This blog presents my comments on current events and recent publications.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Why Do White, Educated Liberals Support Obama?
According to expert pollsters, white well-educated liberals tend to support Obama, while poorer people and less well-educated support Hillary. Why?
One reason might be that, having achieved some financial success for themselves, they can now afford to show their broad-mindedness and lack of bias by supporting a Negro. Obama is an easy to accept Negro, he's no Jesse Jackson and certainly no Al Sharpton. He and his wife are both Ivy League-educated and Obama's soaring rhetoric reminds them of other Democratic buffoons that their parents supported, Jack Kennedy and Jimmy Carter, who also had big shining smiles (and who were utter failures as Presidents).
Also, Obama is an effective demagogue. His rhetoric does not address facts - it focuses on emotions. It bypasses the reasoning process. He whines about the contentious political process that some effete snobs are so tired of. As if Obama could change the political process. If he could, why doesn't he sing the right song to the Clintons and make them kiss his ring?
Poorer people cannot afford such flights of fancy. They need to stick to the realities of their lives. Middle class people worry about the out of sight cost of college education for their children. Others worry about health insurance they do not have and cannot afford. Retirement is a concern for many.
There you have it. Sometimes education and financial success lead to utter stupidity.
Why the Kennedys Support Obama
Why are the Kennedys, veterans of hard-fought battles with Republicans, supporting a pretty boy spouting soaring rhetoric, but short on delivery?
Because they know that they have a skeleton in their closet: John F. Kennedy, former President shot to death in Dallas in 1963.
John F. Kennedy has achieved a mythical cult status. He is a lost "what might-have-been" President. He is the only reason the Kennedy gang that built its fortune on organized crime during Prohibition has any standing in American politics. Headed by ancient, alcohol brain-damaged Senator Ted Kennedy, himself a killer through drunken neglect of one of his many, many girl-friends, stood at a lectern yesterday, physically embraced Obama several times and made a stupid sloppy speech glorifying a thoroughly empty suit.
The Kennedys have been living a lie for nearly 50 years that John Kennedy was a bright spot on the American political scene.
In fact, he was nothing of the sort. He won the 1960 election through a long count of 7000 votes in Chicago under the watch of Mayor Daley, his political ally. Nixon was the rightful winner of the election and he knew it, but he decided not demand a recount because he wanted to avoid a constitutional crisis.
As President, Kennedy was a disaster. He was whore-master of such magnitude that, by comparison, Bill Clinton was a choir boy. He used his connections to organized crime to try to bring down Castro. Kennedy masterminded the Bay of Pigs fiasco. He managed to provoke the missile crisis that nearly started a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union. And last, but not least, he was the initiator of the Vietnam nightmare that cost 58,000 American and 2 million Vietnamese lives.
Kennedy was warned not to go to Dallas in November 1963 because he was so strongly hated there, and certainly not ride in an open car. But he had to prove his bravery in the face of danger. Oh yeah, he proved that all right - a bullet in the brain.
This is the reality that the Kennedy mob has been painting and decorating for nearly 50 years. They have been living this lie for so long that they actually believe it. They are committed to the idea that a bright smile and a soaring line of hopeful chatter is more important than substance. So they back Obama.
F--k the Kennedys and f--k the John Kennedy myth. And f--k their support of Obama.
Turnaround for the Stock Market
An article in Sunday's NYTimes claims that the stock market has bottomed out.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Obama Is the Favorite of the Republican Fat Cats
This is David Gottfried's post on the WaPo blog "Right Matters."
Although the public is beginning to understand that a candidacy based on a vague, inchoate promise of "change" is not enough, Obama presents another problem.
Actually, I think Obama has definite policy goals and objectives, but his goals are NOT what his supporters think they are.
Most of his supporters, I think, consider him a progressive. Indeed, some polls indicate that he performs better among more liberal democrats. When our media does deign to compare his policies with those of Clinton -- and it is rare that they do this as they prefer to talk about all sorts of baloney like Hillary's crying spell and a stupid, fabricated racial controversy about King -- the media generally says that Obama is very similiar, in policy, to Clinton and Edwards.
But he is not. Obama is much less progressive than Clinton and Edwards:
1)His health care proposals are vastly inferior. He would not mandate that all Americans get health care, and he criticizes his Dem opponents for including such a mandate (they would provide subsidies for Americans who couldn't buy health insurance.) Obama tries to make it appear that his plan is therefore freer, but it is a plan that is doomed to failure. If his plan is optional, then healthier Americans and Americans with other health care options would not participate in it, the plan would be populated with sicker people, and there would not be enough healthy people, in the plan, to pay for the claims of ill Americans. An insurance scheme only works when some people pay premiums but don't make claims because they are well; this is essential if the plan is to remain solvent. But Obama, apprently, wants the plan to fail so he can keep the insurance industry riding roughshod over the American people.
Furthermore, by criticizing Clinton and Edwards for making their plans mandatory, he provides ammo for Republicans, in the fall, should Ed or Hill get the nomination. The GOP will say, "even Obama recognized the lack of freedom inherent in the Clinton/edward plans." But in a debate there is no time to talk about how systems of insurance work and Obama prevails courtesy of the peoples' boundless ignorance.
2) Obama supported the energy bill that was a give away to the oil and gas industry
3) Obama routinely voted present, in the Illinois legislature, when controversial issues arose
4) Obama's tax stimulus plan, for the oncoming recession, provides tax breaks for all Americans, unlike the Hill or Edwards plans that provide tax breaks for only Americans who are middle class or poorer.
Obama is the perfect candidate for the corporate elites. They know that America is in a more progressive mood, and that a Dem will probably get elected, and they have found their man: Obama, someone who appears to be a progressive, who will capitalize on and exploit the electoral energy of progressives, and then ditch them when he ascends to power.
And the media, in reporting on the "love fest" at last night's Vegas debate, left out so much. Edwards noted that Obama had raised more from the insurance industry, and pharmaceutical titans, than any other candidate in this race. When he asked Obama why they might have given him money, Obama lamely said that they were inspired by his "message." Hardly a word of this in the media.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
A Different Recession
The Old Remedies Won't Work This Time.
An eye-opener of a column by Harold Meyerson in today's WaPo.
Waste of Money
As a patient, I have been amazed at the readiness of doctors to prescribe useless costly procedures.
I had severe chest pains when I exercised, even when I went for a walk. My primary care physician sent me to a cardiologist for a stress test which did not give conclusive results. $1200 down the drain.
The cardiologist sent me for a CAT scan, which also was inconclusive. Another $1200 down the drain.
Finally, an angiogram provided a conclusive answer: severe blockages in the coronary arteries.
Why the stress test? Why the CAT scan?
P.S. The angiogram was followed by a quadruple CABG (Coronary Artery By-Pass Graft). No more chest pains.
Obama: Make A Miracle!
Obama is a lightweight, an empty suit without any substance.
He is dark-skinned, but he is not an American Black. He is not descended from slaves and he never lived in a big-city ghetto. He is a pretend African-American.
He promises a miracle: he is going to get the Republicans, the North Koreans, the Iranian Ayatollahs and all other opponents to sing the Barack Obama tune.
If he is that good, let's see a demonstration. On live TV, during the next debate, let's see and hear Obama say the miraculous words that will make Hillary Clinton drop out and announce that she supports Obama for President.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Let's Take A Critical Look at Obama
The hope/change Obama song and dance is just that. It has no substance.
Even a mildly critical thinker would ask how does Obama hope to achieve change in the face of entrenched opposition. So far, Obama has not answered this question.
He seems to be suggesting that his slim good looks, beautiful smile and outstanding oratory will melt the hearts of Mitch McConnell, the pharma lobby, the farm lobby, the oil lobby, Vladimir Putin, the Iranian Ayatollahs and other bullies. Is this credible?
Obama is another incompetent lazy charmer, just like George Bush, only he is much smarter and he has light brown skin. Not Presidential material, but obviously exciting a cult-like following.
One does not need to be biased to view him with great skepticism.
See also the good column by Charles Krauthammer in today's WaPo.
Krauthammer's last paragraph:
Even if you believe that a Clinton restoration would be a disaster, you should still be grateful for New Hampshire. National swoons, like national hysterias, obliterate thought. The New Hampshire surprise has at least temporarily broken the spell. Maybe now someone will lift the curtain and subject our newest man from hope to the scrutiny that every candidate deserves.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
After New Hampshire
If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana is the strongest candidate for the VP nomination. He's 52, good-looking and has a strong resumé.
What is also important is that Bill Clinton has spoken very favorably of him: "I hope and expect some day I'll be voting for Evan Bayh for President of the United States."
And last, but not least, Bayh is a strong supporter of Hillary's present candidacy.
Monday, January 07, 2008
More on Obama, Part 2
I have lifted these 2 paragraphs from an article in today's WaPo:
But in pitching himself as a "post-partisan" politician, Obama (D-Ill.) is only the latest in a string of presidential candidates promising to remake Washington into a city that sings in unison. George W. Bush was to be a uniter, not a divider. Bill Clinton was going to put people first. Even Richard M. Nixon, on the day after the 1968 election, invoked a sign he had seen during the campaign that said, "Bring Us Together," and said that was the goal of his administration.
Washington, however, has a way of consigning such rhetorical hopes to the partisan waste bin.
See the whole article at:
More on Obama
Obama is an empty suit. His appeal is strictly to emotions. He speaks of change and hope. He says that that he will evoke the cooperation of all. He is long on charisma and short on planning and execution.
Change makes for winners and losers. Obama has not explained how he proposes to pacify the losers.
His health insurance proposal is not mandatory. The 20 to 40 year olds who have never smoked and exercise every day will opt out. Who will bear the increased expenses of those who opt in? Obama does not explain.
He is not worthy of support.