Profits from two very large financial institutions have been in the news lately. Its amazing how that can happen in an environment where taxpayers have been subsudizing those institutions and others like them since last Fall.
One, JPMorgan Chase, just paid back its TARP money, but there has been not accounting for the funds advanced by the Fed.
Goldman Sachs, on the other hand, did not take TARP money, and again, there is not any accounting, one way or the other, for any funds advanced by the Fed.
Goldman, however, was the primary beneficiary of the bailout of AIG, receiving $12.9 Billion dollars of taxpayer money passed through AIG.
One might ask why them....why not Lehman Bros., too?
One of the things learned early in my career in politics was that when you have questions like that, you "follow the money."
OpenSecrets.org is a site where one can do just that. I highly recommend it to you.
If one checks campaign donations to the big shots, one can learn a lot. Take Obama's biggest contributors last year:
"University of California
$1,564,490
Goldman Sachs
$994,795
Harvard University
$854,017
Microsoft Corp
$833,617
Google Inc
$803,436
Citigroup Inc
$699,790
JPMorgan Chase & Co
$695,132
Time Warner
$589,334
Sidley Austin LLP
$588,598
Stanford University
$586,557
National Amusements Inc
$550,683
UBS AG
$543,219
Wilmerhale Llp
$542,618
Skadden, Arps et al
$530,839
IBM Corp
$527,572
Columbia University
$526,802
Morgan Stanley
$514,881
General Electric (NBC)
$499,130
Latham & Watkins
$493,835
US Government
$491,420"
Now these are contributions that are aggregated by the particular entity employed by the giver. Any of them look familiar?
Note that the two companies in this discussion are high up the list. Also ABS was a beneficiary of AIG bailout as well.
Now for the McCain contributors:
Merrill Lynch
$373,595
Citigroup Inc
$322,051
Morgan Stanley
$273,452
Goldman Sachs
$230,095
JPMorgan Chase & Co
$228,107
US Government
$208,379
AT&T Inc
$202,438
Wachovia Corp
$195,063
Credit Suisse Group
$183,353
UBS AG
$183,079
PricewaterhouseCoopers
$167,900
Bank of America
$166,026
US Army
$165,370
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
$159,596
Blank Rome LLP
$154,226
Greenberg Traurig LLP
$146,437
US Dept of Defense
$143,605
FedEx Corp
$131,974
Lehman Brothers
$126,057
Bear Stearns
$117,498
Hmmm. The same guys appear both places, and near the top. Note that the two in last place on McCain's list didn't make the Obama list, and they are no longer with us. That and what is below may point out why Lehman Bros., Goldman Sach's biggest competitor was allowed to fail. Of course, Obama was not elected yet.
Now Goldman Sachs did have more going for it than campaign contributions. They have actually been in charge of making policy at least since Robert Rubin was Clinton's Sec/Treas. Then we had Summers, then Paulson, and now Geithner, with Summers making sort of a re-run in the White House. All from Goldman Sachs.
Goldman Sachs was there at the creation of the bubble, and at the end, and now at the "recovery."
Basically, what we have is the coyotes guarding the henhouse.
Isn't this a wild way to run a government?
Showing posts with label McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label McCain. Show all posts
Thursday, July 16, 2009
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.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
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.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
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.
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, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)