The Rats Are Abandoning Ship, Cont.

First Colin Powell, now Kenneth Adelman, a lifelong conservative Republi-con, says he will vote for Obama. See The New Yorker, First Collin Powell, Now . . . When asked why, Adelman said:

"Primarily for two reasons, those of temperament and of judgment.

When the economic crisis broke, I found John McCain bouncing all over the place. In those first few crisis days, he was impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird. Having worked with Ronald Reagan for seven years, and been with him in his critical three summits with Gorbachev, I’ve concluded that that’s no way a president can act under pressure.

Second is judgment. The most important decision John McCain made in his long campaign was deciding on a running mate.

That decision showed appalling lack of judgment. Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office—I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency. But that selection contradicted McCain’s main two, and best two, themes for his campaign—Country First, and experience counts. Neither can he credibly claim, post-Palin pick.

I sure hope Obama is more open, centrist, sensible—dare I say, Clintonesque—than his liberal record indicates, than his cooperation with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid portends. If not, I will be even more startled by my vote than I am now."

Who next? Will Bush vote for McCain?

Judicial Activism and the Second Amendment

Republi-cons are always bemoaning judicial activism and courts that overturn legislation enacted by elected representatives. But you didn't hear many complaints when the Supreme Court overturned the D.C. gun ban. However see New York Times, Ruling on Guns Elicits Rebuke From the Right, in which "[t]wo prominent federal appeals court judges say that Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in the case, District of Columbia v. Heller, is illegitimate, activist, poorly reasoned and fueled by politics rather than principle."

BS Award

Let me see if I understand. The taxpayers give a $125 billion bailout to major banks because they are short of cash and need the money to recapitalize. But the banks will be allowed to pay their shareholders dividends this next year, which if paid at current levels will redirect more than $25 billion of the $125 billion to shareholders. And the officers and directors of the banks may receive $250 million in dividends. See New York Times, This Bailout Doesn’t Pay Dividends.

This BS, pure and simple. Businesses that receive government bailouts should be required to suspend dividends until the taxpayers are repaid with interest.