Thursday, January 31, 2008

Clinton is divisive now, Obama is next!


Obama told an audience that Clinton would hurt Dems! (Obama Calls Clinton Divisive Figure)

Obama is right. What he is not telling audiences is that he (Obama) is going to divide the country even more!

Wait until the country finds out how liberal Obama really is! Can you say "the most liberal"? See this:

"National Journal rates Obama the single "most liberal" member of the Senate last year, spotlighting some policy differences, as well writing GOP attack ad if he's the nominee, but perhaps also a helpful note in consolidating support on the left now." (Most liberal)

By summer, Obama's left wing liberalism is going to be a drag on most of those red-state Dems who run in counties between NY and LA.

Do you remember all of that red between the two coasts? Remember all of that red between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia? It did not vote for Gore or Kerry! It won't vote for Obama either!

It's time for Rush Limbaugh to calm down about McCain!



Let me say up front. I love Rush Limbaugh's show. He is the king of conservative talk radio. He is a daily dose of humor, talk and information for many of us.

What's going on with Rush?

He is not happy with McCain. Frankly, I am not happy with Limbaugh's attacks on McCain.

Of course, some of us have troubles with McCain's positions on amnesty, GITMO, McCain-Feingold, taxes, etc. I have posted several of my concerns in this blog.

Yet, McCain has been a steady conservative over the years. On the war on terror, is there anyone better? On amnesty, McCain, and everybody else, got the message. There won't be any resolution to our illegal immigration until the border is secured!

Here is the question: Do I want Barrack Obama or Hillary Clinton making appointments to the Supreme Court, conducting the war on terror or fighting entitlements? No way!

I like Six Big Lies About John McCain by Michael Medved! I love Don Surber's sensible post, too: "Now is a time of wound licking and soul searching for most Republicans. McCain did not win a majority of the vote. He is not the first choice for most among Republicans. But neither was Lincoln." (John McCain)


Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Is Reagan running against JFK?



Have you listened to both sides? It's JFK vs Reagan! (Oh, Camelot! By Kathleen Parker)

What does the Ted Kennedy endorsement mean for Obama? It means little in the general election. In fact, I guarantee that Ted Kennedy will not be allowed to campaign in about 80% of the nation's counties this fall. The Dems love Ted as long as he stays in Boston.

The Kennedy support probably helps in the Dems' primaries. The Kennedy can play "Camelot" and remind everyone of JFK.

Beyond politics, I think that the Kennedys are probably fed up with the Clintons. Wonder how Bill feels about any of this? See Clintons & the Race Card: Who's Surprised? by Christopher Hitchens!

P.S. How far to the left have the Dems gone? In '60, Reagan had a lot in common with JFK. Reagan may have voted for JFK since he supported FDR and Truman!

A chat with Steve Warshawsky about the economy and more!


On Tuesday, we spoke with Steven M. Warshawsky, attorney and contributor to American Thinker. We spoke about the economy and a little politics:

"A "recession" means two or more consecutive quarters of declining real gross domestic product.

Far from being in a recession, through the third quarter of 2007, the United States has enjoyed 24 consecutive quarters of GDP growth.

Furthermore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in January 2008 that unemployment was at 5.0 percent, which is low by any measure, and that real average weekly earnings were higher in December 2007 than in December 2006.

The economy, overall, is doing quite well.

Despite what the media tells us about gasoline prices or the housing market or job layoffs among Fortune 500 companies, the economy is not in ‘crisis."

There certainly is no rational, objective reason for Americans to be as concerned about the economy as they have become over the past few weeks." (Hypochondriasis Economicus By Steven M. Warshawsky)"

Speaking of the economy, our good friend Don Surber has a wonderful post today. (That darned economy is rebounding before Washington has a chance to save us)


McCain-Romney (that's still the best ticket!)




It's early, and perhaps worthless, but McCain got some great news this morning.


According to the RCP average, McCain leads Clinton by 1.8%!

There are two important issues pending:

1) What happens to Giuliani after the endorsement? My guess is that he will be McCain's #1 choice for Attorney General. I believe that a AG Giuliani will take a very aggressive posture on illegal immigration.

2) What happens to Romney? He will hang around for a while. Romney will unite conservatives and force McCain to pick him as VP.

McCain-Romney. That's the ticket!

It's time to rally around McCain!


Congratulations to Sen. McCain. He won a Republican only primary. It's time for everyone to rally around McCain and focus on Obama and Clinton.

Romney has fought a good fight. He is my choice for VP.

Giuliani is apparently ready to endorse McCain.

Huckabee's campaign does not make any sense anymore.

It's time for all of us to rally around McCain, and push for a McCain-Romney ticket. (Delegate Race: McCain 93, Romney 59)

Again, congratulations to Sen. McCain. Last, but not least, I was very happy to hear that the Cuban-Am vote was a huge factor in McCain's victory.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Romney for President!



It wasn't easy because I love McCain and respect Giuliani. We have 3 outstanding finalists! (No matter what, I will support our nominee. Anyone of our big 3 is better than the corrupt Clinton and the "content free" Obama)

It's time to turn the page and go with Romney. I'm glad to see that some of my favorite bloggers are thinking the same way. Captain Ed! (My Vote)

First, there is no Reagan in the bunch.

Reagan was a unique figure who comes along once in a while.

In the last 100 years, we've had two transforming presidencies, FDR and Reagan. They won big and created movements that outlived them.

FDR's coalition made the Dems the majority party in 1932 until Nixon blew it up in 1972! The movement was derailed by Watergate but it came back with Reagan in '80!

Don't wait for another Reagan. He is not coming! I should know! Like so many others, I was inspired to get into politics by Reagan. Reagan was the best and there is no other Reagan in the horizon.

Second, Romney is a solid conservative on social issues. On abortion and same-sex marriage, Romney stands with the party's base.

After all, we are a pro-life (anti-abortion) party. We believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Third, Romney has an outstanding record in the private sector. He started a company and turned it into a million dollar enterprise. He restructured companies and revitalized them. He speaks often of China and the reality of globalization.

What has Barrack Obama ever managed? or Hillary Clinton? The answer is nothing. Hillary can't manage Bill and Obama just manages to say little!

Fourth, Romney has a wonderful wife and family. Ann Romney has dedicated her life to Mitt and their 5 sons. She is a neat person who will make a wonderful First Lady.

Fifth, Romney is right on foreign policy. He understands the threats that we face and won't play "polls" with our national security.

Sixth, Romney has the best approach to illegal immigration. He understands that legal immigration is good and necessary. However, the rule of law is also vital for our democracy.

Why not McCain? I love McCain and he has a long and distinguished record. However, it's time to turn a page and look to the future. At 71, McCain is a figure from the past! I love him but we must move on!

Romney will borrow a play from Sarkozy in France. He will make the 2008 election about the future.

What kind of country do we want? Do we want high taxes, government health care and more dependency? In other words, do we want to look like France?

Or do we want low taxes, school choice, growth policies, private health insurance and more opportunity for our people?

I can't wait for Romney to debate Clinton or Obama! Let's see how Hillary Clinton explains her 99 Iraq positions. Let's see what happens when someone actually challenges Obama's "content-free" rhetoric!

I can't wait. I haven't been this excited about an election since Reagan trounced Carter! 2008 will be about the future. Romney is the man to lead the Republicans!

Monday, January 28, 2008

Why did Bill Clinton really get mad at Barrack Obama?


A week ago, Sen. Obama made a historical reference to Reagan. What he basically said was that Reagan had transformed the nation unlike Clinton. In other words, Clinton was an inconsequential president.

It was too much for Bill Clinton. He simply could not allow the new kid on the block to tell the truth.

Again, I don't think that Bill Clinton is a racist. I do think that he can't control himself and craves attention!

Obama wants to unite us under a liberal banner!


In my last post, I wrote that Obama is a cute fraud. I should have said that he is a cute liberal.

USA today has an interesting review of Obama:

"The record shows Obama to be a fairly doctrinaire liberal Democrat with a modest political résumé: eight years in the Illinois state senate and three as a U.S. senator. (Kennedy, by contrast, served 14 years in Congress before he was elected in 1960.)

As with Hillary Clinton, his voting record gets very high marks from labor and liberal groups and very low grades from conservatives.

Besides Obama's broader pledge to change the tone of political discourse, many of the big policy changes he says he would make if he became president are also similar to Clinton's priorities:

bring troops home from Iraq;

push for some form of universal health insurance;

scale back Bush's tax cuts;

and create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants."

This is going to unite the country? On the contrary, such a liberal rush would divide the country and create a massive backlash reminiscent of the first two years of Clinton.

For liberals, Obama's charm is that he opposed the war in 2002 when he was a member of the Illinois state senate. Beyond that, what else has this guy done?

Obama is a liberal in the tradition of Ted Kennedy. See the chart above, 100% and 95% liberal record according to the ADA.

So, let's have an election! Go ahead and nominate Obama. Let Obama make this case to a nation!

Obama is a cute fraud!



Last night, Sen. Obama gave another great speech and said little again.

It was content free. Frankly, Obama is content free. (Obama: "Yes We Can")

Frankly, I'm getting fed up with this litany of misery coming out of Barrack Obama's mouth. Why doesn't he take his own money and support all of those people that he keeps talking about? Couldn't Obama's book receipts purchase some health insurance for a couple hundred families?

Obama should read Ruben Navarrete's The Scary Sense of American Entitlement:

"The No. 1 economic threat facing the United States today isn't globalization, stagnant wages, unfair trade policy or illegal immigration.

And it certainly isn't what one cable TV demagogue glibly calls a "war on the middle class" by big media, big corporations and big special interests.

Rather, it's the sense of entitlement that many Americans take with them into the workplace and the eagerness with which they shift the blame when things don't go according to plan. The key is to never to take responsibility for the personal decisions you've made.

Eventually, some opportunistic politician will come along and confirm what you've always suspected -- that you are at the mercy of forces beyond your control.

It wasn't always this way. Fifty years ago, Americans were a heartier bunch."

That's right! The Democrats weren't always this way either!

Obama is all about entitlements and getting the government to take care of you!

It's amazing to see all of those fools buying into his content free rhetoric. It's all about hope! What kind of hope? Hope to get into my pocket?

It's pathetic to see what the Democrats have turned into. They are European socialists!

P.S. By the way, there may be a few surprises on this Rezco deal! (If you look closely, it's plain: Rezko is Obama's problem)

Sunday, January 27, 2008

What version do you like better?


(This is a great website if you are looking for a lost 45!)


In popular music, it is rare for a song to be a hit for more than one artist. Yet, there are exceptions. Let me share these examples:

1) In my life---It was originally released on The Beatles' "Rubber Soul". It is still my favorite Beatles' album, with other great songs like "Norwegian Wood" and "Michelle".

Judy Collins did something impossible. She recorded "In my life" and it was the best cover of a Beatles' song ever.

Decision: A tie!

2) As tears go by---It was originally recorded by The Rolling Stones. It is one of the few ballads written by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. I guess that "Ruby Tuesday" is the other one.

Marianne Faithfull, a cute British girl, recorded "As tears go by" a song composed by Mick & Keith. Marianne was a lot better looking, too! Looks matter, don't they?

Decision: Go Marianne!

3) More love---It was originally released by Smokey Robinson and the Miracles. About 15 years later, Kim Carnes recorded "More love" and introduced Smokey's great composition to a whole generation of fans.

Decision: How am I going to vote against Smokey Robinson? After all, didn't Smokey Robinson compose "My girl" by The Temptations?

4) I only have eyes for you---goes back to the early days of recorded music. The Flamingos recorded a very soulful version with some incredible harmonies. Many years later, Art Garfunkel released a great update of the song. (I only have eyes for you)

Decision: Art Garfunkel by just a bit!

5) In the Morning----also known as "Morning of my life". This is one of the Bee Gees' earliest tunes. Yet, Lulu, another cute British girl, recorded a very decent version. (In the morning) I should add that Lulu was married to Maurice Gibb.

Decision: Bee Gees!

Enjoy your weekend and pick your favorites!


Big win for Obama in SC!


Congratulations to Sen. Obama! It was quite a win! Obama Routs Clinton By 30 Pts!

On Sunday, Obama will pick up another endorsement. Obama: A President Like My Father by Caroline Kennedy!

Did former Pres. Clinton hurt his wife's cause? Apparently so! (Exit Polls: Bill Clinton May Have Hurt in S.C. by Alexander Mooney, CNN)

What does it mean? What happens next?

We will see on Super Tuesday! Nevertheless, it was a good night for Obama in SC.

Can Obama's leftist message appeal to a general election audience? I don't think so.

Obama speaks well. I like his life story. He is the first black candidate who is not indebted to Jesse Jackson.

However, he would be the most liberal candidate ever to seek the presidency.

Great night. Wonderful speech. More evidence that the Dems are moving to the left!

Is that a winning strategy? I don't think so and that's OK with me since I won't be voting for Obama.

Saturday, January 26, 2008

2008: Who would Dr. ML King vote for?



Today, the Dems will have their much anticipated South Carolina primary. It is the first time that Sen. Obama will run in a state with a significant black population.

The campaign has gotten tough. (The Dem Race: Nasty, Brutish & Long by Ron Brownstein)

Edwards, the eternal empty suit and lightweight candidate, won't win his home state for the second straight election. We should remember that Edwards could not deliver his home state to JF Kerry in 2004!

Edwards will probably go out soon. However, it's tough to tell an overvalued "ego" that nobody really cares what he thinks!

Caution: Edwards may get a lot of the white male vote today. (Can Edwards Finish Second?)

However, it means nothing. It just means that the Clintons were successful in playing the race card in SC.

It won't project into anything outside of SC.

The fact is that there are very few "white males" who vote Dem in the South anymore!

In the general election, SC white males will vote overwhelmingly for the Republican candidate. The Dems have lost the white male vote for 40 years!

Obama will probably win. However, they are expecting a huge turnout and that may throw the polls out the window. (Signs Pointing to Record Turnout)

Who knows if the pollsters picked that up? Pollsters usually call people who have voted before. Their projections are often wrong if new voters turn out.

Again, Obama is likely to win but I wouldn't be shocked if something else happens!

Of course, I don't really care who wins.

I can't wait for Clinton or Obama to debate one of our guys, say McCain, Romney or Giuliani. Frankly, I can't wait!

Obama and Clinton have used MLK for inspiration.

Yet, I'm not sure that the late Dr. MLK would be pleased with how the Clintons have played the race card.

Can you imagine Republicans treating Obama like this?

Even the liberals are full of the Clinton's tactics! (Clinton's Depressing Assault on Obama By E. J. Dionne)

They have misrepresented what Obama said about Reagan and everything else.

I think that the Clintons were angry that Obama thought that Pres. Clinton was an inconsequential president. Wasn't he?

Is there a serious historian who thinks that Bill Clinton's two terms mattered that much?

How can you be consequential if you keep punting on all of the major issues, from fighting terrorism to fixing Social Security?

Obama was simply telling the truth and he hurt Clinton's gigantic ego?

How would the late Dr. ML King vote?

Harry R. Jackson Jr. is the founder and Chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition as well as the author of The Warriors Heart: Rules of Engagement for the Spiritual War Zone.

Today, he wrote about all of this in South Carolina: Who Would Dr. King Vote For?:

"Last year I wrote a piece entitled: “King: Conservative or Liberal?”

I concluded that King’s core beliefs matched those of most conservatives with the exception of his sentiments about war.

Just three months before I wrote my op-ed (October 2006), a group of black conservatives ran a radio and television commercial in DC, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Ohio and Pennsylvania which stated that Dr. King was a Republican.

Even though their assertion was based in fact, the ads were seen as divisive, pieces of propaganda.

To my surprise many black civil rights leaders got upset at the assertion that King had Republican roots.

They felt that even if King were a Republican at one point in his life, this would imply his approval of the current agenda of the party.

Let’s return to the question of who would receive Dr. King’s vote.

If King voted Republican in the primary he would have been equally likely to vote for Huckabee, Romney, or Thompson because of their pro-life stands and their views of religious liberty.

On the Democratic side, he would probably see no substantive differences in the policy recommendations of any of the top Democratic candidates.

It would be difficult, however, to determine whose character and experience would qualify them to be the most powerful leader in the world."

Of course, Dr. ML King was not a politician and did not endorse candidates. However, Dr. King was all about God and character. Therefore, it's hard to believe that he would be cheering for the Dems today!

My guess is that he would be appalled at what the Dems' welfare state has done to his people!

Dr. King would also be an advocate for the rights of the unborn.

He would also strongly support the idea that marriage comes before babies! (See Clarence Page)

I have no doubt that Dr. King would be leaning Republican. He would be a "family values" voter and would be very comfortable sitting on our side!

He would stand with the pro-life party and support our efforts to define marriage as something between a man and a woman.

Finally, I have not doubt that the Dr. ML King would be in open warfare with charlatans like Jackson and Sharpton!

The Dems will continue to exploit MLK's dream. However, I have a feeling that MLK wouldn't be joining them on any political stage today.

The market's exciting week!


Let's review the stock market week.

On Monday, the market celebrated the MLK holiday. Overseas, the markets had a fit over this and that.

I find it interesting that the overseas markets were concerned with the US economy. We have 5% unemployment and most of them are around 10%. Why aren't they concerned about their overvalued euro?

On Tuesday morning, our Fed cuts the discount rate. The DOW goes crazy and makes an afternoon comeback.

On Wednesday, the market is down 300 at noon and fights back all afternoon.

On Thursday and Friday, the smart investors go in and buy a bunch of cheap stocks.

What happens next week? Who knows?

McCain should refuse The NY Times endorsement


The despicable NY Times endorsed Hillary Clinton, John McCain and unloaded on Rudy Giuliani.

Who do you think came out ahead? My guess is that Giuliani got the better of that exchange.

In the general election, The NY Times will endorse Hillary Clinton . They are simply going through the motions and recommending someone for the primary. So they picked John McCain!

This is what they said about Giuliani:

"Why, as a New York-based paper, are we not backing Rudolph Giuliani?

Why not choose the man we endorsed for re-election in 1997 after a first term in which he showed that a dirty, dangerous, supposedly ungovernable city could become clean, safe and orderly?

What about the man who stood fast on Sept. 11, when others, including President Bush, went AWOL?

That man is not running for president.

The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power.

Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square.

Mr. Giuliani’s arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking.

When he claims fiscal prudence, we remember how he ran through surpluses without a thought to the inevitable downturn and bequeathed huge deficits to his successor.

He fired Police Commissioner William Bratton, the architect of the drop in crime, because he couldn’t share the limelight.

He later gave the job to Bernard Kerik, who has now been indicted on fraud and corruption charges.

The Rudolph Giuliani of 2008 first shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business, with a secret client list, then exploited his city’s and the country’s nightmare to promote his presidential campaign."

Darn it. I think that I will join Rudy-G's bandwagon. Giuliani must be a genius if he made The NY Times that angry!

Here is the bottom line on Giuliani. He was an excellent mayor before 9-11. He was great on 9-11 and afterwards. Again, he did a marvelous job turning around a city that the Dems had screwed up beyond recognition.

Go Rudy-G!

I love this line about Giuliani: "....narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man...."

Based on that, why is The NY Times supporting Clinton? All you have to do is change "man to woman" and it applies perfectly to Hillary Clinton!

My advice to John McCain is simple: Don't let your mother find out that The NY Times endorsed you in the NY primary! She is going to get really mad!

Give the Obama staff an A+ for finding the Rezko picture!


As always, the Clintons have a memory problem when they don't want to remember something!('I DON'T REMEMBER MEETING REZKO')

During the last Dem debate, Hillary Clinton blasted Barrack Obama over someone named Tony Rezko.

Apparently, Rezko is in legal trouble in Chicago!

To be fair, Obama did not have a direct relationship with Rezko. It does not mean that Obama did anything wrong!

The Clintons made a big mistake. They kicked Obama for Rezko and Obama had the last laugh by producing this photo:

"But one political scientist says he thinks the photo will have further impact.

"Not only does it kill the Rezko issue, but it opens the door for the best remaining shot that Obama has, which is to rekindle Clinton fatigue, and remind voters of all those controversies from the 90s involving the Clintons," argued Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

Sabato was surprised that the Clinton campaign, known for its thorough and efficient campaign machine, seemed caught by surprise by the appearance of this photo.

"If you're going to attack your opponent for associating with a slumlord, you better make darn sure that you, yourself, have not associated with that slumlord," said Sabato.

"Her campaign has so many hundreds of staffers, and not one of them did some research to check into her and Rezko?" (Photo of Clintons: Obama Achilles Heel on Other Foot?)

This photo does not prove anything. So far, we do not know if Rezko gave money to the Clintons. Time will tell.

The photo does show that the Obama people are quick at responding. Good job!

Furthermore, it gives us something to laugh about!

Saddam thought that Bush would treat him like Clinton!



Thanks to Don Surber for posting this one. (Saddam lied, people died) The Power Line has a good summary, too! (Saddam Speaks...)

Saddam's been dead for over a year. Saddam met justice in Iraq, where they continue to find mass graves.

CBS will carry an amazing interview this Sunday with George Piro, the FBI agent assigned to interrogate him after his capture:

"The Iraqi dictator revealed this thinking to George Piro, the FBI agent assigned to interrogate him after his capture.

Piro, in his first television interview, relays this and other revelations to 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley this Sunday, Jan. 27, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Piro spent almost seven months debriefing Saddam in a plan based on winning his confidence by convincing him that Piro was an important envoy who answered to President Bush.

This and being Saddam's sole provider of items like writing materials and toiletries made the toppled Iraqi president open up to Piro, a Lebanese-American and one of the few FBI agents who spoke Arabic.

"He told me he initially miscalculated... President Bush’s intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998...a four-day aerial attack," says Piro.

"He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack."

"He didn't believe the U.S. would invade?" asks Pelley,

"No, not initially," answers Piro." (CBS)

Saddam came to the conclusion that the US did not have the stomach to take casualties. Why did he arrive at such point? Let us review the Clinton 1990's:

1993--The first Pres. Bush goes to Kuwait and Saddam organizes an assassination attempt. Clinton reacts by bombing Iraq;

1994-98---Saddam makes a mockery out of UN resolutions;

1998---Saddam kicks out the UN inspectors. So much for multinational operations. Clinton goes to the UN and the Security Council laughs at him. Eventually, Clinton orders a 4 day air war against Iraq.

During the Clinton years, Saddam Hussein shot at US and UK airplanes enforcing the "no fly zone".

Last, but not least, billions of dollars from The Oil for Food Program end up in the pockets of some diplomats, who coincidentally did not approve military action against Iraq. Why kill the cash cow?

No wonder! Saddam thought that we would never invade him!

Friday, January 25, 2008

They had a debate last night and Romney won!


There were five guys on the stage. This is how I grade their performance:

Ron Paul----I actually like him. He is a throwback to the pre-Eisenhower Republicans. We forget that it was Republicans who opposed the Korean War and made up the isolation movement in the 1930's. However,that was then and this is now. On foreign policy, Paul gets a big F. On economic issues, he is a bit of a libertarian. Overall, he did not look real good.

Mike Huckabee---the best one-liners all night. However, we are electing a president and Huckabee does not do anything for me. Overall, he gets a C-plus. Frankly, Huckabee's populism bugs me because populism is pure nonsense.

Rudy Giuliani---It was not one of his best nights. Rudy-G was a lot stronger in previous debates. He gets a C-plus. He needed an A because this primary is very important to his campaign.

John McCain---What can you can say about a 71 year old who has a beautiful 95 year old mother campaigning for him? McCain was pretty good. I gave him a B-plus. McCain will always get an A-plus on national security.

Mitt Romney----The winner with an A. Romney got lucky with a couple of the questions. First, his Social Security answer was profound. Second, his answer about the Clintons was just great! Last, but not least, the Mormon question was stupid. However, Romney gave a great answer!

By the way, Dem Senate Majority Leader is a Mormon. Why doesn't he get Mormon questions? Just curious!

Frankly, I find all of these questions about Romney's religion to be repulsive. As Romney said, we do not have a religious test in this country.

The polls show a tight race between Romney, McCain and Giuliani.

It will be close next Tuesday but Romney just moved a little closer to being the front runner!

The Clintons never cared about Dems!


The news is all about Dems worried about the Clintons ruining the party. Today's WSJ has a pretty editorial and reminder for those Dems who are suddenly concerned about their party:

""This is beneath the dignity of a former President.

He is not helping anyone, and certainly not helping the Democratic Party," added Vermont Senator Pat Leahy.

On the point of "helping" the party, Mr. Leahy seems to have forgotten that the Clinton Presidency was an era of more or less persistent Democratic losses -- except for the Clintons." (Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy)

Welcome to the real world, Sen. Leahy! Where were you when Dems were losing everything during the Clinton years? Don't you remember '94, '96, '98?

Don't you remember that Bill Clinton could not deliver Arkansas' 6 electoral votes to VP Gore in 2000? (By the way, VP Gore would have won the presidency by picking up Arkansas in '00!)

The Clinton years were so bad for liberals that 4 million walked out and voted for Nader in 2000!

Even today, Sen. Obama seems to be running against everything Clintonian! (Why We Called It Clintonesque)

Someday, sometime in the future, some Dem historian will look back and ask a simple question:

What were we smoking when we hitched our wagon to the Clintons?

Perhaps they were smoking what Bill Clinton didn't inhale!

Go Obama! You have a duty to disinfect the Dems, and the rest of us, from the Clintons!

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Who controls Bill? Hillary can't!


This is the most incredible political story since a certain president admitted doing "whatever he was doing" with a certain young woman in the Oval Office.

Bill Clinton is out of control. I can not believe that the Hillary Clinton is happy with Bill running around beating up Obama.

Today, we celebrate the 10th anniversary of Hillary Clinton's "right wing conspiracy" accusations. (Happy Birthday, Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!)

Ten years later, the Clintons are still something out of The Twilight Zone:




A few days, I suspected that Bill was just doing Hillary's dirty work. Today, I think that Bill is out of control. Hillary can't stop him. Bill craves the microphone and TV camera.

Bill Clinton was a disgrace as president. I just didn't think that he would be even more disgraceful as an ex-president.

Am I watching The Twilight Zone?

A couple of thoughts about Romney's ideas


Speaking of the future, I do like Rudy Giuliani's latest tax proposal. (The Giuliani Tax Cut By STEVE FORBES)

However, it is Gov. Romney who is really on the right track here.

I agree with Gov. Romney. We should eliminate taxes on savings:

""I think what we should do is take action both of a short-term stimulative nature, but primarily, our action should be to pull forward some of the long-term growth objectives that we had, such as lowering the corporate income tax rate.

That kind of an act will long-term help our economy, encourage businesses to stay and grow here, have businesses have more capital to invest back in the U.S.

Those kinds of actions, I think, have the long-term effect that we'd like to have as well as lowering the tax rate.

Lowering tax rates on individuals, particularly the savings rate on individuals – capital gains and dividends and interest – those will create long-term growth in the economy.

A combination of short-term and long-term effects, I think, is the best to get our economy going again."

Compare Romney's remarks with the "tax the rich" class warfare pandering coming out the Dems!

P.S. I should add that the latest budget deficit figures show that it is only 1.5% of GDP.

Sorry. That's not a crisis or a sign that we are spending too much money.

Our problem is not current spending.

Our real challenge is the entitlement tsunami headed our way. In the next 15 years, millions of baby boomers will file for their monthly checks!

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Cheer up: The market fought back and was up today!


In love and romance, people feel emotions. They love each other and share their intimate feelings. In personal relationships, "fascination turns to love", in the words of that great old song by the one and only Nat King Cole!

In economics, it's all about data and facts. You can't feel a recession. We are either in a recession or we are not! Unlike love, economic data can be measured!

I guess that economics is a lot more boring than love and romance. Who didn't know that?

Today, the stock market had another one of those days that drives everybody a little crazy. At noon, it was 300 points down but it fought back!

So much for the end of the world! I guess that people are going in and picking up some good values! It happens every time. (Dow Rallies 600 Pts Off Lows)

Are you in love? I don't know. Are we in a recession? The answer is no because we can answer that question by looking at data not feelings!

First of all, what is a recession? Let's get the answer from Steven M. Warshawsky:

"A "recession" means two or more consecutive quarters of declining real gross domestic product.

Far from being in a recession, through the third quarter of 2007, the United States has enjoyed 24 consecutive quarters of GDP growth.

Furthermore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in January 2008 that unemployment was at 5.0 percent, which is low by any measure, and that real average weekly earnings were higher in December 2007 than in December 2006.

The economy, overall, is doing quite well.

Despite what the media tells us about gasoline prices or the housing market or job layoffs among Fortune 500 companies, the economy is not in ‘crisis."

There certainly is no rational, objective reason for Americans to be as concerned about the economy as they have become over the past few weeks." (Hypochondriasis Economicus By Steven M. Warshawsky)

What should we do?

We need a little sanity. Let's remember that we've been here before, such as Oct '87 or Mar' 00. (The markets: Irrational panic)

The stock market goes through these corrections from time to time. In the end, it's OK but you have to have the stomach for the turbulence. (Financials Stage Massive Rally)

Again, we are not in a recession!

Wow! No end of the world!



Tuesday morning, we woke up to two distinct sounds:

1) The media's irrational reporting of how all of the world's stock markets were melting. It was absolutely hysterical and a modern version of "The War of the Worlds" ; and,

2) The other sound was the rational response by the Fed. They cut the discount rate, which should be OK with most investors! (Fed Cuts Rate 3/4 of a Point)

So what happened? Where are we 24 hours after the world almost came to an end?

Did you go to the roof and jump off? I am glad that you didn't because my blog needs readers.

Check out the afternoon's headline:


It went down and it came back up. Have we not seen that one before?

Panic set in. Some people sold and lost money. Some people stood back and came in for the cheap stuff.


Moral of the story: Shut off the doom and gloom on TV. Instead, put your money (and thoughts) in the wonderful and resilient US economy.

Don't buy all of the doom and gloom. You will be happier. You will digest your food a lot better. You will live longer. And richer, too!

PLEASE SUPPORT OUR BLOG AND RADIO SHOW

MY BOOK: CUBANOS IN WISCONSIN

Follow by Email

MY TWITTER

Search This Blog

Loading...