By findog

September 23, 2008 10:45 AM | Link to this

Jim,

Before you fix the election of judges why don’t you fix our congressional districts.

Gerrymandering has created so many safe seats that too many politicians do not have realistic opposition after their first reelection. This leads to the all to frequent party-line votes and ideological driven stalemates that prevent our government from addressing the serious issues of the day. Would we have been debating the financial crisis yesterday if our leaders were truly up for election every two or six years?

A computer model should be used to draw the lines after every census, or in the case of Texas whenever the political power shifts. I would like to see zip codes and water/sewer supply used. It would keep the house districts tied to neighborhoods and neighborhoods tied to their communities and not sliced and diced by economic, ethnic, or racial statistics to create the job corps of safe districts we have now.

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

September 23, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. I agree with the general thesis of the morning essay, that Georgia judicial elections are screwed up. Not as bad as Tennessee, where they use the Missouri method, but screwed up nevertheless. I also agree with Jim that the candidates for the open seat all appear to be meritorious, so the electorate will prosper without regard to result.

I hope that the discussion today will turn to an argument on “whether/how to improve our selection process.”

The voters should review trial judges differently than they review appellate and supreme court justices (hereafter collectively “appellate justices”); it is a different skill set. Trial judges have to make instant decisions, literally life and death judgments in some cases, simply due to the pressure of business. The appellate justices, in contrast, set policy and, in all too many cases, write law, but they have the luxury of reflective time for the endeavor.

There is almost no good test to prospectively evaluate a trial judge. One would not desire a trial judge likely to be paralyzed by indecision, and a solid background in evidentiary rules is essential. Otherwise matters of style are dominant. I prefer judges who are up front with their biases so I know how to pitch my case; the norm is for judges who play with a poker face. I prefer strict judges (even in criminal trials) to loosey-goosey judges, simply because I dislike long trials and I feel like strict judges do not play favorites.

Appellate and higher level judges, in contrast, ought to be quizzed on hypotheticals normally thrown at would-be legislators – abortion, pornography, death penalty, “rights” of every sort, admissibility issues, and especially their interpretation of the words in the constitutions. They are acting as quasi-legislators, as they are interpreting the legislators, either of the long past Constitution-writers or of the current assembly legislation-writers.

To the cure, I offer two alternatives: (1) election of all judges and appellate justices to a 10-year term with no potential for re-election or pension, or (2) appointment of all judges and appellate justices, subject to re-election every two years, and an uncontested election shall automatically vacate the position, requiring re-appointment. Judges and appellate justices ought not be in a position of soliciting campaign funds, and contribution by a bar member or family member of a bar member ought to be a criminal offense.

The only real problem in the judiciary is the lack of accountability. Conscience is a sufficient control for a few years, but eventually a sense of entitlement and, occasionally, superiority sets in, and is curable only by expulsion.

By findog

September 23, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this

Rangar, esq @10:49

How do you prevent a, “Pelican Brief” effect if we get to contested elections? Even better could your 10-year idea be based on the US model of executive selection with legislative advice and consent?

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

September 23, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this

Another judicial election possibility crosses my mind, an open ballot. If there are five appellate court positions up for election, why not put all candidates onto a single ballot and give each voter five votes? If there are 10 candidates, the top five vote-getters assume the position.

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

September 23, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this

Dear Findog @ 10:58, I prefer the limited-term appointment solution – I did not wish to sound blatantly anti-democratic. I would wish to see amendment of the Federal constitution to limit all Federal judiciary appointments to a term of 10 years or less. With no pension.

By GayGrayGeek

September 23, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this

Let’s see - the financial markets are in meltdown. Duh-bya and McCain’t want to guarantee that their CEO buddies can keep their multi-billion dollar “bonuses” for having done so well at running (or, rather, ruining) their businesses as well as the financial security and futures of all Americans. Even George Will has has “enough” of Bushy McClone.

Yet Jim thinks his eleventy-bazillionth blog about how paleocons need to take over the judiciary is more important.

Jim, give it up. You’re as useful as a buggy whip. Just retire while you still have a few tiny little shreds of dignity left.

By Dennis

September 23, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten writes, “One where the candidates actually tell us something other than name, rank and serial number is even rarer.”

You’re right. The last two appointees to the Supreme Court come quickly to mind.

(Strange, tho. I don’t remember your complaining about either of them).

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By getalife

September 23, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this

“T. Boone Pickens says he’s having problems working with drill-only Republicans; Democrats have been co-operative :

“So I am having no problem working with the Democrats. Having a little problem working with the Republicans. They don’t like it because I want to do more than just drill. And they, somehow have gotten it, a lot of them have, that you can drill your way out of this,” says T. Boone Pickens.”

Welcome to Washington T.Boone.

Why do you think they call it the G as and Oil Party?

By ron

September 23, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this

I’m a firm believer in term limits.4 years for judges.If one leaves office for any reason hold an election for a replacement.Judges elected in this manner will be allowed to stand for an additional 4 year term.

Judges will be subject to recall.

A compensation system has to be put in place to attract the best.You’re going to get what you pay for.

Let the prospective electee state his or her qualifications and /or leanings to the public in the form of a readily available pamphlet type vehicle paid for by the taxpayer.This will be enough of a selection process.

Now let’s think about term limits for others.

By Republican American

September 23, 2008 12:00 PM | Link to this

Drill Baby Drill! What more do we need?

By hotlanta

September 23, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this

Wooten I wanna talk about Palin to meet with world leaders before the debate. I just hope that she doesn’t think that she sees a moose come across the yard an have a moose flashback. What is she gonna do ask questions and take notes before the debate. Why is it that the reporters can’t ask her questions.

By hotlanta

September 23, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this

Wooten I wanna talk about Palin to meet with world leaders before the debate. I just hope that she doesn’t think that she sees a moose come across the yard an have a moose flashback. What is she gonna do ask questions and take notes before the debate. Why is it that the reporters can’t ask her questions.

By getalife

September 23, 2008 12:13 PM | Link to this

Senator Bunning is stealing my words:

“Instead of celebrating the Fourth of July next year, Americans will be celebrating Bastille Day,” Bunning said. “The free market for all intents and purposes is dead in America.

“The action proposed today by the Treasury Department will take away the free market and institute socialism in America,” Bunning said. “The American taxpayer has been misled throughout this economic crisis. The government on all fronts has failed the American people miserably.”

It was the second time in less than a week that the junior senator from Kentucky blasted Federal Reserve and Treasury Department leadership. On Wednesday, Bunning criticized the Fed for an $85 billion bailout of insurance and finance giant American International Group; he introduced legislation that would strip the agency of its power to use taxpayer money in future bailouts.

“I have said on more than one occasion that I don’t think the Federal Reserve can handle the powers they have, and this irresponsible bailout just proves my point,” Bunning said earlier this week. “The only difference between what the Fed did and what Hugo Chávez is doing in Venezuela is Chávez doesn’t put taxpayer dollars at risk when he takes over companies — he just takes them.”

Scary, just vote no.

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

September 23, 2008 12:59 PM | Link to this

Dear getalife @ 12:13, interesting that the democrats negotiate the “bail out legislation” with the Bush administration, but that the outright opposition to the “bail out” seemingly arises from conservatives like Bunning. The bedfellows get stranger and stranger.

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

September 23, 2008 1:05 PM | Link to this

Dear getalife, your note on Jim Bunning reminds me of a great piece of baseball trivia; I’ll share since nobody is posting anything on topic today. When Jim Bunning pitched his perfect game against the Mets in 1964, I think it was the first game of a doubleheader. The Phillies rookie who pitched (and won) the other half of the doubleheader, Rick Wise, himself pitched a game in 1973 (I think) wherein he retired 30 consecutive batters. Not a perfect game or no-hitter, because the leadoff batter got a hit, but Wise thereafter pitched 10 perfect innings, one more than Bunning.

By WillieBkind

September 23, 2008 1:13 PM | Link to this

I wish them all to die and go to he*L. They took notachaway creek away from the public and gave it to coca cola. It is a private creek now for whom ever coca cola wants it for. Of course it is public above their little private plantation. I do not want judges who take from the poor/public and give to the rich. If I have a vote all incumbents will go. The others that have left, I wish them the worst possible things.

By Randi

September 23, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this

Are the wheels coming off the Democrat liberal party or what?

“No coal plants here in America,” he [Biden] said. “Build them, if they’re going to build them, over there. Make them clean.”

“We’re not supporting clean coal,” he said of himself and Obama. They do, on paper, support clean coal.

The answer seems to play into John McCain’s case that Obama has been saying “no” to new sources of energy.

In the primary, Biden opposed Obama’s push for clean coal, which is seen as a way of maintaining or expanding America’s coal-burning power plants — many of which are in rust belt swing states.

No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no; is that all those Democrat liberals can say? What is THEIR plan for energy? Anyone heard? Solar power? Wind power? Hybrids? Batter power? Ride a bike? Pump up your tires? Set your thermo to 80 in summer and 68 in winter? Give me a break. Texas’ massive power outage earlier this year proved that you can’t rely on wind, and solar power has been around for nearly forty years on top of homes and has not replaced electricity yet. Note how the Democrat liberals never talk about NUCLEAR power, which their beloved Europe loves and uses. Remember, Europe wants Obama/Biden elected, as if we should give a damn. Let’s ask Obama/Biden their thoughts on European nuclear energy use. What’s good for their beloved EU goose should be good for us. Unless, they are hypocrites or something.

By TeaTime

September 23, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this

Does anybody believe Bush’s estimate of 700 billion? The Bush Liar multiplier is four = 3 trillion dollars.

Bush keeps saying “Iraq needs a Thomas Jefferson”.

No sir, America needs a Thomas Jefferson.

Now more than ever.

By Willie

September 23, 2008 1:22 PM | Link to this

By hotlanta September 23, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this ” Why is it that the reporters can’t ask her questions.”

Ok liberal! What is your question? Is it a whine or is it an accusation? Do you or your liberal media really have a pertinent question? I would like to hear one from you. I am sure you have read the questions they want to ask. Please inform us?

By Commisar Paulson

September 23, 2008 1:33 PM | Link to this

Dear American:

I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude.

I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country has had crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion dollars US. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you.

I am working with Mr. Phil Gramm, lobbyist for UBS, who will be my replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. As a Senator, you may know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation movement in the 1990s. This transaction is 100% safe.

This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need the funds as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance. My family lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of kin so the funds can be transferred.

Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund account numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to wallstreetbailout@treasury.gov so that we may transfer your commission for this transaction. After I receive that information, I will respond with detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the funds.

Yours Faithfully

Minister of Treasury Paulson

By Redneck Convert

September 23, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this

Well, I don’t care how judges get there, long as they are Republican judges. See, there’s Democrat justice and Republican justice and they ain’t the same. We need Republican justice.

If you are a person suing a business in front of a Republican judge, you are going to lose, so save your money and don’t sue. Any respeckable Republican judge will tell you to stop going against Free Innerprize. That’s Republican justice.

And if you are one of Those People or a woman claiming you been biased against before a Republican judge, you are going to lose, so take your shafting and save your money. A bunch of Northreners might of passed civil rights and equal pay laws, but good Southren Republicans decide what the law really says, and we ain’t bought into that bunk. A good Republican judge can cancell alot of bad laws. And that’s Republican justice.

And if you are a criminal being tried before a Republican judge, you got to prove you ain’t guilty. A good Republican judge will know you are guilty or else you wouldn’t of been arrested. Just hope the crime don’t bring the Death Penalty, because Republican judges love to hand down the Death Penalty. And that’s Republican justice.

That’s my opinion and it’s very true. Have a good day everybody.

By Churchill

September 23, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this

good summary of this morning’s stories..Palin editorial to follow..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/09/23/BL2008092301299.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

By Churchill

September 23, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this

The Establishment Lives! By DAVID BROOKS Published: September 22, 2008 Once, there was a financial elite in this country. During the first two-thirds of the 20th century, middle-aged men with names like Mellon and McCloy led Wall Street firms, corporate boards and white-shoe law firms and occasionally emerged to serve in government. Starting in the 1960s, that cohesive elite began to fall apart. Liberal interest groups took control of Democratic economic policy. Supply-side think tankers and Southern conservatives dominated the GOP.

In the 1980s, the old power structures frayed, even on Wall Street. Corporate raiders took on the old business elite. Math geeks created complicated financial instruments that the top executives couldn’t control or understand. (The market for credit-default swaps alone has exploded to $45.5 trillion, up from $900 billion in 2001.)

Year followed year, and the idea of a cohesive financial establishment seemed increasingly like a thing of the past.

No more. Over the past week, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Tim Geithner of the New York Fed have nearly revived it. At its base, the turmoil wracking the world financial markets is a crisis of confidence. What Paulson, et al. have tried to do is reassert authority — the sort that used to be wielded by the Mellons and Rockefellers and other rich men in private clubs.

Inspired in part by Paul Volcker, Nicholas Brady and Eugene Ludwig, and announced last week, the Paulson plan is a pure establishment play. It would assign nearly unlimited authority to a small coterie of policy makers. It does not rely on any system of checks and balances, but on the wisdom and public spiritedness of those in charge. It offers succor to the investment banks that contributed to this mess and will burn through large piles of taxpayer money. But in exchange, it promises to restore confidence. Somebody, amid all the turmoil, will occupy the commanding heights. Somebody will have the power to absorb debt and establish stability.

Liberals and conservatives generally dislike the plan. William Greider of The Nation writes: “If Wall Street gets away with this, it will represent an historic swindle of the American public — all sugar for the villains, lasting pain and damage for the victims.”

He approvingly quotes the conservative economist Christopher Whalen of Institutional Risk Analytics: “The joyous reception from Congressional Democrats to Paulson’s latest massive bailout proposal smells an awful lot like yet another corporatist love fest between Washington’s one-party government and the Sell Side investment banks.”

Thanks to their criticism, the plan will be pinned back. Oversight will be put in place. But the plan will probably not be stopped. The markets would tank. There is a hunger for stability, which only the Treasury and the Fed can provide.

So we have arrived at one of those moments. The global financial turmoil has pulled nearly everybody out of their normal ideological categories. The pressure of reality has compelled new thinking about the relationship between government and the economy. And lo and behold, a new center and a new establishment is emerging.

The Paulson rescue plan is one chapter. But there will be others. Over the next few years, the U.S. will have to climb out from under mountainous piles of debt. Many predict a long, gray recession. The country will not turn to free-market supply-siders. Nor will it turn to left-wing populists. It will turn to the safe heads from the investment banks. For Republicans, people like Paulson. For Democrats, the guiding lights will be those establishment figures who advised Barack Obama last week — including Volcker, Robert Rubin and Warren Buffett.

These time-tested advisers, or more precisely, their acolytes, are going to make the health and survival of the financial markets their first order of business, because without that stability, the entire economy will be in danger. Beyond that, they will embrace a certain sort of governing approach.

The government will be much more active in economic management (pleasing a certain sort of establishment Democrat). Government activism will provide support to corporations, banks and business and will be used to shore up the stable conditions they need to thrive (pleasing a certain sort of establishment Republican). Tax revenues from business activities will pay for progressive but business-friendly causes — investments in green technology, health care reform, infrastructure spending, education reform and scientific research.

If you wanted to devise a name for this approach, you might pick the phrase economist Arnold Kling has used: Progressive Corporatism. We’re not entering a phase in which government stands back and lets the chips fall. We’re not entering an era when the government pounds the powerful on behalf of the people. We’re entering an era of the educated establishment, in which government acts to create a stable — and often oligarchic — framework for capitalist endeavor.

After a liberal era and then a conservative era, we’re getting a glimpse of what comes next

By Dusty

September 23, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this

RedNeck Convert@1:43

I hope your wife hits you over the head with a frying pan for telling lies and being a MCP (and I don’t mean Microsoft Certified Professional).

Well, let me go read the non/Churchill. He’s off topic but he’s got his lib orders. You know. Knock Palin ‘cause she’s GOOD!!

By Copyleft

September 23, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this

Hopefully, “what comes next” will be a stage of greater corporate regulation, oversight, and accountability instead of the laissez-faire nonsense we’ve been hearing about for several decades now.

Time to remind corporate America who’s in charge—it’s We the People, not them.

By Ga Values

September 23, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this

II do NOT trust Senator Dodd or most of the others that let this mess happen. I do trust Senator Shelby, who has been trying to fix this mess for years.. This is what he said after lunch & I agree with him.(NYT)

Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the panel, expressed disdain for regulars “who sat on the sidelines” as the crisis was building. He recalled, too, that Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, once told him that the rate of borrowing in the American economy and the high percentage of their incomes that many people were spending on their homes posed “a rather small risk to the mortgage market.”

Mr. Shelby complained that the emerging program seemed to be “a series of ad hoc measures” rather than the kind of comprehensive approach that is needed.

By SLang

September 23, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this

US Grant once said, “If America ever really sees itself as it really is, there’ll be revolution.”

Get a good look, America.

Obama 08: America takes over.

By GMAN

September 23, 2008 3:21 PM | Link to this

There’s a movement coming!

http://www.dipdive.com/dip-politics/wato/

By Anarchy4Monarchs

September 23, 2008 3:24 PM | Link to this

Does anybody believe Bush’s estimate of 700 billion? The Bush Liar multiplier is four = 3 trillion dollars.

Bush keeps saying “Iraq needs a Thomas Jefferson”.

No sir, America needs a Thomas Jefferson.

Now more than ever.

By Fashion Faux News

September 23, 2008 3:38 PM | Link to this

Blue Satin after Labor Day, Dusty. What an embarrassment for one and all.

You are bannished from this blog till next labor day you clothes horse, and I mean horse, Frau Blukener

n’eighhhhh.

By Fashion Faux News

September 23, 2008 3:51 PM | Link to this

The Bear Sterns bailout wasn’t that long ago, people. Dont you remember all the experts on Fox and Cnn assuring everybody. They all had incomprehensible explanation then, too.

Nobody knows what’s going to happen.

But this is 4sure: The wealthy are taking the last of our money before the other shoe drops.

America needs it’s George Washington/Thomas Jefferson more than ever.

That’s 4sure, That’s 4dangsure.

By Fashion Faux News

September 23, 2008 3:59 PM | Link to this

Foreign banks are in line to get bailed out along with AIG and the rest, you know.

We americans R going to bail out foreign banks. Saudi banks?

R we going to bail out the Saudis?

REVOLUTION!!!

I AINT BAILING OUT NO SUNNI RATS!!!!

By D

September 23, 2008 4:13 PM | Link to this

how come all the people with all the answers can’t fix any of the problems, and their in the majority!?

By Mid-South Philosopher

September 23, 2008 4:16 PM | Link to this

Dr. Mahmud AHMADI-NEJAD, the Iranian dog feces, is about to speak before the U.N. As I watch him, he smirks on his way into the body. Likely, he will besmirtch George Bush and the United States.

All I can say is that he should spend days upon his knees thanking All*h, that he is not having to deal with me as chief executive.

We should NOT give a rat’s rectum whether on not the Iranians have nuclear weapons.

Our policy should be clear…one use of a nuclear weapon by or from Iran against Israel, the U.S., on any of our allies (if we have any left) should be met by and total and full shower of themo-nuclear weapons on the nation of Iran. When we finish, they should not have even a camel with which to fornicate!

But, alas, we won’t take that stand. Hell, Iran may own some of our “failed” financial institutions if the truth be know.

It is a great life, if you don’t weaken.

Don’t re-elect anybody.

Now, let’s listen to the Persian devil.

By sid

September 23, 2008 4:23 PM | Link to this

republicans have now invented trickle up. and it doesn’t work either.

By Commander Guy

September 23, 2008 4:38 PM | Link to this

Sweet jumping jesus, even Newt can’t swallow the latest nonsense:

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said Tuesday that any lawmaker who votes for the Bush administration’s $700 billion bailout package, which he called a “dead loser,” will face defeat in November.

Gingrich (R-Ga.) said he thinks Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is trying to scare lawmakers into passing the bailout plan quickly and without thorough study.

“I think what Paulson hopes to do is say, ‘If you don’t do exactly what I want you to do, the whole world’s going to collapse on Tuesday’,” Gingrich said.

The former Speaker, talking to reporters at a lunch, added that he expects Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) to back the plan. He predicted that, if Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) ends up opposing the administration proposal, there will be an overnight “emergence of a McCain/reform wing of the Republican Party.”

Gingrich said that occurrence would turn the election on its head, with Republicans running ads that feature Obama with President Bush on the same team in pushing for a “nightmare” bailout plan.

The former Speaker said that by November, the flaws in the plan will be apparent, and voters will “break against anyone who votes for it.”

Does anybody outside of Paulson’s merry band of thieves support this plan? Aside from Dusty?

One other question…where does the 700 bil come from? The US is already running a deficit. The credit markets (or so we are told) has frozen and will never recover without this bailout. So, where is the money coming from? China? Is the treasury just gonna run the presses overtime? Or are the failing banks going to lend themselves the money, a la Captain Freedom?

And why is Wooten afraid to deal with this issue? Judicial elections? Really? Good god, man, be serious for once.

By Fashion Faux News

September 23, 2008 4:42 PM | Link to this

Mid-south, how do we know that Mahmud is not the mild mannered blogger-philosopher and YOU’RE not the nuclear terrorist shia devil from Iran?

How? How would we know?

there’s no way. so stfu.

By Mid-South Philosopher

September 23, 2008 4:44 PM | Link to this

OK, Liberal friends.

If Sarah Palin had given a speech and referred to Deity as often and this Persian dog, you would be raising cane (and rightly so) to high heaven (pardon the pun).

This Persian P*ss Ant is a liar and a coward, and should he wish to debate that with me, I am at his disposal.

Now let me hear the criticism from you liberals on this religious fanatic!

By Jim is a caveman

September 23, 2008 4:44 PM | Link to this

Commander, Jim indicated yesterday he has fallen hook, line and sinker for the administration’s proposal, and took the Dems to task for not jumping aboard quickly enough. He wanted no debate, no politization, just fast approval. He is really is a good Bush lemming. The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

By Fashion Faux News

September 23, 2008 4:53 PM | Link to this

So midsouth is wants to penalize Palin for “high sticking”?

Palin is so slick, she’s constantly penalized for “icing”.

Sorry, but Palin is an amazing American. I wish every woman looked half as good and was as spry and agile and had such gusto and verve, and that hair!!!

Palin/McCain 08: Politics makes for strange bedfellows, it’s just too bad that we dont even have a quarter to bounce off the cot.

Sleep naked, America. (get used to it, i mean)

By Churchill

September 23, 2008 4:54 PM | Link to this

This is our Paline for today.. sorry it’s so little but her handlers are keeping her hidden…

Talking Georgia With Kissinger | 4 p.m. Gov. Sarah Palin wrapped her first day of motorcade diplomacy with a 90-minute meeting with Henry Kissinger, where they spoke about Georgia.

Ms. Palin and Mr. Kissinger sat on blue couches, separated by an end table with photographs of President Nixon and President Reagan on it. As photographers were led in, Mr. Kissinger could be hear saying that he gave someone “a lot of credit for what he did in Georgia,” according to a report who was allowed to watch.

“Good, good,’’ Ms. Palin said. “And you’ll give me more insight on that, also, huh? Good.”

The photographers were ushered out. When Mr. Palin emerged from the building, a news producer asked her how it went, and she mouthed the words, “It was great.”

Gov. Sarah Palin and Colombia’s President Alvaro Uribe. (Photo: Brian Snyder/Reuters) Meeting Uribe | 2:20 p.m.: The next stop on Governor Palin’s whirlwind diplomatic tour was a meeting with President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia. Mr. Uribe has a warm relationship with Senator John McCain, who paid him a visit during extremely unusual campaign trip to Colombia over the summer where he expressed support for a free trade agreement.

The meeting was held in the residence of the Colombian Mission on the Upper East Side in an ornate room with a pink stuffed chair and a chandelier, according to an account provided by the reporter allowed to accompany her into the event, Ms. Palin was overheard telling Mr. Uribe, “Thank you for your work.’’

Then the motorcade left for a sit-down at Kissinger Associates.

Palin and Karzai Bond Over Children | 1 p.m. When Gov. Sarah Palin sat down with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan on Tuesday afternoon, the polite preliminaries to their conversation centered around children, as Mr. Karzai spoke of the birth of his first child last year.

Gov. Sarah Palin met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Tuesday in New York. (Photo: Chris Hondros/Getty Images) “What is his name?” Ms. Palin was heard to ask, as she met with Mr. Karzai in the suite of a midtown hotel, according to a pool report.

“Mirwais,” Mr. Karzai replied. “Mirwais, which means, ‘The Light of the House.’”

“Oh nice,” Palin responded.

“He is the only one we have,” Mr. Karzai said.

Then the pool of journalists was escorted out, and the meeting began.

Accompanying Ms. Palin were Randy Scheunemann, a senior foreign policy adviser for the McCain campaign, and Steve Biegun, a former staff member of President Bush’s National Security Council who is advising Ms. Palin.

Update | 12:17 p.m.: Word now is that a print reporter will be allowed in at the next two meetings. Stayed tuned for updates on all the handshakes and pleasantries…

Update | 12:02 p.m.: The campaign is relenting and letting in the television producer, so the camera crew will be going as well. But print reporters are up in arms about being excluded.

Media Rebellion: Live from New York, it’s Gov. Sarah Palin’s top-secret foreign policy tutorial!

Ms. Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, is scheduled to meet Tuesday in New York with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia, and former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger.

But the McCain-Palin campaign’s sharp limitations on coverage of the meetings have sparked a mini-revolt – and a threatened boycott — among the press corps.

The campaign plans to bar print reporters from the meetings, and to limit coverage to brief photo-ops for a still photographer and a television camera. The television stations, though, are objecting, noting that they have a policy of not sending cameras to cover events without a producer, who provided editorial guidance.

A stand-off has ensued, with the networks threatening not to send cameras. The newspapers are trying to get back into the act as well.

It is not uncommon for meetings with world leaders to be pooled, but in the past the McCain campaign has at times allowed print reporters and televisions producers to look in and report any color – or exchange of pleasantries, usually banal – that occurs.

By Ga Values

September 23, 2008 5:00 PM | Link to this

As usual our Senators are owned by special interest RINOs, while our congressmen are REPUBLICANS.

REPUBLICANS

Sen. Saxby Chambliss: “We must do something because the cost of doing nothing is too great. You never want to see the government have to bail out certain entities, and this bill cannot become a Christmas tree for every special interest out there.”

Sen. Johnny Isakson: “I eagerly await the details of the legislation Treasury will propose. I believe congressional action is not only necessary but essential.”

Rep. Paul Broun of Athens: “I am extremely skeptical about the federal government nationalizing a huge section of our financial services. … Socialism has never worked and will not work.”

Rep. Nathan Deal of Gainesville: “I am cautiously optimistic, provided that appropriate reforms are attached.”

Rep. Phil Gingrey of Marietta: “All too often, when Congress tries to enact a ‘quick fix,’ it causes more harm than good. At the end of the day, we’ve got to make sure that if the federal government is going to spend $700 billion of taxpayer money, then it better be the right plan.”

Rep. John Linder of Duluth declined to comment “until he sees a final proposal,” a spokesman said.

Rep. Jack Kingston of Savannah: “I’m leaning against it. I want to learn more about it. My problem is we’re told it’s a disaster if we don’t do this, but nobody has defined what that means.”

Rep. Tom Price of Roswell: “The gravity of this situation cannot be understated, and I am working diligently to ensure the taxpayer is protected.”

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Coweta County: “I get that there’s a crisis. I get that there’s urgency. But we need to slow up and put this through subcommittee, then committee, then the full House, where it needs to be open to amendments. … If this is rushed through without scrutiny, I will oppose this bill.”

By Bo Chambliss LOBBYIST

September 23, 2008 5:02 PM | Link to this

Saxby got $1,332,000.00 from Banks, Real Estate, & Insurance Companies.. Guess they get the X’mas tree & the taxpayer gets the SHAFT. McCain says Country FIRST, Saxby Chambliss says LOBBYIST FIRST

By getalife

September 23, 2008 5:29 PM | Link to this

Just in case you are confused on deregulaion leadership

Vote early for regulations and no socialism

By getalife

September 23, 2008 5:33 PM | Link to this

Supreme Court keeps ya’ll pro life folks from killing another man.

By Maniac is accurate

September 23, 2008 5:42 PM | Link to this

So, what you’re saying is, Jim, that for best results, he should run as jmblaw, rather than jbmlaw?

By @@

September 23, 2008 6:06 PM | Link to this

Thanks for the links Jim.

These days LIFE is a crap shoot.

The bailout is a crap shoot.

BTW, do washing machines get repo’d cause I sho could use the one that somebody couldn’t pay for.

In the dark of night over the weekend when most people were snoozing, the Treasury dramatically expanded its bailout plan to include buying student loans, car loans, credit card debt and any other “troubled” assets held by banks.

The spin cycle’s on the fritz.

Whoa is me……