My problems with Obama revolve around a deep seated distrust that is far worse than with most politicians. Character issues seem to haunt Democrats, so I was not likely to favor their candidate. I have had enough of the seediness of Bill, Hillary, algore and John Kerry (who served in Vietnam). Barry scares me so badly that I crossed-over in the primary to vote for Mrs. Clinton. I have posted a great deal of negative stuff about the man in this blog and I have read tons more that is far too long or complex to post. Now comes this post over at Directorblue.
This is the story of an unnamed female "big bucks" DNC contributor from Chicago, who in a response to a criticism "that she could not see the forest through the trees" leveled by DNC Treasurer Andy Tobias, wrote the letter below that flat out nails all of my concerns. Has the letter been collaberated? Not to my knowledge but it rings true, just as Obama registers negatively.
So you want to know what is taking me so long to "get on board"? Let me try to answer with some discussion of what my 25 years on Wall Street and the Hedge Fund community have taught me, and what insights I can share in order to explain my stance.
...Andy, if I worked and served the people in the 13th District in Chicago, I would have known all of the players. And to win that district, would I have gamed the system to run unopposed? Tony Rezko would not have had a seat at my table. Either Obama is a fool and is blind to what should have been obvious, or someone like Tony is fine by Obama's standards. The guy is a dirtball. And a dirtball would not be part of my circle, certainly not my inner circle. I would rather not be elected than associate with someone like Rezko.
Nor for political or any other reasons would I choose Rev. Wright, Rev. Meeks, or Father Plager as my spiritual mentors. Again, he is either blind or an opportunist. Would I be hanging out with Mr. Ayers? Would you? Would you refuse to be photographed with Gavin Newsom? There is a pattern with this guy - he manipulates; the ends justify the means. He lacks character.
Getting not one bill passed in the first 6 years of his career in not inspiring. Having Emil Jones hand him the ball 26 times on the one-yard line in order to make Obama a United States Senator does not cut it either. What deals he made, he did to benefit no one but himself. He never worked long enough in either Senate to help the people who elected him. Andy, I could never imagine you taking credit for legislation someone else slaved over. Starting in his community organizing days he claimed sole responsibility for other people's accomplishments all for the purpose to boosting his career.
In terms of the campaign itself, I had the opportunity to witness his methods up close. During the primaries I was in 6 states, 2 of which had caucuses; it was not clean. El Paso was a joke with the Obama campaign stealing the caucus packets, locking supporters out - Intimidation 101, 102 and 103. Fair elections do not seem to be a priority in my birth state. No other machine exists from the days of Boss Tweed, but Chicago's. How many elected officials are in jail?They are the joke of the nation. It is called the Chicago machine for good reason.
...Andy, I have consistently found you to be a compassionate person, but more importantly you have always put your money where your mouth is. Does it not bother you that a guy like Obama can serve a poor district and give away a paltry $1000 to charity? He only stepped up his giving when he decided to run for President and he knew his charitable giving would be made public. How could anyone see that much misery and not try to personally do something about it?
Please, show me something this guy ever did that was not done in a calculated fashion to create and advance his own personal narrative? Something selfless, perhaps, just because it was the right thing to do?
Every person I have talked to who worked at the Law Review at Harvard with him, or in the later part of his career, said the same thing: he was arrogant and self-centered. One person laughed, saying Obama wanted to be King of the World, that he was always running for something, never staying in one place long enough to amass accomplishments or be held accountable.
Do you not you find it troublesome that he has hundreds of paid bloggers, posting vicious attacks not only about the Clintons but her supporters as well? The whole purpose was to cast him as the second coming, while trashing her and quashing other points of view.
At first I thought is was just some hyped up kids, and then a pattern emerged. He paid others to do his dirty work. The most egregious sexist cracks were rampant, both on the Internet and the MSM. Yet, what did Howard and Obama say? Nothing. Obama promoted it, paid his bloggers to write it. Never once did he try to stop it. Howard, after the damage was done finally commented on it, but barely. Wink, wink.
...[Obama] is turning out to be more like Bush than McCain; Obama is at least as arrogant as W, just more polished. Are you not ashamed, in these past weeks, of his reckless abandon of any pretense to a moral center on issues such as FISA, separation of church and state, gun control? And what he did to one of my heroes, Wes Clark? Insulting my intelligence and my standards will not win me over.
But, in this conversation, you will say, McCain wants to be in Iraq for 100 years. No, he said that as in Japan, or Korea, we could have a presence. We have been in both of those countries for 60 years and not leaving any time soon, and the world is safer for it.
Next will be, McCain is not knowledgeable about the economy. While with Carly Fiorina, who I remember from her Lucent days, at a town meeting he turned the mic over to Carly when asked about the mortgage mess, painting her as the expert. Wow - he gave a woman a compliment, praising her knowledge, referring to her as the expert. How often have you praised Charles, or me, and everyone for that matter? Why? Because you are gracious and you know it reflects well on you.
All this might not bother me if so much if the stakes where not so high, but they are. I am an issues person, not a cult of personality devotee. Substance matters. Barack is a politician, an inexperienced one at that, pretending he is different. I just see him as arrogant and power hungry. Our country deserves better, someone I would be proud to do business with.
Andy, my country comes first, not the Democrat party. Having said that, I believe that the Democratic Party has just kicked away the best candidate and our best chance to redeem our country, Hillary Clinton, a proven centrist. Given his resume, or should I say the lack of one, he is either ineffective or hiding something, neither answer gives me the warm and fuzzies. If she is chosen in Denver, you can count on my full and enthusiastic support. Until then,
I own my vote.
by gadfly2 Comments »
From Israel Insider:
What initially seemed to be a journalistic scoop of dubious moral propriety now seems to be a case of an Israeli paper being played by the Barack Obama campaign. Maariv, the second most popular newspaper in Israel, was roundly criticized for publishing the note Obama left in the Kotel. But now a Maariv spokesperson says that publication of the note was pre-approved for international publication by the Obama campaign, leading to the conclusion that the "private" prayer was intentionally leaked for public consumption.
At around 5am last Thursday, Obama arrived at the Kotel, or Western Wall, abutting the holiest site in Judaism, the Temple Mount. Accompanied by the Rabbi in charge of the site, Shmuel Rabinovich, he reportedly heard Psalm 122, which contains a prayer for the peace of Jerusalem, touched the wall briefly and then deposited a note of prayer into a crack between the ancient stones, in keeping with the tradition of visitors to the site. On his way out, he was briefly heckled, with one man calling out that "Jerusalem is not for sale" and "Remember what you see here." Trying to drown out the critics, a few supporters chanted his name.
For that "scoop" the paper has come under fire. Yediot Aharonot, the country's most popular daily, published an article Friday saying it had also obtained the note but decided not to publish it, to respect Obama's privacy. Other Israeli media outlets initially ignored the story, or picked it up only after the initial publication had triggered a controversy.
However, it now appears that Maariv had collaborated with the Obama campaign in getting the "private" prayer, with its "modest" supplicaton to the Lord, out to the public, buffing his Christian credentials and showing his "humility."
A Ma'ariv spokesman was quoted in the Jerusalem Post as saying that "Barack Obama's note was approved for publication in the international media even before he put in the Kotel, a short time after he wrote it at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem."
In an Op-Ed piece in today's Washington Times, Voight offers his views of the Messiah:
Read the rest of it here.
We, as parents, are well aware of the importance of our teachers who teach and program our children. We also know how important it is for our children to play with good-thinking children growing up.
Sen. Barack Obama has grown up with the teaching of very angry, militant white and black people: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers and Rev. Michael Pfleger. We cannot say we are not affected by teachers who are militant and angry. We know too well that we become like them, and Mr. Obama will run this country in their mindset.
The Democratic Party, in its quest for power, has managed a propaganda campaign with subliminal messages, creating a God-like figure in a man who falls short in every way. It seems to me that if Mr. Obama wins the presidential election, then Messrs. Farrakhan, Wright, Ayers and Pfleger will gain power for their need to demoralize this country and help create a socialist America.
Paul Gigot at WSJ has a long expose' on the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac fiasco. These excerpts tell it all:
Yet as studies have shown, about half of the implicit taxpayer subsidy for Fan and Fred is pocketed by shareholders and management. According to the Federal Reserve, the half that goes to homeowners adds up to a mere seven basis points on mortgages. In return for this, Fannie was able to pay no fewer than 21 of its executives more than $1 million in 2002, and in 2003 Mr. Raines pocketed more than $20 million. Fannie’s left-wing defenders are underwriters of crony capitalism, not affordable housing.
Trying to defend the mortgage giants, Paul Krugman of the New York Times recently wrote, “What you need to know here is that the right — the WSJ editorial page, Heritage, etc. — hates, hates, hates Fannie and Freddie. Why? Because they don’t want quasi-public entities competing with Angelo Mozilo.”
H/T: Coyote Blog
That’s a howler even by Mr. Krugman’s standards. Fannie Mae and Mr. Mozilo weren’t competitors; they were partners. Fannie helped to make Countrywide as profitable as it once was by buying its mortgages in bulk. Mr. Raines — following predecessor Jim Johnson — and Mr. Mozilo made each other rich. Which explains why Mr. Johnson could feel so comfortable asking Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) to discuss a sweetheart mortgage with Mr. Mozilo, and also explains the Mozilo-Raines tag team in 2003.
Way back in November of 1999, Alex Taylor III wrote an article for Fortune entitled "Oil Forever." He points out that the first oil well was drilled in 1859 and by 1878 our Department of the Interior was predicting only 13 years of supply remaining. In 1951, wise Interior bureaucrats again told us we had 13 years supply. So how much oil is left and how long will it last?
The answers are mostly reassuring, once you dismiss the doomsday opinions of a renegade band - call them the neo-Malthusians - who say shortages could develop very soon. They believe global oil production could peak soon and then start to decline rapidly. Prices could spike, leveling stock markets, endangering economies, and leading to war once again.
Their argument goes like this: Oil is a finite resource. Nearly half the oil that exists has been used. This halfway point between what has been pumped and what is left to pump is critical. Once it is reached, perhaps as early as next year, production will peak and then decline sharply. As production falls, the gap between supply and demand will grow, pushing up prices and causing shortages. "When you accept that there is a limit to the amount of oil, you accept that there is a peak in production," says Colin J. Campbell, a consulting geologist whose views have been published in Scientific American and elsewhere.
Most experts do not believe Campbell's prediction of apocalypse any day now. "This analysis is a piece of foolishness," says M.A. Adelman, emeritus professor of economics at MIT. "The world will never run out of oil, not in 10,000 years." Adelman and others believe Campbell has ignored oil reserves that companies have not yet found because they haven't invested the capital to identify them.
Nor is oil the only resource in the ground that produces energy. There are also tar sands, oil shale, and heavy oil--collectively known as "unconventional oil." Campbell tends to dismiss oil substitutes because they would be expensive to develop and would damage the environment. Still, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that tar sands in Canada and extra-heavy oil in Venezuela contain the equivalent of about one trillion barrels of oil--slightly more than all the oil that has ever been burned. It also figures that global oil shale deposits--one-third of them in the U.S.--could hold another 15 trillion barrels. In all, the government estimates that by about 2020, two trillion barrels of unconventional oil could be produced from various sources at a cost of $30 per barrel.
DUBLIN, Ireland - (BUSINESS WIRE)
Research and Markets has announced the addition of the new report by David D. Perimutter entitled : Blogwars: The New Political Battleground.
Political blogs have grown astronomically in the last half-decade. In just one month in 2005, for example, popular blog DailyKos received more unique visitors than the population of Iowa and New Hampshire combined. But how much political impact do bloggers really have?
In Blogwars, David D. Perlmutter examines this rapidly burgeoning phenomenon, exploring the degree to which blogs influence--or fail to influence--American political life. Challenging the hype, Perlmutter points out that blogs are not that powerful by traditional political measures: while bloggers can offer cogent and convincing arguments and bring before their readers information not readily available elsewhere, they have no financial, moral, social, or cultural leverage to compel readers to engage in any particular political behavior. Indeed, blogs have scored mixed results in their past political crusades. But in the end, Perlmutter argues that blogs, in their wide dissemination of information and opinions, actually serve to improve democracy and enrich political culture. He highlights a number of the particularly noteworthy blogs from the specialty to the superblog-including popular sites such as Daily Kos, The Huffington Post, Powerlineblog, Instapundit, and Talking Points Memo--and shows how blogs are becoming part of the tool kit of political professionals, from presidential candidates to advertising consultants. While the political future may be uncertain, it will not be unblogged.
For many Internet users, blogs are the news and editorial sites of record, replacing traditional newspapers, magazines, and television news programs. Blogwars offers the first full examination of this new and controversial force on Americas political landscape.
Mickey Kaus over at Slate wonders:
Does Obama Want Edwards Gone? Will the Pro-Obama Bias [of the MSM] Turn Anti-Edwards? At this point, does Barack Obama want John Edwards to even show up in Denver, much less give a prime time speech?
Even if the Love-Child saga progresses no further than it already has, an Edwards Denver appearance will inevitably be accompanied by renewed speculation about his seemingly scandalous and politically toxic behavior. Obama's in what looks like a surprisingly close race. He doesn't need to carry Edwards' baggage. He needs a positive convention. And Obama has previously shown a willingness to bury troublesome associates without much fuss (ask Jim Johnson).
If you're an Obama strategist, mightn't you conclude that the best thing for your candidate would be if the press weighs in quickly and definitively concludes that Edwards is guilty, with the result that he and his whole sordid story go away until after November?
Let's tally up the list. First under the bus was Barry's friend and financier Tony Rezko; then his typical white grandmother, Madelyn Dunham; then there was the Reverend Jeremiah Wright; then there was Father Michael Phleger and finally there was the entire congregation at Trinity United Church of Christ.
So there is now room it seems for the sleazy Breck Girl. Before fall, bombers Bill Ayres and wife, Bernardine Dohrn will join the crowd.
Scott Johnson over at Power Line summarizes Obama speech in Berlin yesterday that conservatives could not bear to hear. It is scary stuff.
After giving the Obama version of Cold War history, where humanitarian aid rolled back communism, Obama devoted a sentence to discussing the terrorist threat. He moved on to the heart of his speech, stating, implicitly or explicitly:
• That the Europeans are right to consider global warming the primary threat we face: “As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya” and “This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands.”
• That the US will not act independently of the Europeans: “That is why we cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone.” Especially not the Iranian nuclear threat: “My country must stand with yours and with Europe in sending a direct message to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions.”
• But that the goal of abolishing nuclear weapons supersedes the goal of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon: “This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons…It is time to secure all loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the arsenals from another era. This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons.”
• That trade policy under an Obama administration won't be for free trade, but for trade conditioned upon union, environmentalist demands. Trade will facilitate wealth redistribution rather than a free market: “Together, we must forge trade that truly rewards the work that creates wealth, with meaningful protections for our people and our planet.”
• That the European Union is the model of the future and that we have transcended the era in which America should assert itself on the world stage: “…we need a strong European Union that deepens the security and prosperity of this continent, while extending a hand abroad. In this century - in this city of all cities - we must reject the Cold War mind-set of the past, and resolve to work with Russia when we can, to stand up for our values when we must, and to seek a partnership that extends across this entire continent.”
• That we should emulate the Germans on carbon reduction ("Let us resolve that all nations - including my own - will act with the same seriousness of purpose as has your nation, and reduce the carbon we send into our atmosphere.")
• Finally, Obama apologized for America's wrongdoing, promised to stop the use of torture, and asked for Germany's (and Europe's) help in extending European policy across the Atlantic: “Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law?” and “Let us build on our common history, and seize our common destiny, and once again engage in that noble struggle to bring justice and peace to our world.”
Josef Joffe noted in The New Republic, “If he ran in Germany, Obama would carry the country by a landslide, with 67 percent of the vote.” This comes as no surprise, as this is a speech about turning America into the European Union more than anything else.
From the publishing house of TimesOnline (UK):
And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.
The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.
When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”
In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.
Read the remainder here.
At a morning background briefing, reporters parried with senior advisers on the characterization of Obama’s speech Thursday in Berlin as a campaign rally. The outdoor speech at the Victory Column could draw thousands of people, similar to the size of Obama events in the United States.
“It is not going to be a political speech,” said a senior foreign policy adviser, who spoke to reporters on background. “When the president of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally.
“But he is not president of the United States,” a reporter reminded the adviser.
Someone forgot to tell his campaign chairman.
Wind power is popular with environmentalists, whacko and otherwise, because it is renewable and clean ...although the turbines have been known to wipe out a bird now and then. Negative factors get in the way, first of all, because wind power is expensive. It is indeed cheaper to generate electricity using good, old-fashioned, coal-fired plants burning our most plentiful fossil fuel.
Allen Caruba at Warning Signs blog contributes this important information:
Robert Bryce, an authority on energy and the author of "Gusher of Lies'', points out that, “even in the best locations, wind turbines produce power only about one-third of the time and many produce at lower rates.” There is no comparison between the kilowatts generated by wind power and the billions from America’s nuclear or coal-fired power plants.It is truly simple folks ...when the wind blows the turbines spin to generate power. When the wind stops ...there ain't no electricity and there ain't no battery big enough to store it.
It’s not like it’s a secret that wind turbines are an unreliable source of electrical power. Bryce points out that, “In July 2006, for example, wind turbines in California produced power at only about 10 percent of their capacity; in Texas, one of the most promising states for wind energy, the windmills produced electricity at about 17 percent of their rated capacity.”
That means that there has to be nuclear, coal-fired or natural gas power plants functioning full time as a backup to the pathetically unreliable and inefficient wind farms. Moreover, what electricity they do generate is lost to some degree in the process of transmitting it over long distances to distribution facilities
by gadfly1 Comment »
This from an e-x-t-r-e-m-e right-winger as posted in the Oklahoma Forum:
Yahaim wrote:Obama is the Anti-Christ. This is the evidence:
1.- He will come as a man of Peace (Obama promises peace in Iraq, defeat for the US)
2.- He will come mounted on a white Female horse(Obama mother is white who had 6 African husbands)
3.- He will come to deceive( Obama says he's a Christian but in fact he was born a Muslim, practices the Islamic religion, prays Friday’s facing Mecca)
4.- He will make himself the most powerful man on earth, if elected
5.- He will try to destroy the Jewish People and Israel( Obama has said he loves the Arabs specially the Palestinians, hates Israel and Jews. Admires Hitler, Osama etc)
6.- He will present himself as good and righteous but in fact he's Satan himself. Violence is in his heart
7.- Obama will help Al Qaida in its evil projects.
8.- Barack Hussein Obama is the “King of the South” predicted in the Bible.(Daniel .11, Kenya is south of Jerusalem)
9.- Obama comes to implant muslim Sharia Law upon America.
Obama is the Anti-Christ, beware of him.
Watch him and don't let you be deceived by Him.
Supporters of Obama: 1.5 billion Muslims, Oprah, Louis Farrakanh, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and all American Muslims.
OBAMA’S GAME IS DECEPTION AND VIOLENCE
A VOTE FOR OBAMA IS A VOTE FOR OSAMA AND KILLER ISLAM!!
My Fainess Doctrine will survive day one anyhow.
"The New Yorker Magazine is being protected by security guards and several cartoonists have gone into hiding after the magazine published a cartoonish cover about the Obamassiah. According to Obama scripture it is blasphemous to make images of the prophet. ObamaNation fundamentalists have threatened to bomb the magazines’s offices and kill the cartoonists."
Hat tip: curmudgingly & skeptical