It was only a few months ago that I posted the last item here, and what a change has occurred. Crude oil is below $40, the economy is in the tank, and everything said before seems hardly relevant any more.
During the time, I just decided to stop posting. There was too much going on with the election and the economy. I had plenty of thoughts, but everything was so fluid, I decided not to write and show my ignorance.
We are now in the Christmas season, and have a new President coming on board next month. This President will probably face a very difficult situation, perhaps as difficult as any President has ever faced.
Before I renew my posting, let us all be thankful for our great country, and pray for its continued strength. Let us also pray for the success of our new President, and that he will be successful in preserving our nation in a difficult time.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Sunday, August 3, 2008
I'm Still Mad, Eddie
And Getting Madder by the Day
Back in the late 1970s, during the last oil "crisis" and Jimmy Carter was more or less in charge, his policies were much like our current Democrats' policies. Nothing but talk and CAFE standards and "windfall" profits taxes and price controls on domestic production. Remember MEOW? That stands for Carter's moral equivalent of war. That war was fought much like our current Democrats would fight any war: surrender.
During those days we had a Texan named Eddie Chiles who ran a bunch of radio and TV ads about the energy policies of the government. They all started out with "I'm mad." They were very good and told the truth about the effects of the misguided and harmful government policies.
Soon, bumper stickers started showing up all over Texas and Eastern New Mexico: "I'm Mad Too, Eddie." They were ubiquitous in the oil patch.
(Other favorites during those days were: "Let the Bastards Freeze to Death in the Dark" and "Please Don't Tell My Mom I work in the Oil Patch; She Still Thinks I'm a Piano Player in a Whorehouse." That first one may be predictive: I understand there may be real problems in the northeast with fuel oil this winter, and the authorities are concerned many might go without heat. That would be bad, indeed.)
Now, here we are, thirty years later, and nothing has been done to solve the problem of reliance on foreign oil.
Back then we did not have the technology to drill on the Outer Continental Shelf as we do now. We did not have the technology to drill in sensitive places like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge like we do now. As a result, back then there were no real alternatives to foreign oil but coal, nuclear, natural gas, and the far out hope that someday some new technologies would come along. What did we actually do? We built some coal and natural gas plants, but abandoned the cleanest and most efficient source of energy: nuclear.
Now the crisis is back on the front pages, after we have spent thirty years sending our dollars to foreigners for their oil. Trillions of dollars. Now we are still sending hundreds of millions of dollars to foreigners every year.
The cost of all of this is not just paying more for gasoline. It also creates a very serious national security problem. A lot of the folks that are holding those dollars are not exactly trusted friends of ours, and do not necessarily have our interests at heart.
This means we MUST address the problem now. We do not have the luxury of putting it off. We also do not have the luxury of picking and choosing our desired domestic energy sources. They must all be put on the table. NOW!
That means we must invest in wind, solar, fuel cell, coal, oil shale, oil sands, geothermal, ANWR oil and gas, outer continental shelf oil and gas, and whatever else someone can dream up that will work. Picking and choosing among those is just silly. We should be doing ALL of it. Let the free markets pick the winners.
There are those that say that production from ANWR or the OCS would be so far off that there is no use doing it. They are wrong. Actually, we would already have 2 million barrels a day on stream from ANWR if Bill Clinton had not vetoed the bill authorizing it some years ago. He said then that it would take too long to do any good. How right was he? That would have driven down oil prices. It will take only two or three years to start getting that oil onstream, more for the OCS.
What are our politicians doing? Wringing their hands and pointing fingers. Both Presidential candidates act like they don't really want to discuss the problem. Others trot out the same old MEOW stuff from the Carter years. When a group of Republican Congressmen tried to force the House to debate energy, the Speaker adjourned the House and had the lights and microphones turned off. The Democratic leadership is afraid to address the issue. That group of Republicans stayed for a while to make a point, but didn't persevere. No guts, no glory.
How bad can it get? Stay tuned. It will get a lot worse. Maybe OPEC will let the price go down some to make it less painful.
That is why I'm still mad, and getting madder.
Back in the late 1970s, during the last oil "crisis" and Jimmy Carter was more or less in charge, his policies were much like our current Democrats' policies. Nothing but talk and CAFE standards and "windfall" profits taxes and price controls on domestic production. Remember MEOW? That stands for Carter's moral equivalent of war. That war was fought much like our current Democrats would fight any war: surrender.
During those days we had a Texan named Eddie Chiles who ran a bunch of radio and TV ads about the energy policies of the government. They all started out with "I'm mad." They were very good and told the truth about the effects of the misguided and harmful government policies.
Soon, bumper stickers started showing up all over Texas and Eastern New Mexico: "I'm Mad Too, Eddie." They were ubiquitous in the oil patch.
(Other favorites during those days were: "Let the Bastards Freeze to Death in the Dark" and "Please Don't Tell My Mom I work in the Oil Patch; She Still Thinks I'm a Piano Player in a Whorehouse." That first one may be predictive: I understand there may be real problems in the northeast with fuel oil this winter, and the authorities are concerned many might go without heat. That would be bad, indeed.)
Now, here we are, thirty years later, and nothing has been done to solve the problem of reliance on foreign oil.
Back then we did not have the technology to drill on the Outer Continental Shelf as we do now. We did not have the technology to drill in sensitive places like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge like we do now. As a result, back then there were no real alternatives to foreign oil but coal, nuclear, natural gas, and the far out hope that someday some new technologies would come along. What did we actually do? We built some coal and natural gas plants, but abandoned the cleanest and most efficient source of energy: nuclear.
Now the crisis is back on the front pages, after we have spent thirty years sending our dollars to foreigners for their oil. Trillions of dollars. Now we are still sending hundreds of millions of dollars to foreigners every year.
The cost of all of this is not just paying more for gasoline. It also creates a very serious national security problem. A lot of the folks that are holding those dollars are not exactly trusted friends of ours, and do not necessarily have our interests at heart.
This means we MUST address the problem now. We do not have the luxury of putting it off. We also do not have the luxury of picking and choosing our desired domestic energy sources. They must all be put on the table. NOW!
That means we must invest in wind, solar, fuel cell, coal, oil shale, oil sands, geothermal, ANWR oil and gas, outer continental shelf oil and gas, and whatever else someone can dream up that will work. Picking and choosing among those is just silly. We should be doing ALL of it. Let the free markets pick the winners.
There are those that say that production from ANWR or the OCS would be so far off that there is no use doing it. They are wrong. Actually, we would already have 2 million barrels a day on stream from ANWR if Bill Clinton had not vetoed the bill authorizing it some years ago. He said then that it would take too long to do any good. How right was he? That would have driven down oil prices. It will take only two or three years to start getting that oil onstream, more for the OCS.
What are our politicians doing? Wringing their hands and pointing fingers. Both Presidential candidates act like they don't really want to discuss the problem. Others trot out the same old MEOW stuff from the Carter years. When a group of Republican Congressmen tried to force the House to debate energy, the Speaker adjourned the House and had the lights and microphones turned off. The Democratic leadership is afraid to address the issue. That group of Republicans stayed for a while to make a point, but didn't persevere. No guts, no glory.
How bad can it get? Stay tuned. It will get a lot worse. Maybe OPEC will let the price go down some to make it less painful.
That is why I'm still mad, and getting madder.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Musings
Its been six weeks or so since my last entry. I have been busy working and just have not had a desire to write about anything, although there are world's of thing to write about.
The work is one reason, of course. There are so many things that I have to be very careful about. Straight talk about some matters is verboten. The PC police are out there, and I cannot offend anyone except for white male Republicans, rednecks, and the State of Israel. Everyone and everything else seems to be protected and off limits for straight talk. The result is that I have to write on a very straight line. That takes a lot of the fun out of it.
One of the things that I can and have written on is the energy situation. There will be more, but not in this entry. Suffice it to say that the stupidity of our leaders in the Congress never fails to amaze me.
Back when I started this blog, I made up a folder on my computer called "Corruption in Congress" and started saving information about that subject, with the intention of writing a short piece on it. After several months, I just quit. There was so much information about corrupt members that it overwhelmed me. I don't have time to write a book on the subject, but to cover the entire story would take multiple volumes.
The problem, of course, is money. It takes millions of dollars to run for Congress, more millions for the Senate, and hundreds of millions to run for President. While some may come from Joe Sixpack, the real big bucks come from big money folks who have a real interest in policies of the government. Now some of this interest is benign. But much is not.
The more powerful a Congressman or Senator, the more money he gets. Congressmen serving on the Ways and Means Committee get huge donations from those with big interests in tax policy. Does this "buy" influence? You decide. But consider why our tax code is so complex. And why a simplified "flat tax" cannot get any interest up there. If everyone were treated the same, there would be no special interest money for the Congress. That money goes to buy special treatment, and special treatment for many multiples of interests make the tax code very complex.
Make the same analysis for yourselves with each committee and each Congressman or Senator. Also consider the so-called "earmarks" which are basically using your money to buy votes in most instances.
Its a wonder that Congress' approval rating is as high as it is at 14%.
The work is one reason, of course. There are so many things that I have to be very careful about. Straight talk about some matters is verboten. The PC police are out there, and I cannot offend anyone except for white male Republicans, rednecks, and the State of Israel. Everyone and everything else seems to be protected and off limits for straight talk. The result is that I have to write on a very straight line. That takes a lot of the fun out of it.
One of the things that I can and have written on is the energy situation. There will be more, but not in this entry. Suffice it to say that the stupidity of our leaders in the Congress never fails to amaze me.
Back when I started this blog, I made up a folder on my computer called "Corruption in Congress" and started saving information about that subject, with the intention of writing a short piece on it. After several months, I just quit. There was so much information about corrupt members that it overwhelmed me. I don't have time to write a book on the subject, but to cover the entire story would take multiple volumes.
The problem, of course, is money. It takes millions of dollars to run for Congress, more millions for the Senate, and hundreds of millions to run for President. While some may come from Joe Sixpack, the real big bucks come from big money folks who have a real interest in policies of the government. Now some of this interest is benign. But much is not.
The more powerful a Congressman or Senator, the more money he gets. Congressmen serving on the Ways and Means Committee get huge donations from those with big interests in tax policy. Does this "buy" influence? You decide. But consider why our tax code is so complex. And why a simplified "flat tax" cannot get any interest up there. If everyone were treated the same, there would be no special interest money for the Congress. That money goes to buy special treatment, and special treatment for many multiples of interests make the tax code very complex.
Make the same analysis for yourselves with each committee and each Congressman or Senator. Also consider the so-called "earmarks" which are basically using your money to buy votes in most instances.
Its a wonder that Congress' approval rating is as high as it is at 14%.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Dithering through an energy crisis
Barack Obama and John McCain have discussed energy policy the last day or so, and both are about to announce what their policy is, although McCain has already called to end the moratorium on offshore drilling, if the affected states agree. Obama seems to believe that we can tax ourselves to an energy solution. McCain's policy is weak, and Obama's policy is absurd. Neither will be much or any help with our energy problems. Nor has any other "energy policy" that has been pursued by our government been anything more than a hindrance for many decades. This includes the corn into ethanol boondoggle.
Clearly, in the long run, we must find alternatives to fossil fuels. Equally clearly, we must also look for shorter term help for our economy and to reduce the huge amounts of our treasure we are sending overseas to OPEC and others. The huge balance of payments deficit that we have been running for many years endangers us all.
For the short term, there are plenty of domestic reserves that could be developed or are in the process of being developed. With intelligent leadership we could, in a few years, substantially increase domestic production. This would help keep the "oil tax" on our economy far lower than it otherwise would be. We need to start now, not wring our hands about it for another decade or two.
Some of the potential reserves:
The Bakken is a shale formation in the Williston Basin that is similar to the Barnett Shale in the Ft. Worth Basin. The techniques developed in the Barnett play are being adapted to produce the oil in the Bakken, as well as other similar shales all over the country. This will undoubtedly increase domestic production over time, but it is not going to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil any time soon. It will certainly help.
Some other deposits are the western oil shales...again, a similar deposit to the Barnett and the Bakken, but these are mainly on the surface. These deposits do contain upwards of a trillion barrels of oil, and the technology exists to extract it. The difficulty with this is the damage that will be done environmentally. There could be really serious damage done to the western states to strip mine that shale, unless there are restrictions on the way it is done. Studies on this are being held up in the Senate.
Reserves in ANWR, that are now off limits, are approximately 15-20 billion barrels. If Bill Clinton had not vetoed legislation allowing limited drilling up there, we would have over 1 million barrels per day of that producing now, which would significantly reduce the costs of gasoline at this time. This is substantial production that could now be online, and with appropriate environmental protections.
Reserves on the Outer Continental Shelf off Florida and the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts are estimated at 100 billion barrels of oil and 500 trillion cubic feet of gas. These reserves are now off limits as well. These regions can be drilled with current technology with NO environmental risks.
One reserve that is in Canada is rarely mentioned. That is the huge oil sands deposit up there. There are about 1+ trillion barrels of oil in those sands, and they are now being developed. The first new refinery in the US in over 30 years has been approved in North Dakota to refine oil from that deposit. Unfortunately, our Congress, in its infinite stupidity, has classified that as unconventional oil, thereby making it largely unavailable for use in the US.
The United States also has the largest coal reserves in the world. There has existed since before World War II a technology to make gasoline from coal. The Germans used that process to fuel their war machine during the war, since they had no oil reserves. We could be doing that as well. The largest single reserve of "clean" coal in the United States was put "off limits" by Bill Clinton, who put it into a national monument.
The bottom line: mostly unreasonable environmental concerns and the Democratic Party and it's policies have put our potential for true energy security completely out of reach. The Republicans have done little to counter this. We have the reserves and the technology to safely produce a lot of oil or equivalent, but our political leadership has failed to allow this to happen, and in fact prevents it. When you add up the huge costs we are paying for energy, together with the huge costs of the resulting balance of payments deficit, you can see that our leaders in the government have totally failed. And they apparently plan to continue to do so.
Clearly, in the long run, we must find alternatives to fossil fuels. Equally clearly, we must also look for shorter term help for our economy and to reduce the huge amounts of our treasure we are sending overseas to OPEC and others. The huge balance of payments deficit that we have been running for many years endangers us all.
For the short term, there are plenty of domestic reserves that could be developed or are in the process of being developed. With intelligent leadership we could, in a few years, substantially increase domestic production. This would help keep the "oil tax" on our economy far lower than it otherwise would be. We need to start now, not wring our hands about it for another decade or two.
Some of the potential reserves:
The Bakken is a shale formation in the Williston Basin that is similar to the Barnett Shale in the Ft. Worth Basin. The techniques developed in the Barnett play are being adapted to produce the oil in the Bakken, as well as other similar shales all over the country. This will undoubtedly increase domestic production over time, but it is not going to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil any time soon. It will certainly help.
Some other deposits are the western oil shales...again, a similar deposit to the Barnett and the Bakken, but these are mainly on the surface. These deposits do contain upwards of a trillion barrels of oil, and the technology exists to extract it. The difficulty with this is the damage that will be done environmentally. There could be really serious damage done to the western states to strip mine that shale, unless there are restrictions on the way it is done. Studies on this are being held up in the Senate.
Reserves in ANWR, that are now off limits, are approximately 15-20 billion barrels. If Bill Clinton had not vetoed legislation allowing limited drilling up there, we would have over 1 million barrels per day of that producing now, which would significantly reduce the costs of gasoline at this time. This is substantial production that could now be online, and with appropriate environmental protections.
Reserves on the Outer Continental Shelf off Florida and the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts are estimated at 100 billion barrels of oil and 500 trillion cubic feet of gas. These reserves are now off limits as well. These regions can be drilled with current technology with NO environmental risks.
One reserve that is in Canada is rarely mentioned. That is the huge oil sands deposit up there. There are about 1+ trillion barrels of oil in those sands, and they are now being developed. The first new refinery in the US in over 30 years has been approved in North Dakota to refine oil from that deposit. Unfortunately, our Congress, in its infinite stupidity, has classified that as unconventional oil, thereby making it largely unavailable for use in the US.
The United States also has the largest coal reserves in the world. There has existed since before World War II a technology to make gasoline from coal. The Germans used that process to fuel their war machine during the war, since they had no oil reserves. We could be doing that as well. The largest single reserve of "clean" coal in the United States was put "off limits" by Bill Clinton, who put it into a national monument.
The bottom line: mostly unreasonable environmental concerns and the Democratic Party and it's policies have put our potential for true energy security completely out of reach. The Republicans have done little to counter this. We have the reserves and the technology to safely produce a lot of oil or equivalent, but our political leadership has failed to allow this to happen, and in fact prevents it. When you add up the huge costs we are paying for energy, together with the huge costs of the resulting balance of payments deficit, you can see that our leaders in the government have totally failed. And they apparently plan to continue to do so.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Energy Policy in the United States
This past week, after the appearance by President Bush at the Israeli Knesset referred to in the previous post, the President went hat in hand to see the Saudis and beg them to increase oil production in order to reduce gasoline prices in the United States. Of course, the answer was "no."
This is not an unexpected response. The Saudis have us over a barrel (pun intended) and have no reason to reduce the price of crude.
This is a result of the failure of our politicians over the years since World War II to adopt a sensible policy on energy.
In that period, we have had essentially two policies. From the end of the War until about 1972, the policy was to keep gasoline as cheap as possible by encouraging the use of foreign oil, which was then very cheap. The Texas Railroad Commission tried to support the price of oil ( and the domestic oil industry) by reducing production limits in Texas for about 20 years, but, inevitably, production in Texas declined, demand increased, and by 1972 the State could no longer be the "swing producer."
Then the "swing producer" became Saudi Arabia, and since then, our energy policy has essentially been begging the Saudis to keep the oil prices low. This has met with mixed success, depending upon what the Saudis needed from us.
The first policy led inevitably to the conditions that created the need for the second.
Neither of those are real policies. Our country acted as if the party would go on forever, and of course, parties always end. Now the party is over, and we are left to clean up after it. And we have to pay the band. That will not be cheap.
All colors of our political spectrum want to point fingers and blame the others. The fact is that we are all at fault, and pointing fingers now will only delay action. We cannot afford the delay.
Each side is going to have to reconsider positions taken in the past...decisions made without regard to the cost of and effect on energy production. Politicians playing "gotcha" aren't going to accomplish anything. Politicians trying to favor particular constituencies may well fail everyone else. We need to have people in elective office that will put partisan interests aside and make decisions based upon what is good for the country. I don't see any on the horizon.
Our political class has failed us for years, but we have also failed by electing people who make promises not backed by appropriate actions. It is time for a change, but who will act to make the right changes?
All I see now are empty promises.
This is not an unexpected response. The Saudis have us over a barrel (pun intended) and have no reason to reduce the price of crude.
This is a result of the failure of our politicians over the years since World War II to adopt a sensible policy on energy.
In that period, we have had essentially two policies. From the end of the War until about 1972, the policy was to keep gasoline as cheap as possible by encouraging the use of foreign oil, which was then very cheap. The Texas Railroad Commission tried to support the price of oil ( and the domestic oil industry) by reducing production limits in Texas for about 20 years, but, inevitably, production in Texas declined, demand increased, and by 1972 the State could no longer be the "swing producer."
Then the "swing producer" became Saudi Arabia, and since then, our energy policy has essentially been begging the Saudis to keep the oil prices low. This has met with mixed success, depending upon what the Saudis needed from us.
The first policy led inevitably to the conditions that created the need for the second.
Neither of those are real policies. Our country acted as if the party would go on forever, and of course, parties always end. Now the party is over, and we are left to clean up after it. And we have to pay the band. That will not be cheap.
All colors of our political spectrum want to point fingers and blame the others. The fact is that we are all at fault, and pointing fingers now will only delay action. We cannot afford the delay.
Each side is going to have to reconsider positions taken in the past...decisions made without regard to the cost of and effect on energy production. Politicians playing "gotcha" aren't going to accomplish anything. Politicians trying to favor particular constituencies may well fail everyone else. We need to have people in elective office that will put partisan interests aside and make decisions based upon what is good for the country. I don't see any on the horizon.
Our political class has failed us for years, but we have also failed by electing people who make promises not backed by appropriate actions. It is time for a change, but who will act to make the right changes?
All I see now are empty promises.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
You Just Can't Make This Up!
ABC reports the statements of President Bush before the Israeli Knesset:
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," the President said to the country's legislative body, "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
This comes some two weeks or so after former (and worst ever) President Jimmy Carter met with Hamas, Iran's allies, and among Israel's worst enemies. One would think the reference is to Carter, who clearly has sold out to radical Muslim sinterests.
But no! Barack Obama, the candidate of "hope" and "change" thinks President Bush is talking about him! He complains that Bush is making statements abroad that are political. He is very critical of the President's statement.
Soon after, the Speaker from San Francisco steps in to criticize, then Joe Biden, then all the other Looney Tunes on the Democratic left.
Pretty soon, the City Councils of San Francisco and Berkeley will chime in with resolutions.
The President never mentioned anyone by name. Why would Obama think a criticism of appeasement would apply to him? Is that what he plans to do?
When I was a kid, we had a saying: "The guilty dog always barks first."
Karl Rove must have tricked him into this admission. Or maybe Obama and the Democrats are just real dumb.
Like the title says, "You just can't make this up!"
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," the President said to the country's legislative body, "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
This comes some two weeks or so after former (and worst ever) President Jimmy Carter met with Hamas, Iran's allies, and among Israel's worst enemies. One would think the reference is to Carter, who clearly has sold out to radical Muslim sinterests.
But no! Barack Obama, the candidate of "hope" and "change" thinks President Bush is talking about him! He complains that Bush is making statements abroad that are political. He is very critical of the President's statement.
Soon after, the Speaker from San Francisco steps in to criticize, then Joe Biden, then all the other Looney Tunes on the Democratic left.
Pretty soon, the City Councils of San Francisco and Berkeley will chime in with resolutions.
The President never mentioned anyone by name. Why would Obama think a criticism of appeasement would apply to him? Is that what he plans to do?
When I was a kid, we had a saying: "The guilty dog always barks first."
Karl Rove must have tricked him into this admission. Or maybe Obama and the Democrats are just real dumb.
Like the title says, "You just can't make this up!"
The End of "Hyper-partisanship?"
John McCain gave a speech today in Columbus, Ohio. The press will report it as a statement that we will be out of Iraq by the end of his first term. His did say that, but there were other far more important things he said.
It appears that both Obama and McCain are campaigning about change. Mr. Obama's lofty phrases have no details. Today, Mr. McCain provided details of what he hopes to accomplish. As he neared the conclusion of his speech, he said:
"...For too long, now, Washington has been consumed by a hyper-partisanship that treats every serious challenge facing us as an opportunity to trade insults; disparage each other’s motives; and fight about the next election. For all the problems we face, if you ask Americans what frustrates them most about Washington, they will tell you they don’t think we’re capable of serving the public interest before our personal and partisan ambitions; that we fight for ourselves and not for them. Americans are sick of it, and they have every right to be. They are sick of the politics of selfishness, stalemate and delay. They despair when every election — no matter who wins — always seems to produce four more years of unkept promises and a government that is just a battleground for the next election. Their patience is at an end for politicians who value ambition over principle, and for partisanship that is less a contest of ideas than an uncivil brawl over the spoils of power. They want to change not only the policies and institutions that have failed the American people, but the political culture that produced them. They want to move this country forward and stake our claim on this century as we did in the last. And they want their government to care more about them than preserving the privileges of the powerful......"
This gives one a good idea of what he wants to change. Perhap we will see if he can. It will take both sides to accomplish it. Read the whole speech here.
It appears that both Obama and McCain are campaigning about change. Mr. Obama's lofty phrases have no details. Today, Mr. McCain provided details of what he hopes to accomplish. As he neared the conclusion of his speech, he said:
"...For too long, now, Washington has been consumed by a hyper-partisanship that treats every serious challenge facing us as an opportunity to trade insults; disparage each other’s motives; and fight about the next election. For all the problems we face, if you ask Americans what frustrates them most about Washington, they will tell you they don’t think we’re capable of serving the public interest before our personal and partisan ambitions; that we fight for ourselves and not for them. Americans are sick of it, and they have every right to be. They are sick of the politics of selfishness, stalemate and delay. They despair when every election — no matter who wins — always seems to produce four more years of unkept promises and a government that is just a battleground for the next election. Their patience is at an end for politicians who value ambition over principle, and for partisanship that is less a contest of ideas than an uncivil brawl over the spoils of power. They want to change not only the policies and institutions that have failed the American people, but the political culture that produced them. They want to move this country forward and stake our claim on this century as we did in the last. And they want their government to care more about them than preserving the privileges of the powerful......"
This gives one a good idea of what he wants to change. Perhap we will see if he can. It will take both sides to accomplish it. Read the whole speech here.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Oil: Part II
Yesterday, while browsing among the Internet news sources, I came upon a story about Senator Stabenow (D) and the Democratic proposals for a new energy policy. Saying the policies of the Republicans have created a crisis, she (and they) propose that the following policies be implemented:
"...— Ending billions of dollars in tax breaks for big oil companies.
"— Forcing the oil companies to do their part by investing some of their profits in clean and affordable alternative energy.
"— Protecting the American people from price gougers and greedy oil traders who manipulate the market.
"— Temporarily stopping the diversion of oil to the national Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is already 97 percent full.
"— Standing up to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and other oil-producing nations that are working together to keep oil prices high....."
While I catch my breath, let me get into a personal disclosure. My first real job as a teenager was in the oil fields. After law school, I spent over 20 years associated with the oil and gas industry, as a lawyer and as an independent operator. I have direct experience in all aspects of the business but refining and marketing. Most of that time, I was an active Democrat. I know a little about the subject of oil and gas.
Having caught my breath, let me ask one question: How many barrels of oil, mcf of natural gas, or kilowatts of electricity will any or all of the Democrats' energy plan bring to the market?
Take your time.
It's not really difficult.
OK. Time's up.
The answer: none, zero, nada, zip....ad infinitum.
In fact, the proposals would, at least in the longer run, reduce the supplies.
Even the liberal New York Times understands the realities better than the Democrats. In an article today, they point out:
"...No industrialized economy is as reliant on oil, or as obsessed with gasoline prices, as the United States, the world’s biggest consumer of oil. But the oil market is largely immune to Washington’s machinations, and prices have more than quadrupled over the last six years for reasons that are increasingly disconnected from what happens in the United States.
"The reality is that oil is a globally traded commodity, and Americans must pay international prices to get their share. And those prices reflect the fact that global supplies are stretched and struggling to meet a booming demand that is being driven by growth in developing countries, notably China and India. This has left the world with a very slim cushion of extra production....."
The Democrats are caught demagoguing, again. They just want to detract attention away from the real reasons the United States is running short of energy, and therefore paying high prices for it.
Let us look at some things that should be done, many of these decades ago.
Oil is a scant commodity in some ways. It is hard and very expensive to find and get to market. So for energy, we need to develop some alternatives, and have needed to for decades
First and foremost is nuclear energy. This is a forty plus year old technology that has been used safely in every country in the world, except once in the Former Soviet Union, for over three decades. The US builds new nuclear reactors all the time for naval vessels. But we have not built a new one to supply electricty in the US for 30 years. This at a time when the French have been using nukes for most of their electrical generation.
Another question" Why?"
Because the Luddites of the Democratic left erected too many barriers to their construction.
There are other alternatives: coal is one. The US has huge reserves of coal, but, of course, coal doesn't have a good emissions profile. Some kinds do have much better than other, but the world class deposit of clean burning coal that we have was locked up forever by Bill Clinton as he was stealing away from the White House. The remaining will require much more expensive technology to clean up.
Wind is currently being subsidized (even at the current high price of oil it is not economical as an alternative). Out in West Texas we have thousands of large wind generators, but Ted Kennedy can't have them at Hyannisport.
Strides are being made all the time to develop solar energy, but we are far away from having the efficiency and storage capacity for that to be of much hope.
There are some other alternatives...oil from coal and from the western oil shale deposits, but those are far from being economical, and the environmental costs might be too high, anyway.
And there is always the hope of fusion energy...maybe for our grandchildren. Or not.
Most of the above, if we started now, would not make a short term impact, but will take years to implement. Why not start now? Ask your local Congressman, or your US Senators.
In the meantime, what can we do to increase supply?
First, we can permit limited drilling in the ANWR. In 1998, Congress passed a bill allowing that, but it was vetoed by Bill Clinton. If that bill had been permitted to become law, we might be very close to having an extra two or so million barrels of oil per day coming onstream. Senator Stabenow won't mention that, of course.
Second, we can permit drilling off Florida, the Pacific Coast, and the Atlantic Coast. Those areas are off limits now, even to preliminary exploration. But we can estimate that there are tens of billions of barrels of oil and hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of natural gas to be found in those areas. No one in the states affected want to risk oil development offshore even though there has not been an offshore oil spill from a drilling or production platform since the one at Santa Barbara, California in 1969, the spill that started this. Technology has marched on, but the Luddites are still among us.
A third thing we can do is repeal the provision in the new energy bill just passed by Congress that makes the Canadian Oil Sands deposits "non-conventional oil", which makes it virtually unusable in the US because of various restrictions.
Many of you have not heard much about the oil sands, but Canada has a deposit with reserves larger than those of Saudi Arabia up there, and it is now being developed. Pipelines were being studied to bring huge amount of the oil down to the US. Now the Congress, in it's infinite wisdom, has put a halt to it. The Canadians don't care. The Chinese are already trying to buy it up. With our money, to boot.
So where do we go from here? The Democrats appear to only want to pin it on the Republicans for the lack of an energy policy, without offering up anything that would really help. The Republicans have proven to be almost as bad as the Democrats, and apparently none from either side cares about it except how it might affect the next election. Meanwhile, we are suffering the high gas prices with little to show for it.
There is more...a lot more. But this is getting too long again, so I will close.
Before I do close, though, I want to make an apology. In the last blog post about oil, I compared Democratic Senators to morons. I am deeply sorry for being so offensive to the morons of the world. I was just trying to sugar coat it a little bit. They are, of course, worse than morons.
"...— Ending billions of dollars in tax breaks for big oil companies.
"— Forcing the oil companies to do their part by investing some of their profits in clean and affordable alternative energy.
"— Protecting the American people from price gougers and greedy oil traders who manipulate the market.
"— Temporarily stopping the diversion of oil to the national Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is already 97 percent full.
"— Standing up to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and other oil-producing nations that are working together to keep oil prices high....."
While I catch my breath, let me get into a personal disclosure. My first real job as a teenager was in the oil fields. After law school, I spent over 20 years associated with the oil and gas industry, as a lawyer and as an independent operator. I have direct experience in all aspects of the business but refining and marketing. Most of that time, I was an active Democrat. I know a little about the subject of oil and gas.
Having caught my breath, let me ask one question: How many barrels of oil, mcf of natural gas, or kilowatts of electricity will any or all of the Democrats' energy plan bring to the market?
Take your time.
It's not really difficult.
OK. Time's up.
The answer: none, zero, nada, zip....ad infinitum.
In fact, the proposals would, at least in the longer run, reduce the supplies.
Even the liberal New York Times understands the realities better than the Democrats. In an article today, they point out:
"...No industrialized economy is as reliant on oil, or as obsessed with gasoline prices, as the United States, the world’s biggest consumer of oil. But the oil market is largely immune to Washington’s machinations, and prices have more than quadrupled over the last six years for reasons that are increasingly disconnected from what happens in the United States.
"The reality is that oil is a globally traded commodity, and Americans must pay international prices to get their share. And those prices reflect the fact that global supplies are stretched and struggling to meet a booming demand that is being driven by growth in developing countries, notably China and India. This has left the world with a very slim cushion of extra production....."
The Democrats are caught demagoguing, again. They just want to detract attention away from the real reasons the United States is running short of energy, and therefore paying high prices for it.
Let us look at some things that should be done, many of these decades ago.
Oil is a scant commodity in some ways. It is hard and very expensive to find and get to market. So for energy, we need to develop some alternatives, and have needed to for decades
First and foremost is nuclear energy. This is a forty plus year old technology that has been used safely in every country in the world, except once in the Former Soviet Union, for over three decades. The US builds new nuclear reactors all the time for naval vessels. But we have not built a new one to supply electricty in the US for 30 years. This at a time when the French have been using nukes for most of their electrical generation.
Another question" Why?"
Because the Luddites of the Democratic left erected too many barriers to their construction.
There are other alternatives: coal is one. The US has huge reserves of coal, but, of course, coal doesn't have a good emissions profile. Some kinds do have much better than other, but the world class deposit of clean burning coal that we have was locked up forever by Bill Clinton as he was stealing away from the White House. The remaining will require much more expensive technology to clean up.
Wind is currently being subsidized (even at the current high price of oil it is not economical as an alternative). Out in West Texas we have thousands of large wind generators, but Ted Kennedy can't have them at Hyannisport.
Strides are being made all the time to develop solar energy, but we are far away from having the efficiency and storage capacity for that to be of much hope.
There are some other alternatives...oil from coal and from the western oil shale deposits, but those are far from being economical, and the environmental costs might be too high, anyway.
And there is always the hope of fusion energy...maybe for our grandchildren. Or not.
Most of the above, if we started now, would not make a short term impact, but will take years to implement. Why not start now? Ask your local Congressman, or your US Senators.
In the meantime, what can we do to increase supply?
First, we can permit limited drilling in the ANWR. In 1998, Congress passed a bill allowing that, but it was vetoed by Bill Clinton. If that bill had been permitted to become law, we might be very close to having an extra two or so million barrels of oil per day coming onstream. Senator Stabenow won't mention that, of course.
Second, we can permit drilling off Florida, the Pacific Coast, and the Atlantic Coast. Those areas are off limits now, even to preliminary exploration. But we can estimate that there are tens of billions of barrels of oil and hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of natural gas to be found in those areas. No one in the states affected want to risk oil development offshore even though there has not been an offshore oil spill from a drilling or production platform since the one at Santa Barbara, California in 1969, the spill that started this. Technology has marched on, but the Luddites are still among us.
A third thing we can do is repeal the provision in the new energy bill just passed by Congress that makes the Canadian Oil Sands deposits "non-conventional oil", which makes it virtually unusable in the US because of various restrictions.
Many of you have not heard much about the oil sands, but Canada has a deposit with reserves larger than those of Saudi Arabia up there, and it is now being developed. Pipelines were being studied to bring huge amount of the oil down to the US. Now the Congress, in it's infinite wisdom, has put a halt to it. The Canadians don't care. The Chinese are already trying to buy it up. With our money, to boot.
So where do we go from here? The Democrats appear to only want to pin it on the Republicans for the lack of an energy policy, without offering up anything that would really help. The Republicans have proven to be almost as bad as the Democrats, and apparently none from either side cares about it except how it might affect the next election. Meanwhile, we are suffering the high gas prices with little to show for it.
There is more...a lot more. But this is getting too long again, so I will close.
Before I do close, though, I want to make an apology. In the last blog post about oil, I compared Democratic Senators to morons. I am deeply sorry for being so offensive to the morons of the world. I was just trying to sugar coat it a little bit. They are, of course, worse than morons.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Oil
The subject of oil is on everyone's mind as the prices of crude oil and gasoline seem to make new highs every day. As we all know, oil ( and other hydrocarbons) is what makes our economic engines run in the US, along with coal, a little nuclear, and wind power (which is moving up).
Oil has always been controversial. It has always been a political football. Everyone wants it, but nobody wants to pay for it.
From WW II until the early 1970s, oil was very cheap, and we and much of the rest of the developed world became hooked on it. For all of those years, there was a large surplus of supply, so much so that for most of those years, the State of Texas acted as a cushion, as it were. It limited production when the then low price was threatened by oversupply, and it increased production when supplies were reduced, such as when the Suez Canal was bombed in the 1950s.
As a result, the price of crude oil at the wellhead remained between $2 and $3 per barrel in the decades before 1973.
About that time, the productive capacity in Texas and the US reached the point where imports became necessary. Suddenly, the producers of last resort became the OPEC countries. The ability of US producers to have any effect on the price of crude disappeared, and OPEC, and particularly Saudi Arabia, began to limit production to force a higher price. They continue to do that, although there is much evidence that oil production in the world is near a peak.
During the last two decades, the Third World, and particularly China, has rapidly developed. Along with that development has come an insatiable thirst for oil. The huge increases of demand from those countries has begun to overwhelm the supply. Now there is no cushion of supply.
Simple high school economics should tell us that in these circumstances the price is going to go up until such point that the price begins to reduce demand. This is far too elementary for some to grasp, unfortunately.
With that very brief overview, let us go to today's New York Times. They have several items on the subject.
The first one I came upon is : Gas Prices Expected to Peak in June. I guess a peak is good, but would be expected. They note that demand in the US is headed down:
"...In its monthly report, the Energy Department projected that domestic petroleum consumption would decline by about 190,000 barrels a day this year, a result of the economic slowdown and high prices. That is a sharper drop than the 90,000-barrel-a-day decline projected by the department last month.
After accounting for increased ethanol use, domestic consumption will fall by 330,000 barrels a day, or less than 1 percent of total gasoline demand. While limited, it would be the first annual decline in gasoline demand since 1991....."
So, supply and demand concepts are at work, but watch out. China's demand is rapidly increasing:
"....Despite these higher costs, global oil demand is still projected to rise by 1.2 million barrels a day this year, mostly because of growing consumption in China, the Middle East, Russia, Brazil and India.
"China alone will account for a third of the jump in consumption. In March, Chinese imports rose by 800,000 barrels a day, compared with levels a year earlier, a big increase that could mean China is filling its oil reserve needs before the start of the Olympic Games this summer....."
The real kicker is that supply is also falling:
"...Members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries pumped an average of 32.1 million barrels a day last month, down 320,000 barrels from March, according to the survey of oil companies, producers and analysts. ...."
The conclusion is not good news:
"...Analysts’ forecasts for the price of gasoline over the next few years run as high as $7 a gallon."
Nowhere is there a mention that the oil companies are responsible for the price increase (and they are not).
The next article is entitled : Stocks Decline as Oil Prices Head Higher . This makes sense. The nearly one trillion dollars we are sending overseas for oil is like a huge tax, and is going to severely effect the economy. That is an easy one.
Last, but not least, is the one entitled: Senate Democrats Unveil New Energy Tax Plan . It seems that the Democrats of the United States Senate have determined that the solution to the high cost of oil is to tax the Hell out of the oil companies. Look at the article and see what they want to do:
"Democrats in the U.S. Senate on Wednesday unveiled a new energy package that would revoke $17 billion in tax breaks extended to big oil companies like Exxon Mobil Corp and slap a 25 percent windfall profits tax on firms that don't invest in new energy sources....."
This, of course, will drive prices higher, and will not serve to increase the supply. It is a completely political proposal by those morons, intended to cast the blame on Bush and the Republicans for the current high prices, even after these same morons have opposed every proposal in the last thirty years to increase US production.
This blog is too long, and I will close, but will return to the issue soon. Until then, we all must realize that we must do something constructive about energy in this country, and leave the petty and idiotic political posturing behind us.
Oil has always been controversial. It has always been a political football. Everyone wants it, but nobody wants to pay for it.
From WW II until the early 1970s, oil was very cheap, and we and much of the rest of the developed world became hooked on it. For all of those years, there was a large surplus of supply, so much so that for most of those years, the State of Texas acted as a cushion, as it were. It limited production when the then low price was threatened by oversupply, and it increased production when supplies were reduced, such as when the Suez Canal was bombed in the 1950s.
As a result, the price of crude oil at the wellhead remained between $2 and $3 per barrel in the decades before 1973.
About that time, the productive capacity in Texas and the US reached the point where imports became necessary. Suddenly, the producers of last resort became the OPEC countries. The ability of US producers to have any effect on the price of crude disappeared, and OPEC, and particularly Saudi Arabia, began to limit production to force a higher price. They continue to do that, although there is much evidence that oil production in the world is near a peak.
During the last two decades, the Third World, and particularly China, has rapidly developed. Along with that development has come an insatiable thirst for oil. The huge increases of demand from those countries has begun to overwhelm the supply. Now there is no cushion of supply.
Simple high school economics should tell us that in these circumstances the price is going to go up until such point that the price begins to reduce demand. This is far too elementary for some to grasp, unfortunately.
With that very brief overview, let us go to today's New York Times. They have several items on the subject.
The first one I came upon is : Gas Prices Expected to Peak in June. I guess a peak is good, but would be expected. They note that demand in the US is headed down:
"...In its monthly report, the Energy Department projected that domestic petroleum consumption would decline by about 190,000 barrels a day this year, a result of the economic slowdown and high prices. That is a sharper drop than the 90,000-barrel-a-day decline projected by the department last month.
After accounting for increased ethanol use, domestic consumption will fall by 330,000 barrels a day, or less than 1 percent of total gasoline demand. While limited, it would be the first annual decline in gasoline demand since 1991....."
So, supply and demand concepts are at work, but watch out. China's demand is rapidly increasing:
"....Despite these higher costs, global oil demand is still projected to rise by 1.2 million barrels a day this year, mostly because of growing consumption in China, the Middle East, Russia, Brazil and India.
"China alone will account for a third of the jump in consumption. In March, Chinese imports rose by 800,000 barrels a day, compared with levels a year earlier, a big increase that could mean China is filling its oil reserve needs before the start of the Olympic Games this summer....."
The real kicker is that supply is also falling:
"...Members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries pumped an average of 32.1 million barrels a day last month, down 320,000 barrels from March, according to the survey of oil companies, producers and analysts. ...."
The conclusion is not good news:
"...Analysts’ forecasts for the price of gasoline over the next few years run as high as $7 a gallon."
Nowhere is there a mention that the oil companies are responsible for the price increase (and they are not).
The next article is entitled : Stocks Decline as Oil Prices Head Higher . This makes sense. The nearly one trillion dollars we are sending overseas for oil is like a huge tax, and is going to severely effect the economy. That is an easy one.
Last, but not least, is the one entitled: Senate Democrats Unveil New Energy Tax Plan . It seems that the Democrats of the United States Senate have determined that the solution to the high cost of oil is to tax the Hell out of the oil companies. Look at the article and see what they want to do:
"Democrats in the U.S. Senate on Wednesday unveiled a new energy package that would revoke $17 billion in tax breaks extended to big oil companies like Exxon Mobil Corp and slap a 25 percent windfall profits tax on firms that don't invest in new energy sources....."
This, of course, will drive prices higher, and will not serve to increase the supply. It is a completely political proposal by those morons, intended to cast the blame on Bush and the Republicans for the current high prices, even after these same morons have opposed every proposal in the last thirty years to increase US production.
This blog is too long, and I will close, but will return to the issue soon. Until then, we all must realize that we must do something constructive about energy in this country, and leave the petty and idiotic political posturing behind us.
The Primary Season is over
Well, the primary season is just about over, and Obama is clearly going to be the nominee of the Democratic Party. Hillary may continue the fight, but I see no "Rocky" outcome here. The Democrats just cannot afford to nominate anyone but Obama.
Meanwhile, John McCain has rocked along for weeks as the certain Republican nominee. I am not sure that, in itself, is worth much. For the last several years, the Republican Party has been circling down the drain, and the Democrats clearly have the upper hand. The last two elections for vacant Congressional seats shows the disrepute that the party has sunk into.
McCain will have a hard fight to undo any of this, made easier only by the inexperience and leftish lean of Obama.
David Brooks, of the New York Times, who is rapidly becoming one of my favorites, blogs about the dilemma:
"...Obama has a much more liberal profile than he did several weeks ago. Moderate, independent voters are now less sure that Obama shares their values. Hillary Clinton voters are much, much more hostile toward him. His supporters look more and more like the McGovern-Dukakis constituency, and the walls between that constituency and the rest of the country are higher than they were weeks ago....."; and:
"...Republicans are going to take a look at Obama’s liberal profile and they’re going to be tempted to run a traditional right versus left campaign. They know how to beat Dukakis-McGovern candidates.
That would be a big mistake. Traditional Republicans can beat liberal Democrats when the Republican brand is in healthy shape. That is not the case now......"
His conclusion:
"...In 2004, only about 10 percent of the electorate was really undecided. Now about 36 percent is undecided. That’s a lot of votes to play for.
It’s now nearly certain Obama and McCain will be the ones to play for them. But both nominees are wounded. Both will have to change. "
Makes good sense to me. Maybe we will see some change this year. Will it be for the better?
UPDATE at 4:03 PM CDT:
The USA Today blog has a column up by Don Campbell that outlines some of the problems that Obama now has. Its a good story, and you can find it here.
Campbell discusses at some length Obama's lack of experience and the failure of the press to "vet" him earlier in the campaign. His conclusion:
"...Speculation aside, Obama has been ill-served by a press corps that seemingly was mesmerized by the large, frenzied crowds who turn out to see the Democratic rock star. Crowds can be deceiving: McGovern, nobody's idea of a rock star, attracted huge and exuberant crowds throughout the fall of 1972 — on his way to losing 49 states to Richard Nixon.
Better that Obama forget the crowds and concern himself with the several million older, moderate Democrats and independents whom he'll need in a close general election. They won't just listen to what he says, they'll try to peer into his soul. That's why the Wright story is important in assessing his candidacy.
More than two years ago, at a Gridiron Club news media dinner in Washington, Obama poked fun at his meager accomplishments when he told his audience: "I want to thank you for all the generous advance coverage you've given me in anticipation of a successful career. When I actually do something, we'll let you know."
But the joke was on the journalists then, and now that Obama is about to actually do something, it still is."
Amen.
Meanwhile, John McCain has rocked along for weeks as the certain Republican nominee. I am not sure that, in itself, is worth much. For the last several years, the Republican Party has been circling down the drain, and the Democrats clearly have the upper hand. The last two elections for vacant Congressional seats shows the disrepute that the party has sunk into.
McCain will have a hard fight to undo any of this, made easier only by the inexperience and leftish lean of Obama.
David Brooks, of the New York Times, who is rapidly becoming one of my favorites, blogs about the dilemma:
"...Obama has a much more liberal profile than he did several weeks ago. Moderate, independent voters are now less sure that Obama shares their values. Hillary Clinton voters are much, much more hostile toward him. His supporters look more and more like the McGovern-Dukakis constituency, and the walls between that constituency and the rest of the country are higher than they were weeks ago....."; and:
"...Republicans are going to take a look at Obama’s liberal profile and they’re going to be tempted to run a traditional right versus left campaign. They know how to beat Dukakis-McGovern candidates.
That would be a big mistake. Traditional Republicans can beat liberal Democrats when the Republican brand is in healthy shape. That is not the case now......"
His conclusion:
"...In 2004, only about 10 percent of the electorate was really undecided. Now about 36 percent is undecided. That’s a lot of votes to play for.
It’s now nearly certain Obama and McCain will be the ones to play for them. But both nominees are wounded. Both will have to change. "
Makes good sense to me. Maybe we will see some change this year. Will it be for the better?
UPDATE at 4:03 PM CDT:
The USA Today blog has a column up by Don Campbell that outlines some of the problems that Obama now has. Its a good story, and you can find it here.
Campbell discusses at some length Obama's lack of experience and the failure of the press to "vet" him earlier in the campaign. His conclusion:
"...Speculation aside, Obama has been ill-served by a press corps that seemingly was mesmerized by the large, frenzied crowds who turn out to see the Democratic rock star. Crowds can be deceiving: McGovern, nobody's idea of a rock star, attracted huge and exuberant crowds throughout the fall of 1972 — on his way to losing 49 states to Richard Nixon.
Better that Obama forget the crowds and concern himself with the several million older, moderate Democrats and independents whom he'll need in a close general election. They won't just listen to what he says, they'll try to peer into his soul. That's why the Wright story is important in assessing his candidacy.
More than two years ago, at a Gridiron Club news media dinner in Washington, Obama poked fun at his meager accomplishments when he told his audience: "I want to thank you for all the generous advance coverage you've given me in anticipation of a successful career. When I actually do something, we'll let you know."
But the joke was on the journalists then, and now that Obama is about to actually do something, it still is."
Amen.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
This and that
Hillary and the Times
While perusing the New York Times today (yes, I go there) I note with great interest that the two most emailed pieces in today's paper were editorials that were pretty unfavorable to Hillary. Maureen Dowd asks "Hillary or Nobody?" and hints that Hillary will wreck the other Democrat's chances.
David Brooks weighs in with "The Long Defeat" meaning Hillary is just going to drag things out unnecessarily, thereby hurting the Democrats' chances in November.
I suspect that she probably will drag it out, and that it will hurt Obama's chances in November. But not as much as the Reverend Wright will.
This is going to get more interesting as time moves along.
Iraq
Also in the Times is an article on Iraq. Apparently the Iraqi government is undertaking to look out for itself more strongly. They are attacking Shiite militias in Basra (where the Brits pulled out) and have given them an ultimatum to lay down their arms or face the consequences. These are the militias controlled by Moktada al-Sadr, who has long been a thorn in everybody's side, and who I thought the US should have taken out years ago. No American forces are involved on the ground except as advisors. Air cover is being provided. But this is an Iraqi operation. Good for them. The sooner they can handle their defense, the better.
Nancy Reagan
Mrs. Reagan publicly endorsed John McCain this week. That reporting was noticeably absent in the New York Times. Guess it wasn't news. And the Times' shareholders wonder why the newspaper is losing circulation and ad revenue.
Clicking on Links
Better be careful what you click while surfing. It seems the FBI, having nothing else to do, I suppose, is putting up links that purport in some way to be links to porn. If you just click on the link, get ready for a raid on your house. Read the whole post by Eric at Classical Values blog. (via Instapundit) In my day (long ago) we called that sort of thing fishing expeditions. Sigh. Well, you shouldn't be clicking on porn sites, anyway.
More Hillary Stuff
I now see on Real Clear Politics that our old Texas Democrat Bob Beckel is joining Dowd and Brooks and urging Hillary to cool it and take the Veep slot. Seems nobody thinks Hillary can win. What should she do? Please, Hillary, don't spoil the fun!
There is also a piece referenced by Dick Morris, the old Clinton hand, who must really hate Hillary. Its called "Hillary's List Of Lies" and therein he proceeds to name some of them. This must be shoot Hillary day in the media. He does have an unkind thing to say about Obama as well:
"...Obama has looked weak handling the Rev. Wright controversy. His labored explanation of why he attacks the sin but loves the sinner comes across as elegant but, at the same time, feeble. Obama's reluctance to trade punches with his opponents makes us wonder if he could trade them with bin Laden or Ahmadinejad...."
And then compliments McCain:
"...We have no doubt that McCain would gladly come to blows and would represent us well, but about Obama we are not so sure."
Will There Always Be an England?
Don't be too sure. Political correctness and worship of "diversity" is doing them in. Read the excellent article by Tony Blankley of the Washington Times. His conclusion:
"...England, in her tolerance, has admitted into her midst -- and given succor -- those who loathe her. But more loathsome yet are the natural born Englishmen -- most in high places -- who have forgotten the simple truth of another World War II song:
"There'll always be an England,
And England shall be free,
If England means as much to you
As England means to me.""
Hillary, the Gift That Keeps on Giving
Now its the AP on her case over the "exaggerations" about her trip to Bosnia some years ago. Ron Fournier says:
"Why wasn't the truth good enough for Hillary Rodham Clinton?
That's a question worth considering as the former first lady tries to contain damage to her credibility after getting caught exaggerating the danger of her 1996 trip to Bosnia......"
Maybe Dick Morris is on to something.
More later.
While perusing the New York Times today (yes, I go there) I note with great interest that the two most emailed pieces in today's paper were editorials that were pretty unfavorable to Hillary. Maureen Dowd asks "Hillary or Nobody?" and hints that Hillary will wreck the other Democrat's chances.
David Brooks weighs in with "The Long Defeat" meaning Hillary is just going to drag things out unnecessarily, thereby hurting the Democrats' chances in November.
I suspect that she probably will drag it out, and that it will hurt Obama's chances in November. But not as much as the Reverend Wright will.
This is going to get more interesting as time moves along.
Iraq
Also in the Times is an article on Iraq. Apparently the Iraqi government is undertaking to look out for itself more strongly. They are attacking Shiite militias in Basra (where the Brits pulled out) and have given them an ultimatum to lay down their arms or face the consequences. These are the militias controlled by Moktada al-Sadr, who has long been a thorn in everybody's side, and who I thought the US should have taken out years ago. No American forces are involved on the ground except as advisors. Air cover is being provided. But this is an Iraqi operation. Good for them. The sooner they can handle their defense, the better.
Nancy Reagan
Mrs. Reagan publicly endorsed John McCain this week. That reporting was noticeably absent in the New York Times. Guess it wasn't news. And the Times' shareholders wonder why the newspaper is losing circulation and ad revenue.
Clicking on Links
Better be careful what you click while surfing. It seems the FBI, having nothing else to do, I suppose, is putting up links that purport in some way to be links to porn. If you just click on the link, get ready for a raid on your house. Read the whole post by Eric at Classical Values blog. (via Instapundit) In my day (long ago) we called that sort of thing fishing expeditions. Sigh. Well, you shouldn't be clicking on porn sites, anyway.
More Hillary Stuff
I now see on Real Clear Politics that our old Texas Democrat Bob Beckel is joining Dowd and Brooks and urging Hillary to cool it and take the Veep slot. Seems nobody thinks Hillary can win. What should she do? Please, Hillary, don't spoil the fun!
There is also a piece referenced by Dick Morris, the old Clinton hand, who must really hate Hillary. Its called "Hillary's List Of Lies" and therein he proceeds to name some of them. This must be shoot Hillary day in the media. He does have an unkind thing to say about Obama as well:
"...Obama has looked weak handling the Rev. Wright controversy. His labored explanation of why he attacks the sin but loves the sinner comes across as elegant but, at the same time, feeble. Obama's reluctance to trade punches with his opponents makes us wonder if he could trade them with bin Laden or Ahmadinejad...."
And then compliments McCain:
"...We have no doubt that McCain would gladly come to blows and would represent us well, but about Obama we are not so sure."
Will There Always Be an England?
Don't be too sure. Political correctness and worship of "diversity" is doing them in. Read the excellent article by Tony Blankley of the Washington Times. His conclusion:
"...England, in her tolerance, has admitted into her midst -- and given succor -- those who loathe her. But more loathsome yet are the natural born Englishmen -- most in high places -- who have forgotten the simple truth of another World War II song:
"There'll always be an England,
And England shall be free,
If England means as much to you
As England means to me.""
Hillary, the Gift That Keeps on Giving
Now its the AP on her case over the "exaggerations" about her trip to Bosnia some years ago. Ron Fournier says:
"Why wasn't the truth good enough for Hillary Rodham Clinton?
That's a question worth considering as the former first lady tries to contain damage to her credibility after getting caught exaggerating the danger of her 1996 trip to Bosnia......"
Maybe Dick Morris is on to something.
More later.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Barack, Alinsky and Rev. Wright
A few days ago my Sis emailed me reminding me that Barack Obama was something of a follower of Saul Alinsky's teaching.( You will recall, also, that Hillary Rodham wrote her Master's thesis about Alinsky as well.) A light went off, and it occurred to me why Obama picked Reverend Wright's church when he came to Chicago to organize after his graduation from Columbia.
Alinsky, you may recall, was a radical organizer during the Depression and afterward. He was broadly associated with Marxists and Communists in organizing communities around the country and particularly in Chicago. He was active in organizing the old CIO. He denies that he was ever a Communist, but admitted freely to working with them. He was probably the most effective radical organizer in the US through the 1960s, and a devout leftist.
There is an old interview with Alinsky that was in Playboy magazine done a few months before he died, and what he said is informative on this issue:
"ALINSKY: Well, the first thing I did, the first thing I always do, is to move into the community as an observer, to talk with people and listen and learn their grievances and their attitudes. Then I look around at what I've got to work with, what levers I can use to pry closed doors open, what institutions or organizations already exist that can be useful. In the case of Back of the Yards, the area was 95 percent Roman Catholic, and I recognized that if I could win the support of the Church, we'd be off and running. Conversely, without the Church, or at least some elements of it, it was unlikely that we'd be able to make much of a dent in the community....."( Read the whole thing, it is very interesting)
This Back of the Yards community was in Chicago. What Alinsky describes here is the same situation that faced Obama when he first arrived in Chicago as a community organizer, and one could speculate that Obam's approach was the same as Alinsky's.
Obama found a very large black church with a very popular pastor in the community, became a part of it, and legitimized himself within the community he was organizing. The pastor, Reverend Wright, took him in, helped and encouraged him. Perhaps the fact that the pastor and the church followed the black liberation theology that was described by James Cone, a black liberation theologian had little to do with his choice.
A church becomes one's family. Obama was apparently very comfortable there and developed a strong personal relationship with Wright, as anyone would with one's own pastor. If there was such a relationship, it would be a very difficult one to break. Having heard some of Mrs. Obama's statements, it occurs to me that she might be much more in tune with the theology than he is. Again, that would be pure speculation.
So, what is black liberation theology? Simplistically, it is a Christian theology that worships Christ and blames many of the world's problems on white racists. According to a Wake Forest University website:
"..Liberation theology as it has expressed itself in the African-American community seeks to find a way to make the gospel relevant to black people who must struggle daily under the burden of white oppression. The question that confronts these black theologians is not one that is easily answered. "What if anything does the Christian gospel have to say to powerless black men," to use James Cone's words, whose existence is "threatened on a daily basis by the insidious tentacles of white power?" If the gospel has nothing to say to people as they confront the daily realities of life, it is a lifeless message. If Christianity is not real for blacks, then they will reject it.
"There are many reasons why Christianity has not been real for blacks. To begin with, white Christianity emphasizes individualism, and divides the world into separate realms of the sacred and secular, public and private. Such a view of the world is alien to African-American spirituality. The Christianity that was communicated to blacks had as its primary focus life in world to come. This was at odds with traditional African spirituality which was focused on life in the present world. And if that were not enough, Christianity is hopelessly associated with slavery and segregation in the minds of many African-Americans....."
There is, of course, much more to it. There are other sites here, and here. In relation to Obama's church and the Reverend Wright, Margaret Talev of McClatchy Newspapers says:
"...Wright has said that a basis for Trinity's philosophies is the work of James Cone, who founded the modern black liberation theology movement out of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Particularly influential was Cone's seminal 1969 book, "Black Theology & Black Power."
"Cone wrote that the United States was a white racist nation and the white church was the Antichrist for having supported slavery and segregation....."
There is more, much more. The few cites I have made aren't the whole story. The real question is what does this type of thinking contribute to either the church or to African-American members of the church?
One of the ministeries of Trinity United Church of Christ is HIV/Aids outreach as mentioned by Obama in his speech. Mark Steyn points out:
"...But maybe he wouldn't have to quite so much "reaching out" to do and maybe there wouldn't be quite so many black Americans "suffering from HIV/AIDS" if the likes of Wright weren't peddling lunatic conspiracy theories to his own community....."
So, what does this all tell us about Obama? He said in his Philadelphia speech:
"...I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed...."
So he disagrees with all that Jeremiah Wright says that might reflect upon his chances at election. He continues to expose his children to the hate and just plain lies that is a part of the church philosophy. And he wants everyone to feel guilty that a church and theology like that are necessary because of white racism, particularly in the past.
Perhaps Mark Steyn's conclusion says it best:
"...Free societies live in truth, not in the fever swamps of Jeremiah Wright. The pastor is a fraud, a crock, a mountebank – for, if this truly were a country whose government invented a virus to kill black people, why would they leave him walking around to expose the truth? It is Barack Obama's choice to entrust his daughters to the spiritual care of such a man for their entire lives, but in Philadelphia the senator attempted to universalize his peculiar judgment – to claim that, given America's history, it would be unreasonable to expect black men of Jeremiah Wright's generation not to peddle hateful and damaging lunacies. Isn't that – what's the word? – racist?..."
Read all the citations, and then:
You decide.
UPDATE:
Some new sites I recommend are here and here. Both are good, much more in depth, discussions of the issue.
Alinsky, you may recall, was a radical organizer during the Depression and afterward. He was broadly associated with Marxists and Communists in organizing communities around the country and particularly in Chicago. He was active in organizing the old CIO. He denies that he was ever a Communist, but admitted freely to working with them. He was probably the most effective radical organizer in the US through the 1960s, and a devout leftist.
There is an old interview with Alinsky that was in Playboy magazine done a few months before he died, and what he said is informative on this issue:
"ALINSKY: Well, the first thing I did, the first thing I always do, is to move into the community as an observer, to talk with people and listen and learn their grievances and their attitudes. Then I look around at what I've got to work with, what levers I can use to pry closed doors open, what institutions or organizations already exist that can be useful. In the case of Back of the Yards, the area was 95 percent Roman Catholic, and I recognized that if I could win the support of the Church, we'd be off and running. Conversely, without the Church, or at least some elements of it, it was unlikely that we'd be able to make much of a dent in the community....."( Read the whole thing, it is very interesting)
This Back of the Yards community was in Chicago. What Alinsky describes here is the same situation that faced Obama when he first arrived in Chicago as a community organizer, and one could speculate that Obam's approach was the same as Alinsky's.
Obama found a very large black church with a very popular pastor in the community, became a part of it, and legitimized himself within the community he was organizing. The pastor, Reverend Wright, took him in, helped and encouraged him. Perhaps the fact that the pastor and the church followed the black liberation theology that was described by James Cone, a black liberation theologian had little to do with his choice.
A church becomes one's family. Obama was apparently very comfortable there and developed a strong personal relationship with Wright, as anyone would with one's own pastor. If there was such a relationship, it would be a very difficult one to break. Having heard some of Mrs. Obama's statements, it occurs to me that she might be much more in tune with the theology than he is. Again, that would be pure speculation.
So, what is black liberation theology? Simplistically, it is a Christian theology that worships Christ and blames many of the world's problems on white racists. According to a Wake Forest University website:
"..Liberation theology as it has expressed itself in the African-American community seeks to find a way to make the gospel relevant to black people who must struggle daily under the burden of white oppression. The question that confronts these black theologians is not one that is easily answered. "What if anything does the Christian gospel have to say to powerless black men," to use James Cone's words, whose existence is "threatened on a daily basis by the insidious tentacles of white power?" If the gospel has nothing to say to people as they confront the daily realities of life, it is a lifeless message. If Christianity is not real for blacks, then they will reject it.
"There are many reasons why Christianity has not been real for blacks. To begin with, white Christianity emphasizes individualism, and divides the world into separate realms of the sacred and secular, public and private. Such a view of the world is alien to African-American spirituality. The Christianity that was communicated to blacks had as its primary focus life in world to come. This was at odds with traditional African spirituality which was focused on life in the present world. And if that were not enough, Christianity is hopelessly associated with slavery and segregation in the minds of many African-Americans....."
There is, of course, much more to it. There are other sites here, and here. In relation to Obama's church and the Reverend Wright, Margaret Talev of McClatchy Newspapers says:
"...Wright has said that a basis for Trinity's philosophies is the work of James Cone, who founded the modern black liberation theology movement out of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Particularly influential was Cone's seminal 1969 book, "Black Theology & Black Power."
"Cone wrote that the United States was a white racist nation and the white church was the Antichrist for having supported slavery and segregation....."
There is more, much more. The few cites I have made aren't the whole story. The real question is what does this type of thinking contribute to either the church or to African-American members of the church?
One of the ministeries of Trinity United Church of Christ is HIV/Aids outreach as mentioned by Obama in his speech. Mark Steyn points out:
"...But maybe he wouldn't have to quite so much "reaching out" to do and maybe there wouldn't be quite so many black Americans "suffering from HIV/AIDS" if the likes of Wright weren't peddling lunatic conspiracy theories to his own community....."
So, what does this all tell us about Obama? He said in his Philadelphia speech:
"...I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed...."
So he disagrees with all that Jeremiah Wright says that might reflect upon his chances at election. He continues to expose his children to the hate and just plain lies that is a part of the church philosophy. And he wants everyone to feel guilty that a church and theology like that are necessary because of white racism, particularly in the past.
Perhaps Mark Steyn's conclusion says it best:
"...Free societies live in truth, not in the fever swamps of Jeremiah Wright. The pastor is a fraud, a crock, a mountebank – for, if this truly were a country whose government invented a virus to kill black people, why would they leave him walking around to expose the truth? It is Barack Obama's choice to entrust his daughters to the spiritual care of such a man for their entire lives, but in Philadelphia the senator attempted to universalize his peculiar judgment – to claim that, given America's history, it would be unreasonable to expect black men of Jeremiah Wright's generation not to peddle hateful and damaging lunacies. Isn't that – what's the word? – racist?..."
Read all the citations, and then:
You decide.
UPDATE:
Some new sites I recommend are here and here. Both are good, much more in depth, discussions of the issue.
Monday, March 17, 2008
More Barack Obama
Since the last post, recordings of Barack Obama's pastor have emerged. Both excerpts are shocking, of course, particularly the "G-- D--- America" quote.
The quotes were apparently first reported this year by ABC News, and then spread to FOX and through the blogosphere. There has not been much about it in much of the mainstream media other than ABC, with only some mild references to the subject.
One of the recordings is here. The second one, and the worst, has been pulled down by YouTube for some reason.
What effect will this have on Obama's chances? It's hard to tell. On the one hand, we have religious freedom in this country, and most of us are going to look at the character and track record of a candidate to make decisions about him or her.
In this case, however, we have little track record to ponder. Mr. Obama's record is pretty bare. Even when he had the chance to vote on important matters, he chose to vote present, instead. We are, therefore, left to guess what he really stands for, or rely on what he says.
I have learned over the years that a politician's words must be parsed pretty carefully. Politicians will say many things to get one's vote, then "forget" about it when elected. A voter must really look to actions.
Obama has attended this church for 17 years. One must find that from his actions, he supports the black liberation theology espoused by the church and his pastor, even if he denounces the particular statements in the recordings.
Is that a reason to not vote for him? Can he represent all Americans?
One curious thing I have found is that the New York Times knew about this a year ago. In an article then, they said:
"...On the Sunday after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Mr. Wright said the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later he wrote that the attacks had proved that “people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West went on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns.”..."
"...Such statements involve “a certain deeply embedded anti-Americanism,” said Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative group that studies religious issues and public policy. “A lot of people are going to say to Mr. Obama, are these your views?”
Mr. Obama says they are not.
“The violence of 9/11 was inexcusable and without justification,” he said in a recent interview. He was not at Trinity the day Mr. Wright delivered his remarks shortly after the attacks, Mr. Obama said, but “it sounds like he was trying to be provocative.”
“Reverend Wright is a child of the 60s, and he often expresses himself in that language of concern with institutional racism and the struggles the African-American community has gone through,” Mr. Obama said. “He analyzes public events in the context of race. I tend to look at them through the context of social justice and inequality.”.."
And then:
"...Mr. Wright, who has long prided himself on criticizing the establishment, said he knew that he may not play well in Mr. Obama’s audition for the ultimate establishment job.
“If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.” ( via Perfunction and Instapundit )
Go to Perfunction and read the post there. Obama used tapes of Wright's sermons to practice his oratory, it seems.
Powerline also has a great piece on this subject. I recommend it.
The political year continues to get more and more interesting as it goes along. What next?
UPDATE:
Another article that everyone interested should read is one by Ben Wallace-Wells in Rolling Stone on February 22, 2007. Originally entitled "The Radical Roots of Barack Obama" it is now titled "Destiny's Child." (Wonder why they changed the title?)
UPDATE 2:
Mark Steyn has a brief statement that is on topic here.
STILL MORE: The gift that keeps on giving. Obama's church now accuses the media of "crucifixion." See here.
This is beginning to get out of hand, folks. It appears to me that any point to be made by all of this has already been made. Time to move on.
The quotes were apparently first reported this year by ABC News, and then spread to FOX and through the blogosphere. There has not been much about it in much of the mainstream media other than ABC, with only some mild references to the subject.
One of the recordings is here. The second one, and the worst, has been pulled down by YouTube for some reason.
What effect will this have on Obama's chances? It's hard to tell. On the one hand, we have religious freedom in this country, and most of us are going to look at the character and track record of a candidate to make decisions about him or her.
In this case, however, we have little track record to ponder. Mr. Obama's record is pretty bare. Even when he had the chance to vote on important matters, he chose to vote present, instead. We are, therefore, left to guess what he really stands for, or rely on what he says.
I have learned over the years that a politician's words must be parsed pretty carefully. Politicians will say many things to get one's vote, then "forget" about it when elected. A voter must really look to actions.
Obama has attended this church for 17 years. One must find that from his actions, he supports the black liberation theology espoused by the church and his pastor, even if he denounces the particular statements in the recordings.
Is that a reason to not vote for him? Can he represent all Americans?
One curious thing I have found is that the New York Times knew about this a year ago. In an article then, they said:
"...On the Sunday after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Mr. Wright said the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later he wrote that the attacks had proved that “people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West went on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns.”..."
"...Such statements involve “a certain deeply embedded anti-Americanism,” said Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative group that studies religious issues and public policy. “A lot of people are going to say to Mr. Obama, are these your views?”
Mr. Obama says they are not.
“The violence of 9/11 was inexcusable and without justification,” he said in a recent interview. He was not at Trinity the day Mr. Wright delivered his remarks shortly after the attacks, Mr. Obama said, but “it sounds like he was trying to be provocative.”
“Reverend Wright is a child of the 60s, and he often expresses himself in that language of concern with institutional racism and the struggles the African-American community has gone through,” Mr. Obama said. “He analyzes public events in the context of race. I tend to look at them through the context of social justice and inequality.”.."
And then:
"...Mr. Wright, who has long prided himself on criticizing the establishment, said he knew that he may not play well in Mr. Obama’s audition for the ultimate establishment job.
“If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.” ( via Perfunction and Instapundit )
Go to Perfunction and read the post there. Obama used tapes of Wright's sermons to practice his oratory, it seems.
Powerline also has a great piece on this subject. I recommend it.
The political year continues to get more and more interesting as it goes along. What next?
UPDATE:
Another article that everyone interested should read is one by Ben Wallace-Wells in Rolling Stone on February 22, 2007. Originally entitled "The Radical Roots of Barack Obama" it is now titled "Destiny's Child." (Wonder why they changed the title?)
UPDATE 2:
Mark Steyn has a brief statement that is on topic here.
STILL MORE: The gift that keeps on giving. Obama's church now accuses the media of "crucifixion." See here.
This is beginning to get out of hand, folks. It appears to me that any point to be made by all of this has already been made. Time to move on.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Who is Barack Obama? an Update
As the Democratic race for the nomination heads toward a climax of sorts, I thought I would revisit the question that I asked in a previous post. I have written and rewritten a short bio of Obama the last several days, and just cannot make myself happy with it, so I will abandon the same, and provide some good links to materials I have found so that a reader can go to far better written and researched articles.
Obama's current home town newspaper provides the best and most detailed investigation, although it is not as in depth as it could be. The Chicago Tribune series can be found here. I encourage everyone to go there and read to your heart's desire.
Other materials can be found here, and here, and here. Obviously, this is not an exhaustive list.
Having spent numerous hours poring over stories about Obama, I have come to some conclusions about him that I will list below. Naturally, if new evidence comes out, my conclusions are subject to change.
1. Obama is a superbly intelligent man with a great deal of talent for politics. His wife, Michelle, is also very intelligent, but not so politically gifted. Both are leftist Ivy League "social activists." The campaign that the Obamas have run has been one of the best I have ever seen in my 50 years of politics. At least until now.
2. Obama is not a messiah or a harbinger of change, but a very bright and ambitious politician who rapidly worked himself up within the Chicago Democratic machine. His connections to Tony Rezko, now on trial for political corruption, will need much deeper investigation. Rezko has been described as a "fund raiser" by the press in connection with Obama, but my opinion is that Rezko is nothing more than what we used to call a "bag man" for the Cook County organization. The house deal, as well as other dealings, bear much more scrutiny than has been apparent to date. I am sure we will hear more about that later, if our press does an honest job.
3. The Obama campaign is like a box, all dressed up like a Christmas present with all of the glitter and pretty ribbons one would like. On the box, there appears to be something for everyone...peace, harmony, hope, change, bi-partisanship...everything all the polls say that most American voters desire in a candidate.
4. The box is empty. If one looks at his record, there is nothing to suggest that he will be able, or even try, to accomplish all of that. He has never said what he would do that would make any of this happen. As Walter Mondale would say: "Where's the beef?"
5. What he really offers is the sad old left wing platitudes and programs. See his booklet, The Blueprint for Change, in PDF form here. Some of it sounds good, but.........promises made by politicians are seldom kept, and most of them cannot be.
6. The likelihood that Obama will be our next President is better than 50% right now.
Read it and weep, or celebrate, depending upon your preference.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Update on New York Times Story
The Times, after all the backlash from their virtually unsourced story, now has an editorial up explaining what they meant to say (bold emphasis mine):
“If the point of the story was to allege that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, we’d have owed readers more compelling evidence than the conviction of senior staff members,” he replied. “But that was not the point of the story. The point of the story was that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career.”
So says Bill Keller, Editor of the Times. Mr. Keller, if that was the intent, why didn't the article just say so? Instead, as Clark Hoyte, the Public Editor of the Times says:
"I think that ignores the scarlet elephant in the room. A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide."
In spite of what Keller says, the piece was designed as a "hit" piece to harm McCain, without any real evidence. As Mr. Hoyte concludes:
"But what the aides believed might not have been the real truth. And if you cannot provide readers with some independent evidence, I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed."
My view is that Mr. Hoyte does not go far enough. They knew the evidence was not there, and they didn't care. They wanted to embarrass McCain, and ended up embarrassing themselves far more.
“If the point of the story was to allege that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, we’d have owed readers more compelling evidence than the conviction of senior staff members,” he replied. “But that was not the point of the story. The point of the story was that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career.”
So says Bill Keller, Editor of the Times. Mr. Keller, if that was the intent, why didn't the article just say so? Instead, as Clark Hoyte, the Public Editor of the Times says:
"I think that ignores the scarlet elephant in the room. A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide."
In spite of what Keller says, the piece was designed as a "hit" piece to harm McCain, without any real evidence. As Mr. Hoyte concludes:
"But what the aides believed might not have been the real truth. And if you cannot provide readers with some independent evidence, I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed."
My view is that Mr. Hoyte does not go far enough. They knew the evidence was not there, and they didn't care. They wanted to embarrass McCain, and ended up embarrassing themselves far more.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
The New York Times Shows It's Spots (Again)
Yesterday afternoon before I went to watch basketball, I noted that the NYT was putting up a smear of John McCain on their Internet site. After reading it, I just blew it off as more typical left wing ranting by a paper that has long lost it's credibility, and watched the game.
Today, after some thought about it, it occurred to me that there are still people out there that believe what the Times prints, so I am just going to write a brief response. First, of course, one must read the article. It is posted Here.
Upon reading the article, please note that the latest event that they are reporting occurred more than eight (8) years ago. It was brought up during the South Carolina Primary in 2000. So it's not news.
Next note that there are no sources quoted or identified. Did they make it up? It would not be the first time a major news organization did that (see Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, CBS News, and others, ad nauseum).
All the persons mentioned denied the allegations made. So where is the evidence? The real "news" here is that the Times ran with a story they could not substantiate with any evidence.
One of the things the article discussed was the Keating 5 scandal. McCain, of course, was exonerated by the Senate Ethics Committee. Why bring that old story up now? The only answer to that is they are trying to discredit McCain.
None other than Bob Bennett, the big time Democratic lawyer in Washington had this to say regarding the Keating 5 investigation:
".... If your listeners want to know about the Keating Five case, I have a whole chapter on it. And what happened was that I had recommended that John McCain be cut out of it and not go forward. And, you know, I call it the way I see it. As I said, I'm a Democrat. And I recommended they go forward against Senators DeConcini, Senator Cranston and Senator Riegle.
"But if you cut out John McCain, you would have had 28 days of public hearings with just Democrats in the dock. So, it's probably the first time in the history of the Senate that they rejected the advice of their counsel to exonerate a senator."( Read the whole thing HERE)
So the truth is, the real story was really about corrupt Democrats, and the Democratic majority kept McCain in it, over the advice of their counsel, just so they could have a Republican to beat up on during the hearings. Funny that didn't make the Times....but not surprising.
So what about the Times? They are losing advertisers, readers, and profits. Apparently they have decided going even further left will help them, or perhaps they want to adopt the business plan of the National Enquirer. At the least, they have become the propaganda mouthpiece of the far left in this country.
My view is that the paper is probably not even fit to use for lining a cat litter box.
Today, after some thought about it, it occurred to me that there are still people out there that believe what the Times prints, so I am just going to write a brief response. First, of course, one must read the article. It is posted Here.
Upon reading the article, please note that the latest event that they are reporting occurred more than eight (8) years ago. It was brought up during the South Carolina Primary in 2000. So it's not news.
Next note that there are no sources quoted or identified. Did they make it up? It would not be the first time a major news organization did that (see Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, CBS News, and others, ad nauseum).
All the persons mentioned denied the allegations made. So where is the evidence? The real "news" here is that the Times ran with a story they could not substantiate with any evidence.
One of the things the article discussed was the Keating 5 scandal. McCain, of course, was exonerated by the Senate Ethics Committee. Why bring that old story up now? The only answer to that is they are trying to discredit McCain.
None other than Bob Bennett, the big time Democratic lawyer in Washington had this to say regarding the Keating 5 investigation:
".... If your listeners want to know about the Keating Five case, I have a whole chapter on it. And what happened was that I had recommended that John McCain be cut out of it and not go forward. And, you know, I call it the way I see it. As I said, I'm a Democrat. And I recommended they go forward against Senators DeConcini, Senator Cranston and Senator Riegle.
"But if you cut out John McCain, you would have had 28 days of public hearings with just Democrats in the dock. So, it's probably the first time in the history of the Senate that they rejected the advice of their counsel to exonerate a senator."( Read the whole thing HERE)
So the truth is, the real story was really about corrupt Democrats, and the Democratic majority kept McCain in it, over the advice of their counsel, just so they could have a Republican to beat up on during the hearings. Funny that didn't make the Times....but not surprising.
So what about the Times? They are losing advertisers, readers, and profits. Apparently they have decided going even further left will help them, or perhaps they want to adopt the business plan of the National Enquirer. At the least, they have become the propaganda mouthpiece of the far left in this country.
My view is that the paper is probably not even fit to use for lining a cat litter box.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Turn out the lights?
Is it time to sing the old Willie song for Hillary? Hard to say for sure, but it's getting close to closing time. Maybe she is hoping that it's true that "all the girls get prettier at closing time."
Seriously, she is near the end of the primaries without having knocked out that upstart from Illinois, and will have to decide whether to have a convention fight. My view is that that is a lose-lose proposition, but it is probably her only chance.
Her campaign has gone much the same way as Rudy and Fred's. It appears she thought Obama would be easy to knock out, and she did not gear up for the long haul. Now she is short of money, short of delegates, and short of much hope.
Will she win Texas and Ohio and then Pennsylvania? The Wisconsin results don't seem to give her a lot of hope in Ohio, and my thought is that Obama is rising rapidly in Texas. If I were to bet, it would be on Obama here.
It is apparent that the Clintons never expected Obama to do so well, and that he would surely be out of it by now. Surprise, surprise. Now the Clintons don't have much of a plan for Texas, and their prospects are declining rapidly.
Just last week they had Bill in Texas, and he spent a day out in West Texas, where there are very few Democratic votes. He ended up that day in Austin, but his time would have been much better spent in Dallas, Houston, San Antonio or the Valley. It was a waste out here.
That is just an example of how mistakes have dogged the Clinton campaign. I suspect we will see more. The whole campaign has lacked the professionalism one would have expected from Bill and Hillary.
Now, it is almost certain to come down to a floor fight at the National Convention. No candidate will have the votes to win before then. There is going to be a lot of horse trading between now and convention time.
This is going to be fun to watch.
Seriously, she is near the end of the primaries without having knocked out that upstart from Illinois, and will have to decide whether to have a convention fight. My view is that that is a lose-lose proposition, but it is probably her only chance.
Her campaign has gone much the same way as Rudy and Fred's. It appears she thought Obama would be easy to knock out, and she did not gear up for the long haul. Now she is short of money, short of delegates, and short of much hope.
Will she win Texas and Ohio and then Pennsylvania? The Wisconsin results don't seem to give her a lot of hope in Ohio, and my thought is that Obama is rising rapidly in Texas. If I were to bet, it would be on Obama here.
It is apparent that the Clintons never expected Obama to do so well, and that he would surely be out of it by now. Surprise, surprise. Now the Clintons don't have much of a plan for Texas, and their prospects are declining rapidly.
Just last week they had Bill in Texas, and he spent a day out in West Texas, where there are very few Democratic votes. He ended up that day in Austin, but his time would have been much better spent in Dallas, Houston, San Antonio or the Valley. It was a waste out here.
That is just an example of how mistakes have dogged the Clinton campaign. I suspect we will see more. The whole campaign has lacked the professionalism one would have expected from Bill and Hillary.
Now, it is almost certain to come down to a floor fight at the National Convention. No candidate will have the votes to win before then. There is going to be a lot of horse trading between now and convention time.
This is going to be fun to watch.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Who is Barack Obama?
After the basketball games were done, and the vote counting as well, last Saturday night I was channel surfing prior to bedtime, and came across the speech Barack Obama made that night in Richmond, Virginia. I stopped to watch, and was amazed at the performance. This guy is a formidable candidate. A tidbit follows:
"....But in this election - at this moment - Americans are standing up all across the country to say, not this time. Not this year. The stakes are too high and the challenges too great to play the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expect a different result. And today, voters from the West Coast to the Gulf Coast to the heart of America stood up to say that it is time to turn the page. We won Louisiana, and Nebraska, and the state of Washington, and I believe that we can win in Virginia on Tuesday if you're ready to stand for change....."
More:
"...But I am running for President because I believe that to actually make change happen - to make this time different than all the rest - we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, Independents, and Republicans together to get things done. That's how we'll win this election, and that's how we'll change this country when I am President of the United States....."
Read the whole thing here.
For the last several years I have been hearing both partisan Democrats and partisan Republicans expressing the same thoughts, although each side probably has a little different idea of what that means. Obama has discovered a theme that is reacting powerfully throughout the country. His delivery and enthusiasm makes him a very formidable candidate in spite of his lack of experience.
After some thought, I decided to try to find out just who this Barack Obama is. One can check his bio at numerous places and they all have about the same info. From Congresspedia:
"Obama was born August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii. Obama studied for two years at Occidental College, before transferring to Columbia University. There he majored in political science, with a specialization in international relations. Upon graduation, he worked for a year at newsletter publisher Business International (now part of The Economist Group), and moved to Chicago, where he was a community organizer in the Altgeld Gardens housing project on the city's South Side. It was during his time spent here that Obama joined the Trinity United Church of Christ. [26]
He left Chicago to study law at Harvard University, where he was elected the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. He graduated magna cum laude. After law school, he returned to Chicago and organized an aggressive voter registration effort that registered over 100,000 voters and aided in the election of President Bill Clinton and Senator Carol Moseley Braun, the first African-American woman ever elected to the U.S. Senate. Soon after, he joined a local civil rights law firm, and he became a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago..........."
He ran for the Illinois Senate in 1996 and won. In 2000 he ran against an incumbent Congressman and was defeated 61% to 30%. In 2004, he was elected to the United States Senate from Illinois. Now, in 2008, he is running for President of the United States.
You can check his personal story here, and here, and, of course, on his campaign site.
Is there a downside? Well, yes. In looking for the downside, one first would go to Hillary's campaign. There one will hear about the association of Obama with one Antoin "Tony" Rezko who is currently under Federal indictment in a corruption case. The case is described here, while Obama's connection is described here. It seems Mr. Rezko "helped" the Obamas buy a $1.6 million house right after he was elected to the Senate. That's a pretty expensive house for someone with the job history he has disclosed. The dealings came to the public eye when Rezko was required to disclose it at his bond hearing. There is no direct evidence of anything illegal, but the potential is there.
In my short search, I have not found anything else, but I suspect that if there is anything, the Clintons will be all too happy to inform us.
Where does his money come from? This is a surprise, I guess. From Opensecrets.org:
"Goldman Sachs
$421,763
UBS AG
$296,670
Lehman Brothers
$250,630
National Amusements Inc
$245,843
JP Morgan Chase & Co
$240,788
Sidley Austin LLP
$226,491
Citigroup Inc
$221,578
Exelon Corp
$220,267
Skadden, Arps Et Al
$196,420
Jones Day
$181,996
Citadel Investment Group
$171,798
Harvard University
$164,978
Time Warner
$155,383
Morgan Stanley
$155,196
Google Inc
$150,329
University of California
$140,429
Jenner & Block
$136,565
Kirkland & Ellis
$134,738
Wilmerhale Llp
$119,245
Credit Suisse Group
$118,250"
If you want to check out the other candidates, go here. This is a great site for political campaign finance.
As you can see, there is nothing revolutionary about Obama's big donors. Many of them donate to Hillary and to McCain as well.
The real downside to Obama just seems to be his far left record. He talks about hope and bipartisanship, and about all the great things he is going to do, but the devil is in the details, and he has not been free at all with details. What he does seem to be doing is trying to be all things to all people, speaking in very high sounding terms, but not going into any depth on the subject. Will he fill in the details? Somebody needs to challenge him on this. If Hillary doesn't, then he may well defeat her. He is good enough to win this thing if he can get by with the platitudes without having to go into specifics.
It is going to be an interesting election year.
"....But in this election - at this moment - Americans are standing up all across the country to say, not this time. Not this year. The stakes are too high and the challenges too great to play the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expect a different result. And today, voters from the West Coast to the Gulf Coast to the heart of America stood up to say that it is time to turn the page. We won Louisiana, and Nebraska, and the state of Washington, and I believe that we can win in Virginia on Tuesday if you're ready to stand for change....."
More:
"...But I am running for President because I believe that to actually make change happen - to make this time different than all the rest - we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, Independents, and Republicans together to get things done. That's how we'll win this election, and that's how we'll change this country when I am President of the United States....."
Read the whole thing here.
For the last several years I have been hearing both partisan Democrats and partisan Republicans expressing the same thoughts, although each side probably has a little different idea of what that means. Obama has discovered a theme that is reacting powerfully throughout the country. His delivery and enthusiasm makes him a very formidable candidate in spite of his lack of experience.
After some thought, I decided to try to find out just who this Barack Obama is. One can check his bio at numerous places and they all have about the same info. From Congresspedia:
"Obama was born August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii. Obama studied for two years at Occidental College, before transferring to Columbia University. There he majored in political science, with a specialization in international relations. Upon graduation, he worked for a year at newsletter publisher Business International (now part of The Economist Group), and moved to Chicago, where he was a community organizer in the Altgeld Gardens housing project on the city's South Side. It was during his time spent here that Obama joined the Trinity United Church of Christ. [26]
He left Chicago to study law at Harvard University, where he was elected the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. He graduated magna cum laude. After law school, he returned to Chicago and organized an aggressive voter registration effort that registered over 100,000 voters and aided in the election of President Bill Clinton and Senator Carol Moseley Braun, the first African-American woman ever elected to the U.S. Senate. Soon after, he joined a local civil rights law firm, and he became a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago..........."
He ran for the Illinois Senate in 1996 and won. In 2000 he ran against an incumbent Congressman and was defeated 61% to 30%. In 2004, he was elected to the United States Senate from Illinois. Now, in 2008, he is running for President of the United States.
You can check his personal story here, and here, and, of course, on his campaign site.
Is there a downside? Well, yes. In looking for the downside, one first would go to Hillary's campaign. There one will hear about the association of Obama with one Antoin "Tony" Rezko who is currently under Federal indictment in a corruption case. The case is described here, while Obama's connection is described here. It seems Mr. Rezko "helped" the Obamas buy a $1.6 million house right after he was elected to the Senate. That's a pretty expensive house for someone with the job history he has disclosed. The dealings came to the public eye when Rezko was required to disclose it at his bond hearing. There is no direct evidence of anything illegal, but the potential is there.
In my short search, I have not found anything else, but I suspect that if there is anything, the Clintons will be all too happy to inform us.
Where does his money come from? This is a surprise, I guess. From Opensecrets.org:
"Goldman Sachs
$421,763
UBS AG
$296,670
Lehman Brothers
$250,630
National Amusements Inc
$245,843
JP Morgan Chase & Co
$240,788
Sidley Austin LLP
$226,491
Citigroup Inc
$221,578
Exelon Corp
$220,267
Skadden, Arps Et Al
$196,420
Jones Day
$181,996
Citadel Investment Group
$171,798
Harvard University
$164,978
Time Warner
$155,383
Morgan Stanley
$155,196
Google Inc
$150,329
University of California
$140,429
Jenner & Block
$136,565
Kirkland & Ellis
$134,738
Wilmerhale Llp
$119,245
Credit Suisse Group
$118,250"
If you want to check out the other candidates, go here. This is a great site for political campaign finance.
As you can see, there is nothing revolutionary about Obama's big donors. Many of them donate to Hillary and to McCain as well.
The real downside to Obama just seems to be his far left record. He talks about hope and bipartisanship, and about all the great things he is going to do, but the devil is in the details, and he has not been free at all with details. What he does seem to be doing is trying to be all things to all people, speaking in very high sounding terms, but not going into any depth on the subject. Will he fill in the details? Somebody needs to challenge him on this. If Hillary doesn't, then he may well defeat her. He is good enough to win this thing if he can get by with the platitudes without having to go into specifics.
It is going to be an interesting election year.
Friday, February 8, 2008
The contest for the Democratic nomination
What an election year! There have been many surprises, and I suspect there will be many more. In my 50 years of active politics, I have not seen anything quite like it.
The election that this one seems to resemble the most is that of 1960. Of course it is not the same, but there are a few comparisons that are interesting.
On the Democratic side we have a contest between an old time political hardball player (Hillary Clinton playing a similar role to LBJ) and a more youthful new generation guy who espouses change (Barack Obama playing JFK). Then we had contestants that were a generation apart, and the same is true now. Hillary was born in the Baby Boomer 40s, and Obama in the X Generation 60s.
Another similarity is that the campaign for the nomination will probably go down to the wire, and end up being contested in the convention.
I can remember following that 1960 Democratic Convention, rooting for Lyndon Johnson, knowing all the time how difficult it would be for him to win it. It was a great convention, chaired by Sam Rayburn, LBJ's good friend. But all of Johnson's power in the party came to naught as the Democrats sought a fresh face and nominated Kennedy. (Of course, the Kennedys proved themselves very capable of engaging in power politics as well.)
The electorate back then was split in much the same manner as now, and JFK won the general election in as close a race as that in 2000. Nixon did not file a lawsuit challenging the vote count in Chicago, saving the country the spectacle we saw in 2000.
McCain cannot really be compared to the Nixon of 1960, although both served in the House and Senate. Nixon got the nomination because he was the Vice President.
The primary campaigns are nothing like those in 1960. Of course, back then primaries were not that important. The fight was over convention delegates picked in "smoke filled rooms" more than in primaries.
The Democratic campaigns are going to be very interesting to watch. I have always felt that Hillary would win, but have been surprised at what Obama has accomplished. His fund raising has been phenomenal, beating everyone pretty badly. Now that Hillary is having to self finance her campaign, one must wonder how long she can keep it up. Obama has some wins coming. Will Hillary have enough to compete in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania? Good question.
My view is that Hillary will win Texas when the day comes, but Obama has good shots in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Look for a convention contest.
The election that this one seems to resemble the most is that of 1960. Of course it is not the same, but there are a few comparisons that are interesting.
On the Democratic side we have a contest between an old time political hardball player (Hillary Clinton playing a similar role to LBJ) and a more youthful new generation guy who espouses change (Barack Obama playing JFK). Then we had contestants that were a generation apart, and the same is true now. Hillary was born in the Baby Boomer 40s, and Obama in the X Generation 60s.
Another similarity is that the campaign for the nomination will probably go down to the wire, and end up being contested in the convention.
I can remember following that 1960 Democratic Convention, rooting for Lyndon Johnson, knowing all the time how difficult it would be for him to win it. It was a great convention, chaired by Sam Rayburn, LBJ's good friend. But all of Johnson's power in the party came to naught as the Democrats sought a fresh face and nominated Kennedy. (Of course, the Kennedys proved themselves very capable of engaging in power politics as well.)
The electorate back then was split in much the same manner as now, and JFK won the general election in as close a race as that in 2000. Nixon did not file a lawsuit challenging the vote count in Chicago, saving the country the spectacle we saw in 2000.
McCain cannot really be compared to the Nixon of 1960, although both served in the House and Senate. Nixon got the nomination because he was the Vice President.
The primary campaigns are nothing like those in 1960. Of course, back then primaries were not that important. The fight was over convention delegates picked in "smoke filled rooms" more than in primaries.
The Democratic campaigns are going to be very interesting to watch. I have always felt that Hillary would win, but have been surprised at what Obama has accomplished. His fund raising has been phenomenal, beating everyone pretty badly. Now that Hillary is having to self finance her campaign, one must wonder how long she can keep it up. Obama has some wins coming. Will Hillary have enough to compete in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania? Good question.
My view is that Hillary will win Texas when the day comes, but Obama has good shots in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Look for a convention contest.
Absence
After a hiatus of one month, The South Plainsman is back. It seems that Blogger and my security software somehow didn't get along. To get on Blogger, you have to let them put a tracking cookie on your computer. A regular cookie is not enough. My software has always been set to block trackers because I did not think it was anyone's business to know where I go on the Internet. A couple of weeks ago something happened to prevent me from signing on to Blogger, so I guess they just changed the kind of cookie they use. At any rate, I had to turn off the tracking cookie blocker in order to blog again. Or even to comment on other Blogger blogs. More later.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Hillary Down? NOT!!
The day after New Hampshire sees Hillary not down, but a winner, if only barely. What a surprise to all the pundits that were speculating she might be on her way out. There is not a chance of that. The closeness will almost certainly put the Clinton machine is in a full court press mode, however. Will they really take the gloves off? It will be interesting. This could be a long, drawn out process for the Democrats.
McCain's comeback is kind of refreshing. After the disaster with the immigration bill this summer, McCain hit rock bottom, losing suport and out of money. That he could come back as well as he has is a real compliment to him. Beating Romney in his neighborhood also put a brake on Romney's campaign. If McCain beats Romney in Michigan, Romney will really be in a struggle.
Huck came in third and remains viable heading into states where he should be stronger. He is so weak on policy, it must be the religious folks that are keeping him in it. I have said it before, but he seems like Bill Clinton without the sleaze. We know what happened to Bill.
Giulani, of course, has not yet begun to fight. How he will fare is a real question. Thompson is barely hanging on. A good showing in S. Carolina is imperative for him.
The big losers in New Hampshire: the Pollsters. They totally and badly missed on the Hillary/Obama race. The polling situation might be very interesting to follow throughout the campaign. Maybe more on that some other time.
The final analysis post-New Hampshire: this is going to be a long slog to the nomination for candidates in both parties, and for us poor watchers. Stay tuned.
McCain's comeback is kind of refreshing. After the disaster with the immigration bill this summer, McCain hit rock bottom, losing suport and out of money. That he could come back as well as he has is a real compliment to him. Beating Romney in his neighborhood also put a brake on Romney's campaign. If McCain beats Romney in Michigan, Romney will really be in a struggle.
Huck came in third and remains viable heading into states where he should be stronger. He is so weak on policy, it must be the religious folks that are keeping him in it. I have said it before, but he seems like Bill Clinton without the sleaze. We know what happened to Bill.
Giulani, of course, has not yet begun to fight. How he will fare is a real question. Thompson is barely hanging on. A good showing in S. Carolina is imperative for him.
The big losers in New Hampshire: the Pollsters. They totally and badly missed on the Hillary/Obama race. The polling situation might be very interesting to follow throughout the campaign. Maybe more on that some other time.
The final analysis post-New Hampshire: this is going to be a long slog to the nomination for candidates in both parties, and for us poor watchers. Stay tuned.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Hillary down?
Here we go again with more post-Iowa analysis. Hillary's third place showing has folks from all over the spectrum writing her political obituary.
Drudge, this morning, headlines "TALK OF HILLARY EXIT ENGULFS CAMPAIGN !"
Rasmussen has Hillary ahead of Obama only 33%-29%, with Hillary down 8 points and Obama up 7 in a week's time.
CBSNEWS poll shows Obama 35%, Hillary 29% in New Hampshire.
Peter Wehner over at Contentions, posts the obit:
".....After she loses, Hillary Clinton will remain in the Senate, of course, and Bill Clinton will continue to make millions through his public speeches. They will not completely disappear from the national scene. But their days as a Democratic dynasty, and their center-stage role in American politics, are about to end."
(via PowerLine)
Is Hillary about done? No. She undoubtedly is a very polarizing person, and about as many dislike her as like her, but she has too much going for her to bow out at the first sign of trouble. I have to agree with Dick Morris (shudder!). His position is that she can withstand a few early primary losses because her strength lies in the larger states that vote later. For those that want this to be a quick process I can only tell you to get ready for one that is longer and more drawn out than recent elections have been.
What we will probably see is the Clintons going into full battle mode. The gloves will come off (pardon the metaphors), and we will begin to learn more about Obama than we really want to know. That is not all that bad. We actually know little about him.
This election year will give all of the pundits and press the opportunity to pontificate. But I don't think they are going to be able to stampede either party into naming a winner early. Democrats will surely make it into the Spring; Republicans may go all the way to the convention. It should be an interesting but frightening ride.
UPDATE: Riehl World View has similar thoughts:
"....The Clinton freight train rumbles on. If there's any real dirt, they'll chew, chew Obama up in the two weeks between NH and SC and we'll have a different race by Super Tuesday on February 5th......"
Go to the site.
Drudge, this morning, headlines "TALK OF HILLARY EXIT ENGULFS CAMPAIGN !"
Rasmussen has Hillary ahead of Obama only 33%-29%, with Hillary down 8 points and Obama up 7 in a week's time.
CBSNEWS poll shows Obama 35%, Hillary 29% in New Hampshire.
Peter Wehner over at Contentions, posts the obit:
".....After she loses, Hillary Clinton will remain in the Senate, of course, and Bill Clinton will continue to make millions through his public speeches. They will not completely disappear from the national scene. But their days as a Democratic dynasty, and their center-stage role in American politics, are about to end."
(via PowerLine)
Is Hillary about done? No. She undoubtedly is a very polarizing person, and about as many dislike her as like her, but she has too much going for her to bow out at the first sign of trouble. I have to agree with Dick Morris (shudder!). His position is that she can withstand a few early primary losses because her strength lies in the larger states that vote later. For those that want this to be a quick process I can only tell you to get ready for one that is longer and more drawn out than recent elections have been.
What we will probably see is the Clintons going into full battle mode. The gloves will come off (pardon the metaphors), and we will begin to learn more about Obama than we really want to know. That is not all that bad. We actually know little about him.
This election year will give all of the pundits and press the opportunity to pontificate. But I don't think they are going to be able to stampede either party into naming a winner early. Democrats will surely make it into the Spring; Republicans may go all the way to the convention. It should be an interesting but frightening ride.
UPDATE: Riehl World View has similar thoughts:
"....The Clinton freight train rumbles on. If there's any real dirt, they'll chew, chew Obama up in the two weeks between NH and SC and we'll have a different race by Super Tuesday on February 5th......"
Go to the site.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
What does Iowa tell us?
This election year has been shaping up to be different from any I have known in my lifetime. Everyone is dissatisfied with our government and the politics that go with it. And we all should be. Neither political party has served us well. The Republicans, upon gaining power, immediately became big spending pork barrelers; cutting taxes, all right, but then proceeding upon a spending binge that would put the Democrats to shame.
So, in 2006, the public put the Democrats back in charge in Congress. Now we have gridlock, with the Democrats trying harder to make political points than to make progress. And, of course, the Republicans trying to obstruct them. The only thing they both agree upon is to spend money. The only disagreement is over who gets the gravy. The result is that Congress polls even lower than a very unpopular President. And they should. Both sides.
The Iowa caucuses are not really very important in the overall scheme of things in this election, but I do think it is telling that the two winners are persons who are actually outside the regular political establishment in each party. Although Obama is a Senator, he is too new to have had much of Washington rub off on him. For him to win in Iowa is significant, because it shows he can get votes from an overwhelmingly white population, and this takes the race issue off the table. He represents a big change for any political party. As David Shribman of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette says:
"We know by the winning performance of Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois that a black man can be a formidable candidate outside of the urban areas where black politicians have had their most profound impact. Iowa is only 2 percent black, yet Sen. Obama showed wide appeal. The biggest test of Sen. John F. Kennedy's Catholicism came at the very end of the 1960 primaries, in heavily Protestant West Virginia. Sen. Obama's test came at the very beginning of the 2008 primaries -- and continues this week in New Hampshire, where blacks constitute less than 1 percent of the population........"
Is Obama a new Kennedy? Where is Lloyd Bentsen? I guess we will have to wait and see.
Mike Huckabee represents a real change for the Republican Party. Certainly he is from outside the Washington establishment, but he is also outside the mainstream of the Republican Party. A populist, his policies in Arkansas as governor were much closer to those of Bill Clinton than to mainstream Republicanism. Why did he get the votes? Peggy Noonan has a suggestion that makes sense:
"...... From the mail I have received the past month after criticizing him in this space, I would say his great power, the thing really pushing his supporters, is that they believe that what ails America and threatens its continued existence is not economic collapse or jihad, it is our culture.
They have been bruised and offended by the rigid, almost militant secularism and multiculturalism of the public schools; they reject those schools' squalor, in all senses of the word. They believe in God and family and America. They are populist: They don't admire billionaire CEOs, they admire husbands with two jobs who hold the family together for the sake of the kids; they don't need to see the triumph of supply-side thinking, they want to see that suffering woman down the street get the help she needs......"
Another out of the mainstream candidate that showed well in Iowa was Ron Paul. He has been in Congress for many years, but has voted against almost everything since he got there. No one could possibly consider him to be one of the good ole boys in Congress. His 10% has to be an additional protest vote against the politics as usual in Washington.
What does this all tell us? Clearly, many voters, probably most, want change in Washington. I suspect big changes. The question is: to what?
Obviously, the pollsters have picked up on this. Look at the Democratic campaigns...they all advocate change. Only Huck and Paul do so on the Republican side. The problem is still: change to what?
My suspicion is that what we all most want is to be told the whole truth about things, without lies, without spin, and without condescension. We will never have consensus on what changes to make except for that. But that would be a good start.
The winner this year is going to be the candidate that the people trust the most. Telling the truth might be a good start for them all.
So, in 2006, the public put the Democrats back in charge in Congress. Now we have gridlock, with the Democrats trying harder to make political points than to make progress. And, of course, the Republicans trying to obstruct them. The only thing they both agree upon is to spend money. The only disagreement is over who gets the gravy. The result is that Congress polls even lower than a very unpopular President. And they should. Both sides.
The Iowa caucuses are not really very important in the overall scheme of things in this election, but I do think it is telling that the two winners are persons who are actually outside the regular political establishment in each party. Although Obama is a Senator, he is too new to have had much of Washington rub off on him. For him to win in Iowa is significant, because it shows he can get votes from an overwhelmingly white population, and this takes the race issue off the table. He represents a big change for any political party. As David Shribman of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette says:
"We know by the winning performance of Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois that a black man can be a formidable candidate outside of the urban areas where black politicians have had their most profound impact. Iowa is only 2 percent black, yet Sen. Obama showed wide appeal. The biggest test of Sen. John F. Kennedy's Catholicism came at the very end of the 1960 primaries, in heavily Protestant West Virginia. Sen. Obama's test came at the very beginning of the 2008 primaries -- and continues this week in New Hampshire, where blacks constitute less than 1 percent of the population........"
Is Obama a new Kennedy? Where is Lloyd Bentsen? I guess we will have to wait and see.
Mike Huckabee represents a real change for the Republican Party. Certainly he is from outside the Washington establishment, but he is also outside the mainstream of the Republican Party. A populist, his policies in Arkansas as governor were much closer to those of Bill Clinton than to mainstream Republicanism. Why did he get the votes? Peggy Noonan has a suggestion that makes sense:
"...... From the mail I have received the past month after criticizing him in this space, I would say his great power, the thing really pushing his supporters, is that they believe that what ails America and threatens its continued existence is not economic collapse or jihad, it is our culture.
They have been bruised and offended by the rigid, almost militant secularism and multiculturalism of the public schools; they reject those schools' squalor, in all senses of the word. They believe in God and family and America. They are populist: They don't admire billionaire CEOs, they admire husbands with two jobs who hold the family together for the sake of the kids; they don't need to see the triumph of supply-side thinking, they want to see that suffering woman down the street get the help she needs......"
Another out of the mainstream candidate that showed well in Iowa was Ron Paul. He has been in Congress for many years, but has voted against almost everything since he got there. No one could possibly consider him to be one of the good ole boys in Congress. His 10% has to be an additional protest vote against the politics as usual in Washington.
What does this all tell us? Clearly, many voters, probably most, want change in Washington. I suspect big changes. The question is: to what?
Obviously, the pollsters have picked up on this. Look at the Democratic campaigns...they all advocate change. Only Huck and Paul do so on the Republican side. The problem is still: change to what?
My suspicion is that what we all most want is to be told the whole truth about things, without lies, without spin, and without condescension. We will never have consensus on what changes to make except for that. But that would be a good start.
The winner this year is going to be the candidate that the people trust the most. Telling the truth might be a good start for them all.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Bills coming due
It is the New Year, and everyone has been reviewing the old year. There are a lot of different views, some good, some bad. Perhaps the one I like the best was written by Victor Davis Hanson, entitled 2007The Bills That Came Due. He noted that everything comes at a price, and went through a number of things that brought that home to us. I recommend that you follow the link and read the whole article.
This post, however, is not about the past, but the future. What bills are going to come due this year?
THE CAPITAL MARKETS
This problem really started coming home to roost last year, but the bill will possibly come this year. Years (since the early 1990's) of freewheeling lending, then dividing pieces of each debt up into pieces (derivatives), getting greedy rating agencies to overrate the debt issues, and then selling them to the public and to each other, all of it subject to little or no regulation, has gotten the worlds financial institutions and capital markets in a bind. Once the sub-prime mortgages started losing value, it was discovered that there was really no easy way to put any value on a lot of this paper that was issued. This has led to a serious impairment of the capital of most of our large financial institutions, in the US and worldwide. The central banks have added huge amounts of new reserves (created out of thin air) to the markets, and the financial institutions and the banks have been writing down their reserves and selling stock to raise new capital. So far no panic has set in. But it is only the beginning. When one dances to the music, one must pay the Piper. This may well be the year that the Piper demands payment. If so....well, it won't be pretty.
OIL AND ENERGY
Oil and energy prices will fluctuate, with an upward bias, unless the capital markets crash and cause a recession worldwide. The United States and China, along with Europe, will compete for ever more scarce petroleum this coming year, and well into the future. The inability of the United States to agree upon reasonable efforts to adopt alternatives to petroleum will make it extremely vulnerable to cut offs of its supplies from abroad. As China races to build a "blue ocean" navy which could interdict our supply someday, we twiddle our thumbs and do little but subsidize the use of food to power our cars. This enriches corporate farmers and politicians at taxpayers' expense, but does nothing to address the energy problem. A new policy encouraging research and development of alternatives including nuclear is imperative. Don't anyone hold his or her breath.
IMMIGRATION
We are beginning to see some effects of the current immigration policy. The crackdown, though insufficient to secure the borders, is having some effect. However, the politicians are playing games with us all. They authorized the border fences, but didn't appropriate the funds to do it right. There still are not enough new Border Patrolmen to do the job. Of course, what we need is a new immigration law, but there is no consensus on how existing illegal immigrants already here should be treated. The whole system is broken, and needs to be fixed. Don't hold your breath on this one, either.
POLITICS
This is where I suspect things may really get interesting. There are at least two aspects to the upcoming elections that need to be looked at. First is the methodology of the nominating process, and the other is the public's reactions to the candidates and the political parties.
The last few election cycles we have seen the winners in Iowa and New Hampshire get anointed by the media as frontrunners, and the momentum generated by that have led to their nominations. Those early events have had a far larger effect on the process than deserved, particularly since neither state is really very representative of the whole.
Ronald A. Cass has a piece out today that discusses this phenomenum over at RealClearPolitics, entitled Is This Any Way to Pick a President? Madison's Nightmare. This is a good read that explains the problem.
This year, I get the sense that this is not going to be the case. Oh, the media will try to spin these things one way or another, but it looks like we may have a longer, harder process than usual. We need it.
One reason we need a longer process before the nominations are sewed up is that we don't really know much about most of the candidates, in spite of the length of the race so far. All we get is soundbites from the media. Those that spend a lot of time on it and don't just rely on the mainstream media for the sound bites they choose for us may know more about some of the candidates, but none of us knows enough. Bill Katz has a post over at Powerline that says it all. He says there is a distance between the candidates and the public that prevents the public from really getting to know about them, and gives three reasons:
".....First, the TV myth. Television, we're told, brings us closer to events. No, it doesn't. It brings us closer to the coverage of events, and the staging of events. But the very staging of something for TV separates us from the candidate. That, of course, is the purpose – to create illusion, not reality......"
"....The second reason for the distance between public and candidate is a routine demeaning of the American voter. Voters, we're told, are impatient, they won't listen, they're not interested, so let's reduce everything to sound bites.........."
"....The third reason for the distance, and the most important, in my view, is that the concept of "knowing" the candidates has changed, in part because the selection process has changed...."
Go there and read the whole thing.
My prediction is that the public won't be happy this year with the rush to nomination. Both of these races may go to the conventions. It will be interesting to see.
As for the candidates, well, my thought is that the public isn't really attracted to any of them. Oh, sure, each has his or her supporters, but looking at the overall public reaction leaves me thinking that "none of the above" might win it all this year if that were on the ballot. This probably ties in with what Katz had to say....we just don't know that much about most of the candidates. Perhaps we know too much about Hillary. Who knows?
What is very clear is that after months of soundbite campaigning and several meaningless "debates" we are still in the dark about what the candidates really think about the issues.
What seems to have occurred is that the general public has lost it's trust of the government, the politicians and the media. We know about the spinning of soundbites and the "gotcha" journalism. We would like to hear some real debate on the real issues, and not canned responses to soft and non-threatening questions.
A lot of people have a justifiable feeling of unease about the direction the country is taking. There are some serious threats out there, and our government does not seem to be responding well to what is occurring. I think we would all like to hear the candidates talk honestly to us about those things. Instead, we are only getting soundbites and canned BS.
So, who is going to win when its all said and done? There is no way to tell. Two of the most interesting candidates, in terms of how they are performing, are Obama and Ron Paul. These guys have virtually nothing in common, but Obama seems to have gotten the lead in the Democratic race, and Paul certainly has raised a huge amount of money, although he doesn't show in the polls that well. I think the one thing they do have in common is that they are different from the usual candidates. Is their showing a reflection of a public dissatisfaction with the "same old politics?" Will the public surprise us when the voting begins? Stay tuned.
And then there is Fred Thompson. His campaign is certainly non-traditional, and I think that is intentional. What is his plan, if any? Will it work? At least he has released detailed position papers, but, of course, the media has not covered them....no "soundbites" there. We will just have to see.
The rest seem to be going about things the same old way. The polls ebb and flow. Nobody can hold a lead. Personal attacks seem to be escalating. That won't work this time.
And then there is the strong possibility of a third (and fourth?) party. Mayor Bloomberg seems to be positioning himself for a run. If he does, who will it hurt? Will Ron Paul run as a Libertarian? It is going to be interesting, and scary.
One thing is for sure. We will have to pay the bill for whom we choose this year when it comes due. A mistake may be very costly.
This post, however, is not about the past, but the future. What bills are going to come due this year?
THE CAPITAL MARKETS
This problem really started coming home to roost last year, but the bill will possibly come this year. Years (since the early 1990's) of freewheeling lending, then dividing pieces of each debt up into pieces (derivatives), getting greedy rating agencies to overrate the debt issues, and then selling them to the public and to each other, all of it subject to little or no regulation, has gotten the worlds financial institutions and capital markets in a bind. Once the sub-prime mortgages started losing value, it was discovered that there was really no easy way to put any value on a lot of this paper that was issued. This has led to a serious impairment of the capital of most of our large financial institutions, in the US and worldwide. The central banks have added huge amounts of new reserves (created out of thin air) to the markets, and the financial institutions and the banks have been writing down their reserves and selling stock to raise new capital. So far no panic has set in. But it is only the beginning. When one dances to the music, one must pay the Piper. This may well be the year that the Piper demands payment. If so....well, it won't be pretty.
OIL AND ENERGY
Oil and energy prices will fluctuate, with an upward bias, unless the capital markets crash and cause a recession worldwide. The United States and China, along with Europe, will compete for ever more scarce petroleum this coming year, and well into the future. The inability of the United States to agree upon reasonable efforts to adopt alternatives to petroleum will make it extremely vulnerable to cut offs of its supplies from abroad. As China races to build a "blue ocean" navy which could interdict our supply someday, we twiddle our thumbs and do little but subsidize the use of food to power our cars. This enriches corporate farmers and politicians at taxpayers' expense, but does nothing to address the energy problem. A new policy encouraging research and development of alternatives including nuclear is imperative. Don't anyone hold his or her breath.
IMMIGRATION
We are beginning to see some effects of the current immigration policy. The crackdown, though insufficient to secure the borders, is having some effect. However, the politicians are playing games with us all. They authorized the border fences, but didn't appropriate the funds to do it right. There still are not enough new Border Patrolmen to do the job. Of course, what we need is a new immigration law, but there is no consensus on how existing illegal immigrants already here should be treated. The whole system is broken, and needs to be fixed. Don't hold your breath on this one, either.
POLITICS
This is where I suspect things may really get interesting. There are at least two aspects to the upcoming elections that need to be looked at. First is the methodology of the nominating process, and the other is the public's reactions to the candidates and the political parties.
The last few election cycles we have seen the winners in Iowa and New Hampshire get anointed by the media as frontrunners, and the momentum generated by that have led to their nominations. Those early events have had a far larger effect on the process than deserved, particularly since neither state is really very representative of the whole.
Ronald A. Cass has a piece out today that discusses this phenomenum over at RealClearPolitics, entitled Is This Any Way to Pick a President? Madison's Nightmare. This is a good read that explains the problem.
This year, I get the sense that this is not going to be the case. Oh, the media will try to spin these things one way or another, but it looks like we may have a longer, harder process than usual. We need it.
One reason we need a longer process before the nominations are sewed up is that we don't really know much about most of the candidates, in spite of the length of the race so far. All we get is soundbites from the media. Those that spend a lot of time on it and don't just rely on the mainstream media for the sound bites they choose for us may know more about some of the candidates, but none of us knows enough. Bill Katz has a post over at Powerline that says it all. He says there is a distance between the candidates and the public that prevents the public from really getting to know about them, and gives three reasons:
".....First, the TV myth. Television, we're told, brings us closer to events. No, it doesn't. It brings us closer to the coverage of events, and the staging of events. But the very staging of something for TV separates us from the candidate. That, of course, is the purpose – to create illusion, not reality......"
"....The second reason for the distance between public and candidate is a routine demeaning of the American voter. Voters, we're told, are impatient, they won't listen, they're not interested, so let's reduce everything to sound bites.........."
"....The third reason for the distance, and the most important, in my view, is that the concept of "knowing" the candidates has changed, in part because the selection process has changed...."
Go there and read the whole thing.
My prediction is that the public won't be happy this year with the rush to nomination. Both of these races may go to the conventions. It will be interesting to see.
As for the candidates, well, my thought is that the public isn't really attracted to any of them. Oh, sure, each has his or her supporters, but looking at the overall public reaction leaves me thinking that "none of the above" might win it all this year if that were on the ballot. This probably ties in with what Katz had to say....we just don't know that much about most of the candidates. Perhaps we know too much about Hillary. Who knows?
What is very clear is that after months of soundbite campaigning and several meaningless "debates" we are still in the dark about what the candidates really think about the issues.
What seems to have occurred is that the general public has lost it's trust of the government, the politicians and the media. We know about the spinning of soundbites and the "gotcha" journalism. We would like to hear some real debate on the real issues, and not canned responses to soft and non-threatening questions.
A lot of people have a justifiable feeling of unease about the direction the country is taking. There are some serious threats out there, and our government does not seem to be responding well to what is occurring. I think we would all like to hear the candidates talk honestly to us about those things. Instead, we are only getting soundbites and canned BS.
So, who is going to win when its all said and done? There is no way to tell. Two of the most interesting candidates, in terms of how they are performing, are Obama and Ron Paul. These guys have virtually nothing in common, but Obama seems to have gotten the lead in the Democratic race, and Paul certainly has raised a huge amount of money, although he doesn't show in the polls that well. I think the one thing they do have in common is that they are different from the usual candidates. Is their showing a reflection of a public dissatisfaction with the "same old politics?" Will the public surprise us when the voting begins? Stay tuned.
And then there is Fred Thompson. His campaign is certainly non-traditional, and I think that is intentional. What is his plan, if any? Will it work? At least he has released detailed position papers, but, of course, the media has not covered them....no "soundbites" there. We will just have to see.
The rest seem to be going about things the same old way. The polls ebb and flow. Nobody can hold a lead. Personal attacks seem to be escalating. That won't work this time.
And then there is the strong possibility of a third (and fourth?) party. Mayor Bloomberg seems to be positioning himself for a run. If he does, who will it hurt? Will Ron Paul run as a Libertarian? It is going to be interesting, and scary.
One thing is for sure. We will have to pay the bill for whom we choose this year when it comes due. A mistake may be very costly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)