O.J. Simpson Guilty of All Robbery Charges, Faces Life in Prison

O.J. Simpson was found guilty Friday of robbing two sports-memorabilia dealers at gunpoint in a Las Vegas hotel room. The 61-year-old Simpson faces 15 years to life in prison. and will be sentenced on Dec. 5.

He was convicted of kidnapping, armed robbery and 10 other charges for gathering up five men a year ago and storming into a room at a hotel-casino, where the group seized several game balls, plaques and photos. Prosecutors said two of the men with him were armed; one of them said Simpson asked him to bring a gun.

The Associated Press' Linda Deutsch reports:

The verdict came 13 years to the day after Simpson was cleared of murdering his ex-wife and a friend of hers in Los Angeles in one of the most sensational trials of the 20th century.

Simpson showed little emotion as officers handcuffed him and walked him out of the courtroom. His sister, Carmelita Durio, sobbed behind him. As spectators left the courtroom, Durio collapsed and paramedics were called, court spokesman Michael Sommermeyer said.

Jurors made no eye contact with the defendants.

Judge Jackie Glass made no comment other than to thank the jury for its service and to deny motions for the defendants to be released on bail.

She refused to give the lawyers extended time to file a motion for new trial, which under Nevada law must be filed within seven days. The attorneys said they needed time to submit a voluminous record.

"I've sat through the trial," Glass said. "If you want a motion for new trial, send me something."

“He’s extremely upset, extremely emotional,” his attorney Yale Galanter said of the demeanor of his client after being removed from the courtroom, as reported by Steve Friess of The New York Times. “We knew this was going to be very difficult, we knew the jury was going to be very difficult, we knew the jurisdiction would be very difficult.”

Palin Tells FOX She's Annoyed With Herself Over Interviews

Cam Cameron had an opportunity to talk to Gov. Sarah Palin the day after her debate with Sen. Joe Biden. FOX reports:

“Ok I’ll tell you honestly the Sarah Palin in those interviews is a little bit annoyed because it’s man no matter what you say you are going to get clobbered. If you choose to answer a question you are going to get clobbered on the answer,” Palin said. “If you choose to try and pivot and go on to another subject that you believe that Americans want to hear about you get clobbered for that too.”

She then aimed to defend herself for some of the criticism she got for the Couric interview. She was blasted for not answering Couric’s question on any of the periodicals she reads or even a Supreme Court decision that she disagreed with. She defended some of the circular answers she gave the CBS anchor saying that she did not get to cover some of the topics she saw as important, “But in those Katie Couric interviews I did feel that there were a lot of things that she was missing in terms of an opportunity to ask what a V.P. candidate stands for. What the values are represented in our ticket. I wanted to talk about Barack Obama increasing taxes, which would lead to killing jobs. I wanted to talk about his proposal to increase government spending by another trillion dollars.”

She then slammed Barack Obama calling him disqualified to be President of the United States, “Some of his comments that he has made about the war that I think may — in my world– disqualifies someone from consideration as the next commander in chief.” Palin said, “Some of his comments about Afghanistan and what we are doing there supposedly– just air raiding villages and killing civilians. That’s reckless. So I wanted to talk about things like that. So I guess I have to apologize about being a little annoyed, but that is also an indication of being outside that Washington elite and being outside the media elite also and just wanting to talk and just wanting to talk to Americans without the filter and let them know what we stand for.”

Fact Checking CNN's Fact Checking on Obama Meeting Ahmadinejad

CNN's fact checking site called misleading the GOP assertion that Sen. Barack Obama has said in the past that he would meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Sen. Joe Biden said at the debate "it is simply not true" that Obama said he would "sit down" with Ahmadinejad.

CNN's conclusion is that while Obama has said he wouldn't rule out meeting with any foreign leader, he never specifically said he'd meet with the Iranian president.

But that in itself is misleading.

Here is Obama in a July 27, 2007 debate when he made the famous statement about meeting Iran's leader without preconditions:

Question, July 27, 2007 debate: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

Obama: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.

And here is Obama in a recent press conference where he confirms his position:

Bush Signs Bailout Bill Into Law

President Bush signed the bailout bill into law this afternoon. He met with Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and thanked his team for the work they have been putting in the past couple weeks. The two met at the Treasury Building in Washington.

"We have acted boldly to help prevent the crisis on Wall Street from becoming a crisis in communities across our country," Bush said shortly after the vote.

"We all know that we are in the midst of a financial crisis," House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said before the vote. "And we know that if we do nothing, this crisis is likely to worsen and to put us into an economic slump like most of us have never seen."

How They Voted: House Roll Call on Bailout Bill

This is the House roll call for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout bill passed this afternoon by a vote of 263-171. The Senate roll call is at the bottom of this post.

A "yes" vote is a vote to pass the bill. Voting yes were 172 Democrats and 91 Republicans. Voting no were 63 Democrats and 108 Republicans. X denotes those not voting. There is one vacancy in the 435-member House.

ALABAMA
Democrats — Cramer, Y; Davis, Y.

Republicans — Aderholt, N; Bachus, Y; Bonner, Y; Everett, Y; Rogers, Y.

ALASKA
Republicans — Young, N.

ARIZONA
Democrats — Giffords, Y; Grijalva, N; Mitchell, Y; Pastor, Y.

Republicans — Flake, N; Franks, N; Renzi, N; Shadegg, Y.

ARKANSAS
Democrats — Berry, Y; Ross, Y; Snyder, Y.

Republicans — Boozman, Y.

CALIFORNIA
Democrats — Baca, Y; Becerra, N; Berman, Y; Capps, Y; Cardoza, Y; Costa, Y; Davis, Y; Eshoo, Y; Farr, Y; Filner, N; Harman, Y; Honda, Y; Lee, Y; Lofgren, Zoe, Y; Matsui, Y; McNerney, Y; Miller, George, Y; Napolitano, N; Pelosi, Y; Richardson, Y; Roybal-Allard, N; Sanchez, Linda T., N; Sanchez, Loretta, N; Schiff, Y; Sherman, N; Solis, Y; Speier, Y; Stark, N; Tauscher, Y; Thompson, Y; Waters, Y; Watson, Y; Waxman, Y; Woolsey, Y.

Republicans — Bilbray, N; Bono Mack, Y; Calvert, Y; Campbell, Y; Doolittle, N; Dreier, Y; Gallegly, N; Herger, Y; Hunter, N; Issa, N; Lewis, Y; Lungren, Daniel E., Y; McCarthy, N; McKeon, Y; Miller, Gary, Y; Nunes, N; Radanovich, Y; Rohrabacher, N; Royce, N.

COLORADO
Democrats — DeGette, Y; Perlmutter, Y; Salazar, N; Udall, N.

Republicans — Lamborn, N; Musgrave, N; Tancredo, Y.

CONNECTICUT
Democrats — Courtney, N; DeLauro, Y; Larson, Y; Murphy, Y.

Republicans — Shays, Y.

DELAWARE
Republicans — Castle, Y.

FLORIDA
Democrats — Boyd, Y; Brown, Corrine, Y; Castor, N; Hastings, Y; Klein, Y; Mahoney, Y; Meek, Y; Wasserman Schultz, Y; Wexler, Y.

Republicans — Bilirakis, N; Brown-Waite, Ginny, N; Buchanan, Y; Crenshaw, Y; Diaz-Balart, L., N; Diaz-Balart, M., N; Feeney, N; Keller, N; Mack, N; Mica, N; Miller, N; Putnam, Y; Ros-Lehtinen, Y; Stearns, N; Weldon, Y; Young, N.

GEORGIA
Democrats — Barrow, N; Bishop, Y; Johnson, N; Lewis, Y; Marshall, Y; Scott, Y.

Republicans — Broun, N; Deal, N; Gingrey, N; Kingston, N; Linder, N; Price, N; Westmoreland, N.

HAWAII
Democrats — Abercrombie, Y; Hirono, Y.

IDAHO
Republicans — Sali, N; Simpson, Y.

ILLINOIS
Democrats — Bean, Y; Costello, N; Davis, Y; Emanuel, Y; Foster, Y; Gutierrez, Y; Hare, Y; Jackson, Y; Lipinski, N; Rush, Y; Schakowsky, Y.

Republicans — Biggert, Y; Johnson, N; Kirk, Y; LaHood, Y; Manzullo, N; Roskam, N; Shimkus, N; Weller, Y.

INDIANA
Democrats — Carson, Y; Donnelly, Y; Ellsworth, Y; Hill, N; Visclosky, N.

Republicans — Burton, N; Buyer, N; Pence, N; Souder, Y.

IOWA
Democrats — Boswell, Y; Braley, Y; Loebsack, Y.

Republicans — King, N; Latham, N.

KANSAS
Democrats — Boyda, N; Moore, Y.

Republicans — Moran, N; Tiahrt, N.

KENTUCKY
Democrats — Chandler, N; Yarmuth, Y.

Republicans — Davis, N; Lewis, Y; Rogers, Y; Whitfield, N.

LOUISIANA
Democrats — Cazayoux, N; Jefferson, N; Melancon, Y.

Republicans — Alexander, Y; Boustany, Y; McCrery, Y; Scalise, N.

MAINE
Democrats — Allen, Y; Michaud, N.

MARYLAND
Democrats — Cummings, Y; Edwards, Y; Hoyer, Y; Ruppersberger, Y; Sarbanes, Y; Van Hollen, Y.

Republicans — Bartlett, N; Gilchrest, Y.

MASSACHUSETTS
Democrats — Capuano, Y; Delahunt, N; Frank, Y; Lynch, N; Markey, Y; McGovern, Y; Neal, Y; Olver, Y; Tierney, Y; Tsongas, Y.

MICHIGAN
Democrats — Conyers, N; Dingell, Y; Kildee, Y; Kilpatrick, Y; Levin, Y; Stupak, N.

Republicans — Camp, Y; Ehlers, Y; Hoekstra, Y; Knollenberg, Y; McCotter, N; Miller, N; Rogers, N; Upton, Y; Walberg, N.

MINNESOTA
Democrats — Ellison, Y; McCollum, Y; Oberstar, Y; Peterson, N; Walz, N.

Republicans — Bachmann, N; Kline, Y; Ramstad, Y.

MISSISSIPPI
Democrats — Childers, N; Taylor, N; Thompson, N.

Republicans — Pickering, Y.

MISSOURI
Democrats — Carnahan, Y; Clay, N; Cleaver, Y; Skelton, Y.

Republicans — Akin, N; Blunt, Y; Emerson, Y; Graves, N; Hulshof, N.

MONTANA
Republicans — Rehberg, N.

NEBRASKA
Republicans — Fortenberry, N; Smith, N; Terry, Y.

NEVADA
Democrats — Berkley, Y.

Republicans — Heller, N; Porter, Y.

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Democrats — Hodes, N; Shea-Porter, N.

NEW JERSEY
Democrats — Andrews, Y; Holt, Y; Pallone, Y; Pascrell, Y; Payne, N; Rothman, N; Sires, Y.

Republicans — Ferguson, Y; Frelinghuysen, Y; Garrett, N; LoBiondo, N; Saxton, Y; Smith, N.

NEW MEXICO
Democrats — Udall, N.

Republicans — Pearce, N; Wilson, Y.

NEW YORK
Democrats — Ackerman, Y; Arcuri, Y; Bishop, Y; Clarke, Y; Crowley, Y; Engel, Y; Gillibrand, N; Hall, Y; Higgins, Y; Hinchey, N; Israel, Y; Lowey, Y; Maloney, Y; McCarthy, Y; McNulty, Y; Meeks, Y; Nadler, Y; Rangel, Y; Serrano, N; Slaughter, Y; Towns, Y; Velazquez, Y; Weiner, Y.

Republicans — Fossella, Y; King, Y; Kuhl, Y; McHugh, Y; Reynolds, Y; Walsh, Y.

NORTH CAROLINA
Democrats — Butterfield, N; Etheridge, Y; McIntyre, N; Miller, Y; Price, Y; Shuler, N; Watt, Y.

Republicans — Coble, Y; Foxx, N; Hayes, N; Jones, N; McHenry, N; Myrick, Y.

NORTH DAKOTA
Democrats — Pomeroy, Y.

OHIO
Democrats — Kaptur, N; Kucinich, N; Ryan, Y; Space, Y; Sutton, Y; Wilson, Y.

Republicans — Boehner, Y; Chabot, N; Hobson, Y; Jordan, N; LaTourette, N; Latta, N; Pryce, Y; Regula, Y; Schmidt, Y; Tiberi, Y; Turner, N.

OKLAHOMA
Democrats — Boren, Y.

Republicans — Cole, Y; Fallin, Y; Lucas, N; Sullivan, Y.

OREGON
Democrats — Blumenauer, N; DeFazio, N; Hooley, Y; Wu, Y.

Republicans — Walden, Y.

PENNSYLVANIA
Democrats — Altmire, N; Brady, Y; Carney, N; Doyle, Y; Fattah, Y; Holden, N; Kanjorski, Y; Murphy, Patrick, Y; Murtha, Y; Schwartz, Y; Sestak, Y.

Republicans — Dent, Y; English, N; Gerlach, Y; Murphy, Tim, N; Peterson, Y; Pitts, N; Platts, N; Shuster, Y.

RHODE ISLAND
Democrats — Kennedy, Y; Langevin, Y.

SOUTH CAROLINA
Democrats — Clyburn, Y; Spratt, Y.

Republicans — Barrett, Y; Brown, Y; Inglis, Y; Wilson, Y.

SOUTH DAKOTA
Democrats — Herseth Sandlin, N.

TENNESSEE
Democrats — Cohen, Y; Cooper, Y; Davis, Lincoln, N; Gordon, Y; Tanner, Y.

Republicans — Blackburn, N; Davis, David, N; Duncan, N; Wamp, Y.

TEXAS
Democrats — Cuellar, Y; Doggett, N; Edwards, Y; Gonzalez, Y; Green, Al, Y; Green, Gene, N; Hinojosa, Y; Jackson-Lee, Y; Johnson, E. B., Y; Lampson, N; Ortiz, Y; Reyes, Y; Rodriguez, N.

Republicans — Barton, N; Brady, Y; Burgess, N; Carter, N; Conaway, Y; Culberson, N; Gohmert, N; Granger, Y; Hall, N; Hensarling, N; Johnson, Sam, N; Marchant, N; McCaul, N; Neugebauer, N; Paul, N; Poe, N; Sessions, Y; Smith, Y; Thornberry, Y.

UTAH
Democrats — Matheson, N.

Republicans — Bishop, N; Cannon, Y.

VERMONT
Democrats — Welch, Y.

VIRGINIA
Democrats — Boucher, Y; Moran, Y; Scott, N.

Republicans — Cantor, Y; Davis, Tom, Y; Drake, N; Forbes, N; Goode, N; Goodlatte, N; Wittman, N; Wolf, Y.

WASHINGTON
Democrats — Baird, Y; Dicks, Y; Inslee, N; Larsen, Y; McDermott, N; Smith, Y.

Republicans — Hastings, N; McMorris Rodgers, N; Reichert, N.

WEST VIRGINIA
Democrats — Mollohan, Y; Rahall, Y.

Republicans — Capito, N.

WISCONSIN
Democrats — Baldwin, Y; Kagen, N; Kind, Y; Moore, Y; Obey, Y.

Republicans — Petri, N; Ryan, Y; Sensenbrenner, N.

WYOMING
Republicans — Cubin, Y.

Senate Vote

This is the 74-25 roll call by which the Senate approved the Wall Street bailout. On this vote, a “yes” vote was a vote to approve the package and a “no” vote was a vote against it.

Voting “yes” were 39 Democrats, 34 Republicans and 1 independent. Voting “no” were 9 Democrats, 15 Republicans and 1 independent.

Democrats Yes
Akaka, Hawaii; Baucus, Mont.; Bayh, Ind.; Biden, Del.; Bingaman, N.M.; Boxer, Calif.; Brown, Ohio; Byrd, W.Va.; Cardin, Md.; Carper, Del.; Casey, Pa.; Clinton, N.Y.; Conrad, N.D.; Dodd, Conn.; Durbin, Ill.; Feinstein, Calif.; Harkin, Iowa; Inouye, Hawaii; Kerry, Mass.; Klobuchar, Minn.; Kohl, Wis.; Lautenberg, N.J.; Leahy, Vt.; Levin, Mich.; Lincoln, Ark.; McCaskill, Mo.; Menendez, N.J.; Mikulski, Md.; Murray, Wash.; Nelson, Neb.; Obama, Ill.; Pryor, Ark.; Reed, R.I.; Reid, Nev.; Rockefeller, W.Va.; Salazar, Colo.; Schumer, N.Y.; Webb, Va.; Whitehouse, R.I.

Democrats No
Cantwell, Wash.; Dorgan, N.D.; Feingold, Wis.; Johnson, S.D.; Landrieu, La.; Nelson, Fla.; Stabenow, Mich.; Tester, Mont.; Wyden, Ore.

Democrats Not Voting
Kennedy, Mass.

Republicans Yes
Alexander, Tenn.; Bennett, Utah; Bond, Mo.; Burr, N.C.; Chambliss, Ga.; Coburn, Okla.; Coleman, Minn.; Collins, Maine; Corker, Tenn.; Cornyn, Texas; Craig, Idaho; Domenici, N.M.; Ensign, Nev.; Graham, S.C.; Grassley, Iowa; Gregg, N.H.; Hagel, Neb.; Hatch, Utah; Hutchison, Texas; Isakson, Ga.; Kyl, Ariz.; Lugar, Ind.; Martinez, Fla.; McCain, Ariz.; McConnell, Ky.; Murkowski, Alaska; Smith, Ore.; Snowe, Maine; Specter, Pa.; Stevens, Alaska; Sununu, N.H.; Thune, S.D.; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va.

Republicans No
Allard, Colo.; Barrasso, Wyo.; Brownback, Kan.; Bunning, Ky.; Cochran, Miss.; Crapo, Idaho; DeMint, S.C.; Dole, N.C.; Enzi, Wyo.; Inhofe, Okla.; Roberts, Kan.; Sessions, Ala.; Shelby, Ala.; Vitter, La.; Wicker, Miss.

Others Yes
Lieberman, Conn.

Others No
Sanders, Vt.

House Passes Bailout Bill, 263-171

The House passed the Wall Street Bailout Bill this afternoon by a vote of 263-171 and will send it to the president's desk in a matter of hours.

Democrats voted for the bill by 172-63. Republicans voted yes by a margin of 91-108.

President Bush said "When Congress sends me the final bill I'm going to sign it into law." He thanked both Democrats and Republicans for coming together on the legislation. He said there is protection for taxpayers and that the bill will ease the credit crunch.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said, "As we observe the passes of a serious piece of legislature, we must have an eye to the future." She put the blame on the crisis on the president's policy to deregulate the financial markets.

"We were able to make improvements in a bi-partisan way," Pelosi told reporters in a press conference on Capitol Hill. "Our eye is to the future to shine the bright light of accountability. [Rep. Barney] Frank will be holding hearings on where we go in the future."

Frank (D-Mass.) told the reporters that as of January, "We have to rewrite housing finance in this country. It would be a betrayal of our oath if we stopped here. It will be our job to enact a set of new regulations ... for all financial industry."

Rep. Brian Bilbray (D-Calif.) who voted against the bill, said, "the Senate does what it normally does, and that is to take a bill and turn it into a Christmas tree." He said he could not vote for the bill and answer to his constituents in his district. He described the increase in the national debt at $1.6 trillion because of the bill.

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) took a shot at the Bush administration during the press conference saying the White House's financial policy put the nation into this situation. He then thank Frank for his work on the bill.

Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), the House majority whip, said he hoped that the vote restored confidence in the government. He said improvements in the bill made by the Democrats, in consultation with Sen. Barack Obama, have made this "an incredible piece of legislation." Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), the Democrat caucus chair, said, "we have done what we needed to do. ... We must have an economic agenda to provide middle-class tax cuts and universal health care." He thanked Obama for making numerous calls to help get this bill passed.

The Associated Press reported on today's economic news:

If anything, the economic news added to the sense of urgency.

The Labor Department said initial claims for jobless benefits had increased last week to the highest level since the gloomy days after the 2001 terror attacks. Employers slashed 159,000 jobs from their payrolls, the most in five years. That came on top of Thursday's Commerce Department report that factory orders in August plunged by 4 percent.

The stock market opened higher on anticipation that the bill would pass, and the financial industry shakeout rolled on unpredictably.

Wachovia announced it had agreed to be acquired by San Francisco-based Wells Fargo & Co rather than by Citigroup. Executives said the new arrangement would keep the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., on the sidelines, thus preventing any depletion of the government's fund that backs bank deposits.

The FDIC said it was sticking behind the Citigroup plan, leaving the fate of the bank in limbo.

The bill has grown since it was first proposed by the administration two weeks ago, but here's what it else it does, as reported by Frobes.com:

--Provides the government with warrants to obtain an equity stake in companies. This helps ensure that taxpayers share in future gains of companies that are bailed out.

--Limits excessive executive compensation for some companies. Any firm that sells more than $300 million in troubled assets to the government is also subject to more taxes.

--Establishes an oversight board and special inspector general to act as a watchdog.

--Requires the Treasury secretary to regularly report to Congress the details of all financial transactions under the bailout.

--Allows federal agencies to modify troubled mortgage loans.

--Expands the amount of government insurance on individual bank deposits from $100,000 to $250,000.

--Gives the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission the authority to suspend mark-to-market accounting and requires the agency to complete a study on the effectiveness of this accounting method.

--Requires the president five years from now to devise a plan to recoup net losses, if there are any.

--Gives companies the opportunity to insure their troubled assets rather than selling them, although this is up to the discretion of the Treasury secretary.

Bill O'Reilly, Barney Frank Exchange Insults During Interview

It got nasty on "The O'Reilly Factor" last night as Bill O'Reilly and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) got into a down-and-dirty fight on the airwaves, each calling the other names. O'Reilly calls Frank a coward and the congressman responds by telling O'Reilly he's boorish. It goes south from there.

Here's the transcript:

O'REILLY: "Personal story" segment tonight, the financial chaos in this country is largely the fault of the citizens who cannot pay their obligations, banks who lent money to unqualified people, and the federal government which failed to provide oversight. Both political parties are to blame as I've stated.

Now "The Factor" has called on SEC Chairman Christopher Cox to resign, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd to quit, and House Finance Chief Barney Frank to step down from his position. That's because for the past two years, Frank and his committee oversaw Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government sponsored lending agencies which pretty much are bankrupt. Congressman Frank was asked about Freddie and Fannie on July 14, 2008.
Story continues below

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FRANK: I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They're not the best investments these days from the long- term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward. They're in a housing market. I do think their prospects going forward are very solid. And in fact, we're going to do some things that are going to improve them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: Well, obviously, that statement turned out not to be true. Joining us now from Washington is Congressman Frank. And we appreciate you coming in, being a standup guy, but shouldn't everybody in the country be angry with you right now?

FRANK: No. You've misrepresented this consistently. I became chairman of the committee on January 31st, 2007. Less than two months later, I did what the Republicans hadn't been able to do in 12 years -- get through the committee a very tough regulatory bill. And it passed the House in May.

I've always felt two things about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that they had an important role to play, but that the regulations should be improved.

Now from 1995 to 2006, when the Republicans controlled Congress, and we were in the minority, we couldn't get that done. Although in 2005, Mike Oxley, of Sarbanes-Oxley fame, a pretty tough guy on regulation, did try to put a bill through to regulate Fannie Mae. I worked with him on it. As he told "The Financial Times," he thought ideological rigidity in the Bush administration stopped that. But the basic point is that the first time I had any real authority over this was January of 2007. And within two months, we had passed the bill that regulated.

O'REILLY: OK. And that's true, all of that is true.

FRANK: And then also, one other point. The Senate was dragging its feet, as often happens. And in January of 2008, I asked Secretary Paulson to put in the stimulus bill. So the earliest chance I got to put tough regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we did it.

O'REILLY: All right, that's swell. But you still went out in July and said everything was great. And off that, a lot of people bought stock and lost everything they had.

FRANK: Oh, no.

O'REILLY: And -- yes, oh yes. Oh, yes.

FRANK: I said it wasn't a good investment.

O'REILLY: Don't give me any of that, we just heard the words. What are you.

FRANK: That's wrong.

O'REILLY: That you didn't say that? You want me to play it again for you?

FRANK: You didn't listen to it.

O'REILLY: No, I listened to every word you said. And I have the transcript right here.

FRANK: No, and I said it wasn't a good investment.

O'REILLY: Yes, you said going forward, we're going to be swell. For look.

FRANK: No, I didn't say swell. Excuse me, Bill.

O'REILLY: .from August `07 to August '08.

FRANK: Excuse me, Bill.

O'REILLY: Don't - look, stop the B.S. here. Stop the crap! From August '07 to August '08.

FRANK: You know, here's the problem going on your show.

O'REILLY: under your tutelage, this industry ...

FRANK: Here is the problem going on your show.

O'REILLY: ... declined 90 percent. 90 percent.

FRANK: Yes, but.

O'REILLY: Oh, none of this was your fault! Oh, no. People lost millions of dollars. It wasn't your fault. Come on, you coward! Say the truth.

FRANK: What do you mean coward?

O'REILLY: You're a coward. You blame everybody else. You're a coward.

FRANK: Bill, here's the problem with going on your show. You start ranting. And the only way to respond is almost to look as boorish as you. But here's the facts. I specifically said in the quote you just played that I didn't think it was a good investment. I wasn't telling anybody to buy stock. I said it wasn't a good investment.

Secondly, I wasn't presiding idly over this. I was trying to get the regulations adopted.

O'REILLY: Look.

FRANK: We got them adopted in May.

O'REILLY: Bottom line is you're there two years. Bottom line is stock drops 90 percent.

FRANK: Yes.

O'REILLY: In any private industry, you're out.

FRANK: No.

O'REILLY: In any private concern, you're out on your butt.

FRANK: No.

O'REILLY: But not here in the federal government.

FRANK: No.

O'REILLY: You can come in and make every excuse in the world.

FRANK: I'm not making excuses.

O'REILLY: Blame everybody else in the world and then call me boorish.

FRANK: I'm not going to be bullied by your ranting. You can rant all you want, you're not going to shut me up! The problem was that we passed in 1994, in fact.

O'REILLY: Now we're back to 1994. This is bull.

FRANK: Yes.

O'REILLY: This is why Americans don't trust the government.

FRANK: No, this is why your stupidity gets in the way of rational discussion.

O'REILLY: All right.

FRANK: The fact is it was 1994 that we passed a bill to tell the Fed to stop the subprime lending. We tried to get them to do it. The first time we were in power again in 2007, we passed the bill to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

O'REILLY: Look, Congressman.

FRANK: So during the two years I was there.

O'REILLY: You tried to put a happy face on this in July.

FRANK: I'm not putting a happy face.

O'REILLY: You tried to - and now you won't take the...

FRANK: No.

O'REILLY: Look, at least Cox is man enough.

FRANK: I said.

O'REILLY: ... to say he screwed up.

FRANK: Hey, Bill.

O'REILLY: You're not.

FRANK: This manliness stuff is very unbecoming from you. I don't see any.

O'REILLY: Cox is man enough to say he screwed up. You're not.

(CROSSTALK)

FRANK: You think toughness is yelling and ranting and trying to bully. It's not going to work with me. The fact is in the very quote you played, I said it's not a good investment. I tried to get the regulations adopted.

O'REILLY: You said going forward, it's going to be swell. And people under that bought stock in that, thought it was a good investment.

FRANK: I didn't say swell. I didn't say swell. No, I said in fact in that quote that you played and didn't listen to because you're busy ranting that it's not a good investment. I said that at the time. I did think we were going to improve things going forward. Yes, we had some things that needed improvement.

O'REILLY: All right, you want to - here, let me read you your quote here. OK? OK? "I do think the prospects going forward are very solid."

FRANK: But that's not the part about it not being a good investment.

O'REILLY: Now, people bought stock when you said that.

FRANK: You are distorting it. Bill, you're lying by your words.

O'REILLY: This is what you said.

FRANK: What about the part where.

O'REILLY: Not lying. And I played it and I read it.

FRANK: What about the part where I said it wasn't a good investment?

O'REILLY: You said it's not the best right now, but going forward this is going to be solid.

FRANK: Right..

O'REILLY: People lost millions.

FRANK: .(INAUDIBLE) right now. I didn't say solid, I didn't say swell. You distort consistently. And you think ranting and raving.

O'REILLY: All right.

FRANK: You don't want to talk about 1994, like no history is relevant. The fact is that you had a problem with an administration - conservative.

(CROSSTALK)

O'REILLY: I know, it's all the conservatives, it's all the Republicans and not you.

FRANK: Oh, come on.

O'REILLY: None on you. That's a joke.

FRANK: You won't have a rational discussion.

O'REILLY: That's a joke.

FRANK: The joke is to think I could have a rational discussion with you.

O'REILLY: No, the joke is.

FRANK: You're ranting.

(CROSSTALK)

O'REILLY: Both parties are at fault, as I stated. But one guy Cox says yes, I screwed up.

FRANK: That's a totally different issue.

O'REILLY: And one guy Frank says it's everybody else's fault.

FRANK: No, I didn't say it was everybody else's fault.

O'REILLY: It's your fault.

FRANK: You are the most -- you don't listen at all, or maybe you are listening or you're too dumb to understand.

O'REILLY: I am too dumb, Congressman.

FRANK: The fact is that in - yes.

O'REILLY: No, you hit it, I'm too dumb. You're the brilliant guy.

FRANK: In 2007.

O'REILLY: You're the brilliant guy who presided over the biggest financial collapse in federal history.

FRANK: Oh, no, no, no.

O'REILLY: So you're the -- I'm the dumb guy. You're the brilliant guy.

(CROSSTALK)

FRANK: And the fact is.

O'REILLY: Congressman, thanks very much. We got to run.

FRANK: But.

O'REILLY: Plenty more ahead as "The Factor" moves along this evening.

Wells Fargo Buys Wachovia for $15.1 Billion in Stock Transaction

Wells Fargo & Co. has agreed to buy Wachovia Corp. for $15.1 billion in a stock transaction. It's a deal that would create the largest retail bank in the United States and derail Citigroup Inc.’s efforts to buy Wachovia for $2.1 billion.

San Francisco-based Well Fargo (NYSE:WFC) said this morning it intends to buy all operations of Charlotte, N.C.-based Wachovia with no need for financial assistance from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. or other government agencies.

Wells Fargo would acquire Wachovia (NYSE:WB) will buy all of Wachovia’s businesses and obligations, including its preferred equity and debt, and all its banking deposits.

Wachovia shareholders will receive 0.1991 shares of Wells Fargo common stock in exchange for each share of Wachovia. The transaction is valued at $7 a Wachovia share. Wells Fargo shares closed at $35.16 on Thursday, and Wachovia ended the day at $3.91 a share.

Steve Jobs Heart Attack Story on CNN iReport Is Bogus

A citizen journalist’s report this morning that Apple chief executive officer Steve Jobs had suffered a severe heart attack and been hospitalized is not true, and it highlights the dangers of news organizations allowing citizen journalists to post items without independently verifying them.

The report falsely cited an unnamed reliable source. But Apple spokesmen have been scurrying around media circles telling everyone that the reports are not true.

The initial report, posted about 9 a.m. Eastern, sparked a flurry of Twitter conversation throughout the internet. It appeared on CNN’s unfiltered citizen journalism site, called iReport, which has now taken the story off its site. Apple stocks dropped dramatically on the false news, but have rebounded. You have to wonder if anyone took advantage of the Apple's stock blip.

Unedited citizen journalists reports could cause CNN, and any other news organization, to take a hit with its credibility. These reports, or rumors, are irresponsible not only by the idiots who post them but the organizations who give them a venue.

In justifying its iReport venture, CNN has said:

With this site, we want to share our passion about the news in a way that invites you — and everyone else — to share your passion about the news. At CNN we live for news. We love talking about it. And we know that there’s a whole lot more to it than what you see on TV or read on your favorite Web site. So we’ve launched an independent world where you, the iReport.com community, tell the stories we’re not used to seeing. And the most compelling, important, and urgent ones may get seen on CNN. So head on over the homepage and jump in. Tell your story and see how it connects to someone on the other side of the world — and build a new kind of news site, one made from communities of shared interests, impassioned discussions and great storytelling.

Biden Clear Winner in Early Polls After Debate

Sen. Joe Biden scored well in overnight polling after his vice-presidential debate with Gov. Sarah Palin, providing more bad news for the Republican ticket that has been faltering in the past two weeks.

An unscientific poll on AOL shows Biden winning 48 percent to 45 percent. MSNBC's unscientific poll had Biden winning 78.6 percent to 18.9 percent, which is not surprising given the liberal demographics of the network's viewers. But what was more eye-catching is that FOX News' unscientific poll has Biden up 61-39.

Other polls included the CNN/Opinion Research poll, which has Biden up 51-36, and CBS, who has Biden winning 46-21.

In the CBS poll, of the uncommitted voters, 18 percent now say they will vote Obama/Biden, while 10 percent now say McCain/Palin.

The CNN poll concluded that the results of the debate cannot be welcome news for the McCain-Palin campaign.

Fact Checking Palin and Biden

Sen. Joe Biden and Gov. Sarah Palin stood at the podiums last night to show America how both can distort the facts. Factcheck.org ran through their claims and came up with these notes:

Palin mistakenly claimed that troop levels in Iraq had returned to “pre-surge” levels. Levels are gradually coming down but current plans would have levels higher than pre-surge numbers through early next year, at least.
Biden incorrectly said “John McCain voted the exact same way” as Obama on a controversial troop funding bill. The two were actually on opposite sides.

Palin repeated a false claim that Obama once voted in favor of higher taxes on “families” making as little as $42,000 a year. He did not. The budget bill in question called for an increase only on singles making that amount, but a family of four would not have been affected unless they made at least $90,000 a year.
Biden wrongly claimed that McCain “voted the exact same way” as Obama on the budget bill that contained an increase on singles making as little as $42,000 a year. McCain voted against it. Biden was referring to an amendment that didn't address taxes at that income level.

Palin claimed McCain’s health care plan would be “budget neutral,” costing the government nothing. Independent budget experts estimate McCain's plan would cost tens of billions each year, though details are too fuzzy to allow for exact estimates.

Biden wrongly claimed that McCain had said "he wouldn't even sit down" with the president of Spain. Actually, McCain didn't reject a meeting, but simply refused to commit himself one way or the other during an interview.

Palin wrongly claimed that “millions of small businesses” would see tax increases under Obama’s tax proposals. At most, several hundred thousand business owners would see increases.

For full details on these misstatements, and on additional factual disputes and dubious claims, please read on to the Analysis section.

Biden-Palin Debate Blogging Starts

I can't put as much attention to the debate as I'd like to because I am still in my office. I have put some links on my main page to more active bloggers tonight.

But from what I have seen Gov. Sarah Palin is struggling with some answers. She just had a difficult time talking about energy independence and global warming.

Sen. Joe Biden has looked smoothed and confident in the early going.

Palin called out Wall Street’s "greed" for giving out loans for "$300,000" homes when the homeowner "can only afford $100,000." Comparing the practice to predatory lending. At one point Palin says paying taxes in not patriotic. Patriotism is getting government out of the way.

Biden tosses in a reference to "a bridge to nowhere," calling all the disagreements over taxes -- who raised them and who didn’t -- bogus.

Later, Palin brought up the point that Biden had once said he would run on a ticket with McCain and that Obama is not ready to be president. She snapped at Biden when he mentioned Obama’s vote to cut off funding for the troops — “That’s another story,” she says.

Biden pointed out that McCain has also voted against funding for the troops.

Palin, trying to distance herself from George Bush, said, "There have been huge blunders throughout this administration."

Ifill reminds both candidates that they would be a heartbeat from the presidency. Both respond by saying, God forbid, it would be a horrible event. I'm not quite sure what Ifill wanted out of that question, other than to make a point that McCain is older than Obama?

Both candidates try to be more of a supporter of Israel than the other.

I'm not sure how many people just won their office pool as Palin used the line "Say it isn't so, Joe?"

Thank you for sticking with me during the night, I had a surprisingly high number of people joining me. Time to go over to MSNBC to see how Biden won, or to FOX to see how Palin won, your choice.

C-SPAN Streaming Palin-Biden Debate Live

Live streaming of the vice presidential debate can be found here via C-SPAN.

the Kansas Citian: Live Blogging the VP Debate

the Kansas Citian: Live Blogging the VP Debate

Vice-Presidential Debate Observations: Live Blog Post

historymike: Vice-Presidential Debate Observations: Live Blog Post

The Presidential Debate Blog: Vice Presidential Debate Live Blog Tonight at 9PM

The Presidential Debate Blog: Vice Presidential Debate Live Blog Tonight at 9PM

Hours Before Debate, McCain Has Doubts About Ifill

Sen. John McCain is having second thoughts about the selection of PBS' Gwen Ifill as the moderator of tonight's vice presidential debate between Sen. Joe Biden and Gov. Sarah Palin.

Yesterday, McCain had expressed confidence in Ifill. Today, he soften that view while speaking on FOX's "Fox and Friends"

“Frankly, I wish they had picked a moderator that isn’t writing a book favorable to Barack Obama — let's face it," McCain said. "But I have to have confidence that Gwen Ifill will handle this as the professional journalist that she is. Life isn’t fair ..."

Word came out yesterday that Ifill had written a book that is seen as pro-Obama. That book is to be released in January, and stands to make more money for Ifill if Obama wins the election next month.

McCain had a different view yesterday when asked about Ifill, telling FOX:

"I think that Gwen Ifill is a professional, and I think that she will do a totally objective job because she is a highly respected professional. Does this help that if she has written a book that is favorable to Senator Obama? Probably not, but I have confidence that Gwen Ifill will do a professional job. And I have that confidence."

Palin told Sean Hannity today that the conflict would just make her "try harder." Here's their discussion:

HANNITY: Let me ask you one last question. There's been this issue that the moderator of tomorrow night's debate, Gwen Ifill, is apparently writing a book to come out the time the next president takes office, and apparently, I actually have the tape, and I'll play it for you. This is Gwen Ifill talking about the book and it seems very favorable to Barack Obama, I want to ask you out of this if you're concerned about it.

IFILL: My name is Gwen Ifill. I am the moderator and managing editor of Washington Week and a senior correspondent for the News Hour with Jim Lehrer. The title of the book is "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama." It's taking the story of Barack Obama and extending it to cover a whole new generation of black politicians who are doing similar things in different ways.

HANNITY: Your thoughts, Governor, is that a concern at all to you?

PALIN: You know, I'm not going to let it be a concern. Let me just tell you that John McCain has been in an underdog position before, and this ticket, I think it is safe to say, is in an underdog position. But that's what makes us work harder. It makes us want to communicate more clearly and profoundly with the electorate, letting them know what the contrasts are between these two tickets, It's motivating to me, even, to hear Gwen's comments there because, again, it makes us work that much harder, and it provides even more fairness and objectivity and choices for the voters on Nov. 4, if we try that much harder.

McCain Concedes Michigan, Pulls Out Staff, Stops Advertising Spending

Is this the first sign of a white flag approach to campaigning?

Sen. John McCain's campaign is abandoning its efforts in Michigan, according to a report this afternoon in the Detroit Free Press.. McCain's campaign had thought it could win the Democratic-leaning state and its 17 electoral votes. But now, in a stunning move, has pulled up stakes and left the state.

Polling data had been bad for McCain all week nationally since the Wall Street financial crisis became the dominate news story. His suspension of the national campaign to return to Washington did not play well across America as polls indicated that most saw it as a political ploy. In Michigan, the Detroit Free Press-Local 4 Michigan poll last week showed Obama ahead by 13 points. Today, a poll by Public Policy Polling showed Obama ahead by 10. On Sept. 22, Rasmussen Reports had Obama up 51 percent to 44 percent. NBC/Mason-Dixon had it as a tie on Sept. 23. On that same date, CNN/Time reported Obama up by five percentage points.

Here is some of the Free Press report:

Republican nominee John McCain’s campaign pulled the plug on its Michigan operation today with little to no forewarning to state GOP officials — and on a day when Democrat Barack Obama was already stumping in the state. It wasn’t clear what would be left of the McCain operation in the state, if anything, but it appeared that TV advertising and literature drops by the campaign would end and most of the paid staff would depart.

No reason was given for the decision to shut down the Michigan campaign, which was confirmed by state party chairman Saul Anuzis and others. Anuzis, who issued a statement late in the day, said “the winds that drive presidential campaigns can shift and shift suddenly. I have no doubt the campaign will be back.”

Staff will be moved to other battleground states, especially Wisconsin, Florida and Ohio.

... “Everybody’s just dumbfounded” by the decision, said a Republican Party source in Michigan.

Senate Bailout Bill: McCain and Obama Enjoy a Dish of Pork

Want to get something done on Capitol Hill? Here's the recipe.

Tons of pork
One cup of lobbyists
A dash of special interests

1. Take a bill, any bill will do actually, and combine ingredients. Mix well so taxpayers have a hard time distinguishing what is pork and and what is beneficial to the general public.

2. Debate in front of the press, blaming the opposition for holding up negotiations on the bill.

3. Vote under the political cover of some provisions of the bill, approving the measure even if the majority of Americans think it's a bad idea.

That is exactly what happened in Washington last night, as the Senate moved to approved 74-25 a Wall Street bailout plan that now totals about $800 billion of taxpayer money. The only senator who did not vote was Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) who is recuperating from his serious illness.

Here is video of congressional negotiators discussing what to throw at the problem:



Seriously, the most noteworthy yes votes came from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), both of who have pledged in the presidential campaign to fight pork barrel spending. Both tossed aside their campaign pledges to the American taxpayers last night.

Here's Obama's policy statement on park-barrel spending as seen on his website, barackobama.com:

Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: Obama's Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate.

Well, that sure didn't happen last night.

McCain is in the same boat. He has often pledged to veto earmarks and pork-barrel spending, most notably in the recent debate where he said he would use his pen to reject such bills, and even pointed to his old pen in his hand. He made the same statements in his speech to the National Small Business Summit in Washington, D.C. last June.

Here is what can be found on JohnMcCain.com, his campaign's official website. The bold face is my addition:

Among the most glaring abuses in Washington is the willful setting aside of taxpayer dollars for the pet projects of special interests, often through last minute additions to appropriations bills. Pork barrel spending is an insult to taxpayers, a waste of public resources, and an abdication of our leaders' responsibility to be good and honorable stewards of the public treasury, for the benefit of all Americans, not just a few.

... As President, John McCain would shine the disinfecting light of public scrutiny on those who abuse the public purse, use the power of the presidency to restore fiscal responsibility, and exercise the veto pen to enforce it.

It's discouraging to see that both candidates tossed away their fundamental principals last night. Unfortunately, you and I are the ones who have to dig deeper to pay for it.

USNews.com had this report on the prospects in the House, which rejected a similar bill a few days ago:

Reporting on the upcoming House vote, The Politico says "caution is still the watchword," but "the revised Senate package blends in more than $100 billion in popular tax breaks as well as aid to rural schools important to House Republicans. And to build support among small town community banks, the bill raises the cap on insured deposits from $100,000 to $250,000." The New York Times also reports House leaders appear "increasingly confident that politically enticing provisions attached to the original bill...would win over at least the dozen or so votes needed to reverse Monday's outcome and send the measure to President Bush." Likewise, the AP says the measure is "gaining ground in the House, where Republicans opposition softened." The Hill offers a similar assessment.

Here is the text of the bill, it's a 451-page pdf file if you dare. Lets look at some of the additions to the bill as reported by HotAir.com:

New Tax earmarks in Bailout bill
- Film and Television Productions (Sec. 502)
- Wooden Arrows designed for use by children (Sec. 503)
- 6 page package of earmarks for litigants in the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident, Alaska (Sec. 504)

Tax earmark “extenders” in the bailout bill.
- Virgin Island and Puerto Rican Rum (Section 308)
- American Samoa (Sec. 309)
- Mine Rescue Teams (Sec. 310)
- Mine Safety Equipment (Sec. 311)
- Domestic Production Activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312)
- Indian Tribes (Sec. 314, 315)
- Railroads (Sec. 316)
- Auto Racing Tracks (317)
- District of Columbia (Sec. 322)
- Wool Research (Sec. 325)

The Financial Times had this to say about the pork, hitting it dead on:

Proposed rules on rum excise tax to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, the tax treatment of washing machines and “exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children” all feature in the financial rescue package being considered by the US Senate.

While the link between such measures and the US administration’s $700bn bail-out proposals might not be immediately clear, in truth they represent a tried and tested approach to deal with problems on Capitol Hill.

The previous compromise proposals, pulled together last weekend, focused on issues directly related to the plan, such as administrative oversight and executive pay. By contrast, the latest attempt to get a deal includes wholly extraneous measures to win the support of individual members and groups in congress.

McCain Says Ifill Is 'Totally Objective' and Should Moderate the Debate

Sen. John McCain said this afternoon that he sees no problem with PBS' Gwen Ifill moderating tomorrow night's vice presidential debate between Gov. Sarah Palin and Sen. Joe Biden despite a possible conflict of interest in that she stands to make a lot of money with a Democrat victory in the fall elections because she has written a pro-Obama book.

FOX’s Carl Cameron, interviewing the Arizona senator this afternoon, asked McCain whether Ifill should excuse herself as the debate moderator. McCain said there is a potential conflict of interest but expressed confidence in the longtime journalist.

“I think that Gwen Ifill is a professional and I think that she will do a totally objective job because she is a highly respected professional,” McCain said during an interview at the Harry S. Truman Library and Museum. “Does this help…if she has written a book that’s favorable to Senator Obama? Probably not. But I have confidence that Gwen Ifill will do a professional job and I have that confidence.”

Campaign officials said they did not know about the book until today even though Ifill’s upcoming publication was mentioned in a Sept. 4 Washington Post profile.

See this article posted earlier today that examines Ifill's possible conflict of interest.

Debate Moderator Faces Charge of Bias Against Palin, GOP

Bob Unruh of WorldNetDaily wrote in an article last night that Gwen Ifill, the moderator of tomorrow night's vice presidential debate between Sen. Joe Biden and Gov. Sarah Palin, has written a book that praises Sen. Barack Obama. The book, scheduled for release on inaugration day, hopes to "shed new light" on Obama and other "emerging young African American politicians" who are "forging a bold new path to political power."

Ifill is a moderator on PBS' "Washington Week." Her book,"The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," examines the "black political structure." She says in the book that the civil rights movement is giving way to men and women who have benefited from the struggles over racial equality, according to Unruh.

This creates a conflict of interest for Ifill as moderator of the debate. The success of her book is hinged on Obama winning the election.

This is not the first time she has been accused of favoritism toward Democrats. Unruh gives two examples of what Republicans believe is bias against their candidates.

During a vice-presidential candidate debate she moderated in 2004 – when Democrat John Edwards attacked Republican Dick Cheney's former employer, Halliburton – the vice president said, "I can respond, Gwen, but it's going to take more than 30 seconds."

"Well, that's all you've got," she told Cheney.

More recently, PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler said that he received a number of complaints about how Ifill reacted to Palin's speech at the GOP convention.

According to Unruh, some viewers complained of a "dismissive" look by Ifill during her report on Palin's speech. Getler said some also said she wore a look of "disgust" while reporting on the Republican candidate. At that time Ifill said, "I assume there will always be critics and just shut out the noise. It is surprisingly easy."

One PBS viewer, Brian Meyers of Granby, Conn., said he was appalled by Ifill's commentary.

"Her attitude was dismissive and the look on her face was one of disgust," Meyers said. "Clearly, she was agitated by what most critics view as a well-delivered speech. It is quite obvious that Ms. Ifill supports Obama as she struggled to say anything redemptive about Gov. Palin's performance."

Here is the clip in question:



Fox News commentator Greta Van Susteren reported the McCain campaign didn't know about the book.

"It simply is not fair – in law, this would create a mistrial," she said.

Juan Williams, a senior correspondent with National Public Radio and a commentator on FOX News, defended Ifill but noted the conflict of interest.

"I think Gwen has been a terrific journalist," he said. "She spent a lot of time with Obama. She praises him in the book. The book's success [is] invested in Obama. ... Suddenly everyone's going to be saying Gwen Ifill is somewhat biased against Gov. Palin."

Gaffe Roundup: Hasting Apologizes; Biden Shot at in Iraq?

In what is becoming a familiar scene on the campaign trail, politicians started to backtrack on statements they made that seem either ludicrous or were down-right insulting.

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) made a hasty retreat from his statement last week in which he told a group of Jewish and African-American Democrats in Florida that they should be wary of Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin because "anybody toting guns and stripping moose don't care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks." He also said, "If Sarah Palin isn't enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention."

Hastings released a statement yesterday apologizing for the remark. "I regret the comments I made last Tuesday that were not smart and certainly not relevant to hunters or sportsmen," Hastings said. "The point I made, and will continue to make, is that the policies and priorities of a McCain-Palin administration would be anathema to most African-Americans and Jews. I regret that I was not clearer and apologize to Governor Palin, my host where I was speaking, and those who my comments may have offended."

Over in Sen. Joe Biden's corner, there has been some chatter on the internet today concerning his claim that he was shot at once in Iraq, and the circumstances concerning his helicopter being forced down in Afghanistan.

The Hill had this account last month:

“Let’s start telling the truth,” he said. “Number one, you take all the troops out — you better have helicopters ready to take those 3,000 civilians inside the Green Zone, where I have been seven times and shot at. You better make sure you have protection for them, or let them die, number one.”

When asked for a detailed account of the experience, Biden described three incidents on two separate Iraq trips in which he felt that he was shot at or might have been shot at. Only one of them took place inside the Green Zone, he said, and involved a “shot” landing outside the building where he and other senators were staying. He added that the vehicle he was traveling in the day before might also have been hit.

Biden said the incident happened in the morning while he and at least one other senator were shaving. Although he said it shook the building, he wasn’t rattled enough to duck and cover.

“No one got up and ran from the room — it wasn’t that kind of thing,” he said. “It’s not like I had someone holding a gun to my head.”

Thinking about it now, he said, a more accurate comment would have been: “I was near where a shot landed.”

FOX News says it has been pressing campaign officials for specifics on the Iraqi incident, but had not heard back from Biden spokesman David Wade.

At the same time, Biden has caused another stir about an incident that supposedly happen on a fact-finding mission in Afghanistan. Biden has said he will grill Palin during Thursday's debate about "the superhighway of terror between Pakistan and Afghanistan where my helicopter was forced down."

"If you want to know where Al Qaeda lives, you want to know where Bin Laden is, come back to Afghanistan with me," Biden told the National Guard Association. "Come back to the area where my helicopter was forced down, with a three-star general and three senators at 10,500 feet in the middle of those mountains. I can tell you where they are."

The problem is that apparently it was bad weather, not terrorists, that forced the chopper to land in an open field last February. Fighter jets kept watch overhead while a convoy of security vehicles was dispatched to retrieve Biden and Sens. Chuck Hagel and John Kerry.

"We were going to send Biden out to fight the Taliban with snowballs, but we didn't have to," joked Kerry to The Associated Press. "Other than getting a little cold, it was fine."

For the record, Biden never explicitly claimed his chopper had been forced down by terrorists.

The Sun Sets for The New York Sun

It's always a sad day for all journalists when a newspaper folds into history. Today is the last day for the New York Sun, which is ceasing operations after six years because it could not find suitable financial backers. The Sun will pay its roughly 110 employees through November, and their health insurance would continue through Dec. 31.

Sun editor Seth Lipsky made these to the newspaper's staff:

It is my duty to report today that Ira Stoll and I and our partners have concluded that the Sun will cease publication. Our last number will be the issue dated September 30, the first day of Rosh Hashanah. I want you to know that Ira and I, and our partners, explored every possible way to avoid having to cease publication.

We have spoken with every individual who seemed to be a prospective partner, and everywhere we were received with courtesy and respect. I tend to be an optimist and held out hope for a favorable outcome as late as mid-afternoon today. But among other problems that we faced was the fact that this month, not to mention this week, has been one of the worst in a century in which to be trying to raise capital, and in the end we were out not only of money but time.

So we are at this sad moment. It is sad for any newspaper to go out of publication, and it is particularly sad for one that is as loved as much as all of us here love The New York Sun and the readers we have won in our six-and-a-half years of publication. But I want you to know that the decision to close the paper has not been an acrimonious one. It is a logical decision following a hard-headed assessment of our chances of meeting our goal of profitable publication in the near future.

This was always a risk, and all the greater is the heroism of our financial backers. Even at the end they were offering millions of dollars if we could find the partners we needed. I don't mind saying to you, as I have to them, that I very much regret — I will always regret — that we were not able to return to them the capital that they invested in us. Yet we have not heard a single regret from any of them on this head, which underscores the fact that it was not only for the possibility of profit that they invested in this newspaper. They invested also for other ideals, as well.

They invested in the ideal of the scoop, the notion that news is the spirit of democracy, and in the principles for which we have stood in our editorial pages — limited and honest government, equality under our Constitution and the law, free markets, sound money, and a strong foreign policy in support of freedom and democracy. They liked the way the Sun reflected the dynamism of our city and spoke for its interests in the national debate.

They invested, too, in the joy with which you illuminated the cultural life of New York, in our willingness to spring to the defense of so many who are not always defended, in the thrill of our sports coverage, the verve and warmth of our society coverage, and in our efforts to bring together a community and give it voice.

GOP to Let Palin be Palin and Unleash Her to Media

Apparently I have more pull on the Internet than I thought ...

Johnathan Martin of Politico wrote in his blog late yesterday that the McCain campaign has read the reviews about Gov. Sarah Palin's performances in the media interviews and are planning to unleash her to radio talk shows, and at the same time free her from the GOP talking points and let Sarah be Sarah.

Some excerpts from Martin's report:

"She's seen the reviews and heard the criticism, but she's a fighter," said this aide. "And now she's in a fighting mood."

Palin heads to McCain's cabin in Arizona today to prepare for her Thursday debate, and while she's there she'll do a round of conservative talk radio interviews.

"Talk radio is a convenient, powerful and effective outlet," said the aide.

Rush Limbaugh, who hosts the most popular radio show in the country, noted in an e-mail that he doesn't invite guests on and alluded to his rocky relationship with the top of the GOP ticket.

"The McCain camp doesn't trust me," Limbaugh said.

But asked if he'd welcome a call from Palin, the conservative talker said: "Of course."

The move to reintroduce Palin comes after much criticism for a stumbling interview she gave to CBS’ Katie Couric last week; increased conservative grousing about the campaign's decision to roll out the GOP vice presidential nominee through high-stakes and high-profile mainstream media interviews; and the suggestion by some observers that she even drop off the ticket.

Quite the contrary, Palin, her family and aides are determined to remind voters what they so liked about the governor in the first place.

After the debate and talk radio hits, the plan is to find a way to let Palin be Palin, moving her away from the pre-fab talking points and letting the down-home daughter of Wasilla be herself.

"She wants to tell her story more, and people around her do, too," added the source. "This is a governor very much on her toes, very much fed up with inaccuracies and fictions about her own life and career."

To this end, Palin was far more aggressive in another interview with Couric today, this aide said

Sitting with McCain for their first joint interview a week after the widely panned sit-down with Couric, Palin interjected when the CBS anchor brought up a report about the Wasilla Assembly of God, the governor's childhood church and one she still attends at times, seeking to pray gays away from homosexuality.

"Sarah Barracuda showed up today," the aide said, reprising the feisty former point guard's high school basketball nickname and one that has been largely forgotten since her post-convention cosseting.

"We're encouraging CBS to run entire thing," the aide said of today's session. "Run it end to end online."

Last week I wrote this after the first Katie Couric interview:

What the McCain campaign should do is to give her the best pre-debate education of the issues it can. Get her up to speed on foreign affairs and domestic problems. But don't craft the answers for her. Let her develop what she is going to say in her own voice. In other words, on Oct. 2, let her be Sarah Palin.

If she's going to be criticized for her answers (she will, MSNBC and others will dissect them syllable by syllable) she might as well give her own thoughts, and not the spin of the campaign. The McCain campaign should unleash her. She can handle Biden on her own. From what we have seen, when allowed to be herself, she can do quite well.

Now, seriously, I doubt John McCain's campaign team is relying on my advice. But that posting has had the most unique viewers since I started this venture. About 13 percent of this blog's total unique viewers saw that post. The second most viewed post was the video of Palin's appearance at her former church in Wasilla, which 5 percent of News Cycle's unique viewers saw.

Chris Matthews Ethics Breach: Interviews Daughter But Does Not Tell Viewers

Chris Matthews apparently interviewed his daughter Caroline before the debates on "Hardball" but failed to tell his viewers of his relationship with her, FishbowlDC reported yesterday. This is a Journalism 101 breach of ethics.

One tipster told FishbowlDC that "Matthews, at the asking of his daughter, instructed the producers not to name her."

The reason this is a breech of ethics is that Matthews has a conflict of interest. His daughter had a political point to make about an organization she is a member of. Its web site was promoted during the interview. The interview under normal circumstances, while quite soft and ordinary, would have been fine, but his viewers deserve to know that she was his daughter appearing on his show to promote her political point of view.

Should Palin Step Down Because of Couric Interview? Please ...

The calls for Gov. Sarah Palin to step down from the GOP ticket has moved from the blogs to the mainstream media as journalists across the nation have been in a state of shock that she performed poorly during the interview with CBS' Katie Couric.

Fareed Zakaria, the editor of Newsweek International, took the ball from Kathleen Parker from The National Review and published an editorial this morning demanding that the governor from Alaska remove herself from the GOP ticket because of her poor performance.

In a four-paragraph editorial, Zakaria's thesis is that because Palin stumbled on answering Couric's questions she is no way qualified for the office of vice president.

The problem with that thesis is that answering media questions is not what qualifies anybody for high office. If it were, we'd be in trouble with all the candidates.

Case in point: Here's Sen. Joe Biden, well known as a gaffe machine, speaking to, ironically, Couric on how a president can respond to an economic crisis:



Now, we all know that President Roosevelt was not president when the stock market crashed in 1929 (it's what made Herbert Hoover famous). We also know that few televisions existed in the Roaring '20s. So is Biden out of touch for making such a ridiculous argument? Where is the media outrage that he can't put forth a reasonable answer to a reasonable question, and therefore should step down from the campaign?

Biden isn't the only one to misspeak during the campaign. Sen. John McCain has had his share of fumbles in front of a microphone. For instance, he proudly proclaimed at the start of the current financial crisis that if he were president, he would fire Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox for his “betrayal of trust” leading up to this past week’s financial market crisis."



Now, in this case, the problem is that the SEC, which regulates the trading of stocks and bonds, is an independent agency outside the jurisdiction of the White House. While the president nominates and the Senate approves the SEC chairman, there is some doubt on whether a president can actually fire the SEC chair. After a few days of back-and-forth between the McCain campaign and the media about the gaffe, the GOP candidate changed his language to say he would asked for Cox's resignation, not fire him. The media was appropriately tough on McCain, but there were no calls for him to step aside from the campaign for the good of the party.

Or how about this one?



The Spanish press was pounding the McCain campaign for at least one news cycle after the Arizona senator failed to correctly identify Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero of Spain. The reporter that spoke with McCain said that she had the feeling that McCain didn't know what he was talking about. Some said McCain was confused in the interview, apparently thinking Zapatero was someone from Latin America who is an enemy of the United States. This interview started a minor international controversy; but there were no calls from the media that McCain step down from the campaign because he had misspoken to the press on a foreign affairs matter, which is one of his strong points.

And probably the most famous gaffe of McCain's campaign was when Politico asked the senator how many homes he owned. "I think — I'll have my staff get to you," McCain said. "It's condominiums where — I'll have them get to you."

He's still taking heat for that one. But are there any calls for him to step aside? Not really.

Misspeaking in front of cameras is a bipartisan sport. Some of Sen. Barack Obama's have been outrageous as well. For instance:



How could someone who thinks there are 58 states actually serve as president? How many electoral votes do those extra eight states give the Democrats? This is obviously a slip of the tongue, not a sign of a basic lack of knowledge about geography. But what would the media be saying if Palin made that same mistake. Tina Fey would have a field day on "Saturday Night Live."

There were more serious missteps by Obama. Remember his statement earlier in the campaign that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."



That's a policy statement, and it was one that gave Obama some considerable heat. He had to spend days backtracking on the statement.

Once again, CBS' Couric was in the middle of the fray we she asked the senator: "You said not too long ago that Jerusalem should remain undivided. And then you backtracked on that statement. Does that play into the argument that some believe that someone more experienced would not have made that kind of mistake?"

Obama: "Well, if you look at what happened, there was no shift in policy or backtracking in policy. We just had phrased it poorly in the speech. That has happened and will happen to every politician. You're not always gonna hit your mark in terms of how you phrase your policies. But my policy hasn't changed, and it's been very consistent. It's the same policy that Bill Clinton has put forward, and that says that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel, that we shouldn't divide it by barbed wire, but that, ultimately that is a final status issue that has to be resolved between the Palestinians and the Israelis."

This was a case where he used code words that upset many Palestinians in part of the world where people die because high-ranking officials use incorrect language. But nobody in the media started to write editorials saying that he should drop out of the race because that he was not qualified for high office because he misspoke to the media.

Here's another case. On his trip to the Middle East, Obama proudly proclaimed that "Now, in terms of knowing my commitments, you don't have to just look at my words, you can look at my deeds. Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran, as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don't obtain a nuclear weapon."

Of course, there was some press concerning this, mostly for one news cycle. Obama is not a member of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. Obama took credit for the committee's works as one of his deeds. And while there was some press criticism about it, there were no calls for him to step aside because of a lack of ability to speak into a microphone.

Here's the deal. Palin had a bad interview with Couric. Her answers were not on target. But that does not disqualify her as part of the GOP ticket. An ability to speak to the press has never stopped anyone from succeeding in high office. Every politician on the planet misspeaks and stumbles on their words, usually on a daily basis.

Members of the media have the same amount of power in the presidential elections as other citizens. Each reporter, editor and commentator has one vote, just like you. Journalists do like to think they control the national dialogue. The whole Palin phenomena has been a thorn in the news media's side. Journalists did not see her coming as a candidate, they never approved of the vetting process (because they didn't have a chance to vet her), and she represents a segment of the populace that journalists in New York and Washington have a tough time understanding. In their collective mind, they cannot fathom a person coming out of nowhere, who holds opposite values as they do, potentially jumping in and becoming a very powerful person. In a nutshell, they never approved her. Therefore, in most journalists' mindset, she isn't qualified.

But, it's not the news media's call.

You, and everyone else who goes to the polls in November, are the only ones who gets to decide if she, or any one else is qualified. Don't make your decision based on a candidate's performance with the media. Judge office-seekers by their policies, their past performance in government service and their vision for the future. Those are the only qualifications you need to look at.

In the end, she's not qualified only if the voters, not the media, say so.

FOX: No New Bailout Bill for a Few Days

FOX News reports that the House Parliamentarian has said that the bailout proposal cannot not be revisited. A new bill must be submitted, and that cannot happen until tomorrow or maybe Wednesday because House members are observing the Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashanah.

Dow Off Nearly 700 Points Twice But Starts Modest Rebound

In one of the roughest days in recent memory on Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrials fell by almost nearly 700 points just as it became clear that the bailout proposal forged over the weekend would fail in the House. After recovering slightly, the Dow was again down by 700 points shortly before 3:30 p.m.

The proposal failed 228-205 as most Republican rejected as well as more than 90 Democrats.

Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index was down by 8 percent. 228-205.

President Bush told reporters that he plans to meet with his economic advisers this afternoon "to move forward." After his statement, the Dow regain about 100 points in a matter of minutes.

Michael M. Grynbaum of The New York Times is reporting:

The fear was most pronounced in the world’s credit markets, considered gauges of anxiety among investors. Yields on Treasuries plummeted after the House rejected the plan, with the one-month Treasury note yielding virtually zero.

Banks are charging enormous premiums for short-term financing; the difference between the cost of a three-month loan from a bank, and a three-month loan from the government, rose to the widest point since at least 1984. Other lending rates stayed high.

On Wall Street, the drops were sharp and swift, catching many investors and stock strategists on Wall Street by surprise. Many had expected the measure to be passed in the House, and lawmakers in Congress had suggested as much in comments earlier on Monday.

Did Pelosi's Speech Sink Bailout Plan?

Here is the video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's speech, which in part is being cited as a reason why House Republicans voted against the $700 billion bailout proposal. Many saw it as a partisan attack.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi's speech this morning (Part 1):



Pelosi's speech this morning (Part 2):


Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) said her speech for incited partisan sentiment by blaming Republicans and the administration for the flaws in regulation and failures of oversight that she said drove the financial system to the brink of collapse.

“I know members who said ‘If I wasn’t a no before, I am now,’” Simpson told CQ.

Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told Politico's David Rogers that Pelosi had the votes before the speech.:

"We could have gotten it if it were not for this partisan speech that Speaker Pelosi gave,” said Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), the House minority leader.

Added Rep. Chris Shays, a Connecticut Republican who also voted for the bill: “Nancy blew it.”

"That is an absurd accusation at a time when our country is in deep economic distress," a Pelosi spokesman fired back.

"You don't vote on a speech, you vote on a bill."

House Rejects Bailout Bill; Dow Drops 700 Points But Quickly Regains 200

From Kathy Kiely and Sue Kirchhoff of USA Today:

In a stunning rebuke to President Bush, congressional leaders and Wall Street, the House rejected a $700 billion financial bailout package Monday, with a coalition of conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats refusing to grant the government sweeping powers to buy up distressed loans.

The vote was 228-205 against the measure, with one member not voting. There was broad bipartisan opposition to the measure, with more than 90 Democrats and more than 130 Republicans voting against the bill. Republicans voted more than 2-1 to oppose the bill.

The vote came even though the measure was backed by Bush and House leaders in both parties. But opponents said the package granted the U.S. government too much power and and was beyond the cost the government should pay to address the worldwide financial crisis.

Wall Street reacted immediately to the news. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by more than 700 points at one point as the outcome became clear. After the vote, the Dow remained down by more than 550 points.

It's noteworthy that 90 Democrats voted against this bill. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who had reportedly said earlier in the process that she needed the political cover of at least half of the House GOP. She said nothing about getting her own party on board.

Some GOP congressmen pointed to her speech this morning from the House floor where she blamed President Bush's fiscal policies were to blame for the trouble Wall Street is in. Other Republicans would not specifically blame Pelosi, but rather that the bill did not have enough protections for the taxpayers. Some have indicated an uneasiness with the way Treasury Secretary Harry Paulson handled the bailout proocess.

There is a chance the bill could be reconsidered today. "We could take this bill back to the floor with a motion to reconsider an hout from now," if modifications could be made to protect the taxpayers, Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz) said.

Details of Bailout Plan Unveiled to Public; House Starts Work Monday

Details of the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" is available, and can be seen here. The bill will be introduced in the House of Representatives on Monday morning and then head to the Senate, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev, announced to reporters on Capitol Hill today. Marketwatch.com reported these details:

The legislation authorizes $250 billion immediately, with another $100 billion upon presidential certification. An additional $350 billion would also be available subject to congressional approval.

"I appreciate the leadership shown by members on both sides of the aisle, who came together to write a very good bill," President Bush said in a statement. "This bill provides the necessary tools and funding to help protect our economy against a systemwide breakdown."

The Treasury can use a combination of tactics to buy bad loans, focusing on mortgages and mortgage-backed securities but also including other types of loans under certain conditions. Treasury could purchase the bad debt through an auction process as well as by buying loans directly, a Treasury official said in a conference call with reporters.

The proposed legislation also allows companies to participate in an insurance program, whereby Treasury would guarantee troubled assets, charging companies a premium "sufficient to cover anticipated claims," according to the bill.

"This bill provides the necessary tools to deploy up to $700 billion to address the urgent needs in our financial system, whether that be by purchasing troubled assets broadly, insuring troubled assets, or averting the potential systemic risk from the disorderly failure of a large financial institution," Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in a press release.

"I am confident this legislation gives us the flexibility to unclog our financial markets [and] increase the ability of our financial institutions to deliver the credit that will help create jobs. We are taking the steps needed to be ready to begin implementing this legislation as soon as it is signed," he said.
The government would get a stake in companies receiving bailout funds so that taxpayer money could be recovered if those companies grow in the future, according to the bill.

The proposed legislation also requires that in five years, the president submit a proposal to Congress "that recoups from the financial industry any projected losses to the taxpayer.

Obama: I Deserve All the Credit for Bailout Plan, McCain Should Get None

Sen. Barack Obama said this afternoon that Sen. John McCain contributed nothing to the bailout compromise, and that McCain deserves no credit for helping forge a tentative agreement on the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street.

The Democrat said he made sure the proposal includes safeguards for taxpayers. Obama said he is inclined to support the bailout because it includes increased oversight, relief for homeowners facing foreclosure and limits on executive compensation for chief executives of firms that receive government help.

"None of those were in the president's provisions. They are identical to the things I called for the day that [Treasury] Secretary [Henry] Paulson released his package," Obama said. "That I think is an indication of the degree to which when it comes to protecting taxpayers, I was pushing very hard and involved in shaping those provisions."

Appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation," Obama was asked by Bob Schieffer whether McCain deserved credit for bringing lawmakers together, Obama said "No.

"Here are the facts: For two weeks I was on the phone everyday with Secretary Paulson and the congressional leaders making sure that the principles that have been ultimately adopted were incorporated in the bill," Obama said.

Sen, Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) had a different version of the events on Capitol Hill. Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Graham said McCain worked with House Republicans to achieve plan changes such as government insurance of mortgage-backed securities and a phase-in of federal aid.

"The fact is the House Republicans were not in the mix at all" until McCain arrived at the talks, Graham said. McCain "was decisive in regards to the House being involved."

For his part, McCain passed this morning on taking credit for the bailout compromise.
He was asked on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos," if he deserved some praise for helping forge a deal, given his much-publicized suspension of his presidential campaign.

"I'll let you and others be the judge of that," he replied.

"I wasn't going to phone it in. I'm a Teddy Roosevelt Republican. I've got to get in the arena. ... I won't claim a bit of credit, if that makes 'em happy."