Atleast Ferraro is honest

You can disagree all you want with Geraldine Ferraro's comments about Barak Obama, but give her credit for being honest and on what's on other Democrat's minds. The other democrats are spineless, selfish, sycophants who dare speak their mind, mindful of the scorn that can be unleashed by the Obama herd.

Here is an excerpt from her statement:
'Ferraro told the Daily Breeze of Torrance, Calif.: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." '

'Ferraro also said Obama has it easy because of a "very sexist media."
"I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama's campaign — to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against," she said. "For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign." '

I am sure the country will have a more honest discussion without having a new wave of Politcal Correctness drown out reasoned thought.

Opportunist Obama

Gotta give him credit for seizing the moment to run for the Presidency.

Here is a excerpt from the NYTimes that basically says he was useless in the Senate.

'But inside the Senate, the junior senator from Illinois was 99th in seniority and in the minority party his first two years. In committee hearings, he had to wait his turn until every other senator had asked questions. He once telephoned reporters himself to draw attention to his amendments. And some senior colleagues were cool to the newcomer, whom they considered naïve.

Determined to be viewed as substantive, Mr. Obama kept his head down, declining Sunday talk show invitations for his first year, and consulted Senate elders for advice. He was cautious — even on the Iraq war, which he had opposed as a Senate candidate, he voted against the withdrawal of troops. He proposed a drawdown only after he was running for president and polls showed voters favoring it.

And while he rightly takes credit for steering through an ethics overhaul that reformers called a “gold standard,” like most freshmen he did not play a significant role in passing much other legislation and disappointed some Democrats for not becoming a more prominent voice in other important debates.'

'But for the most part, he stuck to party lines; there were few examples of the kind of bipartisan work he advocates in his current campaign.

He disappointed some Democrats by not taking a more prominent role opposing the war — he voted against a troop withdrawal proposal by Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin in June 2006, arguing that a firm date for withdrawal would hamstring diplomats and military commanders in the field.'

'To others, though, the mismatch between Mr. Obama’s outside profile and his inside accomplishments wore thin. While some senators spent hours in closed-door meetings over immigration reform in early 2007, he dropped in only occasionally, prompting complaints that he was something of a dilettante.'

The Irony of the Democrats

Looks like people power will loose at the Democratic convention.

From an editorial in the WSJ:

'Neither Mr. Obama nor Mrs. Clinton can win with delegates elected in primaries and caucuses. In a real irony, the Democratic Party will settle its nominee battle with the aristocratic device of superdelegates -- party apparatchiks, interest group leaders and elected officials, many of whom gained their post years ago. What happens if a bloc of superdelegates remains uncommitted until the convention? And what will happen to Florida and Michigan, which presently have no delegates? The last convention with only 48 states represented was 1956.'

Cost of Iraq War - The $3 Trillion Fantasy

It is amazing how smart economists take political sides in order to misinform.

Joseph Stiglitz was a economist with the NEC during the Clinton years and won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics in 2001.

He has published a book and testified in front of a congressional committee about the cost of war in Iraq. He asserts that the war costs $3 Trillion dollars.

Here is a critique from a NYTimes story:

'Another study of Iraq war costs, by Linda J. Bilmes of Harvard and Joseph E. Stiglitz of Columbia, comes up with an eye-catching estimate of $2.2 trillion, assuming the United States is no longer in Iraq in 2015. This is arguably too high for several reasons. First, it counts future interest payments on the debt created by military spending as well as the direct expenditures. (This is analogous to counting both the sale price of a house and the cost of future mortgage payments as the cost of buying the house.)

Second, it counts elevated military recruitment costs that incorporate a premium for higher risk of death or injury because of the war as well as the predicted direct cost of the deaths and injuries; this is double counting if the risk premium is adequate. Finally, it ascribes a big increase in the price of oil to the war, and, as a result, a loss to the American economy of almost half a trillion dollars.

A menu of cost estimates is thus available, depending on the counterfactual situation that one chooses.

"The question of whether the war was worth it hinges not on budget costs or economic costs," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who until recently was director of the Congressional Budget Office, "but on what do we gain in the way of genuine security and international standing." The costs, he said, were manageable.'

Here is a NBER research paper from Kevin Murphy of the University of Chicago and his fellow economists:

' We consider three questions related to the choice between war in Iraq and a continuation of the pre-war containment policy. First, in terms of military resources, casualties and expenditures for humanitarian assistance and reconstruction, is war more or less costly for the United States than containment? Second, compared to war and forcible regime change, would a continuation of the containment policy have saved Iraqi lives? Third, is war likely to bring about an improvement or deterioration in the economic well-being of Iraqis? We address these questions from an ex ante perspective as of early 2003. According to our analysis, pre-invasion views about the likely course of the Iraq intervention imply present value costs for the United States in the range of $100 to $870 billion. Our estimated present value cost for the containment policy is nearly $300 billion and ranges upward to $700 billion when we account for several risks stressed by national security analysts. Our analysis also indicates that war and forcible regime change will yield large improvements in the economic well-being of most Iraqis relative to their prospects under the containment policy, and that the Iraqi death toll would likely be greater under containment.'

Does Obama have any bite to his bark?

Obama is supposedly coming out swinging.

From the NYTimes:

'Mr. Obama seems likely to take a tougher stance toward Mrs. Clinton, if only because he saw how well such tactics worked against him. When the Clinton campaign attacked on multiple fronts last week, he sometimes sounded defensive, occasionally talking at his audiences rather than with them.

“There’s no magic bullet that hurt him; it was a series of bullets,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a Democratic consultant. “She reduced his charisma and forced voters back to reality.”

For now, Mr. Obama and his advisers are huddled in Chicago, plotting strategy.

Asked on the plane whether he and Mrs. Clinton might make a good ticket, he smiled. “It’s very premature,” he said, “to start talking about a joint ticket.” '

I don't think he does. The Clinton campaign has a monopoly on playing dirty to win. Obama the every so genteel professor may not stoop that low...to his detriment.

Obama the most liberal Senator

From Real Clear Politics:

'Obama's response to the charge of being a liberal, however, is "Don't play that 'okey-doke' on me." At Tuesday's debate, when the charge did come up in relation to the National Journal's ranking of him as the most liberal senator, Obama recoiled. "It turned out," he said, swiftly sidestepping the honor, "that Senator Clinton and I had differences on two votes." That's true, but misleading. The National Journal weighted votes differently, which explains how Obama could be rated first and Clinton sixteenth.'

'What's curious about all this is why Obama, who is very much proposing a liberal platform, doesn't have the audacity to say so. He speaks of change, but asks voters to accept his argument that universal health care, tax increases, adherence to international governing bodies, and more regulation on trade and industry are all mutually exclusive ideas. A far more believable argument would be to say that they are the result of his liberal ideology. But to do so would infect his campaign with a bit too much partisanship.'

Clever Political Rhetoric for the Masses

Good comments from Thomas Sowell:

'Senator Obama says that he is for free trade, provided it is "fair trade." That is election year rhetoric at its cleverest. Since "fair" is one of those words that can mean virtually anything to anybody, what this amounts to is that politicians can pile on whatever restrictions they want, in the name of fairness, and still claim to be for "free trade." Clever. We will all have to pay a cost for political restrictions and political cleverness, since there is no free lunch.'

'Americans who can vote would do well to start spending more time thinking about economic realities, instead of being swept away by political rhetoric.'

There Will be Blood in Pennsylvania

The Tonight Show's 'Blood on the Campaign Trail' is prescient.

If Obama's strategist are pragmatists then expect them to come out shooting and guns blazing and attack ads. Clinton has shown she can weaken Obama with attack ads.

She is going to have some heavy hitters hitting Obama where the sun won't shine.

Here is an excerpt from Politico:

'A new pro-Hillary Clinton group spent $864,000 making and airing ads in Texas and Ohio in the run-up to her victory in the March 4 primaries. And the group has at least $200,000 in the bank toward an expected air war on her behalf in Pennsylvania and the subsequent states.'

That is just the beginning.

Did Goolsbee's Remarks Cost Obama some points

You betcha!!

His denial of what was said in his conversation with the Canadian consulate officials fed the media frenzy. Sign of a newbie wanting some face time in Washington.

IF Obama wins do you think Prof. Austan Goolsbee will be angling for the top job at the National Economic Council?

You betcha!!

Cat fight between Obama and Clinton

Resorting to the lowest common denominator helped Hillary Clinton.
The amazing thing is that the Obama camp did not attack back with greater force.

It most likely cost him Texas.

But the cat fight is not over.

Here is an excerpt from The Politico:

'The up-with-people phase of this contest is over. The clear-the-benches phase has begun — a brawl that now is more likely than not to continue until the Democratic nomination in late August.

Obama’s failure to win Ohio and Texas and lock down the nomination — combined with Clinton’s newly defensible decision to press on despite a deficit in delegates — virtually guarantees Democrats a draining contest that will give Republicans a months-long head-start on the general election.

It will heighten racial, ethnic, gender, and class divisions already on stark display, raise awkward questions about the legitimacy of the nominating process, and inflict potentially lasting wounds on the eventual winner.

And forget about any chance that this looming brawl will be quieted by claims from Obama and commentators that Clinton has no reasonable path to victory.'

Why the gov should stay out of healthcare

The democrats want more government involvement in the healthcare market. Here are some facts as to why that is a terrible idea.

From the NYTimes

'The two programs, for older Americans and low-income people, cost $627 billion last year and accounted for 23 percent of all federal spending. With no change in existing law, the Congressional Budget Office says, that cost will double in 10 years and the programs will account for more than 30 percent of the budget.'

'Peter R. Orszag, director of the Congressional Budget Office, said, “The bulk of the projected increase in spending on Medicare and Medicaid is due not to demographic changes, such as increases in the number of beneficiaries, but to increases in costs per beneficiary.”

And what is driving those costs?

“Most of the long-term rise in health care spending is associated with the use of new medical technologies,” the budget office said in a recent report. It suggested that more selective use could save substantial amounts — a prospect that alarms manufacturers of some medical devices.'

'To help pay for their coverage plans, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama both say they would roll back the “Bush tax cuts” for the wealthiest Americans. But major provisions of the tax cuts, adopted in 2001 and 2003, are already scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. Democratic lawmakers, moreover, have committed the savings from the elapsed tax cuts several times to other pet programs, like eliminating the alternative minimum tax.

Some experts say the only real way to tame health care costs is by limiting access to expensive treatments or by requiring affluent Americans to pay for more of their health care.'

Where is Goolsbee on Healthcare

As a senior economic adviser to Barak Obama, Austan Goolsbee is silent on where his candidate stands on Medicaid and Medicare.

Here are the facts from the NYTimes

'Economists and health policy experts say the federal health programs are unsustainable in their current form, because they are growing much faster than the economy or the revenues used to finance them. The Medicare program is especially endangered; its hospital insurance trust fund is expected to run out of money in 11 years.

But the need for cutbacks is not a popular theme for political candidates wooing voters who want more care at a lower cost.

The Democrats do not say, in any detail, how they would slow the growth of Medicare and Medicaid or what they think about the main policy options: rationing care, raising taxes, cutting payments to providers or requiring beneficiaries to pay more.

Nor do they say how they would overcome the health care industry lobby, which has blocked proposals for even modest reductions in Medicare payment rates.

Instead, scores of lawyers and lobbyists are continually urging Congress to expand Medicare coverage of specific drugs, medical devices, tests and procedures.'

Come clean Prof Goolsbee.

Obamanomics - It stinks

Very good summary from the Economist of why Obama's current policy statements are bad for the US:

'The sad thing is that one might reasonably have expected better from Mr Obama. He wants to improve America's international reputation yet campaigns against NAFTA. He trumpets “the audacity of hope” yet proposes more government intervention. He might have chosen to use his silver tongue to address America's problems in imaginative ways—for example, by making the case for reforming the distorting tax code. Instead, he wants to throw money at social problems and slap more taxes on the rich, and he is using his oratorical powers to prey on people's fears.

Mr Obama advertises himself as something fresh, hopeful and new. But on economic matters at least he, like Mrs Clinton, has begun to look a rather ordinary old-style Democrat.'

Goolsbee gets into trouble

Prof Austan Goolsbee, an econ professor at the of UofC seems to be in hot water per the Associated Press:

'Goolsbee disputed a section that read: "Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

"This thing about `it's more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans,' that's this guy's language," Goolsbee said of DeMora. "He's not quoting me.

"I certainly did not use that phrase in any way," Goolsbee said.'

I'm sure his stature as a free trader is probably in question now and when he decided to advise Barak Obama and notably his vocal absence of the NAFTA bashing that is going on.

'Burton, who was on the call while Goolsbee described his visit to the AP, said, "It all boils down to a clumsy, inaccurate portrayal of the conversation."'

Shame on you Austan! You should have the same integrity in your advisory role as your role in academia.

Hillary Clinton's Poltical Goon

Harold Ickes is that SOB in every campaign that orchestrates that sausage making in politics. This might be the reason Hillary eeks out the delegates she needs in that Icky way.

Here are some excerpts from the NYTimes:

'Mr. Ickes, who has typically been a behind-the-scenes player, is stepping out front to make the public case for Mrs. Clinton, at a time when campaign advisers have pressed to lower the profile of her chief strategist, Mark J. Penn.

But most of all, he is serving as the campaign’s general in the fight for superdelegates, the elected officials and party leaders who may well determine whether Mrs. Clinton can grasp the nomination from Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. In doing so, Mr. Ickes is drawing on his intimate knowledge of the Clintons and their political networks — as well as delegate selection rules he helped write at the Democratic National Committee.

Legalistic and argumentative, Mr. Ickes is a man of tough manner and tough tactics with a notoriously dramatic temper, though one he orchestrates to calculated effect. “Harold isn’t Mr. Charm,” said Herman D. Farrell, a superdelegate from New York. “But he is Mr. Mechanic. He’s good at the nuts and bolts and doing the counting, less so at the persuading.”

For the Clinton campaign, Mr. Ickes went to great lengths assembling data on all the superdelegates — their friends, supporters, contributors, history with the Clintons and interactions over the years. He sits at a desk with an old-fashioned Rolodex.

Every day, he and aides churn through the list of the superdelegates, and he sends a list of names to Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Clinton of Democrats to call.'

Hammering Obama on Protectionism

From some gusty economists:

'Barack Obama, the likely Democratic presidential candidate, has proposed tax breaks for US corporations that invest at home rather than abroad. This column argues that his proposal is protectionist, reactionary, and economically unsound.'

If the Patriot Employer Act proposal is anything to go by, we are in trouble if Obama wins. The legislation would provide a tax credit equal to one percent of taxable income to employers who fulfill the following conditions:

· First, employers must not decrease their ratio of full-time workers in the United States to full-time workers outside the United States and they must maintain corporate headquarters in the United States if the company has ever been headquartered there.

· Second, they must pay a minimum hourly wage sufficient to keep a family of three out of poverty: at least $7.80 per hour.

· Third, they must provide a defined benefit retirement plan or a defined contribution retirement plan that fully matches at least five percent of each worker’s contribution.

· Fourth, they must pay at least sixty percent of each worker’s health care premiums.

· Fifth, they must pay the difference between a worker’s regular salary and military salary and continue the health insurance for all National Guard and Reserve employees who are called for active duty.

· Sixth, they must maintain neutrality in employee organising campaigns.

Only the last of these conditions does not raise serious issues. In a free society, any worker should be able to join the union of his or her choice or not join.

Color of Obama - Not Green

If you care about the environment and fawn over Obama then perhaps you should think twice.

From NYTimes

'In 2000, McCain ran for president and reiterated his longstanding opposition to ethanol subsidies. Though it crippled his chances in Iowa, he argued that ethanol was a wasteful giveaway. A recent study in the journal Science has shown that when you take all impacts into consideration, ethanol consumption increases greenhouse gas emissions compared with regular gasoline. Unlike, say, Barack Obama, McCain still opposes ethanol subsidies.'

Willam F Buckley Jr - Intellectual Powerhouse

Another one of my idols passes away.

William F Buckley Jr died today.

I distinctly remember reading his writings in high school as the Regan Revolution ripped through American politics. In college I watched him on tv and was dazzled by his command of the English language and his distinct diction.

He took the conservative movement (the Regan brand) to new intellectual heights and provided visceral, verbose fire power against the Liberal ideology.

I did not agree with him on some issues but there was enough agreement to have his words shape my political views.

I can't wait for the complete collection of his essays and articles to come out!!

When money speaks Obama listens

From the the NYTimes

'Asked why he had taken steps to back away from his pledge to accept public financing in a general election, Mr. Obama said he had yet to make up his mind and would sit down with Mr. McCain “to make sure we have a system that is fair for both sides.”

Yet he left open the door to not taking public financing, a departure from a statement he made a year ago.'

Ahh yes, change, hope, green dollar bills!!!

The Namesake Barak Hussein Obama

Why should anybody criticize another person for referring to them using their full name?

Bill Cunningham is being scolded by John McCain for using Obama full name three times. Here is the AP article.

That is political correctness!!

Obama picture lead to an tsunami of 1000 words

On cue the first sh$t is being flung.

From the Druge Report


CLINTON STAFFERS CIRCULATE 'DRESSED' OBAMA
Mon Feb 25 2008 06:51:00 ET

With a week to go until the Texas and Ohio primaries, stressed Clinton staffers circulated a photo over the weekend of a "dressed" Barack Obama.

The photo, taken in 2006, shows the Democrat frontrunner fitted as a Somali Elder, during his visit to Wajir, a rural area in northeastern Kenya.

The senator was on a five-country tour of Africa.

"Wouldn't we be seeing this on the cover of every magazine if it were HRC?" questioned one campaign staffer, in an email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT.

In December, the campaign asked one of its volunteer county coordinators in Iowa to step down after the person forwarded an e-mail falsely stating that Barack Obama is a Muslim.

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe quickly accused the Clinton campaign Monday of 'shameful offensive fear-mongering' for circulating the snap.

Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams responds: "If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed."

Slug Feast 2.0

Classic game theory coming into play.

With nothing to loose attitude the Clinton machine in going to throw some serious sh%t at Obama. Too bad it has to come to this, but it will reveal any chinks in the Obama armor.

Here is a quote from the International Herald Tribune:

'After struggling for months to dent Senator Barack Obama's candidacy, the campaign of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is now unleashing what one Clinton aide called a "kitchen sink" fusillade against Obama, pursuing five lines of attack since Saturday in hopes of stopping his political momentum.'

Not buying Obama's Obsidian Optimisim

I think Hillary would be the best candidate to defeat in the Presidential election in 2008.

But the press has begun her presidential obituary as outlined in this piece in the NYTimes.

It is always the darkest when you are at the low point. But I am not buying the Obama momentum.

I think Hillary will stand her ground and eek it out at the convention.

Young Kool-Aid drinkers!

Love this from Frank Rich of NYTimes:

'Clinton fans don’t see their standard-bearer’s troubles this way. In their view, their highly substantive candidate was unfairly undone by a lightweight showboat who got a free ride from an often misogynist press and from naïve young people who lap up messianic language as if it were Jim Jones’s Kool-Aid. Or as Mrs. Clinton frames it, Senator Obama is all about empty words while she is all about action and hard work.'

'The insults continued on Tuesday night when a surrogate preceding Mrs. Clinton onstage at an Ohio rally, Tom Buffenbarger of the machinists’ union, derided Obama supporters as “latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust-fund babies.” Even as he ranted, exit polls in Wisconsin were showing that Mr. Obama had in fact won that day among voters with the least education and the lowest incomes. Less than 24 hours later, Mr. Obama received the endorsement of the latte-drinking Teamsters.'

Didn't they say similar things about the Hippies when they were young?

Don't drink the Kool-Aid. Think for yourself. Ask the hard questions. Hope is eternal but you economic welfare is not.

Focus on consumption not income

Active income, income from one's direct efforts, should be tax free.

Allowing individuals to keep the fruits of their labor, is, on average, a strong motivator to bring the best of our natural and learned talents.

It also lowers the threshold for having a comfortable living because you get to keep all of what you earn.

To pay for common costs (not entitlements) governments should look to a consumption tax.

I like this from Greg Mankiw

'4. Ideally, I would use consumption, rather than income, as the tax base for purposes of raising revenue and redistribution. The benefit of consumption taxes over income taxes is that they do not distort the intertemporal allocation of consumption. A variety of economists have proposed ways to implement a progressive consumption tax. For example, the Hall and Rabushka flat tax is progressive in average tax rates; the Bradford X-tax is similar but even more progressive.'

Consumption allows an individual to ask the basic question of need vs want. If you want something then you should be taxed for it. An individual's reduction in the want category should fund the need taxes.

Also, the alternative to consumption is savings. If you want an ipod, fine, just be prepared to pay a tax. The tax should remind you to save. Savings lowers the cost of capital (supply of money increases, price goes down). Access to cheaper capital can fund new technologies (entrepreneurs with risky ideas can shop for funding from more sources) that lower consumption (green energy, cheaper houses, cheaper health care technologies etc).

Beware of politicians that want to tax hard earned income.

Universal Healthcare coverge..wishful thinking

If just amazing how many physicians I know support Universal Health care. My beloved spouse and others, who physicians, have their heart in the right place but have no sense of the economic realities.

Here is an excellent post by Greg Mankiw (emphasis mine):

'Technological advance is making state-of-the-art health care increasingly expensive. In any kind of national health system, some treatments will, by simple cost-benefit calculation, be deemed too expensive to provide to all citizens. But does that mean those of above-average income should be excluded as well? Should they lose basic benefits if they choose to pay for these marginal services with their own money?

If you say yes to this last question, as the U.K. health service has, here is a related one: Should a parent who hires an after-school tutor for his child be barred from sending the child to the public schools?

Some people like to think of health care and education of basic human rights. Maybe they are. But they are also normal goods. That is, the income elasticity of demand is positive. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the right cost-benefit calculation for providing the good depends on the income of the consumer.

Achieving both efficiency and equality in the provision of these goods is impossible. Dealing with this conflict will provide a major challenge to the political system in the years to come.'

As technology permeates within our health care system no way can all citizens have access to this. By nature of the technology adoption curve you WILL ALWAYS have some folks who have access to it first and that cost will be higher than those that have access to it later.

Don't buy into the warm and fuzzies of peddlers of universal coverage.

Obama On Drugs

Interesting piece from Reason

'.... Last fall former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said "it's just not a good idea for people running for president of the United States who potentially could be the role model for a lot of people to talk about their personal failings while they were kids because it opens the doorway to other kids thinking, 'Well, I can do that too and become president of the United States.'"

The thing is, that happens to be demonstrably true. And until politicians admit that smoking marijuana, something at least half of American adults born after World War II have done, is not a harbinger of ruin but a generally harmless rite of passage, they will not be able to have an honest discussion about drug policy.

Obama has gone further than most. He has acknowledged his own pot smoking, and in 2004 he said "we need to...decriminalize our marijuana laws," which in the United States usually means people are not subject to arrest for possessing small quantities of the drug.

What Obama has not done is connect the policy of not treating pot smokers as criminals (a position from which his campaign recently seemed to retreat) with his own experience as a pot smoker. Obama would not be better off now if he had been arrested for marijuana possession in high school or college, and there's no reason to think that experience would improve the life prospects of potential presidents who today are sneaking a puff here and there.'

As a father of two, how do I explain that someone who has smoked tobacco (and is still smoking), snorted cocaine, puffed marijuana (what else?) should be given the benefit of doubt to be president vs someone who has not?

How does a parent explain Bill Clinton's martial fidelity (lack of as a governor and President) and honestly acknowledge that he was a good President?

More Obama Delusion

Another excerpt from The Obama Delusion.

'Political candidates routinely indulge in exaggeration, pandering, inconsistency and self-serving obscurity. Clinton and McCain do. The reason for holding Obama to a higher standard is that it's his standard and also his campaign's central theme. He has run on the vague promise of "change," but on issue after issue -- immigration, the economy, global warming -- he has offered boilerplate policies that evade the underlying causes of the stalemates. These issues remain contentious because they involve real conflicts or differences of opinion.

The contrast between his broad rhetoric and his narrow agenda is stark, and yet the press corps -- preoccupied with the political "horse race" -- has treated his invocation of "change" as a serious idea rather than a shallow campaign slogan. He seems to have hypnotized much of the media and the public with his eloquence and the symbolism of his life story. The result is a mass delusion that Obama is forthrightly engaging the nation's major problems when, so far, he isn't.'

Robert Samuelson elegantly rips into Obama

A Obama lover takes a shot, and does a good job. The Obama Delusion

'But on inspection, the metaphor is a mirage. Repudiating racism is not a magic cure-all for the nation's ills. It requires independent ideas, and Obama has few. If you examine his agenda, it is completely ordinary, highly partisan, not candid and mostly unresponsive to many pressing national problems.

By Obama's own moral standards, Obama fails. Americans "are tired of hearing promises made and 10-point plans proposed in the heat of a campaign only to have nothing change," he recently said. Shortly thereafter, he outlined an economic plan of at least 12 points that, among other things, would:

-- Provide a $1,000 tax cut for most two-earner families ($500 for singles).
-- Create a $4,000 refundable tuition tax credit for every year of college.
-- Expand the child care tax credit for people earning less than $50,000 and "double spending on quality after-school programs."
-- Enact an "energy plan" that would invest $150 billion in 10 years to create a "green energy sector."

Whatever one thinks of these ideas, they're standard goodie-bag politics: something for everyone. They're so similar to many Clinton proposals that her campaign put out a news release accusing him of plagiarizing. With existing budget deficits and the costs of Obama's "universal health plan," the odds of enacting his full package are slim.

Why Obama's Populist Policies Are Bad

NO country in the industrial age or information age has benefited from more government control and pandering to populist policies. Barak H Obama's speech in Houston on Tuesday was mostly that, pandering. For someone promoting change this is just the same old.

It is easy to buy into this because it makes you feel good. But there is a cost to this and that cost, including the opportunity cost is high. There is an alternative to populism and it has worked in the past and will work in the future (to a large extent).

Here is an excerpt from Greg Mankiw's blog

'Andrei Shleifer's new paper begins as follows:

The last quarter century has witnessed remarkable progress of mankind. The world’s per capita inflation-adjusted income rose from $5400 in 1980 to $8500 in 2005.Schooling and life expectancy grew rapidly, while infant mortality and poverty fell just as fast. Compared to 1980, many more countries in the world are democratic today.

The last quarter century also saw wide acceptance of free market policies in both rich and poor countries: from private ownership, to free trade, to responsible budgets, to lower taxes. Three important events mark the beginning of this period. In 1979, Deng Xiao Ping started market reforms in China, which over the quarter century lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. In the same year, Margaret Thatcher was elected Prime Minister in Britain, and initiated her radical reforms and a long period of growth. A year later, Ronald Reagan was elected President of the United States, and also embraced free market policies. All three of these leaders professed inspiration from the work of Milton Friedman. It is natural, then, to refer to the last quarter century as the Age of Milton Friedman.'

Barak Obama's policies will not make us better. Why buy into the bull that makes you feel good? Why follow the herd? You know you are bing played by a sophisticated marketing machine that wants you to believe in what makes you feel good!

Mahna Mahna

Hillary & Barak

http://www.break.com/index/hilary-obama-mahna-mahna.html

Here comes La Mierda

Impressive win by Obama in Wisconsin. But according to the NY Times:

'Clinton advisers, acknowledging that they must change the course of the campaign by defining Mr. Obama in negative terms for voters, said they intended to try to draw sharper contrasts by highlighting what Mrs. Clinton believes are his biggest weaknesses: his readiness to be commander in chief, and his support for a health care plan that would not initially seek to cover all Americans.'

La Mierda has hit the fan in the Clinton camp.

Obama's Strategy

Following are excerpts from Senior Washington Editor Ron Elving an NPR story from the program Day to Day:

'..on the strategy that Barak Obama has been pursuing. Running really hard and concentrating his resources in caucus states which tend to be states in the heartland, states with somewhat smaller Democratic population. States in which Democrats don't carry in Presidential elections.

But places where by, by winning he accomplishes several things: Big margin where he gets disproportionate share of the delegates. He gets a chance to influence a lot of super delegates and he gets to say hey look I won 20 some states and she has not won nearly that many.

At it lastly gives him this prefect way to say Only black people voting for me in Louisiana and South Carolina? Well there are not that many people in Nebraska and Idaho.'

Political Claymation Deathmatch Video

I am waiting for that 'Celebrity Deathmatch' claymation video to pop up on YouTube between Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama.

Mean while here are some funnies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XSkjwlNVjM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOTAfGuLA-0

Democratic End Game

I wish the Republican primary contest was as exciting as the Democratic one. I is fun to follow it.

Here is a take from Frank Rich of the NY Times called Next Up for the Democrats: Civil War

'However boring, this show was a dramatic encapsulation of how a once-invincible candidate ended up in a dead heat, crippled by poll-tested corporate packaging that markets her as a synthetic product leeched of most human qualities. What’s more, it offered a naked preview of how nastily the Clintons will fight, whatever the collateral damage to the Democratic Party, in the endgame to come.'

'But the wholesale substitution of Hispanics for blacks on the Hallmark show is tainted by a creepy racial back story. Last month a Hispanic pollster employed by the Clinton campaign pitted the two groups against each other by telling The New Yorker that Hispanic voters have “not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.” Mrs. Clinton then seconded the motion by telling Tim Russert in a debate that her pollster was “making a historical statement.” '

'

Last month, two eminent African-American historians who have served in government, Mary Frances Berry (in the Carter and Clinton years) and Roger Wilkins (in the Johnson administration), wrote Howard Dean, the Democrats’ chairman, to warn him of the perils of that credentials fight. Last week, Mr. Dean became sufficiently alarmed to propose brokering an “arrangement” if a clear-cut victory by one candidate hasn’t rendered the issue moot by the spring. But does anyone seriously believe that Howard Dean can deter a Clinton combine so ruthless that it risked shredding three decades of mutual affection with black America to win a primary?

A race-tinged brawl at the convention, some nine weeks before Election Day, will not be a Hallmark moment. As Mr. Wilkins reiterated to me last week, it will be a flashback to the Democratic civil war of 1968, a suicide for the party no matter which victor ends up holding the rancid spoils.'

Do you really think that Hillary Clinton is going to roll over and pass up this opportunity to be president?

Democratic Super Delegates Will Make the Sasuage

Looks like there will be a good chance that the Democratic convention will be about who has the clout to sway the super delegates.

From a NY Times pieces called Neck and Neck, Democrats Woo Superdelegates:

'Known as superdelegates because they are free to cast their votes at the convention as they see fit, they are the object of an intensifying and potentially high-stakes charm offensive by the candidates and their supporters.'

'The superdelegates include all Democratic governors and members of Congress, as well as officials and other prominent members of the party. In interviews, some said they were grappling with how to use their power if it comes into play, especially if their judgment does not match the will of a majority of voters.'

'Superdelegates, created in 1982, were intended to restore some of the power over the nomination process to party insiders, tempering the zeal of party activists. About 15 to 20 percent of the delegates at Democratic conventions are superdelegates.'

'Mr. Obama, talking to reporters in Seattle on Friday, said he believed superdelegates should follow the will of the voters.'

'“Superdelegates are, by design, supposed to exercise independent judgment,” she said at a news conference in Maine, according to MSNBC. “But, of course, if Senator Obama and his campaign continue to push this position, which is really contrary to what the definition of a superdelegate has historically been,'

Hillary Clinton is right on this.

The superdelegates were created to give the party bosses a say in the nomination process and to prevent a populist non electable candidate from representing the democrats. They are to exercise judgment and not give into populism.

With all the hoopla about change, I wonder how this is going to shake out.

Beware of Democrats' Claims

A perennial topic of the democrats is the gulf between the have and the have nots. Particularly they like to cite the stats using the poverty rate.

But what is the poverty rate and how do you use it to determine policy.

Here are some excerpts from an interesting post titled, You Are What You Spend, by two Federal Reserve economists

'Income statistics, however, don’t tell the whole story of Americans’ living standards. Looking at a far more direct measure of American families’ economic status — household consumption — indicates that the gap between rich and poor is far less than most assume, and that the abstract, income-based way in which we measure the so-called poverty rate no longer applies to our society.'

'... if we compare the incomes of the top and bottom fifths, we see a ratio of 15 to 1. If we turn to consumption, the gap declines to around 4 to 1. A similar narrowing takes place throughout all levels of income distribution. The middle 20 percent of families had incomes more than four times the bottom fifth. Yet their edge in consumption fell to about 2 to 1.'

'To understand why consumption is a better guideline of economic prosperity than income, it helps to consider how our lives have changed. Nearly all American families now have refrigerators, stoves, color TVs, telephones and radios. Air-conditioners, cars, VCRs or DVD players, microwave ovens, washing machines, clothes dryers and cellphones have reached more than 80 percent of households.'

'

At the average wage, a VCR fell from 365 hours in 1972 to a mere two hours today. A cellphone dropped from 456 hours in 1984 to four hours. A personal computer, jazzed up with thousands of times the computing power of the 1984 I.B.M., declined from 435 hours to 25 hours. Even cars are taking a smaller toll on our bank accounts: in the past decade, the work-time price of a mid-size Ford sedan declined by 6 percent.

There are several reasons that the costs of goods have dropped so drastically, but perhaps the biggest is increased international trade. Imports lower prices directly. Cheaper inputs cut domestic companies’ costs. International competition forces producers everywhere to become more efficient and hold down prices. Nations do what they do best and trade for the rest.'

Mitt Romney Gave a Good Fight

I was cheer leading for Mitt Romney since lat 2006. He gave a good fight.

Here is an excerpt from Real Clear Politics titled The Romney Campaign's 5 Big Mistakes:

'The sad thing about the Romney campaign's demise is that Mitt Romney is an exceptional person; highly intelligent, enormously hard-working, a man of great integrity and grit and executive ability. Given the dearth of talent in both parties -- the seemingly endless parade of mediocrity and venality -- we're lucky to have people like Mitt Romney who are willing to get in the game.'

I hope he gets selected as a VP by John McCain.

Collective Hype - Part Deux

Excerpt from NYTimes titled When Self-Interest Isn’t Everything:

'Many people have likened the response to Mr. Obama’s appeal for civic engagement to the response to similar appeals by President John F. Kennedy during the 1960s. Then, as now, many economists were skeptical. The Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, for example, began the opening chapter of his 1962 book, “Capitalism and Freedom,” by quoting the already-famous passage from Kennedy’s inaugural address in which he said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Mr. Friedman seemed to find the statement unintelligible, or at any rate not “worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society.”

“The free man,” he wrote, “will ask neither what his country can do for him, nor what he can do for his country.”

SOME economists seem similarly baffled by the exuberance inspired by the Obama candidacy. But while homo economicus may be unresponsive to calls for sacrifice for the common good, the plain fact is that many people find such calls compelling.'

I one of those who doesn't see the eye candy in Obama. The Kennedyesque appeal is too contrived.

We'll see if the convention delegates will eat it up.

Love song of a new generation

Hmm. Seems like we have heard this one from they Hippies and the Baby Booom Booms back in the 60's and 70's; the kids are not right!!

Following are excerpts from Bob Herbert of the NY Times entitled Winds of Change:

'The realists tend to be older and come out of a political and racial experience that is often completely alien to Mr. Obama’s most fervent supporters, who tend to be younger.'

'“The students like him because he’s a fresh face, a personality with fresh ideas,” said Julia Liebner, a human biology major. “Hillary may do great things for the country if she is elected, but I think the kids are responding to Obama’s more hopeful message and his idea of bringing people together.”

Ben Fried, who was interviewed as he straddled a bicycle under a sky that threatened a downpour at any moment, said that he had participated in many conversations about the election and that race had not been a factor in any of them. “I would just say the kids like Obama,” he said.'

'They are in a better place than their elders on race. They are not shouldering the resentments of years and decades past. They are not parsing the differences between the Clinton and Obama health proposals, or obsessing over who would do better against John McCain.

They are just fed up with the status quo, and they want change. And they’ve found a rock star who embodies their desire.

The advantage in this race is still substantially with Senator Clinton. The realists are not crazy, after all. But neither are the dreamers. Winds change. If you’re sailing against the wind today, it may be different tomorrow. And there are few things more powerful than the winds of history.'

Let's see what happens today and most likely what will happen at the convention.

Hopeless Audacity

Boy the Obama camp is getting pretty confident about tomorrow's results.

Hmmm. Let's see if it will pan out.

The Hillary Machine, with all the stops pulled out should eeeek (in a ssssssaponaceous way)

Comments on the liberals

Following are excerpts from the NY Times Op-Ed piece by Frank Rich entitled Ask Not What J.F.K Can Do for Obama:


'Either of the two Democratic contenders will swing the pendulum. Their marginal policy differences notwithstanding, they are both orthodox liberals. As the party’s voters in 22 states step forward on Tuesday, the overriding question they face, as defined by both contenders, is this: Which brand of change is more likely, in Kennedy’s phrase, to get America moving again?

Lost in the hoopla over the Teddy and Caroline Kennedy show last week was the parallel endorsement of Hillary Clinton by three of Robert Kennedy’s children. In a Los Angeles Times op-ed article, they answered this paramount question as many Clinton supporters do (and as many John Edwards supporters also did). The “loftiest poetry” won’t solve America’s crises, they wrote. Change can be achieved only by a president “willing to engage in a fistfight.” '

'The rap on Mr. Obama remains that he preaches the audacity of Kumbaya. He is all lofty poetry and no action, so obsessed with transcending partisanship that he can be easily rolled. Implicit in this criticism is a false choice — that voters have to choose between his pretty words on one hand and Mrs. Clinton’s combative, wonky incrementalism on the other. '

Posse Comitatus

I am reading John Yoo's The Powers of War and Peace and came across the reference to Posse Comitatus. (It is not some hip hop Italian music group)

If you believe that the federal government could have done more to help with immediate aftermath of Katrina then you need to understand The Posse Comitatus Act.

The armed forces are the only ones who have the logistical experience to handle the aftermath of Katrina in New Orleans. Under this act the President, as the Commander in Chief cannot deply the armed forces of the United States within the borders of the United States.

Seeing the short comings of this law, congress passed a law which President Bush singed called John Warner Defense Authorization Act. It allows the President to deploy the military in certain circumstatnces within the United States.

If you like the blue pill you probably won't support this

You must love paying taxes if you don't whole heartedly support the recommendations of the Bush Tax Reform plan.

Temporary Truce....We'll See about That

Watched some of the Debate in LA while stuck in LAX.

The cordial nature of the debate wreaks of a back room deal. That will only last until one has an edge over another after Tuesday. IT WILL BE A DRAWN OUT BRAWL with Hillary Clinton as the sullied, muddied, malodorous victor.

Hillary Clinton Should Win the Democratic Nomination

The SC pre-primary events really showed the true colors of the Clintons. It is the kind of politics that drove the dislike of the Clintons my most Americans when they were in the White House (Bill Clinton never won more than 50% of the popular vote in both elections).

But that is the type of dislike that will bring out the Republicans in droves. Think about what happened in 2004, George Bush & his campaign was able to bring out a record turn out of republicans given that the the democrats and their backers put in way more effort to bring out their side (in fact they also had a record turn out).

The sewage politics of the Clintons will also win primaries. They have the right connections, 'persuasive muscle' (think goons) and the opposition research led by that icky, Harold Ickes.

Here is a excerpt from Joe Kline at Time-Blog:

'It may well be true that any Democrat is going to have to handle that sort of sewage in the general election, but I've now--belatedly!--figured out that the real audacity in Barack Obama's campaign--far more than his positions on the issues, which almost seem an afterthought--is his outrageous belief that the entire country, not just Democrats, wants to see a straight up election; that the entire country is tired of the pestilence of tactical tricks that the Clintons learned from their co-dynasts, the Bushes. (The latest example being their sudden, sociopathic emphasis on the importance of the Florida primary, a contest all three candidates had agreed to eschew at the behest of the Democatic National Committee.)

It is a hell of a bet Obama has made. And nearly 40 years of political, uhm, experience tells me that it isn't a very wise one...but I must also say that it is truly sad to see Bill and Hillary Clinton on the wrong side of it.'

So Hillary will be a worthy opponent because she will bring out all the Republicans, the independents that did not like her and her husband and might force some previous supporters to stay home.

A Kennedy Endorses Obama

Caroline Kennedy evokes the memory of JFK in her Op-Ed piece in the New York Times.

To be Frank, I am not one of those who is enamored by JFK. The media and the hippie generation has white washed his accomplishments. I am still waiting for comprehensive critical look at his life. From the snippets I have read and seen; how his father was influential in his senatorial election, how Bobby Kennedy was a down right thug in the 1960 democratic convention (arm twisting votes away from Lyndon Johnson) and of course his infidelity and womanizing lifestyle. That is another story.

Caroline opens her piece with the following:

'OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president.'

That is an interesting opinion. Kennedy did not have any sort of mandate from the voting public in 1960. The 1960 race was a close race between Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

'The electoral vote was the closest in any presidential election dating to 1916, and Kennedy's margin of victory in the popular vote is among the closest ever in American history. The 1960 election also remains a source of debate among some historians as to whether vote theft in selected states aided Kennedy's victory.'

She has obviously drank the cool aid and has a strong bias for reading history. She exhibits the same type of bias in supporting Barak Obama. In her piece she says:

'Senator Obama is running a dignified and honest campaign. He has spoken eloquently about the role of faith in his life, and opened a window into his character in two compelling books. And when it comes to judgment, Barack Obama made the right call on the most important issue of our time by opposing the war in Iraq from the beginning.'

I am not an Obama fan and the coverage of him by the press have been shallow and not critical.

Obama is no Kennedy.

Sure...it was not about race in SC!

Yea, yea. That's it. That's the ticket!

From the New York Times:

'Turnout on Saturday was estimated at a record 530,000 people, nearly 100,000 more than in the Republican primary a week ago. More than half of the Democratic voters were African-American, and surveys of voters leaving the polls suggested that their heavy turnout helped propel Mr. Obama to victory.

Mr. Obama, who built an extensive grass-roots network across the state over the last year, received the support of about 80 percent of black voters, the exit polls showed. He also received about one-quarter of the white vote, with Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards splitting the remainder.

In particular, Mr. Obama was helped by strong support from black women, who made up 35 percent of the voters. Mrs. Clinton, with the help of her husband, had competed vigorously for black women voters, but Mr. Obama received about 80 percent of their support, according to the exit polls, conducted by Edison/Mitofsky for the National Election Pool of television networks and The Associated Press.'

'White voters under the age of 40 divided their support, with almost 40 percent for Mr. Obama, and about 3 in 10 each for Mr. Edwards and Mrs. Clinton. Almost 80 percent of blacks under the age of 40 voted for Mr. Obama.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards divided white voters age 40 and older equally, with about 40 percent each, according to exit polls. Among older blacks, 80 percent supported Mr. Obama.

The South Carolina primary was the first contest of the year in which race rose to the forefront. While Mr. Obama seldom directly mentioned the historic nature of his candidacy, it was not lost on the thousands of voters who turned out to see him in all regions of the state.'

Amazing Race

It continues to astound me how much race is a factor, in this day and age, in a Democratic primary.

Here are some excerpts from Jan 25, 2008 New York Times article entitled: Democrats Target Their Appeals in South Carolina

'Race has weighed heavily over the contest here this week, particularly in back-and-forth exchanges between supporters of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. Strategists for Mr. Obama worry that the discussions have driven white voters away from his candidacy, boosting the efforts of Mr. Edwards or Mrs. Clinton.

“You have two white candidates — Hillary Clinton and John Edwards and you’ve got Barack Obama who has a good base of white supporters,” said Inez Tannenbaum, a longtime party official here who is supporting Mr. Obama. “But over 50 percent of the people voting in the Democratic primary are going to be African American and, of course, it’s going to be a racially polarized race. It just is.” '

Let's see how this play out tomorrow in SC:

'Still, strategists and Democratic officials pointed to polls here this week suggesting that Mr. Obama’s support among white voters has fallen off. If the trend materializes in the voting on Saturday, his ability to transcend race could come into question and present complications in the 22 states scheduled to hold the next round of Democratic contests on Feb. 5.'

On Cue Race Rears Its Ugly Head

In several of my posts I spoke about how race will matter in the democratic primary race and how the Obama camp has been skillfully exploiting it. Sure enough the Clintons are complaining about it. Here are some excerpts from a NY Times piece on Jan 24, 2008 Bill Clinton Accuses Obama Camp of Stirring Race Issue


'Former President Bill Clinton defended himself Wednesday against accusations that he and his wife had injected the issue of race into the Democratic presidential primary in South Carolina, and he accused Senator Barack Obama of Illinois of putting out a “hit job” on him.'

'Scolding a reporter, Mr. Clinton said the Obama campaign was “feeding” the news media to keep issues of race alive, obscuring positive coverage of the presidential campaign here of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

“They know this is what you want to cover,” Mr. Clinton told a CNN reporter in Charleston, in an apparent reference to the Obama campaign.

“Shame on you,” the former president added. '

'Mr. Clinton also suggested in public remarks that his wife might lose here because of race. Referring to her and Mr. Obama, he said, “They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender, and that’s why people tell me that Hillary doesn’t have a chance to win here.” '

'Mr. Clinton said no one in the audience in Charleston had asked him about how race was being used in the campaign. “They are feeding you this because they know this is what you want to cover,” he said. “What you care about is this. And the Obama people know that. So they just spin you up on this and you happily go along.” '

Let's see how low they can go during and after Super Tuesday, Feb 5th.

History Rhymes

From StrategyPage.com - Five Years of Combat

If current trends continue, the U.S. will reach its fifth anniversary in Iraq having suffered about 32,000 casualties (including 3,200 combat deaths). That's about a seventh of the losses suffered by the U.S. in Vietnam during the six years of most intense combat (1966-72). There were 2-3 times as many U.S. troops in Vietnam.

As in Iraq, the U.S. broke the back of the guerilla force (the communist Viet Cong) after five years of effort. But the last gasp 1968 Tet Offensive, launched by the Viet Cong and their North Vietnam allies in a desperate attempt to reverse their slide, ended up destroying the Viet Cong as a viable organization.

But the U.S. media didn't understand what was going on, and declared Tet a communist victory. U.S. public opinion had turned against the Vietnam effort, and wanted the troops out no matter what. Most troops were gone by 1970, and all were out by 1972.

In that year, North Vietnam violated the peace deal it had agreed to, and attempted to conquer South Vietnam with a conventional invasion. That was repulsed. Another was tried in 1975, which succeeded. By then, the U.S. had cut off nearly all military aid to South Vietnam, and the subsequent weapons and ammunition shortages played a large part in the South Vietnamese defeat.

Iraq has no neighbors ready to invade right now. The main problems are internal, mainly corruption and armed factions of various persuasions (religious, ethnic and tribal) that feel they are above the law.

Currently, the Iraqi government is seeking a security deal with the U.S. similar to what NATO, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Japan and South Korea (and many other nations) have. That is, a small number of American troops stationed in the country, as a guarantee that hostile neighbors (especially Iran, but potentially Turkey as well) will not attack. Any such attack would kill some U.S. troops, and likely trigger an American military response.

Billary

I love the following from Jan 23, 2008 edition of WSJ:


'One of our favorite Bill Clinton anecdotes involves a confrontation he had with Bob Dole in the Oval Office after the 1996 election. Mr. Dole protested Mr. Clinton's attack ads claiming the Republican wanted to harm Medicare, but the President merely smiled that Bubba grin and said, "You gotta do what you gotta do." '

'This has been the core of the conservative critique of the Clintons for years. So it is illuminating to hear the same critique coming from Mr. Obama and his supporters now that his candidacy poses a threat to the return of the Clinton dynasty. Even Democrats are now admitting the Clintons don't tell the truth -- at least until Mrs. Clinton wins the nomination.'

Political Sausage Making

Tactics used to win votes in SC from Jan 23, 2008 WSJ:

Paying the Power Broker

When Mr. Obama first started trying to organize the state earlier this year, he began in the usual way, seeking endorsements of traditional power brokers. The campaign offered a $5,000-a-month consulting contract to state Sen. Darrell Jackson of Columbia, a longtime legislator and pastor of an 11,000-member church, who also runs an ad agency.

Mr. Jackson's ability to turn out the vote -- or suppress it against rivals -- is the stuff of local legend. In 2004, he helped clinch a primary win for North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, even as Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry was coming off wins in Iowa and New Hampshire. At the time, Mr. Edwards was paying him consulting fees of roughly $15,000 a month, according to federal records.

Mr. Jackson says he seriously considered the offer from Mr. Obama, but instead became a paid consultant to Mrs. Clinton, essentially running her state operation for substantially more than what the Obama camp offered. "A lot of our hearts were torn -- it wasn't an easy choice," Mr. Jackson said. He drew more than $135,000 from the Clinton campaign from February 2007 through September 2007, the latest figures available, according to federal election filings, and remains on the payroll.

"Winning here has a lot to do with who validates you as a candidate," Mr. Jackson says. "I'm comfortable with what Mrs. Clinton has going here."

Yea, as long as you have the cash.

Overlooked Factoid

You don't hear the democrats touting this fact:

'Civil Rights Act took bipartisanship as well, thanks to fierce opposition from Southern Democrats. Republicans of that era are often portrayed as opponents of civil rights. In fact, a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the 1964 bill. And when it finally passed, GOP Senator Everett Dirksen, the minority leader who worked closely with the bill's sponsor, Democrat Hubert Humphrey, was honored for his efforts with a NAACP civil rights award.' - Jan 15, 2008 WSJ 'Politics of Pigmentation'

Race Realities

More excerpts from the Jan 22, 2008 edition of Wall Street Journal piece entitled Obama's Bid Turns Focus On Class Split Among Blacks.

'Class has divided American blacks ever since slave owners divided blacks into field slaves and more favored house slaves and interracial relationships left some blacks with lighter skin. Lloyd Kinnitt, a retired cook who grew up in Georgia and now lives in Boston, recalls his mother looking askance at some black neighbors and telling him: "They may be my color but they're not my kind." '
'Mr. Obama himself wrote about this dilemma in his autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," published before he entered politics. Describing a confrontation with some black teenagers in a car in a poor part of Chicago where he was working as a community organizer, Mr. Obama described the fear and alienation he felt: "As much as I might tell myself otherwise, we are breaking apart these boys and me, into different tribes, speaking a different tongue, living by a different code." '

'One of the things that many poor and middle-class blacks say they like best about Mr. Obama is that his wife, Michelle, who attended Princeton and Harvard Law School, is dark-skinned. Color has long been a sensitive subject in the black community, with men and women of lighter skin seen as having higher status. '

'"Many of our male celebrities, sports figures, they marry white women or light-skinned wives," says Darnell Cooper, a laborer in Columbia, S.C. "We all see that on television. But you turn on the TV and you see Michelle Obama and she looks black. I can identify with her." He laughs. "I can tell you this: He would have a lot less votes if his wife were light-skinned or white." '

Race Realities Has A Class of Its Own

A good number of fair minded folks that I know believe that Obama's campaign has skillfully kept race out of this year's political race.


I would respectfully disagree. They have exploited race to their advantage (if your objective is to win I would do the same).

If it is a tight race to the wire then I would see them using the race card even more. Do you really believe there is that much of a difference between Obama & Clinton? Obama's political hacks are Clinton administration veterans and his policy stance is not THAT much different from Hillary's. But race is one vector of differentiation that is easy to exploit.

Here are some excerpts from the Jan 22, 2008 edition of Wall Street Journal piece entitled Obama's Bid Turns Focus On Class Split Among Blacks. Just amazing that in day and age folks think this way!

'Mr. Obama rarely discusses race on the campaign trail though he occasionally talks about seeing teenagers in Chicago hanging out on street corners who "look like me." His policy prescriptions for the inner city are similar to those of former Sen. John Edwards and Mrs. Clinton, including more money for jobs and education and reforming the criminal-justice system to eliminate the discrepancy in sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine, used more by blacks, and powdered cocaine, used more by whites.'

'Even as Mr. Obama is promising to bring America together, his candidacy is casting new light on the mounting class divide in the black community -- and the debate among blacks about how to get ahead. The expanding black middle class -- accounting for about 40% of the black population -- see in Mr. Obama a validation of the choices they have made: attending largely white colleges, working in predominantly white companies and government offices, climbing up the ladder of American success.

For African-Americans living in the inner city -- where most children are being raised by single mothers, male unemployment in some cities tops 50% and 40% of young black men are either in jail, awaiting trial or on probation -- the view of Mr. Obama is much more skeptical. Black teenagers mock Mr. Obama as a "Halfrican" and a "50-percenter" for his biracial background; his mother is white, his Kenyan-born father was black. A recent special on Mr. Obama on Black Entertainment Television, the most popular station among inner-city blacks, was titled, "Obama: What's in It for Us?" '

'Many of the features that whites find most appealing about Mr. Obama -- his mixed-race background, cosmopolitan upbringing, the ease with which he moves among whites -- stir unease among some blacks. The debate among blacks about Mr. Obama has become unusually intimate, including discussions about the color of his wife's skin.'

'Mr. Obama's candidacy comes amid an intensifying argument in the black community about what it means to be black in America and how blacks succeed. A survey this past fall by Pew Research found that 60% of blacks say the values of poor and middle-class blacks have grown more dissimilar over the past decade -- with "values" defined as "things that people view as important or their general way of thinking." Almost 40% of blacks say that the values of poor and middle-class blacks have diverged so much that blacks can no longer be thought of as a single race. Middle class is commonly defined as households making between $40,000 and $100,000 a year'

Red Pill Vs. Blue Pill

From an economic perspective here is a timeless post, How do the right and left differ? by Greg Mankiw.

• The right sees large deadweight losses associated with taxation and, therefore, is worried about the growth of government as a share in the economy. The left sees smaller elasticities of supply and demand and, therefore, is less worried about the distortionary effect of taxes.
• The right sees externalities as an occasional market failure that calls for government intervention, but sees this as relatively rare exception to the general rule that markets lead to efficient allocations. The left sees externalities as more pervasive.
• The right sees competition as a pervasive feature of the economy and market power as typically limited both in magnitude and duration. The left sees large corporations with substantial degrees of monopoly power that need to be checked by active antitrust policy.
• The right sees people as largely rational, doing the best the can given the constraints they face. The left sees people making systematic errors and believe that it is the government role’s to protect people from their own mistakes.
• The right sees government as a terribly inefficient mechanism for allocating resources, subject to special-interest politics at best and rampant corruption at worst. The left sees government as the main institution that can counterbalance the effects of the all-too-powerful marketplace.
• There is one last issue that divides the right and the left—perhaps the most important one. That concerns the issue of income distribution. Is the market-based distribution of income fair or unfair, and if unfair, what should the government do about it?

Bill Clinton Has a Dream

I hope someone uses this to knock Hillary.

S.C Debate Nuggets

If the following is true then I think Obama is not going to be on the ticket. From The New York Times Political Blog:

"8:50 p.m. | Letting It All Out This has turned into a major confrontation, an unspooling of the months of oppo research done by each campaign, and it is hard to see how Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton ever patch this up.

For those of you who ever thought that one of them would choose the other as his or her V.P., it’s time to recalculate.

One possible lesson: Don’t get into a fight with the Clintons. As Mrs. Clinton said during her back and forth with Mr. Obama, she knows how to take the incoming. She’s taken it for 16 years. For better or worse, Mr. Obama was less comfortable on the attack."

Slipping that race comment:

"Mr. Obama gave (almost) as good as he got, especially in taking on not only Mrs. Clinton but Bill Clinton. Perhaps with an eye on the huge African-American vote here, he said that the attacks on him showed that a black man had become a credible candidate.'

Here is the full transcript of the debate.

Wil SC be a New Hampshire Deja Vu for Obama? Hmmmm.....

If Race Does Not Matter

Over the course of last few weeks, I have had these intense discussions with good minded folks who claim that that Race is not a factor in the Democratic race. I beg to differ. It is the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about until they have to deliver some kind of knockout punch.

Here is an example of the subtle wink (from Illinois Reviews)

Campaigning for her husband today at a historically black college in South Carolina, Michelle Obama told the audience that a Barack Obama win would change the country's image in a big way. "Imagine our family on that inaugural platform," she said. "America will look at itself differently. The world will look at America differently. There is no other candidate who is going to do that for our country. You know that.

This is one big reason why I am not sold on Obama.

Hillary's Hypocrisy

Here is the opening line from a recent NYTimes Artcile, For Clinton, Government as Economic Prod:

"Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said that if she became president, the federal government would take a more active role in the economy, to address what she called the excesses of the market and of the Bush administration"

How hypocritical considering that she was part of the administration that presided over the biggest speculative bubble (the internet bubble 0f 1996 to 2000) and the greatest destruction of wealth.

I sure hope she gets called out on this.

A Game of Chance Romney-Thomson Ticket

Fred Thomson has a low probability of winning enough delegates to be nominated as the Republican candidate.

He does have a good chance of being #2 on the ticket, especially with Romney heading the ticket. With the economy expected to go into a recession, Romney's economic experience and background will prove to be an asset. It will also allow him to focus on the economy and less on social issues. (Very similar to what George Bush did in 2000).

Being a southerner, with Senate experience, name recognition and someone who appears to be very congenial, Thomson can complement the Republican ticket with Romney.

In order to message this intention he should use his campaign resources to attack McCain & Huckabee when possible. By doing this Thomson can avoid having to explicitly make an agreement with the Romney camp (so that his attacks can be credible and sway voters) helping Romney win, especially, in those southern states where the Romney camp cannot spend their scarce resources.

A Romney-Thomson alliance can effectively battle the McCain-Huckabee forces and produce a ticket that the Republicans can back.

John Yoo - The Legal Brains Behind The War on Terro

The following is an excerpt from John Yoo who was the intellectual power house that crafted the legal framework used by the Bush Administration against the 'War on Terror'. He was instrumental (and rightly) in redefining the rules of dealing with those involved with terror.

Emphasis is mine.

"Both the president and Congress have agreed that the United States is at war, and Congress passed an authorization for using force against any groups, nations or people responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Capturing prisoners has been a permanent feature of war throughout human history; hundreds of thousands were detained during World War II alone. Sometimes, unfortunately, the enemy has included U.S. citizens - in the Civil War, every Confederate soldier was a citizen, and in World War II some Americans fought in the Axis armed forces. They never had a right to sue the soldiers who caught them.

We are in a difficult war against an unprecedented enemy. Its members deliberately disguise themselves as civilians and carry out surprise attacks on innocent civilian targets. They do not have a territory, city or population. They are trained to claim abuse when captured and to appeal to the legal system to tie up democracies in knots.

It is a difficult job for our government and armed forces to adapt the rules for war to such an unconventional, non-state opponent."

John Yoo is a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of War By Other Means".

He is a supporter of the unitary executive theory and based his arguments for a strong response from the executive branch to terror. Here is an example of this: The War Powers Act.

Most folks wrongly assume that the unitary executive theory is something cooked up the the Bush Administration. It has a long history and has been used by past Presidents. This post, called, What the "Unitary Executive" Debate Is and Is Not About , from the University of Chicago Law School, gives some information on the history of the unitary executive theory.

Why Mitt Romney Can Win

Good summary as to why Mitt Romney can win the Republican nomination.

From http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/01/019554.php

"My guess is that Romney's views on the social issues are similar to my own: he's a social conservative, but doesn't have much appetite for red-meat politics on abortion and gay marriage, and places much higher priority on the economy and national defense. With hindsight, I think there was a better way for Romney to position himself: as a conservative and supremely knowledgeable expert on the economy, as George Bush's heir as a vigorous defender of the U.S. in the war against Islamic terrorism, and as a person who is himself a social conservative--just take one look at his family portrait--but who doesn't talk much about those issues except in the context of the constitutional philosophy which will guide his appointment of judges. I think if he had followed this route, he would have been truer to himself and more credible to voters."

Now that the economy is taking center stage, he is the only candidate with experience and the results to prove it.

Game Theory of Race

Hmm. Could this have been so predictable? Smells like classic Prisoner's Dilema. No? Each candidate goes after what differntiates themselves until there is nothing left but race, the lowest demoninator.

Clinton Decries Negative Tone in Campaign

Just as Barack Obama wrapped up a press conference to talk about the ugly racial turn the Democratic race has taken in the last several days, Senator Clinton released a statement of her own — saying, “Over this past week, there has been a lot of discussion and back and forth - much of which I know does not reflect what is in our hearts. And at this moment, I believe we must seek common ground.”

Obamanomics

Obama strategy seems to be to strut down the primary runway with new fashioned economic policies. But the new is mostly the old Democratic economic garb.

The following information is from Crains Chicago Business.

"For all his rhetoric about moving beyond partisanship, his economic policies hew closely to classic Democratic lines and differ little from those of his primary opponents. Except for a few business-friendly wrinkles, he mostly caters to the party's traditional base."

"Mr. Obama wants to let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire, close corporate tax loopholes, raise the tax on capital gains and dividends, give unions more organizing power and and make employers pay for health care one way or another. He'd give a big tax break to the middle class while slapping labor and environmental conditions on trade deals."

My old Professor, Austan Goolsbee seems to be helping the spin unfortunately. (This is the same professor who penned the following for the New York Times Irresponsible' Mortgages Have Opened Doors to Many of the Excluded. I wonder if he plans to pen a new article based on more current data?)

"He has a bit of an eclectic approach to economic policy, not an old-style liberal Democratic approach," Mr. Goolsbee says, offering as examples Mr. Obama's support for a market-based method to reverse global warming and for eliminating capital gains taxes on investments in start-up companies.

Mr. Goolsbee, who's known for his columns in the New York Times and his research challenging conventional arguments for tax cuts, claims little credit for the Obama economic platform. He describes his contribution as "separat(ing) bad ideas from good, innovative ideas." One element he added was a proposal to eliminate the need for millions of taxpayers with simple finances to fill out tax returns."

"Mr. Goolsbee says the biggest philosophical difference among the Democratic contenders is that Mr. Obama puts more faith in market-based solutions and incentives than his opponents do."

"From a corporate perspective, that's a distinction without much of a difference. All three would make companies "pay or play," imposing a tax on firms that don't provide health coverage to their employees."

Don't believe the eye candy. Is bad for your economic health!

Democrats are Beatable in 2008

Here are a few thoughts from the January 11th edition of Wall Street Journal.

"Mrs. Clinton is ambitious and clever; if there's a way of winning this race, she'll find it. She also won't be bound by any "hopeful" pledges of bipartisanship, but will skillfully exploit whatever ugliness comes out of the current Republican brawl."

"The Obama upside: Mr. Obama is flying high right now, but he owes some of that altitude to what has been a remarkably polite Democratic race (he has yet to face a negative ad), and a charmed press corps. Don't expect Mrs. Clinton to continue placing party unity above her own shot at the White House. Just yesterday, the press teed up some unflattering Obama stories, one about a curious real-estate deal he'd done with a man now facing federal corruption charges; another about highly controversial abortion votes in the Illinois senate. Even if the Clinton campaign wasn't the inspiration for these pieces, you can trust it'll run with them.

The hope among Republicans rooting for Mr. Obama is that there's more to come, only after the nomination and after his party is stuck with him. They're confident they can get traction out of a liberal Illinois and Washington voting record. And he's a rookie who has already committed some foreign-policy flubs; any future ones, under the intense general-election media glare, could prove campaign-wreckers."

Delirious Change

Here is the definition of delirium from wikipedia:

Delirium is an acute and relatively sudden (developing over hours to days) decline in attention-focus, perception, and cognition. In medical usage it is not synonymous with drowsiness, and may occur without it. It is commonly associated with a disturbance of consciousness (eg, reduced clarity of awareness of the environment). The change in cognition (memory deficit, disorientation, language disturbance) or the development of a perceptual disturbance, must be one that is not better accounted for by a preexisting, established, or evolving dementia. Usually the rapidly fluctuating time course of delirium is used to help in the latter distinction.^[1]

Because it represents a change in cognitive function, the diagnosis cannot be made without knowledge of the affected person's baseline level of cognitive function.

The Obama fan base seem to be full of it. Delirious Change may not be the right change.

Punch Drunk on Obama

Seems like a good number of folks are punch drunk on Obama. Not me.
Let see what the hang over looks like!

OpSoc Applications

Looking forward to seeing some Open Social apps.

OpSoc = Open Social in my parlance.