It’s official. Every liberal pundit with an ounce of credibility is either ignoring the latest Vanity Fair column about Sarah Palin, or is running like heck from it. The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Hill have all ignored the story. And now, many noteworthy progressives, such as Kirsten Powers, Ben Smith, Julia Baird and David Weigel are panning it as untrue, disgraceful, sexist blather. In fact, only the far left nutter websites, like Crooks and Liars, see it as any sort of plus for the progressive cause.

So, why the mad dash away from this column by the leftist elites? It’s bashing Sarah Palin, so one would think that they would love it. Well, without much ado and mincing any words, I can tell you the four major reasons why liberals can’t seem to distance themselves from this column fast enough.

1.) Michael Gross, the author of this column, sounds like a blithering idiot, his column is dripping with hatred, and he manages to prove Sarah Palin correct about the “lamestream media”.

First of all, Gross’ column is a poorly written, non-flowing, rambling mess mess consisting of too long paragraphs, run-on sentences, dangling modifiers and non sequiturs. Second of all, his column is completely unsourced–everyone he quotes is either “some say”, “others say”, “someone who knows Levi Johnston says”, and some unnamed woman who says that Sarah Palin used to be her babysitter. (Mr. Gross explains that the reason why nobody will go on the record with him in Alaska is that the Palins are like “the mafia”, and that everyone’s afraid of them. He refers to Wasilla as “a city of fear” that is “populated entirely by abuse survivors”. I’m not kidding–you can read all of his insane fantasies about Sarah Palin cracking kneecaps in his long and crappy article.)

Furthermore, the one person that Gross did name, Shannyn Moore (a well known Sarah Palin hater), wrote him a nasty email where she basically tore him apart for misconstruing her words and taking her out of context. Her entire email is printed below–

Mr. Michael Gross,

You just “Sarah Palined” people here.

I’m going through a list doing damage control and telling people I’m so sorry I gave you their contacts and vouched for your professionalism and credibility.

You have neither.

I don’t give a rip what you said about me – though it was so completely wrong, and put me in such a completely inaccurate and unfavorable light people are mad on my behalf.

Fine thanks for Alaskan hospitality. I have extended the Alaska Spirit to dozens of journalists and visitors, and I will continue to do so. It’s on YOU, not me, as you are the only one who has broken agreements with sources you promised complete anonymity.

I’m sure you’re thrilled to be on TV now. Just know, like Sarah, Alaskans paid a price for it. Specifically, a 79-year old woman, with failing health, who spoke to you under anonymity who hopes her adult children will speak to her again.

Shame on you. You’re not a writer…you’re a climber.

With no respect,

Shannyn Moore

Second of all, Michael Gross’ column was loaded with half-truths, innuendos and out-right lies, all not-so-cleverly disguised as facts. For example, Gross began his column with the following quote–

“Erratic behavior and a pattern of lying matter little.”

Now, you would think that if Gross was going to come out swinging like that, then he must have some serious evidence to back up such powerful assertions such as those–that he, again, makes on Hardball. (See the embed below where Chris Matthews cuts Gross off on goes to Norah O’Donnell, because he realizes that Gross sounds a little nutty and unhealthily obsessed with Sarah Palin.)

However, it turns out that his column is rich in over the top rhetoric, but deeply lacking in facts or evidence. For instance, his smoking gun that Sarah Palin is a crazed liar is that she once said that she didn’t have a lot of experience with special needs children before her son Trig was born, but at a later time mentioned that she has an autistic nephew. (Mr. Gross makes no mention of how much time Palin has spent with her autistic nephew.) Oh, and his airtight evidence that Sarah Palin is a crazy woman with a violent temper who needs to be on “psychiatric medications”, is a story from an “unnamed source” about her and Todd Palin getting in a fight and throwing canned food at the refrigerator–and the fact that one of her teenage kids was supposedly embarrassed by her praying in public and called her a “phony”.

["Coming up on Live News at Five, married couples sometimes fight and teenagers are embarrassed by their parents. Next up--dog bites man."]

However, CNN reporter, Peter Hamby, has since contradicted Michael Gross with the following Tweet where he states–

I was w/ Palin for entire VP bid. never got a hint that she “lashed out at the slightest provocation”

So, another one of Michael Gross’ accusations bites the dust.

And finally, the most embarrassing part about Michael Gross’ article is that it has two serious factual errors in it.

One major mistake Michael Gross made in his column is he referred to Dr. Gina Loudon as Trig’s nanny, when she was actual the mother of Samuel, another special needs child with Down Syndrome that was backstage at a fundraiser with the Palins. Here is an exert of Gross’ column below–

“When …Piper Palin turns around, she sees her parents thronged by admirers, and the crowd rolling toward her and the baby, her brother Trig, born with Down syndrome in 2008. Sarah Palin and her husband, Todd, bend down and give a moment to the children; a woman, perhaps a nanny, whisks the boy away; and Todd hands Sarah her speech and walks her to the stage.”

Now, here are some exerts from Dr. Gina Loudon’s column rebutting the above statement by Michael Gross (be sure to click on the link to her column to see an adorable picture of Piper)–

“Unfortunately for Mr. Gross, it happens that I shared the stage with Sarah Palin at that event.”

“As I stood backstage with the Palins I remember a reporter asking me if I were “Trig’s Nanny” with a hint of something I didn’t trust in his eyes. I coldly retorted, “no, I am Samuel’s mother.” He looked confused, and had more questions to follow. In his VF story, he said that no one is willing to speak about Sarah “on the record” unless they are paid by her, or afraid. I was one of the people you interviewed Mr. Gross. I am not paid, or afraid. But since you opted not to print what I told you, here is the rest of the story:Since the first time the Governor saw my son Samuel (who also has Down syndrome), she bolts across the room to greet him every time she sees him. She nuzzles him like a mother who loves children with Down syndrome does. I remember commenting to my husband that she always “does the mama smell” of Samuel, that only moms understand.

All of the Palin children circle around Samuel the moment they can get close, but Piper, in particular, cannot seem to get enough of him. She literally plays with him (Gross does say she played with “the children” in his story) from the moment she sees him, until the moment she is pressed to let go of him. It is so sweet, and it speaks to the parenting in her life. She has obviously been taught a real, tangible love for “special children” by her parents, and it shines when she lights up at the sight of a baby with Down syndrome. This is not an ordinary reaction in children. Most children step away, look curious, or frightened, or confused. Not the Palin children, and especially not little Piper.

After an event in Nashville, the Governor went to the trouble of making a special call to me to thank me and tell me how much Piper enjoyed “loving on” my Samuel.

One more thing among your errors: “the boy” in the excerpted quote above, was not Trig Palin. That was my Samuel, also a beautiful boy with Down syndrome. No “nanny whisk(ed) the boy away.” I am his mother. I took my son, Samuel from Sarah before she went on stage. I told Mr. Gross that fact, but he didn’t let that divert him from his pathetic narrative.

That is not journalism. That is just gross.”

Ouch–that’s gotta sting a bit. I mean, Dr. Gina Loudon makes Mr. Gross look like he was so busy with his witch hunt on Sarah Palin, that he couldn’t even bother to get his facts straight–you know, like who the child in question really was, or who his mother was (however, he probably thinks that all Down’s Syndrome children look alike).

Now, the second major mistake in Michael Gross’ column is that repeats a rumor about Sarah Palin supposedly wanting a shotgun wedding for her daughter Bristol and Levi Johnston, that everyone who’s anyone in the media and blogs knows is total bunk. Both Ben Smith and Dave Weigel call Gross to the carpet on printing this known fabrication. To be specific, Michael Gross wrote the following with regard to the supposed plans that Sarah Palin had for a shotgun wedding for Bristol and Levi–

“Soon after her nomination, she brought up with McCain aides the subject of Bristol’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy by Levi Johnston: “Would it be good for the campaign if they got married before the election?” she asked, and went on to wonder whether one weekend or another would be more advantageous for media coverage.”

Dave Weigel responds to this unsubstantiated rumor in Gross’ column by writing the following–

“Smith explains that the quote came from a wild yarn in a UK Times story, passed on by a McCain campaign source, even though “the idea was never brought to Palin, much less seriously considered.” I can confirm that because I heard it from the same source, albeit after the campaign was over. It was, as I understand it, a goof, and it went to print because, basically, UK papers have more lax standards on what they print than American papers. Of course, it’s not like American papers have covered themselves in glory when “analyzing” Palin’s family based on rumors.

Point is, this anecdote is bunk, and it makes me wonder about the rest of the story.”

Dave Weigel just took the words right out of my mouth–I couldn’t have said it better myself. In a nutshell, what it looks like, is that, at best, Michael Gross was so obsessed with his witchhunt to paint Sarah Palin as Lucifer, that he engaged in some really sloppy journalism–and at worst, that he was outright lying (I vote for all of the above).

Now, on to the second reason why liberals are running scared from Michael Gross’ disgusting column.

2.) Michael Gross’ hit piece on Sarah Palin was just dripping with blatant sexism.

Gross goes out of his way to paint Sarah Palin as a bad mother, which everyone knows is classic sexism 101. One example that he gave was that she missed her children on the campaign trail, so when they were with her, she hung out with them too much and didn’t insist that they do their homework (someone needs to call child protective services…rolls eyes). Oh, and she insisted that her little girl get the pink and purple markers that she wanted to sign autographs with, and that a hairdresser do hair and make-up for another daughter. Please, allow me to put this another way. Could any of you imagine if someone wrote a column implying that Barack Obama was a bad father because he wasn’t around his daughters much during the 2008 campaign, and because he got them some pink markers to sign autographs?! Liberals would be screaming at the top of their lungs that the column was ridiculous garbage–and they would be right.

However, Gross’ disgusting sexism doesn’t stop at attacking Sarah Palin’s parenting skills. He goes on to say that “someone” (his favorite source) told him that an aide asked if Sarah Palin needed psychiatric medication–again, a classic and very transparent sexist technique implying that she’s some unstable “harridan” with raging hormones. Furthermore, Gross even goes so far as to write that “some say” that Todd Palin is “henpecked”. (I’m not kidding–he actually wrote the word “henpecked”.) Progressive Newsweek columnist, Julia Baird (who is certainly no Sarah Palin fan), wrote a column titled, Will Feminists Rally Around Sarah Palin?, where she did an excellent job defending Sarah Palin from these pathetic attacks. The excerpts below from her column pretty much say it all–

“It’s just about the lamest card in the pack of criticisms leveled at powerful women: you must be a Bad Mother. Just when you think we’ve accepted that a woman can have a job and still love her children, along comes another piece of reporting to remind us that some people still think it’s fair to judge a female public figure on the basis of what kind of parent—and wife—she is. This is something male politicians, who have long perfected the role of absent father, deal with very, very rarely.

While all politicians are vulnerable to personal attacks, some attacks are particularly shameful. So what is the substance of these allegations?

First, Palin may have something representing a modern marriage, which has prompted some locals to speculate that Todd may be “henpecked.” Fancy that charge being leveled at the husband of a woman with opinions. It’s striking that while the husbands of successful women are frequently portrayed as emasculated by their wives’ success, the women who marry powerful men are usually seen to benefit from their greater status.

Second, Palin’s work has affected her closeness to her kids: we are told that “at least since the start of the 2008 campaign, Todd has been shouldering the bulk of the parenting and that Sarah’s relationship with her children has grown more distant.” And yet a few sentences later we also learn that when she grew lonely on the campaign trail, Palin wanted her kids to travel with her because she “seemed comforted” by having them around. But instead of empathizing—who wouldn’t hate to be separated from their kids?—the implication is that she is selfish: the kids came, but not much homework was done. What choice would you make?

The third allegation is that she was a sloppy parent when her kids traveled with her, and she failed to discipline them adequately, at least in the eyes of some observers: “On the road, aides say, Sarah spared the rod.” She reportedly demanded one child use the pink and purple Sharpies the youngster wanted to sign autographs with (not the black one that was provided) and insisted another have hair and makeup done by a campaign stylist. She was hardly being cruel; it’s stupid to judge such trivial incidents without context.”

Furthermore, liberals now have a perception problem that they seem to tolerate blatant sexism within their ranks–as long as it aimed at any woman that gets in Barack Obama’s way. Throughout the 2008 Presidential election, many prominent liberals seemed to gleefully participate in a dogpile of sexism and misogyny directed at both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. In fact, liberal sexism became so rampant during the 2008 election that Democratic strategist, Kirsten Powers, (one of the many progressives currently running away from this Vanity Fair hit piece) was alarmed enough by it to write a column in the summer of 2008 titled, A Brilliant Trap Makes Dems The Male Chauvinists. To be specific, Powers wrote the following with regard to the appalling behavior of many Obama supporters–

“One Obama supporter and political operative blogged, “In picking an unknown, untested half-a-term governor from Alaska . . . John McCain is following in a long line of reckless men who have rolled the dice for a beauty queen.”

Do we really have to do this again?

No sooner was Hillary Rodham Clinton out of the race, and a new woman is in the cross hairs.

On CNN, during a discussion about whether it was appropriate for Palin to accept this job when she has a baby, Dana Bash pointed out it’s unlikely anyone would ask this of a male candidate.

I can’t help wondering if this is a trap. The McCain camp watched and learned as Obama supporters offended Hillary supporters by their treatment of her. The McCainiacs had to know that this group is incapable of behaving, that Palin would bring out their worst instincts.

One top Republican said to me: “Just wait until she is debating Joe Biden and he starts attacking or condescending to her. Hillary voters are going to say, ‘Oh yeah, I remember this.’ “

Ironically, two feminist, leftist bloggers recently wrote an op-ed in The New York Times titled, A Palin of Our Own where they lament the rise of Sarah Palin as a feminist icon. However, what is so ironic about this column is that liberals helped to create the superstar that is Sarah Palin by sending moderate, suburban women (some of them former Hillary Clinton supporters) running into her arms with their obnoxious, misogynistic behavior (for example, Keith Olbermann hoping that someone would beat up Hillary Clinton). And, deep down inside, they know that this is true–which is why they are running like heck from this recent vicious, sexist hit-piece on Sarah Palin.

Now, on to the third reason why liberals are throwing Michael Gross under the bus with gusto.

3.) When Michael Gross is not attacking Sarah Palin in his column, he is attacking her supporters–who are his fellow Americans.

Gross paints Sarah Palin’s supporters at her rallies as a bunch of incurious simpletons who “cling to their guns and their religion”. To be specific, Gross writes the following about the people who attend Sarah Palin’s rallies–

“People who admire her believe she is just like them, and this conviction seems to satisfy their curiosity about the objective facts of her life.”

Whoa. If that’s not a round about way of calling Sarah Palin’s supporters a bunch incurious, uneducated dumb dumbs who don’t understand “the objective facts of life”, then I don’t know what is.

Moreover, Gross writes in his column about how Palin is sending out a “dog whistle” to Evangelical Christians in her speeches when she uses the phrase, “Leading with a servant’s heart”, and then prattles on about how she gets emails from Evangelical Christians who pray for her and call themselves “prayer warriors”. Mr. Gross is clearly bothered by the prayer warriors and thinks that they are a bunch of dangerous crazies–it is painfully obvious when he writes the following–

“The term “prayer warrior” describes a person who offers a specific kind of supplication: asking God to direct an unseen battle between forces of light and darkness—literal angels and demons—that some Christians believe is occurring all around us.”

Yeah, those Christians have always been a delusional, dangerous bunch. Remember how they were personally responsible for ending the African slave trade? They’ve always been unpredictable and crazy like that. You never know what they’re going to do next (rolls eyes).

Click here to view the embedded video.

Now, do I really need to explain to anyone why attacking and mocking random American citizens is a big no-no for a journalist? This really should be common sense. It is one thing to attack a politician, a journalist, a blogger, or any other public figure. It is quite another thing to show such disdain–as well as religious bigotry–towards your fellow Americans. In other words, private citizens who are minding their own business should be able to attend a Sarah Palin rally, or attend any church that they want to, without some know nothing, liberal elitist journalist mocking them in Vanity Fair.

And finally, on to the fourth reason why liberals are high-tailing it in the the opposite direction of Micheal Gross.

4.) Franky speaking, Michael Gross sounds like a pervert who is way too interested in Sarah Palin’s undergarments, as well as her sex life.

For starters, Gross writes about how “this person” told him that Sarah and Todd Palin don’t always sleep in the same bed and that Todd once supposedly said, “I don’t know how she even gets pregnant”. Yuck. I feel like I need to take a shower now. I mean, could any of you imagine if some right wing journalist started asking local people in Chicago about the Obama’s sex life?! I rest my case.

Furthermore, Mr. Gross admits to having dinner with Joe McGinniss at his house–you know, the weirdo who moved in next door to the Palin family in order to stalk, I mean, report on them? Now, right away, Gross freely admits that McGinniss is lying about not being able to see into the Palin’s home. Gross writes that, when he was standing on McGinniss’ deck, “it was possible to see several of the Palins’ windows, a fair bit of the yard, and much of the lakefront edge of their property”. However, Gross then goes on to sympathize with Joe McGinniss and paint him as a victim who has received over 5000 hostile emails and has had one of his truck windows shot out. Oh, oh, I have an idea! Pick me Teacher, pick me. How about not stalking the Palin family, and then you won’t have to worry about receiving hostile emails by people calling you a “stalker”? But, I digress.

However, by far the creepiest part of Michael Gross’ column was when he not once, but twice referenced what kind of undergarments Sarah Palin wears. Specifically, Gross writes about how “a friend” of Sarah Palin supposedly told him–

“Once, while Sarah was preparing for a city-council meeting, she said, ‘I’m gonna put on one of my push-up bras so I can get what I want tonight.’ That’s how she rolls.”

OK–why would anyone who calls himself a journalist even bother to write down smut like this? But Mr. Gross was just getting warmed up. Further down in his column, Gross wrote that Sarah Palin spent $3000 on Spanx girdles during the 2008 campaign. Oh for crying out loud! It’s so obvious what Gross is trying to do here (besides acting like a real creep/weirdo)–he is clearly trying attack to Sarah Palin’s beauty and imply that her looks are just a mirage, and she’s really kind of fat. Yeah, that Sarah Palin–she’s a real uggo and a fatty. What is she? A size four? What a cow! (Rolls eyes.)

By the way, just an explanation here. You don’t have to be “fat” to wear Spanx or a girdle occasionally (especially after you’ve just had a baby). Every woman has that unforgiving dress that, on a “fat day” when you might be retaining some water, can make even the most svelt, toned woman look like she has a bulge. Full disclosure–I am a size two and even I have to sometimes use “help” when I wear an unforgiving dress on a bad day. If not, then even a very attractive, tall, slim woman with toned arms can wind up looking like this in a unforgiving dress–

And that’s no good, because that just doesn’t do any woman justice. Every well brought up red state woman knows that the right undergarments are essential to dressing well and presenting your self with style–otherwise, you can wind up looking like your letting it all hang out a bit too much. (Just ask Dolly–see 1:18-1:49 in the embed below).

Click here to view the embedded video.

However, let’s move on from this topic of conversation, because Michael Gross might be getting turned on–uh, I mean some of the guys might be getting bored.

So, in conclusion, Michael Gross not only not only made a flaming ass out of himself, but he also totally humiliated the liberal mainstream media. He managed to bring every caricature of an elitist, egotistical, out of touch, liberal journalist to life. And the worst part was that he was incredibly sloppy with many of the facts–which in turn, discredits his entire piece. Credible leftist/progressive journalists and columnists can’t flee from his disaster of a column fast enough–and I don’t blame them.

However, sad to say, this isn’t the first time that Vanity Fair has written an outrageous, totally unsourced hit piece on a politician. During the 2008 campaign Todd Purdum wrote a totally unsourced hit piece in Vanity Fair about Bill Clinton, implying that he was openly dating while campaigning for Hillary in South Carolina. (Whatever you may think of Bill Clinton, I live in SC. If Bill Clinton was going out publicly clubbing and picking up women, someone, somewhere would have seen him. SC is a small state.) Furthermore, Purdum then wrote a totally unsourced hit piece on Sarah Palin a year later. Surprise, surprise. (Has anyone ever noticed that Vanity Fair has never written an unsourced hit piece on Barack Obama?)

But now, Vanity Fair’s chickens have come home to roost. They have gotten away with writing unsourced hit pieces for so long, that they got over-confident. This time, they gave Michael Gross carte blanche to pretty much write what ever he damn well pleased–muddled facts, sexism, stalkers, underwear and all. To tell the truth, I’m not at all surprised that some columnist, somewhere, would write something like this; however, I am surprised that any editor would actually go through with publishing it. Basically, Vanity Fair unintentionally gave Michael Gross just enough rope to hang himself, and Vanity Fair’s credibility in the process. Michael Gross’ column should serve as a cautionary tale for progressive journalists everywhere. Don’t let your love of all things Obama and your hatred of Sarah Palin get the best of you–or you will wind up proving Sarah Palin correct about the “lamestream media”.

Update: Michael Gross has now come out and admitted that he was wrong about “the nanny whisking Trig away”, and he has now admitted that he wrote about the wrong baby–and the wrong mother. However, the fact that he would make this kind of ridiculous “mistake” in the first place, tells me that he really didn’t go to Alaska to find out the facts about Sarah Palin. Gross obviously went there to try to dig up dirt–and he failed miserably and made fool out of himself in the process.

This column is cross-posted from NewsReal, and it is also posted on 73 Wire, Hillbillypolitics and Many Faces of Barack.

Has “bad” turned good? Are we now rooting for crummy housing numbers, miserable housing data, weaker consumer confidence, and, yes, unfathomably horrible employment numbers? Do we now secretly lust for negative numbers?

Cramer goes on to say that the investor class now roots against the short-term health of the economy so that Barack Obama and the Democratic Party will die a thousand deaths on Election Day. He openly claims that people who seek to earn long-term wealth through equity investments are happy to see any piece of news that makes Barack Obama’s continuation in power a more precarious circumstance.

But if you are an owner of stock, any stock, if you are using the stock market for retirement or for savings to put your kid through school or to augment your paycheck, I think you are now beginning to see the silver lining of the miserable economic news: change in Washington. In fact, every time we see a downtick in the popular polls for the administration or Congress the large stockholders I know secretly cheer.

This sentiment is radical. It is too radical for even crazed Right-Wingers like moi. When the economy is bad, people have a really hard time selling their home if they want to move. They are probably attempting to move so that they can find a job. I wish them luck, they will need it! David Rosenberg, for example, sees the distinct possibility of 4 to 5 million jobs being taken out if current trends continue.

I totally understand the desire to see Barack Obama fail. I wish he had failed to pass either healthcare reform or the stimulus package. Both are malinvestments tantamount to state-endorsed brigandage. Thus, I’ll admit that seeing die-hard left-wingers like Joe Weisenthal having to write the following political analysis of the latest InTrade numbers.

There’s really very little for Democrats to be hopeful about come November, and the party’s odds of holding the House (under Democratic control since the 2006 midterms) has fallen to 25% on InTrade.

(HT: Business Insider.com)

Another interesting part of Cramer’s column regards the fear so many people in business seem to have of Barack Obama. When Jim Cramer compares our current president’s anger to the wrath of Richard Nixon, that says a lot coming from a man with Jim Cramer’s political beliefs and worldview.

Rich Karlgaard writes of his friends’ reaction to Jim Cramer’s assertion that people in business and finance feel a fear to speak out. Karlgaard was told the following.

Cramer is so right. And the only reason people will not speak out is because they fear [Obama] will hunt them down.

(HT: Forbes magazine)

Barack Obama has lived the Populist dream of getting to shove around and intimidate Big Business. He clearly chortled while telling America’s most powerful banking executives that he was all that separated them from the pitchforks. His motto regarding his relations to corporate America could be similar to that of Caligula’s: oderint dum metuant.

Jim Cramer, who once endorsed Barack Obama with the catchphrase “Obama’s a recession, McCain’s a depression,” now seems to have buyer’s remorse. Better yet, he has shown the courage to speak out when others have cowered. Yep, Jim Cramer just done said it!

Expect the ever-reactionary Jon Stewart to lampoon and ridicule Jim Cramer some more. I’ve taken shots at the man myself, while blogging the current state of our economy. However, this time, I commend the man’s courage.

Tyranny is destroyed when honest men speak out. Cramer may be wrong more often than right, but he can no longer ever be accused of being a boot-licking coward. Perhaps, Cramer’s fresh acquisition of courage is the harbinger of the end for these “Progressive” neo-fascists. Only through raw intimidation does their horrendous stupidity withstand the light of day.

Click here to view the embedded video.

PS–Consider this an open thread.

This diary is cross-posted on Hillbillypolitics.

Welcome to the Grand illusion
Come on in and see what’s happening
Pay the price, get your tickets for the show

- (“The Grand Illusion” – Styx)

The party is set to begin. Fanfare will blast from the rafters. Great hosannas will rain down from on high. General Motors, the official car company of the US Government, will be turned back into a private enterprise. The S1 filing with the SEC occurred; the IPO will take place in 30-90 days.

In fairness, it is somewhat of a good news story. GM will no longer be “Gubbermint Motors – Home of The American Trabant!” But there is a sense of artificiality to this entire filing. To quote an old blogosphere meme, “I question the timing!”

Joe Weisenthal, of Business Insider.com, writes up a good bare-bones briefing sheet on the IPO. According to the S1 on file, the underwriting syndicate is to Wall Street what the OJ Simpson Legal Defense Team was to the Legal Profession; a line up reminiscent of the New York Yankees when Joe DiMaggio still swung the stick. Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan, BofA/ML, Citi, Barclays, Credit Suisse, Deutsche, Bank, Goldman Sachs, and RBC all will be part of the syndicate. Details regarding syndicate management rights and take-down have not yet been negotiated.

The stock will go straight to the NYSE and will trade under the symbol GM. The offering will include both public and preferred stock. This, like everything else involving our Photo-Op President, will be a show, a party, and a gorge-fest in pointless excess. It will all be aimed at countering the perception that Barack Obama doesn’t love the free enterprise system and all that it entails.

It will be the first major corporate IPO in US History to double as a Democratic Party campaign advertisement. “Vote Team Donkey, we don’t really want to nationalize all your assets.”

Predictably, risk and moral hazard still abound. Like the old Soviet Ekranoplan Flying Boats, this IPO is a high-stakes, state-directed enterprise that may or may not ever make it off the ground. The SI filing details extensive entrepreneurial and external economic risks to GM in the near and far future. The S1 lists the business risks on page 13 of the filing. They continue until page 28.

Obvious, recession-driven risks include…Our business is highly dependent on sales volume. Global vehicle sales have declined significantly from their peak levels, and there is no assurance that the global automobile market will recover in the near future or that it will not suffer a significant further downturn.(P13, GM S1 filing) and also,“Failure of our suppliers, due to difficult economic conditions affecting our industry, to provide us with the systems, components, and parts that we need to manufacture our automotive products and operate our business could result in a disruption in our operations and have a material adverse effect on our business.”(p14)

Business plan risks include some goodies as well. They are still being pile-driven into the Astroturf by their prior contracts with the UAW. Our U.S. defined benefit pension plans are currently underfunded, and our pension funding obligations may increase significantly due to weak performance of financial markets and its effect on plan assets. (P16) The GM financier, Ally Financial has major capitalization issues. If adequate financing on acceptable terms is not available through Ally Financial or other sources to our customers and dealers, distributors, and suppliers to enable them to continue their business relationships with us, our business could be materially adversely affected. (P17)

They have a mongo conflict of interest risk. The UST (or its designee) will continue to own a substantial interest in us following this offering, and its interests may differ from those of our other stockholders. As a result of this stock ownership interest, the UST is able to exercise significant influence over our business if it elects to do so. This includes the ability to have significant influence over matters brought for a stockholder vote. (P18) And they owe the UAW their souls and first-born children as well. Restrictions in our labor agreements could limit our ability to pursue or achieve cost savings through restructuring initiatives, and labor strikes, work stoppages, or similar difficulties could significantly disrupt our operations. (p.22)

And since all of that doesn’t suck enough, they also, even with Barack Obama’s aid and abidance, were unable to successfully still all of their prior debt obligations. Despite the formation of our new company, we continue to have indebtedness and other obligations. Our obligations together with our cash needs may require us to seek additional financing, minimize capital expenditures, or seek to refinance some or all of our debt. (p.22) Not surprisingly, they have no plans on offering dividends on common stock.

The risk list finally dies. But only after listing several environmental and foreign government risks that I ran out of motivation to catalog, evaluate and include. The Hindenburg had a better margin of error than the current GM business plan. And beneath the surface of all of this lurks another risk that nobody other than I am obnoxious enough to publically air – the moral hazard that a politically-connected enterprise will saw off its creditors the first time President Barack Obama publically denounces them as speculators. Is the preferred stock in GM really going to remain preferred if President Obama decides he doesn’t like the people who own it? Try pricing that uncertainty using a standard quantitative model.

So there you have it. General Motors has filed for an IPO that has a significantly good chance to unwind a week or two before the 2010 Midterm Election. The hortatory sound bites just may save some marginal Democrats. But will the capital raised be sufficient to save a marginal car company? Only the cynical and world-weary offer prickly questions such as that one. In the meantime….

Someday soon we’ll stop to ponder
what on Earth’s this spell we’re under
We made the grade and still we wonder
who the hell we are.

Casual Day is the day when everyone comes into the office dressed like they supposedly would around the house. It’s supposed to ratchet down the tension and make us all feel at home. I felt plenty at home yesterday. My pay check posted. That’s all the comfort I need to receive from the work environment.

Casual Day grates for some reason. Work is not supposed to be casual. There is supposed to be at least some gravamen of import to our presence there. I’ve got a sick 4-Year Old at home I could pouring a cup of juice for. Instead I’m sitting here all casual.

So just what does the casual Repair_Man_Jack select as his sartorial statement of chill. We start with the ever-proletariat pair of jeans. No, not the ones I tore the knees out of in a football game and do yard work in. That would actually be casual as opposed to casual. No, I wear the carefully washed and cared for blue-collar working clothes.

The shirt expresses my utter contempt for the whole casual look. It rates “cheese-dog” by Jimmy Buffet standards. I start with the orange background that not even Stevie Wonder could fail to notice. We’re talking Piña Colada Puke Orange. Atop this vibrant background, I overlay a flotilla of blue-green koi and lush, verdant palm trees (Me so sowwy, I forgot the barf alert).

Casual Day cacophonies destroy the rudiment rhythms of a smooth and efficient work place. It is the anathema to professional deportment. I nearly want to laugh as I explain to the OSD guys in Versailles Upon The Potomac that I’ll get right back to them on their Spruill Chart after I finish running it past the dude dressed up like Flo Rida down the hall in Budget.

Ah, Casual Day. The day our security personnel actually show up for work dressed like Jello Biafra’s Suede-Denim Secret Police. I hate the entire institution. People sense this irony and push a little bit.

A guy where I used to work came in wearing the 70’s Leftover “Keep On Truckin’” T-Shirt to brief the COL in charge of his division one day. It sux when your least subordinate employee on site has more annual leave than days left until retirement…

Perhaps, as a gesture of exasperated protest, I’ll come in next Friday with my Brooks Brothers ensemble. That or just a dignified Oxford with a Bear Bryant hat. Something that will stick out like a herniated disc amongst the Pagan Biker Meth Lab Look that seems ubiquitous amongst the fine and respectable civil servants upon whom we all get to bestow our tax dollars.

So why do I truly hate Casual Day. It’s the existential inautheticity that it bestows upon my daily sojourn away from the people I love and truly care for. It intensifies my whole sense that some days I’m just Homer Simpson bumbling around in the nuclear plant. Milan Kundera referred to this pathetic, whiney sense of self-loathing as The Unbearable Lightness of Being. Which gives me an idea…

For next Fridays’s Casual Day, I’ll hold my very own Pretentiousness Day. I’ll bring Gibbons, I’ll bring in Sartre, heck I’ll drag in two or three of my old tomes from Buckowski. I’ll put them prominently on my desk and stare at them with artificially deep thoughtfulness. I’ll even stack them in the corridor so that people have to see all the brilliant things that RMJ reads studiously in his down time. That should piss off slacker nation but good.

If that doesn’t work….If that doesn’t work, I go all out. It’s time for Spicoli’s revenge!

[See chart above showing rising unemployment since Krugman's Democrats aka "ruling elites" took over Congress in 2007 and signaled to investors that taxes would not only not be cut, but would be raised.]

The lyrics of the famous song refer to a slave’s faux sorry over the death of his master that may have been caused by the supposed sorrowful slave. I was reminded of the song when recently accused of harboring excessive hatred of my former Democratic Party and upon hearing Democrats attack Republicans as not caring about the poor for insisting that unemployment benefit extensions to 99 weeks be paid for out of unspent stimulus funds.

The above was also accompanied by suggestions that Republican “fiscal conservatives” (including yours truly) want to “eliminate” the safety net for the truly needy, from two Democrat readers of my recent columns about fraudulent, so-called “Blue Dog” fiscal conservative Democrats (see tax raisers to balance a federal deficit quadrupled by those very Democrats and President Barack Obama) and the liberal  Georgia ‘journolist’-manufactured “split” between Karen Handel fiscal conservatives and Nathan Deal moral conservatives.

Caring means favoring Democrat bills

This was the first time in many years that I had heard the 40+ year old canard that Republicans don’t care about the poor, old, disabled weak and infirm since the Reagan days. I was a Democrat then, but always re-coiled from the claim that the GOP wanted to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Unemployment Compensation.

Hearing that same claim last week, after Republicans have alternately controlled the White House and  Congress, as well as Georgia’s State House and General assembly over the past 30 years was quite shocking given that Republicans have never proposed reductions in the safety nets despite weilding the power to do so.

But the Democrats, when backed into a corner by their failed policies, still sing Jimmy Crack Corn and Republicans don’t care.

Witness for the defense

But now comes the out-of-tune-with-Democrats, Paul Krugman version substituting “ruling elites” for Democrats, so as to lessen the blow to those he voted for:

I’m starting to have a sick feeling about prospects for American workers — but not, or not entirely, for the reasons you might think.

Yes, growth is slowing, and the odds are that unemployment will rise, not fall, in the months ahead. That’s bad. But what’s worse is the growing evidence that our governing elite just doesn’t care — that a once-unthinkable level of economic distress is in the process of becoming the new normal.

And I worry that those in power, rather than taking responsibility for job creation, will soon declare that high unemployment is “structural,” a permanent part of the economic landscape — and that by condemning large numbers of Americans to long-term joblessness, they’ll turn that excuse into dismal reality.

Nobel prize winners can be quite dense, slow learners. Paul, high structural unemployment also means high structural welfare and food stamp victims dependent on Democrats for sustenance.

I realized the intent of my fellow Democrats since at least the early 90s when they opposed continuing Reagan-like tax rate cuts that triggered rising tides of federal revenue and rising tides of the formerly poor into the middle class.

Caring, for me meant leaving Dems for the GOP

I cared about the poor and middle class so much that I finally left the party of dependence (as well weakness on defense and abortion strength against the fetus) for the party that freed the slaves, opposed Jim Crow, defeated the Evil Empire, and saved the U.S. economy for Democrat misery indexes.

Unlike my Democrat friends, the GOP judge the hearts of Democrats just because they don’t favor conservative policies, but maybe we should. After all, by the Democrats own present “caring” criteria, one can’t care about the poor unless one favors at least 99 weeks of unemployment compensation. This means that Democrats that kept maximum benefits limited to 26 weeks from the 1930s through 2008 never cared!

For the record, the overwhelming majority of Republicans favor the major programs of the safety net for the truly needy and have, at least since Reagan coined the term in 1980. I favor the 99 week extension whether paid for by the stimulus funds or not.

My question for ObamaDems is why they didn’t care enough for the poor to spend all the flawed stimulus money last year, rather than save some to put up “Recovery Act” signs as part of the get out the vote drive this year while unemployment has risen? The question answers itself.

But let us be clear, even while we judge Republicans and Democrats by their actual actions over the last 40 years, rather than attempt “heart” readings:

One can care about the poor and have been opposed to the creation of the safety net, much less to its exponential expansion since the New Deal.

Heartless Eleanor, Jack and Dick?

Do Democrats know that Eleanor Roosevelt and then Sens. Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy toured the nation in the 1950s trying to get their colleagues to drastically scale back the Depression era programs given that the Great Depression had been over for nearly a decade?

Did JFK and the feminist former First Lady “care” enough?

I believe that most Democrats I know, care about the poor. I also believe most are economic illiterates, misguided in their policy prescriptions, and useful idiots to their liberal leaders. Their policies cause capital to go on strike, killing existing jobs and those that would have been created absent their assaults on business creation. The misguided policies include those of so-called conservative budget deficit-hawk Democrats that merely seek to raise taxes to support their gargantuan, oppressive government. They seek to cut nothing except job producers’ incomes.

But I also believe that many of the leaders of the ObamaDems care more for garnering power via victim-dependent voters than about actually increasing their prosperity and I agree with David Horowitz that the GOP needs to be willing to wield the moral card against Democrats.

Given Democrats’ continuing advocacy of economic policies that have been proven failures since at least the mid-60s, I consider the burden of proof to be on Democrats to prove they care about the poor and middle class.

Got any evidence Democrats?

Paul Krugman is now a witness for the GOP.

Trial Date: Election Day 2010.

Mike DeVine

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Charlotte Observer, The Minority Report and Examiner.com archives

www.devinelawvista.com

Folks, this ad is sheer genius. I was literally blown away by the pure awesomeness of it that oozed everywhere. But enough about me–watch it below and see for yourself.

Click here to view the embedded video.

See, I told you so. Now you can all thank me for brightening up your day.

PS–If any of you were living in a cave in the eighties and aren’t sure what the point of reference is for this ad, then watch the original Talking Heads video here.

PPS–Consider this an open thread.

This diary was cross-posted on Hillbillypolitics.

Tech analyst Tavis McCourt examines developments at Apple in this informative interview on Bloomberg Television. He expects the IPad, just launched a few months ago, to rapidly become one of the prime drivers of the company’s growth, following the path of its other phenomenal successes, the IPod and IPhone.

Regardless of one’s own opinion of the IPad, Apple is a great illustration of what makes a successful technology company- constant innovation, an exciting pipeline of new products, and sensitivity to customers and markets.

A cautionary note for liberals. The type of culture needed to run a success story like Apple is the exact opposite of that which characterizes Big Government and its corporate dependencies.  Barack Obama, take note.

Our current Administration’s economic policy has a basic opening called Keynesianism. This involves identifying areas of our economy where private spending fails to stimulate sufficient aggregate demand and then “solving” this “problem” by pouring in the government as a super-consumer. The administration also has a vehicle to move past this opening known as stimulus. This involves borrowing vast piles of money to fuel government investments that are intended to provide the missing aggregate demand. What they seem to lack at present is any coherent sense of an end game.

Keynes doesn’t think in terms of end games. He wouldn’t. He was trained as an engineer. He wanted the economy to become a manageable system within reasonable control bounds. He wanted it to crank aggregate demand like a well-run and efficient assembly line.

To see what end game occurs from attempting to manage a 10,000 variable, meta-stable, intangible system the way Deming envisioned running a factory, we look to what is happening in Japan, where people first learned to run factories the way Deming proscribed.

Japan may not yet have hit the wall and been forced to concede, but their economy limits the moves they have available. Japan has experienced an asset deflation in real estate eerily similar to America’s subprime crisis. This put Japan’s economic vitality into check because of the negative impacts that this had on Japanese banks and insurers. Japan has attempted over a decade’s worth of Keynesian Stimulus as a way out of check.

This stimulus has become addictive, not remedial. It has become perpetual life-support. The Japanese central banks continue to pour money into government programs that achieve a temporary stasis rather than a regenerative growth. The population ages, capital and family formation fails to occur, the nation goes deeper in debt. And yet, move after desperate move, the credit markets respond to Japan with a simple and malevolent “check.”

Takahira Ogawa, is the director of sovereign ratings at Standard & Poor’s in Singapore. He tells Business Week that Japan must cut domestic spending, or the price of its sovereign debt will fall below par. This would result in the Japanese central bank having to pay higher interest rates on its bonds or get less money for them at sale than their face value. This process would be catalyzed by a downgrade in Japan’s debt rating from people like Ogawa at agencies like Standard and Poor’s.

Ogawa watches the Japanese elections with a pecuniary interest. He tells Business Week the following in an article entitled “Kan’s Loss May Be Negative for Japan’s Credit Ratings.”

The Democratic Party of Japan’s upper-house defeat yesterday is “potentially negative” because of legislative gridlock, Takahira Ogawa, director of sovereign ratings at Standard & Poor’s in Singapore, said in a phone interview today.

Prime Minister Kan faces troubles because he wants to raise more money so that he can borrow less in sovereign bonds. He plans on doing this through doubling Japan’s National Retail Sales Tax at the point of sale from 5% to 10%. The Japanese people do not want this and will be less inclined to support Prime Minister Kan as a direct result of this policy.

However, Prime Minister Kan doesn’t have viable options to do otherwise. A sovereign debt downgrade would cause debt service costs to crowd out the government spending necessary to provide all the good things that Japan Inc has promised its civilian shareholders. Telling an increasingly aged nation that the government was kinda’ sorta’ just kidding about all that healthcare they promised to Senior Citizens is not the road to political viability. Prime Minister Kan, like the chess player facing a badly tilted board, is increasingly constrained into making bad choices….

Meanwhile, in America, the Paradigm plays out in similar fashion. American real estate crashed and burned. An American government pumped in the Keynesian stimulus. The stimulus produced wounded stasis; not healing progress and the nature of that stimulus has begun to morph from amelioration to addictive sustainment.

Stephen Spruill describes the process in a National Review Article entitled “Mechanical Failure.” Detail follows below.

From 2008 to now, the composition of the stimulus bills has changed, from mostly tax rebates intended to boost consumer demand to mostly income transfers from the employed to the unemployed and from the federal government to the states. Though the stimulus machine’s architects would be loath to admit it, this transformation represents the failure of its stated purpose, which is to create jobs and to jump-start sustainable economic growth.

In other words, so went Japan and now we follow in their footsteps like a pseudo-sapient zombie. It reminds me of a line from the movie The Matrix. As Trinity said to Neo: “Because you have been down there Neo, you know that road, you know exactly where it ends. And I know that’s not where you want to be.” (HT: IMDB)

Thus, we must pull out of our Keynesian death spiral. We must realign the fundamental role of government in our economy. It can referee, but it has no business suiting up and playing ball. The only way to accomplish this necessary realignment is the short-term political destruction of the Democratic Party. In November 2010, we’d better do everything in our power to make sure Neo takes the Red Pill, not the Blue.

The circus has ended and the clowns can stop clogging Twitter. NBA Superstar and Twitter Phenom, Lebron James has signed with Miami and Cleveland can continue to be Cleveland. Fans of Lebron from his boyhood home in Akron feel betrayed. Speculators in Miami are looking forward to selling off the season tickets they bought five days ago for high multiples of the prices they paid.

Lebron will join two of the finest players in the game in Miami. The Heat retained Dwayne Wade and signed Chris Bosh. Pat Riley, the famous former Head Coach who won titles with Magic Johnson, James Worthy and Kareem, will return to the bench just to be part of the spectacle. LeBron can hardly be blamed for wanting a piece of that action.

On the surface, it looks like Lebron took a financial haircut uglier than that of Tyler Durden in the Movie Fight Club. The Miami Heat will pay $96 million over five years for his services. His former team, the Cleveland Cavaliers, could have set him up with a cool $125M. To complete the picture, understand that James will rake about $20M per year in advertising regardless of which team he joins. He, like Michael Jordan, has wisely cultivated enough of an image so that he makes significant money independent of what he actually gets paid to play ball.

Thus, when we talk state taxes, the business sense LeBron displays off the court becomes way more impressive. The teams competing with Miami to sign LeBron, all represent states with significantly higher state income taxes. While money can’t completely drive the decision making of a man who will never have to work for subsistence again in his life, it certainly helped make Miami look all the more impressive. The Business and Media Institute put together the numbers on what LeBron would have paid in state and local income taxes to play in Miami, New York, New Jersey and Cleveland. Estimates for taxes on $96M follow below.

New Jersey and Ohio, the other reported frontrunners to attract James, also have state income taxes, but they are not as his as in New York. Based on a $96 million contract, James would pay $5.69 million in state taxes if he re-signed with the Cleveland Cavaliers. If he signed with the New Jersey Nets, James would pay $10.32 million in state taxes.

Using estimated offers and including LeBron’s outside earnings as well, we can reconstruct what LeBron’s accountants and he discussed. We assume Miami, New York, and New Jersey all three offer LeBron $96M.

Based on these figures, we back out that Mr. James would pay a tax of 6.21% in Cleveland, 10.75% in New Jersay, and 12.85% in New York. The table below shows the impact of this taxation on LeBron’s business decision.

Team	salary($M)	Advertising Income($M)	LeBron’s Swag($M)	Tax Rate	State Tax($M)	LeBron’s Take-home (Before IRS)($M)
Miami	96	100	196	0%	0	196
Cleveland	125	100	225	6.21%	14	211
NewJersey	96	100	196	10.75%	21	175
NewYork	96	100	196	12.85%	25	171

To get a sense of what happened here, imagine you were LeBron James incorporated, and built motorcycles instead of playing ball. Given the differential tax regimes in the four states examined, ceteris paribus, where do you set up shop? Obviously, Florida wins. Their climate is more conducive to business; therefore, unless Cleveland, New Jersey or New York offers a major incentive to balance that tax differential out, the firm and the employees are going to Florida.

Given that under the Michael Jordan Rule, Cleveland could offer James a $3M more to hang around Cleveland next February, we can deduce that LeBron suffering that costs a bit more than $15M over 5 years. Perhaps DeLonte “Well Howdy there, Miz James” West had something to do with LeBron’s decision for reasons that we would prefer not to link at our dignified and genteel family blog. However, LeBron James would hardly be the first superstar to walk on a deal because of tax concerns.

George Harrison famously excoriated Great Britain’s top tax rate in The Beatles song “Taxman.” Bjorn Borg felt considerably less Swedish for a while over the top bracket in his homeland. High taxes cause productive members of society, and firms they direct or work for, to leave high tax jurisdictions all the time.

It’s a good thing to keep in mind next year when the tax rebates from the stimulus end and the Bush Tax Cuts expire within the next calendar year. . Low taxes are a form of stimulus. Higher taxes increase the gummed-up financial viscosity of an over-governed state. As Great Britain learned with the Beatles, a 95% tax on the income of an expatriate nets $0.00.