Alaska 3, Alabama 9, Arkansas 6, Arizona 10*, Colorado 9 ***, Georgia 15, Idaho 4, Indiana 11*, Kansas 6, Kentucky 8, Louisiana 9, Missouri 11**, Mississippi 6, Montana 3*, Nebraska 5, North Carolina 15*, North Dakota 3, Ohio 20***, Oklahoma 7, South Carolina 8, South Dakota 3, Tennessee 11, Texas 34, Utah 5, Virginia 13**, Wyoming 3, West Virginia 5

Anybody else want to make a prediction?

Voting for Change

I was standing in line at the office cafeteria on Friday and people behind me were discussing the election in a very reasonable manner. One person asked the other who they would vote for and received the answer “Obama I think.” When asked why the response was “well, I just think the Republicans have been in charge for some time and it is time for a change.” Having not been invited into the conversations, I stayed silent. My fervent hope was that this was a put-on and the duo was trying to see if they could get a rise out of a bystander. I could not imagine a worse reason for voting for Barak Obama. Yes, we have had eight years of a County Club Republican. A man who has tried to out democrat the Democrats on domestic issues while waging an ongoing abortion battle (the ultimate non-issue in my mind), and fighting the multi-front war on terrorism. His only real success has been the war and there he has been too successful. So successful in fact that people no longer consider Islamofascism to be a threat.

But to usher in an era of Marxist-Socialism while simultaneously dealing with a nuclear Iran based on the notion that ‘the Republican have been in a while’ is short sighted at best. Does this person not have any core belief of their own? Can the person not distinguish between the Supreme Court writing the Constitution and interpreting the Constitution? Does this person have so little grasp of wealth and how it is created to think it is just a consistent pie waiting to be divvied up? Is this person so ignorant that they truly believe the Islomofascists are attacking the US because we don’t allow same-sex marriage and abortion on demand? Or do they think the Islomofascists hate America because we are exploiting the natural resources of the Middle East? Was the person absent the day Smoot-Hawley was taught in school? Heck, for that matter, is Smoot-Hawley still taught in schools or was it replaced by teaching ‘Heather Has Two Mommies’ or ‘You can still get Aids during a Lewinski’?

I’m all for a laissez-faire attitude, but if you don’t care, don’t vote. Don’t resign your-self to a half-hearted vote for an untried and unproven gasbag who offers nothing but platitudes and methods that have failed every time they have been tried. It is ok to not vote.

Then again, maybe this person is a socialist in the end. Who but a socialist would screw up 300 million people and imperil the safety of the world just because the party with the bad ideas hadn’t been in power for a long time?

Palin for President?

I'm off to bed, but it occurred to me as I was washing up that 2008 could turn out historic in an unexpected way. If Obama wins, a faithless elector could make Palin the first woman to receive an electoral college vote for President. There are precedents. Palin will be the third woman to receive electoral vote for VP. The second, of course, was Ferraro. The first was in 1972 when a GOP elector voted for the Libertarian Party ticket, which had a woman, Theodora Nathan, as its VP candidate. (For trivia purposes, that elector was Roger McBride, the 76 Libertarian Party Candidate for president). The precedent I like even more was 1976, when a Republican elector voted for Ronald Reagan. We all know what happened in 1976, and in 1980. If Obama wins, that is a scenario I would like to see.

However since polls, are bullshit, I am refusing to admit that Obama is going to win, so this is all crazy talk.

Why polls are bullshit.

So we have all seen the polls that say Obama is up by X points with a three percent margin of error. What is this margin of error thing?

Iowahawk explains it all.

Basically Margin of error=who the hell knows?

Presidents and War Heros

It's an interesting analysis by Mike. I'm going to push it back to 1948, not because I can remember that far back, but because I think that Mike's is an arbitrary cut point.

1948: Truman was an artillery battery commander during WW I and saw action. Dewey was too young for WWI and was Gov. of New York throughout WW II. War Hero wins.

1952 and 1956: Eisenhower had military experience, but never saw combat. On the other hand he was credited with beating Germany. Stevenson had no military experience. War Hero wins. Twice.

1960 As noted by Mike, JFK had PT-109 and Nixon had non-combat WWII service. Perceived War Hero wins.

The party distribution is interesting to me. Since the 60s, the only combat veterans from the Democratic Party ran as peace candidates and all of the candidates with no military experience whatsoever were also Democrats. Too much could be made of this though. For example the only other Republican candidates with military experience were Ron Paul, and Duncan Hunter, neither of which had a snowball's chance.

So what's going on here? Every postwar election until 1960 is won by a war hero, and the only instance since was father Bush, who, let's be honest, was riding Reagan's coat tails. The 1960s. Vietnam. That's what happened. Being a combat veteran stopped being useful, unless you used it to fortify your anti-war stance.

I think that this might be changing. Starting in a few years, Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are going to be entering the field, and given the opinion of much of the electorate of the military, having served will be an enormous plus.

The American Dream

I would love for someone to explain something to me. Why are people like David Letterman, Dan Rather, and Katie Couric, such die-hard liberals who think in order for people to succeed they require major government intervention?

Couric is from Arlington Virginia. Her mother was a homemaker and her father was a public relations executive and newspaper editor. Katie attended the University of Virginia and lived on the famed Lawn.

Rather was from a small town west of Houston Texas. Dan often spoke of his father’s blue collar work ethic and about how his mother was a homemaker. Dan went to school at Sam Houston State in Huntsville Texas.

Letterman frequently jokes about his middle class family and lampoons his alma mater of Ball State University in Muncie Indiana.

All of these have humble middle class backgrounds and went to schools far from the Ivy League. There were no big time connections. Father didn’t golf with the president and mother wasn’t a CEO and they didn’t summer in the Hamptons or attend dinner parties on Fifth Avenue where they were introduced to Senators or Congressmen.
Yet all three have succeeded in their professions beyond most people’s wildest dreams. Only in America could a woman most often described as ‘cute” and “perky” rise to the position of the most influential man in journalism. Only in America could a bricklayers son rise to be one of the most influential journalists in the land. Only in America could a weather man with a funny haircut rise to be considered an icon in his business and his name listed among the giants of his profession.

All three of these achieved fame, fortune, influence, and admiration because of hard work, determination, dedication, and risk taking.

Yet all three think everyone else should be cared for by the nanny state. I for one just don’t understand it.

Some random thoughts about past elections

I posted this over on My whining blog as part of my post at least once a day project. I think it needs to be here as well. "Dale" and/or "Scub" Got any comments?

We, as Americans tend to think we elect military men to the presidency. Looking over the elections of my life, this really doesn't seem to be the case.

1964. Barry Goldwater had served as a pilot in Burma, among other places, and remained a member of the Air Force reserve after the war. LBJ served in the navy for a total of 7 months (Dec 10, 1941 to July 16th, 1942) He got the Silver star for being in a plane (as an observer, not the pilot) that had engine trouble and had to turn back when attacked by 8 fighters. Note that the plane was not hit. Also note he was, in addition to being a naval officer, still a member of congress at this time. This may have had something to do with the Silver Star. Any rate, winner of the election, not the real war hero.

1968 Richard Nixon served in the US Navy, as a logistical officer in Ottumwa, Iowa, (Navy. Iowa. Ok, what ever). Then went on to be a logistical officer in the South Pacific Combat Air Transport Command, part of the Guadalcanal campaign. He won vs Herbert Humphrey, who never served. While not exactly a war hero, he was the vet.

1972 Nixon vs McGovern. McGovern, of course was a real war hero, being a bomber pilot. The war hero lost. Granted he was running as as the peace candidate.

1976 Gerald Ford vs Jimmy Carter. Both served (well, Carter was in the USNA during the war, which means he gets a * by his name for war time service) Gerald Ford served on the carrier USS Monterey which one of the ships hit by the Typhoon Cobra. His action in leading fire fighting teams was credited was the saving of the USS Monterey. So, he war hero lost again.

1980 Reagan vs Carter. Wash. Both were "under arms" in WWII, but Carter was a cadet at USNA and Reagan was making movies for the Army. First post war election where neither could be called a war hero, by any terms. For what it's worth, Reagan was not medically fit for combat duty, Carter was. If the war had gone on for another year, it's a near sure thing Carter, as submarine officer, would have seen combat. Reagan, not so much.

1984 Reagan vs Mondale. Mondale served in the US army during the Korean war, to earn GI Bill money to go to law school. He spent his tour of duty in Fort Knox. His claim to fame, so to speak is that he was the first post war candidate that was not an officer. He made E-4 in two years. Just for what it's worth I made E-4 in 18 months and E-5 in two years. Just saying. Another wash on the war hero thing. At least the both did serve, and Mondale did serve during the time of shooting war. Not his fault he was sent to Ft. Knox

1988 GHW Bush vs Dukakis. Dukakis spent 2 years drafted in the Army, after the end of the Korean war. He did spend 16 months on the DMZ. Bush, of course, was a real war hero, being the youngest naval pilot at one point. In this case, yeah, the war hero won.

1992. Let's not even start about Bill Clinton and the military. Let's just say he didn't not serve and beat the war hero, GHW Bush. Of course if the Texas Gnome has stayed out, he would not have, but that's neither here nor there.

1996 Robert Dole vs Bill Clinton. Rear honest by God wounded in action infantry platoon leader and decorated war hero vs a draft dodger. Dodger wins.

2000 GW Bush vs Gore. Gore was a SP/4 news reporter for the The Castle Courier (the news paper of the 20th Engineer Brigade) in Viet Nam. Members of his paper staff were in fact killed in action. Personal side note. One of my sections chiefs in my first tour in German was in the 20th Brigade during the same time frame as Gore. (SSG later SFC Panfile. aka the Skinny Ginny He was the highest decorated member of the battery when I was here, having a Silver Star, 2 Bronze Stars a 3 awards of the Purple Heart. He also had 4 Arcoms. Some of the Arcoms were post his moving to ADA I'll grant ) GW Bush was a F-106 Delta Dart driver. I'll let my Nike back ground show here, but the Delta Dart isn't a fighter, it's a missile that in theory lands after it's mission. It was steered by controllers on the ground using the SAGE system, which, BTW is exactly what the Nike Herc did as well, with out risking a pilot. Bad system, inflicted on the US by Robert McNamara and the Wiz Kids, but I digress. Again, the one that came closest to seeing the elephant lost.

2004 Say what you will about Kerry, he was over there. Bush was not. Of course Kerry's actions after he returned and the fact that his awards were of the classic Viet Nam Cracker Jack box type awards doesn't help, but again, Bush's MOS, with out even raising the issue of him actually doing it, could have been done by roughly 15 vacuum tubes and large oil filled resister element. Let's just say the one closer to hero status lost.

That brings us to Obama vs McCain. War hero vs some one that hasn't served. Doesn't look good. Only time the Vet won was Nixon and Bush 41, and Dukakis at least served on the Korean DMZ, back when that was 100 percent safe. 11 election. One war hero wining and one vet vs non vet winning, but when the supply officer went up against a bomber pilot, the REMF won. Aside from GHW Bush, we haven't elected a warrior since I have be aware of the concept of the presidency.

My brother, Random Dafyyd, will point out that that I'm not mentioning JFK vs Nixon. Why? while I was alive in 1960, I was less than a year old. Doesn't register on me at all. Even including that we have two serving officers, and the winner's claim to fame was he got his PT 109 boat run over by a IJN destroyer. His action after being t-boned might have been heroic, but it was his bad seamanship that got him there to start with.

Vice Presidential Debate

Questions and Comments for each candidate after theVEEP debate:

Senator Biden:

• Wow! Joe, you came out against rape and genocide. Even to the point of crossing the aisle and working with those repulsive Republicans. Careful there Joe…don’t want to get too close to the radical fringe. Reminds me of an episode of the great show “Cheers” in which Sam Malone after being interviewed for a magazine says they wanted to know his ideas on politics. Diane asked “What ideas are those?” to which Sam replied “I said I thought nuclear war would be bad news.” Diane responded with “Ooh, I think you opened up a hornet’s nest there” to which Sam says “I could always say I was misquoted.”
• Joe, that $300 billion in taxes you and Barak are going to get from companies: Where do the companies get the money to pay you? You see Joe; the question is extremely relevant because most of these companies provide goods and services to the middle class. When you raise their taxes, they raise prices that the middle class has to pay. To be Vice President you really should know this
• Joe - so confiscating money from one person to give to another is called fair where you come from. Where I come from it is called robbery and or extortion.
• Joe, could you please define “Affordable?”
• Joe, if we began drilling today, how will it take 10 years for a “single drop of oil” to reach the market? This statement alone should be considered justifiable cause to prevent your election
• Joe, as for Barak’s time line to pull out of Iraq: What happens if the enemy doesn’t agree to the time-line?
• Joe, you made the point, not once but twice that “Ahmadinejad doesn’t run the security in Iran; the theocracy runs the security in Iran”. Well, that makes me feel better. A group of people who make Ahmadinejad look like the sane voice of reason, run the security in Iran. That said I guess we don’t need to worry about a nuclear Iran then, do we?
• Joe, stating you led the fight against Judge Bork is not a plus, especially after your lame attempt to defend how you cross party lines (see the first Biden item). That was the beginning of the rank partisanship so pervasive these days. Saying this coupled with your ‘crossing party lines response’ is tantamount to saying “I’m all for world travel and routinely visit other countries and cultures” then, later, proudly saying “I was the first German into Poland on September 1, 1939.”

Governor Palin:

• Sarah, about those “greedy lenders” who “talked” people into buying a $300,000 house when they only had funds for a $100,000…whatever happened personal responsibility? Whenever the mortgage company told me I could borrow up the six years salary I said no. I knew I couldn’t afford it. You see Sarah; every business I pass as I drive down the street is convinced I NEED their product. It is MY responsibility to contain my own spending. I am in charge of my budget. Blaming the business or advertising for my out-of-control spending is not only counterproductive, it is just plain wrong. Not only does it lead to solutions that have nothing to do with the problem, it lends credence to the stupidity spouted by the Democrats that this meltdown is primarily the fault of the loan companies.
• Sarah, you are supporting taxing carbon emissions? That is either pandering or stupidity. Either way you don’t deserve to be called a conservative with that position and, just like Joe; this statement alone should be considered justifiable cause to prevent your election. Republicans need to bring a calm sanity and reflective judgment to the debate about carbon emission and any possible effect to the environment. Republicans do not need to bring more pandering and hysteria, the left has that all sew up. By making statements like this, you legitimize the hysteria and add more nails in the coffin of middle (working?) class Americans who are truly the big losers in the Global Warming hysteria

I'm sure there was much more, but I can only write so fast and who would want o sit through that twice?

Bailout and the Fourth Estate

Quick, what is the most feared line ever uttered? Answer: “I’m from the government, I’m here to help.”

My local newspaper had the headline this morning “Markets unravel at home, abroad”. (DMN October 7). Yesterday on various news shows, both radio and TV, local and national, the reporters expressed the same shock and disbelief that the announcement of the Bailout Bill didn’t stop the market slide.

Knowing the left leanings of the press it should no longer amaze me they did not understand the market’s failure to jump for joy at the news that Congress was here to help The press is gleeful of government intervention and can’t fathom why the public reacts with trepidation. The fact is Congressional intervention means new laws, more paperwork, new and greater oversight, along with ‘diversity goals’ (quotas). Almost always the cost of government help is never worth the benefits.
Please remember, billions of government dollars were spent on Katrina yet New Orleans is still a mess. While somehow Iowa bounced back after the Mississippi flooded farther north.