|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Read These Books |
July 1, 2008 Too many conservatives are putting all their eggs in the "speculators not causing high gasoline prices" basket. I believe there is plenty of blame on all sides. I see a perfect storm - an analogy that has also been used by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, and, others, I am sure. My take is that the Left loves scarcity and hates energy because it frees people and gives them opportunity. Scarcity allows government to grow because scarcity must be managed. The Right, on the other side, extols the free market and distrusts government. It sees the free market as something just below the Lord as the protector from sin and from greed going rampant. Accordingly, goes the thinking, the free market doesn't allow disruptions to last long, or conspiracies to prosper. Given the chance, it is always increasing supply when demand goes up. Thus, given this conflict between Left and Right, I hold that the various players - OPEC, governments, traders, oil and gas companies - have been given a gift of being able to raise prices to current levels while both political sides fight over the cause(s). Here is my scorecard: 1. OPEC - what group of western companies could meet to determine prices and outputs without bringing lawsuit after lawsuit upon them by the EU, U.S. Justice Department, or WTO? But, because OPEC is a group of governments, the western democracies view them geopolitically, not as a business organization subject to the various international treaties or trade agreements. Thus, their business practices take a secondary position. 2. Traders - at the least, it is a reasonable question to ask what role new traders or speculators are playing. It has been posited that money exiting the equity and real estate markets has found a new home in the commodities markets. If market psychology favors higher gasoline prices due to the above conflict - and some true higher demand - then market players will capitalize on the confusion and current mindset. 3. Traders, continued - I understand some of the traders have been allowed to hold product even though they are pure traders as opposed to those who can hold product because they actually use the product (Southwest Airlines for example). There is supposed to be a distinction. The reasoning, I surmise, is that regulators don't want traders hoarding a commodity that they would never use in order to drive up the price. I understand some of these investment and hedge funds have actually built or secured storage facilities to take delivery. It has also been stated that a West Texas company has been allowed to run its trades through Dubai and that American regulators (CFTC) have stated such trades would fall under Dubai's regulatory agency. (See above two links for articles on #2 and #3.) 4. Demand - we often hear about the roaring economies of India and China. But, I was stunned to learn how little China is importing as new demand. Raymond Learsy's Over a Barrel was my source for this. It is a book well worth reading for its take on OPEC and how western oil companies chose to "join" rather than "fight" OPEC's agenda. Even subject to update, it is my belief that demand from these two countries, while increasing, can not be used to explain such an increase in price - not by a long shot. Here is William F. Buckley's review of Learsy's Over a Barrel. 5. Demand, continued - we often read that OPEC says they are pumping enough and that there is no need for new oil and that refineries do not need any more oil. Which is it? Do they have more refinery capacity or not? If Saudi Arabia is going to be pumping more and another OPEC spokesman says there is no room or need, where will the oil go and why are prices so high? With demand supposedly increasing so much, why is it we never see shortages and empty gas stations? Why do they all seem to have all the gasoline we need? Do you see all these contradictions? 6. No new refineries - we are told there have been no new refineries built in 30 years because of governmental and environmental roadblocks. If that is true, how is that the ethanol and electricity producers have managed to build ethanol refineries and power plants to meet their demand. During the CA electricity crisis we were rightly told that CA had built no new power plants but that Texas had built dozens. How did Texas get those power plants built? How did the ethanol producers get their refineries built if Democratic governments and environmentalists were in the picture. Do you mean to tell me that Texas can get power plants built to produce electricity but wouldn't allow oil refineries to be built? The voters in a town in South Dakota recently approved a oil refinery proposed by a company called Hyperion. Let's watch the progress together. 7. Oil companies - deserving of profiting from their efforts just as any company. But they are dealing in a vital and serious commodity. Corn can be speculated on but people can eat wheat. Pork bellies and silver can be hoarded but people can eat beef or chicken and pass on silver. No other commodity has the place of oil in the world economy. I see very little transparency from the oil companies. Have you ever seen a true chart showing their involvement in a barrel of oil from ground to pump? How do they report each participation they have? Are there different arms of the same company in extraction, transportation, refining, transportation again, and retail? We hear figures about an 8% return but is this telling the whole story? Is it only on the parent company while a lesser arm is reporting a much greater return? I don't know. I am suspicious. Prices don't go from $2.50 to $4.50 (California) without someone making better than 8%! 8. Oil companies, continued - in San Diego County (mostly red politically) several years back we were dealing with an unexplained rise in prices that other parts of the nation weren't experiencing. The usual reasons were trotted out - summer to winter blends, no new refineries, high demand, expensive real estate. A local law was proposed that would have prohibited oil companies from owning retail outlets. Las Vegas had successfully implemented such a law, or something similar. While this might seem draconian, San Diego was furious at the time and at its wit's end as to what to do. We didn't want to go this route but felt we had no choice. We weren't getting good answers. The law passed in the suburban city councils but was written to require San Diego's City Council to pass it, too. We didn't want to create a division. Under the glare of public lights the City Council voted unanimously to pass the new law. Then, due to the necessity of a "second reading" reading under CA law, it was turned down. They had been threatened with lawsuits by the gasoline companies. This was their cover because the same or similar law had been implemented in Nevada and a representative of the private dealers was weighing in during our campaign. Many of us believed the SD City Council was looking for an excuse and had been given it through the threat of a lawsuit. During the testimony predatory practices by the gasoline companies came out. It was learned that independent dealer A (let us say with the Shell brand) was told he had to buy his gasoline from distributor A and not distributor B. We also learned that a gasoline company would open up its own station close to a profitable independent dealer station carrying its brand. To add insult to injury to the independent who was carrying its brand of gasoline, it would sell its gas for less. Now, the free marketers would say, well, couldn't the independent lower its price? Ah, it couldn't because it could only get its wholesale supply from distributor A who just so happened to be selling it for more than what the brand new company store was retailing it for. The independent did all the heavy lifting to get a location going profitably and in comes the company to push him out. Now, you may say why do these independents sign such restrictive contracts. A good question and one I asked. I guess they don't feel they are entering into a relationship with sharks or that they have the leverage. It is supposed to be a win-win. Testimony from a gasoline rep revealed that gasoline companies "price to the market". I remember the curious phrasing was used not to explain supply and demand but was a clever way to say, "Well, we get what we can then we lower it if we can't get it any longer." It is one thing to get one's price but then to cover the high price with explanations about high demand, summer to winter re-formulations, expensive real estate, etc., is subterfuge. It throws honest consumers off the scent. If Rush Limbaugh, as he jokes, charges confiscatory prices for his commercials, one is free to advertise elsewhere. But Rush wouldn't explain his high market prices by saying he has this cost and that cost to cover. No, he is charging what the market will bear. 9. Governments - yes, it is true that the state and federal governments get a tax off the top. Conservatives like to point out the government is making more from a gallon of gas than the oil companies and aren't doing anything. I view this as irrelevant. The same tax has been there when gas was $1.50 and when it is $4.50. It is a known way for government to raise money to pay for whatever it is they are taking the tax for. I was under the impression the federal tax was for roads, but I may be wrong. Sales tax increases are a factor, though. Consider that local and state governments are now getting the sales tax on $4 instead of $2 or $3. Sales tax is backed out of the total retail price. Thus, local and state governments may be tempted to view this increase as a windfall. But, it must be impacting sales tax from other products as consumers go out to restaurants less or postpone other purchases. So, it might be a trade off. 10. Human greed - we saw the same principle with Enron and during the electricity crisis in California. Yes, California government played a huge role in mismanaging the deregulation of the electricity market. But the energy companies took advantage. Rather than acting honorably in setting the price for wholesale electricity, they arbitrarily moved it around. If you remember, most conservatives blamed the government solely. Long after the dust settled, it came out that four energy companies settled with the state for huge sums of money. See links below for articles on settlements. Free markets are pretty good as protectors but they are far from perfect. Human greed is everywhere. When Jesus said the love of money is the root of all evil, he wasn't giving a dissertation on taxation and the evils of over-regulation. He was pointing to the evil in the human heart. The links below prove that the free market isn't enough and that business can be predatory under certain scenarios. I like how Dennis Prager looks at things. First, tell the truth and then give your opinion. He also is fond of saying he has no love of big anything, including business. He strives for clarity before agreement. I would think it would be beneficial to truth and good markets for transparency and full disclosure of all the different aspects. Then, we can decide what to do. But this confusion is frustrating. It is unbecoming of good minds to defend bad practices whether they are being done by governments or private companies. Let's keep digging for the truth and be ready to see it wherever it shows itself. Here are some articles on the settlements California (and Washington and Oregon) reached with energy companies involved in the electricity crisis. I contend if you go back and read or listen to conservative commentary at the time of the crisis it will, with little exception, be blaming California government. Duke Energy: http://www.atg.wa.gov/pressrelease.aspx?&id=4660 El Paso Energy - note the huge dollar amount of the settlement: http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=928 State of Washington page on various settlements with energy companies: http://www.atg.wa.gov/Divisions/Antitrust/CurrentCases.aspx#ElPasoSettlement Oregon settlements with El Paso, etal: http://www.doj.state.or.us/releases/2003/rel032103.shtml July 1, 2008 Jerry Doyle is suggesting Iraq, rather than signing contracts with American oil companies, should be sending some free oil to America to pay for our liberation of the Iraqi people and our 600 billion dollar investment in their country. I'm with Jerry. Unfortunately, Jerry's podcast archives require a premium membership. Thanks to Jerry for bringing up this issue so eloquently. June 18, 2008 Former vice-president Gore has surely angered Michelle Obama should Senator Obama win the presidency. Al Gore's sin? In his barn-burning endorsement of Senator Obama, Al Gore "moved a bar" for an Obama presidency that may be impossible to clear - the executive branch's supervision of the food and consumer goods supplies. By telling his audience we would like a T (tomato) on our BLT and implying President Bush is to blame for the recent tomato salmonella scare in his list of reasons why "elections matter", is Al Gore saying that food scares and consumer good recalls wouldn't be necessary under an Obama administration? This begs the question - What was the Clinton - Gore administration's record for recalls? The reader can visit this link to see food recalls for the just the year 1994. This link takes one to the federal government's recall search page. As Mark Levin pointed out on his radio show yesterday there are trillions of transactions each day in the American economy. To paraphrase Levin - "What does Al Gore expect? That the government will be looking over the shoulder for each of these transactions?" Recalls will happen under a McCain presidency or an Obama presidency. To mislead the voter into believing we can get perfection in the food supply is folly. Mr. Gore is right to focus on China and product safety. The Chinese are much more likely to cut corners than U.S. manufacturers. But what is Mr. Gore proposing that is different to how Pres. Bush has handled or Sen. McCain would approach the import of Chinese goods. How ironic that David Gergen would posit Mr. Gore as a possible Obama envoy to China and India to get them to lower their carbon emissions. May 26, 2008
Memorial Day 2008. Fly a flag today, visit a National Cemetery. Say a prayer of gratitude. Pray for President Bush and the troops. Here is a poll: Here is the answer to the above poll.Just as God likes a cheerful giver, it is always preferred that companies do things on their own, without nagging and cajoling. It is instructive to see how when companies get a certain culture certain things begin to follow. Patriotic and religious holidays are replaced by global causes (global warming, Earth Day) or safe expressions. The conservative movement is necessarily stuck in a mode of having to point out the things the Left leaning institutions are doing to our culture. Whether it is the removal of Christmas and Easter from corporate and school calendars, or the ignoring of holidays that speak of patriotism and remembrance of war dead, or the overthrowing of the people's will by activist judges, the task has fallen to us to nag those who should know better. Speaking for myself, I would like a rest. But such a rest is down the road. You go to the election with the staff leftover, not the staff you wished for. Scott Johnson, of Powerlineblog, has a post up about the staff errors piling up at the Obama campaign. He credits Jake Tapper of ABC News for the story. Scott adds Robert Malley to Tapper's list of jettisoned Obama staff. Might we hear down the road sometime a statement by Sen. Obama, echoing the unfairly maligned Donald Rumsfeld, "You go to the election with the staff leftover, not the staff you wished for." Don't miss Scott Johnson's coverage of the Minneapolis Islamic charter school, paid for by taxpayer funds, and the feud that has opened up between a Minnesota state official and the reporter who broke the story. Here is a Google search of the Powerline coverage on the Islamic charter school. March 25, 2008 Natasha Korecki is the Federal Courts Reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times and is running an Eye on Rezko blog. Thanks to Rezkorama for the link. Hugh is still tracking the Polar Bear story. March 18, 2008 Hugh Hewitt is warning his readers of possible back door attempts to get CO2 restrictions hoisted on the economy by legislation that would be needed to enforce a proposed inclusion of the polar bear on the threatened species list. He is directing his readers to submit voter comment to the appropriate agency. I found an opposing view to the global warmist's contention Hugh warns about over at the Science and Public Policy Institute. The link leads to a report by Dr. Mitchell Taylor and Dr. Martha Dowsley, who are not affiliated with the Institute. The first paragraph of the report is titled Abstract and contains these key points:
If I am reading this properly, the authors are contending that the initial finding made a significant error in the mean generation time of polar bears, which affected the overall finding. It also appears the authors are already writing off Wester Hudson Bay as an environment that can support polar bears (i.e., it is too late for Hudson Bay). Finally, it seems the authors contend that polar bear populations has actually increased, I guess, just not in the Western Hudson Bay area. Put another way, it appears the polar bears adapt, just as we adapt. Send your comments on the Polar_Bear_Finding@fws.gov . The proposed rule is here. Go to HughHewitt.com for initial and continuing coverage. March 15, 2008 Reflections on the Obama - Rezko Land Deal Update (visitors coming from HughHewitt.com, who would like to get the full picture of my view on the Obama - Rezko property purchases, should start with the March 7 post below) The latest breaking take on the deal - and from Sen. Obama himself - is that the first offer on the vacant lot (see below), which we were previously led to believe was $625,000, was only an option that Mr. Rezko "took over". Who had the option, whether the option contained a purchase price or not, and how much this option cost Mr. Rezko, are questions we will not get the answers for yet. In this account given to us Friday, we also are told the $14,300 fence was paid for by Rezko and wasn't really a favor because Rezko was fulfilling an obligation to a city ordinance which required vacant lot owners to fence their property. My guess, subject to verification, is that the fence the city requires is to keep the vacant lot from becoming used as a dump site or place for vagrants to hang out in. For these purposes, the lot was already protected. The new fence only "protected" the lot from the Obamas. And, I don't think the city ordinance expected an architect designed and supervised construction of a $14,300 fence. I think what they had in mind are those chain link temporary fences you see fencing off the lot while the lot is being sold. "Though each was partly in the right, And all were in the wrong!" - Reflections on the Obama - Rezko Land Deal The Obama - Rezko deal is beginning to look a bit like The Blind Men and The Elephant story. Each blind man feels a part of the elephant and proclaims what the elephant must be like. "Though each was partly in the right, And all were in the wrong!", is the poem's concluding verse, because the blind men couldn't see the whole elephant. This is the state we are in as regards the Obama - Rezko land deal. Here is the AP story by Christopher Wills March 10 headlined - An Obama-Rezko Primer. Note Mr. Wills's take on the sellers' intentions:
Here is the Bloomberg story by Timothy Burger mostly covering the first entrance of the sellers to the public. Here is how Mr. Burger covers the sellers' intentions:
But
here is yet another
article, this one from The Sun-Times,
that appears to clear up
the
confusion. It is Senator Obama's
responses to a set of questions submitted
by The Sun-Times. Here are a
few of the questions that cover the
relevant issue of the sellers' intentions:
An effort should be made
to talk to the listing broker, to the sellers
further, and to this developer. To
be continued......? Here are a couple of good background stories on the Obama-Rezko land deal. The first is a Chicago Tribune, November 1, 2006, article. It covers the transaction in nice detail. Click here for this story. The
second is
from Bloomberg, is dated February
18, 2008, and covers an email(s)
received
from the original sellers to
an Obama spokesman. Here are some key
sections I thought interesting:
Bloomberg reporter Timothy Burger wrote this story. It can be found here. UPDATE: Has anyone produced the Multiple Listing Service listing of the properties before they were purchased to verify the original asking price of the home and the vacant lot? This must be a matter of public record. Or, some Chicago broker must have back copies available. The Chicago Tribune piece above states, "In the past, the two lots had been sold as a single estate. But in 2005, the owners listed the two parcels for sale separately." Is there proof of this on the MLS? Has anyone seen the initial listing? Why did the sellers take this approach? Did they believe they would get more money - a reasonable thought - if they sold their property in two pieces? Or, did the Obamas and Rezkos suggest this approach? If you were under federal investigation, would you be buying vacant property to develop? Maybe so, lots of people contending with lawsuits, still must pursue their occupations. Why would you need to put it in your wife's name? There may be a good reason for putting it in your wife's name. Did the Mutual Bank of Harvey, the mortgagor of the Rezko vacant lot purchase, know that Mr. Rezko was under investigation? If they did, would this not be a tributary one could pursue to find out how a bank would loan to a family with such a cloud over it? Was the mortgage ever in arrears? Did the Mutual Bank of Harvey ever start to foreclose on the property? If the mortage was in arrears, and the bank did start to foreclose, were they convinced to wait for Rezko lawyer, Michael Sreenan, to come to the rescue? Regarding the dispensation of the vacant land, my figures tell me Mrs. Rezko made a nice, tidy sum on the two sales of the vacant land. She paid $625,000 in June of 2005. The Obamas gave her $104,500 about 6 months later. Rezko attorney, Michael Sreenan, gave her $575,000 about 18 months later. That brings her total received to $679,500, or a profit of $54,500. Nothing necessarily improper there. But, if the mortgage was delinquent (was it, or not, I truly don't know) why would you pay a profit for the property? Certainly a true investor wouldn't give Mrs. Rezko such a profit if he knew the property was near foreclosure, or if he knew the Rezkos were in financial distress, unless, of course, the lot were in high demand and there were others parties interested? Does anyone have any information on the status of the mortgage at the time of the Sreenan purchase? Was the vacant lot listed for sale at the time? Were the Rezkos already in financial straits? One last line of questioning for now - the Bloomberg story says the Obamas made three offers in January of 2005, the third being the accepted $1.65 million. But the house closed in June of 2005. What took so long? Were the sellers looking for a new home, and hadn't yet found one? There can be good, valid reasons for an escrow to take so long. But, there can be other reasons, too. Was the property already split, not just surveyed? Did the sellers only then begin the process? If so, this brings into question the idea that it was originally the sellers idea to put the property up as two separate parcels. None of this is meant to indict anyone. I want to be fair to the Obamas, Rezkos, and Mr. Wondisford and his wife. These are only legitimate questions to ask. February 2, 2008 Happy Ground Hog Day and Happy Birthday H.H. (not Hugh Hewitt but another H.H.)! The other H.H., Hugh Hewitt, has a post up about the Maine Caucuses. Romney won 53% of the vote. My cursory research shows the 2005 population of Maine to be 1,321,505 and the population of New Hampshire to be 1,309,940 (source: infoplease.com). Despite the presence of Mark Steyn living in New Hampshire, Maine still has more people. Yet, New Hampshire got the MSM focus. If the MSM weren't present, would it be necessary to create them? Or, when will we learn to do without them? February 1, 2008 I hurried the January 31 post and may have garbled it a bit. Let me clarify by reworking the same post and adding on to it. Senator McCain is assuring the conservative base that he has heard the message contained in last year's defeat of the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill. He promises a fence. The conservative base should up the ante right now. Let Senators McCain, Martinez, etal, (including Sen. Kennedy?) craft the inevitable immigration reform bill they would present to a President McCain. This future bill could then be presented as part of the campaign and the voters can use the bill as one factor in deciding whether they trust Senator McCain with the nomination and presidency. Senator McCain should pledge that he will not sign any other bill. At the very least, he could give a 10 point summary of major provisions of the bill stating how he would treat such things as the fence, employer enforcement, handling of current illegal aliens, handling of those with expired visas, etc. He could publicly give his solemn word to Senators McConnell, Cornyn, and Kyl that he doesn't want to see any bill during the next congress that doesn't contain these proposed provisions. Perhaps Governor Romney could do the same and the voters could decide who had the better legislation. Who knows, this might start a trend. How much more empowering an election would it be if we, the voters, knew what legislation - at least the major ones - was coming down the pike! You say, it goes contrary to Congresspeople's nature. Yes, but perhaps mostly out of habit and the idea never having been seriously presented. After all, certain state voters get to vote on propositions and initiatives - some presented by the voters, some by the state legislatures. I am not proposing a direct national vote, at least not initially. Yet, thinking of a national vote on legislation, why not? Why not have competing budgets on the national ballot? One presented by the current members of the Republican congress; one presented by Democrat members. Let the voters then decide which budget gets put into play for the next fiscal year. Surely we have the sophistication and technology to do such a thing. January 31, 2008 Senator McCain is assuring the conservative base that he has heard the message over last year's defeat of the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill. He promises a fence. The conservative base should up the ante right now. Let Senator McCain, Senator Martinez and Senator Kennedy craft the inevitable bill now and present it to the voters during the campaign. Senator McCain should pledge that he will not sign any other bill. To be continued... January 23, 2008 Michael Medved is bragging about Sen. McCain's lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 83. But, note that Michael is quoting Sen. McCain's lifetime rating. I dug into ACU's ratings and came up with the following: Sen. McCain's first ten years (1987 - 1996) in the Senate earned him an 88.7 ranking. His second ten years (1997 - 2006) earned him just a 74.4 ranking. His 2006 rating was a paltry 65 (thanks to a hughhewitt.com commenter for this lead). Now, if one is evaluating a candidate, it would seem that the most current years are more important than the earlier years.
This is not the property of ACU but my own spreadsheet from their data. Note in the above bar graph McCain is only above 80 one time in the last ten years. Here is the same data, but as a line graph. If your stock portolio looked like this, would you think it is a pretty good deal?
This is not the property of ACU but my own spreadsheet from their data. January 23, 2008 In the arguments against nominating Senator McCain, I haven't heard this one: McCain's Senate term is through in 2010. If he is elected president, how is his successor chosen? Arizona has a Democrat Governor. Does she pick from a list of candidates approved by Arizona's Republican Party? Or, does she name her own choice? I will research and report. Update: here is the Arizona statute on replacing U.S. Senate vacancies: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/16/00222.htm&Title=16&DocType=ARS It doesn't look like there is any danger of mischief. There would be a special primary and general election called. In the meantime, Governor Napolitano (Dem) would have to appoint a Republican successor to hold the seat until the special general is decided. It may be key to note that the most recent senatorial election in Arizona had Sen. Kyl (Rep) winning by about a 53% - 44% margin - with the Libertarian candidate getting 3%. McCain won his 2004 seat by a much larger percentage. Of course, Republican losses in the 2006 elections were the result of the Republican Congress squandering their majority. So, were McCain to win, one could speculate that the seat would remain in the Republican fold. January 23, 2008 Too bad about Fred. I hope he is considered as a candidate if a brokered convention occurs. I sent some money to Rudy today for two reasons. One, because I am liking him more and more. Two, to keep Senator McCain from winning Florida. January 18, 2008 Real Clear Politics has a nice article about Fred Thompson up. The author is Rick Moran, of the American Thinker, January 13, 2008 The thought occurs to me, that I haven't seen much, or anything, being written about one of McCain's inconsistencies. Senator McCain rightly trumpets his disdain for corporate subsidies. But isn't illegal immigration one of the biggest corporate subsidies of all time. After all, the company or corporation pays the wage and the payroll taxes. The taxpayer pays for everything else - the hospitals, schooling for the illegal immigrant's children, etc. It is true that the company or corporation pays its fair share of taxes but you see the point. Were the employers to pay higher wages to Americans, the illegal would have to go home, taking his dependents with him and all the costs associated. I don't see this stressed enough. Is Senator McCain for some corporate subsidies but not others? November 30, 2007 Scott Ott of Scrappleface.com has a great item up following the CNN/YouTube debate. His headline- "CNN to Team with Google for Next GOP Debate". November 21, 2007 Happy Thanksgiving to all! I thank God for so many blessings. November 17, 2007 Today we ask you to sign up for earmark reform:
Hugh Hewitt is getting pummeled in the comments section for his treatment of David O'Steen of the National Right to Life Committee over their endorsement of Fred Thompson. I came in half-way through the interview but agree with most of the commenters that Hugh's treatment of Mr. O'Steen was not appropriate. The NRLC has worked tirelessly for the unborn for many years and deserved more respect. Those in California are familiar with the California Pro-Life Council, the California affiliate of the NRLC. The NRLC deserves to have their own process of endorsing a nominee without having to go through the filter of individuals or organizations who have their own criteria. Hugh should have been more respectful. If he didn't realize how significant an endorsement this is, he would not have been so forceful in trying to argue against Mr. O'Steen. Congratulations to Fred Thompson. October 21, 2007 Congratulations to Bobby Jindal on winning the Louisanna governor's race - without the need for a run-off. Patrick Ruffini writes about at HughHewitt.com. October 10, 2007 Scott Johnson, at Power Line, addressing the Dobson, etal. third party drift, has a good post up today commenting on Tony Blankley's two recent columns, here and here. Mr. Johnson pulls out this quote from Mr. Blankley:
Mr. Johnson agrees but then offers this:
Good call! Too often, pundits and talk show hosts take the tact of calling for pragmatism, expecting the base to approve the candidate who is not even asked to change his views. Of the two factions - the base or the candidate - why is it always the base which is asked to compromise? One man's view is sacrosanct but the views of millions can be set aside, just so we don't get something worse. Regarding the issue of abortion - can it be that difficult of a move for a man who says he is personally opposed to abortion, but wants to keep it legal, to say he can be convinced that a personal, moral choice should be codified into law? Surely, such a view as Mayor Guiliani holds is not one of deep conviction. It is a lazy view, one that has the element of having acquiesced to it rather than having been forcefully convinced of its logic. Surely, the mayor is personally opposed to slavery and would be repulsed by anyone who says it should still be legal, or left up to the individual states. Yet there were likely many who held that very same view of slavery in 1850! One can be personally opposed to gambling, as I am, but not necessarily see the need to make it illegal. But how can one view abortion as the taking of an innocent human life but not want to see it made illegal. It can only be that one is afraid to upset or anger those who want to have abortions. Could it be that Mayor Guiliani fears women, thinking it is women who want the right to have abortions? Yet, it is just as many women who are opposed to abortion and it is women who lead the pro-life movement. Could Mayor Guiliani be afraid of religious passion, perhaps being a little embarassed by it? Or, could he be afraid of the messiness of it all, of having to assign moral guilt to someone who is doing something they "believe" in, or who somewhat believes in what they are doing and are not setting out with clear, murderous intent - the type of intent Mayor Guiliani is proud to say he took care of when he was mayor of New York. I think the move from "personally opposed" to "this ought to be illegal" is more a pyschological or spirtitual move than an intellectual one. That Mayor Guiliani is comfortable with his view, and not troubled by its laziness, is a concern. October 6, 2007 XM Radio has introduced a 24/7 station covering the presidential '08 election and entitled it "POTUS '08". Was happy to hear one of the hourly segments is handled by Pajamas Media. September 20, 2007 On his radio show on Tuesday, Mark Levin had a very succinct portrayal of Mrs. Clinton's and the Democrat Party's universal health care push. I'm paraphrasing - "She is trying to create in your imagination the idea of a perfect health care system. And all you have to give up is your liberty and wallet. But they can't deliver on the perfect health care system. It is impossible." [emphasis added] I particularly like the way he said they are trying to create "in your imagination." Levin hits on the psychology of the Dems appeal to the voter - you see, he has them saying, all we have to do is want it and it will be so. Levin went on Tuesday or Wednesday to draw the fuller picture Mrs. Clinton seems to be painting for the voter: we will have the latest technology with willing doctors and nurses accepting everybody whenever they want care. In reality, this will never happen. Hear how Levin crafts it on his September 19 and 18 shows. Scroll down to the bottom of the page for the Audio Rewind. September 13, 2007 Patrick Ruffini over at HughHewitt.com has a good post today. He calls out to the Republican party to take more care in who is nominated, not just going with who is next in line, or who the establishment wants. He is pushing for Eric Cantor to run against Mark Warner for the seat being vacated by John Warner's decision not to run for re-election. September 1, 2007 Over at Real Clear Politics Robert Novak writes about the strength of a Gov. Huckabee V.P. spot on either the Guiliani or Romney ticket. Not bad but...what about former Congressman John Kasich. Kasich has stayed in front of the camera over at Fox and has contemplated a run for Ohio governor. With Ohio such a key state, and with Kasich's youth, energy, and common sense, the GOP nominee might want to consider Kasich. September 1, 2007 Scott Johnson at Powerline has an interesting post about a Critical Mass bicycle incident in St. Paul. It appears certain of their members, or infiltrators into their group to give them any benefit or the doubt, interfered with an arrest. Others joined in, back-up was called. Here is an April incident in San Francisco involving Critical Mass. San Francisco, Minneapolis/St. Paul. Hmm. Is Minnesota becoming the headquarters for all things radical? August 19, 2007 John Hinderaker hits a home run with his analysis of Christiane Amanpour's CNN series God's Warriors. His main point - she fears non-violent Christian fundamentalism's ongoing efforts to change America much more than she does violent Islam's hit and miss successes and less immediate dangers to her way of life. July 6, 2007 Now that it is known which senators should be opposed in their Republican primaries, it is my firm belief that without significant help from talk radio and the national base, no viable challengers will arise to challenge Senators Graham, Domenici, etal. The natural tendency in these matters is to take a huge victory (the immigration bill defeat) and go back home and rest while the internal workings of the Republican party take over. This is where conservative surges most often stall. (For my fleshed out theory on why this is click here.) There doesn't appear to be a Jon Bruning to self-arise in South Carolina to challenge Senator Graham. That a challenger hasn't been waiting in the wings, pouncing on such a golden opportunity as the immigration bill promotion by Senator Graham, proves my point. If Graham doesn't have a challenger, how will we expect one for Domenici? Talk radio needs to bring itself and its listeners into each state, on a personalized basis, to will that each state bring forth challengers. Talk show hosts need to physically go in to each state, talk to party leaders and voters, and buck them up and insist they bring forth a challenger. Bloggers can provide support from their home stations. Such a two-pronged approach may be all that is needed. The message to the elite Republican leadership in Washington would be thundering. Their response will be first, "How dare these meddlers come into my state and raise up a challenger?" Then, "Look what they are doing!" Then, "I'm in trouble!" June 28, 2007 Congratulations to all who worked so hard to defeat the immigration reform bill. Thanks to all the bloggers and talk show hosts who made a difference and never gave up. One comment to all those senators who bemoaned the role talk radio played - Imagine what would have happened had Rush broken his own rule and had given out your phone numbers! Sherlock Holmes and the Tuesday Cloture Vote To borrow from this famous conversation between Sherlock Holmes and John Watson in Silver Blaze, Watson - "Is there any point to which you would wish to draw
my attention?" Observer - "I point to the curious incident of the Republican
presidential candidates regarding the Tuesday cloture vote." Why such silence? Respect for the Party? Respect for the President? Fear of getting in the midst? Bad taste to get involved? June 25, 2007 Jerry Doyle asks on his show today if Senator Feinstein's raising of the Fairness Doctrine in her interview with Chris Wallace wasn't a trick to get talk radio to talk about the Fairness Doctrine instead of the immigration reform bill. Interesting thought. Since Senator Inhofe initially raised the question after claiming to hear Senators Boxer and Clinton discussing a legislative fix, I am not sure if Senator Feinstein is not reacting rather than conducting a strategic move. Regardless, Doyle's point is still valid. Talk radio can not get distracted by an issue that is not even on the table while the immediate cloture vote is imminent. I would think a better strategy for the Dems is to plan their big moves while talk show hosts are taking vacations that make the French envious. Switching to guest hosts can break up the momentum. Some guest hosts keep the issue front and center, others not so much. June 25, 2007 Michelle Malkin has an update on who in the Senate should be contacted to ask for a NO VOTE on CLOTURE. NumbersUSA has some good background. June 9, 2007 "The battle for Helm's Deep is over, the battle for Middle Earth is about to begin!" Congratulations to all who worked so hard to stop the immigration bill. It was a solid victory. But, it is clear that "Sauron's wrath will be terrible, his retribution swift." June 7, 2007 Jon Bruning, Nebraska Attorney General, was interviewed by Mark Levin yesterday. He is challenging Senator Chuck Hagel in the Republican primary. Bruning is articulate and ready for the challenge. Levin warned him the RNC likely won't help. Spread the news. June 5, 2007 Puppets, camp-outs, sit-ins? Senator Kyl, quoted by the Washington Post, "...said the flood of angry calls and protests that greeted the deal two weeks ago has since receded every day." What more does Senator Kyl want from us - puppets, camp-outs, and sit-ins? When senators are being booed by the legislatures from their own states; when pickets are set-up outside senator's home offices; when emails and calls had flooded in; when money is drying up, that ought to be sufficient. Shouldn't it? * * * And the news out of nowhere that the White House is preparing a list of Supreme Court nominees was commented on by Rush as a possible reminder to the base that more important things are in the President's hands and that they better get in line! Can you hold over people's heads something that is equally dear to you? June 1, 2007 A couple of paraphrased gems from Dennis Prager this week:
I think of these insights as inductive proofs of a position. In other words, they are not immediately deduced but are pulled out of a set of facts. One that strikes me as profound deals with the argument that the apostles were inventing Christianity (and didn't really witness the Resurrection) to profit themselves with the high positions they would have in leading such a religion. The response I remember (from Hank Hanegraaf ?) is that people might be willing to die, as most of the apostles did, for a truth, or possibly an untruth that they didn't know to be an untruth, but who would be willing to die for a lie they knew to be such? The point is that when confronted with persecution or death, the conspiracists would declare it was all a fraud and ask to be let go. Especially since the supposed benefits the accusers hurl at the apostles were hardly evident. The apostles were not living lives of leisure fleecing the flock with make believe stories of a risen Christ. The mind can search for the occasional exception but in the context of being simple fishermen and common Jews of the day, not in previous positions of leadership, such a conspiracy is hardly likely. A power craving madman might go down in flames with his lie, but even in such rare cases it might be posited that the madman believes his own lies (Hitler, Stalin, Ahmadinejad?). May 31, 2007 Hugh is taking some heat in the comments section to his Mike Allen interview post where he mentions again Fred Thompson's indolent lymphoma. Like me, commenters are doubting Hugh's bonafides in posing the question when he could just as easy investigate himself. Do you think if Mitt Romney had indolent lymphoma Hugh would have researched it for his book? One commenter points Hugh to the Internet, a wonderful source for such information. Hugh may have heard of the Internet. You know, the new media. A Google search returns plenty of info for Hugh to sift through, even an interview with Fred himself on the subject. Hugh posits that he doesn't have the reportorial capabilities that Politico does. Gosh, Hugh, that's a shame. May 30, 2007 Michelle Malkin has an excellent piece up on the booing of our Miss USA. I would add to her comments that it is likely that a fellow Tennessean of Miss USA has also taken note of the booing. I don't think big Fred Thompson will be as passive as President Bush when an American is humiliated in front of a worldwide audience. May 30, 2007 Where's Hugh? Maybe Dean's "He's In" post on Stephen Haye's declaration that Fred Thompson is running will force Hugh back to the microphone. If only because now Hugh will really, really need to get to the bottom of Fred Thompson's health. Listeners to the show may agree with me that Hugh's four forays into Fred's condition to date were:
Funny that Hugh, proud promoter of the new media and all its manifestations, with a radio audience that must include some cancer specialists, has limited himself to here and there reports. Could Hugh not have impaneled a group of specialists for a show's segments? Let me make a suggestion. Set aside, soon, oh, the third hour of a Friday show to deal with the issue. May 28, 2007
Please visit this Day by Day Memorial Day cartoon. You will be touched by the report of successes taking place in the construction of Iraq. Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the link. May 24, 2007 Thoughts on the immigration bill: Any debate should include the real cost of an existing or new worker - especially those who are "doing the jobs Americans don't want to do". If tax money for hospitals, schools, infrastructure, etc., are added on to the hourly wage, it may very well be we can't afford that new worker. It may be as simple as that. If the nice fellow who works at the car wash has a child in school, or incurs a hospital stay for his wife, we may need to forego his services. The car wash owner has his need for inexpensive labor met, but society may incur too many costs down the road. Any formula other than using real costs is pointless. Put it another way - if the car wash owner had to pay the laborer for every living cost that laborer will incur, the laborer would be priced out of the market.
May 22, 2007 Hugh Hewitt is to be commended for his tireless efforts in dissecting the immigration bill. He is raising serious objections, as are most major talk show hosts. Fred Thompson is furthering his potential candidacy by eloquently opposing the bill. Mitt Romney and Duncan Hunter have come out against the bill, the latter being the greatest proponent of a completed fence having been the architect of the current fence. Fred Thompson points out that the people just don't believe the government is interested in enforcement. They know, not just suspect, that new promises will be broken. May 19, 2007 The push to stop the immigration bill continues. Keep sending out emails. The best list is at this Town Hall column by Hugh. Scroll down for the email addresses of senators. Let's not forget the Democratic senators and the Blue Dog Democrats in the House. I agree with someone who said that the Dems in both chambers are not going to want to ram this through without Republican cover. The Washington Times is reporting that New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg is, according to an aid, prepared to spend $1 billion in an independent bid for the presidency. This gives the Republicans, and Democrats, a marvelous opportunity to put campaing spending limits where they belong - in the recycle bin, then on permanent delete. (thanks to Drudge for the link) How ironic if a Bloomberg candidacy harms Mrs. Clinton as much as a Perot candidacy benefited her husband. Can the Democrats win without New York State, for example, or one or two other blue states? Who needs the prolifigate Democrats when you can have a fiscally conservative proponent of green policies? This is the time Congress can inform the American people that it is not right that a candidate can spend his own fortune but that another candidate can not spend another's fortune or some combination of others' chosen contributions. A strong case can be made that open disclosure on the internet of all contributions should take care of hidden influence. Incumbent senators, perhaps tired from the endless fundraising, can use this opportunity to once and for all get rid of limits. Report contributions openly and get on with it. The case can be made that those better able to legally funnel money here and there - the teacher's unions and trial lawyers - gain undue influence because others don't have the energy or desire to game the system the same way. May 7, 2007 Hugh Hewitt was on the Stand to Reason radio show yesterday, May 6, and on Michael Medved's radio show today. A pretty good STR show, with Greg Koukl including Craig Hazen, and John Mark Reynolds in on the conversation. Greg seemed concerned that the idea of Mormonism's non-Christianity not get taken off the table as the larger issue, if not a factor in who to decide. But today, in blocking for Mitt Romney, Hugh and Michael were piling on Fred Thompson's performance at the Lincoln Club. You see, Hugh was there, and reporting as an unbiased observer. Bob Novak also delivered his report. Hugh and Novak agree that Thompson didn't hit a home run. In fact, Hugh said he wiffed. One could ask - Could it be that Mr. Thompson was giving the tone he intended - studied, deliberate, and policy related? It may be he was reluctant to give a stemwinder when he knew he wasn't yet declaring. It may be the setting wasn't right. The clips I heard on the Medved show sounded good e |
