Pajamas Media Blogosphere Reaction to Falling Dollar and Government Bailouts: Outrage and Silence But Mostly Silence

I took a brief survey of the Pajamas Media Blogosphere that I visit on my web travels looking for the reactions to the dollar crisis that has been brewing for awhile and is finally coming to a head. Let's see:

Hotair: There's a nice video of Dana Perino's appearance on the Daily Show, but no mention of the Bear Stearns bailout by the government, or the continued free fall of the dollar. Come on, I would have thought Ed Morrissey would have had something to say about it.

LGF: There's a couple of entries about Obama and his religion, Elliot Spitzer gets goofed on a bit as well. But nothing about the economy or the dollar there either.

Malkin: Michelle See-dubya has a story about Obama, Michelle writes about Dickie Scruggs as well as an entry about the super-secret session in Congress that didn't accomplish anything. Anything about the financial health of the country? Not today, maybe something on Monday.

Ace: We have a winner! An entry on the bailout for Bear Stearns. It's a brief mention because entries about Obama and Spitzer dominate.

One entry out of all of the PJM blogs I visited mentioned the big financial news today. What's wrong with them? They are supposed to be "conservative" but nothing about the bailout? Malkin, to her credit, has talked about the sub prime mortgage crisis that has been developing into a story over the past year, and her take on that has been correct. Suck it up, no bailouts for the people who took crappy loans. Does that apply to the banks and other financial institutions? I don't recall seeing any mention from her about the dollar tanking in the past few months either. Why is that?

Why Ron Paul Should Keep Money Donated from Neo-Nazis

Ron Paul: Sure, I'll Take Money from Nazis - Headline from Hotair
Ron Paul Campaign Keeps White Supremacist Money - Headline Worldnetdaily
Ron Paul No Problem with Donations from Neo-Nazis - Headline Little Green Footballs

The latest attack on presidential candidate Ron Paul after his record setting fundraising day on Sunday is not really new. It's the same guilt by association attack that comes whenever Dr. Paul's grassroots campaign makes news.

Don Black is a "White Nationalist" who runs a website called Stormfront. If you click over there, you'll see David Duke featured prominently at the top and then a forum towards the bottom. The language (from my admittedly brief perusal) in the topics section, if to be taken at face value, isn't that much different than you would find on any forum that talks about politics and current events. The slant is different, of course, but if you compared it to the language of any other forum where ethnicity is the primary focus you would find more similarities than differences. The Nation of Islam comes to mind.

Don Black says this about Ron Paul:

Black said he supports Paul's stance on ending the war in Iraq, securing U.S. borders and his opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants.

"We know that he's not a white nationalist. He says he isn't and we believe him, but on the issues, there's only one choice," Black said Wednesday.

"We like his stand on tight borders and opposition to a police state," Black told The Palm Beach Post earlier.

That last statement is hardly a call to arms and hooded robes and cross burnings. While there may be unsavory characteristics of Don Black's world view, so what? It's a free country last I checked and in a free country, as long as you don't violate me and my property and my rights what you do on your own time, what you talk about, or who you call your friends is no concern of mine...Where is it? Oh yeah (emphasis mine):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The great irony of the websites listed at the top is that all of them have faced the same charges of being "hate sites" or "racist" because their particular slant isn't in tune with "the mainstream". Little Greenfootballs in particular has had to deal with "racist!" charges. Should we call for all the websites that link or associate with LGF (like all of Pajamas Media) to give back all of the ad revenue they have generated because someone disagrees with their worldview? How rich is it that they have resorted to the same sort of attack on a point of view and people they disagree with that they themselves have been subject to?

UPDATE: This is what the "conservative argument" against Ron Paul amounts to:

One can see for themselves in the debates how nuts Ron Paul is but his supporters confirm it. I've noticed that those who are angry and/or pessimistic towards the government or just in general seems to gravitate towards Paul. He also attracts conspiracy theorists by the dozen. If I was Paul and these were my supporters I would be concerned, but he seems happy to have them. Nothing more needs be said.

The more I think about it, if you are a Christian and you are against abortion, wouldn't that automatically mean that you advocate shooting doctors who perform abortions and firebombing the clinics they perform them at?