Email, Hate Mail and Comments from Readers

Since scandal has outrun incompetence in the Obama administration the last two weeks, even fewer liberals are anxious to defend their man in the White House.  There’s been talk of a super committee, so called, of elder Democrats trying to talk Obama out of running for a second-term.

The question is: Are the Democrats trying to oust Obama? And if so, will Obama find a fall guy to take his place on the chopping block?

Liberal strategist James Carville has suggested that Obama find someone to indict. Never mind whether the person is actually guilty of a crime.

So the Mighty One has fallen a bit, but hasn’t fallen enough yet to take his place with the rest of us mere mortals bound by laws.    

Fantasy Control wrote: There was only one reason they pushed that deal through: It was to save tens of millions of dollars for an Obama bundler facing a big loss. In the email that keeps getting mentioned, someone from DOE (or somewhere) says "We would prefer to have sufficient time for due diligence". –in response to Congress Likely to Cram Down Solyndra Billionaire.

Dear Fantasy,

That would appear to be the case.

The investment defied logic in the first place. In the second, as the company was in a death spiral, the federal government went out of its way to protect the politically-connected shareholder, exposing even more taxpayer money to even a greater degree of risk.

It only makes sense if you look from Chicago style clout politics. It just doesn’t play as well in the rest of the country as it does in Cook County, Illiniois.       

CH wrote:  I'm worried that the FBI's raid on Solyndra wasn't to protect the documents and hard drives on behalf of the American taxpayer. I'm worried the FBI was sent to Solyndra to confiscate records to protect the President from a potential investigation and to control the dissemination of those records.  –in response to Solyndra Deal Allows Obama Billionaire to Get Paid Before Taxpayers.

Recommended

Let Them Destroy Each Other Kurt Schlichter

Advertisement

Dear CH,

You’re not the only one worried. While sources close to the committee have said that they generally trust the FBI to do a good job, it’s clear now that the investigation is concerned with fraud perpetrated on the government, not any wrong-doing by the administration.

In other words, they are looking for fall guys for the Obama administration.

Word to all of you business “partners” of the Obama administration. People who screw the Combine pay the price.

Gerald wrote:  If the data set forth in Ransom's memo is correct, Lugar acted intelligently and ethically regarding his farm subsidies. First, as a farm owner, he was entitled to apply for the subsidies, which amounted to $7k per yr. He is not a very wealthy man and he would be foolish not to apply for a legal subsidy even if he is theoretically opposed to the subsidy program. He is law abiding and pays his taxes and the government was social engineering when it set up the farm subsidies.

Second, he, like many others expected the Dem Congress to pass Cap and Trade. Like any wise business man, he planted trees to be entitled to sell offsets. Later, he acted against his financial interest when he voted against the Cap and Trade legislation. This is a good person. –in response to Tea Party Favorite Blasts Lugar on $165k Fed Subsidies.

Dear  Senator,

First of all, no one accused you of acting illegally. But ethically?

Sure a lot of people get federal farms subsidies. But you are in a position of policy authority. You have claimed you are against subsidies in general, yet do nothing to get rid of subsidies that benefit you generally.

You have however, in campaigning against sugar subsidies, promoted policies that will benefit you personally as a grower of corn. And although you voted against Cap and Trade moving forward in the Senate , you were supportive of the ideas behind it.

Never once have you expressed doubt about the science behind so-called man-caused global warming.

In fact, you hope to profit from the scam.

You are a trimmer, sir.

Sonny wrote:

By Anand Giridharadas

NY Times op-ed writer

Gov. Palin made three interlocking points. First, that the United States is now governed by a “permanent political class,” drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. Second, that these Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create what she called “corporate crony capitalism.” Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private). –in response to Tea Party Favorite Blasts Lugar on $165k Fed Subsidies.

Dear Sonny,

Right on. The divide is not between right and left, unless you are on the extreme left.

The divide is between those who exercise power on their own behalf and the rest of us who get stuck living in the world they create.

Increasingly we are finding that those in power are playing a game, pretending that- for example- they are cutting spending, when in fact they are just dividing up the pie differently to help special interests that they tend to favor.

Senator Lugar is a good example of that. When global warming was the flavor of the month, he was anxious to cash in by joining Al Gore’s Chicago Climate Exchange.  Now he’ll pretend to be a Tea Party conservative. And if he can make a dime out of legislation doing it, he will.    

Quiet Reason wrote: The Bloomberg piece makes clear that the investment was made by The George Kaiser Family Foundation, a charitable organization based in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The Bloomberg piece goes on to quote the foundation "George Kaiser is not an investor in Solyndra and did not participate in any discussions with the U.S. government regarding the loan"  -in response to Obama's Solyndra Loans "Number One Priority" for House Investigating Committee Since Feb.

Dear Quiet,

Of course they went out of their way to make it look like George Kaiser has no discussions with the White House about Solyndra. But a more accurate sentence might have been “George Kaiser says that he didn’t speak with the White House about his foundation’s investment in Solyndra.” Or “The White House denies that Kaiser and the administration discussed his foundation’s investment in Solyndra.” If the foundation and George Kaiser are different entities, why is the foundation putting out statements for Kaiser?

While Kaiser doesn’t have a personal investment in the company, it seems to me that the plausibility of the denial really depends on how you define the word “is” as happens to be the case with many thorny ethical issues liberals wrestle with.

You are right about the question as to the timing of the “going concern” language however. I had that wrong in the article. I would say however that the auditors probably had “going concern” language in the audited financials prior to the public filing of the SEC documents that the article referenced. There was plenty of concern before that filing that the company wasn’t going to make it. Technically you were correct, but does it really make a difference? This company should not have received a subprime loan.              

Wise One wrote:  I met a Tea Party guy the other day from South Carolina. We got into a discussion over Mark Sanford, the former governor of his state. -in response to Paul Krugman is Insane.

Dear Wise,

Do you ever not meet a Tea Party person in these stories? Not every parable Jesus told included a Samaritan.    

Arthur wrote: Hey, John Ransom. Paul Krugman probably FORGOT more than a Russian Literature major like you could ever know about economics. -in response to Paul Krugman is Insane.

Dear Arthur,

Why are liberals so obsessed with the fact that I studied Russian literature? And by the way, I studied the language more than the literature. I’ve probably forgotten more Russian than Krugman. But I could be wrong. His grandparents were Jews from Brest Litovsk, who I presume escaped from Communism.

But so what?

The problem with Krugman is that he hasn’t forgotten enough economics. I think economics is fine as a tool, even as I playfully bash economists. But you can’t use economics to explain everything in the world as Krugman and his materialist friends try to. At a certain point one needs to have respect for common sense and experience.   

Marx tried coming up with an economic explanation of EVERYTHING and it’s been downhill ever since.     

John wrote: Let me expand on one idea. I claimed Ransom was a fool for, among other things, claiming the 9-11 attacks were acts of cowardice. Flying to your certain, violent, fiery death is not an act of cowardice. It is an act of courage. -in response to Paul Krugman is Insane.

Dear John,

Yeah, that was really brave for Mullah Omar and bin Laden to hide in those caves and then in houses in Pakistan for years with a bunch of women. What warriors!

The people that make Al Qaeda go are a bunch of cowards and exploiters like bin Laden. And I wouldn’t call committing suicide and taking people with you brave. Staying and fighting for reform in your own country would have been a braver decision for those people who committed the attacks on 9/11.

The problem in the Islamic world is that people there have been given a false choice between religious dictators or secular dictators. Thanks to the US in Iraq they see that there is a third choice. Making that third choice is brave.

The Iraqi people asking for a US troop extension is brave.   

US soldiers deploying back to Iraq and Afghanistan time and again is brave. The US keeping its commitment to Iraq is brave. The US fulfilling the mandate given it by the United Nations in 1991 is brave.   

Flying a plane into a building is vain and suicidal, not brave.         

John Ransom | Create Your Badge

See more top stories from Townhall Finance. New Homepage, more content. Be the best informed fiscal conservative: