-
RSS Subscribe
-
Books
Luis Palau
Such Geniuses in the World of Rock
UPDATE: Well now that the concert is over lets examine what profundity was uttered by Sir Elton.
“I never cease to be amazed at the misogynist attitude of some of the people in this country,” he said. “I say to hell with them.”
And to you your royal fruitcake, I say the hell with you. First you are so arrogant to scold America for being racist since they didn’t vote for the Black American Idol contestant, but notwithstanding your obvious personal racism for not backing Obama, you call Americans misogynist because they aren’t supporting the girl………HRc. Maybe I am bit a misogynist myself because I think you are a fruit fly.
I have personally always felt that voluntary contributions of talent by performers to a political candidate were “in kind” political contributions and were illegal if such value exceeded any individual limit imposed by law. Now Elton John is under fire concerning his participation in a “fund raising” concert on behalf of HRc. Is it not clear that Elton John could afford to make a Million Dollar donation to her campaign if it were legal? What is the difference if the source of that illegal contribution would have been (obviously) his performance income versus just skipping the direct payment to himself (and the related income taxes) and having the money go to HRc. He has produced and controlled the contribution and also avoided tax on the proceeds in effect making this political contribution tax deductible. (Don’t try this at home yourself)
Mr. John’s problems actually are of a slightly different aspect here in that this (indirect) contribution comes from a foreign national, something that is a no no in U.S. Presidential Politics, though the Clinton’s have been caught often receiving funds from dubious foreign sources. It seems that there is adequate precedent in the Federal Election Commission’s prior rulings in this area as covered in this Washington Times article HERE.
And the Winner is………….
I am going to open this forum to “guesses” as to Obama will pick as a running mate. I know this is a presumptive post about Obama getting the nomination (which is becoming clearer all the time), but I wanted to ask the question even though I know people don’t like to respond to this type of thing on a Blog. Anyway, I’ll kick it off. My best guess is WES CLARK for all the obvious reasons and the cover he could provide when Obama unilaterally withdraws the troops from the Middle East. This is of course in my opinion very likely if the “brokers” at the convention don’t force an unholy matrimony between Obama and HRc, provided that Obama doesn’t have enough elected delegates to win without the brokers. Now it is your turn……………….
Hmm…My Vote in the forthcoming FL Primary….. See 1/30/2008 Update Below
Being a legal resident of Florida I am now and looking forward to the Florida Primary which is scheduled for January 29th. Actually the voting in Florida has already begun in what is called “early voting” but we have decided to wait until the official date for a couple of reasons, with one being important and another being not so important.
First of all we will delay because we have never voted in Florida and sort of want to get a first hand orientation with process and our precinct (not so important on some metaphysical scale) and the opportunity to evaluate the candidates in the daily changing landscape (ostensibly more important).
I must say that my sentiments in this race had been shifting towards (not to) Mitt Romney and I had been alarmed somewhat at John McCain’s resurgence. I have over recent years come to pretty much dislike John McCain. I haven’t always felt this way about Mr. McCain and was even a defender and proponent of him during the era of the Keating Five and its role in the collapse of many Savings and Loan companies in the 1980’s. This was an investigation initiated by the Senate Ethics Committee that was controlled by the Democrats in the Senate. There was some real misdeeds emanating from the “gang of five” when examined as a whole, but it was clear to me at the time that it encompassed McCain in order to dilute the accountability of the Democrats who held the other four slots in that grouping. Also innocently accused in this group of five was Democrat John Glenn but he became the sacrificial inclusion in the group to insure that it was a “bi-partisan” operation.
Well it didn’t work and no guilt was found in Glenn and even less guilt was found in McCain. This little blip in the career of McCain has not seemed to have any impact on his political career since then.
But in short I had not yet picked a candidate in 08’ but had McCain ranked as third from last on my personal preference list of the Republican hopefuls. Of course Paul was last and I had Huckabee as second to last. The primary reason for my low regard for McCain stems from my disdain for his liberal leanings in the more recent years in the Senate (McCain-Feingold & opposition to Bush tax cuts-I am not going to again defend those tax cuts here, but if you are interested you can read the posts on the topic tax cuts and numerous comment responses throughout this website).
So what is the purpose of this post? I might (don’t read this as a conclusion) vote for McCain. Not because of a single thing he has said but because I saw an interview of Jack Kemp tonight where Jack has endorsed John. Yes part of that is the “winability” strategy but he has explained his recent meetings with McCain where they discussed fiscal policy (both taxation and budgetary). Jack dislikes the past of McCain as much as I do, but if Jack is satisfied with McCain on where he will head in the future, so am I. (McCain has pledged a conservative tax and spending program) I have been sort of an acolyte of Kemp’s and over the past 30 years he has been my preferred person to rise to the level of Presidency himself. He was actually the intellectual architect of the Reagan Revolution at least as it depended on the tax reductions to come from Reagan’s administration. You may recall the accolade of the “Kemp-Roth” tax cuts. Well Regan’s tax cuts were authored by Jack Kemp.
So this leads me to my vote. Yes…….it MIGHT be for John McCain. (sheesh……I almost can’t even say that.)
Don’t Ask…..Don’t Tell II
The LA Times is reporting HERE that Hillary is now in a “Don’t Ask” mode following a few faux pas of the previous weeks. It seems that Hillary’s current campaign strategy is to arrive at a campaign point in Iowa and give the “stump” speech that she wants told and then when her speech is over for the loud speakers to rev up with her campaign theme song (which was that now? …….. “It Ain’t Me Babe?” …….what?)
Even to reporters she is not answering any questions. When asked about her take on the Bhutto assassination by a reporter she simply looked at the reporter, turned around and walked away. It seems that Chelsea is working under the same template where she refuses to comment on anything. Not overtly by saying “no comment” but simply by ignoring the questioner.
So now we have the Clintons instituting “Don’t Ask and Don’t Tell II” as a campaign strategy. This reminds me of the beginning of her campaign where she took off on her “listening” tour to see how the “people” felt about things. She said there would be plenty of time for her to comment on her views, but it was important that she only listened at that point to see what the public wants. She must have found out, because she changed nearly all of her previous positions on things to accommodate them in order to be elected.
Come on, do I have to say it again. This lady is one crafty con artist. Whoever gave her and Bill the moniker “the grifters” sure had it right. Not only has she changed every position to appease the immediate crowd, she has contradicted herself so many times now that her only option is to not comment and trust that everyone still believes the lies that were crafted for their demographic when they first heard them. I wonder if Obama and Edwards are going to allow this to pass unchallenged.
Clinton to Abolish the Relationship of Supply & Demand and Risk Premiums
I know who I am voting for now. It will have to be HRc. This person is not just a candidate, but some kind of deity. She has promised HERE that if she is elected that the price of oil will immediately drop because [get this] …”I predict to you, the oil-producing countries will lower prices to stifle Americas incentive to develop alternative energy.” Does she not know that the oil producing countries don’t set the price of oil, the market does? They can only “attempt” to control the supply of oil and to bring down the “market” price of oil they will have to produce more oil, something that cannot happen easily or is easily sustainable.
Further, the largest market component of the price of oil today is the “risk” premium that is built into the market value. This is a premium that is inherent in the price of oil in view of the possibility of the curtailment of supply due to Middle Eastern hostilities. I believe that you can equally argue that a precipitous withdrawal from the Middle East by the U.S. could actually increase this risk premium.
To me the most obvious and likely cause of a reduction in the price in oil following an HRc election victory would be the decrease in aggregate demand that would be caused by the world wide recession that could very likely be provoked by the tax policy that HRc has asserted during her campaign. If you think this is greedy Republican talk, just sit back and watch. Hopefully your job is protected……
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
Snow White . . . . . . .
And the Seven Dwarfs
It seems that the Democratic slate is apoplectic about the recent so called NIA (National Intelligence Assessment) and they are ready to further sacrifice the security of the nation over an automatic presumption that the report is just what the headlines suggest. And to think they want to be President. Not one of them is up to the challenge.
This report was written by 3 members of the State Department with know hostility to the Bush foreign policy in Iran, Iraq and N. Korea and does not alter the risk assessment at all. Even if taken at face value, the pursuit of the “components” of a nuclear weapon is not on the critical path in the time line of development at this stage in Iran and can be subsequently augmented while the real game is in the reprocessing of fissionable uranium material. This is a flat out program that has been launched by Iran to make them energy independent (Ha). If they spent a fraction of this money on producing a single gasoline refinery they would be independent. If you believe their spin you should have your voter card cancelled, because you are the threat to the security of the country.
I am quite certain that these candidates (along with senators Reid and others) are quite willing to take this opportunity to trash the security of the country as an acceptable cost in order to try and tie Bush’s hands and gain political advantage. I think I would trust the Mosad estimate ahead of the left leaning Department of State (as well as the above Disney characters) which takes nearly hostile exception with this report. The only purpose this report has served is to hamstring the diplomatic and sanction approach to solving the problem and consequently increase the prospects of hostility. Isn’t it also interesting that the Democrats that have spent the last 6 years trashing the intelligence community in the US are so quick to accept this report without additional consideration of the impact on our National Security. Do you think they would have all signed up to “neutralize” Iran as fast if the report indicated that Iran is on the verge of a weapon?
HRc Slips in the Polls Versus Republicans
I’m sorry, but I might have to change the blog title to “The Escapades of HRc.” Now the inevitable is starting to take shape. It has been discussed here at NSL before that HRc might be the preferred Democratic candidate if you are discussing Republican winning strategy. Now the latest Zogby poll shows just that. As a matter of fact that poll shows that she is 3 to 5 percentage points behind all the following candidates: Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mike Huckabee in head to head match ups. Ouch, that must sting a bit. The same poll has either Edwards or Obama with slight leads over this field.
I think Obama has caused a lot of damage in the Clinton camp of late. I think he is on to a pretty good thing with his latest quip that talking to your husband doesn’t qualify you for Presidency. I think that makes a pretty good point. This is about as worthless of a candidacy as Bob Dole’s was in 1996. But HRc like Bobdole before her thinks it is her turn. When you give someone the nomination based on their “turn” they’ll surely lose.
The Hill seems to be trying to rehabilitate her candidacy of late with today’s effort surrounding an interview by Katie Couric. The most interesting comment (to me) from that interview was Hillaries response to Katies question “It was announced Monday that Oprah Winfrey would be campaigning with Obama in three key states. How do you feel about that?” Get this answer: “I think it’s great … I’m proud to have a lot of very distinguished Americans [supporting me],” Clinton said. Woah……….what is she smoking? MORE
Hillary Takes the High Road
Isn’t this wonderful? We finally have a political contest where one of the candidates has finally decided to take the high road and avoid mudslinging even if it would serve their political ambitions. Wouldn’t you know it would take a woman to finally lift the bar. Here, according to Robert Novak [the journalist that first wrote of the Valarie Plame affair that the media tried to cause you to believe (and probably successfully) that Cheney had leaked when it was actually Richard Armitage], you have Clinton operatives conveniently letting it be know that they had uncovered a scandal involving Barak Obama but have decided to not release the information nor even release the nature of the alleged scandal.
Phewwww……….Just to think that this woman has uncovered some secret information about her opponent and voluntarily decided not to release this information publicly. I can only say that maybe she should release this information even if not to enhance her candidacy but because the electorate might have the right to know the “truth” about potential Presidential candidates before the election. I don’t think HRc should set herself up as the gatekeeper of essential electoral information, do you? Note the full article by Novak below.
The only thing that bothers me about this report is that if it were anyone but HRc I would wonder about the possibility of a campaign making up such a report out of thin air about anyone and then take the credit for taking the high road without ever having to prove or even assert the underlying facts while still causing the electorate to question the veracity of the candidate in question (in this case Barak). In almost any other circumstance it would be very easy to make this up and slander someone by innuendo and look good for not spelling out the details. But thankfully we know that this type of conduct is not something that anyone in the Clinton camp over the past 15 – 20 years would ever try to do.
Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party’s presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it. The nature of the alleged scandal was not disclosed. This word-of-mouth among Democrats makes Obama look vulnerable and Clinton look prudent. It comes during a dip for the front-running Clinton after she refused to take a stand on New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s now discarded plan to give driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. Experienced Democratic political operatives believe Clinton wants to avoid a repetition of 2004, when attacks on each other by presidential candidates Howard Dean and Richard Gephardt were mutually destructive and facilitated John Kerry’s nomination……Robert Novak
Hillary’s $100 Generosity (in theory)
Subtitle: “Let them eat cake.” Hillary and her entourage visited the Maid Rite Restaurant in Toledo, Iowa this past Thursday and ran up a $157 tab. This tab was settled by a credit card of the campaign and the campaign has provided a receipt of the card charge to prove it. What it doesn’t prove is that the $100 tip claimed by Clinton was ever made.
Anita Esterday a waitress at the restaurant that served Mrs. Clinton and her guest said she chatted and exchanged pleasantries with Mrs. Clinton and might even vote for her but that Mrs. Clinton failed to leave a tip. Hillary even used the encounter in a campaign speech. I suppose it was about the raw deal the working people are getting in this country with minimum wage or health care or something like that. The campaign went in defense mode and insisted that a tip was left on the table for $100. When Ms. Esterday said “why would I lie about not receiving a tip,” the campaign repeatedly said that “well we left the cash.”
This was somewhat of a change from their perspective that they understood the tip to have been added to the credit card. The manager says that their card processor doesn’t automatically add a tip to any charge. He also says that there was no cash tip left at the table at which Hillary was seated. The manager stated that all of their waitresses are long term waitresses (25-30 years) and that there isn’t one that would pocket someone else’s tip.
Later a campaign staffer apologized to Esterday and gave her a $20.00 bill and my question is where is that $100 that was avowed? So their tip generosity was $100 (64%) when they could simply assert it, but when it came to actually taking their own money and paying it, it is only $20.00 (12.7%) which is substandard. So this illustrates how HRc claims to be the champion of the “little people” but as it turns out she is the oppressor (I guess we can’t say she is the “man”).
Of course none of my conjecture is accurate, because what actually happened is Clinton stiffed the waitress and the rest is spin control amplified by increasing intensity of their lies which I believe is clear. MORE
Obama and the Flag and Now the National Anthem
A PICTURE IS WORTH 1,000 WORDS: I know it’s an old story that Obama has removed the US flag pin from his lapel after wearing it following 911 and he justified this by stating: “I am less concerned that what your are wearing on your lapel than what is in your heart.” He also stated that he has abandoned the pin in favor of actions that would be more meaningful in demonstrating his patriotism. Snopes confirms HERE that this picture is an authentic picture from Time magazine of the candidates (note Richardson & Hillary) at an Iowa steak fry.
Now I am not critical of Obama not wearing the lapel pin, I don’t wear one myself, but his overt decision to take it off and make a statement gives pause, but not a terrible lot of pause until you add this to the question: what is the statement that this action in the picture above demonstrates where he sort of stoically flaunts protocol designed around national respect (hand over heart) in context of his own standard that he would take actions that would more meaningfully demonstrate the authenticity of his patriotism. I’m not ready to conclude the Manchurian Candidate thing, but I am not sure he is rising to a reasonable credibility level about his true viewpoints with these actions. He raised this issue himself and we can only measure him by his own statements, standards and actions.
UPDATE COMMENT: This may be one of those “read my lips” moments…..steve